Friedrich Nietzsche

By: Mohammed Saleheen English 6 Mr. Rabot Second Term Research Paper

Thesis Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. His controversial ideas on willpower, morality and the nature of being still inspire heated debates today. Critics and answers to his ideas stretch far and wide: from traditional western philosophical analysis to feminist criticism to Muslim metaphysical interpretation. Nietzsches background provides perspective as to how and why his philosophies were formed. Nietzsche is one of the most influential thinkers of all time, and his works on the primal nature of man are timeless.

Biography Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1844 in Rcken bei Ltzen, Liepzig, Germany. He was the son of a long line of Lutheran and Protestant priests and ministers, one of whose writings affirmed the everlasting survival of Christianity (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#Lif184190). This would set up Nietzsche for a long life of first asserting and then critiquing the Christian belief. When he was four years old, his father died at age 35 (http://www.nietzschespirit.com/pages/Biography.html). This traumatic incident would sour his view of the world permanently. After this death, Nietzsche lived exclusively with women: his grandmother, mother and two sisters. Nietzsche attended the University of Bonn in 1864 where he set out to learn theology and philology a discipline which then centered upon the interpretation of classical and biblical texts (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#Lif184190). It was during Nietzsches university years where he fell in love with ancient Greek philosophy and Schopenhauer. Arthur Schopenhauer is notable for being the most pessimistic (some would say nihilistic) of philosophers before Nietzsche. At this time, Nietzsche also met Richard Wagner, influential playwright and dramatist. Nietzsche loved Wagner, because in him Nietzsche saw the savior of his time. By applying the crises of the fifth century Greeks to his era, he realized that Wagner was our Aeschylus the genius of music drama (Sautet 56). At this time, Nietzsche travelled all over Europe, roaming as a stateless man. It was during these travels that he wrote his major works: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals (http://www.nietzschespirit.com/pages/Biography.html). After years of travelling alone, Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown after seeing a horse being brutalized by its master. After this, he resigned to his home in Rcken to live with his mother and sister. He died in 1900 under the care of his sister (http://www.biography.com/articles/Friedrich-Nietzsche-9423452?part=2).

Major Concepts Two major concepts in Nietzsches work are the idea of the Overman or bermensch, and the Slave/Master-Moralities. The idea of the bermensch is first explained in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Zarathustra describes the bermensch as the one who is willing to risk all for the sake of enhancement of humanity. In contrary to the last man whose sole desire is his own comfort and is incapable of creating anything beyond oneself in any form (https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm). The bermensch lies within any human and it can be born through the sheer power of will. Nietzsche views modern life as grinding down the individual characteristics of ever person, grinding them down into the last man. The last man is: the mass of workers, the bourgeoisie, even the aristocracy, leveled down by democracy and (soon) socialism: He is the result of Nihilism; the result of The disappearance of hierarchies The leveling of society The predominance of Materialism (Sautet 145) The bermensch must have a will to power. He/she must have the indomitable urge to impress his/her desire upon humanity. The bermensch is able to affect history and nature through his sheer power. bermensch have taken the form of captains, nobles, kings, leaders, emperors and heroes of the past. These men and women adhere to a different set of morals than the rest of humanity. Their extra-moral behavior is what sets them apart as the world-shakers and titans. This extra moral behavior is explained by Nietzsche in the form of Master and Slave Moralities. To understand this, one must understand Nietzsches view of history: All higher civilizations, according to Nietzsche, arose from the barbarians, who with their will and desire for power, have preyed upon the weaker, moral and peaceful societies. A healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person. (http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/notes-nietzsche.html#1.)

