Nihilism, Death of God, and Existentialism: Key Concepts
Nihilism and the Death of God
Nihilism is the devaluation of life at the hands of the real world. This world is deemed worthless because it has transferred all value to another world. Nihilism is also a will to power decadent reactive, which, by dint of not wanting anything, gives up. Just wanting nothing means the loss of all critical values. The transfer of securities to the transcendent world has led to the nihilism of Western culture. Zarathustra is the harbinger of the death of God, having discovered that there is no transcendent world. A force takes away the value of this life, this world; all the value is in the other world. When the real world disappears, all valor disappears with it. The nihilist is a man who announces the death of God, but he is still not able to create new values. The moral values of slaves were worth something in terms of a better life than this. If it is discovered that such a thing is a phantasmagoria, one discovers the futility of such securities. We must create new values. Transvaluation of values: replacement of life-denying values and instincts by life-affirming values. The claim is absurd: the gods are dead… Laugh to hear one say that he was the only god! But it became the perfect vehicle for the metaphysics of the real world. The dull-theism is comforting because it unifies and personalizes the meaning of the transcendent. As the world progresses, metaphysical-religious monotheism came in three movements: Simplification and purification of metaphysics. Transfer of Values: God becomes the sole object of study. God becomes a sink for all values and all knowledge—as the balloon is inflated away to heaven.
Important Aspects of Sartre’s Philosophy
Sartre’s philosophy revolves around the existence of each individual. He rejects the idea that there is a common essence in all human beings. Each individual is unique and irreplicable, building its own essence. This is called the “Philosophy of the Concrete.”
Basic Postulates:
- The existence precedes essence: Every human being is defined or constructed throughout his life.
- Man is condemned to be free: We constantly have to make decisions or choices.
- The man is condemned to invent man.
- The man is thrown into the world: alone, without standards, no values, and without God.
- The man is anguish: Anxiety is the feeling that comes from being aware of our freedom and responsibility for our lives and on the other.
Moral of Slaves and Moral of Lords
Socrates is the first decadent because he mistrusts the instincts. He also has lower instincts he cannot control, so he needs reason as a counter-tyrant. But he was not unique. The decline was widespread in Greek society, so Socrates triumphs. Resentment, characteristic of the weak towards the strong, manifests itself in his libel to weaken the strong. Socrates’s triumph is the triumph of the most against the best. The will to power of the slaves is reactive, negative, reacting to the strength and nobility. It denies the value of slaves who seek to dominate the strong, and the weapons used are: specious argument: the reason trapped in their webs man of action, it freezes, the Socratic dialectic poisons life, looking devalued by holding the permanent and most valuable, and most slaves are able to invest a hierarchy based on the active, strong, noble, superior, aristocratic, excellent, one based on the quantity in the number. The result is an unnatural morality: the morality of slaves.
The moral of Lords says yes to life, life as it is, to this life. It is tragic; it aims to improve life but live it. Accept what is terrible, pain, cruelty, ugliness, while also accepting happiness, health, and beauty. Accepts life in all its manifestations. No waiver; does not reject anything vital. It is a morality of the noble, high, strong. It is vital expansion, deployment of instincts.
What They Say and What Is Shown
Wittgenstein states that it is the same to talk about empirical matters as it is to talk about momentous issues (good, beauty, etc.). With respect to these issues, Wittgenstein limits the possibilities of language, but can be experienced, lived, can not be said. Wittgenstein says that the scope of the inexpressible is, and that is the most important and fundamental about it, but we cannot say anything properly, science mode (i.e., describe). However, this does not mean we cannot show the inexpressible to others, and they can understand.