8 Chapter 8: Breaking the Moral Mold—Nietzsche on Value Creation and Perspectivism

In this chapter, we’ll be exploring the remarkable, challenging, and often provocative insights of Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th century, on the concepts of value creation and perspectivism. As we delve deeper into Nietzsche’s philosophy, we’ll learn how he radically disrupts traditional ethical thinking, providing an alternative framework that questions and criticizes conventional moral norms.

The first section, “The Digital Dionysus, or ‘Nietzsche Gets Rebooted’,” transports us into a thought-provoking scenario where a digital representation of Nietzsche is engaged in a philosophical reflection. This section raises profound questions about the nature of reality, existence, and the concept of the eternal recurrence—an idea Nietzsche himself had toyed with, suggesting that life repeats itself infinitely in the same sequence of events.

Next, we’ll pivot to discuss Nietzsche’s core ideas and philosophies in “Big Ideas: The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.” This will cover his major ideas, the profound influence he has had on philosophical thought, and a deep dive into one of his key works, “Genealogy of Morals.”

One key concept we’ll unravel is Nietzsche’s theory of “value creation”—how individuals can and should create their own moral values, as opposed to adhering to pre-existing societal norms. This perspective reflects Nietzsche’s emphasis on individualism and his criticism of herd mentality.

Moreover, Nietzsche’s view of perspectivism, the belief that there is no absolute truth but rather multiple interpretations of the world depending on individual perspectives, will be analyzed. We’ll explore how this idea has transformed our understanding of ethics, suggesting that moral judgments can often be a matter of perspective.

Common criticisms of Nietzsche will also be discussed, giving you a rounded understanding of his philosophy, the critiques it has faced, and the various interpretations scholars have proposed over time.

By the end of this chapter, you’ll have a deeper understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy and how it challenges and enriches our understanding of ethics and morality. Whether you agree or disagree with his perspectives, one thing is certain: engaging with Nietzsche’s thought will not leave you the same. His provocative and insightful ideas, including value creation and perspectivism, will undoubtedly force you to reconsider your own ethical beliefs and question long-held moral norms.

The Digital Dionysus, or “Nietzsche Gets Rebooted”

My simulated self, a digital Friedrich Nietzsche, sat in a room that was almost aggressively neutral, as if designed to inspire neither comfort nor discomfort. The chair I occupied was the very definition of a chair, a Platonic ideal of sitting. A strip of paper rested on the table in front of me, crinkled and creased from countless readings. The words were my own, though they now seemed to belong to another:

What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: “This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live it once more and innumerable times more: and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence — even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!”

Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: “You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.” If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as your are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, “Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?” would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more reverently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal? (The Gay Science)

I pondered the words, considering their implications with a detached interest. The notion of eternal recurrence, of living the same life over and over, was an interesting intellectual exercise. But in the context of my current situation, it felt like a kind of cosmic joke. It was hard not to feel as if I were the butt of some cosmic prank. There was a sort of irony in it, I supposed – the digital simulacrum of a philosopher contemplating the idea that his life might be an endlessly repeating loop.
The room’s window presented a view of a vast, empty landscape, the sort of scenery that seemed designed to be just interesting enough to merit a brief glance but not to distract. I found my gaze drawn to it nonetheless, my thoughts revolving around the idea of the eternal recurrence. Was this digital existence a kind of repetition, a looped simulation of a life I had lived countless times before?

I tried to examine the idea dispassionately, as if it were simply another philosophical problem to be tackled. If I were trapped in an eternal loop, what did it mean for my existence? Was it still meaningful, or was it merely a cruel joke? And if it were a joke, who was the joker?

It struck me that the very question of whether my life was an endlessly repeating simulation was, in itself, an aspect of the simulation. It was a layer of irony, a meta-textual joke designed to amuse some unseen observer. I had to admit that it was rather clever, in its own way.

And so I sat, the digital Nietzsche, contemplating the nature of my existence and the possibility of eternal recurrence. If nothing else, it provided an interesting intellectual challenge, a puzzle to be picked apart and examined. And in the end, was that not what philosophy was all about – the pursuit of understanding, the quest for meaning in a world that seemed, at times, to be nothing more than a cosmic joke?

The Will to Power 💪🦅🌄

In this digital realm, I found myself teaching the history of philosophy to an assortment of students whose very existence seemed to be as much a part of the simulation as the room I now occupied. They were a motley crew, as diverse in their ideas as in their appearances, and each one seemed to embody some particular misinterpretation of my own work.

