1.2 Influences on Nietzsche
Nietzsche as a young philologist had some people whom he loved and idolized. These people influenced his thought pattern, behaviour and charism. In the world Nietzsche lived in, one could observe, think, and express his thoughts freely; a tradition which was passed onto him first during his youthful age by German culture with its humanistic schools, its patriotic traditions and its poets.
At the age of twenty-five, Nietzsche left Germany for good and was viewing it from the outside and this made a profound difference in his worldview. Schopenhauer became the philosopher for him who led him away from both theological studies and traditional Christianity. Richard Wagner influenced him also with his music. He also …show more content…
Here I saw a mirror which caught sight of the world of life and my own mind in terrifying grandeur.”
According to Schopenhauer, “life is never beautiful, but only the picture of it, meaning that he, in other words, conceptualised the world as a “detached necessity.” Borrowing the idea of Kant who holds that the mind moulded our world, meaning that things as they are in themselves, Schopenhauer identified this “thing in itself” as “the will” which according to him is the “impersonal force” that blindly grounds and governs the universe which is it representation.
Similarly, Nietzsche strongly disagrees with Schopenhauer’s ethical view that “pity or compulsion is the only morally valuable motive, while egoism or selfishness lacks values.” Even with the great influence Schopenhauer had on Nietzsche, there was still a point of divergence, that is, a point where both of them do not agree on a particular issue. For instance, while Schopenhauer will have nothing to do with theistic metaphysics, because he valued the agape ethics or Christianity, it was a different case for Nietzsche who found values or virtues of love, hope, patience and faith as nothing but illusion and impediment to human …show more content…
Machiavelli’s notion of brutality, violence, cruelty and irrationalism as they pertain to the prince is in consonance with the idea of Nietzsche’s master morality. The urge for power takes precedence in both views. That is the reason they advocate for a morality where power can be fully expressed. In order to still be in office or power, the ruler in Machiavelli’s The Prince should use any means ‘as the end justifies the means’ to shield the most ignored morality and all its traditional values. The two thinkers have a negative disposition towards traditional virtues especially those preached in Christianity. These are irrelevant to Machiavelli’s prince and Nietzsche superman. What is necessary are pride, power, ambition, vitality, strength or character, violence, courage etc. Nietzsche attest to the similitude in thoughts when he says, “Machiavelli’s ‘prince’ are most closely related to me by their unconditional Will to fabricate nothing and to see reason in nothing and still less in
Nietzsche as a young philologist had some people whom he loved and idolized. These people influenced his thought pattern, behaviour and charism. In the world Nietzsche lived in, one could observe, think, and express his thoughts freely; a tradition which was passed onto him first during his youthful age by German culture with its humanistic schools, its patriotic traditions and its poets.
At the age of twenty-five, Nietzsche left Germany for good and was viewing it from the outside and this made a profound difference in his worldview. Schopenhauer became the philosopher for him who led him away from both theological studies and traditional Christianity. Richard Wagner influenced him also with his music. He also …show more content…
Here I saw a mirror which caught sight of the world of life and my own mind in terrifying grandeur.”
According to Schopenhauer, “life is never beautiful, but only the picture of it, meaning that he, in other words, conceptualised the world as a “detached necessity.” Borrowing the idea of Kant who holds that the mind moulded our world, meaning that things as they are in themselves, Schopenhauer identified this “thing in itself” as “the will” which according to him is the “impersonal force” that blindly grounds and governs the universe which is it representation.
Similarly, Nietzsche strongly disagrees with Schopenhauer’s ethical view that “pity or compulsion is the only morally valuable motive, while egoism or selfishness lacks values.” Even with the great influence Schopenhauer had on Nietzsche, there was still a point of divergence, that is, a point where both of them do not agree on a particular issue. For instance, while Schopenhauer will have nothing to do with theistic metaphysics, because he valued the agape ethics or Christianity, it was a different case for Nietzsche who found values or virtues of love, hope, patience and faith as nothing but illusion and impediment to human …show more content…
Machiavelli’s notion of brutality, violence, cruelty and irrationalism as they pertain to the prince is in consonance with the idea of Nietzsche’s master morality. The urge for power takes precedence in both views. That is the reason they advocate for a morality where power can be fully expressed. In order to still be in office or power, the ruler in Machiavelli’s The Prince should use any means ‘as the end justifies the means’ to shield the most ignored morality and all its traditional values. The two thinkers have a negative disposition towards traditional virtues especially those preached in Christianity. These are irrelevant to Machiavelli’s prince and Nietzsche superman. What is necessary are pride, power, ambition, vitality, strength or character, violence, courage etc. Nietzsche attest to the similitude in thoughts when he says, “Machiavelli’s ‘prince’ are most closely related to me by their unconditional Will to fabricate nothing and to see reason in nothing and still less in