Nietzsches Declaration: God is Dead - Essay Example

?Nietzsche’s Declaration: God is Dead By: of One of the elements, which is central to Nietzsche’s (2001, p.120) philosophy is illustrated in his famous declaration that, “God is Dead!” This affirms a complete rejection of metaphysical and religious truths as grounds for reality. In this essay, I will explore the philosophical implications of Nietzsche’s said declaration. For, it is in this regard that Nietzsche’s philosophy is not to be identified with nihilism. Rather, I will show that his declaration, i.e. that “God is dead”, could be viewed as a positive opportunity to revaluate our morals. In doing so, I shall discuss the central ideas of some of Nietzsche’s major works, all of which are, in my contention, necessary, for a proper analysis of the said declaration. One common factor in all of Nietzsche’s works is his contention that the spiritual dimension is illusory. Thus, for Nietzsche, the existence of God is nothing but an imaginary cause. In his view, it is nothing but a mere projection of one’s psychological desire for security in life. This is expressed in one of Nietzsche’s work, The Anti-Christ. He (Nietzsche, 1968, p.137) wrote, “In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point. Nothing but imaginary causes… an imaginary psychology…” Yet what does this say about the death of God? The said declaration presupposes a denial of universal morality as the basis for human conduct. Nietzsche believed that once the existence of God is unveiled as an illusion, then it follows that God could no longer be implemented as the foundation for human ethical conduct. This leads to the assertion that morality will be founded on the subjective will of the individual self. Thus, Nietzsche affirmed the individual self as the basis of all norms. Will to Power Based on this argument, we are led to the question: “How can the individual achieve its highest level of affirmation in a world without a Divine providence?” The answer to this query is found in the Nietzsche’s theory of the “Will to Power”. In a book entitled, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, Samuel Stumpf (1999, p.394) defines Nietzsche’s will to power as ”the drive to dominate the environment. This drive, so central is the Will to Power. This Will to Power is more than simply the will to survive. It is, rather, an inner drive to express a vigorous affirmation of all a person’s powers.” Given this, the will to power can be characterized as the inner propensity to dominate and assert superiority over one’s life. Furthermore, it allows individuals to reach their highest potentials through a person’s willingness of overcoming barriers and constraints. In this manner, individuals increase in power and vitality, not because of a supernatural being but because of oneself. However, Nietzsche cautioned us that if one decides to practice a certain code of ethics, the will to power gradually declines. By this, the individual weakens and suffers. To explicate further, Nietzsche accused Christianity for advocating virtues that undermine and destabilize one’s will to life, i.e. the will to power. Herein, Nietzsche offers us a critique of Christianity. Two-Fold History of Good and Evil: Master vs. Slave Morality Before Nietzsche presents his criticisms on the teachings of Christianity, he explains how and why Christianity became the dominant religion in human society. His explanation is found in his doctrine of the two-fold history of good and evil. This doctrine reveals that there were two types of moralities, which were practiced during ancient Greece. These are Master morality or Aristocratic morality and Slave Morality. To Nietzsche, Master morality is one that is built on the will to power. He says: “What is good? – All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? – All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? – The feeling that power increases – that a resistance is overcome” (Nietzsche 1968, p.127). With this, master morality holds that good is identified to that which is powerful and noble. Evil on the other hand is linked to weakness and cowardice. In line with this, Nietzsche says that the practitioners of master morality are the noblemen. In his work, Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche describes the temperament of the noblemen in the following features. To begin with, he (Nietzsche, 1973, p.195) says, “the noble type of man feels himself to be the determiner of values, he does not need to be approved of, he judges ‘what harms me is harmful in itself’, he knows himself to be that which in general first accords honour to things, he creates values.” Loosely speaking, noblemen are those who determine their morals according to their own personal standards. They are those who are highly individualistic. They stand up for their own beliefs regardless of what other people say. Furthermore, Nietzsche says “Everything he knows to be a part