Genealogy Of Morals By Nietzsche

Nietzsche also goes back and forth about inflicting pain and cruelty to enable one to see reason more clearly and whether or not public spectacles of pain are beneficial or a further cause of ressentiment. Many of his ideas seem rather drastic but he changes his mind about some of them as he continues to spill his thoughts on paper as they go through his mind.

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).

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.

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

Exegesis and Critique of Nietzsche’s Conception of Guilt In The Second Essay of On the Genealogy of Morality

One of the nineteenth century’s greatest philosophers is Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche was ideas regarding morality and nature continue to be debated today. Irish Murdoch another great philosopher writer of the 20th century wrote about philosophy regarding religion and nature. Both philosophers discuss the theme of morality in contrasting ways. Nietzsche believes in individual morality from the natural perspective and religion not from nature. Murdoch argues that morality comes from religion itself.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s book “On the Genealogy of Morals” critiques and examines the origin of human morals. Nietzsche presents numerous strong arguments in this book against society 's moral implications, however, it is his concepts of slave and master morality which are seen repeatedly. These two concepts of master and slave morality are particularly evident in the movie Fight Club. Although Fight Club is a modern-day movie, its storyline and subject matter reveals that it was heavily influence by Nietzsche’s concept of slave and master morality.

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

Humanity’s natural aggression means that civilization is “constantly threatened with disintegration” and it must make every effort to ensure these urges are curbed, in order for its continued existence. He continues in this vein, by stating that, in order for people to “forgo the satisfaction of their tendency to aggression” civilization encourages us to form into groups, however for this to work their must continue to be “outsiders,” that the aggression can be turned towards. This is in accordance with On the Genealogy of Morals, where it is the Slaves ascetic nature that forces them to also control their instincts. Likewise, both Freud and Nietzsche assert that these restrictions cause people to internalise their aggressions, turning inward.

Postmodern epistemology denies the presence of a binary relationship between good and evil. Due to the lack of an absolute truth, good and bad must be relative. In “The Genealogy of Morals: Good and Evil,' 'Good and Bad’", Nietzsche compares what he calls a slave morality, with an apposing master morality. Master morality is the philosophy of the strong and healthy free people, who see their own happiness as good, while seeing those who are weak, unhealthy or enslaved as "bad," because of their deficiencies. On the other hand, oppressed slaves, called those who ruled "evil," and themselves "good". The words evil and good in affect are employed in order to frame a social hierarchy that distinguished the powerful and the weak in a way that could

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

Friedrich Nietzsche, in the Genealogy of Morality, dedicates his second essay to prove that justice, is ultimately a version of the equalization of suffering, in terms of the creditor/debtor relationship. Through the course of this paper, I will discuss whether Nietzsche’s belief of justice being a form of the equalization of suffering is sound. My argument will be presented in three phases: I will first provide background information in reference to the creditor/debtor relationship, I will then elucidate what Nietzsche means by his belief, and lastly, I will explain and evaluate Nietzsche’s concept of justice and the equalization of suffering.

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.

Alain de Botton's "The Consolations of Philosophy" addresses essential chapters in the field of philosophy and the last chapter is focused on providing Nietzsche's view on human pain as an important concept in people's lives. The German philosopher believed that society had a flawed understanding of ideas like suffering and failure. From his perspective, individuals failed to understand the complexity of suffering and embrace it in order for them to be able to succeed. Considering Nietzsche's theory, great people only become great as a result of overcoming their problems and refraining from spending most of their time trying to appreciate simple pleasures in life.

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