The Philosophies of Nietzsche - Essay Example

?Full The Philosophies of Nietzsche Introduction The world has never been in lack of philosophers rather abounded of greatminds around the world from time immemorial who have shaped the modern man’s own thoughts, principles and convictions. Philosophers range from the highly acclaimed and accepted to the most despised or misunderstood. Jesus Christ of Nazareth is among the former while Friedrich Nietzsche is among the latter, criticized for his atheistic beliefs and mostly misunderstood as a Nazi because of the publication of his works posthumously by his sister who was associated with Hitler (Mannion 104; Stokes 190). Interestingly, Christianity and Jesus are among his most mentioned subject matters in his works particularly The Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist. The Twilight of the Idols The theories of philosophies, sciences and morality have all been discussed according to how Nietzsche perceives them in this essay. He particularly puts his interest and emphasis in critiquing Socrates and his philosophies, including his physical attributes. In this essay, the author speaks to the reader in an argumentative voice, engaging him in a discussion of his ideas. As the essay is written in a question-answer form, it holds the reader’s attention and encourages him to consider the philosophies of mysticism, considering religion, God and humanity and attaining perfect harmony in such an environment. The quest for truth involves dealing with good and evil, looking on the moralities as perceived by different religions and marking the thoughts of other philosophers like Rousseau and Renan to name a few. Here, Christianity is deemed as narcotic, similar to alcohol. In addition, Nietzsche says music is the third narcotic which the young Germans had placed their passions into, deserting books and German intelligence. He voices the heart of a hurt person whose young fellow countrymen has left him to the company of his own philosophies, pursuing the devils of Christianity, alcohol and music. The indulgence of the Germans to such narcotics according to Nietzsche has made their intelligence cruder and shallower and this is what he is looking for from every one of them. Thus, he talks of the degeneration of what is noble and good. The Antichrist The Antichrist has a similar voice to the aforementioned essay which talks so much about Christianity and the critiquing of Kant. The essayist has so ingeniously crafted his work that it truly holds the reader’s attention in addition to the hold its discussion effects on him. Popularly known for his atheistic views, Nietzsche strongly expressed his thoughts against Christianity without hesitation nor worry on what might be said of him and his ideas. In truth, his boldness marked his identity as a philosopher and was considered to be an original and provocative thinker (mannion 104), hailed by his supporters as their mouthpiece in asserting one’s ideas without bounds. His arguments are long and sometimes repetitive but that is to make his point clearly understood and his thoughts emphasized especially when it comes to his emotional expressions about Jesus, Christianity and the Jews. Nietzsche says one is not a philologist when he is not an antichrist. Deducing from this account, he implied that he himself was an antichrist, being a philologist as was mentioned in this essay. He criticized the idea of Jesus dying for the sins of other men basing from the ideals of Christianity that all men sinned, therefore if Jesus died for someone else’s sins, that someone would be no other than himself. He also suggests to remove one idea from Christianity and assures that the religion will turn to nothing. For instance, removing the idea of God will leave Christianity nothing but void. Christianity is to him strange, being founded on errors but have been cleverly spun to make it believable and acceptable but to the one who embraces it, he becomes poisoned to his life and heart. Mysticism Nietzsche widely discusses religion in his essays and at large writes about how an individual’s personal experiences affect how one thinks the way he does. Originally, the word mysticism was interpreted as ‘to conceal’ which during the early Christian era, it came to be understood as ‘hidden interpretations’ of scriptures. In the discussion of Nietzsche’s view however, mysticism is argued upon the widely accepted definition of mystic tradition, the personal encounter of a person he holds to be true because of his experiences (Gellman). To Nietzsche, he argues on the idea that there is always a higher and deeper understanding of what life holds for men. Man has to be critical of his environment and not just accept things as they are. In religion, his belief is that there have been accepted beliefs whose origins have not been considered so that is one of the theses of his papers specifically on The Antichrist. To this, he persuades his readers to look deeper to their beliefs as they are but interpretations of how an individual looks at the world (Velasquez 586) which are all equally true and equally false so that no belief is absolutely true. In the pursuit for completeness, that would depend on the person. If an individual seeks to have his happiness in thinking that there is a God, it would be his option. Nietzsche’s argument on mysticism is not against the idea that there is a God but that one should pursue his happiness in this world and not believe on what is immaterial, an impossible concept. When one does something good, he argues that a person’s rewards should be enjoyed in this life and not a life after death which has never been confirmed to be true. Mysticism thus, pushes one to be more practical and not dream of the things which are founded on mere imaginations. He claims hell and heaven are imaginations of men. He believes heaven and hell exist here on earth at the present time. On Kant In considering his arguments, Nietzsche critiques Immanuel Kant, a fellow philosopher who unlike his critic, believed in morality. Pernicious, is how the former describes Kant’s thoughts about virtue. He stands on the argument of mysticism, that is, Kant was wrong to have talked about virtue on a universal perspective because virtue is to be considered in accordance to a person’s experience. To him, such is considered totally unrealistic and impractical because one truth may not be true to all and goes further to accuse him as a