Philosophy and Reason - Essay Example

?5) Nietzsche argues against philosophy and reason. What is his view? Why was Socrates a mistake? Why are ethics, religion, law, and democracy mistakes? Why must the superman have complete freedom? Does Nietzsche have a methodology to help derive his view? Do you think Nietzsche is right or wrong? Explain and justify your view. Nietzsche’s view against philosophy and reason derives from his views of the current western philosophical tradition, as organized around a conception of philosophy deriving from Socrates. He was against philosophy and reason in the Socratic sense, which viewed philosophy, which aims for knowledge of timeless and non-empirical truths, including truths about the good and the right; thus, knowledge of the truth is the overriding value in philosophy and is also essential for living well. Furthermore, it tells us that knowledge is acquired through the exercise of reason, understood as a faculty that can operate independently, in whole or in part, of a posteriori evidence. One of the elements which is most central to Nietzsche’s philosophy is illustrated in his famous declaration that, “God is Dead!” (Cahn 1227) This affirms a complete rejection of metaphysical, moral, and religious truths as grounds for reality. Unlike the Socratic philosophical canon, Nietzsche contends that the spiritual dimension is illusory. To Nietzsche, the existence of God, religion, morality, ethics, free will, freedom, and laws are mistakes for they are nothing but imaginary causes, an imaginary psychology. In his view, such things are nothing but mere projections of one’s psychological desire for security and calculability in life. In addition, it 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 can no longer be implemented as the foundation for human ethical conducts. This leads to the assertion that all inquiries, dispositions and morals will be founded on the subjective will of individual self. Thus, unlike the Socratic philosophical canon, Nietzsche affirmed the individual self as the basis of all inquires and norms. This is Nietzsche’s theory of the will to power. Nietzsche’s (Cahn 1241) will to power is defined 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. In doing so, the individual shall not only reaffirm his or her own subjective standards but moreover, they will gradually reach the consciousness of the higher type of man, the Ubermensch or Superman. For Nietzsche, the temperament of the Superman shall enable individuals to revitalize faith in their creative powers and this earthly existence. 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 Superman. He insists that the superman must have complete freedom, i.e. that one should not decide to practice a certain code of ethics, for the will to power will gradually decline. By this, the individual weakens and suffers. To explicate further, Nietzsche accused Christianity for advocating virtues that undermine and destabilize one’s will to power. Here, Nietzsche presents his doctrine of the two-fold history of good and evil. This doctrine reveals that there exists two types of morality, i.e. master morality and slave morality. For Nietzsche, master morality is one that is built on the will to power. He is one who considers that which is good = Powerful; bad = Weakness. Also, he is one who practices generosity, not out of pity but out of excess. Those who practice this type of morality are the elite and noble men, meaning those who determine their morals according to their own personal standards. On the other hand, slave morality is that, which is practiced by the lowest class, the slaves. It is the morality of utility. They consider weakness as that which is good and anything that assumes the form of power as bad. They uphold virtues such as pity, compassion, kindness, honesty, etc…and are done out of the benefit of others. According to Nietzsche, Master morality was the dominant code of ethics during the ancients, but as time progressed, there occurred a reversal of values, and which in the later part of history, slave morality became dominant, and was known as Christianity. He criticizes Christianity as the religion of pity. According to Neitzsche, Christian priests are the poisoners in life, for they make what is good to that which is evil, and what is evil to that which is good; thus, it goes against ones own human nature. Hence, Nietzsche declares that humanity must free themselves from the constraints of religion by a revaluation of morals. This revaluation of morals is a conscious rebellion, which involves an awareness of the mistakes in the teachings of Religion and Morality, and a shift from slave to master morality. And through this shift, man becomes the Superman. Nietzsche affirmed the Superman 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 and self-affirmation can only be secured through domination and the exploitation of life for his own personal ends. Furthermore, he extracts his enjoyment of life by living dangerously. By this, the superman is able to exceed the barriers of his mental and physical constitutions. Consequently, the superman achieves its highest level of authenticity. According to Nietzsche, the most vital element in the Superman 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 the act of finding joy and meaning in states of happiness and despair. By this, the Superman asserts superiority over the wholeness of life. 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. Personally, I think Nietzsche has a very good point, wherein one’s unbiased opinions about religion will lead him/her to claim that Nietzsche is right. Despite his criticisms on the dogmas of organized religion and human morality and ethics, Nietzsche is not in favor of advocating forms of lawlessness and arbitrary behavior as viable modes of human conduct. He claims that an authentic lifestyle entails the affirmation of individual responsibility. Through this, Nietzsche’s philosophy contends us to become highly reflective of the possible outcomes of our desired course of action. Such act of cognition shall facilitate both prudent and moral conduct. In this manner, the individual can properly gauge himself or herself in addressing the demands of a given situation in life. In addition, he or she can successfully face squarely the consequences of his or her decisions. Consequently, one gradually secures self empowerment. 