Nietzsche's Beyond Good And Evil

Literary Essay - Unveiling the dynamics of power within the individual: through the texts The Crucible and Cleverman Power is a multifaceted concept which is intricately intertwined with individuality, where the unique qualities of each person wield the potential to influence, change, and shape society through their actions and beliefs. As Friedrich Nietzsche famously articulated, "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you. " This quote encapsulates the precarious nature of power, warning against the inherent dangers of its pursuit. It is particularly telling of modern society, as it reflects the constant struggle individuals face

“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

According to Nietzsche, the right and wrong (good and bad, good and EVIL) are just a type of the concept. Nietzsche explains that from the beginning in his first argument that the “good” did not originate among those to whom goodness was shown. It explains that the trait of “good” was really a trait as we know it today, it was actually people who were good themselves, which is Aristocratic who are powerful, high minded and high class people who controls the class below them and also politics in some cases. This was the concept that defined what right and wrongs were because it cleared things out that good was really a trait but the people who were powerful and high class in society, unlike bad which was completely opposite. But over the time

These two structures are controlled by different intangible themes. The first is ‘good/bad’ in terms of master morality and the second is ‘evil/good’ in terms of the slave morality. Noble classes and races, according to Nietzsche, started by defining their actions, themselves and their way of life as ‘good’, while ‘bad’ simply referred to anything that was not noble – “everything lowly, low-minded, common and plebeian” (OGM, Sec. I.2). In contrast, the morality of slaves discusses a position of weakness rather than strength. It starts by redefining the masters’ values as ‘evil’, while ‘good’ refers to anything opposed to that of ‘evil’. Unable to create their own original values, the slaves instead invert the values of their masters. This makes the master morality affirmative and favorable, while the slave morality is reactant and adverse. Deleuze, in an interpretation of Nietzsche, summarizes these two positions as a constrasting formula: where the master’s saying is “I am good, so that means you are bad”, while the slave’s logic is that of ‘ressentiment’: “You are evil, so that means I am good.”

History is brimming with examples of people who, in a ravenous quest for power, have met their untimely end. Lord John Acton famously quipped: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Perhaps, prior to making those astute remarks, Lord Acton had studied The Tragedy of Macbeth. The complex characters and their interactions in William Shakespeare’s iconic play reveal that corrupting force power can have on man.

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.

Power as a corrupting force has been present from the beginning of time and is often revealed in many works of literature. In the novel Frankenstein by Marry Shelly and Macbeth by William Shakespeare, corruption of power is well brought forth in the characters in both texts. In both stories, characters reveal power as a corrupting force through their thirst of knowledge. Characters also reveal power as a corrupting force through character change. In addition, the character’s action justify how corrupted they really are. Therefore, power corrupts the individuals because of character’s extreme ambition which leads to

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.

For Nietzsche, “the slave revolt in morality begins when ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values: the ressentiment of natures that are denied the true reaction, that of deeds, and compensate themselves with an imaginary revenge.” (Nietzsche 913). This imaginary revenge causes the complete reversal in defining words of class. The resentful slaves and priests looked up at the nobility with anger, characterizing them as selfish, corrupted, abusive and tyrannical, among other things. Ultimately, they came to the conclusion that the nobility were the pinnacle of evil. In doing so, “he has conceived ‘the evil enemy,’ ‘the Evil One,’ and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a ‘good one’—himself!” (Nietzsche 915). Through the venomous eye of ressentiment, the slave class has characterized the good men, those with strong moral character as evil, and in doing so, has

Fredrick Nietzsche, a renowned German philosopher, believed that one of the strongest governing drives that humans possess, is their desire for power. Essentially when we closely examine the idea of power in literature, we see that much of the conflict in novels is about power; the struggle to gain, maintain or redress the balance of power. The need for power is a reality of life; to use or abuse, to claim or deny, own or disown, to marginalize or empower. This theme is omnipresent throughout literature about the Holocaust. Hitler and his struggle for power and dominance are infamous. Novels and films set in World War II often examine the issues of power in terms of race, age, gender and social class. One such novel is The Boy in the

wickedness, according to its biblical meaning, refers to the mental disregard for justice, trust, honour, and the evil in thought and in purpose. It will be argued here that The Prince is not a handbook for wickedness as some such as Strauss might think, but on the other hand that The Prince is a guide for efficient ruling. Indeed, in The Prince Machiavelli shows political

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.

Nietzsche does not dispute the influence that Socrates has imposed on the world. Rather, Nietzsche disputes the philosophy that he has imposed on the world, believing it to be detrimental to humankind. In this paper, I argue that Nietzsche finds Socrates and his philosophy to be life-negating and causal of decline, while any form of existence should be life-affirming and empowering, though such a form has yet to exist in the modern era. In order to prove this, I will first examine his critique of Socrates, demonstrating that Socrates, as an individual, belonged to the lowest level of society in Athens as a consequence of his repulsive figure, and therefore, created his philosophy not with the intent of enlightenment, but as a ressentiment (i.e. resentment) towards the Athenian aristocracy. Second, I will examine

It does not find its root and origin in objective circumstances; it originates from a place of suppression, of seeking freedom, and most significantly, of ressentiment. Herein the idea Nietzsche proposes is that the slaves are responsive against their noble masters because they are weak and impotent, leading to the festering of hatred and resentment. This means that values culminating from the revolt would be inaccurate in representing the true meaning of “good” or “evil”, because they were formed through the tainted lens of the slaves of ressentiment. They would portray the slaves, the weak, and the powerless as “good” and favourable, while casting the nobles, the masters, and the upperclassmen in an “evil” and malicious light. This inverts the original notion that the nobles are the definition of “good”. Nietzsche expounds this situation by clarifying that the nobles become “blond beast[s]” (Nietzsche, page 128) when out of their familiar circumstances, insinuating that they turn into a barbaric state where they seek victory over those who are inferior to them. In turn, displays of brutality will be expressed, as a by-product of this barbarism and therefore, fulfilling the morality of the nobles as “evil”. Nietzsche also expresses that this form of morality may not always be beneficial; it cages the

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?