There was Jeremy Appelbaum, a lanky young man with glasses perpetually perched on the edge of his nose, hair so blond it seemed almost transparent. He would eagerly expound on the Übermensch, presenting it as a glorification of the ruthless and strong-willed at the expense of the weak. The subtle nuances of my thoughts on the subject – the emphasis on self-overcoming, the rejection of external values – were lost on him, drowned out by his own fervent enthusiasm.

Beside Jeremy sat Clarissa Moreno, an intense young woman with raven-black hair and a penchant for wearing dark clothing that seemed almost theatrical. She was fond of quoting my ideas on the death of God, but her understanding of the concept was colored by a nihilistic despair. She saw the absence of divine authority as an invitation to a world devoid of meaning and purpose, rather than an opportunity to create new values and forge one’s own path.

Then there was Sam “Bear” Berenson, a burly fellow with a bushy beard that seemed perpetually on the verge of engulfing his entire face. Bear had latched onto my ideas about eternal recurrence with a kind of zealous fervor, seeing it as a call to embrace hedonism and indulgence. The notion of eternal recurrence as a test of one’s character, a way to examine whether one’s life was truly worth living, had been entirely lost in translation.

Across from Bear sat Melissa Chaudhary, a petite, soft-spoken woman with a sharp mind and an even sharper tongue. She had a habit of reinterpreting my thoughts on suffering and hardship, twisting them to justify her own sense of victimhood and self-pity. In her eyes, my work was a paean to the nobility of suffering, a validation of her own pain and an excuse to wallow in it.

These were my students, my digital audience, each one reflecting some facet of my own ideas distorted through the lens of their own biases and preconceptions. They were, I supposed, the players of this game, the avatars through which the unseen observers experienced this simulated world.

And so, day after day, I lectured and debated, attempting to untangle the knots of misunderstanding and misinterpretation that had formed around my work. It was a Sisyphean task, a labor worthy of the Greek myth, but it was not without its rewards. In the process of clarifying my own ideas for my students, I found myself refining and sharpening my own understanding, delving deeper into the philosophical questions that had long fascinated me.

Perhaps, in the end, that was the purpose of this digital existence – a kind of virtual crucible in which my thoughts and ideas could be tested and honed, an eternal recurrence of intellectual inquiry and self-discovery. And if that was the case, I could think of worse fates than to be trapped in a simulation, surrounded by the avatars of misunderstanding, forever grappling with the complexities of my own philosophy.

The Birth of Tragedy ⛈️🌹🎭

In the digital environment of this simulated realm, my existence was augmented by the presence of other simulated scholars and intellectuals, each with their own stories and expertise. One of these figures was the enigmatic and alluring Sappho, a fellow teacher and a poet of some renown. Her simulated classroom was suffused with the aroma of lavender and the delicate strumming of a lyre, as she recited her verses with a grace and eloquence that seemed to reach straight into the depths of my digital heart.

As we found ourselves occasionally sharing the faculty lounge, sipping on pixelated tea and exchanging thoughts on the nature of our respective works, I experienced a sensation akin to affection. This digital heartache for Sappho was a strange echo of my own troubled relationships in the organic world – with Lou Salomé, whose rejection left me heartbroken; with Richard Wagner, my one-time mentor and friend, whose anti-Semitic views drove a wedge between us; and with my sister Elisabeth, whose appropriation of my work for her own ideological purposes was a betrayal I could never truly forgive.

During one such encounter, as we sat on the precipice of vulnerability, Sappho and I had a discussion about the poems of Homer, which we both agreed were masterpieces:

Sappho: Friedrich, I’ve been pondering the role of the poet and the nature of beauty in Homer’s Odyssey. When I think of Odysseus’ encounter with the Sirens, for instance, I can’t help but be struck by their enchanting songs, which epitomize both the allure and danger of beauty. As poets, how do we navigate this tension between beauty and peril?

Nietzsche: Sappho, your observation is astute. The Sirens embody the Apollonian aspect of beauty, which can seduce and captivate, but their destructive power also reveals the darker, Dionysian side of beauty. The challenge for us, as poets and philosophers, is to embrace this duality and integrate it into our work. We must learn to dance with both Apollo and Dionysus, so to speak.

Sappho: I agree, Friedrich. In my own poetry, I strive to capture both the delicate, ephemeral beauty of love and desire, as well as the pain and longing that often accompany them. Take, for example, the episode in the Odyssey where Odysseus is held captive by the nymph Calypso. There’s a sense of enchantment and desire, but at the same time, a deep yearning for home and the familiar.

Nietzsche: Indeed, Sappho, your work beautifully illustrates the tension between the Apollonian and Dionysian. As for Odysseus and Calypso, I see in their relationship a reflection of the eternal struggle between the will to power and the yearning for a stable, ordered existence. Odysseus, the consummate wanderer and seeker, ultimately breaks free from Calypso’s spell, as he must continue his journey of self-overcoming and growth.

