The Problem of the Article
The problem of the article is that people do not have a motive to work towards to since during Nietzsche’s time; he lived during the destruction of Christianity. Christianity has been destroyed due to science since Christianity makes people believe in Jesus, but does not actually make them follow his actions. Now that humanity no longer has a motive to work towards to, people begin to wander and question what to work towards to now.
Nietzsche proposes that what humans actually have instead of Christianity, is the “Will to Power”. In the will to power, people are moved by desire to beat circumstances of struggle, dominating competitive challenges, and that people have the selfish gene. What this basically is saying is that will is born out of people that want to overcome everything and that people are power hungry. Basing off of Darwin’s theory that all organisms adapt and evolutionize (strive to be perfect) to be better suited for their environment but since humans control their environment; their version of evolution is to be perfect and strive to get to the top. In order for humans to perfect, Nietzsche suggests the idea of “Superman”. “Superman” is “a strong, highly cultured human being, skilled in all physical accomplishments, who keeping himself in check and having reverence for himself, dares to allow himself the whole compass and wealth of naturalness, who is strong enough for this freedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness, but out of strength because he knows how to employ to his advantage what would destroy an average nature; a man to whom nothing is forbidden, except it be a weakness, whether that weakness by called vice or virtue”. What this line basically states is that Superman is the survivor of the fittest who allows everything except weakness and is ultimately the goal of humanity. The idea of “Superman” also encompasses the idea that Nietzsche emphasizes on, “Be yourself!” By being
“Superman”, one is allowed to make their own decisions on how to act to become a “perfect human”. This idea is helpful since eternal occurrence causes situations to repeat but in varied versions, so the “Superman” is allowed to have an action to follow a certain event, but is able to adjust it accordingly. This is better than the ways of religion which is an absolutist in what action ought to happen next after a certain event, regardless of circumstance.
Problem: Why should one, as Nietzsche suggests, adopt an egoistic lifestyle that both defies conventional morality as well as established religious institutions such as Christianity and Judaism while supporting the ideas of Ubermensch, will to power, and eternal recurrence?
Solution: The simplest solution, as the author mentions at the conclusion of the article, would be to simply disregard these ideas of egoism, as they do not necessarily lead to happiness. However, this conclusion in the article is reached through specific counter-examples, which is evidence against egoism, though not , in my belief, enough to conclusively reject the idea. The idea of egoism, in my opinion, is not one any person ought to base the life upon. However, I suppose it is possible for one to do so and still function in a society. This is only possible, however, if the individual is happy with the prospect of being part of a CS1. Otherwise, the individual, by the very nature of egoism and Nietzschen ideas, is free to do as he/she wishes, which, assuming the individual has no desire to be part of a CS1, will not necessarily include moral actions. Therefore, the solution to this problem is that there is not one. Nietzschen ideas should not be applied by one who wishes to take part in a CS1, and it is only the few who do not wish to do so that can live by Nietzschen ideals.
The problem given in the article is that Christianity has been destroyed by science, and now that people do not strive for bettering themselves and having a relationship with Christ, people have nothing to reach for.
The solution proposed by the article is that people should strive to do anything that they want or need to do in order to be better than everyone, unless it is a weakness. Nietzsche suggests that people should strive to be the Ubermench, or Superman.
The Problem and Solution:
Nietzche says the problem is that Christianity that it doesnt allow people to strive for what they want and to heighten the feeling of power within us, the will to power. And with the will to power we can overcome challenges and problems. With christianity it is more absolute and it teaches people what to think and not how to think, it sets a concrete standard of what one should strive for and what is right and wrong. Which he says is to lead our soceity to destruction. And if we dont have that concrete standard we can be ourselves and promote our self interest because we know how to think and then it leads to conflict which then leads to comprimise and then perhaps a CS2.
The problem that Nietzsche is trying to solve is what people look to in order to determine their way of life. Since Christianity could be rejected and immediately dismissed, this question could no longer be answered in this way, being based of of religious and moralistic terms. The question then turned into what is it that motivates people to carry out actions and duties, what causes their behavior. Nietzsche answered this in three parts, the will to power, the ubermensche and eternal recurrence. The will to power states that humans have the primordial desire to overcome resistance, and to conquer aversion. The ubermensche is an example of such a human that has successfully harnessed just that which is the will to power. The ubermensche is the human who is able to keep himself and his values, morals, and thoughts in check. He is a purely self contained system that is the master of itself. In such a way, this ubermensche bows to no one, and cannot make a mistake. The third point is that of eternal recurrence. This states that there is a recurrence of all actions will be repeated in the future. This gives us a standard upon which to judge our actions either good for all eternity, or bad for all eternity. There have been many disputes of this. One rather large objection is that in order to create values for ourselves, rational egoism is not enough to get it done. Instead we need to add "heroic will and desire." Also there is the aspect of one making a mistake in deciding what he wants. This can in no way be of benefit to him, and therefore will be exposed to his own weakness. In order to be successful in doing this, one must be directly told what is good and what is not.
