Truth To Nietzsche On Freedom Of Speech

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.

In Ulrich Baer's article, “What 'Snowflakes' Get Right About Free Speech”, Ulrich Baer gives his opinion on freedom of speech and what freedom and speech means. Ulrich Baer speaks supportively of having limitations on . Professor Baer states that freedom of speech doesn't mean you could speak freely of your opinion. This is where Professor Baer has it wrong. Having an opinion means that there simply isn't a correct side. He states in the article, “When those views invalidate the humanity of some people, they restrict speech as a public good.”, but who is the one on the top to declare something as good? Even if it's offensive or disrespectful, there shouldn't be anyone with the power to claim one side is correct and the other is wrong. The First Amendment is there to guarantee everyone's

The right to freedom of speech as one of the fundamental human rights is enshrined in The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is consisted of the freedom to speak, think and express oneself without censorship. Freedom of speech constitutes the essential foundations of a democratic society and the basic conditions for its progress and for the development. One of most important functions of the right to freedom of speech is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. It enables the public to participate in making decisions based on the free flow of information and ideas. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly reflects

Limits on our rights limit freedom. Colin Kaepernick, a former 49ers quarterback, took a knee during the presentation of the protested during the U.S. national anthem as a way of social protest. Kaepernick and others following his suit have silently protested racial inequality and police brutality. Protesting the national anthem is an appropriate form of free speech. Due to exercising the First Amendment, nonviolent protesting, and by being national, influential football players, refusing to stand for the national anthem is ethical.

He once more establishes his point by saying that “this peace treaty brings in its wake something which appears to be the first step toward acquiring that puzzling truth drive” (Nietzsche 452). Furthermore, he argues that “a uniformly valid and binding designation is invented for things, and this legislation of language likewise establishes the first laws of truth. For the contrast between truth and lie arises here for the first time” (Nietzsche 452-453). In other words, Nietzsche establishes his foundation of truth as opposed to lies. Since the development of language, all its representations are, according to Nietzsche, lies. Language is a form of self-deception, which humans have created to convince themselves that the unreal is real. Indeed, Nietzsche asks, “Is language the adequate expression of all realities?” (Nietzsche 453). The emphasis here is the one to one correspondence of an object to that of its spoken word.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, “Freedom of Speech” as the First Amendment of the Constitution states, however, just like you said “destroying properties” does not justify whatever it is they are protesting for. I agree with you, someone will always be angry and feel that their rights are not being respected; I don’t think that people will ever come to a total agreement on certain issues, at least not on this world. The Ten Commandments were removed from public schools because someone was offended by it, just like removing "under God" from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. As a Christian myself I believe that my rights of freedom of religion are not being respected, when on the other hand someone that is not a Christian can care

According to Hate Speech, they defined it as speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait such as race, religion, sexual orientation, or disability (Hate Speech, n.d.). Hate speech can

In my opinion, some of the essential idea in Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” is his search for the truth. He believed everyone had the ability to explore truth in their own specific way. In Nietzsche’s “beyond good and evil” he also believes that self – preservation is not the main ambition of human beings but the fundamental creative force that motivates all creations is the “will to power”(122). Furthermore, Friedrich Nietzsche did not believe in the existence of God, to him, God was dead. God plays no vital role in our culture- except as a protector of the slaves morality, including the idea of equal worth of all persons (122).

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.

Nietzsche forces readers to cease to believe in the very thing that we base our reasoning on. Take our morality for instance, humans treat ‘morality’ like a sacred being, because we believe that there is a higher celestial being or a God. Humanity is being called into

On the other hand, Nietzsche believes that there are no rules to the life of human beings and only the coward cling to religion in the hope of finding something which is not there. He believes that truth is all that is needed and nothing is more powerful than self belief in truth.

Nietzsche saw truth as an individual discovery or belief that a person must find alone. This internal truth can only be found if one throws away all prior preconceived notions about morality. By realizing that man is of this world and a part of nature, a person can focus on this life. Since Christianity's teachings focus heavily on the

There are numerous arguments presented on the modern death of God by the German Idealist (Hegel, Feuerbach), the existentialists (Nietzsche, Frederick Depoortere Paul Sartre), and the modern scientists (Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris). Nietzsche, argues that from the modern death, it does not imply that experiences a physical death, but he theorizes that if Christians doubt the availability of the spiritual being, then the community’s morality will be separated. On the other hand, Richard Dawkins argues that, God’s notion should be observed or considered just like the other scientific hypothesis. The German Idealists Hegel and Feuerbach argue that God is also a complete being and that God is the holy mystery that people cannot understand the same way they understand other things in the world.

In Nietzsche’s examination of the will to truth, he questions the value of this will. Specifically, he wonders why it is truth that we desire instead of “untruth[,] uncertainty[, or] even ignorance[.]” Indeed, philosophers throughout the ages have attempted to investigate the exact nature of truth and construct their own conceptions of truth through rational inquiry (at least in their own minds). Despite the fact that many proposed theories regarding the truth would often contradict and negate each other, there exists one underlying sentiment that all inquisitors will share about truth. That is, the confidence that the truth is worth seeking after, because it is valuable and good. It is however, precisely this unwavering faith in the value of truth that Nietzsche is so wary of. This is why the value of the will to truth is the definitive question for Nietzsche. Instead of uncovering the actual properties of truth, he suggests that the more important task is to discern whether the truth is even worthy of such study.

The founders of the United States government tried to protect our liberty by assuring a free press, to gather and publish information without being under control or power of another, in the First Amendment to the Constitution. We are not very protected by this guarantee, so we concern ourselves on account of special interest groups that are fighting to change the freedom of expression, the right to freely represent individual thoughts, feeling and views, in order to protect their families as well as others. These groups, religious or otherwise, believe that publishing unorthodox material is an abuse of free expression under the First Amendment. As we know, the Supreme Court plays an important role in the subject of free speech and