Essay about Dostoevsky and Nietzsche's Overman

Throughout his writings, Nietzsche aims to inform his readers that we as humans can only reach our potential by following our passions and ignoring the flawed ideals of the church. Under the doctrine of the church’s morality, innate passions of its followers must be abolished in order to become proper Christians. By destroying the inner passions of its followers, the church is doing a great disfavor by using morality to rule out nature from their lives.

In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Rakitin responds to a central question throughout the novel, “What is permitted?” when he proudly states to Dmitry that “An intelligent man can do anything he likes as long as he’s clever enough to get away with it” (788). While Rakitin has found his answer to this question, multiple characters in the novel are still stuck on that question. Throughout the novel, Dostoevsky seems to separate these characters into two groups: the characters like Dmitry who wonder if all actions are permitted and the characters like Ivan who wonder if all thoughts are permitted. These groups seem completely separate until Book 10 when a boy named Koyla Krasotkin comes onto the scene who seems to be in both groups at once as he tests for himself exactly what thoughts and actions are permitted. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoevsky uses Book 10 and Kolya to introduce the idea that the “free thinkers” and the “free doers” are one in the same in that they are wondering who will punish those who go beyond “what is permitted” and by extension sets up an argument between moral and legal punishment throughout the rest of the novel.

There is only a strong man in his eyes that the society has progressed from. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche says that to keep our society, only powerful people should join together because respecting the weak causes the powerful to become weak, and will result in a weak society. In order to live, the strong crushes the weak to stay dominant because in history the strong are the ones that always win. One of Nietzsche moralities was slave, which was the term that identified the weak individuals. In Nietzsche eyes, people with power exploit the weak, and if the strong honors the weak then the strong will get weaker and destroy the society. Friedrich supported the master morality, stating that dominating people defines good in a person, and that you are masters of other people. He only helped others to better himself, not because he has sympathy on the weak. Nietzsche is just making claims and giving no proof. He assumes the strong makes a better society. He wanted us to look to the past and see the strong always win, and we should not look at the future, at things that will destroy society. Nietzsche believed, only show respect to the strong. He contradicts himself saying there are no standards but creates standards by saying, strong should get their way. He has no logic, just

Friedrich Nietzsche’s On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense represents a deconstruction of the modern epistemological project. Instead of seeking for truth, he suggests that the ultimate truth is that we have to live without such truth, and without a sense of longing for that truth. This revolutionary work of his is divided into two main sections. The first part deals with the question on what is truth? Here he discusses the implication of language to our acquisition of knowledge. The second part deals with the dual nature of man, i.e. the rational and the intuitive. He establishes that neither rational nor intuitive man is ever successful in their pursuit of knowledge due

“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

The Ubermensche would be a race of humanity where man has overcome man, thus a new form of man superior to all prior being.

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

Nietzsche forces readers to cease to believe in the very thing that we base our reasoning on. Take our morality for instance, humans treat ‘morality’ like a sacred being, because we believe that there is a higher celestial being or a God. Humanity is being called into

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.

To this effect, I shall explore this text’s connections to Nietzsche's key intellectual influences. First, I shall address the impact of the Schopenhauerian view of the world on The Birth of Tragedy, in particular as regards the opposition between Apollo and Dionysus and the nature and goal of tragic art. Subsequently, I shall refer to the influence of Richard Wagner's thought in order to explore the relationship between metaphysics and art as humanity's "true metaphysical

In this paper, I plan to explain Dostoevsky’s criticism of Western Individualism. Dostoevsky’s first criticism resides in the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it, “which is presented by the character Alyosha (Dostoevsky 3). Allowing this character to discuss this topic, along with the commentary of Ivan, demonstrates their mindset to solely focus on their own lives, opposed to caring for others. This leads to them living for the now, and not focusing on how their decisions will affect their future or others. Dostoevsky disapproves of this notion because living by this mentality encourages the guidance of logic, which is dangerous because it could tell you to kill yourself. From Dostoevsky’s Eastern Orthodox background, he believes that the only way from living from this situation is to deny it. By denying this way of living, the focus toward life will not be directed toward yourself, but toward the way you can impact the environment around you. Ivan clearly does not believe in these values, due to his intentions to commit suicide at the age of thirty. As said before, living by the idea to “love life more than the meaning of it” leads to death, and Ivan indulges in this to the fullest (Dostoevsky 3).

“Nothing has ever been more insupportable for a man and a human society than freedom.” –The Grand Inquisitor” “Above all, don't lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect he ceases to love.” - Father Zosima. These two quotes voice the polarized philosophies that impregnate the book, The Brothers Karamazov. Ivan, the second of the three sons, and Zosima, the old monk, are huge commentators on the question, “Is the burden of free will to much for a human to bear?”

     Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “Dostoevsky, the only one who has taught me anything about psychology.” The two writers share many similarities and differences. Dostoevsky clearly had an effect on the thinking of Nietzsche. The two would be considered both philosophers and psychologists. Both writers became prominent in the late 19th century in Germany and Russia respectively. Dostoevsky was noted for his Russian literary classics and would be responsible for a flowering of late 19th century Russian literary culture. His Russian contemporaries include Leo Tostoy and Anton Chekov. Dostoevsky’s most famous works include The Brothers Karamozov, The Idiot, and Crime and Punishment.

Nietzsche shares a similar view of man. The important thing in man is his potential; man is striving but for something different, Ubermensch or superman. It represents man constantly striving to overcome himself and become a man whose values are independent from societal conceptions of good and evil. Ubermensch must be willing and able to reject what he is now to become something different and never become content with present values. Similar to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche sees life as a series of stages that take man from the herd to Ubermensch. The first step for man to achieve Ubermensch is to overcome a collective herd view of values because they are not bridges to Ubermensch. Once this herd is overcome, man can begin to concentrate on overcoming himself.

5. Discuss Nietzsche’s theory of “will to power” and “the innocence of becoming”. Does the hypothesis of the will to power successfully “debunk” traditional religion, morality, and philosophical claims to provide the “disinterested” or “objective” truth?