God's existence or rather Death - Essay Example

The existence of God is a question that philosophers have been pondering for centuries. Different people have different ideas of what a God is, and whether or not one even exist. This question is clouded even further by the fact that there is more than one god that is worshipped in this world. This means that there is even dissention among those who believe in God about which God is real. This issue can only be resolved through death because then the person will know, or perhaps not know, what the truth entails. The existence of God cannot be proven by mankind unless God was to make this his will, which he has not done thus far, although this has not stopped various philosophers from trying to persuade their audiences one way or another. Plato believed that gods did exist, although in a much different way than how Christianity has portrayed God. Rene Descartes argued that no effect can be greater than its cause and, therefore, an idea of an object has less objective reality than the formal reality of the actual existence of the object because the idea is dependent on reality. Therefore, because the formal reality is greater than the objective reality, God must exist. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy said that the concept of God means that there is a being of God. Friedrich Nietzsche, however, believed that God is dead because he no longer has the same power over the morality of human beings that he once did. This is because human beings no longer have the same respect for the word of God, as Christianity was becoming less popular than before. This idea can be paired up with Nietzsche’s idea of the overman or “Superman”, as this ideology shows that certain people, according to Nietzsche, are above conventional morality in society. These ideologies by Nietzsche are valuable because they present morality in a much different manner than other philosophers, although they are not necessarily viable, as they would lead to a great deal of havoc in the world. The ideologies of Nietzsche do hold some value, but they do not prove anything and, therefore, cannot be viewed as the truth. An example of how views of this question differ is shown through the philosophical works The Genealogy of Morals, by Friedrich Nietzsche, and Ethics, by Baroch Spinoza. These texts provide the reader with differing opinions on what human morality means. Nietzsche takes God out of the equation completely by saying that concepts good and evil have changed with the times throughout history and they will continue to do so as society changes, which is how he explains that God has figuratively died. Nietzsche, therefore, makes the argument that our morals are constructs of the times in which we will and have evolved much as human beings have over the ages, but that this is not necessarily a good thing because it is meant as a manner of preventing others from having control over us. This is because people inherently wish to exercise power over others and morals are a way of levelling things off so that the strongest members of society do not dominate. Spinoza, however, believes that our morals are a result of the knowledge that we have of pain and pleasure and that our adequate ideas will cause us to act in a way that is virtuous because adequate ideas are those that come from the essence of God. This means that when we act in a moral manner, we are acting the way that God wishes us to because we are exercising our adequate ideas and with these ideas, our knowledge of pain and pleasure. A virtuous human being should not want to cause anyone else pain because that would mean that he or she is not using his or her adequate ideas. Both of these texts provide the reader with interesting concepts on the idea of morality in human beings. In the Genealogy of Morals, Friedrich Nietzsche presents his idea about the morality of human beings and why it is flawed. Nietzsche begins by discounting many of society’s assumptions on how we function in life, as he believes that we tend to view things as having inherent meanings. Nietzsche uses punishment as an example in this case, as human beings tend to believe that punishment is an action that happens to a person as a result of that person doing something that he or she deserves to be punished for. He would argue that punishment is completely separate from this, however, as punishment is very often used as a way of showing off one’s power or in some cases, as an act of cruelty. What this means is that the punishment does not always fit the crime, so those two things should not necessarily be associated with each other. We cannot understand these two things if we assume that they are the same thing, so it is necessary to keep them separate. Nietzsche then continues this argument on to show how our morality has arrived at the point that it is at right now. He believes that morals have become such an important thing in our lives because we have very sacred reasons for having these morals, which include religion, culture, and reason. These morals, however, are flawed because what constitutes a good, bad, or evil act can change over the course of our lifetimes as our situations change because there is no absolute truth to them, since the God that they come from has died, as “dead are all the gods: now do we desire the superman to live” (Nietzsche 2008, P. 69). Since God would be viewed as an absolute moral, the fact that things change is proof that he does not exist. What this means is that an action could be considered either good or bad depending on the situation, so it is impossible for our morals to be absolute as well. Nietzsche, rather than defining good and bad, looks at what helps us to define what shape an action will take over the course of our lives. Nietzsche argues that all of existence, especially in human beings, is a struggle between different wills for the feeling of power. This means that we all wish to have some sort of control over our own lives and also over the lives of those who can affect our own lives. This is why we constantly see people competing with one another. It is all a competition to achieve this power, even if there is no physical reward for winning these competitions. Nietzsche shows the constant changing of the ideologies of good and bad by stating that in past generations, the concept of good was defined by the strongest people in society. In barbaric times, anything that the stronger members of society did was defined as good, while the weaker members of society were seen as bad. This is not something that we would agree upon today, but members of these past societies would not agree with the way we do things either, since “once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers” (Nietzsche 2008, P. 21). Therefore, Nietzsche