Friedrich Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil - Essay Example

Friedrich Nietzsche “Beyond Good and Evil” Friedrich Nietzsche was a philosopher from Germany, a poet, a composer, as well as aclassical philologist. He is famous for writing critical texts on religion, science, mortality, philosophy, contemporary culture and for displaying a fondness of aphorism and irony (Nietzsche34). His influence still remains substantial both within and beyond philosophy especially in nihilism, postmodernism, as well as existentialism. His style of doing things and the radical questioning of the objectivity of the truths has led to commentary and interpretation, mostly within the continental tradition. The main ideas explored by Nietzsche include the death of God, the will of power, Urbermensch, amorfati, perspectivism and the eternal recurrence. The idea that is central to his philosophy is the life-affirmation idea involving an honest questioning of all manner of doctrines that drain the expansive energy of life. This paper explores Netzsche philosophy cutting across his terminologies, as well as his philosophical reasoning. The paper discusses Netzsche’s philosophy of “Beyond good and Evil” with the major focus on Prejudices of life. Nietzsche used many terminologies in his quest to explain his philosophical reasoning. Among them include Nihilism, Master morality and slave morality, Übermensch, Amorfati and the eternal recurrence. Nietzsche viewed nihilism as what comes out of repeated frustration while looking for the truth. He saw nihilism as latent presence in the foundations of the culture of Europeans, seeing it as a requirement for approaching the destiny. He talks about the cruelty ladder of religion which suggests Nihilism emanating from the intellectual Christianity conscience. Nihilism involves sacrificing the meaning brought about by God in our lives for the object truth. Netzche claims that there exist two types of morality (Nietzsche 56). These are the master morality springing actively from any noble man and the slave morality which builds up reactively in a weak man. The two moralities are not restrained inversions of each other but rather they represent different value systems. He asserted that master morality fits an action in a scale of either good or bad. Slave morality, on the other hand, fits the action in scales of good or evil. His terminology beyond Good and Evil is a way of rejection of metaphysics leads him to deny the moral fact. According to him, there is nothing said to be intrinsically good or bad with no consideration of content. Nietzsche is of argument that morality started when people began associating good to what was found to be beneficial and associating bad with what it was considered harmful. He goes on affirming that denying that moral judgment is not based on truths does not mean that acts conventionally known as good need not be encouraged and some considered bad need not be avoided. However, he rejects the absolutism in morality requiring both the weak ones and the strong ones. Nietzsche refers to genealogical element of force as being the will to power. The term geological in this context refers to the differential and generic (Nietzsche 42). The phrase the will to power is termed as the differential element of force. In this case, he implies the element which brings about the differences in the quantity forces whose relation is to be presupposed. Will to power is in this case presumed to be a generic element of force meaning an element producing the quantity that is due to each force. The principle of the will to power does not suppress any chance but contrarily, it implies it, since, without having chance, it would not change. Chance is used to mean the bringing of force into relation. The will to power is an addition to force and might only be added to that comes about due to chance. This will to power has some chance at the heart since the will to power is only capable of confirming all chances. Differences in quantity and the quality of force in relation are all derived from the will to power as a genealogical element. These forces are said to be either dominant or dominated depending on the quantities. The forces are active or reactive all depending on their quality. There is always the will to power in reactive force and in the active force. As the differences in power are not reducible in each case, it becomes pointless to try measuring the quantity without the interpretation of force qualities present. When using the terminologies Morality and Christian Ethics, Nietzsche does not deny some place to the morality of the herds, but what he objects to is the imposing of herd morality on the nobles (Walter 57). Niezsche says a code of ethics that extols pity, selflessness, as well as humility, might be useful only to those herds lacking the strengths of character to the imposition of their will on others. His strong opposition to Christianity originates from the way he views morality (Walter 29). He objects the assumption of metaphysics that shift emphasis from real world into the uncorroborated realm that is