Kant Part 15 - Subject to Object

Prior to Kant human beings had assumed that material objects possessed an independent existence in space and time. Kant said, "Not so." He pointed out that if we look at the situation from the opposite perspective, rather than object to subject look at it from subject to object, reality would make much more sense. While counter intuitive, it is non the less true according to Kant. He proposed that in understanding reality we start from where we are. He concluded that our brains, nervous systems and senses represent reality in terms determined by their own natures.

Perhaps the best analogy to illustrate Kant's conclusions is that of a camera and photograph. In the same way as a photograph is produced in a camaer and a sound recorind in a piece of sound-recording equipment produce results which are conducive to their natures, so also our brains, nervous systems, and senses present reality to us in a way conducive to their natures.

For a long time I communicated this reality inaccurately in my classes. I explained Kant's conclusions by saying that Kant was arguing that we ourselves synthesize reality, that we put it all together in our heads, that we make it up. But this is not what Kant was proposing at all. He was insistent that reality exists independently of us and that reality has to be mediated by apparatus that is not itself the object of experience and also that it must inescapably take the forms determined by the nature of the apparatus with the consequence that the representations it yields are categorically different from their objects.

In the same way that a photograph is not the actual entity which is being photographed, and in the same way that a sound recording is not the actual entity which is being recorded, so also our understanding of reality is not the same as the reality. There is the ever lingering distinction in Kantian thought between "things are they are in themselves" and "things as they appear to be."

Kant Part 14 – The Noumenal and the Phenomenal World

For Kant, not only were there analytic propositions and synthetic propositions, but now Kant proposed a third category of proposition which he designated as “synthetic apriori”. In the sense that they have meaning in the world of experience they are synthetic. In the sense in which they can be known in advance of experience they are apriori.

Kant believed that there is a reality that exists outside the world of all possible experience and he designated this world as “noumenal”, the world of things as they are in themselves. He called the world as it appears to us the world of “phenomena.” When Kant and his followers talked of the world of phenomena they speak of what we think of as the actual world, the world of material objects or the empirical world.

Kant Part 13 – Kant, Space, Time, and Causality

Kant concluded that for some reason the categories of space and time which are usable in the scientific project and which assist us in understanding the physical world and cause and effect must still exist and since they must still exist, there must also be some other basis for reliable knowledge rather than empirical observation and logic.

This was a key shift in philosophical thought.

But the question emerged as to “What else was there.”

This realization on the part of Kant led him to what has been termed “the most radical reconstruction of the theory of knowledge that anyone has carried out.” He concluded that the whole nature of the world “as we experience it” is dependent on the nature of our apparatus for experiencing and the inevitable consequence of this is that:”things as they appear” are not the same as “things as they are in themselves.”

In short, most of what we perceive about the world is contingent on our perception.

Kant recognized that there are preconditions which must be met before anything can be experienced at all and therein lay the solution to Hume’s problem. Things such as physical identity, location in space, location in time, propensity for causal interaction, are not derived from experience or logic. There is a third component in human knowledge.

One philosopher has used the metaphor of catching things in a network of experience and these categories so to speak are the net through which things must pass. Only what can be caught in them is available to us. Anything that passes through them untouched will not be picked up by us, as well as that which falls outside the net altogether. Only what these nets catch will be outs and only what they can catch can be ours.

Kant Part 12 – Kant's Dogmatic Slumber

It was a reality that awakened Kant from his “dogmatic slumber.”

He was reading Hume one day. Specifically, Kant was reading what Hume had to say concerning causality. Hume advanced the idea that causal connection is something which is not only actually unobservable to also impossible to determine logically, thus violating the two pillars upon which the scientific project had been established for Kant.

In other words, Kant recognized that we can observe event A and we can observe event B, and we can observe that these two events occur in close proximity of time but we cannot observe a third entity of a causal connection between these two events.

Consequently, we cannot assume a necessary connection between these two events.

In other words, a necessary connection cannot be observed much less confirmed between the two. Therefore, out concept of causality has no empirical foundation or any logical foundation.

Kant agreed wholeheartedly with Hume’s conclusions on this matter.

But Kant also saw that it there were no such thing as causal connection there would be no possibility of an empirical world. However, he concluded that we do know that such an empirical world actually exists. Kant entertained the question, “How can it be possible for us to acquire knowledge of such things if not by either observation or by logic? Is there another possible way to gain knowledge?”

He further determined, or so it seems, that the concepts of time and space are in the same predicament as causality. For example, nothing that is infinite can fall within the bounds of human experience and therefore neither time nor space could ever be established by observation or logic.

Kant had learned from Hume that all of what had seemed to be the fundamental of science, such as space and time, were unverifiable logically and empirically. However, Kant could have concluded that the scientific project was therefore invalidated, but he did not do so.

To conclude that science was therefore useless was a nonsensical conclusion.

Kant Part 11 – Empiricism and Logical Deduction

Most philosophers prior to Kant assumed that objects exist as we perceive them. However, they also acknowledged that these objects existed independently of us or that they existed in space and time. This was the type of “common sense realism” that dominated philosophical thought to some extent prior to Kant.

However, with Kant an earth shattering shift occurred.

Kant realized that this could not possibly be correct. He argued that all of the ways we have of perceiving objects, things such as sight, sound, touch, taste, small, cannot exist independently of the nervous systems. He also realized that all of the ways we have of thinking about things cannot exist independently of our nervous systems. These “ways of thinking” are actually “ways of thinking” in that they are systems dependent in a sense. Each object which we observe and contemplate is sense dependent and also mind dependent. Thinking cannot occur without brains and seeing cannot take placer with eyes according to Kantian conclusions.

Kant argued that for objects to have the impact on our senses, these objects must actually exist as the cause of this sensory stimulation. In short, Kant had confidence in the scientific worldview had developed before and was developing around him at the time.

He believed in the validity of the scientific project on the basis of two conclusions.

First, he believed in the validity of direct observation since by this method repeated in a systematic fashion by the individual and checked by others reliable data concerning the physical world is gathered and established.

He also believed in the validity of logical deduction from observation statements which had been arrived at through the method of direct observation. Science was established firmly upon immediate observation combined with logic.

This combination yielded the greatest certainty to scientific conclusions.

However, a shift was about to occur for Kant.

Kant Part 10 - The Difficulty of Kant's Prose

Kant attempted to conduct his philosophy purely on the basis of argument and rationality within the tradition of philosophy itself as evidence in the work of individuals such as Locke and Hume.

But one of the greatest obstacles to reading and understanding Kant lies beyond the content of his philosophy.

Unfortunately, his writing style is difficult and even painfully excruciating to read. His writing is obscure and comprehending the meaning behind his comments is burdensome.

The question emerges as to why his prose is so challenging.

Some have proposed that he likely wrote so poorly because he was by profession an academic and he writes in a heavily academic style. He utilizes academic terminology and jargon. He is not writing for the common man.

In addition, others have argued that Kant is difficult to read because he was entering into the final stages of his life. He was nearly 60 years when he wrote much of his great work and he was dogged by the thought that he might die before he got it all. Consequently he wrote quickly.

