Analysis Of Nietzsche's On Truth And Lies In A Nonmoral Sense

Nietzsche was a revolutionary author and philosopher who has had a tremendous impact on German culture up through the twentieth century and even today. Nietzsche's views were very unlike the popular and conventional beliefs and practices of his time and nearly all of his published works were, and still are, rather controversial, especially in On the Genealogy of Morals. His philosophies are more than just controversial and unconventional viewpoints, however; they are absolutely extreme and dangerous if taken out of context or misinterpreted. After Nietzsche's death it took very little for his sister to make some slight alterations to his works to go along with Nazi ideology.

Nietzsche is widely known as a critic of religion. In fact, he talks in depth about morality in regards to religion in his essays about the genealogy of morals. But the problem is not within religion itself or within morals. The problem is involved in the combination of the two to create society’s understanding of morality through a very religious lens. In fact, Nietzsche has criticism for almost any set of morals constructed by a group of individuals and meant to be applied to society as a whole. True morality, according to Nietzsche, requires a separation from these group dynamic views of morality- or at least a sincere look into where they originated and why they persist- and a movement towards a more introverted, and intrinsically personalized understanding of what morals mean in spite of the fact that “the normative force to which every member of society is exposed, in the form of obligations, codes of behavior, and other moral rules and guidelines, is disproportionally high” (Korfmacher 6).

Nietzsche introduces the initial concepts of what is good to be determined by those who have benefitted from unegoistical

Despite such claims, Nietzsche criticizes this mistaken idea that the knowledge of the universe can be comprehended by any method; he argues that not even the “most scrupulously conscientious analysis and self-examination of the intellect” cannot successfully interpret the progressive history of the world as “the human intellect cannot avoid seeing itself in [only] its perspectives” (Nietzsche 336). To Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel’s attempts to find truth in history is faulty because faith is just now found in science and reasoning rather than religion. What Kant and Hegel fail to realize is that the human race’s separation from this faith gave rise to “our new ‘infinite’”, in which “the world has become ‘infinite’ for [humanity] all over again, inasmuch as we cannot reject the possibility that it may include infinite interpretations” (Nietzsche 336). Thus the new infinite is self-consciously made by the individual members of humanity itself, as we can now independently interpret the world ourselves as we see fit. Nietzsche declares that even if some of these interpretations may include “too much devilry, stupidity and foolishness”, it does not matter because it does not rely on faith (Nietzsche 336). The new infinite that arises is ours, in which the abundance of perspectives is too overwhelming for any scholar to give meaning to such chaos. There is no logical reason how such disorder should

In his book, Twilight of the Idols, Friedrich Nietzsche aggressively challenges conventional schools of thought dating back to the ancients. Philosophy, as we know it, began over two-thousand years ago in Athens with the birth of Socrates. Socrates introduced the practice of reasoning and dialectics—the art of discourse hoping to bring individuals closer to some universal truth—to an Athenian society that previously held aesthetics, not logic, as indicative of goodness. Socrates revolutionized life in Athens, and by extension, the Western tradition. His beliefs are found in works written centuries after his death. He is heralded as the “father of philosophy.”

Progress is complacency. Mankind lazes around in the incandescent knowledge of ostensible progress, illiterate in the true nature of man. Progress is movement towards a destination, not a destination in and of itself. Presently, our world has progressed only marginally since the 19th century, when the world of enlightened thinkers shifted away from Nihilism towards Modernism. Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the seminal thinkers of the era, rejected nihilism and the essence of life. For Nietzsche, “we are simply random gatherings of molecules that cohere and experience consciousness for a short time before dissolving again into nothingness” (Backman, 860). An assorted collection of Nietzsche’s texts, including The Gay Science and ‘Good and Evil,’ ‘Good and Bad,’ suggest that Nietzsche would be inordinately condemnatory of the present state of the West, incredulous to the false notion– myth¬– of progress. Undergirded by democracy, “a political system that gives fools an equal share of influence” (Backman, 861) Nietzsche would argue that Western society has eschewed

In this Commentary of sections 1-7 of essay two in Friedrich Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals, I will give a brief overview of the text, to help with showing the content that the comment covers, the go deeper into the individual sections and relate them to Nietzsche’s way of thinking and also look into any problems or solutions offered by those arguments.

