The Immortal Nietzsche

The following paper was written by an eleventh grade student in my Introduction to Philosophy class.  It deserves a wide reading.--Alice C. Linsley

Perspectives of the Immortal Nietzsche

John A. Williams

In 2009 I had my first run-in with Friedrich Nietzsche. While on a trip with my youth group to Ichthus Music Festival in Wilmore, Kentucky, I was walking around the merchandise tent with my youth minister when he saw a t-shirt that caused him to be overwhelmed with joy. It stated in bold white all-caps font against a black background:

“GOD IS DEAD” – NIETZCHE 1882

“NIETZCHE IS DEAD” – GOD 2009

My youth minister chuckled gleefully and commented on how clever he found the message. I asked him if Nietzsche ever claimed immortality (he would have had to for me to find the joke to be even remotely humorous). He gave me an odd look and a shrug. I knew little of philosophy as a whole apart from that it was a subject that was generally restricted to members of academia and I wondered why, of all of the atheist philosophers of history, this one, over a century after his career, was drawing the mock and ridicule of this festival of the faithful.

I later learned what I believe to be the reason. Although Nietzsche would have claimed not to be the killer of God, but only the deliverer of his obituary, he undoubtedly drove the nails into the coffin of Christendom, and has not been forgiven, even to this day, for his trespasses against the Church. One might ask, “How did he do it?” Most would say that his book, Antichrist, was his most effective assault on religion. I would disagree. Although Antichrist was his most explicit critique of Christianity, Nietzsche attacks all organized religion (and organized philosophy, for that matter) at its core by encouraging nonconformity and individualism, adopting skepticism and open criticism of authority as a way of life.          

 Nietzsche undoubtedly saw Kierkegaard’s attempt to reconcile Christianity with this new existentialism and the grief that it caused him[i]. Through his own existentialism, Nietzsche starts with a new premise, taking Kierkegaard’s work to its logical conclusion, not only rejecting the organization of religion, but the belief systems that built it; casting off Kierkegaard’s faith in paradoxes and encouraging his readers to develop their own existential perspectives.  This is the aspect of Nietzsche I wish to further explore with this essay. Nietzsche’s entire philosophy is built around a profound epistemological claim that everything that a person knows is built around the compilation of perspectives.

When considering the thoughts of any philosopher, there is always controversy regarding how much their social milieu affected their philosophy. In a British Broadcasting Channel documentary, Martin Heidegger said of Aristotle “He was born, he thought, and he died.”[ii], and explains that after we get that bit of biographical information out of the way, we can begin to explore his abstractions. Of Nietzsche I would state that he was born, he thought, he fought, and he died.

It can be said that Nietzsche was a social critic as well as a philosopher, which offers some insight on his continued relevance and influence. He spent his life philosophizing and creating concepts, and from them deriving applicable principles which he used to war against the culture which he perceived as anti-intellectual. His basic existential philosophies are timeless and easily observable in psychological observation and the human experience, but his expressions of these thoughts were fine tuned to break down the philosophies of the time that opposed his.

Nietzsche was born on October 15, 1844 in Rokken, Germany. His father was a Lutheran pastor and he accepted the family religion until his college studies. It has been speculated that Nietzsche’s philological studies profoundly shaped his beliefs. Through his linguistic studies, he realized how morals were shaped through society and communication, and characterized two sets of observable moralities in every social: that of the master and that of the slave.[iii]

One part of Nietzsche’s personal life that must be considered to understand his philosophy is his sexuality. In his early life, he asked his love, Lou Salome, to marry him, and she declined.[iv] It is noted historically that Nietzsche was extremely unlucky with his romantic interests. When one hears theories (albeit disputed) about Nietzsche contracting syphilis at a brothel (which ultimately is speculated to have lead to his madness), it almost seems that he was cursed by sex. I would theorize that the social anxiety resulting from his trouble relating to women caused some of his negative (at best condescending) attitudes toward them. These attitudes also correspond with his infamous generalizations.