Finally, another possible reason for the difficulty of Kant's writing lies in the reality that he was writing in German. At the time of his writing, German had barely become accepted in academic circles. Most individuals wrote in either French or Latin. There wasn't an established style in German prose, but Kant paved a new pathway in this respect.

Many regard Kant as the greatest of the philosophers and this assessment to be rooted in two qualities of his thought. First, he was extremely intellectually penetrating and thoughtful, as well as analytical. Kant's work reveals the extremely methodical mind.

Second, Kant's greatness also lay in his ability to see how the total picture fit together. Again, in this sense Kant was extremely methodical.

Kant Part 9 - Fragmentary Knowledge

Kant's philosophy is notoriously difficult to understand. Fundamental to the difficulty is his contention that we have no knowledge of things as they actually are but only of things as they appear to be. This is the case, according to Kant, due to the fact that in order to actually understand things as they actually are we would have to transcend space and time.

In a different context, some have proposed that this is exactly what religious types have proposed. According to religion, there is a different sphere of existence so to speak that is outside of this world. In this world our experience is limited to space and time and is therefore fragmentary and illusory.

In addition, it seems that to carry Kant's conclusion further would be to entertain the possibility that in order to transcend space and time we would have to be "God" so to speak since he is beyond these dimensions. God alone has no spatial limitations.

Kant Part 8 - Ethics and Reason

As previously indicated, Kant saw a problem between the world of the physical sciences and morality.

In the world of the physical sciences, Newtonian physics ruled and all that occurs is the result of cause and effect. However, Kant understood that it this truth was applied in the realm of morality and ethics the inevitable problem of accountability resulted.

The basic tension existed in the context of the tension between personal freedom and determinism.

How can we be accountable morally for something that is outside of our freedom of choice?

There is the world of appearance and the world of things in themselves.

This put him in the position to say that there is the world of appearances and the physical sciences give us the whole truth about that. Kant validated the conclusions of the empirical sciences. According to Kant, Newton had gotten it right.

But bear in mind that we also are talking about the world of appearances. There is the topic of things in themselves and there is "room" there for other sorts of concepts altogether, such as free will, rational agency, good and bad.

There is room for these concepts not in the world of appearance but outside of the world of appearance.

Kant saw that these other matters, however, could not be topics of knowledge. Had we asked Kant, "Do you KNOW that there is free will" he would have responded that he did not know and that all he knew was that there was room for that possibility.

Ultimately, Kant believed that ethics comes out of reason. The conclusion of his moral philosophy is that he attempted to extract the essentials of morality from the pure concept of rationality.

For Kant, the essential quality of a moral agent is that he must be a rational agent. The essential requirements of morality are built into the concept of rationality itself. He attempted to show it seems that only a community of rational beings could consistently universally adopt a body of principles and action corresponding to our principles of morality.

This in turn led to Kant's Categorical Imperative in which he argued we should act according to that maxim which we would at the same time will that all individuals act and live by.

Kant Part 7 - The Transcendental World

Regarding morality, Kant concluded that, whether we like it or not we have moral convictions, which we cannot ignore. These convictions regarding good or bad, right or wrong have meaning and significance only if there is a God to instill them with meaning.

Kant argued that these types of moral categories in the human person, point toward a moral realm.

Most importantly, in thinking about theology and religion, Kant once commented that he "had denied knowledge in order to make room for faith."

For Kant theology is not a possible topic of knowledge.

Theology, in Kantian thought, is a matter of faith.

But perhaps it should be said that Kant's proposals were even more radical than they appear.

He proposed that our capacity for knowledge of reality is so limited, and especially so with regard to knowledge of "God", that even when I talk about God I do not even know what I am saying or what I mean by "God" talk.

This is not because God talk is irrational, but only because it is beyond my capacity to know.

Knowledge of God is simply a matter of faith.

Kant proposed three areas of knowledge. In essence he proposed three worlds.

The first world focused upon the human mind and consists of knowledge derived from the second world, the phenomenal world.

The phenomenal world can only be sensed. It is the world, which we perceive or experience.

These two worlds of knowledge consist of innate apriori knowledge and aposteriori knowledge gained through experience.

However Kant recognized that certain areas of "knowledge" so to speak could not be confined to either of these areas, such as knowledge of "God." Therefore, he proposed a transcendental world, which cannot be sensed and is in actuality also not innate knowledge.

This realm of transcendental knowledge and the transcendental world is the world of faith.

Kant Part 6 - The Great Reversal: From Morality to God

As previously indicated part of Kant's initial mission, or so it appears, was to establish a firm foundation for theological and metaphysical speculation about the cosmos.

Unfortunately in the end Kant was forced to face the fact that such a foundation was impossible to establish due to the limitations of our ability to "know" since knowledge of things such as "God" and "the soul" is not conducive to the human epistemologic apparatus.

Kant eventually determined that it is impossible for us to know that God existed. However, Kant still believed in some fashion in the existence of "God" and he realized that such belief was a matter of faith and therefore not actually knowable. Knowledge of God belongs to a "Transcendental" realm.

Closely related to the issue of believing in the existence of God, Kant based this belief upon his conclusions regarding morality. Kant concluded that there is a sense of morality or a sense of oughtness present within each individual. At this point Kant turned things upside down.

Kant's predecessors had argued from God to morality. They had assumed that moral convictions and religious convictions stand in need of a metaphysical foundation. They started with God and reasoned their way forward to morality.

However Kant reversed the process. He argued that the presence of a sense of oughtness or the presence of this sense of morality lead us inevitably to speculation about the metaphysical doctrine about God.

In other words, Kant's predecessors started with God and moved to morality. But Kant starts with morality and its universality, its being "built in" us and he thereby deduced the existence of the God who put it there.

Kant Part 5 - Theological Speculation

Kant proposed that we could specify the form of any possible experience which he designated with the term "the metaphysic of nature" or "the metaphysic of experience." He contended that one could spell out and think out what the "form of any possible experience" must be. Consequently, this would lead to a body of doctrine that would tell us about the world, telling us what the nature of the world is.

In this sense Hume's categories of analytic and synthetic categories was inadequate according to Kant.

He advanced that because there is such a possibility the categories of analytic and synthetic propositions is inadequate and he proposed a third category that he divided into two sub categories, the form of sensibilities and the form of understanding.

By the designation "form of sensibilities" Kant intended to convey that one could spell out and work out the fundamental character of space and time. According to Kant's conclusions, these two categories are imposed on our experience by the nature of our sensibilities.

By such he was saying that space and time do not characterize things are they are in themselves but are inescapable modes of experience located with us. These dimensions do not exist independent of our experience. In other words, reality has no such categories as space and time. He thought he was bring in geometry and arithmetic as forms of sensibilities and were bodies of apriori truth.

By the designation "forms of understanding" or forms of thought, Kant endeavored to convey the idea that the fundamental principle of causal determinism and Newton's law of the conservation of energy. These were fundamental to forms of understanding.

