Friedrich Nietzsche And William James

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).

Friedrich Nietzsche’s own skepticism symbolized the secular changes in contemporary Western civilization, in which he details mankind’s break away from faith into a new rule of chaos. In Book 5 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche establishes that “God is dead”, meaning that modern Europe has abandoned religion in favor of rationality and science (Nietzsche 279). From this death, the birth of a ‘new’ infinite blossoms in which the world is open to an unlimited amount of interpretations that do not rely on the solid foundations of faith in religion or science. However, in contrast to the other philosophers of his age such as Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Nietzsche deviates from the omniscient determinism of history towards a

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.

Nietzsche writes a scathing critique of religious morality when he writes, “This workshop where ideals are manufactured－ it seems to me to stink of so many lies” (136). The workshop of lies is reference to organized religions that the interpret the biblical morals and feed them to the congregation. It is not the average religious believer that interprets and decides what morality is. It is the heads of each church, the religious experts that deliberate and decide what morality their denomination will believe. And thus this restricts the control one has over their own morality, but also the freedom one has over their actions.

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.”

Nietzsche's madman allegory represents the current moral situation of society during his time--a growing belief that God does not exist, a movement away from religious values. Nietzsche does not mean literally that God has been murdered, but because mankind created God, we also have the ability to kill God. In Nietzsche’s point of view, mankind created God by also creating a belief in God. By saying that mankind ‘murdered’ God, Nietzsche is proposing that we no longer believe in Him. With the grounding that religion provided in the past, Nietzsche fears that mankind will be left without purpose and virtues to lead them to do the correct thing. The ‘light,’ in Nietzsche’s allegory is belief in God; for this paper, light is a focus because of the implications that follow when there is none. With no light, everything previously known about moral beliefs and the world is overturned. Nietzsche proposes that instead of God guiding people (because people no longer believe in Him), people can follow their own virtues, such as courage, faith in oneself, and patience for the future.

“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

Ever since the inception of his writings, Nietzsche has been pointed to and predominately described as an atheist, however within the work, Beyond Good and Evil, it is revealed otherwise. Nietzsche considers several different roles for religion in past, present, and future polities. The roles that religion play within Nietzsche’s vision of a future creation and establishment of world-affirming values is dependent upon the class of the individual. It is found in the various sections of The religious character within Beyond Good and Evil, that religion can be utilized by different classes of people for different world affirmations. The high ranking officials are able to use religion as a tool to relate and control their subjects, while the middle

The question of what may result from the fostering of critical, individual thought may have never even risen let alone remain unanswered if not for the consideration of some of the world’s greatest minds. Rigorously questioning the objectivity and truth of values whilst preserving a focus on the impacts of religion and morality on contemporary culture, Friedrich Nietzsche was, and remains to be, one of the most notably influential figures within the domain of 19th century philosophy. Upon viewing a number of citizens who were adopting a pessimistic and distrustful standpoint against the societal values of the time, Nietzsche came to the belief that the system of morals which had been lived by were no longer resonating with the maturing populace and that God was effectively useless; it is for this reason that Nietzsche announces the “Death of God”. Though a particular brand of nihilist may have viewed this passing as a detriment to the social cohesion of the populace due to an absence of any universal, absolute values - once attributed to God - Nietzsche proposed that this was not necessarily the case. Instead,

In my opinion, some of the essential idea in Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” is his search for the truth. He believed everyone had the ability to explore truth in their own specific way. In Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” he also believes that self – preservation is not the main ambition of human beings but the fundamental creative force that motivates all creations is the “will to power”(122). Furthermore, Friedrich Nietzsche did not believe in the existence of God, to him, God was dead. God plays no vital role in our culture- except as a protector of the slaves morality, including the idea of equal worth of all persons (122).

Humanity, according to Nietzsche, is infected by an illness. It is the kind of illness that has infected every single man, religious or non-religious alike. It is his aim to release his readers from the illness. In much the same way as a doctor, he wishes to do so by primarily sourcing the cause of the illness, and secondly by diagnosing it. It is Nietzsche’s belief that this metaphoric illness is morality.

As of 2013, fifty-four percent of Americans still had a belief in God, although in some other minorities, that number was larger (Gallup). Despite this, there was a time when some of the greatest minds of the time felt as if God had no modern purpose in human’s lives. One such example of this was that of Friedrich Nietzsche, who went down in history as the man who declared God “dead”. Though this might seem like a hypothetical call to atheism, he was instead showing how the people of the world had come to outgrow a need for God with the coming of the renaissance (Lawhead 454). However, the contradictions found within Nietzsche’s argument

Although the problem of the relationship between Nietzsche and metaphysics might seem to be a settled issue, this is in fact a quite complicated and fascinating problematic. The difficulty with this subject lies in the often unacknowledged ambiguity that the term ‘metaphysics’ exhibits in Nietzsche's writing, as this word assumes different nuances and connotations in different contexts. Therefore, if we can get past the usual rhetoric on the topic, we come to realize that Nietzsche addresses the topic of metaphysics in at least two distinct ways.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are both considered to be the top existentialists for solely different reasons, as well as being very different from each other. They have different philosophies when it comes to their thoughts on religion and it is important to see exactly how they line up in this regard. The best way to do this is to start from the beginning of each’s work, their history and how they grew into their respective roles in their fields. It is also important to note exactly what existentialism is. It is the theory of exercising the idea that the individual has the freedom and free will to develop their own path and existence in a responsible manner. It is a very interesting subject that is debated on the concepts of thinking in absolutes. The need to compare and contrast these two is a volatile understanding of this particular philosophical theory. It is also important to review their thoughts and critique them in the sense of saying what makes sense, and what does not make sense.

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