In aphorisms 4 and 6, Nietzsche discusses his rather blunt perception of what he thinks of Socrates’ belief in reason, the Socratic equation, and the nature of dialecticism and those who practice it. After a rather painstaking analysis of his critique, Nietzsche’s disliking for Socrates can be attributed to what he believes to be dialecticism and how Socrates defended himself in court almost 2000 years before. The entire premise Nietzsche bases his argument on is a concept he calls “Will to Power”, which will further be elaborated on in the following.
Nietzsche opens the fourth aphorism by identifying Socrates as a décadent, which is one whose morality has been altered, because of his “depraved” (or corrupt) and “anarchic” (or tumultuous) …show more content…
He also makes it a point to emphasize how opposing the “older Hellenes” or the Men of Athens were to the rationality behind this equation. Nietzsche couldn’t understand this equation for two main reasons: The first is because of Nietzsche’s concept of “Will to Power” and the second is why the Hellenes accepted the Socratic understanding of happiness. As per Nietzsche’s understanding of “Will to Power”, there are constant amalgamations of reactionary and affirmative forces. Because Socrates uses reason, which is a primary characteristic of dialecticians, which Socrates was, reactionary overcame affirmative. And since the former overcame the latter, Socrates was perceived by Nietzsche as more of a slave. Since Socrates, who saw reason as the primary gateway to happiness, was a slave, his perception of happiness could, therefore, not be valid. Hence, reason could not possibly bring about happiness, making the entire Socratic equation illogical to Nietzsche. For the Hellenes to accept the Socratic equation was impossible because, according to the Athenian perception of happiness, reason does not exist because they were the masters of their society and they did not have to provide reasons for their decisions. But for Socrates to come along and to void this understanding of the world as well as convince the Hellenes, despite this understanding …show more content…
Because of the Nietzschean perception of dialecticism, he opens by discussing how resorting to persuasion should be one’s last option, seeing as how dialecticism is perceived as attempting to equate the importance of one’s opinion with their counterpart by reasoning with them rather than simply forcing an opinion on someone, adopting a more slave-like mindset. Because dialectic speech is usually attributed to self-interest, the meanings behind its words tend to be skewed with subjectivity, making it “untrustworthy”. Nietzsche further postulates that an attempt to convince someone of an opinion could be very easily “wiped” away because dialecticians are usually driven by personal motives and attempt to circumlocute in order to persuade listeners. When in reality, someone else’s attempt at convincing that same person of another opinion could easily wipe away the first “dialectic effect”. Whereas, if someone were to impose their opinion rather than attempt to justify it, their effect would be imposed and, therefore, not easily wiped away. This is Nietzsche's way of categorizing the nature of dialectics and their speech as being more slave-like as opposed to the alternative master scenario. He backs his assertion up by referencing “public gatherings”, such as that of politicians, missionaries, or any other dialectician of
Nietzsche opens the fourth aphorism by identifying Socrates as a décadent, which is one whose morality has been altered, because of his “depraved” (or corrupt) and “anarchic” (or tumultuous) …show more content…
He also makes it a point to emphasize how opposing the “older Hellenes” or the Men of Athens were to the rationality behind this equation. Nietzsche couldn’t understand this equation for two main reasons: The first is because of Nietzsche’s concept of “Will to Power” and the second is why the Hellenes accepted the Socratic understanding of happiness. As per Nietzsche’s understanding of “Will to Power”, there are constant amalgamations of reactionary and affirmative forces. Because Socrates uses reason, which is a primary characteristic of dialecticians, which Socrates was, reactionary overcame affirmative. And since the former overcame the latter, Socrates was perceived by Nietzsche as more of a slave. Since Socrates, who saw reason as the primary gateway to happiness, was a slave, his perception of happiness could, therefore, not be valid. Hence, reason could not possibly bring about happiness, making the entire Socratic equation illogical to Nietzsche. For the Hellenes to accept the Socratic equation was impossible because, according to the Athenian perception of happiness, reason does not exist because they were the masters of their society and they did not have to provide reasons for their decisions. But for Socrates to come along and to void this understanding of the world as well as convince the Hellenes, despite this understanding …show more content…
Because of the Nietzschean perception of dialecticism, he opens by discussing how resorting to persuasion should be one’s last option, seeing as how dialecticism is perceived as attempting to equate the importance of one’s opinion with their counterpart by reasoning with them rather than simply forcing an opinion on someone, adopting a more slave-like mindset. Because dialectic speech is usually attributed to self-interest, the meanings behind its words tend to be skewed with subjectivity, making it “untrustworthy”. Nietzsche further postulates that an attempt to convince someone of an opinion could be very easily “wiped” away because dialecticians are usually driven by personal motives and attempt to circumlocute in order to persuade listeners. When in reality, someone else’s attempt at convincing that same person of another opinion could easily wipe away the first “dialectic effect”. Whereas, if someone were to impose their opinion rather than attempt to justify it, their effect would be imposed and, therefore, not easily wiped away. This is Nietzsche's way of categorizing the nature of dialectics and their speech as being more slave-like as opposed to the alternative master scenario. He backs his assertion up by referencing “public gatherings”, such as that of politicians, missionaries, or any other dialectician of