All of this comes to us in terms of "forms" which are sense and mind dependent.

Part of Kant's mission was to investigate the nature of these internal forms. Remember, these forms are internal to the individual and not actually part of the world as it is. The implications of Kant's conclusions were tremendous.

It appears that Kant was intending to build a firm foundation for theological speculation about God or at the least metaphysical speculation about the cosmos. However, in the end Kant actually concedes that there cannot be any such foundations. This is unfortunately the case because all knowledge is limited to the experience and the apparatus through which we receive the experience and the issues, so to speak, of God and the soul for example do not meet this standard. They are not knowable to us.

Kant Part 4 - Forms of Sensibilities and Forms of Understanding

To what sort of novel view did the previous conclusions lead Kant?

Somewhat confusingly, Kant proposed that we could actually specify the form of any possible experience that he designated as a "metaphysic of nature." He thought that we could spell out and think out what the form of any possible experience must be. Consequently this would lead to a body of doctrine, which would tell us also about the world.

He acknowledged that there are analytic truths and that there are synthetic truths, but he also concluded that there is a third category of truth (Transcendental Truth) which he divided into two categories.

First Kant spoke of the form of sensibilities. According to Kant we could spell out and work out the fundamental character of space and time and he argued that these two categories are imposed on our experience by the nature of our sensibilities. In short, these two categories help us to make sense of the world and are therefore "forms of sensibilities."

By this conclusion, Kant contended that the categories of space and time do not characterize things as they are in themselves but are modes of experience in us. In other words, the dimensions of space and time do not exist independently of our experience. Reality has no such categories of space and time.

The other form of which Kant spoke was the form of understanding. The fundamental principle of this realm was the principle of causal determinism. Through the utilization of this category, Kant argued that all of our knowledge comes to us through sense or through forms, which are sense dependent. This is the realm of the physical sciences. This "data" is actually a part of the real world and not projected onto reality.

Part of Kant's mission became investigation the internal forms. The implications of his examination were gigantic. He concluded that through these internal forms we get the foundation for theological speculation about God and metaphysical speculation in general about the cosmos.

However, he ultimately concluded that there couldn't be any such firm foundations for categories of items such as "God" because all knowledge is limited to the experience and the human apparatus through which we receive the experience. Categories of things such as "God" and the "soul" do not meet this standard. As we will see, these things may actually exist, but their existence cannot be empirically verified.

As previously stated, the problem that launched the Kantian project concerning the conflict between Newtonian physics and ethics was not completely resolved, however. Kant had proposed that by making a clear distinction between appearance and things as they actually are he was in a position to say there is a world of appearance and the physical sciences which give access to the truth, but we should always bear in mind that we are talking about the world of appearances and there is "room" for concepts and realities in the world as it actually is for things such as free will, rational agency, good and bad even though these cannot be regarded as "absolute knowledge."

Since we cannot "receive" information concerning these things empirically it does not mean that they do not actually exist, but like radio waves, while they may exist we simply are not equipped to empirically verify their existence.

Kant Part 3 - Analytic and Synthetic Propositions

Kant said that Hume had awakened him from his dogmatic slumber.

Hume, and Leibniz had accepted the general view that propositions can be exhaustively divided into two classes.

On the one hand, there are truths of reason or apriori truths that were designated "analytic propositions." These types of propositions are true by definition. Examples of analytic truths include, "Triangles have three sides" and "all bachelors are unmarried males."

On the other hand, there are propositions that tell us things about the world. These propositions are aposteriori truths or truths which we know on the basis of experience.

Hume said that if this is correct, then philosophy is in a serious difficulty since it didn't put itself forward as an empirical science and since it also didn't want to say that all it was doing was analyzing tautological statements or statement which are true by definition.

Therefore, what is the task of philosophy?

Kant offered the following ingenius solution to the problem.

Kant believed that there is a category of truth which applies to the world but which is not derived from the world, as with empirical knowledge. He also believed that there actually are apriori analytic truths.

One of Kant's important distinctions which arises at this point is that which made the distinction between "things as they are" and "things as the appear to be" or "things in themselves" and "things as they appear."

Kant proposed that we can never really actually know "things as they actually are". We can only know "things as they appear." In other words, data or experience from the world must come to us in a form in which we are capable of receiving it. In this sense the apparatus which we possess for receiving this external data from the world is limited and unless information comes to us in a fashion in which it can be received and interpreted, then we have no way of actually "knowing" this information so to speak.

For example, we can receive heat waves, but we cannot receive radio waves since our apparatus is incapable of doing so. This does not mean that radio waves do not exist but only that we are incapable of receiving them. Consequently, there may be other things, which exist in the world as it actually is but we cannot actually know it from empirical observation.

With this in mind, Kant moved to the question of morality.

Kant Part 2 - The Physical Sciences and Morality

Kant concluded there exists a conflict between the physical sciences and the world of religious thought or morality. The conflict centered, according to Kant, upon the Newtonian idea of cause and effect. The physical sciences had concluded, based on empirical observation, that all that "is" and "occurs" in the physical world is a result of the relationship between cause and effect.

This posed problems, for Kant in particular and for philosophy in general, in the realm of religion and ethics. In essence, Kant reasoned that if all is a result of cause and effect in the physical realm, and if the law of cause and effect also applies to the religious or moral realm, then how could there be any degree of personal moral responsibility on the part of the individual since moral freedom is not actually a possibility within the confines of cause and effect.

Kant was not the first to deal with this tension, however. Berkeley and Leibniz, for instance, had also acknowledged and taken on the problem but their conclusions had been inadequate according to Kantian thought. They resolved the problem by down grading the pretensions of the physical sciences and had presented them as inferior to metaphysical doctrine and argument.

In a fashion, Berkeley and Leibniz had trivialized the conclusions of the physical sciences.

Kant concluded that their resolution was inadequate and, therefore, he took another approach to the problem. As Kant observed the physical sciences, he saw they functioned smoothly and progressively with participants in the process finding agreement with one another.

This was not the case for philosophy according to Kant. The philosophical scene was extremely disconcerting to Kant. It appeared to be a chaotic battlefield. In addition, he concluded that Hume's argument that questioned the legitimacy of philosophy as an intellectual understanding was also on target.

So Kant sought another solution to the problems of the tension between the physical sciences and philosophy, and the issue of freedom versus determinism in the world of morality, as well as the intellectual legitimacy of the philosophical enterprise.

Kant Part 1 - Biography

One of the giants of philosophy was Immanuel Kant. Kant was evidently a man of great discipline in every part of his life. He kept his daily routine to the point that neighbors could set their watches allegedly to his daily stroll. His lectures were famous for their brilliance. He was the first of the great philosophers of the modern era to be an academic.

The writings of Kant made him widely known. His masterpiece was the Critique of Pure reason, published in 1781. Two years later he published the Prolegomena to the work in order to explain it. In 1787 he published a longer edition of the Critique of Pure Reason. In 1788 he published a Critique of Practical Reason and in 1790 he published The Critique of Judgment. In 1785 he published The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics, which had immense influence on moral philosophy.