One who is hasty with understanding these concepts might say: Oh! So that is the nature of the bermensch, to dominate and exploit like the barbarians before him! But this is not the case. Although it is true that the barbarian is an example of a pre-society superman, it is not what we are trying to achieve. History moves in spirals, not circles. The barbarian of before must be enhanced into the superman, not the other way around. Now, what happened to these barbarians? They developed high society; these societies had the weaker race of people subjugated to the needs of the masters. The masters reflected the ideals of nobility, power, and strength, and the weak had to live under them. Their demise came with the advent of Judaism and later Christianity. Nietzsche explains that: the masters were tricked into Christianity by Jesus, who was one of the Jews who spoke of atonement and the suffering of masters from a crippling sense of guilt. All of this led to Christianity overtaking Europe and the elimination of master morality for the substitution of slave morality. (http://factoidz.com/master-and-slave-morality-in-friedrich-nietzsches-genealogy-ofmorals/)

The Jews developed the original slave morality because they were always at the bottom. When they were overrun by the Babylonians and enslaved, they developed the idea of the Slave Morality. The slave values pity, guilt, intent; these are lesser ideals that only serve to entangle the master. This Slave-Morality made great men feel hateful of their selves, instead of developing their strengths to the fullest of their ability; they subjected themselves to self-hatred, guilt, atonement, sacrifice. This morality only exists to justify the establishment of the weak. This is the only thing that keeps weak men from being dominated and (according to Nietzsche) rightly exterminated. The meek shall rule the Earth is a perfect example of how the weak are promoted through the religious texts of Judeo-Christianity. Religion subjugates are inherent, violent, dominating nature and subjugates us to the needs of the weak.

Critic #1: George Santayana George Santayana was a Spanish poet, playwright and philosopher. In his book Egotism In German Philosophy he talks about the nature of Nietzsches philosophies and their viability. Santayana traces Nietzsches theories back to Nietzsches unfulfilled views of self and the people around him. It was this lackluster world that pushed Nietzsche to develop a world (and a race) that was better than he was. I think that Santayanas critique is honest and a valuable lens to view Nietzsche with. Nietzsches ideas were not born independent of himself: his own self esteem and confidence developed the ideals which he promotes. George Santayana criticizes the nature of Nietzsches philosophies. He brings into question the fact that Nietzsche, a quiet, frail professor of forty years old, would promote unbridled strength and virility. He wonders how Nietzsche himself would fit into this masterslave world that hes set up: as a poet, philosopher and artist, how is he someone who impresses his will upon the entire race. Santayana explains that it is exactly these tributes that make Nietzsche dream of better men. Nietzsche was a weak and sickly child who was meek and shy with his friends. To imagine that he would dream up an alter-ego that is strong and powerful and aggressive is not impossible:

If he hailed the advent of a race of men superior to ourselves and of stronger fiber, it was because human life as it is, and especially his own life, repelled him. He was sensitive and, therefore, censorious He would sooner abolish than condone such a world, and he fled to some solitary hillside by the sea, saying to himself that man was a creature to be superseded. (Santayana 1915) Based off these insights, Santayana makes his thesis: That the bermensch is not a viable idea for an actual new race but rather a primordial reaction to the rigidity of modern time. Santayana also realizes that their time period grinds people down into dust, but he also does not

see the answer in the bermensch. He realizes that a world that lacks ethics and promotes will power and aggression would be one that is purely horrible. He understands that although Our society is outworn, but hard to renew; the emancipated individual needs to master himself (Santayana 1915). Such is the secret to a true society, a race of people who are self-regulating; who avoid becoming machines but do not indulge in orgiastic rituals of power either.

