The Gay Science and Fear and Trembling - Essay Example

Passage 1

The gay science: With a prelude in rhymes and an appendix of songs by Nietzsche is a book that challenges the ordinary system and assumptions made in the world. It critiques the morality of prohibitions set up for moral reasons or otherwise. It explains the reasons it is more rewarding to work without these prohibitions and let everyone live beyond their limits. Nietzsche portrays the limitations set by society as a way of suppressing the abilities of those who have greater ambitions and the willpower to chase after them. it is more like these limits are put forward by the less ambitious and those who easily get comfortable in life. Although there is some truth to the notions put across by Nietzsche in The Gay Science, there are also setbacks that would arise if the society actualized his views.

At the beginning of this passage, the author confesses that he dislikes all forms of moralities that prohibit people from doing something. This is because he believes that such moralities are limiting. They do not also one to do what they want and be the best that they can in their full potential. Be it in terms of talent, self-growth or acquiring knowledge, when one is prohibited from attempting to indulge in something, it may make them feel prohibited and limited from exploring everything that they are capable of.

Across this book, he describes morality as a tool used by those feeling inferior. They use morality in order to limit the rest from being the best they can. This enables them feel superior to others but does not really benefit anybody. This is because it adds no real value to the ones coming up with the moral rules and leads to stagnation of those who have the potential to move forward.

Imposing our beliefs on other people is wrong as people should be left to make decisions concerning their lives on their own. It is through exploration and making our won errors that we discover what is wrong and what will fit their purpose.

It is only through the freedom of decision making that one understands what they need and what they have to dispose off. When one chooses a certain path, ‘one thing after another that simply does not belong to such a life drops’ (304). It might be friends who leave and lose contact, it can be other projects that are not in alignment with the major project or even negative and discouraging thoughts. All these things fall off when one decides to follow a particular path and they become focused on realizing the vision of what they choose to see through.

The things we choose to do should determine ‘what we forgo by doing we forgo’ (304). This means that the decision and power or the things to pursue, the ones to leave behind and the ones to put on pause should be in or hands. A negative attitude or mindset in a situation that requires commitment force one to deny oneself of something they really want. The author in this case tries to explain that denying people of the opportunity to do what they want leaves them with a feeling of emptiness and being incomplete which is wrong.

For every action there is always a consequence. In this case, some of the issues that came up in the tutorials are the question of just how much freedom should one have with regard to pursuing anything they want. The question of power also comes to mind. If everyone is allowed to do what they want without being stopped from doing some things by the morality laws, there is a possibility of chaos erupting. If regulations and morality is totally eradiated, the strong ones would suppress the weaker ones in an attempt to do whatever they want without being stopped.

This means that all crimes would go unpunished, bias would be higher and the gap between the rich and the poor would be much wider in the society. However, when moralities come in play, they set a balance in affairs regarding society and restore a bit of humanity. We cannot assume that everyone will share the same principles that are in favor of humanity and caring if we are all left free to do what we want without being stopped. Sometimes, limitations can be helpful as they prevent unfair treatment and selfish endeavors.

In conclusion, it is exciting to imagine the possibility of living in a world that has no restrictions. It means that people would have the freedom to do anything they want and indulge in their own projects without any prohibitions. We would all have a chance to realize our full potential in a perfect setting. Unfortunately, we cannot assume the great risks that come with such a setting. Therefore, in real sense, not everyone would be free to do as they wish. The world would become a chaotic universe where some are trying to dominate the weak and become leaders while others would always be on the run to avoid being destroyed by the chaos. As much as Nietzsche has a point on the importance of functioning without restricting moralities, it is also crucial that we consider the risks that such an environment would come with. The best thing would be finding a balance between giving people the freedom to realize their full potential and knowing where to apply moralities that are restricting.

Passage 2

The Kierkegaard's Writings, VI: Fear and Trembling/Repetition by Kierkegaard is an interesting book that talks about the different sides of an individual and the things done consciously and subconsciously. In this passage, there is the discovery of perceiving the ethical as a paradoxical expression. Human faith is viewed in two different ways. In the one hand, we can express our inner selves externally having gained an understanding of what is ethical. On the other hand, this becomes paradoxical as not everything we are on the inside can be exposed on the outside. There are parts of ourselves that we would rather hide from others.