Kant was the first great systematic thinker in philosophy. Consequently, breaking into the Kantian system is a challenging task. Frequently individuals will attempt to access Kant's thought by examining his analysis of the merits of rationalism and empiricism. Some have suggested, however, that a better approach to accessing the work of the philosophical giant is to study his concern with the conflict between the findings of the physical sciences and fundamental ethical and religious convictions.

In subsequent writings, we will further explore this dimension of Kant's work.

Schopenhauer Part 10

As previously indicated, Schopenhauer argued that aesthetic experience is a means by which the Will within each individual is quieted. However, Schopenhauer also contended that the complete silencing of the Will within the individual is highly unlikely. The Will is always at work in its strivings and is relentless in its efforts.

Schopenhauer argued that all of life is suffering and he further argued that this suffering has its source in "desire" of the Will. Aesthetic experience, particularly music, however, can provide relief from this desire according to Schopenhauer. The individual must come to a recognition that this Will motivates all phenomena, recognizes that nothing is achieved through this struggle and competition which has its derivation in the Will, and consequently the individual arrives at a point of resignation.

Finally, as a result of this recognition, Schopenhauer proposed that the individual is motivated to be compassionate since all fellow human beings are part of the same ongoing crisis.

Schopenhauer Part 9

Schopenhauer had significant influence on a number of individuals including Frederick Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein

Nietzsche expressed an admiration for Schopenhauer. According to Nietzsche, Schopenhauer reflected a man not content with superficiality but on the contrary was willing to stare boldly into the face of the ultimate significance of life.

Nietzsche found in Schopenhauer a sauce of inspiration and he saw him as a man of great independence of character.

However, Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer for his turning away from life and Nietzsche responded to the contrary advocating that rather than turning away from life or seeking escape from life in all of its brutality and challenge, the individual should embrace life with a "Yes."

Whereas Schopenhauer called for the individual to abandon life and the life principle, Nietzsche called upon the individual to transform life's challenges.

Wittgenstein was the last of the great thinkers influenced by Schopenhauer.

In Wittgenstein's Tractatus there is a correlation between the subject and the world which is Wittgenstein admired Schopenhauer for his willingness to face the ultimacy of life and Wittgenstein stated that if all of the questions of science were answered and the problems of science were solved, the problems of life would still remain untouched.

This comes from Schopenhauer.

It is also significant that in the Tractatus Wittgenstein points to the Will as the bearer of ethics.

Schopenhauer Part 8

So what of Schopenhauer's understanding of morality? What was the place of ethics in Schopenhauer's philosophy? He insisted that each of us is identical with this Ultimate Reality. He further insisted that since we are all one we should act with sympathy, agape, mercy and compassion toward one another. He called for these displays because, according to Schopenhauer, we are all ontologically unified. In other words, we are all in this tragic situation of life motivated by the slavish desire of the Will and therefore toleration and sympathy is required between us. In short, the human bond demanded compassion toward others according to Schopenhauer.

Ultimately, we are all part of one will. Schopenhauer's ethic is applied Metaethics. He proposed the metaphysical view that we are all ultimately one. When I injure you I am also injuring myself as a result of this ontological unity between persons. To harm you is to harm myself in Schopenhauer's thought.

However, Schopenhauer's philosophy was not without its flaws. For example it seems as though there is a contradiction within his work. On the one hand, Schopenhauer understood "Will" as a metaphysical reality which is awful, evil and nightmarish. On the other hand, Schopenhauer understood "Will" as a basis for compassion and mercy. However, while some contend that Schopenhauer's work contains a contradiction at this point, it seems that these two perspectives are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The one thought seems to require the other.

Schopenhauer saw "Will" as evil, frightening and nightmarish. He concluded that ultimately we must reject or deny this reality. In this respect Schopenhauer embraced asceticism or self mortification as seen in the world religions. He thought that this constituted the final rejection of the Will. It seems that Schopenhauer almost stated that there is an ultimate requirement for this introspective and ultimately ascetic existence in order for one to either into a Nirvana like existence and Schopenhauer may have even entertained the idea that the preferable thing for the individual to do is to turn to the nothingness of non existence. Schopenhauer resemblance to like Hinduism and differing perspective from Christianity was reflected in his call for a rejection of this life and its will whereas Christianity seems to call at least ideally for a transformational embracing of this life.

Finally, Schopenhauer's work contained an interesting paradox in that whereas he called for the Will to be rejected and ultimately escaped, the Will's work is required for this process to be accomplished. Consequently, we should entertain the question as to how this is process is actually achievable.

Schopenhauer Part 7

We have seen that the central theme of Schopenhauer's philosophical system is that the fundamental reality is Will. Schopenhauer equates this Will with Kant's thing-in-itself. We have also seen that Kant argued that we could never know the thing-in-itself. Schopenhauer differed with Kant at this point. He argued to the contrary, that we could immediately know the thing-in-itself through the experience of an inner, volitional reality within one's own body.

Further, while he argued that Reality is comprised of oneness, as previously stated Schopenhauer acknowledged "differentness." He proposed that if we analyze this world of phenomena we might derive from it clues which point to the underlying reality of oneness which he designated as "pneumena", a term which he borrowed from Kant.

As previously stated, Schopenhauer argued that we have access to knowledge of reality not by observing the external world of objects, but rather by looking within. In this sense, Schopenhauer anticipated the work of Freud, which is a reflection of Schopenhauer's contribution to the history of thought. Though it seems Schopenhauer fails to receive credit for these types of contribution, his thought is significant.

Yet Schopenhauer was quick to acknowledge that this knowledge of reality that is gained by looking within was still a superficial knowledge. In no way is this knowledge complete. Once again, it is in this respect that Schopenhauer's work reflected the later work of Freud. Freud also argued that much of self-knowledge is unconscious and indeed the task of the psychotherapeutic process was to reveal the unconscious realities that lie beneath the surface of the human psyche.

In addition, Schopenhauer contended that this knowledge is of a dual form by which he meant that this knowledge is reflective of the subject/object dichotomy. In other words, this inner knowledge requires both the subject who knows and the object that is known, the knower and the known, or the perceiver and the perceived. This inner knowledge remains within the context of human experience.

Schopenhauer proposed that there is something about this inner experience and this effort at introspection that gives us a clue to the nature of Ultimate Reality. For example, according to Schopenhauer's thought, bodily movements are expressions of "desire" or "Will" as Schopenhauer put it. If I choose to move my arm then "I will to move my arm." The volition is the inside of the movement and the physical movement is the outside of the movement. The unconscious motivation gives us the idea of a reality as a below consciousness drive. It was this drive, which existed beneath the surface, which Schopenhauer designated as Will, Force, or Energy as we might call it today.

In short, Schopenhauer concluded that the will is an unconscious striving for personal existence or personal assertion.

Schopenhauer Part 6

Schopenhauer concluded that the Will could be overcome by intellectual realization that our mortal selves are mere slaves and tools in the metaphoric hands of the Will. The Universal Will is eternal, but we are not. However, death is not to be feared according to Schopenhauer because it is through death that we are united with the Universal Will.

