Friedrich Nietzsche

 

    Nietzsche was an opponent of old western thinking, meaning that he challenged the status quo on traditional teleological aspirations central to Western thought. Nietzsche critiques the moral commitments of the perspectivist and favors notions of the good associated with Judeo-Christian foundations. But the bigger question we must raise is if Nietzsche's existential philosophy leaves us without ethical guidelines? My answer to the question is yes; I will give my reasons why I think it does. First, I will discuss the central idea of perspectivism and its relation to Nietzsche’s critique of realism and how, from one perspective, it can later spread as something that is self-evidently true. I will describe Nietzsche's philosophy and the way it motivates nihilism, which is a necessary step toward a transvaluation of values. By that, I mean a re-valuation of all known values, a value system motivated by nihilism as a process required to create one’s value in agreement with the will to power. I will then discuss God's death that motivates nihilism as a necessary step for a transvaluation of values. Third, I will explain how Nietzsche’s idea of the will to power serves as his ethical guideline. The will to power is, for Nietzsche, a life-affirming force that should inspire an active, healthy life, on fit for “free spirits.” Then, I will give my warrant to back up my claim on how Nietzsche’s ethical guidelines leave us with problems, the “will”, that is reducible to one’s uniqueness accepting good and evil in the quest to find meaning. In addition, the self-creator can turn against itself by reversing such old values into “new” values that make up such values as “new.” Last, I will provide a rebuttal that of propositions that rely on necessary propositions. Upon our contingent reality ever so changing, we explore the possibilities with true propositions that unfold in humans. In return, we can use them in the realm of human affairs as existent. Then, upon exploring such propositions that are used in the realm of human affairs, it associates by necessity as a human condition. Hence, necessity is the possibility to think of transcendent concepts, absolute ideals we wish to explore as a human condition that can gain such moral pursuits as a possibility. Then, the possibilities for humans to explore morality from necessity is possible. From this, we can objectively explore our thoughts about morality with Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Nietzsche rejected such a notion, so I will compare Nietzsche’s ethics with Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

For Nietzsche, perspectivism is how humans interpret the world from their perspective, which blocks other ways of viewing things. In return, we can never exit from our perspective to know reality as it is. Since, the continual development of beliefs, which is passed down from generation to generation, becomes essential. Nietzsche believes this way of thinking is a mistake because the fundamental element then acts out, so it is just an illusion to destroy reality in the world as it is. And because our perspective cannot help but perceive reality under one's framework of reality, so stops the possibilities to view the world from different interpretations. “This cannot be figured out, and rightfully so, even by the most diligent and painfully conscientious analysis and self-examination of the intellect, since in this analysis the human intellect cannot help seeing itself under its own perspectival forms, and in them. We cannot see around our own corner”. (Gay Science 374) When we encounter the world, the way we experience the world in our daily lives has been already pre-formed, which hinders the possibilities of other interpretations. Nietzsche believed this way was troublesome. “Due to the continuous growth of belief in it from generation to generation, this gradually grows, as it were, onto and into the thing, and turns into its very body. The initial appearance almost always becomes the essence in the end and acts essence! But only a fool would think it was enough to point to this beginning and this misty mantle of illusion in order to destroy the world that counts as essential, so-called “reality!” (Gay Science 58) To elaborate more on the contingent nature of traditional tenets, Nietzsche refers to how these old traditions came into existence in the first place. And how a particular set of beliefs, like Christianity, embodied a practice that was then spread into a community that gained popularity and took control over people’s imagination. “What the founders of religions have really invented is: first, setting up a particular way of life and everyday customs that operates as a disciplina voluntatis [discipline of the will] and at the same time eliminates boredom, and second, giving this very way of life an interpretation thanks to which it seems to be lit up the highest value, so that now it comes a good for which one struggles..(Gay Science 353) The origins of such a belief system began with one’s interpretation. Furthermore, it is “Jesus (or Paul)” who illustrates the highest meaning of life grounded on humility and mercy that looks like the best form of living. Such teachings originated from Jesus and Paul, who took that meaning as self-evidently true, such notion as an expression of “God’s will.” Thus, we find ourselves confined to systems of belief in force whenever we are born like in Europe, Christianity was the primary belief system for a long time. The formation of Judeo-Christian ethics and one's perspective that conforms to absolute good principles is only an interpretation among many other variations. Nevertheless, we still interpret it as eternal and self-evident. But because Jesus or Paul took a system like Christianity as the "highest meaning and value," what this idea implies, however, is that such a belief system is simply an interpretation that was passed down through history.

