philosophy essay editing

Aimen Al Mishqab

Prof. Donavan Miyasaki

PHL-2050

12/4/18

A Defense of Nietzsche’s Argument in Twilight of the Idols

Friedrich Nietzsche is perhaps most famous for claiming that “God is dead.” It is precisely ideas such as this that have won Nietzsche the reputation for being somewhat radical and controversial. Nietzsche has a unique way of looking at the world, but and it is his unique perception of the world that gives readers of philosophy another dimension with which to piece together a realistic version of the world. In his book, Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche describes human existence as being somewhat under attack, as the concept of traditional morality, according to him, is the biggest objection to human existence. Nietzsche says a lot, here, and it is not all so clear cut and obvious. He essentially claims that there are a lot of bad ideas that have resulted from misguided religious attempts to control human passions. This paper will analyze Nietzsche’s argument that that morality goes against human instincts and respond to the criticism that he misrepresents traditional morality such as that found in Christianity by showing that he was actually talking about clinging to bad ideas such as those found within traditional morality. Comment by janice yu: What do you mean by this? Comment by janice yu: What is a realistic version of the world? Comment by janice yu: This sentence is a bit vague and unclear. What are those bad ideas? Because this is not explicit, it makes your thesis imprecise and confusing. Your prof writes: The introduction should give a very brief but clear and specific statement of each key point in each key section: the criticism, your reply to the critic, the critic’s reply, and your final reply. So far you have stated the aspects of Nietzsche you will tend to and the central criticism that you will focus, but do not state how you would respond. I see that you will be talking about morality in Twilight of the Idols and that you will consider the criticism, but I still don’t know what your response to either of those arguments are. Your title states that this paper is a defense of the text, but nothing in this paragraph talks about how you would defend it and in what way.

In Nietzsche’s book, Twilight of the Idols, he argues that “almost every morality that has been taught, revered, or preached so far, explicitly turns its back on the instincts of life—it condemns these instincts, sometimes in secret, sometimes in loud and impudent tones” (174). Nietzsche provides his thoughts on why people sought to exorcise their passions where he states that “things are certainly not viewed from a higher perspective” (172). He offers a particularly accurate example from the bible where it suggests to pluck one’s eye out in response to an offense but also comments that the practice of eradication has grown out of favor. Nietzsche explains that the radical practices of castration and eradication employed by the church are “…instinctively chosen by people whose wills are too weak and degenerate to exercise any restraint in a struggle against a desire” (172). This implies that the morality exercised by the church is weak and degenerate, in his view. Nietzsche goes on to explain his thoughts on the spiritualization of the passions, love in particular, which he claims “…represents a great triumph over Christianity” (173). Nietzsche’s distaste for traditional Christian morality is palpable and his concern is that the guilt and punishment used by the church was not benefitting humanity. Comment by janice yu: Okay, but why? Weak in the face of what and degenerate in comparison to what? Comment by janice yu: Looking at the prompt, it looks like one of your main tasks is to explain what the spiritualization of passions is. You go on to say that for Nietzsche, the church detracts from humanity but you don’t say how. Furthermore, doing so would still not begin to define how you are understanding the “spiritualization of passions” within the context of Nietzsche. 1) What is it? 2) Why does it lead to the detriment of humanity?

Some criticize that Nietzsche for misrepresentings traditional morality such as that found in Christianity where we are expected to control our excessive passions such as lust, greed, and wrath. Complete suppression of normal passions such as love, hunger, and anger, is not the goal of traditional Christian morality but rather the prevention of excessive passions is. The spiritualization of the passions that Nietzsche asks us to practice appears to be what Christian morality already asks us to do and allows us to find reasonable outlets. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that, in the attempt to conquer the passions, “people conspired to destroy them” (172). Nietzsche points out how, in the past, things like plucking out one’s eye upon being offended or castration were perfectly reasonable suggestions within traditional morality because maintaining one’s morality was of the utmost importance and that was the prescribed way to do that. In the past it was seen as necessary to physically remove from the body any part of it that could lead one to immorality. However, it can be argued that the Church, and Christianity, for that matter, is no longer so literal and strict with its advice towards morality and that the examples taken from the past only serve as guides now in the present. Comment by janice yu: This would be helpful in the intro for reasons mentioned above. But also be mindful of your prof’s comment: In the final reply, Nietzsche’s view is a little off. He’s not a relativist who thinks morality is whatever anyone says it is.