This is a perplexing conclusion, which if taken to its next step justifies suicide. However Schopenhauer countered this seemingly inevitable conclusion when he argued that suicide is an act of the will and constitutes a surrendering of the intellect to the Will rather than the overcoming of the Will through contemplation.

Schopenhauer Part 5

For Schopenhauer, the Will was not something to be glorified, although Nietzsche took Schopenhauer's concept of the Will in a positive direction under the theme of the Will to Power. For Schopenhauer, however, the Will or Force as some have said within the human person is something to be fought. We are at the mercy of this Will and it is infectiously present in all that we do. We are slaves to the Will and it is the ultimate cause of all our suffering. In short, Schopenhauer argued that we are slaves to the Will.

But Schopenhauer was not pessimistic to the point of absolute despair regarding the individuals struggle with the will. He argued there is a way to conquer the will. Interestingly, he argued that the arts, and in particular music is the means through which the Will is overcome. This is true because the arts lead to contemplation and contemplation provides a means for us to transcend our individual existence and to find a connection with the Universal Will. Through participation in the arts and we can discover some degree of objectivity and consequently can be freed from our striving for the transient and temporary goals of our lives.

Schopenhauer Part 4

Schopenhauer differed from Kant in that Kant argued the difference between "things as they actually are" and "things as they appear". Kant contended that we can never really know what an object or reality in general is like since our mind inevitably has to interpret these things which gives us no confidence that we actually perceive reality as it actually is. However, Schopenhauer accepted Kant's conclusion that the reality behind the world if appearances, or the noumenal world, is unknowable to the subjective self. However,

Schopenhauer went one step further, and in a way of speaking "ploughed around the stump or unknowability", arguing there is a back door into the world of things in themselves. Schopenhauer descried this alternative means of knowing reality as a way from within which stands open to us to the real inner nature of things to which we cannot penetrate from without. This is an interesting addition to Kant's conclusion. Kant looked outside the individual and concluded that we can never really know the true nature of reality. Schopenhauer looked within and argued that by doing so the individual has a means of grasping the actual or true nature of things.

This has been described some as Schopenhauer's subterranean passage through which we have access to actual reality. He argued that Kant had failed to see that which is implicit within his conclusion - that the Self or the "I" is actually part of that reality which we strive to know. Schopenhauer further concluded that this "I" is actually the "Will." In other words, the "Will" is the thing in itself, which is manifested in the will to live. This Will does not actually belong to the individual but is a presence within the person and as a presence within the individual it is striving to make itself known through the world of appearances.

Schopenhauer Part 3

Schopenhauer argued for the oneness of all reality. How then can we account for differences which exist between objects in reality? Schopenhauer argued that for one thing to be different from another at all there must be "differentiation." He contended that these differences apply only to things in this world. He also contended that this differentiation has to do with time, space or both time and space. Therefore, whatever there is outside of this world must be one and is consequently undifferentiated according to Schopenhauer.

Schopenhauer differed from Kant in that he argued that Kant was wrong in talking about "things" in the plural. Schopenhauer argued that ultimate reality is one, though things appear to be differentiated due to time or space or perhaps both in this world. This development in Schopenhauer's though represents a unique shift. With this concept of the oneness of all reality, Schopenhauer moved in toward belief in Hinduism and Buddhism. Like Schopenhauer, these religious movements advocated that behind all we observe there is one ultimate reality. It should be pointed out, however, that Schopenhauer got this idea of the oneness of all reality not from Buddhism or Hinduism, but from his own contemplation of reality and Western philosophy. He later recognized that his conception of the oneness of all reality paralleled the beliefs of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Arthur Schopenhauer (Part 2)

Schopenhauer's goal was to establish a systemic approach to the fleshing out of his philosophical perspective. He attempted to understand the world in which he found himself and attempted to form a coherent interpretation of human experience. He thought it was necessary to underline the hidden reality behind the world of empirical observation.

Schopenhauer began his work from the premises of Idealist Immanuel Kant. According to Kant the human mind is pre programmed to see the world in a certain way. Kant argued that we perceive the world in terms of spatial temporal relationships and in relationship to causality (but it was Hume which later awakened him from his "dogmatic slumber" regarding the issue of causality with the result of reversing Kant's conclusions regarding the actuality of cause and effect relationships.).

Kant concluded that just because things appear to be a certain way does not mean that this is the way that the actually are. In this respect Kant distinguished between "things as they appear to be" and "things as they are in themselves." Kant argued that all possible experiences come to us through our faculties and that what we experience depends not just upon the reality, which we perceive, but also upon what our faculties can interpret of the object, which we are perceiving or experiencing.

In this respect, all experience is subject dependent according to Kant.

In other words Kant proposed that we can see reality as it appears to be, but not as they actually are and that unless an object makes itself known to us in a manner which is conducive to the receptive potential of the mind the reality cannot be known due to the fact that we have no means of interpreting it.

Schopenhauer took the proposal of Kant and asked if we could get a closer understanding of what a perceived object or reality might actually be. As will be seen, Schopenhauer was not nearly as pessimistic about this possibility as was Kant.

Bryan Magee argues that Schopenhauer is the one successor in the realm of philosophy, which carried forth the philosophy of Kant "with insights of profoundest import." (Bryan Magee, Confessions of a Philosopher, 158-59) and from Schopenhauer Magee sees one direct line of philosophical thought to Nietzsche, and through Nietzsche the line continues into modern existentialism.

Arthur Schopenhauer 1788-1860 (Part 1)

The Philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer is characterized as that of Pessimistic Voluntaristic Idealism. Schopenhauer was a pessimistic post Kantian philosopher. In most of his lifetime Schopenhauer's and his work was largely ignored. During the first half of the 19th century his work was not regarded as significant. The pendulum swung in Schopenhauer's favor during the latter of the 19th century when he work was much in vogue. During the first half of the 20th century Schopenhauer was once again profoundly neglected and ignored in the study of philosophy. It seems that once again Schopenhauer is returning to favor, however, and this is perhaps due to the reality of his significant influence upon the thought and work of Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Schopenhauer was born in 1788 to rich merchant parents. He was trained to be an international businessman, but the lifestyle had no appeal for Schopenhauer. Rather he insisted on attending the university and financed a lifetime of independent study and writing thru the resources provided by the benefits of his parent's success. His doctoral thesis was entitled, "On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason" and while yet in his 2's he composed his masterpiece entitled, "The World as Will and Representation." From that point until his death in 1860 at the age of 72 Schopenhauer published few essays, which were largely aimed at continuing, his thought laid down in the two previous works. He published two short books on ethics, one entitled, "The Basis of Morality" and the other entitled, "The Freedom of the Will." Most importantly, however, was the republication of his Magnum Opus, "The World as Will and Representation" which was twice the length of the original work.

