Nietzsche’s Philosophy: A Critique of Western Values
Nietzsche’s Critique of Western Culture
Nietzsche’s philosophy is a profound critique of Western culture, as all its manifestations reveal a decadent life, unable to advance or draw new goals for humanity. For him, life is the will to power, an unconscious impulse in all living things to improve and advance. This will to power, as he defines it, opposes the idea that living beings are characterized by a preservation instinct. Such an instinct, he argues, leads to stagnation and decay, representing a renunciation of self-transcendence, a clinging to simple pleasures and happiness to escape pain – symptoms he identifies as typical of Western culture.
Nietzsche’s Concept of Decline and Nihilism
Nietzsche identifies three types of decline or nihilism:
Modern Man
Characterized as the ‘Last Man’ or ‘mass-man.’ This also includes the great sages (like Socrates), who, in Nietzsche’s view, share a rationalism and contempt for instinct. Nietzsche contrasts this with the Dionysian, which he sees as the affirmation of becoming and a radical rejection of the static self.
Christianity
Decadent due to its life-denying attitude. Nietzsche views Christianity as a religion derived from Platonic philosophy, further accentuating its decline.
Nietzsche applied his genealogical method to critique specific moral or philosophical systems. By tracing their origins, he sought to determine if they stemmed from a vital, life-affirming attitude or a sick, life-denying one. For Nietzsche, decadence and nihilism originate from the fear of change and becoming. His method aims to uncover an alternative world, one not built on the desire for safety and comfort.
Nietzsche’s Critique of Morality
Nietzsche’s critique of morality largely identifies with Christian morality. He argues that in many languages, the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ originally did not describe actions, but rather designated two opposing types of men. ‘Good’ referred to the distinguished, noble, or privileged man in social rank. ‘Bad,’ conversely, nominated those of lower social rank: the low, the vulgar. Later, a transposition of meaning occurred, shifting from describing men to describing their actions: the noble called their own actions ‘good’ and the actions of plebeians ‘bad’.
In the moral evolution of Western culture, an inversion of this original meaning has taken place. What is now qualified as ‘bad’ is that which goes against group cohesion, or any expression of vitality that might endanger the interests of the majority. Historically, the slaves, the weak, and the commoners, lacking physical and vital force, had to develop intelligence and cunning to survive. Their greatest achievement was to reverse the original meaning of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.
Previously, the nobles, who embraced the struggle of life and continuous creation, acted with complete freedom. They created their own values, affirming themselves in the fullness of their strength and vigor, without concern for harming others. Their morality was a primordial expression of life itself.
The slaves developed a reactive morality against the morality of the lords. This slave morality favors values that allow them to continue existing, values that are the opposite of noble ones. Values such as tolerance, compassion, patience, selflessness, altruism, equality, and resignation, Nietzsche argues, express a vital attitude rooted in the fear of existence. This is a ‘morality of the herd,’ born of resentment towards the strong and successful. Slave morality, in contrast to that of the strong, is the morality of the weak, driven by a survival instinct rather than a desire for full living. The weak developed mechanisms to survive against the strong; unable to confront them openly, they sought revenge in their inner world. Unlike the strong, the weak expand and grow from within, exploring the fields of intelligence and becoming more cunning. The cleverness of the many weak, Nietzsche concludes, ultimately overcomes the innocence of the few strong, subjecting them to their values.