Cristina Martinez-Acha

Professor Newbill
Ethics Option 23
September 12 2013
Although Nietzsche is, as expected, critical of several philosophers orthodox Judaeo-Christianity
would embrace, he is also critical of others who would be anathema to orthodoxy. In a formal
composition of around three pages, examine this paradox using as primary texts the works you
have read this trimester. Feel free to use Nietzsches Anti-Christ, other books of the Old
Testament, and any other work you have read this year.

A Paradox Within a Paradox

Friederich Nietzsche is one of the most influential and controversial philosophers in
history. He denounced Christianitys traditional foundations, remodeled morality and stirred
polemics that would last centuries. With his brilliant mind, he scrutinized several cultural and
philosophical issues of the nineteenth-century society and always censured what he believed to
be wrong in a forthright manner. As a result, by the time he was an aged man, he had criticized a
vast spectrum of philosophers. Since Nietzsche is known for his contempt against Christianity, it
is only natural that the philosophers he criticized were those that Christianity embraces.
Surprisingly, while he did criticize these philosophers, he also criticized several philosophers that
are anathema to Orthodoxy. Though this proposition may sound false and absurd, it is, in fact,
true. Like all paradoxes, this seems controversial on the surface, but under close reflection makes
sense. The key to this paradox lies in that, though the two groups of philosophers being criticized
are inconsistent with each other, they share one similarity: their ideas oppose to Nietzsches
philosophy in distinct manners.
Two incompatible philosophers whose ideas repudiate certain aspects of Nietzsches
philosophy are Socrates and Emmanuel Kant. Even though these two philosophers are
"
undeniably different, they unite against a specific aspect of Nietzsches philosophy, which is his
critique of morality. Nietzsche believes that the universal, absolute moral system should be
debunked and replaced with new moral laws based on a system of self-determination through
which humans could reach the highest excellence of which they are capable. Consequently,
Nietzsche rebukes these philosophers because they are advocates of traditional morality. He
accuses Socrates of impaired judgment because he believes that morality will lead to the path of
happiness and he even states that Kants philosophy provides the best formula for the civil
servant. (Page 95). Since Nietzsche is certain that morality subjugates humans and steals their
desires to excel, he reproves both of these philosophers for the same reason, despite the fact that
their ideologies differ in various aspects.
Another pair of incongruous philosophers whose beliefs are almost antagonistical and
are, nevertheless, reprimanded by Nietzsche because of one common aspect is Blaise Pascal and
Charles Darwin. Their shared condition is that both philosophies clash with Nietzsches theory of
the will to power in order to become the ubermensch or superman. This theory asserts that life
is only made of strong people who desire power and weak people that do not even seek it.
According to Nietzsche, the few who succeed in obtaining power will then become what he calls
the ubermensh. These supermen are considered higher beings that will make the future better
with their strength and intellect as they reach the full potential of human beings. Pascal and
Darwins philosophies both jeopardize the validity of this theory, and, thus, Nietzsche condemns
both of them. Pascals ideas contrast with Nietzsches theory of the will to power in order to
become the ubermensch because he believed that man is helpless without God and that all human
beings have to rely on Him. Naturally, if man is dependent on God, then he can no longer fulfill
Nietzsches aspirations of power and sovereignty. In contrast, Darwin believes in something
#
radically different, and yet his beliefs collide with Nietzsches same theory. Darwinism implies
that the theory of evolution is true, but if this is the case, then man is no different than an animal
and, thus, he can no longer possess the power Nietzsche so vehemently desires. Consequently,
Nietzsche was also in complete disaccord with this Darwins.
One final illustration of a couple of philosophers that is disconsonant, but simultaneously
unified through one common affinity is Plato and Schopenhauer. These two prominent
philosophers are both criticized by Nietzsche because they do not believe in the affirmation of
life. For Nietzsche, the affirmation of life is to delight in lifes glory, instead of being tired of it.
Society ought to accept life and have the strength to say yes to it, leaving behind decadence
and weakness. Nietzsche accuses Plato of starting this decadent movement of society by coming
up with the idea of another reality behind this one. In the eyes of Nietzsche, Plato becomes a
falsifier of reality and a danger to a healthy appreciation of the present. On the other hand,
Schopenhauer has complete different views from those of Plato, but they also defy Nietzsches
affirmation of life. Schopenhauer believes in the resignation of life rather than the acceptance of
it. He embodies a nihilistic idleness that Nietzsche abhors. Once again, it is evident that though
these two philosophers are entirely different, Nietzsche reproaches them both because they fail to
recognize his philosophy.
As the deceptive appearances of this paradox have been driven away, it is now clear that
Nietzsche criticizes both Christian and heathen philosophers equally because they both
contradict his ideas. Consequently, the real question is how can Nietzsches philosophy censure
two opposite branches of philosophers at the same time? The answer lies in that Nietzsches own
philosophy is a paradox. He is the worlds must famous atheist but at the same time he
acknowledges that human nature needs meaning. He runs away from Schopenhauers nihilism
$
because he understands that it is a void with no life in it. Nietzsche clearly recognized that he
needed value and purpose. Nevertheless, he refused to seek this purpose in God, and, thus, left a
big whole in his philosophy that will never be filled.




















%
Works Cited
TANNER Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of Idols and Anti-Christ
Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.