Mark Fischer

11.15.15

Reflection Paper #6

Friedrich Nietzsche was a thinker that was unlike any that came before him. He

brought many ideas into the field of philosophy that had previously not been discussed

or thought about. Perhaps the largest and most influential idea was that the Christian

God had run its course in human history and humans no longer had a use for him. Thus

Nietzsche stated that God was dead and had no place in society. When Nietzsche wrote

that God had died, the world was a much different place where all ideas were not

respected or considered valid. Since then many things have changed in the world and

many more ideas have been thought over by philosophers, yet Nietzsches work is still

very relevant to the field.

Nietzsches idea seems to me to be similar to Karl Marx in that he says that

mankind has moved past the need for God and that he brings nothing to civilization

anymore. Similar to Marx, Nietzsche believed that humans created god to help cope

with their emotions and personal responsibility a sort of emotional opiate. The main

difference between the two thinkers is that Marx believed that people would come to the

realization by themselves over time, Nietzsche believed that people needed to be told

that god was no longer relevant. Nietzsche believed that once the people realized this,

that society would be able to move forward and a more advanced form of human would

come to existence. Nietzsche developed a worldview that did not believe in objectivity.

He began a movement that transformed what was known as Nihilism. Nihilism is the

lack of a belief in any objective truth. What matters to one person does not innately hold
value, that is it does not matter in the same way to every person. This was especially true

when applied to morals. The way that a nihilist would view morals is that there is no

objective right and wrong, and that society has shaped the way people view good and

evil.

To respond to Nietzsche and the way that he thought about the world, I find

myself agreeing with him in many cases. The idea of a non objective world has been

something that I have believed in. As in Nietzsches view, what matters to one person is

not in any way innately important to everyone else. The way in which a person comes to

make their decisions is currently based mostly off of what society has told them to

choose. For example, most people see right and wrong as what is against the laws for the

community in which they live. Other people look to religion to guide them on a path to

what is right and what is wrong. This in some ways, takes away the freedom of choice

that humans are supposedly born with. If the free choice that each person has is

between defying the laws that society has imposed or taking the slave role and letting

the master (society) make all the decisions for them. It doesnt seem like much of a

choice at all. Why would a person choose to leave the good graces of the society that they

are born into? While I agree with what Nietzsche says about there being no true

objectivity in the world, I disagree with him in that he says that humans have outgrown

the need for god in their lives. In a world where objectivity is lost and nothing can be

applied the same to two different people, would it even matter if a person chooses to

believe in God?

Religion plays a positive role in many lives of people around the world. For

Nietzsche to say that humans have no need for something that gives them purpose and

makes them happy is something that he does not entirely have the right to do. People
should be able to do live their lives in accordance with whatever they value. In the case

of those that practice faith and religion this falls into the category of exercising free will.

If a person chooses to believe in God and practice faith, there should not be a single

person that judges them for that. While he should certainly be able to voice his opinion

and carry on living in whatever type of world he believes in. At no time should he try to

force that world on another person. It could be argued that he was not actually trying to

force his ideas or opinions on anyone. After all, in his book Thus Spoke Zarathustra it is

made clear on the title page that it was written for all and for none. This leads one to

assume that he is more than willing to share his ideas with anyone that wants to hear

them, but he is not forcing any person to read it. In true nihilist fashion the title alludes

to the fact that even though what is written matters to some people, it most certainly

does not matter to all people in the same fashion. In a way Nietzsche almost goes out of

his way to let the readers know that he is not purposefully and intentionally attacking

religion as a whole and means nothing against those that devote their lives to the

subject.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra begins with the the coming out of the mountains and

returning to civilization. Upon his journey back towards humanity Zarathustra comes

across a saint that lives in the woods. The saint had given up his sense of community in

the world to dedicate his life solely to God. While Zarathustra has the knowledge that

God is dead he does not pass this information along to the isolated saint. This is an

example of Nietzsche not wanting to take happiness away from people. The saint was

doing what made him happy, it was not in Zarathustras nature to want to take away this

happiness from him. Having this scene play out so close to the beginning of the story is
another way of saying that while Nietzsche possesses this knowledge, it is not for

everyone; people have every right to determine their own truths in this world.

I would make the argument to Nietzsche that God in contemporary society is not

useless or dead, that the reality of the senselessness is the shaming that is often

associated with those that do not follow or believe in the same religions. The issues that

so many people associate with religion in todays world do not come from within each

individual religion, but from between each separate religion. In a world where so much

violence is caused by certain religious fanatics in the media, it would be easy to

misconstrue religion as a bad thing as a whole. However, the portion of people that use

religion in a way that physically harms other people is very insignificant compared to

the total amount of people that practice religion worldwide. That being said, physical

violence is not the only way in which religion can harm people. I would argue that most

of religious harm comes in the form of very sublet ways, such as the judgment of others.

When people find out religious views of others they automatically make some

assumptions or stereotypes. Immediately reflecting something about the other person.

The idea that a person can make assumptions solely based off of anothers religious

background is something that humans should be above at this point in time. The largest

example that I can think of where this could be applied comes in the form of political

campaigns. So many times I see a candidate either criticized for having one set of

religious beliefs losing votes solely for how they choose to practice or not practice their

faith. In other circumstances religious candidates will politically weaponize their faith

and use it to set others beneath them. Currently this is a very large issue with many of

those running in the republican party. Religion is only something that is useless to
mankind if they cannot use it responsibly, that is, in a way that does not try to shame,

cast doubts or create physical harm for another person.

The way that Nietzsche viewed the good life is significantly different than any of

the views that have been incorporated in the cluster up to this point. For the most part

Nietzsche saw that the optimal form of living was through the gaining of power over

ones peers. He saw the coming of the superman in the future as the advancement of the

human race. The good life was not something that was asymptotic like that of the

Catholic Church. It was very much something that was attainable in the world that we

live in. It was the ability to live outside of the views of society and to create and craft a

world in which one as an individual may be authentically themselves. That is a world

where the individual chooses what is right and what is wrong and does whatever it takes

to make those things happen. If a person felt that they wanted to break the law, then

that person would simply have to gain the power over the law and do whatever it is that

they wanted. Essentially Nietzsches good life is able to be summed up by a phrase that

is used so much in todays world, YOLO. Nietzsche spoke about not letting the

viewpoints of others effect the way that a person sees the world. That is, to make the

most out of life and the world that we live in.

Nietzsches work made a large impact on the way that I see the good life. I agree

with him in many areas. The largest part of his thinking that I concur with is his view

that there is no objective anything in reality. This is especially true when speaking about

the good life. There is no way that I can look at how another individual lives their life

and say that it is any better or any worse than anybody elses. It is simply up to each and

every individual to live their life in the way that makes them happy and fulfilled. The one

thing that I will say holds true in my definition of the good life is that nobody should be
forcing their good life on any other person. The judging of other people is not something

that can be done. For in no circumstance can one individual comprehend all the events

leading up to a certain point in anothers life. A person should be free to take ideas from

someones definition of the good life, but not take it on fully without question.