The current thesis endeavors to access the notion of “ Nothing is true, everything is permitted.” What is truth? What is so intricately responsible and substantial as to justify the real in depths of truth? Is truth ‘true’? What is ‘true’ then? “To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. Everything is permitted... is to understand that we are the architects of our actions and we must live with our consequences”. And By stating “Nothing is true, everything is permitted” Nietzsche clearly advocates the denial of essences, denial of facets, hypothesis’s, celebration of the plurality of interpretation and the fragmented self. Or merely downgrading of reason and the politicization of discourse.
J.J Rousseau , the 18th century philosopher neatly summed up his notion in this aphorism “ Man is born free but is everywhere in chains”. Indubitably he chose to explain that the chains we wear are the ones we choose to wear. And these are the chains that act as barriers in the freedom of the mind. Rousseau explained that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. And it is these conditions that bind us to believe the less certain, the less capable, the not …show more content…
He believed that by believing in his death, not only will there be a rejection of inhumane, cosmic orders but also a stern retaliation in an objective and moral law. He firmly believed that the idea of God was sulked and bound only in the minds of the followers. So with their death will be the death of such minds who propagated the idea of God. And thus the minds will be free from religious boundaries. The work space of the mind would be free to question even those questions that were restricted in the name of
J.J Rousseau , the 18th century philosopher neatly summed up his notion in this aphorism “ Man is born free but is everywhere in chains”. Indubitably he chose to explain that the chains we wear are the ones we choose to wear. And these are the chains that act as barriers in the freedom of the mind. Rousseau explained that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality, which human beings left for the benefits and necessity of cooperation. And it is these conditions that bind us to believe the less certain, the less capable, the not …show more content…
He believed that by believing in his death, not only will there be a rejection of inhumane, cosmic orders but also a stern retaliation in an objective and moral law. He firmly believed that the idea of God was sulked and bound only in the minds of the followers. So with their death will be the death of such minds who propagated the idea of God. And thus the minds will be free from religious boundaries. The work space of the mind would be free to question even those questions that were restricted in the name of