Nietzsche Free Will To Power Analysis

In the novel Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton, Ethan Frome conflicts with fate and free will. His fate being with his lifelong wife Zeena and him staying on the farm. His newfound free will being Mattie, Zeena's cousin.

     Personal power has the ability to be essential to greatness, and at the same time is able to destroy a person’s nature. In the drama Macbeth by William Shakespeare, the main character, Macbeth, becomes corrupt through power that he gains. The play shows that even someone who starts out like Macbeth and does not crave power, will do terrible things to gain authority and power.

Abraham Lincoln once stated, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." The quote from the 16th president of the United States can be interpreted that power will display someone's true character by seeing what that person will do with that power that they have been given. People will follow orders blindly just to feel powerful or superior than others, they will do unthinkable things to people just to have the feeling of power. For example, Hitler wanted to have a superior race, so the Nazi soldiers were seen as the superior race; therefore, the soldiers felt superior

“the body” in a few ambiguous ways. So, why does he use “the body” so

“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

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.

While Nietzsche’s standpoint of the master morality can be viewed in the lifestyle of people today, it is not a morality that need be accepted or strived for as a sense of power or accomplishment in life. The Bible teaches that as we lose our live for Jesus we will find it (Matthew 10:39). Submitting to God is not an act of weakness, rather an honor and gain as we lose ourselves in Him and find our true selves. The Bible says that we were made in God’s image and likeness, and we were given dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). Nietzsche’s master morality appears to be just that, an attempt to gain dominion. Since Nietzsche did not believe in God, which is the way to salvation and eternal life (Romans 10:9), it is safe to assume that he was serving the god of this world and his ways, which have always been to try to copy or be like God (Isaiah 14:13-14). Nietzsche had knowledge about God but decided to turn away from him. Because of this, Romans 1:28 -29 shows that he, among other things would be arrogant, boastful heartless, and invent ways of doing evil, which to me is exactly what his whole master-slave morality portrays. Had Nietzsche just turned from his wicked ways and submitted to the One and only true God, he would have found the peace, love, and true authority with out death.

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

Generally, God is known to be all good, to have complete control and power, and to be loving. Although, how come there is evil in the world with such an angelic God?  If God cares and loves us- wouldnt he prevent the suffering if he could? Since he is all powerful, he should be able to eliminate the suffering that evil brings. It seems we only have two potential answers: either God is not loving and all powerful, or God does not exist. Although, I am going to try to give an alternative answer and possibly explain how God could coexist with evil.

He believes that good and evil comes from people’s nature, especially when it

The generalized western opinion of the body is that it is akin to an object. Like a car the body is composed of several diverse aspects. From a medical

In his Discourse on Method, Rene Descartes offers the above proposition, in response to the radical doubt (Discourse on Method 15)This implies that, even the human ability to doubt one’s existence is proof that humans are thinking beings, and therefore must exist in the universe, despite all else. Nietzsche has written in contrast to this statement, discussing the contradictions and assumptions surrounding the proposition. Stemming from this initial premise, both Descartes and Nietzsche go on to discuss the mind/body problem. Descartes argues for the separation of mind and body, while Nietzsche offers a premise based on a deep connection between the two. I seek to compare the writings of both philosophers, and explore holes in judgment and scope on the part of Descartes, and prove as to why Nietzsche’s discussions are superior of the two.

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

When Medea kills her children, audiences react with shock and horror. Any sympathy viewers have built for the woman is, in the words of Elizabeth Vandiver, “undercut” by this act (15). Since Medea is the protagonist, we question why Euripides chose to make her a child murderer. Most scholars agree that he invented this part of the myth. He also lessened her role as witch by drawing attention to her human qualities. This only highlights the infanticide (14) because we cannot excuse her ruthless act as monstrous and non-human. However, Medea remains very human until after she kills her sons. Appearing at the end of the play in the deus ex machina, she takes over not only the position but also the

body, the mind and the soul. The body is the physical part of the body