Nietzsche was a German Philosopher who wrote a book called Twilight of the Idols. I will be taking some of his main points from his story and giving my standpoint on them. In my paper I will be explaining Nietzsche's morality as an anti-nature and his four great errors of human nature. The four great errors include confusing cause and consequence, false causality, imaginary causes, and free will. Nietzsche believed that philosophy should be about jumping from one extreme to another extreme and that it should make you angry and ask questions. He identified true morality as there being a right and a wrong, and the right and wrong actions are what allow you to succeed in life. Morality as an anti-nature is people telling you what you shouldn't …show more content…
The first error is the error of confusing cause and consequence. "The most general formula at the basis of every religion and morality is: do this and this, refrain from this and this and you will be happy! … a well-constituted human being, a happy one, must perform certain actions." (Nietzsche, 227). Nietzsche believes that people must do certain things in order to be happy with themselves and with others. The way that a person behaves is the consequence of their actions. The second error is the error of a false causality. The second error is when people come up with causes and reasons for the actions they performed. Nietzsche believed that the cause that people came up with for their actions was influenced by their ego. "Finally, who would have disputed that a thought is caused? That the ego causes the thought?" (Nietzsche, 227) A person's ego can tell a lot about how a person will react to certain events and their reasoning behind their …show more content…
"Most of our general feelings - every sort of restraint, pleasure, tension, explosion in the play and counter play of our general feelings, …. likewise, and especially the condition of the nervus sympathicus excite our cause creating drive: we want to have a reason for feeling as we do." (Nietzsche, 228). People are afraid of all the unknown causes of things in the world and therefore come up with a reason as to why something happened the way it did. We tend to do this because it causes less stress and makes us feel more comfortable with the unknown. "Thus, there is sought not only some kind of explanation as cause, but a selected and preferred kind of explanation, the kind by means of which the feeling of the strange, new, unexperienced is most speedily and most frequently abolished." (Nietzsche, 228). People use psychological explanation as part of their imaginary cause for the reason that something occurred. When something happened to someone that is unfamiliar to them they tend to pull something from their memory as a cause to why this event happened. They take something from their memory and say that it is the cause of the consequence of this action and the new or unexperienced event is excluded from being the cause. The entirety of morality and religion also falls under the concept of imaginary causes. The explanation for the unpleasant events or causes is said to happen because we have sinned. Imaginary causes are a
In each decision made, something in an individual changes in order to make their choice. But what is it exactly that makes a person select an action? What can possibly determine the outcome of a situation so important that in that specific moment can change someone’s life path in an instant? There are many theories on what it could be, neurotransmitter, a desire for committing evil acts, or is it something completely random? One conclusion that could be drawn from this speculation is that a person’s prior experiences could be what sways the decision being made within the individuals mind.
It is something for man to do” (Notes). He also believed that every one was a “moral free agent” – ‘that is, a person free to choose between a Christian life and sin’” (Foner, 272). He also came up with “new measures,” they “triggered alarm among conservative clergy” (Charles Grandison Finney Article). The new measures were to watch what the ministry was doing and if they were doing something that was not for the people to say something.
He expresses his beliefs about self-cultivated moral character, where he stated that if an individual look at him/herself as a victim he/her is failing to him/herself. It is not America failing the individual because the individual is not living the
He talks about the lives of three men, each with their own levels of morality. The first man a life that balanced the actions of good and evil. Fittingly, he was loved and hated evenly. This suggests that it is not merely enough to simply undo each wrong with a right to achieve a good life. The second man was compared to Satan, as each of his actions were forms of evil.
One such assumption was that kids needed punishment to be decent and this resulted in a harsh upbringing. However, there was a newer, opposing assumption in which using reason was believed
According to Dr. Crockett, we can deduce different manners by which reason can become corrupted. There exist three ways by which individual reason can be corrupted and two ways by which societal reason can be perverted. The three individual reasons are by passion, evil
Philo concludes that for those who already believe in an omnipotent and all-good god, these four causes are not enough to invalidate their beliefs. INSERT CITATION He says this because all four of his causes can be dispelled under the assumption that there is some divine explanation that reconciles god’s goodness with the evil in the world. However, coming from an unbiased perspective, Philo says that we certainly cannot infer the existence of a benevolent god when these causes of natural evil are taken into account. In fact, if we do attempt to divulge god’s moral attributes from the state of the universe, then Philo concludes that the only proper deduction we can draw is that god is neither good nor is he evil, but rather he is entirely indifferent to the principles of morality altogether – in essence, god is morally neutral.
Essay 2 My goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection.
People deal with different forms of human nature throughout their lives. A variety of human nature aspects can be used to describe different contemporary issues in today's society. For instance, blaming others is a widely spread aspect of human nature that every single human on Earth has to deal with in his or her life. Blaming is the act of accusing others of doing something that they didn't do or were not involved in. Another form of blaming is called scapegoating.
Why do individuals do certain things; one may not understand the consequences of an action, or realize that it has a positive or negative effect on the present and future of their lives. The cause of an action can tell why it has a specific effect. For instance, a short story by Joyce Carol Oates titled, “Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been” is very interesting and allows you to make inferences based on the information given. One can evaluate from the material given the causes and effects of certain situations. This story is about a teenage girl named Connie, who replaces the traditional family values with her own because of how the music of that time period influenced her.
“Only an atheist can be a good Christian; only a Christian can be a good atheist.” This quote from Ernest Bloch summarizes Friedrich Nietzsche’s parable of the madman in one sentence. If a sophomore theology major can be taken by surprise at the fact that Friedrich Nietzsche was not a Christian, this either speaks virtuously of Nietzsche’s legacy or poorly of this student’s intuition. Upon an initial personal reflection, the mindset of Nietzsche could be defended as compatible to the a-theistic pyro-theology in Peter Rollin’s book Insurrection. It is possible that my meaning gleaned from Nietzsche’s parable may not be the same as the meaning he intended.
He describes the objection as, “all men desire the apparent good, but have no control over the appearance, but the end appears to each man in a form answering to his character” (1114b). This view argues that all people pursue that which seems good, but some people cannot see the true good, which is out of their control. The immediate implication of this objection, if it is indeed true, suggests that “no one is responsible for his own evildoing” (1114b).
"If a temple is to be erected, a temple must be destroyed!" Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) is one of humanity's most influential and amaranthine thinkers. He was a German philosopher, political critic, philologist, writer, and poet. Some of his most famous works include Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1891), Beyond Good and Evil (1886), The Gay Science (1882), The Birth of Tragedy (1872), Twilight of the Idols (1889), The Will to Power (1901), etc. His impact isn't just on recently found scholarly insight, but additionally on the way numerous contemporary Western philosophers approach "life".
It is believed that ego was the most powerful part of a personality.
He believes that people do bad things due to the fact that they cannot control their evil sometimes. The two theories he defines state that either we do things "in ignorance" where we don 't know that we are missing out on information, or "by ignorance", where we chose to not know or not want to know the information. In order to fulfill the human function, each philosopher has created their own ideas of what humans should do in order to live a successful life.