In Nietzsche’s Twilight of Idols, particularly in his chapter “The Four Great Errors” he frequently discusses the will of man. He critiques other moral systems for their insistence in prescribing certain ways to live—certain actions to take and, more importantly, certain actions not to take (58). He locates the core problem of these philosophies in man’s confusion to identify cause and consequence—particularly in knowing what one has free will over and what one does not (58). Men are frequently told to withhold from certain instincts in these moral systems, Nietzsche thinks that stymieing these instincts is “Anti-Nature.”
The will of a man is directly relates to the amount of control he can exercise over his actions. The moral systems that prescribe the appropriate actions for man are discrediting man’s free will. Whereas, Nietzsche believes that “Everything good is instinct—and consequently easy, necessary, free” (59). In these other moral systems that Nietzsche is critiquing, he also points to the historical significance of considering man as having free will. This understanding of man’s motivation came into existence so that there was a way to discipline men for actions that were deemed punishable. Thus, men were given the notion of free will so that they can be held responsible for all that they do (64).
For Nietzsche, if “everything good is instinct” then the man who lives his life according to these instincts and acts up on them are not bad. He does not necessarily want to punish them for being motivated by these instincts. Instead, Nietzsche believes that the individual is part of a much greater whole and nothing can judge this whole because “nothing exists apart from the whole!” This is a morality which does not include man’s free will. Nietzsche claims that “’God’…[is] the greatest objection to existence.” God is the one who prevents the existence of this whole where no one man is held accountable (65).
Thus, when God is denied by man, his existence not believed, then we can deny accountability of the individual completely. Once that is accomplished, the world is redeemed (65).
I think Nietzsche's idea is awesome! Well, the living God is "dead" right? So why believe in a God that is so remote he hates and condemns us (his creation) for the way we are created? Christian theologians and priests have assumed so much power over humanity that God isn't even a factor - just a figure. The power of the priests comes from people feeling guilty. Why feel guilty for something natural, like passions? What is "sin" but unconscious and impulsive features of existence? On the other hand, intentionally hurting others, perhaps that is just the 'will to power' :)
ReplyDeleteI did enjoy this chapter aswell, it was intriguing reading about his opinion on free will and it being a creation of mans in order to punish man. But I feel it is rather obvious (or not so obvious rather) that even though Nietzsche believes there is no free will, that punishment is a neccessity especially when your living in a civil society. Maybe in some sort of a particular lifestyle and surrounding we can live with this ideology successfully.
ReplyDeleteOn a reasonable level, “everything good is instinct” is an idea that can be perceived (by me anyway) in two ways. The first way being that it sounds like an extreme thing to put forth, which is something that my instincts urge me to question. It could lead one to think that any and all instinct is good. Well, that I suppose, depends on whether or not it is outwardly expressed. Surely, it could not be “good” in all cases if the instinct is negative or harmful, unless the more important value here is only the instinct itself, which I tend to doubt. This is why I question such a bold statement. Secondly, at the moment I cannot recall my second point...oh well.
ReplyDelete