6) Wittgenstein argues that language creates our world. In his view, language is the subject matter of philosophy. Please explain his position in some detail. Explain how language objectifies the world. How does language create the self? According to Wittgenstein, can there be a private language? Do you agree with him? Why or why not? In his work, Wittgenstein claims that “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (96). Philosophy, thus, is not anymore about the love of wisdom, but rather, about language. For Wittgenstein, all of philosophy is a critique of language. Thus, the task of philosophy is to clarify our thoughts in relation to the language that we use to convey them. Indeed, it is the use of words in a certain context that determines the meaning of words. More specifically, we can explain the meaning of expressions by calling attention to how the words are used in a given “language-game” (1208) It is in this manner that language objectifies the world and thus creates the self. For example, supposing you send your kid brother to the store to buy some eggs and bread. For him not to forget what you want him to buy, you give him a slip of paper bearing the expression “five eggs and ten pieces of bread.” You then tell your brother to give this slip of paper to the seller together with the money that you gave him. Your brother does exactly what you told him to do and after a while, he goes home with the appropriate items and change. The question is, how is it possible that the seller interprets the slip of paper, which only bears “five eggs and then pieces of bread” to mean that your brother is buying five eggs and ten pieces of bread, with your brother not saying anything at all? The meaning of the said expression cannot be explained simply in terms of the references of the words comprising the expression. Imagine your brother gives the slip of paper to a policeman instead, how would the policeman interpret its meaning? This is what Wittgenstein means when he says we can explain the meaning of such expression by calling attention to how the words are used in what he calls a language game. Wittgenstein’s use of the word language-game is meant to call attention to the similarities between speaking a language and playing a game. Speaking a language and playing a game both require certain rules. One simply cannot play a game without knowing its rules; the same is true of speaking a language. The importance of this observation is that just like the rules of games, the rules governing the use of language are a matter of convention or human agreement and are therefore necessarily social or public. This means that words do not have meanings other than the rule-governed uses that we make of them. Wittgenstein compares the uses of words to the function of tools in a tool box; these tools do not have functions other than those we give them, i.e. how we objectify them. However, we cannot help but come across a few anomalies, for just like the boundaries of games, the boundaries of language games are not always precise. Wittgenstein likens this to the streets crossing one another; sometimes it is not clear what particular street you are in. This accounts for the fact that we easily fall into misunderstanding – which happen when we are not mindful of the shifts of language games. But there is something about language-games that makes it different from games, and that is, that a language-game is necessarily connected to some form of life, which refers to some concrete activities that one does in going about life. For instance, the language-game in buying items in a store is connected to some concrete activities important in the lives of some people. Thus, one thing in common here is that we share an ordinary language with society. Language creates the self through its interaction with society. Communication and interaction through the use of language helps build social relations, which implies that language is a social phenomenon. This is why Wittgenstein holds that a private language is not possible. Contrary to ordinary language is what Wittgenstein calls private language, which he shows to be a logical impossibility. A private language is a language where the meanings of the terms comprising this language are private to a certain person. This means that only that person can understand the meanings of his terms. That this is logically impossible is due, for Wittgenstein, to the lack of an objective criterion of correctness. Accordingly, the person would not know when he commits a mistake in following his own private rules for his language. If one asks, what about his memory? Wittgenstein answers this by saying that one cannot check one’s memory by another memory. He likens this to someone who would like to check the contents of a certain newspaper by buying several copies of the same newspaper and comparing their contents. Consistent with his theory of meaning, Wittgenstein argues that the meanings of psychological terms are their uses in certain language games. Therefore, there cannot be a private language. In my opinion, I think Wittgenstein is correct in the practical sense. For, disputes do arise due to misunderstandings in language and speech. So if we fix the very system of language, we can avoid such disagreements. Moreover, Wittgenstein encourages language as a social phenomenon, thus avoiding misunderstanding due to different private systems of language. It promotes us to be, by our nature, social beings that interact and communicate in our everyday life. Most importantly, it emphasizes on the importance of the role of language. We often disagree in beliefs and in attitude. However, we also disagree for mere verbal reasons. Disagreements in belief are disagreements about facts, which are resolved by verifying the facts at issue, which is done either by direct observation of the alleged facts, by examining relevant and authentic documents, or by appealing to appropriate authorities. An example of disagreements of this kind is the disagreement over the citizenship of a presidential candidate. On the other