Philosophy of Religion - Essay Example

Philosophy of Religion Topic: Option Question B. Compare and contrast Nietzsche and Simone Weil on the idea of selflessness in Christianity. Where do they disagree? Whose position is preferable? Why? Friedrich Nietzche contends selflessness and compassion are values from of post-Christian morality influences and from human being’s affective nature (Nietzche, & Hollingdale, 1977). Being so, the drive for selflessness came from a person’s feelings and beliefs that are non-rational and often changing. Under perspectivism, Nietzche argued that selflessness is a component of Christian morality which can only be fully understood if a person speaks of one’s feelings and feels on matters distinctively or differently. Such implies that a person can be wholly considered selfless if his affective nature translates such selflessness in behaviors and attitudes in relation to others (Nietzche, et al., 1977). In his philosophy about self, Nietzche assailed an anti-Cartesian ideation and of naturalizing power pertaining to selfless consciousness. He contended that a selfless consciousness is without central intender, observer, and has no presence of self unto itself nor of natural unity. He however professed that there is mind and consciousness in nature (Nietzche, et al., 1977). This is consistent to the phenomenon of the body with consciousness embodying multiplicity of reasons but is inclined toward selflessness. As a naturalist, Nietzsche perceived that mind is not essentially conscious and not essentially unified, thus, assailed that consciousness isn’t the heart of our being and that humans can perceived and actuate without consciousness (Nietzche, et al., 1977). This spouse controversial discourse on Nietzsche’s theory of selflessness of consciousness as foundation of altruistic principles evident in Christian teachings and exemplified by the life of Jesus Christ. However, even if Nietzche had an ideation about compassion and benevolence as values, but he criticized altruism as destructive to those whoever seeks to benefit out of this. Some social philosophers simply argue that Nietzche might have thought that altruism has certain factors that limit the realization of some values of a potent self. Some quickly pointed that Nietzche’s critique to altruist principles doesn’t indorse the theory of egoism and selfishness—that idea prominently advocated by Ayn Rand in her theory of objectivism and rational self. His ethical perspectives rest on the consequentialist perfectionism as evidenced in his theory of goodness innate in man and about the theory of evolving self that is in a continuing process of perfection. He however lacks the foundational theory on politics, where self is most inclined as a social being. As pointed, Nietzche hasn’t presented a systemic theory about the nature of state and society where human beings are in a sustained discourse to exchange values. His theory of selflessness however, emanated from his belief of a normative system perceived as morality that has certain structural characteristics. He assailed that language is significant in the interpretation and creation an individual—and, such narrative is a substitute to an enduring methaphysical fact of self which is also presupposed in Plato, Christian, Cartesian and Kantian theories. He connects that precept of selflessness to his notion of amor fati (love of fate) which led him to conclude that a self can only dream to be free but cannot wholly practice freedom. At some point Nietzchie’s theory crossed with Simone Weil (Weil, 1952), a female philosopher whose thoughts combined her spiritual, social and philosophical concerns. Like Nietzche who was a virtue ethicist and who assailed that virtue is specific to individual, Weil likewise illustrated this value in her intrinsic care for the poor and oppressed labor sector in her time. Weil was unfaltering in her ideation of the absence of divergence in thought and way of life. She advocates the unity of values, principles, and self – thus, concretizing this in her advocacies for change by using herself as an exemplar of her vocation for the poor. Troubled by war and injustices, these realities filled her consciousness which persuaded her to limit her food intake in solidarity to the working class who suffered hunger and fought for their rights. Although she was knowledgeable of tuberculosis as her illness, yet she continued to lessen her food intake. Many social philosophers perceived this action as symbolic of her virtue of selflessness. Like Neitzche, Weil was fully aware of Christianity and its teachings although she came from a Jewish ancestry. Both shared notion that culture shapes reality and both regarded faith within the sphere of intellectual pursuit for truth. Both adhere to what is good. In her lifetime, Weil begot a priest-friend but asserted that her vocation for change need not convert her to Christianity nor immerse her to Christian faith or dogma. She was immensely committed to truth as a communist advocate but she was inflexible too with her devotion to reality and to obedience. Accounts about her life mentioned that she died while reading a poem of love but physicians insisted that she died due to her refusal to be treated. She was willful to constrained self from medication to keep herself united with the cause of the hungry labor forces in her time. This however remained a controversial matter since we can only presuppose that her choice of death has significant relation to her beliefs, ideas and regard to faith. The latter, she asserted, can only be fully exercised within the spectrum of intelligence (Weil, 1952). This is where Weil and Neitzche differ: the latter strongly rejects realism as determinant of human behavior while Weil, on one hand, illustrated the dictate of realities over freewill as showed in her life and in her death. At some point, Nietzche’s thoughts simply affirmed that Weil’s life and death proved that altruism can destroy self even if many would regard Weil’s choices and decisions as the bulwark of her selflessness. Her views however left some contradictions on freedom and determinism (of self) because while she advocate on freewill but she also appreciate determinism that is present in any religious vocation because the latter compel one to act for goodness out of governing circumstances. Such affirmed that reality determines everything, a claim that is obviously influenced by Marxian worldview. Postmodern philosophers however criticized her for lack of open-mindedness and described her as a stringent stoic. In conclusion, I would say that Christianity ask believers to follow the teachings of Christ on faith and to pursue a vocation for social transformation. But between the two philosophers, I prefer Nietzche’s ideation of a selfless self because it strongly extol the principle of ethics as virtue which is specific to any self. The society is composed of diverse people with varied faith and the expression of their religious inclination has also specific doctrines and principles they held true to themselves. Weil’s ideation of faith is just one of the many. Nietzche was right to point this in his idea of multiplicity and his idea of man’s freewill and limited freedom. He argued that man can only aspire for freedom but can’t free itself from surrounding realities and social culture. The self can decide to take part in the transformation or become adaptive to it while exercising faith and values. Our conscience definitely cannot be detached from our realities. But as for Christians, Jesus life was driven by social realities that He decided to lead the transformation, thus, making his body as a sacrifice to serve people and God to prove that every being is an instrument of goodness and is a force in the perfection of the will of God. Reference Nietzche, F. & Hollingdale R. J , (1977). A Neitzche Reader. Penguin Group, Penguin Books Ltd, London. p. 146-167. Weil, S. (1952). Gravity and Grace. G.P. Putnam Sons, New York, United States of America. Read More