At first glance, it seems hypocritical that Nietzsche would categorize people, as Existentialism, the school of philosophy in which he is commonly categorized (and considered one of its fathers, particularly of its atheistic branch) is highly individualistic. This can be explained by acquiring an understanding of Nietzsche’s rhetoric. He was not a mathematician, and his arguments were not entirely comprised of fact and syllogism. He had no shame in not only disagreeing with, but openly ridiculing his opponents. Oftentimes, in attempts to make relevant observations of humanity as a whole, pure individualistic consideration and psychological evaluation was not an option. Nietzsche saw too many correlations within people groups for that, and was entirely content with depersonalization of humans when he perceived that they had forfeited their individualism. During his life, much as today, Nietzsche was a magnet for controversy, and he did not earn this reputation by being relativistic and sympathetic in his scrutiny.

I view Perspectivism as Friedrich Nietzsche’s primary contribution to the philosophical project. In this epistemological theory he explores human consciousness by explaining that everything that is knowable must be known through compiling numerous perspectives, and weighing them against each other in order to advance understanding. His views of identity, individualism, existentialism, and the ideal of the Superman are all derived from this base level theory.

What must be understood of Perspectivism is that it does not imply that all perspectives hold equal validity. Perspectivism is a development that is meant to help the individual come to terms with abstraction and explain the subjective in relation to the objective. Certain abstractions may be seen as invalid because they do not correspond with physical reality. This is because what exists in the abstract must be learned through an understanding of both the abstract and the physical.

The subjectivity in Nietzsche’s philosophy deals more with aesthetics and myth than with propositions. He by no means believed that truth was relative, quite to the contrary, truth in his view is supreme and ultimately beyond human grasp. The human, after all, is in too close relation to other mammals and too young in its own consciousness to grasp eternal truth. Everything that is eternal can only be reached through metaphor, an indirect sort of understanding.

What made his philosophy cohesive and set some perspectives on a higher plane than others was logic. If any perspective appears to be too closely related to a human construct or puts itself beyond question, it should be cast aside. If it puts a synthetic moral ideal like pity above a naturally observable function like the will to power, it should be rejected.

Through this insight into the basis of Nietzschean philosophy we can see why it was built into the philosophy that it was. It also decisively opposed Nietzsche’s two worst enemies; nihilism and dogmatism. Most empirically leaning individuals would agree with this Perspectivism, and most rationalists would at least agree that it is a well thought out empirical theory. When it comes to disparagement regarding Nietzsche’s philosophy, it usually regards the conclusions that Nietzsche reached as a result of having these fundamentals.

Ironically, much criticism of Nietzsche is made on the ground of his personal morality and how it affected his ideas, which is a concept that he came to reject altogether. For any other philosopher, moral criticism would be dismissed in favor of a valid criticism of fallacy and ideological inconstancy. I will offer Nietzsche the same courtesy.

My critique of Nietzsche regards his view of free will. In Beyond Good and Evil he dismisses either the idea of free or bound will as “boorishly simplistic”[v]. In this passage, Nietzsche reveals that he is capable of understanding paradox and, when he sees it valid, acknowledging it even if it jeopardizes his previous philosophies. In light of this, I must question his view on extra-dimensional existence. I would think that an analytical philosopher like Nietzsche would consider the possibility of entities that cannot be detected by any sort of human observation. I have yet to find evidence that he ever considered this question but, to be fair, I would not put it past him. I doubt Nietzsche considered any dogmatic view of spirituality, but it would not be shocking to find some consideration of phenomena beyond human understanding in his thoughts.

Nietzsche is one of the most thought provoking and culturally relevant philosophers of the 19^th century. His Perspectivism has shaped much of western philosophy since his career and his contributions to existentialism have inspired countless individuals to take a more introspective approach to their time on earth. It is my opinion Nietzsche’s analytical approach, regardless of how I perceive his conclusions, is a vast assistance to any philosopher hoping to achieve a greater understanding and come to conclusions of people and ideas through their perspectives. Although, as the t-shirt states, Nietzsche is undoubtedly dead, his ideas live on and don’t show signs of dissipating any time soon. 

