Beyond Good And Evil Pdf
Philosophers are accustomed to speak of the will as though it were the best-known thing in the world; indeed, Schopenhauer has given us to understand that the will alone is really known to us, absolutely and completely known, without deduction or addition. But it again and again seems to me that in this case Schopenhauer also only did what philosophers are in the habit of doing-he seems to have adopted a POPULAR PREJUDICE and exaggerated it. Willing-seems to me to be above all something COMPLICATED, something that is a unity only in name—and it is precisely in a name that popular prejudice lurks, which has got the mastery over the inadequate precautions of philosophers in all ages. So let us for once be more cautious, let us be ‘unphilosophical': let us say that in all willing there is firstly a plurality of sensations, namely, the sensation of the condition ‘AWAY FROM WHICH we go,’ the sensation of the condition ‘TOWARDS WHICH we go,’ the sensation of this ‘FROM’ and ‘TOWARDS’ itself, and then besides, an accompanying muscular sensation, which, even without our putting in motion ‘arms and legs,’ commences its action by force of habit, directly we ‘will’ anything. Therefore, just as sensations (and indeed many kinds of sensations) are to be recognized as ingredients of the will, so, in the second place, thinking is also to be recognized; in every act of the will there is a ruling thought;—and let us not imagine it possible to sever this thought from the ‘willing,’ as if the will would then remain over! In the third place, the will is not only a complex of sensation and thinking, but it is above all an EMOTION, and in fact the emotion of the command.
Download Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche 1970 Pdf Book ePub. Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil is translated from the German by Helen Zimmern. Beyond Good and Evil such things are fools – at best. Things of the highest value must have another, separate origin of their own, – they cannot be derived from this.
That which is termed ‘freedom of the will’ is essentially the emotion of supremacy in respect to him who must obey: ‘I am free, ‘he’ must obey’—this consciousness is inherent in every will; and equally so the straining of the attention, the straight look which fixes itself exclusively on one thing, the unconditional judgment that ‘this and nothing else is necessary now,’ the inward certainty that obedience will be rendered—and whatever else pertains to the position of the commander. A man who WILLS commands something within himself which renders obedience, or which he believes renders obedience. But now let us notice what is the strangest thing about the will,—this affair so extremely complex, for which the people have only one name. Inasmuch as in the given circumstances we are at the same time the commanding AND the obeying parties, and as the obeying party we know the sensations of constraint, impulsion, pressure, resistance, and motion, which usually commence immediately after the act of will; inasmuch as, on the other hand, we are accustomed to.
Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil is translated from the German by Helen Zimmern. First published in 1886, Beyond Good and Evil confirmed Nietzsche's position as the towering European philosopher of his age. The work dramatically rejects the tradition of Western thought with its notions of truth and God, good and evil. Nietzsche accuses past philosophers of lacking critical sense and blindly accepting dogmatic premises in their consideration of morality.
Specifically, he accuses them of founding grand metaphysical systems upon the faith that the good man is the opposite of the evil man, rather than just a different expression of the same basic impulses that find more direct expression in the evil man. With wit and energy, he turns from this critique to a philosophy that celebrates the present and demands that the individual imposes their own 'will to power' upon the world.
I can think of few instances where an author's reputation is more different from the reality of who he was, what he believed, and what he wrote-perhaps only Machiavelli has been as profoundly misunderstood by history. Today, Nietzsche tends to be thought of as a depressive nihilist, a man who believed in nothing, and an apologist for the atrocities of fascism-but no description could be further from the truth. There probably are not many men who had more reason than Nietzsche to feel resentful and miserable: he grew up a sickly child, prone to severe headaches which often left him literally blind with pain. Then, during his brief career in the cavalry, he tore several muscles in his side, and while serving as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian war, contracted a number of diseases.
These incidents would affect his health for the rest of his life, leaving him bedridden and in pain for hours or days at a time. It would not have been unreasonable to give in to misery and bitterness under such conditions, but on those days when Nietzsche felt well enough to write, he would emerge from his room with renewed passion and vigor, taking long walks in the beauty of the countryside before returning home to labor in producing a philosophy not of misery, but of joy. Contrary to his reputation, Nietzsche rejected nihilism outright-he thought that if the world does not provide your life with a clear meaning, it is up to you to go out and find one (or create one), not to wallow and whinge. Likewise, he spent much of his life railing against the foolishness of nationalism and bigotry-indeed, his famed falling out with the composer Wagner was over the increasingly nationalistic style of music the latter was producing. So, that being the case, how did he gain such an unfortunate reputation at all?