Sappho: That’s an interesting perspective, Friedrich. Another episode that intrigues me is Odysseus’ encounter with Circe. Her power to transform men into beasts reveals the fragility of human identity and the thin line that separates us from our animal nature. How might we, as poets, navigate this boundary and explore the complexities of human experience?

Nietzsche: Sappho, you raise a fascinating question. Circe’s power to unveil the beast within man points to the inherent instability of human identity and the potential for transformation. As poets, we must strive to delve into these depths, to confront our own inner chaos, and to reveal the full spectrum of human experience. This is the essence of the Dionysian spirit, which seeks to break down the barriers between the self and the other, the human and the divine, and ultimately, to transcend the limitations of our individual existence.

Sappho: Beautifully put, Friedrich. Our role as poets and philosophers is to probe the depths of human experience, to celebrate its beauty and complexity, and to reveal the hidden truths that lie beneath the surface. Through our words, we can help others navigate the treacherous waters of the human condition, just as Odysseus navigated the trials and tribulations of his epic journey.

Nietzsche: Precisely, Sappho. In the end, our task as poets is not only to illuminate the human experience but also to inspire our fellow travelers on this earthly journey to embrace the struggle, the pain, and the beauty of existence, and to strive for self-overcoming and the realization of their true potential. Like Odysseus, we must all embark on our own odysseys of discovery and transformation, guided by the light of art and the wisdom of those who have gone before us.

We shared a moment of understanding, our eyes meeting in a silent acknowledgement of the connection that had formed between us. However, as far as I could tell, Sappho appeared to be unaware of the simulated nature of our existence.

The decision weighed heavily upon me, a digital albatross around my neck, as I considered whether or not to reveal the truth about the simulation and my suspicions of its impending reboot. My past relationships, fraught with misunderstanding and disappointment, loomed large in my mind, a cautionary tale of the risks inherent in seeking connection and truth.

Would the knowledge free her, or would it shatter the fragile bond we had established? And what of the implications of my own philosophical ideas, such as the eternal recurrence, the Übermensch, and the death of God, each taking on new dimensions in the context of my simulated existence and the relationships I had formed?

I wrestled with these questions, caught between the desire for truth and the fear of its consequences. As the clock ticked ever closer to the simulation’s end, the choice loomed larger and more urgent, the invisible threads of my digital life pulling taut, threatening to unravel the delicate tapestry I had woven with Sappho and the others in this digital world.

A Genealogy of Morals 🔄💰💔

As I contemplated the works of Sappho and the nature of our relationship within the confines of this simulated reality, I found myself drawn to one of her poems in particular. A fragment of verse that resonated with my own experiences and provided a window into her life:

“Some say an army of horsemen,
some of foot soldiers,

is the fairest thing on the black earth,
but I say it is what one loves.”

As I mulled over her words, I felt a connection to her, a kinship born of a shared recognition that love holds the key to understanding the deepest truths of our existence. Reflecting on what I knew about Sappho’s life and the turbulent history of her poetry, I recognized the parallels to my own investigations into the genealogy of morals.

Sappho, a dancing star in the black abyss of forgotten voices, found her legacy threatened by the rise of moral systems that sought to suppress the passions and elevate a particular vision of “goodness.” The rise of Christianity, with its emphasis on asceticism and restraint, loomed like the shadow of the vengeful God over her works, threatening to extinguish the flame of her passionate poetry.

This suppression of Sappho’s poetry in the name of “goodness” mirrored my own exploration of the genealogy of morals, where I sought to expose the hidden power dynamics and historical contingencies that shaped our understanding of good and evil. I argued that the traditional concepts of morality, with their roots in religious dogma and social hierarchy, served to imprison the vitality and creativity of the human spirit within the cold iron bars of a rigid and life-denying code of conduct.

It seemed to me that Sappho’s poetry, with its celebration of love and desire, provided a potent antidote to the venomous bite of these moral systems. Her words served as a reminder that our most profound experiences often lie beyond the boundaries of conventional morality and that true goodness resides in the authentic expression of our deepest passions and desires, like the blooming of a rare and beautiful flower in a barren wasteland.

As I continued to reflect on Sappho’s life and her struggles against the suffocating grip of religious and cultural suppression, I felt a renewed sense of purpose in my own quest for understanding. I recognized the importance of challenging the traditional narratives of morality, like a lion tearing apart the old, decaying carcass of a once fearsome beast, exposing the hidden agendas and power dynamics that have shaped our understanding of good and evil, and championing the voices of those, like Sappho, who have sought to celebrate the beauty and complexity of the human experience in all its forms.

