I find it extremely intriguing how Nietzsche’s philosophy generally reveres strength considering his life. As we have seen in his writing he is disgusted by the fact that “birds of prey”, or the strong, are asked to be something different than they are as if they could choose their nature. The slave morality has cleverly twisted a much more natural order of things, idolizing weakness. This clearly does not fit into Nietzsche’s general philosophy that it is good to exert a strong will. He does not want the strong to be ashamed of being strong but instead make use of their strength. We also know that his ideal man was the overman, the ubermensch, a character that has to be strong to break free from a herd mentality.
Somewhat sadly but intriguingly, Nietzsche was a sickly man throughout his life. Always moving to find a place that would be more suitable to his health. This does not sounds like a bird of prey or an overman. Although he may not mean strength to entail being physically strong, Nietzsche was not exactly the most mentally stable person either. He suffered a well-documented nervous breakdown that haunted him for the rest of his life.
Many people regard this breakdown, even though he continued working after it, as unrelated to his philosophy. I can see how one can examine his philosophy without it, but surely what happened in his life cannot be unrelated to his own thoughts and philosophy. I find it intriguing that with all of his health problems that he revered strength and disliked the slave mentality, he seems very much to be not his ideal man. But also the argument against that is that his argument should stand alone from his life. Not only that but that since he was arguing about will and mental strength, they didn’t really contradict.
To conclude I wonder what people’s thoughts are in general about how someone’s life has an impact on their philosophy. Should we look at their life? Why or why not?
While I think it's absolutely intriguing to learn more personal details of philosophers' lives, much more than modern celebrities in my opinion, I think it can complicate the reader's interpretation of a work. It's strange to look at how professors use different approaches to describing philosophers. I definitely think it's necessary to look at historical context, where one's writing, and what's going on in their world. But perhaps delving too deeply into their private lives can lead to judgments and misinterpretations.
ReplyDeleteI think that someone's philosophy should certainly be synonymous with the way that they live their life. Would we allow a philandering preacher who preaches fidelity in the ulpit to stay in the pulpit? Would we pay to go see a therapist who is seeking the help of a shrink herself? We live in a society where the understood rule is that everybody practices what they preach. The validity of a person's ideas or statements absolutely needs to be backed up by evidence of them practicing it themselves. I also find myself becoming skeptical of Neitzche when I look at his personal life and the life he chose to encourage of others.
ReplyDelete- Jessica Ealy
I think that a philosopher's life is what truly shapes their philosophy much like how peoples upbringing effects their moral code and conduct. without our life experiences we have nothing to base our opinions on. A baby could not have a philosophy any better than it could hold up its head because it has nothing to base good and bad, or strength and weakness off of, so without our life experiences we have no philosophy.
ReplyDelete