[i] McDonald, William, "Søren Kierkegaard"

[ii] Tranter, Rhys, "Human, All Too Human”

[iii] Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche"

[iv] Wicks, Robert, "Friedrich Nietzsche"

[v]  Nietzsche, Friedrich, “Beyond Good and Evil”



___ END___


Related reading:  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche

Moral Obligation

Alice C. Linsley


A difficult aspect of ethical thinking is obtaining critical distance from our own beliefs and recognizing the possibility of error. When we take for granted the reasonableness of the beliefs upon which we act, we fail to question our "givens" and are easily moved to accept things that we should probably question and even resist.

Since our ideas of morality are mostly shaped by the influence of parents, friends, spouses and our culture, our confidence in the correctness of our moral views is strongly reinforced. The moral authority of our actions is determined by the consensus of these influences. We feel obliged to go with the dominant views, rarely questioning whether these might be based more on convenience than truth, or promoted by vested interests rather than by prophetic voices.

Law codes are a measure of a culture's moral compass. Consider the Code of Hammurapi. It was engraved on a dark stone stele more than 7 feet high. At the top of this stele appears an image of King Hammurapi standing reverently before the seated Shamash, the god of justice. Shamash is dictating the law to his earthly representative. The Code of Hammurapi closes with this statement: “The righteous laws which Hammurapi, the wise king, has established...” Similarly, Leviticus closes with this: “These are the commandments which YHWH commanded Moses for the children of Israel.” These ancient moral codes appealed to the deity for the authority.

These ancient moral codes did not spring suddenly into existence. They represent centuries of social development and ethical thinking. Similarly, the laws of the United States represent centuries of development and are still developing. One wonders what moral authority the U.S. Supreme Court appeals to when makign decisions? Is the Court's authority constituted on general principles of law, the citation of precedent, and some general idea of fairness? If so, that's not a very secure tether. That boat is sure to drift.

According to Socrates, we have a moral obligation to be good citizens. For Socrates good citizenship requires philosophical contemplation whereby one achieves happiness through virtue. Socrates was very popular in anient Athens. When faced with the choice of being executed or taking his own life, Socrates chose the latter. Everyone knew that Socrates was being set up. His friends had offered to help him escape to safety, but he refused. How could he teach good citizenship and disregard the auhroity of the State? Yet if he allowed the State to take his life, when everyone knew he was innocent of the charges, he would undermine the citizens' confidence in their political system.

According to Plato (427-347 B.C.), evil arises from ignorance, and virtue can be imparted through instruction. For Plato, the highest good consists in the perfect imitation of the Absolute Good, which cannot be fully realized in this life. Virtue enables man to order his conduct according to the dictates of reason, and acting according to reason, he approaches the Absolute Good (which in theological language is God).

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) addressed most of the ethical questions that continue to fret the Western mind. With characteristic keenness he solved, in his ethical and political writings, most of the problems with which ethics concerns itself. Unlike Plato, who began with ideas as the basis of his observation, Aristotle began with experience analysed and traced to ultimate causes.

He asserts that all men tend to happiness as the ultimate object of all their endeavors, and to which all other goods merely serve as means.  The highest pleasure is found in eudaimonism as an activity.  The concept of eudaimonic well-being (from daimon - true nature) stresses that not all desires are worth pursuing as, even though some of them may yield pleasure. Only desires which produce wellness can be considered virtuous, so moral obligation involves right desires. Aristotle's treatment of moral obligation remains a lasting contribution to ethics.

The study of the history of ethics counteracts this problem of perspective. By virtually traveling into other cultures and time periods, we will encounter an endless variety of contrasting, often contradictory, beliefs about morality. We will discover, first and foremost, that many of the most brilliant minds in human history have disagreed about morality and that no philosopher, no matter how confident and talented, has ever expressed an ethical view without encountering opposition, disagreement, and possible error.