In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche is not exactly satisfied with the way that traditional morality has addressed the passions in Twilight of the Idols. He speaks about clinging to bad ideas that have, over time and since the beginning of time, slowly but steadily steered humanity away from its natural instincts. Nietzsche argues that the need to conquer the passions has actually led to practices implemented by traditional moral authorities that are “hostile to life” (172). Additionally, Nietzsche views the church’s need to control human desires through such eradicative methods as a sign of weakness. Rather than embrace human natural instincts, traditional morality’s way to enforce morality is through the use of fear and force. Nietzsche states that there is “…naturalism in morality—which is to say: every healthy morality—is governed by an instinct of life” (174). What traditional morality advocates however, is “anti-natural morality” that goes against basic human instincts (174). These are not methods that can be sustained in Nietzsche’s view and also exemplify the flaws in religious thought and practice, which do little more than create ways to punish humans for being human and do absolutely nothing to help to understand humanity or morality any better. Comment by janice yu: Good – this is helpful and would’ve been useful earlier (i.e. where I ask you about what is weakness) Comment by janice yu: What is the significance of this? Comment by janice yu: Why not?

A possible objection to this defense is that religion has served as a moral guide throughout history and should not be thrown out just because of some bad and outdated ideas. Sure, religion may have had to come out with some rather distasteful ideas and practices in order to correct itself and get to a working understanding of morality that benefits humanity, but it is still useful as a moral guide because it advocates doing good in order to maximize the goodness in the world. Traditional morality is concerned with prevention, not eradication, because there are passions that may be natural, but may also be too dangerous to allow. Nietzsche is correct about traditional morality sometimes demanding that a passion be completely stifled, however, that may sometimes be beneficial because some natural passions are essentially bad and dangerous. Jealousy, for example, may be a natural response in many situations, but traditional morality advises that preventing that passion from becoming excessive is important in order to maintain “peacefulness of the soul” (173). However, if the jealousy becomes too difficult to control, it may be more beneficial to a person to completely rid themselves of all feelings of jealousy. Therefore, because they do not appear to have any benefit, it is sometimes necessary to completely stifle a passion like aggression, hatred, fear, jealousy, cruelty, and contempt. Regardless of the mistakes that traditional morality may have made, there is still a clear cut division between what is good and what is not good, so moral guides are necessary and the benevolent church should remain as the bastion of morality in the physical world as it has always been. Comment by janice yu: I agree with your prof here – the objection should be more nuanced as I don’t think that Nietzsche is suggesting this either.

A reply from Nietzsche to the above critical objection would be that traditional morality is flawed because “By saying ‘God sees into the heart,’ it says no to both the lowest and the highest desires of life and treats God as the enemy of life” (174). One of traditional morality’s greatest flaws is its claim, in various manners, to know things that are unknowable. By asserting that there is an authority on morality traditional moralists make the claim that they know something about morality and what people should and should not do. This also implies that there is a right answer in every situation. Nietzsche completely disagrees with that because he sees how humanity has veered away from its instincts and he also believes that morality should fit the needs of each individual person according to what allows them to express their passions. So, according to him, it is impossible to be any kind of authority on morality and traditional moralists do the world a great disservice by insisting that they are one. Comment by janice yu: Good, this paragraph is much stronger than the one that poses a potential objection. You’re much more clear and precise as to what points he might respond and more importantly, how. Comment by janice yu: This feels a little simplified. I’m not sure Nietzsche’s argument is so easy – true, he would probably agree that people cannot claim to be an authority on morality, but he does propose a very specific alternative in a sense

In summary, Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols is a criticism against the idea that traditional morality is a beneficial moral authority that has served humanity. Nietzsche argues that, on the contrary, the traditional moral thoughts, ideas, and practices implemented by the church in the name of traditional morality have done much to distance humans from their instinctual origins and that in and of itself is immoral. Christianity, for example, has introduced guilt and punishment into the concept of morality, and Nietzsche sees that as a flawed practice that does nothing really to help humanity better understand morality and what it means to be moral. In fact, things like guilt and punishment have completely changed the true meaning of morality. Because of that humanity has devolved rather than evolved. Critics of Nietzsche’s argument may cite that, although somewhat flawed, the church has been a positive moral guide for centuries and is necessary even today in order to provide moral advice to those that have no other recourse. Comment by janice yu: This last sentence is odd and confusing. It sounds more like a critique of Nietzsche rather than a defense.

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols. 1888. PDF.

Aimen,

It looks like you tended to some of the issues your prof had with your paper (terms/concepts). However, I think that more could be said about some of the claims you make. In particular the potential objection that you pose near the end of the paper could be more nuanced. This is especially important, because as is, the objection is not understanding Nietzsche’s argument thoroughly. I think this is a result of not being as explicit as you could be about what his understanding of morality is. It is very important to note that he does not think all morality should be thrown out the window.

Finally, the paper itself seems divided on whether or not to critique or defend Nietzsche’s position on morality. I would suggest to pick and support either side more ardently. Right now there are moments of both, though I actually feel it leans closer to critique than defense.

Hope this helps and best of luck!