The declaration of God's death is to do away with the old principles and old ideas about morality and truth, it is an error and blind lie. “That faith of Christians, which was also the faith of Plato, that God is truth, that truth is divine. But what if precisely this becoming more and more unbelievable, if nothing is proving to be divine anymore, unless it be error, blindless, lies – what if God himself is proving to be our longest lie?” (Gay Science 342) We should abandon the ground foundation or the ultimate foundation of intelligibility because it is an illusion to perceive reality, which was passed down through history. Hence, the old notions about morality, truth, order, the “good”–all these old ideas were not based on fixed absolute goodness but turn out to be social constructs invented by humans to satisfy their metaphysical comfort. “The madman sprang into their midst and transfixed them with his gaze. “Where has God gone?” he cried, “I’ll tell you where! We’ve killed him – you and I! we are all his murderers!” (Gay Science 125) Because we killed God, we no longer believe in God; therefore, Judeo-Christian ethics was the only comfort which in men no longer exist anymore. But not only that, after that, we must also defeat the shadow of God. So, such declaration logically concludes that our scientific inquiry, morality, or livelihood have no lattermost ground beliefs. Instead, it is a choice and preference, not based on a metaphysical basis, but the shadow of God "creeps in men for millennia" to come; if so, we "must defeat the shadow of God." “But as is the way of human beings, there may still be caves for millennia in which his shadow is displayed. And we – we must still defeat even his shadow!” (Gay Science 108) The death of God seems to be of no avail. Man cannot kill an entity that should be infinite, so God cannot die. If humans invented and interpreted social constructs, then God's idea has been created by humans; it is a mere lie. In men, believing in God no longer exist, and the Judeo-Christian tradition values, which are the metaphysical basis, along with most of the notions, no longer live-in men as well. “When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things though out together, by breaking one main concept out of, the faith in God one break the whole.” (Twilight of the Idols, pg. 53) Because of traditional values, moral concepts, scientific and philosophical advances, God does not hold a meaningful place in explaining why the world is as it is anymore. Thus, there is no actual substance when the existing worldly things are continually changing. He denies the validity of the metaphysical basis of moral and religious values, which he calls nihilism. The metaphysical basis of moral and spiritual values is no longer binding to men. Also, in instances, he believes that the belief in God harms men.

God’s death motivates Nihilism, that is, if there is no God then meaning is impossible. For Nietzsche, nihilism is the source of Christian morality. It will eventually resist the fiction of all past interpretations of Christianity through its highly developed morality, and moral doubts are doubtful. Nihilism is "nothing has any purpose," not only just Christian morals but the outcome of the highest value losing their value. “But there is one very definite explanation of the phenomena: Nihilism harbours in the heart of Christian morals”. (Will to Power pg. 18) For Nietzsche, nihilism is not an end; it is a transitional stage that arises from weariness. Thus, it is necessary to re-evaluate our values and not just Christian morals, but when one loses the basis of his value system but has not replaced them with anything else. He becomes a nihilist “Thorough Nihilism is the conviction that life is absurd, in the light of the highest values already discovered; it also includes the view that we have not the smallest right to assume the existence of transcendental objects or things in themselves, which would either divine or morality incarnate.” (Will to Power pg. 20) Nihilism has no purpose; human beings are sourcing their energy in seeking an explanation of the world, which may be wrong. But Nihilism is the step to overcome the “moral God,” in return, is the outcome of a transvaluation of values opening the gateway for the will to power. “Because the very values current amongst us to-day ill arrive at their logical conclusions in Nihilism – because Nihilism is the only possible outcome of our greatest values and ideals, -because we must experience Nihilism before we can realize the actual worth of these “values” was sooner or later we shall be in need of new values” (Will to Power pg. 15) The passed-down traditions known as “values” is a re-evaluation meaning the transvaluation of all known values. “Let us not underestimate this fact: that we ourselves, the free spirits, are already a “transvaluation of all values,” a visualized declaration of war and victory against all the old concepts of “true” and “not true” The most valuable intuitions are the last to be attained; the most valuable of all are those which determine methods (The Antichrist pg. 58) The transitional phase of Nihilism is indispensable so we can clean up the outdated value system to produce something new. So, we are declaring war and victory against the very notions that are central to western thinking. Hence, we, the "free spirits," are already a transvaluation of all such values that visualize the act to determine the most valuable decisions that decide customs. In return, it opens the stage for the will to power. So, all transvaluation of all known values links with the will to power as a model "free spirit," who creates his values.

