Differences Of Hegel And Nietzsche

Masters and slaves are constantly discussed throughout Nietzsche’s work, but the connection between them is discussed best in his book On the Genealogy of Morality. The first of the three essays outlines two alternate structures for the creation of values, which is credited to masters and the other to slaves.

Friedrich Nietzsche’s own skepticism symbolized the secular changes in contemporary Western civilization, in which he details mankind’s break away from faith into a new rule of chaos. In Book 5 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche establishes that “God is dead”, meaning that modern Europe has abandoned religion in favor of rationality and science (Nietzsche 279). From this death, the birth of a ‘new’ infinite blossoms in which the world is open to an unlimited amount of interpretations that do not rely on the solid foundations of faith in religion or science. However, in contrast to the other philosophers of his age such as Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Nietzsche deviates from the omniscient determinism of history towards a

The entire subject of philosophy, according to Hegel, consists of the study of the history of the world and the creation of truth. When man first became aware of objects, he viewed everything in the context of death or negation. When the self encounters other people, its first reaction is to view them as objects and risk its life to kill them. After that comes the master/slave relationship, where certain people rise to the top of society and exercise control over others. Ironically, the slave actually has a more stable means of self-validation. The slave identifies with his work, which is never-ending, while the master identifies with his control over the slaves, which could end at a moment's notice. Another ideal, which we derive from Hegel, is that of "stoicism." Stoicism, defined as the recognition of the self as sovereign and independent. The individual tries to lead a self-contained life of reason but is still susceptible to the psychological residue of the master/slave relationship as well as nature's eternal mastery. After this stage comes skepticism, which is an extreme form of stoicism where the self becomes completely rational and destroys nature by doubting it. The self is still limited by the master/slave

In his book, Twilight of the Idols, Friedrich Nietzsche aggressively challenges conventional schools of thought dating back to the ancients. Philosophy, as we know it, began over two-thousand years ago in Athens with the birth of Socrates. Socrates introduced the practice of reasoning and dialectics—the art of discourse hoping to bring individuals closer to some universal truth—to an Athenian society that previously held aesthetics, not logic, as indicative of goodness. Socrates revolutionized life in Athens, and by extension, the Western tradition. His beliefs are found in works written centuries after his death. He is heralded as the “father of philosophy.”

Hegel’s critique of Kant’s philosophy is quite prevalent throughout the unfolding of Hegel’s own dialectical philosophy. Several of Hegel’s critiques of Kant’s work can especially be seen in one of his earlier works, “The Phenomenology of Spirit.” This is particularly established once Hegel begins to undertake the developing of Spirit within his Phenomenology. Here, Hegel makes several attacks on Kantian philosophy principles, and at some of the foundations of Kant’s use of pure reason in philosophy. There are several passages within the section where Hegel gives criticism of Kant’s work; critiques that strike at the very heart of what Hegel himself is trying to elucidate through his own dialectic, while discounting one of the greatest German philosophers.

From this point, Hegel introduces the archetypes of the lord and the bondsman. The bondsman is the position that most of humanity occupies since most people are ultimately concerned for the struggle for bodily survival as a result of the profound fear of death and place that struggle as being central to existence and far more important than defending the integrity of the ego, an invisible concept which may not help them in their endeavors. Because they are easily manipulated by these external needs, men often fall under the power of other men, such as the lord and the bondsman loses sight of himself more as he begins to work for the lord. The problem of enslavement becomes much worse, especially if one’s sense of self is vastly different than the ‘other’s’ objective view of the self (since the self views the ‘other’ as an object). Although that seems to be the crux of the relationship, this working through fear is simply the first phase toward an independent self-consciousness.

