Nietzsche: Uses And Disadvantages Of History For Life

This paper deals with ways history can be interpreted and influences different interpretations have on society and individuals. This is explored through

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.

Without a knowledge of history how would someone know that the tradition of having a Christmas tree is thought to come from Pagans in Germany. Or that Christianity dates back to the 1st. century A.D. Many people do not believe that learning these things is useful, that knowing where traditions and beliefs come from is useless. Henry Ford famously said “History is bunk”. This could not be more wrong. Humans want to know why they do things, and looking into the past gives us these answers. Although is has been said time and time again that history will repeat itself, many people still do not know the full effect it could have. It is very unlikely to know that communism does not work in large numbers without studying where it began, and that it did not work. One to the simplest ways to solve problems is to find out where they began, and studying history provides information from as early as before man, to the more recent events in world

In the essay Haunted America, Patricia Nelson Limerick ponders whether or not there is any benefit for society to have historical knowledge. Limerick contradicts herself numerous times in her opinion on the usefulness of history. She implies that there are many lessons that can be learned from history. However, Limerick is disappointed in the human race because it fails to learn from the mistakes of others. She therefore wonders, "What do we gain besides a revival and restoration of the misery?" (Limerick, 473). Based on Limerick's examination of people and history, one can conclude that objectively history is useless, however, theoretically, people would be much better off if they learned from the lessons that the past presents.

To know the past is to know the future. In his essay Knowing History and Knowing Who We Are, David McCullough argues about the importance of studying and teaching history. In his essay, he explains that there are three main points about history: character and its effect upon destiny, our failure of teaching the future generation, and the importance of learning and listening to history. David McCullough strongly advocates that audience should start to listen to and teach about the past in order to learn about the way a person’s character can affect their destiny.

The article “History Still Matters” by Bill Moyers expresses some important concerns in our societies over the loss of interest in history. Throughout the article Moyers explains the loss of interest but also shows the reader the subject is crucial for societies to progress. He uses deeper meanings to further understand the importance of history as well as expressing the reasons he thinks cultures have lost interest past events. The author also mentions that although people find no relations to history in today’s world, there are conflicts that can resemble current problems. It is also imperative to realize history has assembled our concurrent world. For those reasons we can have our own outlook and interpretations of history to further understand the progression and stage we are currently in.

History is the totality of all past human events, and historiography is the written record of what is known about our lives and societies. In the recent past, history lessons were meant to convey a certain patriotism or to turn an immigrant into a “true American,” but today too many historians are using historical analysis for political purposes. This probably dates to the tumultuous times of the 1960s. Gordon Wood offers a prescription for the proper use of history. Shunning the ideologues of today, he believes historians should “seek to study past events not to make trans-historical generalizations about human behavior but to understand those events as they actually were, in all their peculiar contexts and circumstances.”

The past, For Nietzsche, has to be forgotten because it upsets the peace of a future moment.

“One is astonished in the study of history at the recurrence of the idea that evil must be forgotten, distorted, skimmed over. The difficulty, of course, with this philosophy is that history loses its value as an incentive and example; it paints perfect men and noble nations, but it does not tell the truth.”

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.

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.

The commonly read first essay sees Nietzsche present an opposition between the “master” morality and that of the “slave”. By “tracing” the etymological grounds of the German words schlect (“bad”), gut (good), and bose (evil), Nietzsche forwards the proposition that a distinction between good and bad was born from

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

The fact that he gave up and refused to fight back gives room for more findings. He disagrees with the Christian community for making Jesus a martyr and sees that in so doing, they had made the Christ teachings vague. Nietzsche wrote his works in the process of rebuilding the damage caused by Christians during the ancient days. His inclination was to show the true way in which God wanted human beings to live as opposed to what Christians were doing.

What is History? This is the question posed by historian E.H. Carr in his study of historiography. Carr debates the ongoing argument which historians have challenged for years, on the possibility that history could be neutral. In his book he discusses the link between historical facts and the historians themselves. Carr argues that history cannot be objective or unbiased, as for it to become history, knowledge of the past has been processed by the historian through interpretation and evaluation. He argues that it is the necessary interpretations which mean personal biases whether intentional or not, define what we see as history. A main point of the chapter is that historians select the facts they think are significant which ultimately