Nietzsche's Contradictory Concept Of Freedom

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

The quest towards developing the ideal human character is sought after in both the Bhagavad-Gita and Confucius’ The Analects. In the Bhagavad Gita, the concept of sacred duty is prevalent throughout the text, as the warrior-prince Arjuna faces a moral dilemma throughout the story. In Confucius’ The Analects, filial piety is a virtue which impacts an individual’s character in relation to the Confucian religion. Sacred duty within the Gita requires the protection of one’s dharma, which is defined as the religious and moral law that manages an individual’s actions. Within Confucian thought, filial piety is a virtue of respect for one’s elders, ancestors, and parents within a community. Despite the differences between the contextual meanings of developing the ideal human, both the Bhagavad Gita and The Analects utilize their teachings towards developing ideal human character within the themes of sacred duty and filial piety with the goal of establishing a set of communal ethics to be maintained through different caste systems, essentially protecting the existing social structure. To argue this claim, I will begin by analyzing the similar intentions of deviating from selfish actions and thoughts to develop ideal human character. I will then express how the nature of this character leads towards the development of one’s sacred duty and filial piety. I will then connect these two ideas to show how together they work to develop a communal set of ethics aimed at maintaining order

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Nietzsche introduces the initial concepts of what is good to be determined by those who have benefitted from unegoistical

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

Applebee, Arthur N. “Gandhi's - Civil Disobedience.” The Language of Literature, McDougal Littell, Evanston, IL, 2000, pp. 377–377.

Gandhi stood up for the disenfranchised and the poor. Gandhi said in a speech, “If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statute books.” He is saying in more clearer words that, the government had, or has, considered making laws to keep the people muted. The reason for the wrongful mannered laws is because “no state is possible without two entities, the rulers and the ruled.” The government want to control the people with their power and maintain that control by making these laws so the people have no

Exegesis and Critique of Nietzsche’s Conception of Guilt In The Second Essay of On the Genealogy of Morality

“As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples.” Nietzsche was one of the first modern philosophers to rebel against rationalism and when World War I came about, the revolution against religion truly became a legitimate statement. Friedrich Nietzsche strongly believed that many of those that practiced religion were led to the acceptance of slave morality. Religion had always played a fundamental role in society as it sets strict boundaries and standards of what is morally correct and incorrect. However, Nietzsche claims that, “Human nature is always driven by “ ‘the will to power’ ”, but religion will tell one otherwise, saying that one should forbid their bad desires. In Nietzsche’s

Nietzsche was concerned with a genealogical project to determine the birth of values through an assessment of the historical. He was able to conclude morality as phenomena that has “become” and was not always evident, as it is motivated “by the drive for preservation” and “the intention to achieve pleasure and avoid displeasure” as he states in the chapter Deconstruction of Metaphysics in his book Nietzsche and

While Nietzsche’s standpoint of the master morality can be viewed in the lifestyle of people today, it is not a morality that need be accepted or strived for as a sense of power or accomplishment in life. The Bible teaches that as we lose our live for Jesus we will find it (Matthew 10:39). Submitting to God is not an act of weakness, rather an honor and gain as we lose ourselves in Him and find our true selves. The Bible says that we were made in God’s image and likeness, and we were given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). Nietzsche’s master morality appears to be just that, an attempt to gain dominion. Since Nietzsche did not believe in God, which is the way to salvation and eternal life (Romans 10:9), it is safe to assume that he was serving the god of this world and his ways, which have always been to try to copy or be like God (Isaiah 14:13-14). Nietzsche had knowledge about God but decided to turn away from him. Because of this, Romans 1:28 -29 shows that he, among other things would be arrogant, boastful heartless, and invent ways of doing evil, which to me is exactly what his whole master-slave morality portrays. Had Nietzsche just turned from his wicked ways and submitted to the One and only true God, he would have found the peace, love, and true authority with out death.

In Nietzsche’s aphorisms 90-95 and 146-162 he attacks what he believes to be the fundamental basis of the “slave” morality prevalent in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well as other religions and societies. From the beginning, he distinguishes the two different types of moralities he believes to exist: the “master morality”, created by rulers of societies, and the “slave” morality, created by the lowest people in societies. The former stresses virtues of the strong and noble while looking down upon the weak and cowardly. This type of morality, however, is not as widespread as the “slave morality” that has been adopted by so many religions. Nietzsche looks through the psychology and logic of

We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.

In South Africa, he involved himself in an attempt to end discrimination against the minority Indians residing there. During this course, he developed “satyagarha”, which translates into “soul force”, or an approach of non-violence resistance, against the British governments in South Africa. In the years following the World War I, Gandhi became a leading figure in India for his struggle to achieve independent from the mighty British rule. His willingness to tolerate the punishments and the prison confinement earned him the title of “ Mahatama”, a “great soul” in India in 1914. (Mohandas Gandhi, 2015)

The researcher understood the specific theme chosen and was a bit au-fait with the topic, because she had a keen interest in Gandhi and all his work. In an age where violence is on the increase Gandhi’s message of non-violence is needed. It is the researchers hope that this IA will reach a wide cross section of people and will effect a change. Gandhi’s views on issues like untouchability are deeply dealt with. Never anywhere Gandhi’s views about untouchability were effectively heard. But, in this book they were dealt in detail with lots of arguments and convincing proofs of why untouchability is sin. Even his co-living with the untouchables and the resistance he faced for that is discussed. His views on religion, nationality, his movements like civil-disobedience, are also clearly shown. Even his opinions on many religions were discussed in deep; a striking