The first reason is that, after his death, his sister took over his estate, and as she herself was a German nationalist and anti-semite (as was her prominent husband), she had a number of her brother's papers rewritten to support these execrable positions and then published them posthumously in his name. Of course, this couldn't have fooled anyone actually familiar with Nietzsche's works and ideas, as the rewrites were in direct contradiction to his previous writings, but it still fooled many. The second problem with the interpretation of his work is one that mirrors Machiavelli precisely: the author's observations on the nature of the world are mistaken for suggestions for how the world should be. It's like reading a book about crime scene investigation and, because it admits that murder exists and describes the methods by which is is done, assuming that it is an instruction book for murderers, when in fact it is the opposite: an instruction of how to combat them and stop them. Both Nietzsche and Machiavelli had a similar approach: so the world can be a brutal place, a place where people gain power not by being wise and respected, but by dominating and taking advantage of others-what are we going to do about it? For Nietzsche, one of the necessary things we must do to free ourselves from this dominance over body and mind is to recognize that 'good' and 'evil' are just words, words that have been used by the powerful to justify anything they might choose to do-their 'just wars' against the 'evil foe', while that foe invariably preaches the same story in reverse, painting themselves as the hero, while in actuality both sides are motivated by greed and the desire for power. To say that someone is 'evil' is to say that they have no rational motivation for what they do, that we should not attempt to understand them, but should oppose them without thinking about why.
It's a powerful tool to deny reality, and so, as individuals, if we refuse to accept definitions of what is good or evil as they are handed down by those in power, we will have taken the first step to freeing ourselves from mental tyranny. This was what Nietzsche meant by 'The Superman': that the man of the future, if he is to be free, cannot allow anyone else to define his life for him, cannot take authority for granted, but must question the world without as well as the world within, to discover for himself what is important and what is true. His famous 'Will to Power' is the personal decision to wrest control of your life from those who would seek to dominate you. To be free means being a philosopher. And this is something I have tried to achieve for myself; but to unwind prejudice and ignorance is a lifelong battle, and I'm certainly grateful to have, in my search, an ally like Nietzsche (and the late Nietzsche scholar Rick Roderick). Many have been the days when I felt run down and exhausted, put upon and disrespected by an impersonal world bent on breaking to its will, and at those times, Nietzsche's joyful and witty deconstruction of that ridiculous, artificial world has proven an invaluable comfort to me.
There is no authority who can tell you who you are, no church, no government, no university, no job, and no individual. In the end, it is up to you to create yourself. I recommend, but with a warning.
The vast majority of people will not get much out of this book. Filtering through these reviews, I see a lot of people who are clearly not meant for Nietzsche's writing. They tend to fall under a couple of categories 1) Easily Offended: when Nietzsche says something they find offensive, they are turned off reading the book. Nietzsche will offend you.
2) People who make a superficial reading and criticize accordingly. This follows from 1. Those who are initially offended always seek more ways to find themselves offended, and read Nietzsche like he was an idiot.
Seek and ye shall find. If you want to read Nietzsche as such, he will give you plenty of material. 3) Those who want a clear list of premises and a linear argument. Nietzsche's thought is ordered. Much of this book develops thematically though, and not through premises. Some won't like that style, but there is a reason Nietzsche is renowned for his writing. This leads into.
4) People who don't think like Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche doesn't write straight treatises, you need to understand the lines of thought he proposes. Those who don't see those lines commonly write negative reviews complaining about how Nietzsche doesn't 'prove his assertions'. This leads to the final.
5) People who don't understand Nietzsche's project. This also has a lot to do with Nietzsche's style. This book is not supposed to give formally structured arguments.
If you read Nietzsche according to some rubric you deem appropriate, you miss his point entirely. Suggestions: 1. Just because something is wrong, it doesn't mean it lacks value. Stop reading Nietzsche like a science textbook filled with facts.