believes that to give anything an absolute interpretation does not work because as the times change, so will this interpretation. It is our wills which define this, so as our wills change, so will the apparent truth. If we truly wish to have free will, therefore, we must not believe in any absolutes, but rather view the world as a constantly changing place and let our wills define the things that are occurring around us. This includes looking at things from as many different perspectives as possible in order to decide for ourselves which stance we wish to take on it. This ideology can also be applied to morality as, since nothing is absolute, our morals are constantly changing as well. Morality is not something that was passed down from God to human beings, but is rather something that has evolved and changed since the beginning of time and will continue to do so. The only thing that has not change in human beings is that we inherently have the desire to achieve more power over our fellow human beings, because of our free wills. This means that the present morality that human beings possess has been born because we have a hatred for those things that are stronger than us. He argues that we have a fear of things that could possibly have power over us, so we have developed this moral code in order to protect ourselves from the stronger members of society. Nietzsche believes that we must embrace these animalistic instincts because we are currently hurting ourselves my repressing them. Nietzsche’s view on freedom is an interesting one because it goes into moral values as well. If we are completely free, then we should be able to choose how to act as well, not simply follow a pre-determined moral code. Nietzsche believes that a free spirit is above conventional morality. This is not someone who has simply skipped morality, but someone who has gone through conventional morality and, through self-discipline, made him or her self into an artistic ideal. Morality relies on punishment from others. If you commit a crime, it is up to the legal system to punish you. Also, guilt is a method of self-punishment. Moral conscience is a bad conscience because it brings about guilt. If someone is truly free, they do not have guilt. To be free, Nietzsche says that you must accept your mistakes and move on and try to do better next time. It is acceptable to use your virtues when deciding how to act, but it is important not to let your virtues use and control you. You must master your virtues and make them work for you. This is freedom. You are not bound by conventional morality or your own virtues either. You can use what you want to get what you want, by any means necessary. Nietzsche continues by saying that you can will the past if you realize that it is necessary for the present. If you accept who you are right now, you must accept the past because it made you who you are. You are part of the universe so you must will that nothing in the universe was different. You must also accept that nothing could have happened differently than it did. You cannot blame or resent someone for what he or she did because actions of the past made the circumstances that led up to the action that happened. No blame means no resentment, which leads to no revenge. This is the artistic ideal for a free person. Nietzsche also believes in eternal return, which means that the life you are living now is the same one you have lived infinite times in the past, and will live infinite times in the future. If you can accept this, then you can fully accept yourself. You must be able to say that you would not change anything about yourself or your life. Regret is a moment of weakness so you must look at the past as necessary for being what you have become today. We are all a work in progress so we must become what we are. Nietzsche, while not a determinist, does use the determinist idea that things could not have turned out any differently in his philosophy. Nietzsche’s idea on free will are very interesting because they go beyond making basic decisions, into deciding on our own moral code. This is where I disagree with Nietzsche’s ideas. The unpredictability of this system would be too great to be possible. Basic moral code is how we, as humans, predict the way others will act. For example, if I am walking down the street and I pass an old woman, I am under the assumption that she will not reach out and strike me. Even if she is having a horrible day and would like nothing better than to take out her frustration with the youth of society on me, she will not because of morality. She knows that it is wrong to do that to another person. In Nietzsche’s ideal world, she would hit me because it would be what is in her best interest. In turn, it would be in my best interest to fight back. I believe that the world needs a blanket set of moral rules because, otherwise, everyone would have to be on edge at all times, which is where the idea of God is important. It would be impossible to tell how anyone would react at any time and the world would be a much more dangerous place. Nietzsche’s philosophy is important because it discusses what free will means on a much larger scale. He believes that we should not only responsible for our own actions, as they are a result of free will, but also we should be able to decide if our actions are moral or not. This idea means that we would have complete control over our own lives, as even our own morality would be under the individual’s control. This is a somewhat troubling view of free will because it leaves society open to too much unpredictability. If every person had a completely different moral code, then it would be impossible for one individual to trust another, since he or she would have no idea what that other person thought was moral. This type of system leaves too much up to free will, as a general framework is needed in order to ensure everyone’s safety. It could be argued that the majority of people would have similar moral codes, and also that certain people do not follow the basic moral codes of society, but the fear of punishment is something that provides safety in many facets of society. For example, if two people are involved in a minor traffic accident, there will quite often be blame passed from one person to another. Guilt can also accompany this blame, as the party who is at fault will feel some sort of remorse for his or her actions. If neither of these individuals has a moral code that tells them that they will be punished if they fight, then they will be more likely to fight. If they do not fear being punished, then they will feel no reason not to become aggressive towards one another, which would make the decision much worse than it rightfully should be. The inherent lack of a moral code is central to Nietzsche’s idea of