Nietzsche's Theory Of Relativism Analysis

Improved Essays
Register to read the introduction… Based upon these basic principles, Nietzsche saw that at face value, there would not be absolute truths, because there would not be anything outside of one’s own experience, and reality would be limited to the finite interpretation of the human mind. With this idea, he threw out the existence of God, since he is described as an infinite and absolute being, and any other types of absolute truth that could infer out of perspective knowledge. However, Nietzsche’s view of relativism is flawed because of the fact that if a person does not understand a concept or has no current proof of something does not make it false or …show more content…
Without absolute truth, life then has no limits, no constants to back off of, which is quite contrary to the human experience. Mankind is quite used to having certain principles, constantly working, such as gravity, causation, and morality. Without these absolute truths, then there would be no structure to life, and so reality could be changed and these principles could be altered in one moment to the next. Now, it could also be said that man could have certain truths that are real to himself or that are absolute only for his perspective. From this, he would not be able to prove that others have that same structure, because no one can change their perspective to become another’s. Then, the reason for that structure would be as Nietzsche says the will of power, in order to make a difference in their individual world, they would put a structure on reality. However, the source of this will of power would have to be something outside our experience, because it would need to come from something that it not from us. Or will of power would in itself be an absolute truth that could be used to show that there would be something beyond each person’s experience that they would not be able to explain. Thus, there are things that are outside of human experience at a set point in time that prove that there are absolute truths, and disprove Nietzsche’s form of relativism. Although, there is still question on what types of ideas are absolute, how can someone believe in something that they cannot experience in the here and now, but must experience in a future point in time, and whether or not those experiences are even valid in order to understand reality as it is. But, at least when one believes in absolute truths, the world can be understood one step at a time, with a structure that works all the

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The default belief is that there is a single reality in which knowledge exists, if a critic argues against this, he or she would be saying that there is knowledge for the contrary, which is contradictory: their claim defeats itself. For either side of the argument to be fruitful in efforts, one side would have to have objective knowledge. Disagreeing has never been a sign that there is no truth at all. For example, few doubt the existence of some overarching moral code; they may disagree on the specifics of that code without finding that as lack of any code at all. If there were no objective knowledge, there would be complete chaos; there are so many things in the grand scheme of life that are universally agreed upon.…

    • 1153 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Both explantion go against the eternal nature of God, which is necessary to be the greatest conceivable being. Therefore, if God does not exist then his existence is impossible. But whatever is conceivable is possible therefore God must exist. Under this argument it is irrelevant if existence is an attribute or not, solving the problem with Anselm’s ontological…

    • 808 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Human beings do act towards an end, but this end cannot be considered universal. Since human beings only act towards a known purpose – and the universal end is unknown – humans can never work towards the universal end, rendering it irrelevant. First, we must agree that humans are rational. To be rational according to Aquinas means to be a master of his or her actions through his reason and will, something exclusive to…

    • 1321 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    You start to doubt everything. In this way, if the reliability of deduction is in doubt, there is no way that we can use the deduction to prove the unreliability of induction. Then the foundation of the problem of induction is broken, because the problem of induction is an argument made in the form of deduction. The existence of the problem of induction needs the method of deduction to be…

    • 1698 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Hence there is no way to know reality behind the empirical world. A natural consequence is the complete negation of knowledge of God. To Ayer, even the word God or a transcendental being was meaningless because it was not definitional. This is worse than traditional agnosticism, which at least, tried to figure out the existence of God. To agnostics such as Ayer or Wittgenstein, even though one may experience God, such experience is inexpressible.…

    • 913 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    In d’Holbach’s concept of free will, all is condensed to the physical brain and subject only to external influences rather than a soul, and consciousness. Therefore, it is unacceptable for a Dualist perspective to accept his stance on free will. Since d’Holbach views that there is no such thing as free will, a major concern of his argument is brought up being that if a persons’ actions are pre-determined and in order to fit with his proposition, it would not be morally correct to punish that individual for their actions. It would still be practical to isolate a harmful individual from society from d’Holbach’s view, except it would only be done for logical reasons and not for disciplinary…

    • 1345 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Hick goes as far to say that the idea of a person acting freely but always choosing the right thing is ultimately a “ ‘meaningless conjunction of words’- in this case ‘a person who is not a person’ ” (Hick 2) because the phrase in itself is not logically possible. As Hick accurately puts it, “The origin of moral evil lies forever concealed within the mystery of human freedom” (Hick…

    • 2670 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He bases it off of the idea that there is nothing superior to God or there is nothing superior to the Truth in which God is Truth. But we have no way of nothing what is superior to something else. We might look at something and think we are superior to it while if we saw the situation from it’s side we would see that it is superior to us it is just not showing that it is making us think we are superior. So, we have no way of knowing what is superior to something else. It also runs into the same problem with the good and bad argument that there is not universal superiority that we know of.…

    • 1218 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Philosophical questions that are worth asking never will find conclusion. If an answer did result it wasn’t important in the first place. The entire meaning of philosophy is to ask the right questions. That the answers are not as important as finding the union between the universe and the individual. Yet there is a strong contraction that even Russell does not address.…

    • 887 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Cosmological Argument

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages

    There may be an attribute of God’s that makes his existence necessary that we simply are unaware of and cannot dismiss. The last opposing argument Cleanthes presents is him objecting that “it is absurd to seek a cause for an external succession.” This is because if we are seeking for a cause for an infinite causal chain, than we are assuming there was a cause for the external succession. If we assume there is a cause, there must have been a cause for that one as well, which cannot be possible seeing as the chain is already infinite and there was no beginning. Therefore, a causal chain simply cannot have a cause. The final argument opposing Demea’s cosmological argument is Cleanthes saying that the parts not need represent its whole.…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays