Nietzsche's Sacrifice

His notion of “life-affirmation,” which involves a candid questioning of all doctrines that conflict with life's vast vitalities, however socially prevalent those attitudes might be, is illustrated centrally throughout Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Ultimately, Nietzsche’s life ends after a mental breakdown in 1889 that left him cognitively catatonic until his death at the age of 56 in the year

Sacrifice in both Duncan Campbell Smith’s short story “Paul Farlotte” and in Franz Kafka’s novella “The Metamorphosis” is shown through the main characters who become Christ-like figures to save the people around them. Between these two stories, there are three different sacrifices that are given. Gregor Samsa sacrifices himself twice in “The Metamorphosis.” First, he sacrifices his human life by constantly working to pay off his family’s debt, and second, by dying to relieve his family of the burden of himself. In “Paul Farlotte”, the titular character constantly sacrifices his life’s dream for the St. Denis family and eventually totally surrenders this goal for their well-being. Although both characters’ sacrifices seem noble, only Paul Farlotte’s

“There is a degree of insomnia, of rumination, of historical sense, which is injures every living thing and finally destroys it, be it a man, a people or a culture.” (Nietzsche, 1980: 10)

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.

The theme that best fits the story is , sacrifice can mean the world. In the story 2BRO2B , the text states , “ ‘Thank you sir ,’ said the hostess. Your city thanks you; your country thanks you; your planet thanks you. But the deepest thanks of all is from future generations.’ ” this evidence shows that once a person kills themselves , the whole of planet earth would thank them and remember them for their good deeds , and not only that, it would let more lives live on earth. The text also states, “If you don’t want my lovin’, why should I take up all this space? I’ll get of this old planet, let some sweet baby have my place.” This text proves that the author uses this theme because in the story, letting yourself die for a child to live is

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

After connecting the passage to Nietzsche’s opinion of a fulfilled lifestyle, I believe that he would disagree with Smith’s way of living. The two have contrasting ideas, in which Nietzsche’s seems to be a more ethical one in the fullest sense.

In contemplating my own beliefs of what is sought as “good” and what is “bad,” I chose to expand my ideas and compare them to Friedrich Nietzsche’s first essay in “On the Genealogy of Morals.” Nietzsche first debunks the ideas of Nietzsche sees two types of morality at play creating these original definitions of good bad and evil, master morality and slave morality. I will also use Nietzsche’s concept of “will to power” to evaluate each of these ideas. Nietzsche believes that the will to power is the force that pushes humankind. To clarify for my readers, I’m looking to separate deontology from virtue ethics to improve my own understanding of good and bad not as what is right or wrong.

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.

“Suffering” is a word which carries negative connotations, used to incite pity, empathy or fear. Why would it not? Is suffering not simply agony, defined justly by the Oxford Dictionary as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship” (“Suffering)? Yet, we accept suffering as part of life, a fundamental aspect that defines living. Nietzsche tells us that the very act of living is suffering itself, but to survive is to find value in that suffering. Yet, what sort of value can be attached to an idea so negative? Pico Iyer’s editorial in the New York Times explores the value of suffering, likening suffering to passion and “[p]assion with the plight of other’s makes for ‘compassion’” (________________).I began to think upon the cohesive

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.

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.

In a herd of a people, no one is greater than anyone else. Nietzsche believes that our true instincts are our motives for action and if we ignore them then we are only conforming to a herd. It may be “awkward and difficult for the ear to hear something new; we are bad at listening to unfamiliar music”(81), but we should not be afraid to experience “more morality” (81). I believe that more morality means that morality needs to be expanded to a combination of ideas from the past, even if the go against the morals in place. Not everyone has the will to experience more morality; therefore, in Nietzsche’s society these people would fail because people are too afraid to adjust to something new. In the pre-moral period, they would be considered slaves because somebody must suffer for success to be achieved.

We have choices because, and to the extent that, we live freely. On the other hand, when attempting to control, we relinquish, or at the very least diminish, our freedom by making ourselves amenable to being controlled, which, consequently, limits our experience of life to circumstances and conditions that are not of our choosing. For that reason, the Science of Mind does not endorse techniques of physical or mental control, not even self-control. Instead, we strive for self-expression. And although Ernest Holmes often referred to "demonstrating a control of conditions", what he described was in fact the conscious act of embodying a new thought by "looking away from the conditions which now exist, while accepting better ones." [see Science of Mind, pg.

The prophet Zarathustra descended from the mountains after ten years of isolation. He has descended to teach the masses about the overman, and the belief system that accompanies him. Nietzsche, through Zarathustra, is offering a new value system to replace Christianity. This value system can be referred to as ‘Zarathustraism’. A vital part to embracing this value system is the deconstruction of Christianity. Man has redefined Christianity to better suit personal desire, and it has begun to fail as a result. Zarathustraism will teach Man to live in the light of the Overman, free of the negativity Christianity caused.