Schopenhauer presented a sophisticated exploration of key Kantian themes such as Kant's concept of "things as they are in themselves" and the Kantian idea of "things as they appear to be." Schopenhauer took these Kantian themes and united them with certain aspects of Eastern Religious philosophy and in the process introduced eastern religious philosophical concepts to the Western for the first time. Schopenhauer was genuinely knowledgeable of Hinduistic and Buddhistic thought and attempted to draw serious parallels between eastern and western philosophical-religious perspectives.

Schopenhauer was also the first western philosopher to be atheistic and in addition, he placed great emphasis on the arts. He devoted more attention to the role and the legitimacy of the arts than any other western philosopher. In addition he was one of the supreme writers of German prose. Schopenhauer's work reveals the individual who is a system builder and whose philosophy can only be understood as a whole.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 12)

Nietzsche has influenced much of the world of creative writing. For instance, W. B. Yeats read the works of Nietzsche and the tenor of his poetry changed. As a result, sentiment gives way to rawness, the poetry of blood and mire.

In addition, the playwright George Bernard Shaw is shaped in the biological sphere and as a result Shaw depicts the efforts of the individual to live the ruthless life, which justifies itself.

The influence of Nietzsche is also seen in the work of D. H. Lawrence who conceived of social and sexual authenticity, even brazenness, but it should be pointed out that this understanding of what it means to be a sexual human being was likely never intended by Nietzsche himself.

Finally, it seems that much of the criticism of Nietzsche, even the avoidance of his work, is rooted in the unfortunate appropriation of Nietzsche's concept of the Ubermensch by the Nazi's. The German Nationalist Socialist movement's adoption of Nietzsche as a basis for their philosophy of racial superiority has forever contaminated Nietzsche and his work.

The question arises as to the extent to which Nietzsche is responsible for this unfortunate adoption of his philosophy by so horrendous a group which committed such atrocious acts.

It seems that Nietzsche has to be associated with Nazism to some extent but it should also be remembered that Nietzsche never intended such an appropriation and distortion of his philosophy. The fact is that Nietzsche is not only a tragic figure in the sense of his own person, but also in the manner in which his work has been misunderstood. No writer's work is invulnerable to adoption by some aspect of the lunatic fringe.

The reality is that in the midst of his extreme and shocking literary method, Nietzsche is advocating with his concept of the Ubermensch such concepts as self-control, self-containment and these things have nothing to do with Nazism. Consequently, it seems that Nazism tragically appropriated Nietzsche's philosophy, but Nietzsche's philosophy is essentially radically opposed to the actions of Nazism.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 11)

The Aesthetic Understanding of Life: The Aesthetic Understanding of Life in Nietzsche's work represents another dimension of his literary use of metaphor. There is nothing outside of this world according to Nietzsche. Consequently meaning must be found within life itself. Therein lies one of his chief critiques of Christianity in that it produces an "anti life" mentality.

Nietzsche argues that nothing outside of this life can give this life meaning. In the Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche he advocated the idea that the greatness of the Greeks lay in their early tragedy thru which they addressed transitoriness of life. Life becomes a wonderful tragedy in the thought of the Greeks. The whole world is a great game or a great play or a great drama.

"Justification" is the term used by Nietzsche in which he drains the term of its Christian baggage referring to one's status in the future life and the transformation brought about through an experience with the transcendent. Nietzsche proposed that justification is to be found within this huge puzzling drama and he argued that in the tragedy of this life one's strives to seek this justification.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 10)

The Doctrine of Eternal Recurrence: Of all the doctrines of Nietzsche this is the hardest to understand and also to take seriously. On the face Nietzsche appeared to say that history moves in epicycles and that all history comes round again and again. For example, according to Nietzsche we have sat in this classroom over and over again. In his work Nietzsche says, "I felt as though I was a new pen being tried out by a superior power on a small piece of paper."

However, the reader of Nietzsche should remember that this is a theory of morality not being. According to Nietzsche's concept of Eternal Recurrence our actions should be so superior and grand that we should be willing to try them over and over again in recurrence, ad infinitum. By such willingness you are actually embracing life and saying, "yes" to life according to the Philosopher.

In a very real sense this concept of Eternal Recurrence is therefore a huge metaphor and the concept should not be taken literally. This is part of his grand and effective literary style. Understanding Nietzsche's concept of Eternal Recurrence as a literary device removes the perceived absurdity of the concept proposed by Nietzsche and also heightens its significance as well as providing practical relevance.

The Death of God: Addressing the results of the death of God Nietzsche writes proposes that rather than cope with the unbearable loneliness of their condition, humanity will continue to seek their shattered god and for his sake they will love the very serpents that dwell among his ruins." The mixture of "loneliness" and "serpents" and death of God" serves as a metaphorical description of the present human and cultural status. Rather than cope with the unbearable loneliness of their condition, men will continue to seek their shattered god and for his sake they will love the very serpents that dwell among his ruins."

But the question emerges as to what exactly the phrase "the death of God" actually signifies. What does this enigmatic phrase mean? Was there an actual event that constitutes the death of God? Nietzsche utilized the phrase to speak of the current empty status lying behind the human condition. The death of God has occurred both to those with "gods" and to those who have no "gods." To all categories of humanity in relationship to god, whether passive, angry, zealous, God is dead and life is empty. It seems that Nietzsche is acknowledging and proclaiming that the "notion of God" no longer holds the significance that it once offered. The notion of "God" no longer has the capacity to transform life. Individuals may pay lip service to god, go through the motions of devotion to god, verbally express allegiance to God, but all of these are empty.

Nietzsche's work at this point contains a positive element if we only can get behind the negativity and melancholia, which meets us at first glance in his conclusion that God is dead. Behind the statement is Nietzsche's notion that belief should actually transform life, provide answers to the ultimate questions of life and in the process transform one's very character. This is what a "belief" is supposed to do. Consequently, we are left to "fend for ourselves". (Interestingly in his work, Nietzsche comments regarding the churches, "What are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" Dark but nonetheless true.)

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 9)

The Will to Power: The notion of Will in Nietzsche's philosophy comes from Schopenhauer. However, Nietzsche reverses the understanding of the Will. Schopenhauer says Nietzsche did not see the will to power as something to be resisted by the individual. Rather Nietzsche affirmed the legitimacy of the will to power and even encouraged its pursuit by the individual. The Will is the source of all evil in the world according to Schopenhauer, but for Nietzsche the will to power is the exuberance of spring, the affirmation of life and the saying of "yes!" Nietzsche says it is the source of man's strength, the permission of the will to enact what it can enact. Nietzsche understood the will to power not to refer to physical force to be used against others, but as a psychical force, which endows the individual with fortitude and triumph over the greatest obstacles of one's life.

The difficulty is that this brings us into conflict with other people and is a will to self-assertion. This in turn leads to inevitable conflict. However, the will has makes a positive contribution to the shaping of the individual when it turns itself inward and destroys within the self all that is weak all that is comfortable, and simply part of a man's self indulgence.