Nihilism can help clear away old prejudices and limitations to make way for an active healthy life. Nietzsche regarded the will to power as the will to survive, the will to prosper, and the will to flourish for greater possibilities. The will, to power, the active form, is the healthiest form for humans to expand in all possibilities for greater strength; this active form is the “yes-saying" as the will. The "free spirits" are the ideal way of taking up the old beliefs and work them into a new, creative expression of uniqueness. “It will be strong, domineering natures who, in such a compulsion, in a constraint and completion under their own laws, will savor their most refined joy. The passion is their formidable wills is relieved by the contemplation of all stylized nature, all conquered nature in a position of service; if they have to build palaces and lay out hardens, it also goes against their grain to set nature free… Such spirits, who can be spirits of the first rank, are always out to fashion or explain themselves and their surroundings as free nature” (Gay Science 290) Before God, we were all equal in the eyes of a superior Being, but after God’s death, we can achieve higher altitudes as humans, we desire the will to power to live as the ideal of the will. “It is not the river that is your danger and the end of your good and evil, ye wisest ones: but that Will itself, the Will to Power–the unexhausted, procreating life-will” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra pg. 160) The will conceives as neither good nor bad. Thus, the will to power is the end to itself, meaning that the will is the meaning to its end to thrive for power as an expression of one’s uniqueness. The businessperson satisfies this will to become wealthy. Hence, such a notion establishes that the businessperson has created his value by creating his own identity to become wealthy. When the businessperson engages in this form of living to achieve wealth, the businessperson will then engage in the "will" to achieve abundance through his own "will." This form that engages in such a way is what Nietzsche calls the active form, “yes-say,” as the positive form when the businessperson immediately goes above and beyond all boundaries in the quest for the most incredible wealth. But the businessperson firmly understands the roots of such old ways of allegorical beliefs that echoes in the background that surrounds him. Thus, such ways are rather old that perceive a reality that was passed down from history but has no binding significance to him because they are just metaphors; it is the “free spirits” model that takes up the old values and creates his own unique expression. “The ideal of a spirit that plays naively, that is, no deliberately but from overflowing fullness and power, with all that up to now was called holy, good, untouchable, divine” (Gay Science 382) This implies that the person or the businessperson took up the perspectives that were handed down from generation wrapped up into one's unique expression. It expresses ideas from the past so that the businessperson can play with as a provisional approach within the free-range of things. Hence, the inspirational life-affirming force that should inspire the active, healthy life model fits for "free spirits".

