Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him (Kaufmann, 105).
By this statement, he does not resort to a physical death, since there has never been a physical God, but instead the death of an ascribed morality, or outdated set of beliefs that were “etched in stone” regarding appropriate behavior, moral mental analysis (or “lack thereof”), and mythically or legendarily “trained” responses. Nietzsche, like every Existentialist, stressed individualism. Of course, he throws an addition into the mix. He instructs that the Authoritative Man should automatically discount beliefs instilled by the masses and intentionally act or react according to his own aristocratic instincts.
This phrase is very frequently misinterpreted, more often than not to imply a rhetorical as opposed to empirical question: “Did God create Man, or did Man create God?” Nietzsche meant to leave the reader with much less of an elusive question, or to set a much more definable antecedent, so to say that humans are far more equipped than to instill blind faith any longer in an imperial cosmogony; now we take this statement to include the vast array of technological advancement which exists currently.
Existentialism of today comes off as more of an elaborate scientific proof or mathematical sequence than to describe the examinations of Friedrich Nietzsche as purely a study of human behavior in accordance with applied experiences. In fact, even then, throughout the course of his lifetime (1844-1900), he never typecast himself as an Existentialist or subscribed the term Existentialism to any of his observations, which were solely built around human habits and experiences. It is as if he has taken the term ‘human psychology’ to another level.
Nietzsche was more intrigued by the innate ability, or strength, instilled within humans to clutter their psychological beings, even overwhelm the immediate senses in the instant. More over, Nietzsche took grave interest in the ability of humans to Exist purely in-the-now and become absorbed completely by the priorities in the moment in order to elude (escape) the mundane recreation of existence, the monotony of life which lacks all objective meaning, purpose, and fundamental worth. A nihilist, definitely. In fact, Nietzsche is accredited in many instances, and in many (if not most) scholarly references, as some form of a founder of this term. However, his complete and formal objectivity absolutely discounts the notion of a “Nihilistic Nietzsche.” In other words, Nietzsche can be categorized as a nihilist only in the descriptive sense that he attempted to prove that there was no substance to traditional moral or political values. In an even greater regard, he objectively pushed to discredit the ideals of religious and social values, and that the ’substance’ of religion was strictly social.
We ascribe the term “Existentialist” to all of Nietzsche’s principles now, obviously, since they defy empiricism and “common sense” while stressing the individual’s anomalous quality of self-determination.
Nonetheless, Existentialism makes an incredibly interesting topic of study.
B David Ferrel
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MLA: Kaufmann, Walter. (ed.) 1956. Existentialism from Dostoevsky to Sartre. New York: Meridan Books
Philosophical Existentialist movement, in regard to Søren Kierkegaard: http://factoidz.com/in-regard-to-s%c3%b8ren-kierkegaard-what-defines-existentialism/
Philosophical Existentialist movement, in regard to Fyodor Dostoevsky:
http://factoidz.com/in-regard-to-dostoevsky-what-defines-existentialism/
Philosophical Existentialist movement, an Existentialist spoof in Native American literature: http://factoidz.com/existentialist-spoof-in-native-american-literature/
Philosophical Existentialist movement, in regard to Martin Heidegger: http://factoidz.com/in-regard-to-heidegger-what-defines-existentialism/
General definition of Existentialism: http://factoidz.com/what-is-existentialism/
