|← The Son of a Protestant Minister||Ludwig Wittgenstein →|
Custom The Prejudices of Philosophers essay paper
Excellent The Prejudices of Philosophers essay writing service: professional academic help
Objective truth is the belief that independent of what our diverse beliefs are, certain things will always be true while others will be untrue. What we believe in doesn’t in any way affect these truths. In our daily activities we adapt positions that depict absolute truths, for instance when we go to school we assume our books will be safe in our lockers and in most cases they are. Prediction forms the basis for adapting to such positions especially in scientific research where theories can be experimentally proven to be true. What about philosophy? According to Nietzsche it is our desires and instincts that drive us; this he defines as will. In this he asserts that past and present philosophers write their philosophy based on their character. Nietzsche elaborates his argument by indicating it is absurd for Stoics philosophers to expect us to live “according to nature” as nature was determined in their own image. Objective truth is a façade whatever truth we seek is influenced greatly by our character and confirmed to the extent it serves in life and culture.
Nietzsche’s contribution to the world of philosophy begins when he raises the question of the problem of the value of truth.’ He asks why philosophers insist on seeking the ‘truth ‘ and not the ‘untruth’. In Nietzsche philosophical thinking in Section One of his expose in Beyond Good and Evil, he reviews prejudices under the ‘will of truth.’ Nietzsche argues that there are different perspectives from which one can comprehend a subject. In his writings Nietzsche articulates the truth as part of this world conclude that truth is not static but rather dynamic (Finnigan, 2000). In Beyond Good and Evil he seeks to determine the value of truth and distinguishes himself from other philosophers by insisting that truth is not the solution but the problem.
Nietzsche statement that there is no objective truth in certain situation is true but falsified in others. Christians for example cannot reject the objective truth in their belief as this is fundamental to the gospel. If they were to give up this paradigm their lives would no longer make sense, and there would there be need to preach the gospel (Kenneson). It’s this argument that answers whether one can say there is absolute truth, as it depends on the person’s interest and perspective. An evangelist would rather lay his belief in objective truth and argue this based on the doctrines and teachings of religion. In contradiction a free spirit will rise above common ways of thinking and question every ‘truth’ thereby inclining more to relativism and/or subjectivism.
One reason I support Nietzsche argument is the comparison of opposites that he makes in the second section of Beyond Good and Evil where he elaborates that there is no justification in the moral sense that good is the opposite of bad. In the prejudice of the antithesis of values he uses the cause and effect of ‘truth out of error’, ‘generous deed out of selfishness’ to argue that moral action can suffice as self-interest. He suggests that the relation between opposites is far more complex and that what we arguably call ‘truths’ are as a result of our will to deceive. This relationship becomes richer as we abandon objective truths and falsehoods. Statements recorded as true arguably express a certain point of view. According to Nietzsche a point of view cannot be the basis for objective truth.`
In another prejudice Nietzsche notes that there is a no difference between reality and appearance as past philosophers such as Kant wrote. He criticizes the belief in that thought in favor of the answer that they are a result of the will to power of philosophers. He argues that Kant’s mistake was in the conclusion that the world’s meaning had nothing to do with their perspectives. Nietzsche also forms a prejudice on the subject and predicate conception on Descartes assertion ‘I think’ to show a certainty to the power of inducing thinking. I particularly regard this as the ultimate expression of the will to power in the cause of thinking. Nietzsche explains that ‘I’ is a complex of competing wills and that while thinking it’s the as a result of dominance of the will to think.
The philosophy on objective truth being a facade is not self refuting as Nietzsche explains deeply the interest and perspectives that make up truths and falsehoods. In the example of simple facts such as 1+2=3 it is the will of the mathematician to dedicate his entire life to study in such of truths. In philosophy it’s the expression of will not simple facts that is of interest.