Many older philosophers, in their respective philosophies, came up with a number on the casualty. Friedrich Nietzsche is another philosopher who came after these individuals and wrote a number of articles about the ancient works. He based all of his philosophies on criticism against the ideas these people put forward. In spite Nietzsche being the father of Existentialism, Jean-Paul Sartre’s writing prizes human freedom and makes us the makers of our own morality, all of his writings appeared against the “celebrated concept of free will” and t, the “unfree will,” the cause and effect. Sometimes, it becomes hard to understand this given philosopher since mostly; he applied “morality” and “free will” to come up with a celebrated meaning of the two. (Beyond Good and Evil, Part One, section 21.)
Nietzsche directs criticism towards the “free will” of the theologians. In the so doing, he intended to make men realize their mistakes and therefore realize their guilt in case they were to appear before God for judgment. Many philosophers tended to distinguish men from the other animals. Nietzsche attacks this from the point of view that even man himself is an animal since he, man, is just as natural as the other animals.” For this reason, he declares that the theologians and philosophers lacked “free will” and “responsibility” to come up with a distinction between man and the other animals. He adds that these ancient philosophers has influenced the people of today pity no more on the free will concept. (Twilight of the Idols, the Four Great Errors, 7)
A number of philosophers came up with the issue of naturalism in which they merely considered man as a simple mechanism whose well-being depends on the cause and effect. On this note, he argues that it is wrong to reify cause and effect on which same note his argument is against the scientists who might base their thinking on naturalization. This is in accordance with prevailing mechanical issues, which force effectiveness until the end. (Beyond Good and Evil, Part One, section 21.)
Nietzsche insists on his view in which he writes recommending some characteristics of man. He describes the free and responsible man as he who has possessed sovereignty, gains equality for himself as well as embracing the custom morality to just a limit. The philosopher talks out experience in terms of what he had earlier archived in the line of accomplishment of freedom and thee sense of power. He perceive man to be who rules over his wills and used to making promises.Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, Part II.
Nietzsche do not understand if anybody could really know much about the creation, willingness and other forms of morals, which revolve around the nature. He formulates a principle that it is the life instincts that is the origin of moral naturalism. His view reveal that the fullfiment of some rules will only be in future in case they have to be thereby doing away with obstructions which would rather make life rough. He put that Anti-natural morality is a virtual morality that one has preached of and opposes the instincts of life, which many condemn privately, loudly or imprudently. Many philosophers argues that God sees in the heart, which Nietzsche oppose by saying that if that is true then He is one who deprives us the desire for our lives and therefore He is rather an enemy of the lives of the people He created. He concludes this by saying that God may only ensure that pleasure exists castrate saints and therefore the beginning of God’s kingdom cause a subsequent of life in the humans. Twilight of the Idols, Morality as Anti-Nature, Parts 3-4.
Nietzsche is also against the Philosophical Canon in which Socrates is a victim. Socrates acted, as the patron in Western philosophy and defined canon based on three views these view are primarily the claims of Socrates though they reflect the completely western philosophy. He associates Philosophy with the “love of wisdom, the knowledge of truth and the exercise of reason, which is an independent faculty. Socrates believes in truth for which reason he positions himself centrally in the philosophy of the Canon.
Socrates on his side celebrates the Socratic philosophy of canon to one that reasons, contain true ideas and generally valuable. This philosophy however faces a lot of criticism from Nietzsche who questions about it. He opposes the arguments of Socrates truth and knowledge based on theory. He refuses to accept the view as per Socrates that bases discovery of truth on privilege.
Nietzsche only admitted a small section of the Socrates’ when he played his role as a gadfly well. This is when he wrote towards opposing the dominant opinion, which was in accordance with Nietzsche’s stand. This however went as far as creating hostility between the views of Socrates and what Nietzsche believes on and from which he operated.
Nietzsche wrote his first work, The Birth of Tragedy, in which he appeared totally against what Socrates make it for rationalism in all aspects. This was in relation to his last work still on criticism. Twilight of the Idols. In this article, writes a whole chapter expressing the “The Problem of Socrates, “in which his conception of the philosophy is obvious in both the substance in relation to what people know as style.
Socrates argued that our opinion depends largely on our knowledge and adds that the emotional reaction of every human being should depend on the ability to come up with a rational though. On this note, Nietzsche develops a tactic of criticizing this particular philosopher. He develops a special writing style, based on passion and opinion and actually succeeds to undermine the traditions of the idea, which largely negatively affect Socrates and his work generally. Nietzsche decides to make the work more colorful by modifying the language and all the aspects of styles that would make the new philosophy appear better. This was inn contrary to the expectation of many that Nietzsche would create great arguments in support of the Socrates. This made his work appear very colorful to the readers who enjoyed it to an extent that they looked down upon that of Socrates. This implied that the one decides to get a piece of information from the article of Nietzsche he or she will have to be keener since the work itself is attractive. The great themes, image and the recurring tone is likely to contribute to attracting the readers. This is a method that he used to criticize many and make his own work popularize rather than supporting the original document.
There is another idea of Socrates that Nietzsche criticized which he and the other philosopher’s base on the value of truth. Nietzsche based his criticism on a question, “what is the value of the truth.” The question appeared simple and innocent but the challenge it posed on the older philosophers is quite great. He wanted to at least hear the view of the philosophers and as usual criticize their ideas. Under no circumstance did the view of the philosophers according o the definition of truth converge ways of achieving truth and the possibility of attaining truth, an issue that caused a disagreement in their articles.
One philosopher made an attempt of suggesting that truth has values, good things and for which reason one may decide to lose his life because of truth. Socrates, made full support of this and made it that he values truth which is more worthwhile than any other thing including life. Socrates actually surprised his fellows in his deathbed when he told them of his happiness towards death and that he was ready to die because of truth. He considered the earthly thing to have made him a captive and therefore he was willing to get out of the prison by dying. He made it that he if continue to leave, he will not be able to access the knowledge of the external ideas. To comment on this, Nietzsche in “Beyond Good and Evil” decided to talk about the ‘the problem of the value of truth.’ He fails to believe how somebody could die because of mere truth and expect more truth afterwards. He suggested that the only remedy if one is interested in getting truth is the ability to untruth and insisted that he was rather ignorant to suggests death for having faith on truth.
Descartes, Kant, and Hegel suggest a link between Plato and classical Greek thought in which they based their views on the value of the human beings according to the perception of the real-world myths. In today’s world, nobody believes the myth and therefore it is rather extinct. Embracing the story about God enables people to access the actual truth, which succeeds the worldly myths. Nietzsche also criticized the views of Kant and Hegel on the issue of the myths. He puts it that since the world is a creation, anybody who would wish to create the world should base the practice on a pure will but not blindness in terms of passion. This implies that such a person should show willingness in the first place hence would automatically be successful. Nietzsche adds that the intention of the invention of the philosophical systems is the compensation of our weakness in terms of psychology. Embracing the myths will rather make people to deceive themselves. Understanding about God is a remedy for all these.
Nietzsche had a number of tactics, which made him succeed in criticizing the ideas of the older philosophies. He was positive towards life and opposed every bit, which might mislead the other human beings. He could give the best direction after opposing the initial article. Nietzsche therefore had a reason for criticizing the older truths.
G. Colli and M. Montinari Kritische Gesamtausgabe Briefwechsel. ed., 24 vols. in 4 parts. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1975.
Walter Kaufmann. The Antichrist. trans., in the Portable Nietzsche, ed. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Viking Press, 1968.
Walter Kaufmann .Beyond Good and Evil. Trans. New York: Random House, 1966.