Beyond Good And Evil Video Game
Also, stop reading him like he is attempting to make a logically impenetrable argument in defense of a single thesis. Look for the nuances, and appreciate them. Was Nietzsche a misogynist? He was also a very thoughtful misogynist whose writings on women actually do hold some value. He contextualizes these passage in the introduction to that section, where he explicitly recognizes his own prejudices as a personal stupidity. Read in that light, his comments are actually quite interesting. Secondly, he writes of the condition of 'woman' in many passages, not 'woman' as a fixed essence.
The two are quite distinct. Much of what is offensive at first glance is actually passing judgment upon the character of humanity at large. When he argues, for example, that men had good reason for not allowing women to speak in church, he isn't making an argument that women are inferior to men. Rather, it is an argument based upon the equality of sexes. He doesn't want to give women the chance to prove themselves just as foolish as men. Behind their silence, Nietzsche notes, they are untainted by their 'real' nature.
Whether or not you take Nietzsche to be making a serious suggestion here, he is obviously not making a offhand misogynistic comment. In the same way we don't dismiss the Greeks on the grounds of their caste based society, it is silly to dismiss Nietzsche for a misogyny he acknowledges as his own weakness. Nietzsche writes to spark a line of thoughts and questions, not to answer all of them. Tons of the complaints start from the presupposition that Nietzsche should write according to a goal they have established for him. If you don't understand Nietzsche's goals, don't fashion your own for him. It is entirely possible that you are not the type of person who can identify with Nietzsche on any sort of personal level. His work isn't meant to be read in a removed way.
If you don't understand his criticisms on a personal and emotional level (not just logically), this book may not be for you. Just don't make the leap and call him unintelligent or a loose cannon.
Most of the times, it is his readers that are bringing excessive emotion to the book, and their emotional reading that renders it obtuse. Why exactly, should I strive to be kind, and not cruel?
Why am I being taught to be fair and not selfish all my life? Why should I subscribe to equal rights, non discrimination, egalitarianism and freedom of speech? Nietzsche posits that the above mentioned virtues and aesthetic and or moral imperatives (or indeed any imperatives) are merely legacy, the result of Darwinian (although he does not use this word) qualities which have ensured the survival and prosperity of the ‘issuing’ authority. Good and evil, salvation of the soul and growth has nothing to do with it.
As social structures change, so does the concept of morality. This of course, is the point, where his ingenious treatise of master and slave morality comes in. Under ‘feudal’ conditions, it is the rulers who determine the conception of ‘good’ and morality.
‘We truthful one’s – the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves, as it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are liars, insignificant, and cowards. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were applied first to men, and were only derivatively applied at a later period to actions. The noble man regards himself, then as a determiner of values, he does not require to be approved of, he alone passes the judgment.’ On slave morality: ‘supposing the abused and oppressed were allowed to moralise?
What will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression, perhaps a condemnation of man together with his situation. The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful, a scepticism of anything ‘good’ there honoured- he would fain persuade himself that an happiness found there was not genuine. Those qualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence: it is here that sympathy, the kind, helping hand, the warm heart, patience, diligence and humility attain to honour, for here they are the most useful qualities, and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence. Here is the seat then of the famous antithesis of good and evil.’ In essence, it is this ‘slave morality’, which arose incumbent on certain socio-economic conditions which no longer exist today, which has prevailed, and which tells me to be kind and fair, and not cruel.
Why has it prevailed? Because it has been propped up by the Church for its own reasons(according to Nietzsche) which are not the subject of my review. Under this argument, there can be no intrinsic value attached to say my being ‘kind’ or ‘’equitable’ or any such: it is an essence an arbitrary signifier, devoid of inherent ‘good or evil’, simply a(n evolving) measure of utility imposed by the establishment in order to normalise expected intragroup behaviour, based on social and cultural conditions at the prevailing time. The idea that morality is a tool for managing expectations is intriguing. In essence, in any subject-object interaction, the qualitative determination of the action in terms of ‘good and evil’ is not objective phenomena: it is simply an arbitrarily shared agreement between the two entities. The bible, for example, condones slavery.
In the Unforgiving Slave (Mathew 18:21-35) there are a lot of people throwing themselves at each other’s feet (depending on rank) and debate on forgiveness: should you do it 7 or 77 times 7 times. But, interestingly, neither slave nor master seem in the least bit preoccupied about the institution of slavery. There is an expectation, an agreement, on both sides of the equation, at that particular time, that slavery is a non negotiable condition, and certainly not contra-morality. The ethical quandary arises when their is a mismatch between subject object expectations. So, how many times should you forgive?