In his second essay of the Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche attempts to identify and explain the origin of the conscience. He does not adopt the view of the conscience that is accepted by the “English Psychologists”, such as Bentham, J. Mill, J.S. Mill and Hume, as the result of an innate moral feeling. Rather, it is his belief that the moral content of our conscience is formed during childhood under the influence of society. Nietzsche defines the conscience as an introspective phenomenon brought about by a feeling of responsibility, in which one analyzes their own morality due to the internalization of the values of society. This definition holds the position that the conscience is not something innate to

In Nietzsche’s aphorisms 90-95 and 146-162 he attacks what he believes to be the fundamental basis of the “slave” morality prevalent in the Judeo-Christian tradition as well as other religions and societies. From the beginning, he distinguishes the two different types of moralities he believes to exist: the “master morality”, created by rulers of societies, and the “slave” morality, created by the lowest people in societies. The former stresses virtues of the strong and noble while looking down upon the weak and cowardly. This type of morality, however, is not as widespread as the “slave morality” that has been adopted by so many religions. Nietzsche looks through the psychology and logic of

argues that there is no objective truth because of perspective. First, this means that people can only interpret what they think is wrong, right, good and bad only because of their own different perspectives on the issue. Nietzsche starts explaining his argument by claiming only a person can see his or her own truth through their own personal perspectives. For instance,

On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche is typically listed as one of the most important philosophical works of the modern era. It is only modern, of course, to philosophical standards, being a mere 129 years old. It is also one of the most controversial works of its time, having the dubious distinction of being connected to Nazi ideology; it also has a not very subtle racist, sexist, and Darwinist bent that is a reflection of Nietzsche himself. That being said, I think that it is also serially misunderstood. Nietzsche directly mentions the role of interpretation in ethical discourse in the Genealogy, and the interpretive element factors heavily into one’s understanding of the polemic and by extension, ethics philosophy as a whole. Throughout the book, Nietzsche uses interpretation as a tool in itself to make a constructivist and existentialist argument about the history of ethics as whole. His idea that man has used interpretation throughout history, and the interpretive elements in Genealogy outside of the historical analysis, seem to say that almost all ethics are derived from interpretation and therefore constructivist in nature, which is a heavily existentialist argument. For example, the entirety of the first essay is based heavily upon the role of interpretation in the development of the early ethical systems that Nietzsche argues are built on the

Nietzsche’s claim alludes to the dogmatic claims of Metaphysicians about the truth _ i.e., their way of dealing with truth in the absolute sense. This claim seems similar, from an epistemological perspective, to Kant’s that there is a distinction between appearances and the thing in itself. This latter “ is not and cannot be cognized through them, [ representations ] ” ( Banham : 270 ) and all we can know are the appearances _ which are mere representations _ “ which, as they are represented, as extended beings or series of alterations, have outside our thoughts no existence grounded in

Purpose: The purpose of the article is to inform its readers about the fundamentals, cultural influence, and overall global impact of Nietzsche's philosophy. It summarizes Nietzsche's stances on various topics including politics and religion.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher and held in regard amongst the greatest philosophers of the early part century. He sharpened his philosophical skills through reading the works of the earlier philosophers of the 18th century such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer and African Spir; however, their works and beliefs were opposite to his own. His primary mentor was Author Schopenhauer, whose belief was that reality was built on the foundation of experience. Such as it is, one of his essays, Schopenhauer als Erzieher, published in 1874, was dedicated to Schopenhauer (Mencken, 2008). In the past two centuries, his work has had authority and influence in both

With this said, Nietzsche would not agree with Craig. His idea on perspectivism also shows that he would not agree. One idea is the real verse the apparent world, which he states that language and grammar tricks us to imagine there is an "essence" for what makes up the things we see. For example the idea that "lightening flashes" is false because in reality the lightening is the flash. He would use this in his argument towards the existence of moral values and God because not everyone sees things the same way. Nietzsche's examples show that he does not believe in moral values and does not believe in God. Craig argues back with Nietzsche's idea that proclaimed that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life. In William's excerpt he says that Nietzsche is right but we've got to be careful because the question is not "must we believe in God in order to live a moral life?" Craig doesn't believe that we do. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? Because he does believe that you can recognize them. Rather, the question is: If God does not exist, do objective morals exist? Craig proves that they do by explaining that actions such as rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially acceptable behavior. And that they are moral abominations and that there are some things that are really wrong and everyone knows it. Craig also says in his excerpt that even