The Western Philosophical Tradition By Friedrich Nietzsche

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.

A passionate, anti-democratic philosopher who was born in 1844, Friedrich Nietzsche was a very influential being who was excellent at expressing his unique beliefs and theories (Kalish). He was given the title: “the honorable philosopher of the Third Reich” (Golumb and Wistrich). Nietzsche has many well-developed and rigorous books that provide much influence and still have relevance in today's world. Nietzsche was the most important influence on Nazi philosophy. His influence on Nazi philosophy is clearly seen through the effects his book, The Will to Power, left on the Nazi people. Another aspect of his influence arouses from his ambiguous and vague style of writing. Finally, Nietzsche’s influence on the Nazis is noticeable through

Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche are two widely acclaimed philosophers due to the groundwork they made towards the philosophical principles of morality. However, even though they both have openly discussed their views, they have ended up contradicting each other. Kant implied that morality is not learned, but rather predestined, whereas Nietzsche alluded to a experience based morality, or one that is learned through actions and memories. Although these two men have accepted views of morality, the ideas of Nietzsche seem more applicable in relation to the present day; the world is constantly changing. There are two separate scenarios in which the issues of 'thou shalt not lie ' and 'thou shalt not steal, ' are morally assessed. The end results are supportive towards Nietzsche 's principles and detrimental towards Kant 's ideas. Overall, the moral concepts of Nietzsche will prevail as a result, illustrating the more probable use of his ideology.

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).

Despite such claims, Nietzsche criticizes this mistaken idea that the knowledge of the universe can be comprehended by any method; he argues that not even the “most scrupulously conscientious analysis and self-examination of the intellect” cannot successfully interpret the progressive history of the world as “the human intellect cannot avoid seeing itself in [only] its perspectives” (Nietzsche 336). To Nietzsche, Kant and Hegel’s attempts to find truth in history is faulty because faith is just now found in science and reasoning rather than religion. What Kant and Hegel fail to realize is that the human race’s separation from this faith gave rise to “our new ‘infinite’”, in which “the world has become ‘infinite’ for [humanity] all over again, inasmuch as we cannot reject the possibility that it may include infinite interpretations” (Nietzsche 336). Thus the new infinite is self-consciously made by the individual members of humanity itself, as we can now independently interpret the world ourselves as we see fit. Nietzsche declares that even if some of these interpretations may include “too much devilry, stupidity and foolishness”, it does not matter because it does not rely on faith (Nietzsche 336). The new infinite that arises is ours, in which the abundance of perspectives is too overwhelming for any scholar to give meaning to such chaos. There is no logical reason how such disorder should

In his book, Twilight of the Idols, Friedrich Nietzsche aggressively challenges conventional schools of thought dating back to the ancients. Philosophy, as we know it, began over two-thousand years ago in Athens with the birth of Socrates. Socrates introduced the practice of reasoning and dialectics—the art of discourse hoping to bring individuals closer to some universal truth—to an Athenian society that previously held aesthetics, not logic, as indicative of goodness. Socrates revolutionized life in Athens, and by extension, the Western tradition. His beliefs are found in works written centuries after his death. He is heralded as the “father of philosophy.”

“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

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.

In his second essay of the Geneaology of Morals, Nietzsche attempts to identify and explain the origin of the conscience. He does not adopt the view of the conscience that is accepted by the “English Psychologists”, such as Bentham, J. Mill, J.S. Mill and Hume, as the result of an innate moral feeling. Rather, it is his belief that the moral content of our conscience is formed during childhood under the influence of society. Nietzsche defines the conscience as an introspective phenomenon brought about by a feeling of responsibility, in which one analyzes their own morality due to the internalization of the values of society. This definition holds the position that the conscience is not something innate to

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.

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.

Society is flawed. There are critical imbalances in it that cause much of humanity to suffer. In, the most interesting work from this past half-semester, The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx is reacting to this fact by describing his vision of a perfectly balanced society, a communist society. Simply put, a communist society is one where all property is held in common. No one person has more than the other, but rather everyone shares in the fruits of their labors. Marx is writing of this society because, he believes it to be the best form of society possible. He states that communism creates the correct balance between the needs of the individual and the needs of society. And furthermore thinks that sometimes

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

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.

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