Suffering to Nietzsche is necessary for cultivating excellence, but not to be understood as a value in itself . In this sense, a universal morality is detrimental precisely because it stifles the potential of those who can cultivate excellence by their internalising the norms of such a morality. The „revaluation of values” is aimed at the practical impact and origin of the virtues and moralities which they found. Those who adopt such „moralities”, that devalue suffering and value happiness, nurture a ressentiment not only for their lives, but for those who rise above it, who have the power to will so. For example, envy is deemed to be bad, and consequently, a form of eliminating the fact that one has more than the other is manifested through a norm which demands that all are equal (e.g in the eyes of
While passive nihilism, is a pessimistic acquiescence in the absence of values and the purposelessness of existence, active nihilism on the other hand seeks to destroy that in which it no longer believes. Active nihilism is believed to be the most dangerous and final form of nihilism and it is to this that Nietzsche identified himself with. He wanted to show that this world in which we live is the only one however unstructured, purposeless and valueless it may be. In other words, valuelessness and meaninglessness are products of nihilism, and for Nietzsche moral principles are the foundation for faith in religion, especially that of the Christian faith. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy.
A massively important aspect of Friedrich Nietzsche’s ideology about master and slave morality comes from the information frequently relayed about the history of morality, along with the ignorant perceptions of English philosophers. He mentions that these philosophers create their ideas from unhistorical standpoints, and “…it is certainly a shame that they lack the historical sense itself, that they themselves have been abandoned by all the beneficent spirits of history” (14). Nietzsche indicates that these theories about morality reference good and bad through the utility of different actions, but he claims that is on the opposite side of the spectrum when looking at it from a
In the notebook(1) excerpts published as The Will to Power Nietzsche describes nihilism as ‘ambiguous’ in that it can be symptomatic of either strength or weakness. Nietzsche claims that nihilism is a necessary step in the transition to a revaluation of all values. Passive nihilism is characterised by a weak will, and active nihilism by a strong will. Nietzsche emphasises that nihilism is merely a means to an end, and not an end in itself. Nihilism, according to Nietzsche, is the most extreme form of pessimism.
While God and Abraham’s wife made the same request only God would be called good. Good is used to describe things that we know and understand as good. So, we cannot call God good for doing an action that if someone else did the same action would be considered not
By describing the public official of the beadle in such a way, Hawthorne makes clear his negative opinion of the Puritan community. Critic David Sorrells writes that the beadle is a symbol of “moral evil” because he measures out punishments that are “hypocritical” but which the Puritan people sanction. Hawthorne describes the judges who sentence Hester in a similarly derogatory way: “They were, doubtless, good men, just, and sage. But, out of the whole human family, it would not have been easy to select the same number of wise and virtuous persons who should be less capable of sitting in judgment on an erring woman’s heart” (70). Again, by singling out the most respected members of the community for such harsh criticism, Hawthorne demonstrates that his opinion of the Puritan moral code is negative.
The first is that “without freedom there can be no morality.“this is also used as justification for his view that only action can have a moral judgement associated with it. The second is that morality is an innate function of humans “we have it within ourselves”. Jung also heavily implies that the collective unconciuos is a force of good and that styling our actions in accordance with its “wishes” we can find the “right” path. This is not the same as trying to be “normal” which Jung calls “a hell of sterility and hopelessness” but rather the act of conforming to the moral ideal of society. The third is that the“shadow“is necessary for moral behaviour which coincides with his belief that for good to exist there must be evil.
Pessimism is conceptualised as a lens under which the values of life are viewed with a sombre temperament that distorts one’s appreciation for life itself, by ignoring its good aspects, thus lowering one’s expectations. Arthur Schopenhauer is often understood as the greatest pessimist in Western philosophy despite never formally characterising himself as such. He does however use the concepts “optimism” and “pessimism” to classify certain conceits of suffering in his philosophy on human existence in order to classify the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that pervade the human condition. Schopenhauer articulates what he perceives as the cruel realities of the pain that comes with life, by asserting that human existence is burdened by the twin poles of human suffering; want and boredom, stressing that ‘will’ dictates the cursor towards these ends, 1850, p: 45. In the matter of good and evil, can pessimistic judgments about life, such as the one expressed in the quotation by Schopenhauer, be an objective philosophical analysis of human existence?
John McWilliams also believes that Mark twain‘s attack on Cooper is not justified. He thinks that Cooper does have his flaws as a writer, but that Mark is taking the smallest in accuracy and changing of the story to prevent people from seeing the truth
Will to power and political thought If we are to understand Nietzsche’s important contribution to political thought , we must examine the way he under stands the close link between immorality and idea of human betterment. Nietzsche as is often mentioned mistrusted a tragic worldview because he considered man in a significant ethical struggle usually ending in ruin or profound disappointment. He does not espouse a conventional morality defined by the antimony good/bad, but proposes a way of living ( an ethics) that is intended to better the human condition. However he sees this proposal as a rife with difficulties, making life as such a trial of suffering and pain and does not see an ultimate inevitable redemption for man but rather ultimate failure is more common. The individual is seen as severely limited in capacities and the world as broken or possessing no clear, simple and unified order.
What makes the book worth reading, however, is not to revel in the action, nor to mock the seemingly haughty narrator, but to analyze the author’s portrayals of human nature. Wells riddled the plot with examples of the moralistic slump that may occur in the worst of circumstances. To think that “life is an incessant struggle for existence,” is void of all morals and emotion, a raw notion that reveals our most basic purpose in life, simply existing, rather than feeling (Wells 208). His startling displays lead me to wonder whether he is pessimistic or realistic about the human race. This aspect of the text is the only reason the book managed to keep my