ideal. He believes that man possess one task in his lifetime, which is living. However, he advocates that man should live passionately. Nietzsche uses the terminologies the Dionysian when sharing his views with Eliade. He was justifying his participation in mythical time in justifying his tragic life and the abolished history. Nietzsche identifies In the Birth of Tragedy some two opposing but complementary impulses in the ancient Greek culture, in the form of the Apollonian and the Dionysian. The Apollonian represents the rational and the sober attitude of the culture. The Dionysian symbolizes the most powerful instinctual drives. The two impulses happen to blend together in producing Attic Greek tragedy. Apollonian gives some form and structure for the orgiastic Dionysian’s music and dances. Nietzsches Reasoning on Beyond Good and Evil. There is nothing said to be as necessary as truth. In comparison with the truth anything, else can be said to be but secondary value. What is the absolute will to truth? Is it that wills that allow people to be deceived? Can it be will not to deceive? Nobody wants to be deceived in the supposition that the deceiving is dangerous and fatal. People should not be allowed to be deceived since strong minds are skeptical. What if God was not the exactly truth, and can it be proved? And if God was the vanity, that desire for vanity, the power desires the fear, ambitions and the terrified mankind? This is the depicted reasoning of Nietzsche as his approach to Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche can be seen as someone who is out to destroying reason. Because of such doing he has been attacked by many ranging from Lukács to Habermas. He attempts to restoring reason, and for him to be sure, he declared "human reasoning" is "not that reasonable" and also that "not only the reasoning of millennia", but "their madness, as well breaks out in them. However, Nietzsche suggested, as well a novel view of reason, which he went ahead calling it his "restored reason". There is a number of reasoning that can be developed from the concept of the will of truth. One of the basic concept that supports the idea about the truth is ones desire to get the truth This is one of the major arguments that a number of philosophers have hitherto respectively for decades. The fact that the truth tempts us into different experiences that are hazardous and the mighty truthfulness that all the philosophers do cling onto with a lot of respect, has given birth to many questions about the ‘Will’ towards the ‘Truth’. This, story though, lengthy, it appears as if the story has never been commenced. This is the reason why many people have lost patience, developed distrustful, and become extremely impatient with the idea of truth. The important part of this Sphinx is that it teaches us to seek answers for these pending questions. Questions on whoever puts the idea into ones head, on what actually is the’ Truth’ and the will to get it within us are among many questions that have come up due to the idea of the truth (Walter 46). In fact, many philosophers have made a number of investigations towards the origin of the real ’Will’. All these efforts, however, seem to be interrogation notes and rendezvous questions. Another reasoning that is evoked by this argument is the desire to know how something could have originated from its opposite. For instance, developing truth from an error is something that is not possible. An individual who try to imagine genesis of that type could be conceived to be a fool. Anything that is of a higher value must be from a decent origin thus; seduction, paltry world, transitory, illusory, cupid, and delusion turmoil can never be the origin of truth. Rather in the world of beings, thing-it-self, concealed God, in transitory, there should exist some origin of this argument. This reasoning brings out typical prejudice that can be identified by the metaphysicians of different times. This valuation mode is the basis of the procedure of logic. Through believes like this one, the metaphysicians give themselves a credit due to their own ‘knowledge’. This credit is, however, for an idea that is solemnly ‘the Truth’ that in the end is christened. The major belief of the metaphysician is that they rely in values that are antitheses. None of these people has ever had an instance of doubting this reasoning, even though they already made vows that are solemn (DEOMNIBUS DUBITANDUM). One may tend to doubt this reasoning because there is seem not to be any antithesis, and the famous value antithesis and valuations that have been made by metaphysicians, are perhaps merely estimates that are superficial. These valuations may be a provision that is merely perspective despite being developed from a corner m that is may be below (frog perspective) since it took after a current expression among the painters. Apart from the value of truth, unselfishness, positivity, it could be possible that high and basic value attached to life should generally be allocated to the idea of pretence, cupidity, selfishness, and to the will of delusion. It is particularly possible