Critic #2: Muhammad Iqbal Muhammad Iqbal was a Muslim poet and philosopher born in British India. Throughout a series of letters and articles, Iqbal sets out to prove two things: That he is not associated and does not follow Nietzsche and that Nietzsche borrows a lot from eastern philosophy. Iqbals position as a Muslim philosopher clearly identifies the bias which he operates with, it would be inevitable for him to connect modern Western philosophy with that of the East. I feel that Iqbals ideas are fine by themselves, but they offer no extra insight into Nietzsches own notions of the bermensch or morality. Every belief system has super-men that fulfill its ideals, Iqbal just restates the fact. "When I say 'Be as hard as the diamond,' I do not mean as Nietzsche does callousness or pitilessness. Muhammad Iqbal spends a fair amount of time in his essays on Nietzsche differentiating himself from the philosopher. Iqbals beliefs in strength and will-power are far more spiritual and based on faith rather than Nietzsches. In fact, it is Nietzsches unrelenting atheism that Iqbal sees as the problem: According to Iqbal, Nietzsche was endowed with a true and keener insight and a heart afire, but "he broke from God, and was snapped too from himself. He desired to see, with his external eyes, the intermingling of power with: love; What he was seeking was the station of Omnipotence, which station transcends reason and philosophy" (http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/oct82/3.htm#_edn17) Had Nietzsche developed a philosophy through the grace of God, then he could have truly realized the meaning of being an bermensch. Iqbal also stipulates that Nietzsche borrowed the idea of the bermensch from the East. Nietzsche's doctrine of the Superman is, perhaps, borrowed from the East and degraded by materialism. Iqbal compares his idea to the Overman of Emerson. In Islamic mysticism they prefer to use the phrase Insn- Kmil which is a right amalgamation of the Divine (lht) and the human (ns't). (http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/oct82/3.htm#_edn17)

His use of characters such as Zarathustra in his stories may make this theory believable, but the same could be said of Nietzsche and any other faith. Most philosophies have its ideals of Supermen who fulfill its ideals: Christians have saints, Nazis have the herrenvolk and Marxists have the New Soviet Man. All in all, Iqbal is stuck in the realm of Islamic metaphysics that was left by the Europeans some hundred years before Iqbals time.

Critic #3: David Booth David Booth wrote an article for the Historical of Philosophy Quarterly magazine entitled Nietzsches Woman Rhetoric. The article attempted to dispel beliefs that Nietzsche was misogynistic and that his philosophy of the bermensch applied to all sexes. I feel that Booths interpretation of Nietzschean philosophy through a feminist lens is important but I feel like he is going about it the wrong way. Instead of searching for clues in Nietzsches work to show that hes not a sexist, Booth should develop a new feminist spin on Nietzsche. It is fruitless attempting to show that Nietzsche had equal respect for both races because at the time, misogyny was a dominating practice: the prevailing philosophy was that women were weaker and not accustomed to do mens work. Instead, Booth should focus more on using Nietzsches tools to break patriarchy. The need to break free of the constraints could easily be shifted from metaphysics to patriarchy. Similarly, his genealogical method can easily be used to unmask the allged objectivity of male-sponsored judgements or claims (Booth 311) David Booth wants to utilize Nietzsches theory to undue the power of misogyny in philosophical thought. But what does Booth think about Nietzsches own established philosophy? Booth searches for tidbits in Nietzches writing and makes assumptions about Nietzsches commentary that hints towards a more egalitarian view of sex. He sniffs out clues in discreet paragraphs about gender relations that arent completely biased. An example of this can be seen here: One feminist claim on Nietzsches philosophy coincides with his critique of the religiousity that posits a spirit-real of opposite values in order to slander the physical body men fabricate the idea of a prior and superior realm of essences, link themselves to it, then link women to the inferior realm of nature (Booth 312)

Although that is a logical and reasonable claim to make, the fact of the matter is that Nietzsche did not say it. It can be implied that what he did say about religiosity can be taken sexually, but it was never explicitly stated. This is where Booth fails: instead of developing a new Nietzschean view of the world; he works Nietzsches pieces for Booths own ends.