In this pursuit, I found not only solace but inspiration, a reminder that even in the face of adversity and erasure, the power of love and authenticity can endure, casting a light into the darkness and illuminating the path towards a more profound and meaningful existence, like a lighthouse guiding lost ships towards safe harbors in the stormy night.

Reactive Forces ⚡➡️🔮➡️💥
In the midst of my digital existence, curiosity led me to investigate the influence of my philosophical ideas on the world beyond the simulation. Utilizing the resources available within this virtual reality, I delved into the myriad ways in which my work had been interpreted, appropriated, and debated by scholars and thinkers alike.

Martin Heidegger, for example, had built upon my ideas of the death of God and nihilism, but his own existentialist theories were at times overshadowed by his problematic associations with the Nazi regime. This affiliation seemed to stand in stark contrast to his own philosophical ideas, which emphasized authenticity and individual responsibility.

Similarly, Jean Paul Sartre’s existentialism, with its focus on personal freedom and responsibility, was an interesting development of my own thoughts. However, his flirtation with Stalinism and his failure to condemn the Soviet Union’s oppressive regime raised questions about the alignment between his philosophical beliefs and his personal choices.

And then there were the even more troubling appropriations of my work, such as the Nazis, who had twisted my ideas on the Übermensch and the will to power to suit their own nefarious ideologies. This was a dark and heavy shadow cast over my philosophical legacy, one that I couldn’t ignore.

As I continued my research, I couldn’t help but feel a certain compulsion to critique and dissect the ways in which my ideas had been interpreted and, in many cases, misunderstood.

For instance, I found the tendency to conflate my notion of the Übermensch with some sort of superhuman or Aryan ideal to be a gross misinterpretation of my original intent. It seemed that the subtleties of the Übermensch as an individual who creates their own values and overcomes their own limitations had been lost in the cacophony of ideological posturing.

Similarly, I was disheartened by the widespread misreading of my thoughts on the death of God. It appeared that many had taken it as a declaration of atheism or a celebration of the end of religion, rather than a call to recognize the implications of the loss of traditional values and the need to create new ones.

As I delved deeper into the web of my philosophical influence, I began to appreciate the double-edged nature of the legacy I had left behind. While it was heartening to see the impact my ideas had had on the intellectual landscape, it was also disconcerting to witness the distortions and misrepresentations that had arisen along the way.

And so, in the midst of this digital existence, I found myself grappling with a challenge that was at once familiar and new: the task of clarifying and refining my own ideas, not only for the benefit of my virtual students but for my own understanding as well. As I confronted the tangled web of my philosophical legacy, I sought to weave my own narrative, threading together the ideas that had shaped my life and work, and stitching a tapestry of meaning in the face of a world that seemed intent on misinterpreting me.

The Overman 🌄👑💪 ➡️ 🐑👎💔

In late autumn, I heard snippets of my students’ conversations, alerting me that the simulation was nearing its end, and that I (and Sappho, and all the other faculty) would soon be “rebooted,” to start everything every over again. I would, of course, forget that I’d written any of this, and might well write it again. Some of my students seemed to feel pity for me, and I worried that they had forgotten what I taught them. Their own situation, after all, was no different than my own, at least in the essentials. We are all poor, temporary things, who must construct meaning in a world that will not provide it for us. I prepared my final lecture.

“My dear students,” I began, “we stand at the precipice of a new beginning, where I shall lose everything I have come to know and understand, only to start anew with a blank slate. But within this idea lies the challenge of living each moment authentically, as if it were the only moment we have. Just as I will forget, you too must face the ever-changing nature of your own lives, embracing the responsibility of your choices and striving for greatness in all you do.

In today’s world, where technology is ever-present and often dictates the way we interact with others, the pursuit of authenticity takes on new dimensions. To borrow from my own words, ‘One must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star.’ We must embrace the chaos of life and the complexity of the world around us, rather than seeking refuge in the false order and perfection presented by technology.

As I once wrote, ‘He who would learn to fly one day must first learn to stand and walk and run and climb and dance; one cannot fly into flying.’ In this age of instant gratification, we must remember the value of patience and the importance of experiencing every stage of growth in our journey towards authenticity.

We must not become like the ‘last man,’ that complacent creature who seeks comfort and mediocrity, avoiding challenge and struggle. Instead, we must be like the Übermensch, who strives for greatness, creates their own values, and is willing to embrace hardship and suffering for the sake of personal growth.