of himself, he honours: such a morality is self-glorification” (1973, p.195). In this light, noblemen are egoists. Nietzsche also writes, “the noble human being too aids the unfortunate but not, or almost not, from pity, but more from an urge begotten by superfluity of power” (1973, pp.195-196). In his view, noble individuals practice generosity not out of pity but out of an excess of strength. Alongside these traits Nietzsche (1973, p.196) conveys that: “The noble human being honours in himself the man of power, the man who has power over himself, who understands how to speak and how to keep silent, who enjoys practicing severity and harshness upon himself and feels reverence for all that is severe and hard.” This highlights two assertions: First, noble individuals are those who have mastery over themselves. They are able to harness control over both their intellectual propensities and passionate drives. And secondly, noblemen are those who thrive on challenges, risks and exposure to forms of novelties in life. In other words, noblemen extract their maximum enjoyment of life by “living on the edge” or as Nietzsche puts it, “To Live dangerously!” On the other hand, the lowest class of society practices slave morality. Nietzsche described this type of morality as “essentially the morality of utility” (1973, p.197). This connotes slave morality is one that advocates virtues which are beneficial to the existence of sufferers. Some of these virtues assume the form of pity, compassion, honesty, humility and other related values. Moreover, this type of morality reveres weakness as a virtue while nobility and strength as vices. According to Nietzsche, master morality was the dominant code of ethics during the ancient period of humanity. But, as time progressed there occurred a reversal of values. This was triggered by the resentment of the slaves on the noblemen. This enabled the slaves to destabilize the supremacy of the noble class through forms of upheavals and an imposition of values. Through their success, the slaves implemented their own morality as virtues and branded the standards of master morality as evils. After several centuries, slave morality gradually became the basis of Christianity. Herein is Nietzsche’s Critique of Christianity. Critique of Christianity Nietzsche asserted that Christianity is a decadent religion. It is one that advocates virtues that promotes forms of powerlessness and self-sacrifice in the individual. To strengthen his assertion, Nietzsche provided us with an array of criticisms on the teachings of Christianity. Here are a few to consider: First, he (1968, p.130) declared, “Pity stands in antithesis to the tonic emotions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life: it has a depressive effect. One loses force when one pities.” In other words, Nietzsche cautions that pity is hazardous to human existence because it entails a depressive effect, which renders one powerless. He added, “Suffering itself becomes contagious through pity;” Second, he condemned the maxim, “Love thy enemies” for the reason that it discriminates against the natural instincts of the human being. From his perspective, the denial of one’s natural instincts shall relegate the individual self to a state of martyrdom. Stumpf (1999, p.396) illuminates Nietzsche’s criticism on the said maxim: “Christianity contradicts nature when it requires us to love our enemies, for Nature’s injunction is to hate your enemy.” In line with this, Nietzsche contends that a person’s reverence for God not only debases one’s instincts, but it also ushers an inadvertent submission to an imaginary cause. To his view, this ushers a renunciation of both the mundane life and one’s selfhood. Last, Nietzsche criticized Christianity for aligning itself with the weak and degrading qualities of nobility, strength, selfishness and forms of domination. He boldly declares, “I consider life itself instinct for growth, for continuance, for accumulation of forces, for power: where the will to power is lacking there is decline” (Nietzsche 1968, p.129). Here, Nietzsche presumed that life is essentially bestowed with an amalgamation of challenges, ordeals, suffering and the quests for domination. With that, he assumed that the virtues of Christianity, as that which guides human survival, would only result in martyrdom and a stagnation of one’s potentials for self-actualization. Therefore, Nietzsche insisted that the expression of the will to power is the most viable way to survive in this life. Revaluation of Morals Given his criticisms, Nietzsche encourages a complete liberation from the dogmas of the Christian religion. This shall allow individuals to restore both faith in themselves and their unique potentials. In his view (1968, p.199), this can be achieved through a Revaluation of all morals. This is a process, which necessitates a shift from the slave morality of the Christian religion to the morality of the noble aristocrats, master