My Response I feel that Nietzsches philosophy has a lot of important points to follow for the individual. It is of utmost importance that a man develops his strengths to the fullest, abandons false moralities and interprets life for himself. These basic existentialist aspects of Nietzsche I agree with. But it is Nietzsches prescribed cures to life that bother me. Every civilized and sane minded person can agree that kindness, pity and guilt are all natural factors in life. They are aspects that keep us going as self-regulating beings; without them we would be nothing but beasts. What keeps us from eliminating the old, enslaving the weak and destroying the inferior: it is our concepts of kindness, pity and guilt I find it amusing to see that those people who promote genocide and eugenics, fury and ruthlessness are often the ones who would not survive them. Nietzsches promotion of strength and power are directly contrary to his position at the end of his life: a helpless soul in a debilitated mental state. Another problem with Nietzsche is his perception of reality. Nietzsche is adamant on the fact that any person can overcome any and all obstacles through sheer power of will. Those that do not are simply the weaker race; those that do are the masters. Nietzsche completely ignores the economics that are at work behind the scenes. No matter how hard they may work, or how much will power they may have, the economic trends (and the social-political ones that follow) will always keep them down. This is how we established a hierarchy, not simply the strong dominating the weak. Without taking into terms these real, material factors Nietzsches bermensch will never be realized. In Nietzsches time, those that worked, gained nothing while those that didnt work, gained everything.

Philosophy in Real Life How does one live like the bermensch? Well it is a very difficult practice to define, due to the range of ways its been described. Is the bermensch primal, like a great blonde beast? Is it intellectual power that Nietzsche describes, when he talks about willpower. Or is it someone with no discernable ability or prowess, but a lot of enthusiasm, energy and enterprise? Is he the jock, the nerd, the stoner? Ideally, the bermensch would be all three. The bermensch pushes himself to all his limits, develops all aspects of his being. Mental, physical and social fitness are all very important to the overman. The overman is strong willed and determined and lets no obstacle get in his way. Of course living like this is very romantic and ideal, but applying yourself to things never hurt anybody. Being proud of ones self and ones work is an important trait of the bermensch. And what of morals? How would the bermensch behave? Would he go around defiling bathrooms, lashing out against the small kids in the class, defying the teacher at every turn? Everyone knows this kind of person and he, for sure, is not the bermensch. He resembles more the primitive hero: masterful, yes but lacking civilized manner and form. Does the bermensch have pity on those that are below him? Absolutely not. Pity for all would be harshness and tyranny for you, my neighbor! (Nietzsche 93). But pity does not equal mutual respect. The bermensch should have respect for all people at his level friends and foes alike. The only true enemies are those that are below them, the contemptible forces of the weak. Those should be hated and subjugated to the will of the bermensch, because the bermenschs will always wins out. The bermensch is not predatory, he is not cruel, he is not evil, it is the product of a Slave Morality that we attribute strength to those traits. He is prideful, just and noble. One should live more like the eagle than the vulture.

Works Cited Page 1. "Friedrich Nietzsche." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 30 May 1997. Web. 13 June 2011. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/>. 2. Chapko, William. "Nietzsche Biography." Nietzsche for Creative Spirits. Web. 14 June 2011. <http://www.nietzschespirit.com/pages/Biography.html>. 3. Magnus, Bernd. "Friedrich Nietzsche Biography." Biography.com. A&E Television Networks, 1994. Web. 13 June 2011. <http://www.biography.com/articles/Friedrich-Nietzsche9423452?part=2>. 4. "Nietzsche's Idea of an Overman and Life from His Point of View." Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics. Web. 13 June 2011. <https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm>. 5. Sautet, Marc. Nietzsche for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Pub., 1990. Print. 6. "Nietzsche, "Master and Slave Morality"" Philosophy Home Page. 2003. Web. 13 June 2011. <http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/notes-nietzsche.html>. 7. "Master and Slave Morality in Friedrich Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals." Factoidz. 2008. Web. 13 June 2011. <http://factoidz.com/master-and-slave-morality-in-friedrich-nietzschesgenealogy-of-morals/>. 8. Santayana, George. Egotism in German Philosophy. London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1915. Print. 9. Maruf, Muhammad. "IQBAL'S CRITICISM OF NIETZSCHE." Welcome to Allama Iqbal Site. Web. 13 June 2011. <http://www.allamaiqbal.com/publications/journals/review/oct82/3.htm>. 10. Booth, David. "Nietzsche's "Woman" Rhetoric." History of Philosophy Quarterly 8.3 (1991): 311-12. Print.