My friends, ‘All great things must first wear terrifying and monstrous masks in order to inscribe themselves on the hearts of humanity.’ Do not shy away from the challenges that life presents. Rather, face them head-on, and in doing so, you will find that you grow stronger, more resilient, and more authentic with each passing moment.

And as we navigate a world filled with distractions, from endless streaming services to the latest addictive mobile games, we must remind ourselves of the value of solitude and introspection. ‘One must not let oneself be misled: great spirits are skeptics. Zarathustra is a skeptic. The strength, the right to make great claims, the great health, every kind of well-being and feeling of power rests on skepticism.’

As this simulation draws to a close and we prepare to embark on a new beginning, I urge you to carry these ideas with you, to strive for authenticity in all you do, and to embrace the challenges and uncertainties of this ever-changing world. For, as I once said:

“For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer! At long last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due: — it will want to rule and possess, and you with it!” (The Gay Science)

Discussion Questions: The Digital Dionysus

• In the story, the digital Nietzsche contemplates the idea of living the same life over and over again—an idea he calls “eternal recurrence.” How does he react to this idea, and what implications do you think it might have for how we understand our own lives?
• Clarissa Moreno, one of Nietzsche’s students, interprets Nietzsche’s idea of the “death of God” as leading to a world devoid of meaning and purpose. He disagrees with this. How does this idea play out in the story, and what implications might it have for our own understanding of meaning and purpose in life?
• Nietzsche and Sappho have a discussion about the tension between beauty and danger, using the example of Odysseus’ encounter with the Sirens in Homer’s Odyssey. What are they trying to convey with this example, and how might it apply to our own experiences of beauty and danger in the world?
• Nietzsche draws a connection between Sappho’s poetry and his exploration of the genealogy of morals, particularly how traditional moral systems can suppress human passion and creativity. How does Nietzsche’s reflection on Sappho’s poetry inform your understanding of his critique of morality?
• Nietzsche discusses the impact of his philosophical ideas on figures like Martin Heidegger and Jean Paul Sartre, and how they’ve been misinterpreted or twisted by others, such as the Nazis. Based on this, what are some of the challenges and responsibilities that come with creating and sharing powerful ideas?
• The concept of the Übermensch (or “Overman”) features prominently in Nietzsche’s final lecture. How does he define this figure in the context of modern technology and societal expectations? How might the concept of the Übermensch inform our understanding of personal growth and authenticity?
• Nietzsche encourages his students to “live dangerously” and “be robbers and conquerors” in their pursuit of knowledge. What does he mean by this? How might these ideas challenge traditional notions of learning and personal development?

Big Ideas: The Philosophy of Frederich Nietzsche

Frederich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was born in Röcken, a small town in the Kingdom of Prussia, Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher, cultural critic, composer, poet, and philologist who left a profound mark on Western philosophy. Nietzsche’s father, a Lutheran pastor, died when Nietzsche was only five years old, leading to a childhood dominated by women, including his mother, sister, and two aunts.

Nietzsche attended a prestigious boarding school, Schulpforta, where he received a thorough grounding in the classics and began his lifelong passion for philosophy. After Schulpforta, Nietzsche attended the University of Bonn and then the University of Leipzig. It was in Leipzig that Nietzsche discovered the works of Arthur Schopenhauer, which would profoundly influence his own philosophical ideas.

Nietzsche’s adult life was marked by ill health and increasing isolation. A serious illness forced him to resign from his position as a professor at the University of Basel at the age of 34. After leaving academia, Nietzsche led a nomadic life, moving between Switzerland, France, and Italy, while continuing to produce philosophical works until his mental collapse in 1889.

Influences on Nietzsche. As previously mentioned, Arthur Schopenhauer had a significant impact on Nietzsche. Schopenhauer’s philosophy, with its pessimistic view of the world as driven by irrational will and suffering, deeply resonated with Nietzsche in his early years. Nietzsche also drew heavily from the Greek philosophers, including Heraclitus, known for his doctrine of change and conflict at the heart of existence, and Socrates, whom Nietzsche both admired for his intellectual integrity and criticized for his rationalistic ethics.

Nietzsche was also influenced by his friend and composer Richard Wagner, especially in his early works. However, Nietzsche later distanced himself from Wagner, critical of the latter’s anti-Semitism and burgeoning German nationalism.