Our own moral beliefs which seem obvious, and often receive the agreement of the immediate world around us, are a minority view when placed into the larger history of moral philosophy. They cannot be taken for granted and must be carefully considered and critically examined.



A Good Reason to Study the History of Ethics

Study of the history of ethics counteracts the problem of too-close perspective. By visiting other cultures and time periods, we discover a variety of contrasting and often contradictory moral beliefs that register different moral obligations. We discover that brilliant minds have disagreed about morality and that no philosopher has ever expressed an ethical view without encountering opposition and disagreement.

We have choices as to how we will conduct our lives.  We may decide that traditional authorities are not binding on us and attempt to live as Nietzsche who called himself an “immoralist” and criticized almost all the moral philosophers. He wrote:

“Whether it be hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which assess the value of things according to pleasure and suffering, that is to say according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought and naïvetés which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist’s conscience will look down on with derision” (Peoples and Fatherlands, 7:225).

We may decide that Immaneul Kant's deontological ethics is a better path. Kant defines virtue as “the moral strength of a human being's will in fulfilling his duty.” According to Kant the nature of morality is to do one’s duty even when we are not inclined to do it, and not because we are afraid of the consequences of not doing it. The moral person performs his moral obligation regardless of the consequences.

In Kant's view the person who does his duty to appear virtuous, is not moral. The person who does his duty to get it over and done with, is not moral. The person who does his duty to avoid negative consequences, is not moral. Only the person who does his duty because it is his duty, is moral. Kant’s philosophy is an absolutist moral system, that is to say that he regarded some acts always to be wrong, regardless of the situation.

Jeremy Bentham presented another approach to moral obligation. Utilitarianism states that the right action or policy is that which brings “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Bentham never actually used this phrase and later dropped the second qualification, embracing what he called "the greatest happiness principle." Bentham's “happiness principle” refers to the extent to which actions promote the general happiness. What is morally obligatory is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, and creates the least amount of pain. He writes, “By the principle of utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves of every action whatsoever, according to the tendency which it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness of the party whose interest is in question: or, what is the same thing in other words, to promote or to oppose that happiness.”

Utilitarian ethics is very popular today. It appeals to those who believe that moral obligation can be boiled down to not hurting others by my actions.  However, this over simplifies Bentham's philosophy. Bentham believed that the primary motivators in human beings are pleasure and pain. He argued that, if pleasure is the good, it is good regardless of whose pleasure it is. This being the case, the pursuit of maximum pleasure has moral force independent of the interests of the individual acting. As with Adam Smith, Bentham held that individuals should seek the general happiness because the interests of others are inextricably bound up with their own.

Bentham was a lawyer and he proposed that the identification of interests and the bringing together of diverse interests is the responsibility of lawmakers. This is a popular idea among supporters of big government.  The irony of having the government determine the individual's moral obligation appears not to have dawned on the fans of Utilitarianism.

Related reading:  Aristotle's Understanding of the Chief Good; Ancient Moral Codes; Ethics and Binary Oppositions; Scott B. Rae's Moral Choices

Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)

Alice C. Linsley


Kierkegaard was a brilliant philosopher who was critical of 18th century Romanticism’s emphasis on naturalism. He was also critical of Empiricism’s claim that moral judgment must be based on reason and verifiable data. Kierkegaard believed that the basis for forming moral judgment is always subjective and that the purpose of Philosophy should be to enhance the individual’s quality of life and freedom.

Kierkegaard and Nietzsche shared an overarching realization that anything decided to be meaningful or important must come from within the individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. They both regarded the objective truth of the Enlightenment as a concept that ultimately leads to frustration, despair and anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, each philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion, and the role of human freedom in the universe.

