Nietzsche’s Critique of Platonism and Judeo-Christian Tradition
Nietzsche’s Critique of Platonism
Criticizes Platonism: The tragedy in “The Birth of Tragedy” describes a new conception of reality. Life is like something torn by tragedy, the tragic phenomenon of what is the true nature of reality. Greek tragedy shows how the individualized self is born and dies (Eternal Return). In the construction, it expresses the tragedy of destruction, the perpetual becoming that is life. The tragic vision is a reality in which life and death, birth and decay of the finite intertwine. The essence of life is seen through art, intuition, and poetry. Art and poetry are one of its first manifestations. Greek tragedy presents two aesthetic forces that cannot exist without each other and live in perpetual combat: Apollonian and Dionysian forces. Apollo and Dionysus. The Apollonian and Dionysian aesthetic instincts are the first of the Hellenes. Apollo symbolizes the instinct for figurative clarity, light, and measurement; it is the principle of individualization. Dionysus is made of the chaotic and exaggerated wave of seething life of the night, as opposed to Apollo, who loves figures, god of music. The tragedy is a cosmic principle, the struggle between Apollo and Dionysus. Nietzsche gives life the name Dionysus. Nietzsche’s Apollonian is presented as a moment of Dionysian. “Will”, “will to power.” Heraclitus and Socrates. The tragic vision of life is provided by Nietzsche through Heraclitus. Becoming only exists; there is no being beyond space and time whose ontological principle is the will to power. The phenomenon opposed to the tragic vision of the world is Socratic. Nietzsche sees the lack of security in Socrates’ instincts. He had to develop the inner spiritual and rational logic factor. That meant for Nietzsche intellectual rationality, unable to see the life that flows behind all the figures. Intuition is the uptake of the deep, dark background that is the decline of Greek culture. The destruction of the intuitive and the Dionysian will include moralism. Plato, in philosophy, is the initiator of a moral interpretation of being, a sensible, virtue, and happiness, counterpart to the concept of happiness as a life instinct upward of fullness. Nietzsche’s critique of Plato is not the historical Plato, but the tradition he started. The investing of metaphysics. In “Human, All Too Human,” Nietzsche defines metaphysics as the science that deals with fundamental human errors as fundamental truths. Man invents the fiction of metaphysics in order to escape forfeiture. Nietzsche thinks that the fundamental error of metaphysics is the duplication of what exists in the real that lies beyond the world. Our spacetime world is excluded from authentic reality. For the author, the “human intellect” is the resource of the most miserable beings. Man needs to live in society, which incites war and determines that from that moment will be “truth.” The “lie” is to believe that through concepts, the will to truth is captured. Man conceptual contrasts. Nietzsche’s intuitive man is capable of establishing the domain of art on becoming life. He discovers truth through intuition; metaphysics, therefore, is reversed from reality, that is, the sensible and mobile. But he lacks language to express the evolution of life. That’s why Nietzsche speaks with aphorisms and metaphors. The author’s proposal goes through the fact that the ontology that exists is seen as an invention of philosophers. The lies of a real world and the consideration of the earthly world as mere appearance must be discarded. The only thing that exists is the need for multiple things in the underworld. Nietzsche’s thought is lived by a deep and devastating criticism of the old foundations of traditional culture, which has an origin in the Platonic ideal.
Critique of Judeo-Christian Tradition
Critique of Judeo-Christian tradition: For Nietzsche, all the problems of philosophy are problems of values; philosophers’ ideas are always guided by moral views. The worst consequence of the proclamation of a real world has been the underestimation of everything sensible. Moral and moral ascending descending. In “On the Genealogy of Morality,” the author gives us the will to power as the essence of life and morality as a product of it. There are moralities produced by the ascending and others for life, who preach helplessness. Here, the Judeo-Christian tradition seems to offer man some values created by him but placed above him by the Church, which now oppresses his life. This distinction is moved to the distinction made between the morality of individuals and herds: the morality of lords and slave morality. The morality of noble lords is based on hierarchy. It arises from the higher state of mind, which gives greatness. It is a moral creator, proper to the Superman, and he loves God. The death of slave morality is founded on the instinct of revenge against the higher life; it wants to match everything. It is a morality of values that are before it and only continues to deny the vital impulses and instincts of man. Origin and transformation of values: He had addressed the origin of the values through the methods of genealogy, searches, and forces and instincts of those who are born. Before Socrates, virtue was as good as strength and was noble. With Socrates, we find that virtue is a renunciation of pleasures, and the good thing is that which suffers. It is resentment that generates these new values, which is typical of the priests, who lack security in themselves or a higher-order force that assures the value of their securities. The strong end up being defeated by the weak. The morality of the herd is the one to subvene. Nietzsche considers that the history of Western culture is a growing rise of the herd. In “On the Genealogy of Morals,” the most radical critique of moral values is performed. In his first treatise, we find the meaning of courage, the concept of good (gut). The opposition right/wrong has had several interpretations. Gut means noble, beautiful. Schlecht means bad. There is a difference between noble and slave. This opposition is carried out by the nobles, who were given the name; therefore, the term designates what good are not actions but subjects and their good actions. But the term also means plebeian, unhappy. The explanation of the revaluation makes the following way: the revaluation takes place in the aristocracy. The aristocracy was divided into two classes: the priestly and warrior. In caste clashes, the priesthood takes place with slaves to face the warrior caste. Good becomes commoner, unhappy. Thus begins the slave revolt in morality. This is presented in the Jewish people, which totally dominates the morale of priests. Priestly ideals: The priesthood is the one that transmutes the values to agree with the slaves to seize power from the nobles. The priest is an individual who used to dominate the ascetic ideals. Ascetic values deem ideas as worthless, positive, or negative in themselves. While in the hands of the ascetic philosopher, it has a positive value; it is a kind of healing power. In the hands of the priest, it is an element of control over man. He tries to discover where lies the enormous power of the ascetic ideal. The reason is not that he is acting behind the priests, but for lack of anything better; good is the ascetic idea. The value is that nobody has anything else to cling to. So far, it has been the only ideal. It has had no competitor. “On the Genealogy of Morals” reveals the real truth, the will that is guided by ascetic ideals.