Nietzsche's ethics, the will to power, is reducible to the subjective man, an injunction against "Become who you are." Meaning, "Becoming who you are" is not so much as performing a pre-given potential. Instead, one can theorize the character one wishes to create for himself. Hence, it is a choice and preference as one's own man. The "free spirits" in line with the will to power are self-creating; it aims to become a unique person and shape a coherent narrative of one's life story. But organizing a cohesive narrative as a person of uniqueness opens the possibility to accept all things, good and evil, intertwined with one's own life as something "I have done." Because for Nietzsche, good and evil is a concept nothing more than an inner, conscious voice that makes itself heard to every action. In the process of being a self-creator, such a journey to find meaning, the self-creator can turn against itself, meaning it produces a reversal of old values as "new values." Nietzsche did this exactly when the "free spirit" model took up the ancient perspectives and worked them as "new." Hence, subverting moral absolutism or Judeo-Christian morality, but Nietzsche forgot that reversing such old moral beliefs is still producing the same thing. If one accepts such matters as "new values," it is entirely a reversal when embracing the old as "new." When such "new" values apply to the realm of human affairs, it is as if we have never gone through the nihilistic process to do away with the old way of thinking. So, embracing the old as new fails for three reasons; first, we will ultimately produce the old values rather than producing something new. Second, Nietzsche's attack on metaphysics undermines the idea of personhood to such a degree that the very idea of human potential is emptied of all content. Third, we are not so free that we can avoid making decisions about good and evil along the way. And the will to power tells us to build potential from within, but Nietzsche tells us that there is no potential. The latter form of the "yes-saying" is to create one's uniqueness along the way, to expand to greater strength as a living organism. This active form does away with potentiality, but we still run with the same issue to accept good and evil along the way, which is then problematic to the degree that we are not so free. Moreover, there is a way to objectively distinguish between good and evil. This is the focus when one raises the central question concerning the ethical guidelines for us to focus on and what is possible for us as humans.

If humans merely construct reality, then reality is contingent, the absolute source of universal morality as an ideal must, therefore, exist by necessity to reveal itself to humans. However, Nietzsche would remain agnostic about reality. If there are deeper necessary truths, we cannot know them from our perspective. We must then focus on what is possible for a human being. Here, perspectivism is necessarily associated with the human condition. To solve these issues, I think we can solve them through propositions, which are necessary truths regarding contingency and relativity. But even if we remain agnostic about reality, we still associate by necessity as a human condition in one shape or form as a possibility. If so, there must be necessary propositions as we associate with such propositions as things that exist. "Simply tells us that if P is true in at least one possible world then the proposition that it is true in at least one possible world will be true in all possible worlds." (Possible Worlds pg. 223) For example, the sentence "Gabriel Gutierrez was born in 1991". Is a contingent truth in some world and false in other worlds, so this proposition exists in at least one world. According to the proposition, as I mentioned, is the possibility of such truth set in one world, then holds in all possible worlds. From this, we can propose a transcendence argument as a source that can, in return, reveal moral and ethical conditions. It is so associated in our realm of human affairs that it maintains the concept of absolute necessity that we cannot adequately explain as ideal forms to grasp relative necessity-an example of relative necessity. (a) Because of my genetic makeup, it is not possible for me to grow fur so I can be warm in the winter, analogous to a polar bear according to our understanding of biology. But we can easily imagine a different genetic makeup in a different world. (b) It is illegal to kill another person in a particular state on the condition that you will go to jail and serve time if you kill another person. But we can also imagine that we can change those laws in that state. From these examples, we can see that certain forms of necessity are then revealed through relativity or contingency. Still, perspectivism regards itself as a necessary human condition and nothing more as there are propositions such as “Gabriel Gutierrez was born in 1991”. Which holds that there are things in the world other than ourselves and our private experiences, but Nietzsche points out that there can be no possible world where humans exist who have an absolute and comprehensive view of things. He derived that it is an essential feature of human beings that they are limited in this way, limited by the time and place where we are born and socialized. But existing things, in fact, actually exist, and from those things, we associate ourselves with them as true propositions. Hence, it logically follows that those things exist, and we apply them to our realm of human affairs as something other than ourselves and our private experiences. Besides, necessity is the possibility to think of absolute concepts that appear in our human affairs as a source we wish to consider. Thus, if we can treat such inquiry as transcendental, we intend to display its conditions, which is the possibility we want to comprehend. Hence, necessity is the possibility to think of transcendent concepts, absolute ideals that we wish to explore as a human condition in humans that gain such moral pursuits as a possibility that interacts in human affairs.