Thusly it is seen that Kierkegaard seemed to almost be fixated on discrediting Hegel and the Romantics. Comparisons of such dialectically opposed philosophies are difficult to explore, since one is so critical of the other. However, as mentioned above, both must be credited to the influences of Romanticism. Hegel redefined their “world spirit”

Nieztsche and Freud both philosophers of the 19th century, each famous for their different but similar metaphors. Nieztshche’s metaphor being the Ubermensch (ove rman) which was the ideal superior man who in the coming future would go over the morals of Christianity and force his values to be accepted. Freud was the founder of the psychoanalysis which is the analysis of the human psyche, with his investigations he discovered the id, ego and superego.

Although the problem of the relationship between Nietzsche and metaphysics might seem to be a settled issue, this is in fact a quite complicated and fascinating problematic. The difficulty with this subject lies in the often unacknowledged ambiguity that the term ‘metaphysics’ exhibits in Nietzsche's writing, as this word assumes different nuances and connotations in different contexts. Therefore, if we can get past the usual rhetoric on the topic, we come to realize that Nietzsche addresses the topic of metaphysics in at least two distinct ways.

Nietzsche and Kierkegaard are both considered to be the top existentialists for solely different reasons, as well as being very different from each other. They have different philosophies when it comes to their thoughts on religion and it is important to see exactly how they line up in this regard. The best way to do this is to start from the beginning of each’s work, their history and how they grew into their respective roles in their fields. It is also important to note exactly what existentialism is. It is the theory of exercising the idea that the individual has the freedom and free will to develop their own path and existence in a responsible manner. It is a very interesting subject that is debated on the concepts of thinking in absolutes. The need to compare and contrast these two is a volatile understanding of this particular philosophical theory. It is also important to review their thoughts and critique them in the sense of saying what makes sense, and what does not make sense.

Friedrich Nietzsche was a 19th-century German philosopher and held in regard amongst the greatest philosophers of the early part century. He sharpened his philosophical skills through reading the works of the earlier philosophers of the 18th century such as Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Arthur Schopenhauer and African Spir; however, their works and beliefs were opposite to his own. His primary mentor was Author Schopenhauer, whose belief was that reality was built on the foundation of experience. Such as it is, one of his essays, Schopenhauer als Erzieher, published in 1874, was dedicated to Schopenhauer (Mencken, 2008). In the past two centuries, his work has had authority and influence in both

George Hegel introduced to the world to the theory of ideas, known as the Hegelian dialectic, and it is quite astonishing as it contemplates and assesses contradicting ideas and ultimately generates a new idea. Hegel believes that all human ideas (thesis) are often in heated confrontations with their similar counterparts (antithesis), in which both may be equally feasible for a society. Hegel believes that these issues must be resolved through the synthesis of a new idea.

Much attention has been paid to the notion of Recognition in the Master-Slave dialectic. However, the beginning of the path towards true recognition is marked itself by the recognition of finitude or death. The very freedom from embeddedness in natural origins of which self-consciousness is capable is intimately tied to its confrontation with the "absolute Master," death. In this dialectical move, Hegel has articulated one of the most profound and paradoxical truths of human existence, namely that an awareness of death and finitude is the inception of man's potential differentiation of self from his natural origins and the beginning of man's self-consciousness. Not only that: by the cunning of reason man's mortality is the vehicle through which natural Life redeems itself from its incarceration 'in-itself.' Thus, the very actualization of man's differentiation of self from nature which takes place in work is, as I shall show, a kind of internalization and transformation of that very finitude. Only as such, can self-consciousness realize its true self.

The servant, however, is truly Hegel’s main focal point because the servant is really where the meat of the self conscious lies. It lives in fear of the master, working in servitude to produce many things. First, the servant wants to please the master with ideas and inventions so that it can be recognized also. It endures some of this torment out of fear, but also so that it can be recognized. The servant produces these inventions, and over time, realizes itself because it can produce. It becomes aware through suffering. The servant is really the powerhouse of the self consciousness, although the balance of master and servant is still even.

5. Discuss Nietzsche’s theory of “will to power” and “the innocence of becoming”. Does the hypothesis of the will to power successfully “debunk” traditional religion, morality, and philosophical claims to provide the “disinterested” or “objective” truth?