The Morals and Metaphysics of Nietzsche and the End

Friedrich Nietzsche so clearly articulated the problem of uncertainty at the heart of knowledge and rationality, he was the philosopher most intimately connected with the modernity conundrum. Nietzsche severed the Enlightenment connection of reason with freedom – or asserted how the modern world severed that connection, or exposed it to have always been a delusion of misplaced objectivity through the use of the projection fallacy. The uni-linear realisation of liberator y potentialities
contained within reason could no longer be assumed. With Nietzsche, the underpinnings of all such potentialities have all been lost in the actualization where all thought, including our thinking about thought, is merely metaphorical. Indeed, in an unending regress of metaphors, our faith in the presence of any objective grounds or potentialities immanent in the universe fades, leaving human beings totally devoid of any philosophical foundations for claims of definite knowledge and worth. The objective reasons for adopting an authoritative moral and metaphysical position have been lost. We might grieve the loss and complain of its harmful impact. But it is neither a matter of recuperating this viewpoint or of creating a new one. There are no prerequisites for that authoritative declaration and thus the stalemate of morality in the modern society. The existential crisis of the modern world is not one of science or technology or material abundance, which all indicate a riches far greater than before, but a moral crisis, which strikes at the heart of the meaninglessness as well as the absence of being.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Milan Kundera reflecting on Nietzsche’s notion of ‘everlasting recurrence’ in his book “Unbearable lightness of being.’ Nietzsche has taught us how to embrace our destiny, his amor fati ideology. Eternal Recurrence argues that throughout all eternity all things in existence reoccur again. As it is fixed in an unending cycle, the existence is hence heavy. It is ‘the hardest load of burden,’ because ‘if every second
of our life is again repeated, we are clouded into eternity as Jesus Christ is clutched to the cross.’

Naturally, Nietzsche, however, did not argue, but said we should live our life as if it were, to embrace our destiny, regardless of what it is. In this scenario humans are condemned in society, culture and consciousness to be utterly alone. So it is easy to portray Nietzsche as a pessimistic existentialist with his dark perspective of reality. This is true for Max Weber, following him, a man strongly inspired by Marx and Nietzsche, who accepts their criticism of modernity and sheds greater freedom. The inherent importance of the world demands individuals to project on the world every purpose and value in life. Nietzsche’s many works disclose aspects of his position, articulated clearly by Weber’s individual accountability ethic.

This, however, is just a limited understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy, which confirmed a philosophy of life after a more thorough investigation, that was not unlike Lewis Mumford’s “life insurgency.” Mumford is inspired more by Patrick Geddes and Henri Bergson’s “creative evolution,” but he certainly reads Nietzsche and gives him a very similar philosophy over his entire lives. Instead of blowing the nihilism of an unimportant world without any logically solid moral standard Nietzsche stressed his great commitment to reevaluate values. Nietzsche didn’t create ethical frameworks in the process of disintegration with the nostalgic sorrow, but tried to understand the collapse more quickly and really ethically. Nietzsche was one of the most astute critiques of a world that has lost its dominant moral values in the absence of direction. Therefore, in embracing the theological and intellectual underpinnings that were cut short, he underlined the moral dilemma of the modern day. Such views can still be confirmed, but only as a subjectivism, without any obvious reason to be taken seriously by anyone. The only objectivity in this sense is that it takes the form of common acceptance or approval.

10 thoughts on “The Morals and Metaphysics of Nietzsche and the End

  1. Considering that theists can’t agree on what their particular gods want as morals, there is no evidence of a “divine absolute” at all. It’s just a bunch of humans in a bucket, insisting that their way is the “right” way, and all having no evidence of that at all.
    Add to this that many theists have no problem with their various gods doing horrible things they would be aghast if a human did them, and we have a morality of nothing more than might equals right, childish and selfish. The action depends subjectively on the actor, not the objectivity of the action.


      1. “To live your live within a subjective framework devoid of a reference point declares an existence void of accountability”
        nope, not at all. I am accountable to myself and other humans. No god or luke needed at all.
        and again, your morality is as subjective as mine. You make up that some god agrees with you.


      2. I do not make anything up. Your own definition of accountability is vague and undefined.
        How do you set the limits to be accountable? Who sets the boundaries.
        According to your explanation accountability can be set within a subjective framework that punishes anyone based on a subjective decision.
        In other words if someone does not like your hairstyle gives them the subjective choice to invoke their view against you.
        Unless morality is set within a framework void of human subjectivity and provides equality to every mortal, subjective views that you declare is accountable.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. LOL. Yep, if someone doesn’t like my hairstyle, they can say so. If someone llike you decides to lie and claim some god doesn’t like my hairstyle, that’s your responsiblity for making false claims.

        Luke, Christians have no objective morality. So you fail. You can’t even show your god exist, much less that it agrees with you.


      4. That same apology applies when someone dislikes you and out a bullet through your head.
        Arrogance defies logic and when fools dictate their own subjective moral standard until they face it in a dark alley.
        I know he exist and I am far better of within the moral boundaries that set my objectivity within a standard that is accountable.
        You may deny him which your objective choice.

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Of course you wouldn’t see it. Why would you?
        I guess you must be the many who subjectively accept the evils. If you seriously do not see the the choices you make in doing evil vs good. Then you have no morals at all. But I am sure you will digest the murder and killing of innocent children. If you continue to say that objectivity is not part of every person inherent being than you must enjoy knowing such horrendous acts.
        Deny God but unfortunately He has moulded that part of which you deny within yourself. Your moral conscious.

        Liked by 1 person

      6. and again, Christians can’t figure out what are “Evils”, so they all just make up their own nonsense.

        “ut I am sure you will digest the murder and killing of innocent children. If you continue to say that objectivity is not part of every person inherent being than you must enjoy knowing such horrendous acts.”

        Hmmm, killing innocent children? Like your god does? Nope, I don’t accept that as okay at all.

        “The Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bore to David, and it became very ill. 16 David therefore pleaded with God for the child; David fasted, and went in and lay all night on the ground. 17 The elders of his house stood beside him, urging him to rise from the ground; but he would not, nor did he eat food with them. 18 On the seventh day the child died. ” 2 Samuel 12

        “29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. ” Exodus 12

        among many others.

        Your god has nothing to do with conscience. Again, poor god can’t be shown to exist and Christians can’t agree on what objective morals it wants.


  2. Your response is as outdated from the time it happened. I guess you still live in a cave and eat raw meat. You are utilizing events based on history and applying them within your present-day context. Your logic is outdated as your argument. Since atheists propagate illogical thesis at least keep it within today context.
    the problem with your argument is that you defend nothing. You defend an existence that strives on your own existence at the expense of others. You condemn and you ridicule while hence offer nothing in return because you represent nothing. Atheism is in the belief in autonomy at the expense of others since it offers nothing in return.
    I keep arguing but offer nothing. Basically, your sole existence is based on nothing. What does an atheist offer that defines an existence based on accountability. There is none since earlier on you have said that that there is no objective moral reference apart from yourself. Each time I responding you beat the same drum but offer nothing in return.
    Good night.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s