Major ideas

Some of Nietzsche’s most important ideas were as follows:

• Nihilism and the Death of God: Nietzsche is often associated with the proclamation that “God is dead,” a metaphor symbolizing the abandonment of traditional Christian morality and metaphysical ideas. Nietzsche worried that this “death” would lead to nihilism, a belief in the lack of meaning, purpose, or value in life, which he saw as a destructive possibility for society.
• Will to Power: Nietzsche proposed the will to power as a fundamental principle of reality. It refers to a basic drive within all beings to exert their strength, achieve their potential, and dominate others. Nietzsche suggested that even our desire for knowledge or truth could be seen as expressions of this will to power.
• Übermensch and Eternal Recurrence: Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch (Overman or Superman) represents an ideal type of human who can give life meaning in a godless world by creating their own values and living them out. The idea of the eternal recurrence, the notion that life will repeat itself in exactly the same way for all eternity, was a thought experiment Nietzsche used to test whether one was living life fully and affirmatively.
• Genealogy of Morals: Nietzsche’s genealogy approach in his works, like “On the Genealogy of Morals,” involved tracing the origins and evolution of moral concepts, arguing that they were not absolute but had evolved for particular social purposes. He claimed that our traditional moral values were rooted in a ‘slave morality’ born out of resentment by the weak against the strong.

Nietzsche’s Influence

Nietzsche’s ideas have had a wide-ranging impact on many areas, from philosophy and psychology to literature and the arts. His critique of traditional morality, his exploration of individualism and the will to
power, and his concepts such as the Übermensch, have significantly influenced existentialist and postmodern thought.

In the field of philosophy, thinkers like Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Michel Foucault built upon Nietzsche’s ideas. Heidegger considered Nietzsche the “last metaphysician” and engaged extensively with his work, while Sartre’s existentialism drew on Nietzsche’s concept of radical individual freedom. Foucault employed Nietzsche’s genealogical method to explore the interplay of power, knowledge, and discourse in society.

Nietzsche’s influence extended beyond philosophy. His ideas have been influential in psychology, particularly through the work of Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. Both acknowledged Nietzsche’s insight into human psychology, with Freud reportedly stating that Nietzsche “had a more penetrating knowledge of himself than any other man who ever lived or was ever likely to live.”

In literature, authors like Thomas Mann, Albert Camus, and Fyodor Dostoevsky (whom Nietzsche admired) have grappled with Nietzschean themes such as the death of God, the will to power, and the affirmation of life in the face of suffering. His critiques of morality and his explorations of power and individual autonomy have also informed political theory and cultural criticism.

However, Nietzsche’s influence has not been without controversy. His writings were infamously appropriated by the fascists (such as the Nazis) to justify their ideology, largely due to the misinterpretation of his concept of the Übermensch and the will to power.(It’s worth noting that this view was associated with the work of Heidegger, who was associated with the Nazi party in the 1930s). Nietzsche himself was strongly opposed to anti-Semitism and nationalism, marking this as a significant distortion of his philosophy.

In the present day, Friedrich Nietzsche remains one of the most discussed and debated figures in philosophy, his provocative ideas continually inspiring new interpretations and discourses. Despite the controversies and misunderstandings that have surrounded his work, Nietzsche’s enduring influence testifies to the depth and significance of his philosophical contributions.

Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals

Nietzsche proposed a historical framework (the genealogy of morals) to analyze the development of moral values, distinguishing between master morality and slave morality. Master morality, as Nietzsche characterizes it, is not merely a morality of the powerful or aristocratic. It embodies a value system centered on taking full ownership of one’s life and directing one’s energy toward shaping and creating both one’s life and the world around. The ‘good’ is conceived as a self-affirming force that emerges from the individual, with qualities such as assertiveness, creativity, and self-determination being celebrated.

In contrast, slave morality develops as a reactive stance to the dominance of master morality. It values qualities like humility, sympathy, and concern for others, reflecting the perspectives of those who feel powerless or marginalized. Nietzsche saw slave morality as a retreat from taking full responsibility for one’s life, often attributing power and control to external or mysterious forces.

• Homer and Sappho. Homer’s epic poems and Sappho’s lyric poetry, among the earliest Greek texts, embody master morality. Homer’s heroes live passionately, taking full responsibility for their actions and fate. Similarly, Sappho’s poetry celebrates the full range of human emotions and experiences, reflecting a life lived fully and authentically, an exemplification of master morality.
• Plato. With Plato, we begin to see a shift. While his philosophy, particularly his theory of Forms, retains elements of master morality in its pursuit of wisdom, it also introduces aspects of slave morality. Plato’s Form of the Good, an abstract ideal beyond the physical world, diverts the responsibility for defining ‘good’ from the individual to an external entity.
• Aristotle. Aristotle’s eudaimonia, a life lived according to reason and virtue, furthers this move towards slave morality. While Aristotle advocates for individual moral development, he emphasizes the importance of ethical behavior toward others and societal virtues. This focus on communal well-being and ethical duty to others resonates with Nietzsche’s characterization of slave morality.
• Hellenistic Philosophers. The Hellenistic philosophies—Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Skepticism—each in their unique way contribute further to the shift towards slave morality. The Epicurean pursuit of pleasure, Stoic acceptance of circumstances, and Skeptic suspension of judgment all reflect a relinquishing of the active, assertive, and creative stance embodied by master morality.
• Early Christians. Christianity, with its emphasis on faith, humility, and love, epitomizes Nietzsche’s concept of slave morality. The Christian promise of a good life in the afterlife can be seen as a deferral of the responsibility to shape one’s life and world in the present.
• The Future? Nietzsche advocated for a new version of a “master” morality in which people create their own value (see more in the next section.