Nihilist. In the same way, he looks at morality in Christianity as irrational. In his perspective, Nietzsche considers morality to be unrealistic because it concentrates its attention more on the things that are impractical, almost immeasurable. In The Antichrist, he says causes and effects are purely imaginary so that it offers no real thing that could be seen, amounting to a realistic view of the causes and effects. Nietzsche viewed morality as an interpretation of men, which are virtually considered to be equally true and false, which are used as instruments by men to have power over their fellow men. He criticized the Christian morals as means to an end, which being the submission of other people, pity of the strong on the weak. He views the poor as seeking the opportunity to get something from the rich by using morals on the basis of benevolence or the strong being humble and helping the weak. Looking at Christianity and the philosophies of Kant, Nietzsche considered moral values as nothing more than their attempt to impose what they want on others (Velasquez 589; Armstrong 208). Looking at such purpose, the morality that was deemed to be right is not at all as it seemed but a mere instrument to the attainment of an objective that is not totally moral in nature. On Socrates Socrates, to Nietzsche was a symptom of degeneration as he mentioned in his essay The Twilight of the Idols. He was considered a plebs, of the lowest class and a decadent. Before his death, the German philosopher suggested that traditional values and ethical systems were already falling (Velasquez 585) where Athens was not an exception. This was so as he claimed to be true because men lost faith in God as he so emphasized in his poem, The Madman picturing a lunatic who claimed that men have killed God as they embraced sciences, having no need of the traditional accountability of nature’s works to a supreme god who is in control of the universe. Nietzsche despised his older fellow philosopher, Socrates for his involvement in metaphysics claiming any judgment made concerning life is never true but is just a symptom so that claiming them to be true is pure stupidity. He even despised the ugliness of Socrates which he referred to as monstrous and criminal. He viewed the so-called ‘daimonion of Socrates’, the auditory hallucinations which were considered of religious significance to be a part of Socrates’ exaggerated self. He was considered a non-mystic in whom logical nature is developed (Mitchell 318), which to Nietzsche was unacceptable because such relied on reasoning and reason has its ties to religion which existentialists reject as truths. Nietzsche also portrayed an equal disdain towards Socrates’ epistemological theories saying dialectic was formerly unaccepted, in fact, children were warned against such because they were considered bad manners (Kauffman). He also claims that with the rise of Socrates, a noble taste died. He perceives dialectic as a weapon Socrates used to take his position by force, as a weakling and a nobody. Nietzsche considered Socrates a philosopher who had no other means to let his fellow Athenians survive their near death in terms of philosophical ideas than to use dialectic to enforce power to his listeners and be their subjects. In addition, Nietzsche also questioned the morality of Socrates as he sees him to be lacking in wit to make himself a better person. He said his decadence as well as other Athenians’ was just seemingly being removed from them but the truth was that they were just fighting against it without actually releasing themselves from it. In effect, their means was actually another form of their immorality which had another name, dialectic. Metaphysical, Epistemological and Moral Theories The basic mistake of the aforementioned theories according to Nietzsche is the Athenians’ means of releasing their selves from the near death of their civilization. Metaphysics was not the answer because it can never be true while dialectic is considered to be of the lowest form of communicating one’s ideas. It is actually considered degrading for someone to be asking questions and an opportunistic manner for an individual to be inquisitive and argumentative in every chance one can have. According to an existentialist’s view such as Nietzsche, reason has a role in religion which is rejected because first of all, reason can not prove that God exists (Wall 316) because thoughts, feelings, and other such ‘evidences’ can not be seen. And secondly, the existentialist argues that the nature of God can not be known by reason because God should not be perceived as an abstract object or person. Furthermore, Nietzsche considers religion as the enemy of a fulfilled life. From this point of view, the existentialist believes in looking for the perfect life in what is seen and felt in the then and now. Since religion like Christianity promotes belief in a God, one who is not visible and therefore whose existence cannot be proven through an evidence, the philosopher sees this as a blockage that thwarts a person from arriving to a state of completeness. Similarly, belief in spirit, soul, free will, sin, salvation and other intangible things are seen to be stopping a person from living a fulfilled life. For instance, knowing that having a relationship with a married man is seen as a sin from a woman’s point of view. Since this is the case, the woman then refrains herself from being with the married man she loves so as not to commit sin however, this act prevents her from being happy with the man she loves. Existentialism believes that the knowledge of sin corrupts one’s mind, preventing a person from getting what he must enjoy from this life. With the two formerly mentioned put in question, morality eventually is placed in the limelight as well for critiquing which turns out to be like the other theories, full of holes which are questionable. As the philosopher’s thoughts and motives are questioned, so is his morality. In general, morality is seen as a failure based from the failure of scientific and philosophical concepts to define a human being. As morality is dependent on humanity, it would be of no argument to settle once the picture of science and philosophy has been painted to be failures. Values are based on what are seen as norms, in accordance to a person’s beliefs and not what he is told to do or say. Making the mistake according to Nietzsche was intended to revive the condition of Athenian