Reference no: EM132192515

I have comments from my instructor regarding my essay.

"Twilight of the Idols by Nietzsche "

below his comments

There are some topics you raise that aren't directly related to the main topic-his discussion of the "true world" and "four errors." THey're probably best dropped.

The true world is used ironically to describe the philosopher's idea of true reality and the religious idea of heaven. Nietzsche thinks it's a fantasy, not true at all.

The four errors include one issue relevant to the topic: he thinks when we confuse cause and consequence in morality, it makes us believe being moral causes happiness, but he doesn't think that's true. I think it's not directly enough connected to the topic, so best left aside.

Note that in this argument he is only rejecting a morality, not rejecting religion or recommending we get rid of religion. He thinks that that his healthier morality is for the few, not for everyone, and even says that it's good that his own enemies, including the church, exists. So he's not recommending a view that he thinks everyone should accept.

The introduction should give a very brief but clear and specific statement of each key point in each key section: the criticism, your reply to the critic, the critic's reply, and your final reply.

The reply to the criticism is a big general, need to more specifically answer the charge that religion doesn't in fact try to eradicate passion but only prevent excessive passion. Need to compare Nietzsche's idea of healthy morality as spiritualized passion to religious morality and show that it often fails to do that.

In the next criticism, it's too close to my email and needs more detail. Put it into your own words: how would they explain that such passions should be totally suppressed. How would they respond to what Nietzsche might think are the benefits to life of those passions? Say more about why they might think a specific passion is both natural and too dangerous to allow, maybe consider examples.

In the final reply, Nietzsche's view is a little off. He's not a relativist who thinks morality is whatever anyone says it is. Look at his passage on natural healthy morality, governed by the instincts of life. He believes morality should be tailored to different people according to what helps them moderately and beneficially express their passions, not that it should change with the seasons.

You might look at his passage about the enchanting diversity of types, which the moralist tries to make follow one ideal. He wants many different moralities, but they're not arbitrary, their natural, shaped to promote human health and wellbeing.