morality. This process can be actualized through an acute awareness of the contradictions and detrimental repercussions that are revealed in the doctrines of Christianity. Once these contradictions and repercussions are brought to light, individuals shall free themselves from their adherence to slave morality and will repossess the values of master morality. In doing so, they shall not only reaffirm their own subjective standards but more so, they will gradually reach the consciousness of the higher type of man, the Ubermensch, which translates to the “Overman”. For Nietzsche, the temperament of the Ubermensch shall enable individuals to revitalize faith in their creative powers. However, Nietzsche declares that not all people can attain the awareness of this superior type of individual. He claims that only those who excel in their mental and physical constitutions can procure the temperament of the Ubermensch. Nietzsche affirmed the Ubermensch as one who implements master morality as his mode of conduct. Based on this, he is an individual who acts accordingly to the dictates of the will to power. In this light, he believed that the key to survival could only be secured through the domination and the exploitation of life for ones own personal ends. Furthermore, he extracts his enjoyment of life by living dangerously. By this, the Ubermensch is able to exceed the barriers of his mental and physical constitutions. Consequently, the Ubermensch achieves its highest level of authenticity. According to Nietzsche, the most vital element in the Ubermensch is depicted in the doctrine, Amor fati, which means “love of one’s fate”. This is interpreted as an attitude, which necessitates the affirmation and acceptance of this worldly life as it is. This is demonstrated in one’s act of finding joy and meaning in states of happiness and despair. In this regard, the Ubermensch asserts superiority over the wholeness of life. Conclusion: God is Dead! Given an overview of Nietzsche’s philosophy, we can now tie in the knots. What are the various implications of Nietzsche’s declaration? What is its importance and role within Nietzsche’s philosophy? As discussed in the previous sections, (1) the existence of God is nothing but an imaginary cause. It is but a mere projection of one’s psychological desire for security in life. (2) Once the existence of God is unveiled as an illusion, then God can no longer be implemented as a foundation for human morality. (3) This leads to the assertion that all morals will be founded on the subjective will of the individual self, i.e. the will to power. (4) Christianity advocates virtues that undermine and destabilize one’s will to power, i.e. slave morality. (5) On the other hand, master morality is one that is built on the will to power. (6) Master morality was the dominant code of ethics during the ancient period of humanity, but as time progressed, there occurred a reversal of values. (7) The main culprit was Christianity. (8) Thus, Nietzsche encourages a complete liberation from the dogmas of Christianity, i.e. revaluation of morals. (9) And finally, this can only be possible by acknowledging the truth of the matter – that God is dead. God is only a product of human imagination, which hinders the development of the individual self. Once we realize this, individuals shall free themselves from their adherence to slave morality and become Ubermensch, that which asserts superiority over the wholeness of life. Herein, we see how Nietzsche’s declaration reflects the whole of his philosophy as a positive opportunity to reassess our morals. It is not a matter of whether Nietzsche was right or wrong. He was merely showing us a different perspective towards life, i.e. wherein the individual is superior above all else. Since the individual’s will was most central to his advocacy, it can be said that Nietzsche does not succumb to nihilism. For, “In Nietzsche’s (Goodrich, 2001, pp.18 – 19) account, nihilism was merely a stage in the course of metaphysics. With the slow realization of the death of God, it would become possible to move beyond nihilism towards an affirmation of the self and of this worldly existence.” References: Goodrich, P., 2001. Nietzsche comes of Age in America. Cardozo Life, [online]. Available at:< http://www.cardozo.yu.edu/life/summer2001/nietzsche/> [Accessed 9 August 2011]. Nietzsche, F. W., 1956. The birth of tragedy and the genealogy of morals. Translated by F. Golffing. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. ----, 1990. Beyond good and evil. Translated by: R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books. ----, 2001. The gay science. Bernard Williams (eds.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ----, 1968. Twilight of the idols and the anti-christ. Translated by: R. J. Hollingdale. London: Penguin Books. Stumpf, S. E., 1999. Socrates to Sartre: a history of philosophy. New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More