Philosophers for the Modern World

Thus, humans act forbidden of a spirit of universality, have some granting immunity of action, nevertheless be re all toldy interested more(prenominal) in appargonnt movement toward their own happiness.

For John Locke, the opposite was true, and that all men are born in a state of perfect freedom in which they may "dispose of their Possessions, and Persona as they think back fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the lead of whatsoever other Man" (Locke 287). In that sense, then, humans are born with free will, and are lose or decrease the power of that will only if if they themselves chose to give it up.

The pessimistic campaign of this question is taken by Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed that humans instinctively were in touch with themselves, but that through socialization, and swelled up their power, they were in a situation where they did not know themselves. Thus, man is " needs [a] stranger to [him]self, [he does] not comprehend [him]self," and must naturally misconceive and limit his actions away from himself, removing any free will and transferring it to societal power (Nietzsche 15).

The conception of correct and reprehensible has been with humankind since preserve history. The ancient societies dealt with the issue, as did one of the predominant documents of western philosophy, the sanctified Bible. For Kant, goodness is the predominant law of the universe and is embodied by the divine. Humans have an option, though, to reject good, and like Augustine before him, evil is more the a

Nietzsche remains the bushel pessimist regarding the nature of man. It seems as if in man's desire for hegemony over nature, and his hazard within the realm that he created, he willingly gave his authority for goodness to controlling or authoritative congregations. Of course, the main group Nietzsche is referring to is the Christian Church, which subjugates the individual through the process of guilt, and thus removes any desire for the attainment of what is possible individually. "The attainment of this goal would hire a different kind of spirit from that likely to face in this present age . . ." (Nietzsche 96).

Of note in this case is that Nietzsche commonly dedicated his books to posterity, presumably in the hope that in a different, more enlightened age, the ideas of the individual will, or ?bermenschen, would scram more fertile ground. Thus, the full circle is complete: Locke as the ever faithful optimist and prophet for the goodness of society; Kant as the believer in the divine and in mankind; and Nietzsche, the cynic and doubter of the virtues necessary for the continuation and perpetuation of the human race. more to the point might be the epitaph of Nietzsche himself; "Enough! Enough! At this point it behooves me only to be silent; or I shall usurp that to which only younger . . . and stronger than I has a right(a) . . . (Nietzsche 96). WORKS CITED

Nietzsche's ideas on good and evil are more complex, and delve into human nature. In The AntiChrist Nietzsche explains that all that proceeds from strength is good, but all that proceeds from failing is evil. Yet in On the Genealogy of Morals good and bad (re: evil) are societal terms relegated to meaning only within the context of western man. Good is "anything useful" darn bad or evil are items which society has deemed contrasted or unworthy of value (Nietzsche 27). Moreover, the semantics of the terms are progress exacerbated when placed in a societal context. Evil is the giving up of one's wil
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.