As I described, but only the conditional framework that it is possible to explore the transcendental source by the necessity so that moral conditions can reveal itself to us, we can then explore absolute morality for all humans in this description. With this form of thinking, we can transition to Kant, the categorical imperative as the moral law, but not just as a universal law for all agents but of objectively necessary. As necessary, not contingent, by morally acting through absolute necessity is then possible for a human. "The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as necessary of itself without reference to another end, i.e., as objectively necessary." (Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals pg. 40). Almost every existing law represents an act of good; any other law on the contrary to that is hypothetical. For example, in the example I gave, killing is illegal because you will go to jail, not only because you will go to jail, but not killing shows an objective moral behavior beneficial to humanity. So, we carry such a law as a practical law. Any other form of good to something else, Kant would describe as hypothetical. Since we can imagine that those laws can change to make killing legal is not an objective aim to moral behavior but good as hypothetical to something else. "If now the action is good only as a means to something else, then the imperative is hypothetical; if it is conceived as good in itself and consequently as being necessarily the principle of a will which of itself conforms to reason, then it is categorical." (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, pg. 40) Hence, it declares the categorical imperative as objectively necessary. Therefore, killing is objectively immoral by the necessity to carry such an action. To change the law only for some purpose, we must first reasonably act without contradicting the universal moral law. "Accordingly the hypothetical imperative only says that the action is good for some purpose, possible or actual. In the first case it is a problematical, in the second an assertorial practical principle. (Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals, pg. 41) Nietzsche rejects the categorical imperative because, for him, it strays back to God, soul, freedom, and immorality. "It makes me think of old Kant, who, as a punishment for having stolen away with "the thing in itself" – another very laughable business! – had the "categorical imperative" steal upon him, and with it in his heart, strayed back to "God", "soul", "freedom", and "immorality", like a fox that strays back into his cage! – (Gay Science 335) So because Kant derives necessary moral imperatives from the fact, we are rational beings; because we are rational, we owe respect to others and to ourselves. Thus, Kant characterized the Categorical Imperative as an objectified view outside of our natural desires as humans that we must always follow because we are rational. Anything outside of that realm seems irrational and contradictory. Then, our desires or inclinations are then hypothetical as an act of good for some purpose. Nietzsche, on the other hand, does not begin with the assumption we are rational beings. Our drives, desires, and inclinations, define us, these human characteristics are always an expression of the will to power. Our interactive movement of motivations, desires, and tendencies assumes a power-driven by a power center to pursue expansion of this power to fight Nihilism. Hence, this centrality is to encourage us so we can overcome Nihilism. When one takes up the active form, “yes-saying,” we desire to pursue and explore the possibilities of such will to exert force as a positive outcome to valuable commitments. Thus, deriving needful moral imperatives strays back to God—stealing the freedom of such possibilities in pursuit of positive results that could, in return, be valuable commitments. Along the way, I accept good and evil.

I have described the central idea of perspectivism and its relation to Nietzsche’s critique of realism and how, from one perspective, it can later spread as something that is self-evidently true. I then describe Nietzsche's philosophy and the way it motivates nihilism, which is a necessary step toward a transvaluation of values. I discussed God's death that motivates nihilism as a necessary step for a transvaluation of values. Third, I explained how Nietzsche’s idea of the will to power serves as his ethical guideline. The will to power is, for Nietzsche, a life-affirming force that should inspire an active, healthy life, on fit for “free spirits.” Then, I gave my warrant to back up my claim on how Nietzsche’s ethical guidelines leave us with problems such as the “will” that is reducible to one’s uniqueness accepting good and evil in the quest to find meaning. Last, I gave a rebuttal that of propositions that rely on necessary truth values. Upon our contingent reality ever so changing, we explore the possibilities of propositions that unfold in the realm of human affairs. So, we can use them as something that is existent. Then, upon exploring such propositions used in the realm of human affairs, it associates by necessity as a human condition. Hence, necessity is the possibility to think of transcendent concepts, absolute ideals we wish to explore as a human condition that can gain such moral pursuits as a possibility. Then, the necessary existence so we can understand the possibilities of morality. From this, I explained Kant’s Categorical Imperative and Nietzsche rejecting such notion, so compared Nietzsche’s ethics with Kant’s Categorical Imperative.