hand, disagreements in attitude refer to disagreements over preferences, which are usually resolved by persuasion, if not by compromise. An example of disagreements of this kind is the disagreement over who among the presidential candidates should be the rightful winner in the election. Lastly, mere verbal disagreements refer to disagreements that arise out of the misunderstanding of the meanings of linguistic expressions. This is the sort of disagreement we run into when we say things such as “that is not what I mean” or “I thought this was what you meant.” Mere verbal disagreements happen in our everyday life. In fact, these ought not to be considered real disagreements since it is only a matter of clarifying the meaning of our language that we once again come to an agreement. Thus, language may indeed have such an important role. Wittgenstein shows us that through focusing our attention on language, we, in turn, get to analyze linguistic confusions that concern how language, in general, works, or how linguistic expressions become meaningful. In this light, disagreements in belief and attitude may be due to confusions about how the language of our beliefs and attitudes become meaningful. 7. This session we have discussed a number of great philosophers. Which one meant the most to you? Wittgenstein doubts that philosophy can make progress. Is he right? What is his view? In your view, what is the value of philosophy? Is it progressive? Since the idea that language-games are necessarily connected or tied up to some form of life, that would entail that problems that arise out of its interconnection are inevitable. We may solve one problem that we currently faced, but that does not mean that there is nothing left to solve afterwards. This is what Wittgenstein meant when he doubts that philosophy can make any progress. For, we already know everything that we need to know. Philosophy offers no absolute truth after all; it only serves as a reminder to what we previously know already. All that philosophy could do then is to put up signposts at all the danger points where there are obstacles, so as to help people get through the obstacles. But these signposts do not necessarily mean that everyone will notice them or more so, followed accordingly. Therefore, philosophy shouldn’t be treated as a kind of dogma. This is what the value of philosophy ought to be for Wittgenstein. Out of all the philosophers that we have discussed, the one that meant the most to me is Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s views not only empowers individuals to achieve its highest level of affirmation through one’s will to power, it also upholds the value of philosophy as something that is not dictated to us but something that we can dictate and use to our advantage. Moreover, it enables us to evaluate our current set of morals and ethics. Nietzsche’s critique against religion and Christianity is the most powerful of his views. It wakes us up and shows us a different light in seeing things, which I believe is the value of philosophy. Nietzsche tells us why Christianity became the dominant religion in human society. According to Nietzsche, there were two types of moralities which were practiced during the ancient Greeks. These are master morality and slave morality. To Nietzsche, master morality is one that is built on the will to power. It 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 elite class of society, the noblemen. 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. Moreover, noble individuals are those who have mastery over themselves. They are able to harness control over both their intellectual propensities and passionate drives. 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 to live dangerously! Slave morality on the other hand, is practiced by the lowest class of society, the slaves. Nietzsche described this type of morality as the morality of utility. 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. Thus, 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. Thus, Nietzsche encourages a complete liberation from the dogmas of the religion, morality, and laws. This shall allow individuals to restore both faith in themselves and foster their unique potentials. In his view, 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, i.e. 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 moreover, they will gradually reach the consciousness of the higher type of man, the Superman. So what then is the value of philosophy? If philosophy is the love of wisdom, I shall not contest to that. Human beings are by nature, inquisitive. We tend to wonder about everything that seems foreign to our consciousness. We ask questions asking why do we have to finish our education, why it is proper to uphold a set of morals, how do we know if a god really exists, or how can we know that we really do know anything at all. All these questions, though pointless as they may seem, gives rise to philosophy. This is the value of philosophy. It enables us to ask questions, and when asking questions, we attempt to sharpen our understanding of the world and its phenomena. Wittgenstein may have a point in saying that philosophy’s role is only to remind us of what we already know, that it can only set up signposts and warnings for danger points and obstacles in life. I agree in so far that most of the things philosophy emphasizes on are simplest things in life that we hardly can believe that we didn’t even notice it beforehand. However, I do not agree with Wittgenstein in so far that the value of philosophy stops there. For, philosophy has, as its purpose, a greater value, a greater role to play in life. It teaches and shows us how to see the world in ways we never imagined it to be. It enables us to empower ourselves as the captain of our own ships, as the author of our own book. It provides us many reasons as to why we ought to pursue our dreams, and not the other way around. This is, what I believe, the ultimate value of philosophy. Works Cited Cahn, Steven M. Classics of Western Philosophy (8th ed). New York: Hackett Publishing Co., 2012. Print. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Philosophical Investigations. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Print. Read More