civilization in decline however, as mentioned earlier; the action was just thought to have been a solution to the problem. Instead, the solution became a problem in itself unable to release them from their impending doom. The only solution to such dilemma was death to which Socrates said, ‘death alone is the physician’, the physician to whatever life brings; when he was about to die. To this Nietzsche mocks the Athenian for acting like a physician trying to cure the Athenian disease of decadence but to no avail so that indeed his death is to be claimed as the physician itself, ceasing whatever theory there is that could be applicable or that is affecting a man. Whether it be metaphysical, epistemological or moral in argument, such theories are inclined to support religion which in turn make them imperfect. For Nietzsche, religions have their flaws that do not account them for a strong basis of any argument. For instance, Christianity to him is a religion of the weak (Wall 321) because it contains many ‘values’ which Nietzsche does not consider to be values at all because of the objectives which are not at all of highly viewed. To be humble asks a person to turn the other cheek when one slaps you on the face and not retaliate therefore making the follower of Christ a weak person. Looking at the three theories discussed earlier, Nietzsche brings his readers to an understanding of the perspectives and beliefs as a process where eventually an individual will come to an understanding that brings him peace and joy. The objectives of mysticism are achieved when a person arrives to the point where he is in harmony with himself in accordance to his beliefs. He should be in harmony as well with his environment and his fellow people in order to claim that he is complete and at peace with his environment himself and his God. This brings a person to the ultimate truth, the discovery of what is really true behind the curtain of uncertainties and the true meaning of existence. The works of Friedrich Nietzsche proved him to be a good writer who had strong beliefs which seemed to be unshakable. He has shown himself to have a good grip of the Jewish tradition and the philosophies of Jesus which he so much talked about in his essays. He is indeed a thinker, a critique to religion and philosophy. He did not only attack Christianity but also commented on famous philosophers which he did not agree with. His comments were rather personal but frank enough so as to gain him enemies from the supporters of those whom he criticizes. Without fear, he brought his thoughts into the open in the hope that he would be able to challenge others to be thinkers like him and not allow themselves to be mastered by what has been set as rules and regulations, or norms. He encourages being different, living to the fullest and enjoying one’s self in this earth. Eternity and after-life were not in his teachings as he believed in the now. He is more interested in inviting people to live their life like nirvana, as life should be enjoyed that way, in complete bliss. He claims that this is only attained by getting rid of religion which serves as a hindrance to the attainment of that which is more important, being at peace and in unison with the environment and one’s self. Completeness is achieved from one level to another as one a person learns to master his self, living in harmony with others and not be in fear because of the restrictions set by religion. Conclusion Nietzsche has driven his sharpened pen on the philosophies of Jesus Christ as well as the Jewish tradition so that it would be quite obvious when one says he will surely include Jewish mysticism in his critique. He seemed to have made up his mind on studying and critiquing the Jewish religion that it would not be far from feasible for him to put it on his dissecting table. There seemed to have been great, deep interest in this matter for him, as he mentioned so many times in his two essays the religion of the Jews. Though most of his comments were about Jesus Christ, it can not be denied that Jesus was of the Jews and his religion sprang from Judaism. For one who, so courageously attacked philosophers who had so many followers, it is evident that Nietzsche’s courage can extend to criticize a long-established religion. It is not the support that he is concerned about but the proclamation of his thoughts that he so passionately nurtures with his readings. With the scope of his knowledge about philosophers and their beliefs, it is regarded that the German philosopher is not only a thinker but a critical reader of his colleagues. Had he not gone insane, Nietzsche might have continued with his fight for the existentialists’ philosophical ideas. Ironically, the man who called Christianity insane and the forerunner of Christianity to the gentiles, Paul a lunatic, Nietzsche suffered from psychological breakdown during his last decade and was taken cared of by his mother then his sister. His writings that were not published by himself were tainted by the very hands of his doting sister which then marked him as a Nazi (Stokes 190). His attacks on the physical qualities of Socrates are deemed to be far from a philosopher’s train of thought. Seeing such an attitude not fit for a so-called philosopher, Nietzsche could be seen to be able to go as far as saying whatever he thinks is right as shown from the beliefs he expressed in his writings. To this, he all has the right to make himself the portrait the world will always see as long as his writings survive. References Armstrong, Walter S. Moral Skepticisms. NY, NY: Oxford University Press, 2006. Print. Gellman, Jerome. “Mysticism”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University, 2010. Web. March 8, 2010. Mannion, James. The Everything Philosophy Book: Understand the Basic Concepts of Great Thinkers- From Socrates to Sartre. Avon, Massachusetts: Adams Media Corporation, 2002. Print. Mitchell, Helen B. Roots of Wisdom (4th Ed). California: Wadworth Thomson Learning, 2008. Print. Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Portable Nietzsche. NY, NY: Penguin Group, Inc., 1982. Print Stokes, Philip. Philosophy: The Great Thinkers. London: Arturus Publishing Limited, 2007. Print. Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text with Readings (9th Ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. Print. Wall, Thomas F. On Human Nature: An Introduction to Philosophy. CA: Thomas Wadsworth, 2005. Print. Read More