Philosophical thought has been developing for many centuries and has been expressed in many reflections and worldviews. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, one of the outstanding thinkers of the nineteenth century, reflected in his works a special view on such concepts as morality, religion, and science. Examining these concepts helps to better understand how ideas about the world and how everything in it functions are formed. Therefore, this academic paper aims to study Nietzsche’s philosophy, his attitude towards morality and religion, and compare his ideas about society with the concepts of Karl Marx.
Nietzsche concentrated his thoughts on the moral component of modern society, including the attitude to religion. In this process, he criticized the postulates of the European vision of morality and philosophical ideas, which were quite widespread at that time. It is noted that Nietzsche’s philosophical concepts are closely related to the concepts of existentialism (Veit 212). Thus, considering the moral components of society, the philosopher examined the good and the bad. Nietzsche did not have a clear and structured idea of b society. In other words, his goal was to break the idea that following moral principles brings good for people and society as a whole.
Moreover, regarding morality, Nietzsche believed that all normative systems have similar features. Hence, they all consist of descriptive and normative components that have certain functions (Ioan 41). Both of these aspects imply a description of everything a person encounters and imply that normative claims have an intelligent application. In addition, all norms and postulates of regulatory systems often prefer and extol the interests of a certain group of people to the detriment of others.
Regarding religion, Nietzsche held the opinion that religion is unreasonable and impossible to exist. In other words, he had an atheistic worldview and viewed faith as something unreal, invented by people. Moreover, the philosopher believed that society’s progress and scientific achievements contributed to the lowering of the role of Christianity and religion was a burden for society (Aguas 246). However, it is worth noting that Nietzsche was not a complete opponent of faith but only had a unique attitude to its postulates and treated it as a way of explaining such existential problems of humanity as death, pain and suffering.
Further, Nietzsche gained fame by developing the concept of the superman. The main motivation for the emergence of this kind of individual is the desire to gain leadership in society (Ojimba et al. 19). The desire to gain ultimate power makes such people indifferent to such concepts as morality, laws and illusions, which many people feed on in modern society. As the opposite of Superman, the philosopher singled out the last people whose main task is a simple existence. Thus, the structure of the world consisted of the struggle of the former for power leadership positions, while the latter played only the role of improvised means to achieve them.
One of the outstanding contemporaries of Nietzsche is Karl Marx, whose works had both some similarities and differences from the works of the philosopher. Hence, both of them had a similar attitude to morality and religion and treated Christianity as a faith based on suffering and negative experience (Janaway 67). At the same time, what distinguished these two philosophers was their attitude to society. Therefore, Marx considered the concept of a communist society, which Nietzsche, although he never expressed such an opinion, could have denied.
Within the framework of Karl Marx’s works, society was divided into two main classes. Thus, it had bourgeoisie, or capitalists, and the proletariat, or workers, who were characterized with respect to economic status (Marx 398). According to the philosopher, events occurring in society over the course of history led to this circumstance. In addition, the bourgeoisie was the ruling class, which prevailed and had much more power than the lower class of working people.
Nietzsche did not have an explicit position on what society is and what it should look like. At the same time, like Marx, he divided people into lower and higher castes, only with respect to the strength of people’s spirit and will, not economic or political status. Moreover, unlike Marx, Nietzsche considered animal nature as the basis of everything human and the activity of individuals. The power that individuals wish to acquire becomes the driving force for the functioning of a small number of people who are able to achieve and apply it.
In conclusion, this work considered the foundations of the philosophical thought of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, who made a special contribution to this science. Thus, he considered and criticized the concepts of morality and religion, which became widespread during his activity. Therefore, morality for the philosopher consisted in studying the bad and the good in the world, and religion was viewed as a source of suffering, which outlived itself with the advent of the scientific revolution and knowledge. Moreover, it examined the difference in the vision of a society of Nietzsche and Marx, who, despite similar opinions on morality and faith, treated society differently. Hence, the first philosopher considered the power and animal nature of people’s activity and motivation to be the basis for the division of people, while the second philosopher prioritized the economic status of individuals.
Works Cited
Aguas, Jove Jim S. “The challenge of secularization to the Christian belief in God.” Φιλοσοφια: International Journal of Philosophy, vol. 20, no. 2, 2019, pp. 238-252.
Ioan, Razvan. The Body in Spinoza and Nietzsche. Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
Janaway, Christopher. “Attitudes to suffering: Parfit and Nietzsche.” Inquiry, vol. 60, no. 1-2, 2017, pp. 66-95.
Marx, Karl. Industrial Work and Life. Routledge, 2020, pp. 395-404.
Ojimba, Anthony C., and Bruno Y. Ikuli. “Friedrich Nietzsche’s Superman and its Religious Implications.” Journal of Philosophy, Culture and ReligionI, vol. 45, 2020, pp. 17-25.
Veit, Walter. “Existential Nihilism: The Only Really Serious Philosophical Problem.” Journal of Camus Studies, 2018, pp. 211-232.