In his personal life Kierkegaard suffered from depression. Before age 21, he lost his mother and five of his family members. He never married because he regarded marriage as “the deepest form of revelation” and he doubted that he could so thoroughly self-reveal as to fulfill his ideal of marriage. Evidently his struggle with depression didn’t hinder him from expressing his ideas, as he was an extraordinarily prolific writer, contributing in the areas of philosophy, theology, psychology and social criticism.

Kierkegaard refers to biblical Abraham as a “knight of faith” and sees him as the embodiment of his existentialist philosophy. For Kierkegaard, true individuality comes through surrendering one’s individuality. Abraham discovers his meaning in the cosmos through losing himself in God, but when one tries to explain this to another person, the explanation seems absurd.

Kierkegaard wrote, “If a human being did not have an eternal consciousness, if underlying everything there were only a wild, fermenting power that writhing in dark passions produced everything, be it significant or insignificant, if a vast, never appeased emptiness hid beneath everything, what would life be then but despair?” In this statement, Kierkegaard expresses “existential anxiety” or “angst.” Existential angst is not the same as normal fear. It is not caused by outside events that signal danger, it never leaves, it touches every area of our lives, and it does not respond to counseling.

Although Kierkegaard never used the term "existentialism" in his writings, he is regarded as the founder of Christian existentialism. Kierkegaard believed that the value of a philosopher's ideas should be judged by the person's life.  (He would have judged Nietzsche's ideas as lacking moral and intellectual value, which Nietzsche would have applauded!)  According to Kierkegaard, the individual’s life is the basis upon which he is judged by God. A writer's work is an important part of his existence, but his life as a whole is what ultimately matters to God.

This is why he was attracted to the lives of the saints, especially John Climacus, a 6th century monk who spent much of his time in solitude, prayer and fasting.

While at the monastery on Mount Sinai, Abbot John wrote “The Ladder of Divine Ascent,” a work arranged into thirty chapters or “steps.” Each step details the vices that the individual must conquer and the virtues that the individual must perfect in order to ascend the spiritual “ladder” to the Kingdom of Heaven. Here are some of John Climacus’ famous sayings:

Step 1: A Christian is one who imitated Christ in thought, word and deed. A lover of God is one who lives in communion with all that is natural and sinless.

Step 5: Repentance is a contract with God for a second life. A penitent inflicts his own punishment upon himself.

Step 9: If you forgive quickly, you, too, will be quickly forgiven.

Step 15: Purity is putting on the nature of angels. It is the longed-for house of Christ and the earthly heaven of the heart.

Step 17: He who has tasted the things on high easily despises what is below. He who has not, only finds joy in possessions.

Step 25: Humility is a divine shelter which prevents us from seeing our achievements.

Step 50: There remain three virtues that bind and secure the union of all: Faith, Hope and Love--- and the greatest of these is Love.

Kierkegaard published Philosophical Fragments under the name of John Climacus. In this work, Kierkegaard poses three important questions:

• What is the relationship between history (temporal existence) and human consciousness (eternal existence)?


• Is there any purpose or meaning to events in our temporal existence other than historical interest?


• Is it possible to base eternal happiness upon historical knowledge?


Kierkegaard’s solution was to find a link between the historical/temporal and the eternal/nontemporal. He does so by explaining knowledge as miraculous or supernatural. He agrees with the Socratic-Platonic view that there is no learning, since one can’t learn what one already knows. Drawing of John Climacus’ understanding of spiritual enlightenment, Kierkegaard argues that learning involves a mysterious change that takes place in the learner at a specific moment of his existence - a moment of enlightenment. In this moment, the learner is absolutely certain that he/she has grasped eternal knowledge. He maintains that this is miraculous and supernatural because it only can be initiated by God through a series of historical/temporal events. This learning (or enlightenment) is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every learner.

Kierkegaard argues further that individuals are unable to know anything that is certain except through this supernatural intervention in history. In this sense, Kierkegaard is a Skeptic. He doubts that humans are able of our own faculties to learn or know anything.