What determines this decision? The negation, in the first instance, of a universal morality ‘ The demand for one morality for all is detrimental (to the higher man)’ which can be applied as a ‘sympathetic action’ and the determination of person specific morality is informed particularly by ‘the power to will’, namely that intra-group, we are not all equal. A hierarchy of power, circular in nature, is established whereby everyone surrenders their will to someone else, everyone has power over someone else. Therefore, a ‘sympathetic action’ (i.e. Moral action) is not an independent, objective and universal phenomenon but must be, by default, be derived from the dynamics of the specific subject-object agreement from which it emanates. In essence, a ‘higher excellence’ individual’ is the originators of his own ‘personalised’ morality, which will constantly adapt and evolve according to the specificity of the recipient. The above process is relevant only to higher excellence individuals (e.g.
Superman), e.g. Those who do not follow the slave mentality outlined above. And it is by no means a pain free process: the man who is a product of contrary instincts finds himself the hotbed of values which struggle with one another, and are seldom at peace.
It is a weak man whose desire is that the war within him should come to an end; happiness appears to him in the character of a soothing medicine: the happiness of repose, undisturbedness, of repletion’: which effectively portains the shutdown of mental faculties and free will, the strive for perfection and completion, a ‘dumbing down’ and surrender to the status quo, the non crystallisation of endless possibility. Instead, Nietzsche argues, ‘if men, in addition to their powerful and irreconcilable instincts, have also indoctrinated in themselves a subtlety for carrying on the conflict in themselves, there then arisesthose marvellously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings, predestined for’.conquest, achievement, fulfilment. In essence, suffering is an essential prerequisite and necessary for the cultivation of human excellence. If an individual were to internalise the norm that suffering must be alleviated, then instead of suffering to ‘create’, all energy is wasted, squandered in self pity and lament. A possible explanation for Nietzsche’s insistence on suffering is his conception of a human being is one constituted by non conscious-type facts that determine his actions: ‘One will become only what one is’ and ‘he can only follow to the end what is fixed about him’. His argument here is informed by a reversal of the Cartesian ‘I am therefore I think’ to ‘I think, therefore, I am’, caveated with an epihenomenological explanation of the occurrence of thoughts; a thought arrives ‘when it wishes, not when ‘I ‘wish.
Consequently it follows that actions are not caused by conscious but rather than unconscious will. If so, then it is not possible to resolve a conflict against one own self. So far, so much waffle.
(Not that Nietzsche doesn’t waffle: because he does). Epi consciousness, will of power, normative and descriptive components of morality, so the fuck what?
Where exactly is the ‘show me the money’ shot here? I come away with: I suffer. Its been a life-long project; with an end goal to alleviation. Now, I am free, because I I accept that suffering is OK: its a non balancing equation. I do not need to ‘gas’ it, I need to accept it.
Its not something I will ever neutralise. If you can’t beat them join them. I will NOT waste anymore energy in suppression tactics. I will, instead, harness it and make it work for me. God, the relief.
I will no longer measure my worth in accordance with accepted dogma, and penalise myself if I feel I fall short. Morality is arbitrary: there is no objective good and evil. I will make my own morality. It is OK then, to take the path less travelled, and not subscribe to ‘slave morality’.
If there is subject –object disagreement, is it possible, perhaps, that you are wrong and I am right? Does your disagreement and sense of entitlement obviate my sense of reason? My life is determined by ‘will of power’. You can go on and disagree, be a Jesuit. I accept that I will hurt people, and that people will hurt me, despite my best efforts. Even when I think I’m labouring for the ‘greater good’, someone will be coming unstuck for it. It is a fallacy to strive for perfection in the non hurting business.
One man’s poison is another man’s meat. The money shot. I don’t need to hate myself. Instead of wasting energy on penitence and self flagellation, I need to be finding my own ‘little community.’ I would much rather sin with a group of five than suffer in isolation amongst millions. If I failed you: you weren’t for me. We just don’t have ‘ subject object’ agreement. I don’t want to give up my morality for you.
I don’t want you to give up your morality for me. I want us to share a morality. Is this a drunken review?