First most plhilosopher like Nietzsche because h staight up defys most stuff that is believed to be true or as the article says "straightforward clasiffication" I think the question of the article is how we should live an what rules we should follow if al morals and religions beliefs are wrong. This ias were the problem comes the answer may as well be do what you want to do or the will to power which you will become happy by gaining more and more power.
At the beginning of the article, Nietzsche immediately denies religion. He believes that religion corrupts a civil society. This is because, in his point of view, religion only promotes compromise without judgment or other’s self interest. The only self-interest, if any in the situation, comes from the guidelines of religion from a “God who is dead.” This is why Nietzsche promotes the idea that bad things, such as war and proficiency, are the only things that create a community standard because they are some of the only things that are created through other’s self-interest. He says that humanity’s struggles are the only ways we can achieve a civil society. Nietzsche supports the idea that you can create a civil society with only tolerance for others and moral relativism. He shows denial towards social norms, which are necessary for a civil society. Through the example of Nietzsche’s acquaintance with Wagner, the author suggests that Nietzsche’s supermen aren’t completely moral relativists; they export their judgment on certain values, but never import judgment. The author then brings up another one of Nietzsche’s arguments: External Recurrence. Because time is supposedly unlimited, Nietzsche says that community standards must be set for the future, not for the present, but if we do not live for the present, how can we have a future? This is another reason why Nietzsche denies religion; religion does not believe in recurrence. Nietzsche uses Übermensch to try and support his idea of why religion is bad. He says that Übermensch will supposedly replace the “horrible” results of religion with his on standard and civil society. Nietzsche is yet again contrasting himself because there is no conflict with Übermensch. Nietzsche brings up his final idea of “you should live to have whatever you want.” The author of the article uses the argument between Socrates and Callicles to reject this idea. As Calliciles had a similar opinion as Nietzsche, Socrates said that most of what people live for isn’t always right. This is why you cannot have a society with only simple tolerance for others and not importing judgment. Nietzsche was unable to conclude himself because he never was able to have good support for his ideas.
In order to create a civil society, you cannot have religion because it does not promote conflict that leads to compromise. You cannot create a civil society through moral relativism and tolerance for others. People must live for what they desire, but they also must have the approval of others to guarantee that what they want is the right thing to want. With this honest conversation, you can create the community standard, thus leading to a civil society.
The problem is that according to Nietzsche man should have have will to power, should be supermen, and eternal recurrence of the matter, indicating eternity. Will to power, as described by Nietzsche means egoistic power, a kind of power that prevails over others. As for the supermen definition, Nietzsche concludes that man should be himself, as opposed to self-denying himself. People need to do what the desire and act in their self interest to achieve what he sees as a civil society.
A solution might be to have a moral relativist society. That way we can act in our self interset and never be wrong. Then we can achieve the will to power and we will do that which benefits us at any cost.
The problem being that Nietzsche had the idea that since God and the supernatural had been expelled from human thought the whole basis and foundation that traditional values was based on had been destroyed. Nothing would be able to replace religion and that’s when the superman came in, being able to recognize it, accept it and create his own value and meaning through the “will to power”. This made Nietzsche’s idea seem egotistic due to the fact that he relied on nobody other than himself to come up with this he wasn’t open to the ideas of others consequently making his philosophy biased simply according to what he believed.
Perhaps the solution being that if philosophies were put forth, to have an open mind and be able to analyze and interpret without an egotistic view. Thus making the analysis part of appropriate discourse and arriving at an honest conversation, showing tolerance towards others’ views and incorporating them all as a whole.
The problem of the article is that, as egoism is broad and ill-defined, different ideas have arisen as to what it is and has relied greatly on religion to define it. This has been destroyed, however, by Darwin and modern science.
Nietzsche proposes that an Übermensh, a super man, is the answer. He suggests that this super man is an all powerful, power hungry man. He supports and strengthens himself. He is not weak, as this is bad, and seeks power. He wages war, not love.
The idea that religion was the founding principle of society allows Nietzsche to state that with the loss of belief in religion due to science, a new community standard will be needed in which the superman will come in and in a time when people are willing to accept anything that empowers them, they will accept Nietzsche's ideas and it will be accepted as the community standard.
problem: The problem is that Nietzsche believed that the supernatural and God had been expelled from the human thought and that the foundation of religion had been destroyed.He also believed that nothing could replace the basis of religion, and so therefore, the superman comes in and invents "will to power." This becomes a problem because it makes his views egotistical and does not take into account the views of other philosophers. He is ignorant to what other people think, and his views are based on his point of view.
solution: People who value his philosophy should know that it is one of the most egotistical philosophies in history, and should keep an open mind for other philosophies, before basing their religious views on his egotistical philosophy.