So what makes this learning or enlightenment possible? Kierkegaard recognizes that human existence involves suffering, anguish, pain, sickness and death. That being our plight, we naturally desire an escape. This desire is very powerful. It is a yearning for the eternal that leads us to “leap into absurdity.”

What is the absurdity? For Kierkegaard, it is the supernatural intervention of the divine Person Jesus Christ entering history, making it possible for us to know that God exists. The existence of God can’t be proved by reason, by experimentation, by logic or through observation. Only by faith in this divine intervention can one hope to escape the suffering of this life and move from ignorance to enlightenment. This is the “supernaturalism” of Kierkegaard’s philosophy and it is clearly the opposite of the naturalism of Nietzsche and the Romantics.

Whereas Nietzsche rejected the prevailing morality in favor of his “immoralism,” Kierkegaard presents social norms as the universal measure of service to the community. Even human sacrifice is justified in terms of how it serves the community, so when Agamemnon sacrifices his daughter Iphigenia he is performing a tragic sacrifice in order that the Greek expedition to Troy may succeed. Were Abraham’s intention in sacrificing Isaac to gain worldly success, he would simply be another tragic hero like Agamemnon. But as Kierkegaard understands the story of Mount Moriah, it is Abraham’s absolute surrender to God that makes possible his receiving back his offering and much more. Kierkegaard explains, “Infinite resignation is the last stage before faith …for only in infinite resignation do I become conscious of my external validity, and only then can one speak of grasping existence by virtue of faith.”



Kierkegaard recognizes an existential duty to a creator God as more authoritative than human social norms. Ultimately God's definition of the distinction between good and evil outranks any human definition. He holds up biblical Abraham's near sacrifice of his son, not as an example of obedience to social norms, but as the consequence of a "teleological suspension of the ethical.”

That is, Abraham recognizes a duty to obey something higher than both his social duty not to kill an innocent and his fatherly commitment to his son. (Fear and Trembling)

From Kierkegaard's perspective, the distinction between good and evil is dependent not on social norms but on God. Therefore it is possible for Abraham to live and act beyond the prescribed norms of his day to fulfill a spiritual destiny that he alone can fulfill. This renders ethical cases such as Abraham's problematic, since we have no public policy to guide our decision about whether Abraham is obeying God's command or is a deluded would-be murderer.

In the end, Kierkegaard’s existential philosophy can’t be used to formulate specific ethical guidelines for society. It is simply too personal and too subjective. While existentialism would become a popular philosophy in the 20th century, ethics in the post-modern world would be influenced more by analytic and linguistic philosophy, and especially the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, to which we turn next.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844-1900)

Alice C. Linsley

Nietzsche called himself an “immoralist” and criticized almost all the moral philosophers. He wrote:

“Whether it be hedonism or pessimism or utilitarianism or eudaemonism: all these modes of thought which assess the value of things according to pleasure and suffering, that is to say according to attendant and secondary phenomena, are foreground modes of thought and naïvetés which anyone conscious of creative powers and an artist’s conscience will look down on with derision” (Peoples and Fatherlands, 7:225).

Nietzsche’s moral framework is his own peculiar interpretation of history. Nietzsche says that history reveals two kinds of morality, the morality of the masters and the morality of the slaves. The master morality ascribes to itself noble qualities such as bravery, daring, truthfulness and blondness, but regards inferiors as swarthy cowards, given to lies and vulgarity. According to Nietzsche, the poor and weak resented this and therefore constructed a different system of values and morals which stressed humility, sympathy and cooperation among themselves as the underdog. Nietzsche called this “a transvaluation of values” and he blamed it on the Jews.

He wrote, “It was the Jews who, reversing the aristocratic equation (good = noble = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a frightening consistency to suggest the contrary equation, and to hold on to it with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)” (On the Genealogy of Morals 19)

Nietzsche held that the revolt of the slaves reached it peak in first-century Christianity. He blamed Christianity for the downfall of ancient Rome, the fatherland of aristocratic virtues embodied in the Caesars. Rome was destroyed, in Nietzsche’s mind, because people began to honor four Jews: Jesus, Mary, Peter and Paul (GM 36). He argues that the success of Christianity meant the degeneration of the virtuous ideals of power in favor of compassion for the lowly.

