Critical Analysis Of Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil

According to Nietzsche, the right and wrong (good and bad, good and EVIL) are just a type of the concept. Nietzsche explains that from the beginning in his first argument that the “good” did not originate among those to whom goodness was shown. It explains that the trait of “good” was really a trait as we know it today, it was actually people who were good themselves, which is Aristocratic who are powerful, high minded and high class people who controls the class below them and also politics in some cases. This was the concept that defined what right and wrongs were because it cleared things out that good was really a trait but the people who were powerful and high class in society, unlike bad which was completely opposite. But over the time

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.

He proposes that all social contracts are based on the first masters, who had the power and stability to make promises that could be kept. In this early time Nietzsche explains, when a punishment is served, the creditor would be the one to dole punishment to the debtor. This idea of the social debt also mirrors Freud’s hypothesis of guilt as Nietzsche explains the similarity between the two words in German. Anyhow, Nietzsche claims that the current morality has reached a point of exhaustion. Mainly in the way punishment was valued. Whereas in the ancient system a punishment was the debt owed by the debtor, it had been transfigured into a different form entirely. The judicial system system imposing interpretations on actions doesn’t translate into different thinking by the actions, due to the growing stability of society as it advances. In other words, the negative consequences of an unlawful act would no longer threaten the integrity of the society, and thus would no longer necessitate a similar punishment. As the treat moves away from the victim and to justice in itself, punishment no longer induces a sense of guilt, but rather misfortune that one was caught. He doesn’t find the

As Nietzsche points out, within society there is a tendency to conflate religious standards with morality. In fact, it is difficult to discuss morality at all without running into issues that appear to be religious by their nature, but which, upon reflection, do not need to be put under that blanket. According to Nietzsche, we tend to mix religion and morality together because that is how we developed morality from the beginning of humanity. In fact, “Nietzsche believes that all

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

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

Quite possibly the most poignant and eye-opening relationship of the entire play of Hamlet and his mother, becomes sabotaged by Hamlet internalizing Catholic driven dogma. People often resort to using religion as a moral compass to give their lives structure and personal guidance. Friedrich Nietzsche, a prominent figure associated with the existential movement states in his book, Beyond Good and Evil, that “Perhaps one the most solemn concepts which have occasioned the most strife and suffering, the concepts ‘God’ and ‘sin’, will one day seem to us of no more importance than a child’s toy and a child’s troubles” (82). Clearly, Nietzsche actively rejects the concept of committing sins, which is the binding force in most religions. To begin,

“As soon as a religion comes to dominate it has as its opponents all those who would have been its first disciples.” Nietzsche was one of the first modern philosophers to rebel against rationalism and when World War I came about, the revolution against religion truly became a legitimate statement. Friedrich Nietzsche strongly believed that many of those that practiced religion were led to the acceptance of slave morality. Religion had always played a fundamental role in society as it sets strict boundaries and standards of what is morally correct and incorrect. However, Nietzsche claims that, “Human nature is always driven by “ ‘the will to power’ ”, but religion will tell one otherwise, saying that one should forbid their bad desires. In Nietzsche’s

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.

This distinction between meaning and act not only applies to punishment, but to almost all moral concepts. For example, the act of harming a person whether it is for the purpose of self-preservation, or to exercise power over another, is still the same act. The difference lies in the will of the person who is performing or interpreting the act. The will to power, which Nietzsche identifies as an instinct for freedom, is the drive to avoid being dominated by another. Man is forced to subdue this instinct, as well as other instincts and drives in order to participate in modern society.

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

In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche emphasizes that the Christian Church is a false idol. He dares to say, “..God to be an enemy of life..” and, “Life ends where the ‘kingdom of God’ begins..” because he believes that Christian morality is against life itself (Idols, 23). The reason for this is because Nietzsche believes that, “to have to fight against the instincts- this is the formula for decadence: so long as the life is ascendant, happiness equals instinct” which simply means that if one goes against instincts, or an intuitive way of carrying ones life, then as a consequence it will lead to the degeneration of society and intellect while if life is on the rise, happiness must be equivalent to following ones’ instinct (Idols, 15). Because of his belief it is understood that Nietzsche wants one to embrace their instincts. Nietzsche states that a life in which

Plato and Nietzsche seem to have irreconcilable ideas on truth, value and philosophy, with Plato’s “invention of pure spirit and the Good in itself” (Nietzsche 4) and Nietzsche’s idea that most philosophers, including Plato, are simply dogmatists. However, after evaluating and comparing both Nietzsche’s “Beyond Good and Evil” and Plato’s Five Dialogues, it is clear that this polarity of ideas is a misconception. Nietzsche’s opinion on Plato and his idea on truth is both ambivalent and nuanced, and by comparing both approaches to the question of truth, there is a shared perspective on the nature of philosophy and its possibilities.

We have grown weary of man. Nietzsche wants something better, to believe in human ability once again. Nietzsche’s weariness is based almost entirely in the culmination of ressentiment, the dissolution of Nietzsche’s concept of morality and the prevailing priestly morality. Nietzsche wants to move beyond simple concepts of good and evil, abandon the assessment of individuals through ressentiment, and restore men to their former wonderful ability.

3). In his most basic claims, Nietzsche implicitly negates the possibility of a “disinterested” or “objective” truth. He would not urge so definitively for an affirmation of reality, if he held out for the possibility of fantasy or god. The ‘innocence of becoming’ is a clear example of how Nietzsche, for all intents and purposes, “debunk[‘s]” the relevance of claims made by traditional authorities. In essence, Nietzsche basically nullifies the relevance of societal hierarchy. Not only this, but the further claims made by such a society regarding morality and philosophical thinking, are seen to be – at best – gullible and naïve. The ‘innocence of becoming’ refers to even the lowest classes of society finding power in their status. In lieu of accepting that we are completely alone in the world, Nietzsche asserts that we have a constant need to blame others for our state. It is simply much easier to do than to accept that everything we do has no genuine or reaching consequences. While the ‘innocence of becoming’ is not necessarily an innocent process as those we choose to blame are usually blameless, it is fair to say that we are innocent of it; much like the ‘will to power’ it also works through self-deception. Evidently we are able to commit to life affirmation by essentially taking no responsibility for our weakness. Christianity itself is closely connected with the ‘becoming’ process as in its