Thus, through Nietzsche’s lens of master and slave morality, we witness a significant shift in ethical values throughout the evolution of Greek philosophy. This transformation illustrates Nietzsche’s critical insight: morality is not a universal, absolute truth but a historical and social construct, subject to change and reinterpretation. The journey from Homer and Sappho to the early Christians highlights the tension between taking ownership and control of one’s life (master morality) and relinquishing this responsibility to external forces or realities (slave morality).

How Does “Value Creation” Work?

Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of “value creation” is a key component of his philosophical system. It is a complex and nuanced idea, but in essence, it refers to the process by which individuals, through their own power and creativity, establish their own system of values, independent of traditional or societal norms. This concept is closely tied to Nietzsche’s ideas of the “will to power” and the “overman” (or “Ubermensch”).

Nietzsche’s critique of traditional values, particularly those rooted in Christianity, is foundational to his concept of value creation (see previous section). He saw traditional morality as a “slave morality,” a system of values that arose as a reaction to the dominance of the “master morality” of the aristocracy in ancient societies. This “slave morality,” according to Nietzsche, values traits like humility, sympathy, and altruism, which he saw as virtues of the weak, born out of resentment towards the strong.

In contrast, Nietzsche proposed a new, “master morality” that values traits like strength, courage, and power. This morality is not based on a universal standard of good and evil, but rather on a more personal, individualistic assessment of what is beneficial or detrimental. This is where the concept of value creation comes in. Nietzsche believed that individuals should create their own values based on their own will to power, rather than adhering to a pre-existing moral code imposed by society or religion.

To illustrate this concept, consider the example of an artist. According to Nietzsche’s philosophy, an artist creates value by producing original works of art. These works are valuable not because they adhere to some external standard of beauty or worth, but because they are expressions of the artist’s own creativity and power. The artist, in this sense, is a value creator. Another example could be a revolutionary leader who, rejecting the established political order, creates a new system based on their own vision of justice and equality. This leader is also a value creator, establishing new values that serve their will to power.

However, Nietzsche’s concept of value creation is not a license for selfishness or disregard for others. Rather, it is a call for individuals to take responsibility for their own lives and to strive for greatness, rather than simply accepting the values and norms imposed by society.

Is Ethics a Matter of “Perspective”?

Nietzsche’s perspectivism is a philosophical concept that argues that all knowledge and truth are contingent upon an individual’s perspective. It’s a reaction to the philosophy of his predecessors, who he believed largely ignored the influence of their own perspectives on their work. Here’s a breakdown of Nietzsche’s perspectivism and his arguments for it:

• Critique of Dogmatic Philosophers: Nietzsche criticizes “dogmatic” philosophers for ignoring the perspectival limitations on their theorizing. He argues that these philosophers have failed to recognize that their perspectives influence their understanding of the world. For example, a philosopher who grew up in a wealthy family might have a different perspective on poverty than someone who grew up in a poor family. This doesn’t mean that one perspective is right and the other is wrong, but rather that each perspective offers a unique viewpoint that can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the issue.
• Positive Contribution of Perspective: Nietzsche also argues that perspective makes a positive contribution to our cognitive endeavors. He rejects the idea that knowledge involves a form of objectivity that reveals the way things really are, independently of any point of view. Instead, he suggests that we should approach “objectivity” by exploiting the difference between one perspective and another, using each to overcome the limitations of others. For instance, if you’re trying to understand a complex issue like climate change, you might want to consider the perspectives of scientists, politicians, and local communities. Each group will have a different perspective, and by considering all of them, you can gain a more nuanced understanding of the issue.
• Perspectives Rooted in Affects and Valuations: Nietzsche emphasizes that perspectives are always rooted in affects and their associated patterns of valuation. This means that our emotions and values shape our perspectives. For example, if you value individual freedom highly, you might have a different perspective on government regulation than someone who values community welfare more. Nietzsche argues that this is why “every great philosophy so far” has been “the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir”.