the overman or “Superman“. Nietzsche defines these supermen as “constantly changing and in a state of rebirth and growth. He determines what is good and what is evil, not allowing religion or society to determine these things for him. The Superman finds his happiness in this way. He uses a reason that is independent of the modern values of society or religion. He determines his own values. This creation of his own values gives him joy, and in order for the Superman to cope with a changing world, the Superman must constantly change” (Knowles). In popular culture, the novel The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky, contains a great deal of the philosophy that is discussed by Nietzsche. In particular, Pavel Fyodorovich Smerdyakov is a character whose philosophical views on life are very interesting, since they do not conform with the norms of society. He, for example, does not believe in God, as he believes that human beings’ belief in God is simply there because of our fear of the afterlife, as he believes that “there is no law for God” (Dostoyevsky 1958, P. 596). Since we fear what the consequences will be for our actions, we act with a certain morality while we are alive. Since he does not share this belief, however, he does not feel that there will be any end consequence for his actions. Therefore, he does whatever he wants, when he wants, and does not worry about God judging him at all. This is very similar to Friedrich Nietzsche’s idea of morality, as he believed that certain people in society are above conventional morality and that these “Supermen” should be able to act however they please because the rules of society do not apply to them. The philosophical background in this novel is very interesting because it makes it possible to look at the occurrences in this novel from a variety of different perspectives. Another novel by the same author that contains these ideas is Crime and Punishment. The protagonist of the novel is a man named Raskolnikov and his name come from the Russian root word raskolnik, which means divided. This is the perfect way to describe Raskolnikov, as he is both divided from society and from himself. Raskolnikov sees himself as being better than the rest of society. His beliefs are similar to those of Friedrich Nietzsche, as he believes that he is part of an elite group of supermen that have the ability to act in any manner that they please, as long as their actions are for the greater good. Raskolnikov, however, feels guilt after committing his murder, which is proof that he is not one of these supermen, as these men do not feel guilt for their actions since everything that they do is correct. The question is also brought forward in this novel about what the difference between mind and body are. Nihilism, which is a philosophical ideology that was developed in Russia, makes the argument that there is no such thing as a soul and that nothing exists outside of the physical body. This is a question that different philosophers have questioned over the years, as Rene Descartes and Baruch Spinoza both have their own ideas on the existence of mind and body and what exactly counts as being in existence. Likewise, philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre, Soren Kierkegaard, and Friedrich Nietzsche have differing ideologies on whether or not our fates are pre-determined by things outside of ourselves as “with his doctrine of the superman Nietzsche seeks to give us values that at the same time, create a medium where power is realized and strength flourishes, and define a purpose for life” (Nietzsche’s Superman). Each philosopher has a different view on whether or not God, or gods, truly exist. There are many different ways of looking at it, but this is a question that has been plaguing philosophers for centuries. Each and every philosopher will have his or her own ideas on the subject but in the end, there is no way to truly know. For a philosopher, death is the ultimate goal as it is when he or she finally finds out the truth about life. While on earth, it is impossible to either prove or disprove the existence of God, since we can not directly experience an encounter with God. While some philosophers would say that our idea of God means that there is a God in actuality, others would say that this means nothing. Still other would quote that God is all around us at all times and, therefore, he must exist because he is everything. The truth is that no living being knows the answer for certain and these arguments will continue on for eternity. This issue has not been resolved since the time of Plato and it will not be resolved anytime soon. The existence of God can only be proved if he was to show himself to mankind, and that is something that he has chosen not to do thus far. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is incredibly interesting because of the ideas that is causes the reader to ponder. His ideas on morality are valuable because they eliminate God from conventional morality, as morality is not absolute, since it has changed over time. This means that God is not the barometer by which our morality is measured, but it rather comes from within by of our own free will. The characters in these novels by Dostoyevsky show what can happen when these ideologies make their way into real life, although this type of behaviour is incredibly rare. Nietzsche would argue that this is because so few people have realized their own absolute freedom and, therefore, are still bound by the ideals of society. The idea of the overman is also an interesting idea, as it allows for certain people to be above the rest of society, but this can only occur if the person realizes that he or she is worthy of being in this position. The work of Friedrich Nietzsche is valuable to society today because it holds a great deal of thought-provoking material that can be analyzed, but this information is also quite dangerous to the safety of human beings in general. For this reason, Nietzsche’s work should not be followed, as it would lead to a chaotic society where everyone simply does whatever he or she desires at all times. While interesting material, the world is definitely not readily to become Nietzsche’s type of society. Sources Dostoyevsky, Fyordor (1999), Crime and Punishment, London: Signet Classic. Dostoyevsky, Fyordor (1958), The Brothers Karamazov, London: Penguin Books. Knowles, Anna. “Nietzsche’s Superman”. viewed 29 October 2006. http://personal.ecu.edu/mccartyr/great/projects/Knowles.htm Nietzsche, Friedrich (2008), Thus Spake Zarathustra, Radford, VA: Wilder Publications. Nietzsche, Friedrich (1996). On the Genealogy of Morals: A Polemic, Oxford: Oxford University Press. “Nietzsche’s Superman”. viewed 29 October 2006. http://www.msu.edu/user/bradle45/nietzsche.htm Read More