The problem is the way that Nietzsche, thinks of "the will to power". He talks about it, in a minority view instead of a majority view, and his concept is limited to what he only believes. A possible solution would be to at least have an arguement with someone that believes the opposite of Nietzsche believes.
I believe that what Nietzsche is obviously to state as the problem is how Christianity limits us. And so his solution would be to completely destroy Christianity and instead he believes that our own driving force to do good, will be the solution to this problem. I do see some truth is his thoughts in which, I do believe that it shouldn’t just be the rules of Christianity driving us to do good in the world we should all have our own drive to do so, and this is then expresses through our personal interest. Nietzsche believes that Christianity is teaching us what to think, not how to think. I don’t believe that the power however is what should be driving us however, I do think that this is what is going on with our society however currently there are so many dreams of “ruling the world” however I don’t see as the solution to Nietzsche’s problem. If he believes that Christianity is the problem then the solution I believe would be to just to try your best to promote yourself interest; because keeping quiet would do you any good.
The problem Nietzsche presents in this article is that to him, Judaeo-Christian tradition is unfounded and does not strive to be good. He struggles to say what exactly could be a way to do good for sure, but he points out that religion is not a way to do so. He uses the example of the monks, where they suppress their desires to do what in Christianity is considered "good" against religion. He says that these monks cannot be promoting their will to power, as they cannot do what they desire. He shows how we need to do what is in our self-interest in order to do "good" for ourselves.
A possible solution to this problem is a modified Ubermensch of Nietzsche's arguement. He says how this "superman" uses his strength to promote his self-interest and good for himself. This way, he satisfies his inner will for power and does "good' for himself at the same time. If we all only could promote our true self-interest, and not one that is biased from multiple sources. Here though we run into an issue; we can no longer be ourselves as Nietzsche tells us to, and no longer be able to do good for ourselves. This is where the modification comes in. Perhaps, an Ubermensch that could help us to promote all of our own self interests and help to establish some form of a community standard would be successful in solving this problem.
Problem: How can "the will to power" establish a CS2?
Possible Solution: If you can make a heroic "will to power" in which your purpose of helping others cannot be stopped, then you would not promote your SI and would look at others, moving closer to a CS2.
Problem: I think the problem of this article is that Nietzche tries to present an idea about that Christianity is all a lie , and that morals and aspects based upon the idea of Christ would all be false and need to be restarted. People are too self-opinionated to even consider Nietzche's idea, or any other aspects for that matter.
Possible Solution: A possible solution is perhaps that people start to do not "what they want" but consider what others would like, because it not doing what you desire does not always lead to disappointment. You can lead a successful life not always going for your own desires.
The problem is that Nietzsche proposes that a lot of the religion/God stuff is irrelevant, but his problem sets up his solution. He's saying that the sciences prove other existence of life...but also, he's saying that a community standard should be guided by whats right vs wrong, influenced possibly by religion, but should partially be in your self interest, while also being in the interest of society. That we need to have some urge to stand up and demand what we believe in. Because if we don't say anything, then we don't matter, and someone else gets their point across.
1. In the article, Nietzsche mentions the idea of the Ubermensch, which is basically a superman. At the base of this argument and many others of Nietzsche’s is the will to power which is basically just the promotion of self interest. The problem is the ratio of those who promote their self interest and those who don’t. When one person seeks out their self interest and nobody else fights for their own, that one Ubermensch can dominate over the rest of the population.
2. Ideally to fix this problem there are two options- nobody promotes their self interest or every body does. The best choice is the latter because it creates conflict and with conflict comes a solution or compromise and these compromises which come out of those real life situations can be integrated into a CS2. The former choice however skips all the conflict and just goes with individual peace but this is unproductive. Everything people do is usually to promote their self interest (usually in the short run though) so the only way to have nobody promoting their self interest is to have nobody doing anything. If that is the case then people would be as productive as rocks. With all this spare time there will be some thinking going on and one person will hatch the idea that wonders why they have to sit around all day. That person then realizes that the rest of the population is under one person or group of people’s agenda for what they had deemed a CS1. This could eventually lead to rebellion and we would end up right where we started. Of course with the other solution creating conflict there are bound to be rebellions, but it is these rebellions that create solutions and that keep governments in order. Rebellion is the outdoor voice of the people, it is used when necessary because the government is nearly deaf. These conflicts keep the world dynamic and flowing with changing time. There is no difference between boy and man if they are both able to wisely defend their self interest, intentions, and judgements. Rebellions are just fixing governments who treat there people like ignorant children. Conflict is necessary in order to begin creating a civil society and in order to have conflict, there needs to be the will to power.
I think the problem is that we don't know what the perfect lifestyle is and we don't know what we want or how to get there. I think the solution is to just be ourself and do things that will make both yourself and other people happy.
HOW CAN THE SOLUTION BE HONEST WHEN THE CONVERSATION IS NOT?
State Of The Union