that whatever makes up the value of those individuals who are respectful and upright is made up of precisely the being. This being is related insidiously, crocheted, and knotted to a number of evil things and probably things that are a contrast to his being. In a reality nobody will like to be associated with dangerous aspects like these ones. In an investigation like this one, it would be crucial for one to wait for a number of philosophers that are new. The new philosophers would certainly have different inclinations and tastes which would probably be a reverse of the prevailing investigations. Another reasoning that is developed is the idea that the biggest conscious thinking part needs to be counted as one of the instinctive functions. This also applies to the philosophical thinking cases, in that an individual has to learn something new concerning innateness and heredity. The biggest part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is influenced by her secret instinct, and, therefore, forced into channels that are definite. Also, behind every available logic together with its movements, there exist some physiological demands or valuations that are used to maintain a definite way of life. For instance, considering arguments like certain is more beneficial compared to the uncertain, illusion can be less valuable than the truth. These valuations in spite of being critical are not the right superficial valuation. This valuation may notwithstanding be the being only maintenance valuation. This reasoning supports the fact that man cannot just be a ‘measure of things’. In addition to this, opinion falseness is not in any way its objection. In this respect, a new language would sound exceedingly strange to an individual. A paramount concern that is raised in this case is how an opinion would be life-preserving, species-rearing and life-furthering. However, the fundamental goal is to maintain the falsest opinions which are truly indispensable to the being. Without recognizing the logical fictions, with no reality comparison, with no world counterfeiting, man could not have lived. This is because renunciation of opinions that are false would be the life renunciation or a life negiciation. Recognizing untruths as a life condition is an act of impugning of the ideas that are traditionally of exceptional value and some philosophy that appears to describe this area has been positioned to be beyond evil and wicked. The critical situation that makes many philosophers to be termed as persons who are half- mockingly or half-distrustfully is that dealing with these people or their knowledge does not ascertain their honesty. This is so even though these philosophers have always raised a cry on the greatest problem of the truthfulness especially when this problem is hinted is whichever manner. These philosophers always lead us into their real opinion which they did discover and achieve through a self-evolving of pure, cold, and indifferent dielectric. On the other hand, the proposition, suggestion or idea that are prejudiced which are the desire of their heart that may be refined or abstracted are defended by these philosophers and would be sorted out after the event. There are some advocates that never admire to be referred to in this manner; they are termed as astute defenders of prejudices of their own. These prejudices are dubbed to be ‘truths’. However, this is away from the conscience that strongly admits it to oneself. It is away from getting a proper courage taste that moves beyond to bring an understanding of this so as to caution a friend, a foe or in attempts to have a self-ridicule and cheerful confidence. For instance, a mathematical form philosophy referred to as the hocus-pocus by Spinoza is clad in mask and mail (Walter 73). It is evident that the great philosophy of the past has the confession about its origin, and the variety of its unconscious purposes that may be moral or immoral. All philosophy has contained the truth which the entire world has been growing. Understanding how a philosopher’s metaphysical assertions, have been realized, it is highly crucial for one to ask himself about the aim of its morality. This is because if you consider a man’s fundamental impulse with the intention of determining how far they were inspiring genii, you will realize that all of them at one instance or the other have practiced a philosophy, and in the respective instance he looked upon himself as having the ultimate truth over the rest of the impulses. The next reasoning that could be developed is the idea of how philosophers can be malicious. To this extent there is barely any stinging joke like the case where Epicurus obtained the making of liberty on Platonists by calling them Dionysiokolakes (Walter 56). This meant the Dionysius flatterers and that there is not genuine at all. Work Cited. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond good and evil. 1900. Web 11th May 2012. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Friedrich-Nietzsche-Philosopher.htm. Walter, Kaufmann. Beyond Good and Evil. New York: Vintage Books publishers.2000.Print. Read More