Comparison of Thoreau and Nietzsche’s differences of philosophies regarding nonviolence In King’s lecture, Thoreau and Nietzsche were regarded as representatives from different positions. King considered Thoreau as a supporter of the standpoint that the internal value should have transcended the external, or the technological improvements of human would benefit nothing. On the other hand, he took Nietzsche as an opponent to “all-embracing and unconditional love for all men”. More than King’s evaluation to them, their philosophies with regard to nonviolence also differ a lot. Their basic altitudes towards the democracy and nonviolence conflict with each other.
David Hume and Immanuel Kant on Morality When discussing the morality of ethics there are many different schools of thought by which we can attempt to justify why we think or do things the way we do; why we value the things we value; and what makes our actions right or wrong. In this essay I will address the flaws in the assumptions of Immanuel Kant’s theories on morality by reason, using David Hume’s beliefs on morality by feelings and material from the Subjectivist school of thought. The Kantian view on morality places extreme emphasis on reason rather than what we desire as humans. In other words, people act in accordance to what is their duty, not by how they feel or what they personally believe to be right. This is in direct violation with David Hume’s stance on morality.
Nietzsche’s theories, although highly controversial, challenged the ideas of morality and the idea of God. His beliefs were not that religion was bad but the way it was taught and practiced contradicted the fact of what was said. Nietzsche even criticizes Kant’s view of ethics known as Kantianism. Nietzsche is most known for his statement “God is dead” and his
In her essay, Simone Weil’s evaluation of the Iliad has some valid points according to the passages in the Iliad. Also Nietzsche wrote his evaluation of the Iliad(actually the Homeric World) in which he points out some really interesting ideas evaluated from the Iliad, he explains the main ideas of the Hellenic notion and he compares some famous Greek stories in order to express us his ideas about the Homeric world. Both of these essays have some valid points about the Iliad but they are both partially true because they also include wrong ideas according to the Iliad. If we are to start with Simone Weil’s opening statement of her essay which is "The true hero, the true subject matter, the center of the Iliad is force." She points out some valid points such as; a lot of detailed death descriptions on the battlefield, the focus on the flying body parts which help us to picture the death in our minds, showing us the power of the force which can reduce human beings into simple things; the interesting explanations and descriptions of war victims in order to show us that this reduction of human beings to things can apply to the living.
Furthermore, what is denounced here is not religion as such, but religiosity and the abnormal conduct of supposedly devout believers. And finally, what is at stake is, beyond the attack on Willie Fisher himself, an indictement of strict Calvinist theories. 1. Holy Willie, a Satire. The speaker The humour here seems to arise from the discrepancy between what the speaker says, the “I” of the poem, and what one would expect from such a man as Burns.
Yet it is the continent person whom Kant calls virtuous and to whom Kant ascribes moral worth. Moral value is exhibited by the subduing of fickle passion by objective deliberation. This conflict, most famously illustrated by the differences between Aristotle and Kant, raises the question: Which state of character is best described as virtuous? I think progress can be made toward answering this question by asking a more probing question: Why are we interested in the concept of virtue? It turns out that Aristotle and Kant would give rather different answers to this question.
This attitude completely negates the translators’ essential intervention in the text. So, from a lay viewpoint since the translators get involved in conveying the meaning of words, they always betray the culture of the source text. This commonplace idea shows the layperson’s ignorance of the translator’s complex task. Is the translator really always a Traitor to the culture of the source text? Does he have to remain “invisible” to be faithful to the original text?
Freud and Nietzsche on Sublimation KEN GEMES ABSTRACT: The notion of sublimation is essential to Nietzsche and Freud. However, Freud’s writings fail to provide a persuasive notion of sublimation. In particular, Freud’s writings are confused on the distinction between pathological symptoms and sublimation and on the relation between sublimation and repression. After rehearsing these problems in some detail, it is proposed that a return to Nietzsche allows for a more coherent account of sublimation, its difference from pathological symptoms, and its relation to repression. In summary, on Nietzsche’s account, while repression and pathological symptoms involve a disintegration (of the self), sublimation involves integration.
In “Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals” by Immanuel Kant, a general framework is laid out for this idea that the discussion of metaphysics in philosophy has been led astray; that even the common man has a better understanding than most philosophers. Kant reasoned that the morality of an action lies solely in the cause and not in the effect; that is, in order to call an action morally good or bad, one must first analyze the motives for carrying out said action, making sure the action itself is from duty and not just coinciding with it. He also gave the groundwork for understanding how to determine if an action is morally good or bad by use of what he calls the “categorical imperative”, where you take a principle in a given situation (such as lying) and imagine a world where every person lied all the time. That would raise a contradiction and paradox in itself, because in order for lies to exist, there must be the existence of truth; this contradiction, Kant claims, is the reason why it cannot, under any circumstances, be morally permissible. However, the
This theory is contradictory because it suggests that people cannot be good and that only evil can exist, a theory that gains great skepticism, especially from the aspect of ethics and religion. At the same time, Kropotkin suggests that some people wish to live in harmony with others while some wish to live in competition. Philosophers who are in opposition to Kropotkin’s theory may even consider his ideas to be those of an “anarchist ideology,” as stated in an early day War Commentary publication (Bernari, 1942). While people are in fact born with natural tendencies, it is to be debated whether fighting is one of them; however, the senses we are born with can indeed be considered natural ethics. From the moment we are born, we have a sense of fear, closeness, and comfort – things that are not learned as we grow, but instead are a part of our natural intuition as human beings.