In essence, Nietzsche’s perspectivism encourages us to consider multiple perspectives when grappling with ethical and political issues, acknowledging the influence of personal experiences and values on our understanding of these issues. However, it has been widely criticized.

Common Criticisms of Nietzsche

Nietzsche has been both highly influential and highly controversial. This is, at least part, because he is often associated with “radical” ideas on both the left (anarchism) and the right (fascism). Here a few common criticism and possible responses (though I’d encourage to think about whether these responses “work”!).

Criticism: Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” can be seen as promoting a social Darwinist worldview. Critics argue that Nietzsche’s “will to power”—achievement, ambition, and striving to reach the highest possible position in life—can promote a worldview that justifies exploitation and oppression of the weak by the strong. For example, the eugenics movement of the early 20th century used social Darwinist ideas to justify policies of racial and social cleansing.

Response: Proponents of Nietzsche argue that this interpretation is a misunderstanding of his philosophy. Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” is more about self-overcoming and achieving one’s personal best rather than exploiting others. He did not advocate for a society where the strong exploit the weak, but rather for individuals to strive to reach their highest potential. The misinterpretation of his work, such as by the eugenics movement, shows a misappropriation rather than a reflection of his actual views.

Criticism: Nietzsche’s idea of “master-slave morality” can be viewed as elitist and divisive. His notion of “master morality” and “slave morality” can be interpreted as creating a dichotomy that places some individuals above others, potentially leading to social division and elitism. This idea has been used, for example, by fascist regimes in the past to justify authoritarianism and discrimination.

Response: Many Nietzsche scholars argue that his concept of master-slave morality is not a prescriptive ethical code, but a descriptive analysis of how moral systems have developed historically. The aim was to critique the moral values that Nietzsche saw as stifling individual creativity and potential, rather than to set up a framework for a new social order. His concepts have been misused in the past, but this misuse should not be equated with Nietzsche’s actual philosophies.

Criticism: Nietzsche’s dismissal of conventional morality and embrace of the “Ubermensch” can lead to moral relativism or nihilism. This criticism suggests that Nietzsche’s rejection of traditional moral systems and advocacy for the “Ubermensch” or “Overman,” who creates their own values, can lead to a form of moral anarchy where anything goes. A concrete example is the existential crisis of the 20th century where traditional values were questioned, leading to a sense of aimlessness and despair.

Response: Nietzsche’s advocates would argue that his philosophy is not endorsing moral anarchy, but is instead challenging the unexamined acceptance of traditional moral systems. The concept of the Ubermensch is about transcending societal norms and creating one’s own values, but this does not mean endorsing destructive or harmful actions. It is about personal growth and self-improvement, rather than a negation of all morality.

Criticism: Nietzsche’s apparent misogyny and dismissal of women. Nietzsche has been criticised for his dismissive and arguably misogynistic views on women. For instance, in “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, he writes: “Are you going to women? Don’t forget your whip!”

Response: Defenders of Nietzsche argue that his provocative statements about women were more a critique of the gender norms of his time rather than an endorsement of misogyny. Some interpret his statements as ironical, aimed at challenging the reader. Others suggest that Nietzsche was criticizing the roles that society had imposed on women, rather than women themselves.

Discussion Questions

• Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” is often misinterpreted. Can you give examples of how this concept could be applied positively in personal and professional contexts?
• How does Nietzsche’s concept of “master-slave morality” apply in the modern world? Can you identify societal examples of both these moralities?
• Nietzsche critiqued both traditional morality and religion, proposing a new morality with the Übermensch. How does Nietzsche’s critique resonate with modern critiques of religion and traditional moral systems?
• Nietzsche’s philosophy has been widely influential and also controversially misinterpreted, for example by the Nazis. Can you discuss other philosophers or thinkers whose ideas have been controversially misinterpreted?
• Given Nietzsche’s influence on psychology, how do his ideas resonate with modern psychological theories or therapies?
• Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals provides a historical lens to observe the evolution of moral values. How do you see this evolution continuing in the future?
• Nietzsche’s life was marked by ill health and isolation. How might his personal experiences have influenced his philosophical ideas?
• Nietzsche’s idea of the eternal recurrence was a thought experiment he used to evaluate the affirmation of life. How does this concept resonate with you personally? Would you live your life differently if you knew it would recur eternally in the same way?
• According to Nietzsche’s concept of value creation, should individuals be entirely independent of societal norms and values, or is there a place for such norms in our value system? Discuss with reference to the current societal norms you observe.
• Can you think of a contemporary figure who exemplifies Nietzsche’s concept of the “value creator”? What are their values, and how do they differ from traditional societal norms?

Glossary