How does this shed light on the question, "Are we free to do what we want with our lives?" It doesn't shed light on it, so much as reveal that the question was asked from the darkness. Our "free will" is an illusion, but we do act, and our actions are our own. They have manifold causes, but not one of them could possibly be "outside of nature" or outside "the whole," and none of them could be attributable solely to my freedom. Rather, the constraints I mentioned at the outset, and even the wants I mentioned there, are pieces of the whole, and "there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn our Being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, condemning the whole...But there is nothing apart from the whole!" The best I can do to do what I want with my life is to want my life as it is, as part of the whole -- to affirm my life. And this much not only is to "do what I want with my life," it is also to do what I should with it.
REFERENCES
1. Clark,...
Nietzsche and Nihilism "Nihilism" was the term used by Friederich Nietzsche to describe what he considered the devaluation of the highest values posited by the ascetic ideal. The age in which he lived was viewed by the German philosopher as one of passive nihilism, which he defined as the unawareness of the fact that the religious and philosophical absolutes had dissolved in the emergence of the 19th century Positivism. Since traditional
Nietzsche and Power What does Nietzsche mean by a "will to power," or "life affirmation?" "The world itself is the will to power -- and nothing else. And you, yourself are the will to power, and nothing else!" F. Nietzsche Much of Nietzsche's thought seems to be about the concept of human beings, not individuals, but the species, overcoming mediocrity and becoming "better." Certainly, his ideas are sometimes translated out to mean "nothing
However, Nietzsche is keen to observe that the fact that there are varying standards of morality or different moralities does not mean that there is no form of biding morality. If this is the case therefore, then it is logical to argue that there are as well varying kinds of 'binding' originating from the varying moralities, for instance, the Christian binding cannot be deemed the same as the binding
But this sense of a death of nationalism, or one's personal belief is different than Nietzsche's statement because no ideology has kind of hold Christianity did upon the world when Nietzsche wrote in 19th century Europe. Response 2 Do you think we reached a point where we no longer need God? On one hand, it is possible to see humanity's ability to engage in scientific discovery as proof of the glory of
But even many devout believers in America today state that we all worship the same God, and thus participate in the same 'truth' regardless of our affiliation. Even atheists validate the feeling of believers and state that although science is factually true, the human mind and faith has its own truth that can emotionally and psychologically move mountains. In other words, there are different kinds of truths -- truths
Foremost, though, is the Nietzschian concept that freedom is never free -- there are costs; personal, societal, and spiritual. To continue that sense of freedom, one must be constantly vigilant and in danger of losing that freedom, for the moment the individual gasps a sigh of relief and feels "free" from contemplating freedom, tyranny will ensue. He believed that it was the internal cost that contained value. This, however,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now