Nietzsche's On The Prejudice Of Philosopher

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.

Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, the ideas of Nietzsche seem more applicable in relation to the present day; the world is constantly changing. There are two separate scenarios in which the issues of 'thou shalt not lie ' and 'thou shalt not steal, ' are morally assessed. The end results are supportive towards Nietzsche 's principles and detrimental towards Kant 's ideas. Overall, the moral concepts of Nietzsche will prevail as a result, illustrating the more probable use of his ideology.

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

Nietzsche found Socrates and Plato to be anti-greek because they represented a movement towards the rational. Reason was essential to them, particularly pure reason which was purified from the irrational or instinct. Socrates believes that in order to

In his book, Twilight of the Idols, Friedrich Nietzsche aggressively challenges conventional schools of thought dating back to the ancients. Philosophy, as we know it, began over two-thousand years ago in Athens with the birth of Socrates. Socrates introduced the practice of reasoning and dialectics—the art of discourse hoping to bring individuals closer to some universal truth—to an Athenian society that previously held aesthetics, not logic, as indicative of goodness. Socrates revolutionized life in Athens, and by extension, the Western tradition. His beliefs are found in works written centuries after his death. He is heralded as the “father of philosophy.”

He once more establishes his point by saying that “this peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive” (Nietzsche 452). Furthermore, he argues that “a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time” (Nietzsche 452-453). In other words, Nietzsche establishes his foundation of truth as opposed to lies. Since the development of language, all its representations are, according to Nietzsche, lies. Language is a form of self-deception, which humans have created to convince themselves that the unreal is real. Indeed, Nietzsche asks, “Is language the adequate expression of all realities?” (Nietzsche 453). The emphasis here is the one to one correspondence of an object to that of its spoken word.

Nietzsche strongest argument was 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. Nietzsche is quite critical in particular towards Christianity since it was stated as the religion of slaves and pity by Nietzsche, caused by limiting one’s personal development since they were too obsessed with the treasures of the afterlife. Having said that, Nietzsche also referred to Buddhism as the nihilistic and the “desire for nothingness” religion, however he does praise certain aspects of the Buddhist teaching in comparison to Jesus’. Last but foremost, Nietzsche proves Socrates death to be at the hands of the acceptance of slave morality. For those who practice religion are guaranteed to fall as a slave rather than to become their own master due to all the restriction and standards set up by God. I simply do agree with Nietzsche due to all the evidence connecting back to each and every religion and philosophers. One must strive to reach and achieve their desire in order to be satisfied with one’s life. As people say, “no pain, no gain”, therefore one must live through all the suffering to accomplish greatness in their lives and make the most out of the given life. One can conclude, the practice of religion led many to the acceptance of slave

61, p. 54), the philosopher. The philosopher makes use of religion for education and breeding. Apparently, this done in a matter that is nonspecific since, according to Nietzsche, this utilization is no different the using the, “…prevailing political and economic situation.” (Sec. 61, p. 54). The philosopher is the only truly trusted individual when it comes to religion. This is put forth since philosophers are always questioning the deeper meaning and putting to the test. It is also found that, as Nietzsche says, “…there is a high and horrible price to pay when religions do not serve as means for breeding and education in the hands of a philosopher…” (Sec. 62, p. 55). What Nietzsche is arguing is that once religion has gone past the utilization as a tool to affirming the world, and has become the affirmation of the world, then society has sunken back into

Because we are so keen on learning, we are disengaged from our experiences, and therefore are not in the right place to understand ourselves (3). The words that are used to define any given concept are not to be taken at face value since the judgment of our moral values depends on their respective time periods and cultural influences, which are subject to change as everything else does. In other words, they are products of the moral projections of people’s values, which often have a multitude of dimensions that surpass the shallow fields of initial interpretation. Consequently, we need to look beyond the surface interpretation of these words by re-interpreting their meanings many times to be able to judge what we believe. As we change with time, our interpretations are subject to change, and our value systems evolve, both preventing us from establishing absolute meaning regarding anything. As a result, we cannot truly understand concepts unless we remove several historical layers from them. Many times throughout his polemic, Nietzsche hints at the necessity of asking a question from “various perspectives” (41). “Understanding the demonstrated purpose or utility of a thing, its form, its organization” is not

Even though they were separated by thousands of years, hundreds of miles, and different cultures, the philosophical views of Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato can be examined and weighed against each other in many different ways. Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844, was a German philosopher whose main goal was to erect a new image for the people and to create a free spirit in them. Plato, born in 427 B.C., was a Greek philosopher whose main goal was to create a new way of thinking about the world itself, knowledge itself, philosophy itself, and the individual. Both philosophers have obvious similarities; their literary style of writing is perhaps the most apparent, but also their desire

Humanity’s natural aggression means that civilization is “constantly threatened with disintegration” and it must make every effort to ensure these urges are curbed, in order for its continued existence. He continues in this vein, by stating that, in order for people to “forgo the satisfaction of their tendency to aggression” civilization encourages us to form into groups, however for this to work their must continue to be “outsiders,” that the aggression can be turned towards. This is in accordance with On the Genealogy of Morals, where it is the Slaves ascetic nature that forces them to also control their instincts. Likewise, both Freud and Nietzsche assert that these restrictions cause people to internalise their aggressions, turning inward.

If we broadly understand metaphysics to be the inquiry concerning how reality is in itself, then we find in the work of Nietzsche two different levels of discourse regarding his opinion of metaphysics. On one level, we find the Nietzsche that we all know, the staunch opposer of metaphysics as Platonism who greatly influenced later thinkers such as Martin Heidegger and Jean-Luc Marion. However, on another level, there is a Nietzsche who is completely at ease in employing this term in a positive way. This, is particularly clear in the light of Nietzsche’s first publication, The Birth of Tragedy. Heavily influenced by figures such as Schopenhauer and Wagner, in this text Nietzsche avails himself of

Another philosophy of Nietzsche was related to the notion of ressentiment. Defined, ressentiment is any cautious, defeatist, or cynical attitude based on the belief that the individual and human institutions exist in a hostile or indifferent universe or society and an oppressive awareness of the futility of trying to improve one's status in life or in society (dictionary.com). In the work, On the Genealogy of Morals, ressentiment is illustrated in the way the Jewish clerics act in response to the authority of the Romans. Nietzsche states, “the Jews, that priestly people, who in opposing their enemies and conquerors were ultimately satisfied with nothing less than a radical revaluation of their enemies’ values, that is to say, an act of the most spiritual revenge. For this alone was appropriate to a priestly people, the people embodying the most deeply repressed priestly vengefulness.” The feeling of ressentiment is subconscious and communicates Nietzsche’s analysis of

Nietzsche introduced an idea of philosophy that was more than simply a rational groundwork of existence or as the pursuit of an absolute truth. Instead, he suggested that philosophy is something to be respected as a personal interpretation of life and all its faculties (morality, existentialism etc.) and that was – for him - focused on life affirmation. Furthermore, this thinking implies that philosophy is not a be all and end all answer to life’s questions; rather, it is merely a