He believed that immoral rulers and those who sought world domination embody the highest morality. He praised Napoleon as one who showed the world what it means to be noble. He wrote:

“But there are cases where a leader or bell-wether is felt to be indispensable; in such cases people keep trying to set up an aggregation of clever herd-men in place of real commanders: that is the origin, for instance, of all parliamentary constitutions. But what a blessing, in spite of everything, what a release from an increasingly unbearable burden is the appearance of an absolute commander of these herd-Europeans! This was demonstrated most recently by the effect of Napoleon when he appeared on the scene. The history of the impact of Napoleon can be said to be the history of the highest happiness this entire century has achieved…” (Beyond Good and Evil 86)

To achieve Nietzsche’s ideal of a master race, Christianity would have to be overturned. Nietzsche claimed that modern man no longer had need of the idea of God. He declared that “God is dead” and that the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of every universal perspective. Once this happens, there can no longer be any coherent sense of objective truth. Instead we would be guided in our moral decisions by only our own perspectives.

Some argue that Nietzsche’s view renders all truth so subjective that the very idea of truth becomes meaningless. However, this is not Nietzsche’s intention. He places a high value on truth as blunt honesty, especially among those who would be masters. What Nietzsche calls honesty is the opposite of compassion and sympathy. Nietzsche’s highest virtue is cruelty justified by power. Nietzsche calls for the strong in the world to break their self-imposed chains and assert their power and vitality upon the world. Nietzsche admits that “a philosophy that dares to do this has already placed itself beyond good and evil” (BGE 7).

Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra about how the Übermensch (Superman) must create the noble values of power, enthusiasm for war, and world domination to bring human existence to a new level. “Renouncing war,” Nietzsche wrote, “means renouncing the great life” (TI 23).

For Nietzsche the “will to power” is the secret of life and the destiny of humanity. He believes that a historical figure will arise who will bring perfection to the world. He describes this figure as a “Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ.” His methods will include predation and biological engineering (eugenics) of human populations. Perhaps his entire grotesque philosophy is summarized in this statement:

The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder, arson, rape, and torture with the same joy in their hearts, the same contentment in their souls as if they had indulged in some student's rag.... When a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a "Master," when he is violent in act and gesture, of what importance are treaties to him?... To judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.

Nietzsche has been the subject of numerous psychological studies. Some believe that his paranoia, lack of coherence, and grandiosity were products of a mind affected by advanced stage syphilis, which he was known to have. According to the memoirs of his sister, who cared for him, the signs of third-stage syphilis became acute in the last years of Nietzsche’s life. This may explain the grandiosity of his ideas.

It may also explain his irrational hatred of the Church and of women. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche maintained that higher forms of civilization require stricter controls on women. Nietzsche seemed to gain pleasure from insulting women. He was known for his statements such as these, "Women are less than shallow" and "Are you going to women? Do not forget the whip!" Perhaps his view of women is best summed in this statement: “And finally, woman! One-half of mankind is weak, chronically sick, changeable, shifty - woman requires . . . a religion of the weak which glorifies weakness, love and modesty as divine: or better still, she makes the strong weak - she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with decadent types - the priests, for instance - against the "mighty," against the "strong," against men. Women avail themselves of children for the cult of piety. . .”

Nietzsche devoted much of his writings to demonstrating that Christianity is irrational and degrading. The Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard agreed with the first part of Nietzsche’s evaluation of Christianity, but not the second part. Kierkegaard believed that the validity of Christianity was not dependent on its reasonableness and that the individual’s unique identity in the universe is derived from taking possession of his nature as a creature of God. Far from being degrading, Kierkegaard saw Christianity as essential to realize both one’s despair and one’s existence.

We will consider Kierkegaard in tomorrow's post.