According to Nietzsche, the strong are those who are more complete as human beings, and who have learned to sublimate and control their passions, to channel the will to power into a creative force. In no fashion should Nietzsche be understood as advocated what has been termed a Master morality aimed at abusing the weaker. Quite the contrary. Nietzsche held that the strong had a duty toward the less fortunate writing, "The man of virtue helps the unfortunate but not or almost not out of pity but prompted by an urge which is begotten by the excess of power.

The Ubermensch: The Nietzschean concept of the Superman is difficult to grasp and is frequently very misunderstood. Unfortunately the term was associated with Hitler and Nazism but this meaning of what it means to be the Ubermensch is far from Nietzsche's intention. For Nietzsche, the Ubermensch is the man who can be produced by any civilization of any era. He is the man who lives all that the will to power will give to him. He is the man who lives the will to power to the full or to the maximum.

Unpacking Nietzsche's notion of the superman, it appears that the Philosophers was actually trying to get at what it means to be the unrepressed man, the man who refuses to live his life according to false values. The Ubermensch is a free spirit. He is a man at liberty and who without restricting himself would naturally not do any of the things, which Nietzsche regards as evil, for instance is grudgingness toward another. Rather the superman is a generous spirit.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 8)

Nietzsche and the Hygiene of Knowledge

Nietzsche advanced the idea of a "hygiene of knowledge" By the phrase he advanced the idea that there is a knowledge which we are capable of facing up to, even embracing and a knowledge, which we ought to avoid in the interest of self-preservation. In other words, there is a knowledge that will build us up on the one hand and a knowledge that will consume or destroy us on the other. Nietzsche taught that we must distinguish between those categories of knowledge. It seems that Nietzsche warned that some persons must have a primitive morality since a higher level of morality would be destructive to their existence. In short, these can't handle a higher morality.


Nietzsche and History

According to Nietzsche, the entirety of civilization is centered upon the tension, which exists between various groups and the will of these groups to control or overcome the weaker. For instance, humanity for Nietzsche has always consisted of the tension between the strong and the weak, the able and the unable, the intelligent and the stupid. This perpetual social tension has perpetually existed at the core of civilization. The positive product of this tension, according to Nietzsche, is found in the reality that it has created value.


Nietzsche and Eternal Recurrence

One of the most fascinating aspects of Nietzsche's work concerns his concept of "Eternal Recurrence" also known as "Eternal Return." Nietzsche underscored the conception of a world without beginning of end. He proposed that in this world things happen repeatedly in the way they always have. He introduced the idea as a test of the individual's capacity to affirm one's own life and the general character of the world. He later developed the doctrine to mean that all events might actually recur eternally in exactly the same sequence. He utilized the concept to present his perspective of history as non-linear. He intended to convey his conclusion that if the individual is sufficiently strong and resilient he will be capable of enduring and flourishing in the midst of this historical recurrence.


Nietzsche and Perspectival Knowledge

Nietzsche argued that "values" are always contingent. He rejected the idea that values are absolute, transcending all perspectives. Nietzsche, or so it appears to this writer, understood values as contextual. He suggested that the method for achieving knowledge consists of what he term fröhliche Wissenschaft or "The Cheerful Science" (the title of one of his works) and it proceeds by Nietzsche approaching the various issues of concern to him through an examination of the diverse perspectives on those matters.

Nietzsche and Darwinianism (Part 7)

In one sense Nietzsche may be perceived as rejecting Darwinism, but it seems more that he misunderstood Darwin's work. Nietzsche intended to study chemistry, physics and biology but never did so. In a Darwinian tone, Nietzsche argued that the quality of a product could actually be measured by the nature of the products origin.

Consequently, as applied to the area of morality, Nietzsche proposed that the background of a particular moral perspective is indicative of the quality of morality contained in the perspective. In this sense, Nietzsche's conclusions reflect the typical nineteenth century perspective. Also, it was in this respect that Nietzsche was Darwinian, with a twist so to speak, the difference being that Nietzsche adapted Darwin's conclusions regarding evolution and applied them on a cultural level whereas Darwin applied his conclusions primarily if not exclusively in the realm of biology.

In light of the foregoing conclusion of Nietzsche regarding morality, he concluded that different values are appropriate for different individuals. It should also be remember that that Nietzsche was suspicions of and rejected the morality of the herd. Nietzsche was suspicious of "rules" since they tend to limit the creative.

He argued that individuals are entitled to individual knowledge and individual types of behavior. Knowledge according to Nietzsche is not absolute and morality cannot therefore be universally applied from one context to another in the form of "rules." Each civilization is entitled to the morality which it can bear according to Nietzsche. Related to this idea, Nietzsche acknowledge that certain civilizations simply cannot bear certain standards of morality and these civilizations may in turn destroy themselves.

Further, Nietzsche contended that morality is always historically based and he pointed to the founding of morality upon belief in God as a historical external standard for morality. However, Nietzsche proposed that humanity had lost belief in God and religion and matters of faith, and in reality humanity has lost belief in all metaphysical perspectives, and as a consequence values and morality must be reevaluated or reconstructed from the bottom up. This reconstruction is necessary in order to replace the older metaphysical foundations for morality.

Following this line of thought, in his search for a new foundation for morality, Nietzsche called for the individual to "be himself." The individual was to live his life fully and adventurously. Nietzsche's refrain was, "Be thou thyself." This is the premise from which the individual was to work and the goal toward which ethics ought to be directed.

An inadequacy in Nietzsche's thought appears at this point. His conclusions were inadequate with regard to social, cultural or corporate existence. This partly resulted from the previously stated reality that Nietzsche evidenced a dislike for "rules." He especially exhibits a disdain for "the herd" mentality. Consequently, there is difficulty in living together peaceably in society and culture. Nietzsche argued that the individual must create his or her own values, saying "yes" to live, but he failed to articulate how this might be done beyond the personal or individual level.

Finally, Nietzsche's conclusions tended to conflict with Christianity as previously stated. He called upon the individual to conquer all that is cowardly within himself. To look beyond oneself for a basis for embracing life and living life to its fullest was, according to Nietzsche, an act of cowardice.

Rather than looking to an external force which would enable the individual to live abundantly, Nietzsche demanded that the individual must conquer that which is weak in himself by finding his own personal source of strength, stamina and vitality within his own person. To do otherwise is to reflect pathetic weakness.

It should be said at this point that Nietzsche was not advocating that which was contrary to moral standards. He was simply rejecting an external basis, such as belief in God or religion, as the foundation for moral determination and self-discovery. For Nietzsche morality ought to derive from the determination to life the full and purposeful life.

Nietzsche found examples for this type of individual, which he would designate as the Ubermensch, in such historical personalities as Napoleon, Goethe, Luther, and even Socrates though Nietzsche possessed a disdain for the ethical proposals of the Ancient Greeks. These individuals were each personifications of the Ubermensch, a term sometimes translated as the Superman or the Overman.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 6)

Nietzsche's Rejection of Ancient Greek Values

• Most interestingly is Nietzsche's condemnation of Greek values. Nietzsche was of the opinion that with the emergence of Greek Socratic philosophy the focus becomes reason and rationality in the place of such qualities as strength, good will, warmth and beauty. In light of his conclusions, Nietzsche branded the teachings of the ancient Greeks such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle as Socratic nonsense. Yet NIezsche still held Socrates in high regard in that Socrates constituted the Ubermensch or the Overman who had risen above the herd.

