This is because everyone, including philosophers, hold a specific position on an issue and cannot possibly know everyone’s position, leading to a biased truth. However, he too believes that not everyone is equal, but he doesn’t think that philosophers are an exemption. In fact, he believes that philosophers are among the worst at claiming that their biases/prejudices are the truth. As such, I argue that Nietzsche’s conclusion prevails because Plato fails to recognize that he has a bias in favor of the philosopher’s ability to discover truth and remove their own prejudices. However, let’s begin by constructing their arguments and seeing where their opinions come from.
Sorel 's Reflections on Violence is not a mere intellectual endeavor; rather, it is a revolutionary guideline. As Chiaria Bottici notes in A Philosophy of Political Myth, this Sorel 's text 'clearly has an activist intent: to develop a severe critique of the parliamentary socialists and their neglect of the primary role played by proletarian violence in history ' (Bottici 2007, 159). In Reflections on Violence Sorel tries to develop a specific revolutionary ethics which will be true to the genuine Marxism. He explicitly states that the task of his study is 'to deepen our understanding of moral conduct ' (Sorel 2004, 40). It is crucial that moral conduct is associated here with political practices and,
and Xenophon (c. 430- c. 350 B.C.) recorded his life and speech. Evidence of natural justice lays in anger of people when they feel they unjustly treated. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates represents two types of anger, the guardian who is angry, but do not think about the reason of the matter and the angry philosopher consider the reason of the matter. The existence of natural justice justifies the partisanship since partisans have a contention to make, have faith in justice, and mean well in their argument.
Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver’s Travels, is fundamentally skeptical of philosopher John Locke’s views as expressed in his writing, The Second Treatise of Government. Locke holds the belief that when individuals are pursing self-interest within the realm of economics and politics that they are serving the common good regardless of intent. However, Swift disagrees and uses satire to express his hesitancy. The reason for Swift’s skepticism is that his purpose differs from Locke’s. Locke uses individualism to justify private property as a common good so that men may profit, whereas Swift depicts individualism as corrupting to human morality in order to further discredit modernity.
He advocates something different from relativism, known as "perspectivism". Perspectivism, briefly, means that every assertion, viewpoint, notion, or philosophy is related to some or the other perspective and that it is not possible for humans to detach themselves from these perspectives in order to grasp the objective Truth. The sole aim of the philosopher, according to him, is to learn, embrace, and test the many alternate viewpoints in order to gauge a better understanding of the ultimate Truth. This procedure may even require approaching the world with contradicting perspectives. While Nietzsche isn't sure whether this will necessarily eventually uncover the absolute Truth, (because it can never be completely disclosed—thanks to our biases), he feels one can get close to it.
“Radicalism” is a word that popular opinion has given a negative connotation; however, Saul Alinsky’s longwinded explanation of what a radical is shows that radicalism is necessary for social change. He says of the radical: “For the radical, the bell tolls unceasingly and every man’s struggle is his fight…The radical wants to see man truly free. Not just free economically and politically but also free socially” (Alinsky, 15-16). A radical is someone who not only holds strong beliefs, but acts on them (Osman, 4/7). In this way, radicalism is the complete opposite of slacktivism, a term defined as “actions performed via the Internet in support of a political or social cause but regarded as requiring little time or involvement” (Oxford Dictionary).
Below some of Marx criticism of this idea by different scholars in discussed. “Both Marx and Hegel agree that the separation of the state from civil society is a paradox that needs to be resolved. However, Marx rejects Hegel 's explanation that puts an institutional order between the state as ethical agency and civil society as the sphere of private interests. Marx 's views, then, are in contrast to Hegel 's in explicitly seeking to resolve the state-society separation on the level of society as the true reality of human beings. Marx sought to realise 'the essence of socialised man ' in what he called a 'true democracy”.
Firstly it is not based on evidence from plays and secondly it is self contradictory. The inherent contradiction in Johnson’s criticism of Shakespeare’s moral aspect becomes evident. He emphasizes the role of literature to be morally instructive as it should bring positive change in man’s life. Meanwhile, he also wants the writer to present human nature vividly, truthfully and clearly. We know that life in reality gives no obvious moral lessons to the observer.
Copleston in one of his books, A History of Philosophy opines that, it is really difficult for one to totally reject all the old values or binding force of what is customarily called morality. This is because, one who attempts this, may degenerate himself as to destroy himself morally, since the traditional morality has put into cognizance, the values that enhance the dignity of the human person, morally and likewise. Then it becomes questionable, as to why Nietzsche calls the old morality the slave morality, even when he retains some of the values in his master morality. Nietzsche’s outright condemnation and rejection of conventional morality in favour of subjective morality, is for me not a true response to the reality of the human society. Owing to the fact that man lives in the society presupposes or demands that there be a certain objective standard of morality by which actions are assessed.
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