Friedrich Nietzsche (Part 5)

Nietzsche not only rejected Christian Values and the Secular Values, but he also rejected the Values of the herd. Nietzsche had little regard for the attempt to shape a moral standard into a universal or categorical moral guideline for behavior. His proposal was part of his reconstruction of the foundation of morality.

Nietzsche's Rejection of Herd Values

• Nietzsche attacks the values of the herd. In this it becomes apparent that Nietzsche was not a dramatic philosopher. He had little regard for the populace in general. In addition he had little regard for efforts such as that of Immanuel Kant in his Categorical Imperative to discover a universal moral law that had relevance for culture and society in general and also the idea the quest for the moral code that possesses timelessness or an eternal quality. To attempt to discover such an ethic for Nietzsche was to trivialize morality and humanity. Nietzsche is concerned with the great and the noble people. In his opinion, the great and the noble of society should not be restricted by rules and principles, but each individual of status should be a law to himself. As such he will know the right thing to do and will possess the power to do that thing.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 4)

In addition to the rejection of Christian Values, Nietzsche also rejected "secular values." Undoubtedly this rejection was closely related to his disdain for rules and his animosity for "the herd" in which term he referred to the masses of humanity.

Nietzsche's Rejection of Secular Values

• In addition, Nietzsche also criticizes secular values. This is true despite the fact that Nietzsche is generally known for and evaluated by his rejection of Christian values.

• According to Nietzsche secular values are to be rejected because these systems of morality are abstracted from particular cases and are made common. In other words, when secularity determines that the "right thing to do" is to be broadened into a general rule, as with Kant's Categorical Imperative in which Kant strives for a universal standard for morality, the result is that acts of morality are trivialized. Nietzsche rejected any such efforts to universalization of moral rules or maxims.

• For Nietzsche, every individual should be a law to himself, but it should also be said that by this conclusion Nietzsche does not mean that the individual is free from morality.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 3)

Frederick Nietzsche proposes that humanity has based its existence upon false standards. He concludes that when we examine those standards they collapse upon themselves. Christianity, according to Nietzsche, must be set aside and this is what leads to the powerful and abrasive images of Nietzsche's writings, as well as to the melodrama of such reevaluation of values.

For Nietzsche, there are four main traditions, which have been passed down in humanity and which must be reconstructed. These are: Christian Values, Secular Values, the Values of the Herd, and Ancient Greek Values. According to Nietzsche, each of these must be attacked:

Nietzsche's Rejection of Christian Values

• Nietzsche rules out such Christian values as turning the other cheek, going the second mile, loving ones neighbor as oneself, and the demonstration of compassion for the suffering. He rejects these values as inappropriate.

• Nietzsche's problem with these "Christian concepts" roots in the inappropriate paradigm of the strong assisting the weak. According to Nietzsche, the weak should appropriate the power within "self" that enables him to rise up on behalf of himself. This is part of being the authentic human being.

• When the individual is capable of rising up from himself in order to rise above his circumstances he not only renders the person in power needless to assist him but the "weak" individual discovers what it is to live authentically and genuinely, to live out his humanity to the fullest without the assistance of some external moral code which attributes this strength to "God" or to "faith" or to "religious superstition." This old frame of reference for values is no longer needed according to Nietzsche.

Frederick Nietzsche (Part 2)

Nietzsche was the first of the Philosophers to actually face up to humanity's loss of faith in the transcendent, specifically God and religion. Prior to Nietzsche, and at the risk of oversimplification, all values, truth, and rationality has been received from and also built upon an agency outside of humanity.

For Nietzsche this transformation had its basis in "the death of God." The death of God had two dimensions. On the one hand the death of God was a cultural event, signifying the waning and demise of the "Christian moral" interpretation of life and of the world. As a cultural event, the death of God in Nietzsche's opinion, would lead to the emergence of nihilism having devastating effects upon culture.

On the other hand, the death of God was a philosophical development, signifying the abandoning of anything like the "God hypothesis." As a philosophical development, the death of God required a radical reconstruction of life, world, culture, human existence, values, and morality, which Nietzsche attempted to construct.

Related to both the cultural and philosophical concerns of the death of God, with Nietzsche there emerges a call for humanity to establish the foundation for these central elements to the human condition, which is "within."

In short, Nietzsche proposes that humanity establish its own values.

For many, this call is disturbing at the least and is impossible to confront.

Interestingly, Nietzsche was the son of a Luther minister. His attack on Christianity is said by many to be violent, hostile and dramatic. A reading of Nietzsche seems to confirm this observation. It should be remembered that Nietzsche's attack is not upon Christ, but upon Christianity.

He calls humanity to stand on its own feet with this previously adhered to religious dogma and he even goes so far as to call for a reevaluation of all values.

This Nietzschean call for a foundational shift is something to be appreciated.

Frederick Nietzsche 1844-1900 (Part 1)

Nietzsche Lecture 1

One of the most intriguing of the 19th century Philosophers was Frederick Nietzsche. Nietzsche influenced both Philosophers as well as creative writers such as George Bernard Shaw, W. B. Years and D. H. Lawrence. Nietzsche was born in 1844. He established a great academic career, becoming a full professor at by the time of his mid 20's, which was unheard of in his day. For 16 years he produced his great works including the Birth of Tragedy, The Gay Science, and what is regarded by many as his greatest work, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra."

He influenced such great luminaries of his day as Wagner though with Wagner he later parted company. Regarding his relationship with Wagner Nietzsche's fascination with Wagner's work is evidenced in several of his work and most notably his "The Birth of Tragedy (1872) as well as his subsequent essay Richard Wagner in Bayreuth (1876). However his later break with Wagner was profoundly painful and resulted in Nietzsche's producing a work entitled, "The Case of Wagner (1888). Nietzsche initially believed Wagner to be a means of cultural and spiritual renewal but later he came to view him as a reflection of the problem with culture rather than a solution to the problem, that is the problem of pervasive intellectual and cultural crisis, which Nietzsche described as "the death of God" and the beginning of nihilism.

In Nietzsche's view, traditional religious and metaphysical perspectives were diminishing and were leaving a void which science would be unable to fulfill which in turn endangered the very health and vitality of culture. Interestingly, Nietzsche in reading Schopenhauer's pessimism, found rather a basis for a life-affirming alternative to Schopenhauer's darkness. Nietzsche's thought culminating in his writing "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" in which he arrived at a conception of human existence and possibility in which life takes on meaning and value. He believed that this perspective offered a much-needed alternative to Schopenhauerian pessimism and nihilism.

Eventually Nietzsche attempted to draw together all of the great themes of his work into such great works as "The Will to Power" and "The Reevaluation of All Values" but unfortunately he experienced a mental collapse which was seemingly brought on by syphilis. He was rendered helplessly insane as a result of his disease until 1900.