Kierkegaard describes faith as a paradox of conflicting regulations. While the term absolute might be referring to the state of either being good or bad without a middle ground, there are instances where the two might require coexisting or interchanging in the name of ethics. Faith can be a tricky subject as it differs from one person to the other.

In the passage, faith is described as the beliefs that individuals have. It is in terms of religion and preferences. Religion seems to guide our actions and our reasoning. Due to this, our faith in something or a specific religious belief is referred to as interiority. It is the background of the way we think and the set of principles that guide our everyday activities.

On the other hand, how we express this religious faith or belief externally is referred to as exteriority. How our actions are aligned with our religious beliefs tells ore about our faith that what we say we believe in. Kierkegaard describes this faith as ironical in that our exteriority and our interiority do not always go hand in hand.

This form of paradox makes it challenging to strike a balance between or exteriority and our interiority. The author explains that we should strip ourselves of all forms of interiority and remain with exteriority so that our true nature can be expressed. Unfortunately, it is not always that the internal beliefs that one has will be aligned with the morals of the society.

Ethics are the moral guidelines within the society that people follow in order to know whether they are right or wrong. The irony of faith is that our interiority may conflict with the ethics making it hard to portray our exteriority freely.

Toward the end, the passage describes the difference between interiority and exteriority shoes not make the ethical be totally disregarded but make people have a different point of view. Instead of looking at things as either simply right or wrong, people can look at the newly found middle ground in a new light of accepting the differences that present themselves between ethics, interiority and exteriority. While interiority plays a larger role in defining what is ethical, exteriority is a major part expressing the things that we believe in. The way an individual determines their exteriority in influenced by their interiority but only to some extent. The passage simply illustrates how we can embrace slight deviation from religion in order to have the freedom to truly express who we are without necessarily being unethical.

Some of the issues that came up during the tutorial include differences in exteriority and ethics. For instance, when one’s interiority explains that it is important to not go after material things of the world. However, you will find that a church will ask for people’s contributions in order to get big screens for the church so as to enable everyone to see the pastor while preaching. Therefore, understanding when to draw the line between material things and development of the church might help bring a new understanding what is ethical in management of this religion. In the same way, getting a new perspective of exteriority and not simply fixating what interiority dictates helps people get a broader understanding of their faith. Their relation to the rest of the universe is going to take all factors into consideration.

These are the factors that enable individuals understand one’s self and the decisions that they make regarding themselves as individuals as well as others in the picture. When one practices the newly found form of ethics and interiority, they get to understand that exteriority does not have to follow strict laws of religion and faith. There are various ways in which religion, ethics and exteriority can be looked at in order to strike a balance between the three. It is possible for them to coexist without an individual being considered a simply good or bad.

Work Cited

Kierkegaard, Søren. Kierkegaard's Writings, VI: Fear and Trembling/Repetition. Vol. 6. Princeton University Press, 2013.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The gay science: With a prelude in rhymes and an appendix of songs. Vintage, 2010.

Passage 2

The Kierkegaard's Writings, VI: Fear and Trembling/Repetition by Kierkegaard is an interesting book that talks about the different sides of an individual and the things done consciously and subconsciously. In this passage, there is the discovery of perceiving the ethical as a paradoxical expression. Human faith is viewed in two different ways. In the one hand, we can express our inner selves externally having gained an understanding of what is ethical. On the other hand, this becomes paradoxical as not everything we are on the inside can be exposed on the outside. There are parts of ourselves that we would rather hide from others.

Kierkegaard describes faith as a paradox of conflicting regulations. While the term absolute might be referring to the state of either being good or bad without a middle ground, there are instances where the two might require coexisting or interchanging in the name of ethics. Faith can be a tricky subject as it differs from one person to the other.

In the passage, faith is described as the beliefs that individuals have. It is in terms of religion and preferences. Religion seems to guide our actions and our reasoning. Due to this, our faith in something or a specific religious belief is referred to as interiority. It is the background of the way we think and the set of principles that guide our everyday activities.

On the other hand, how we express this religious faith or belief externally is referred to as exteriority. How our actions are aligned with our religious beliefs tells ore about our faith that what we say we believe in. Kierkegaard describes this faith as ironical in that our exteriority and our interiority do not always go hand in hand.

This form of paradox makes it challenging to strike a balance between or exteriority and our interiority. The author explains that we should strip ourselves of all forms of interiority and remain with exteriority so that our true nature can be expressed. Unfortunately, it is not always that the internal beliefs that one has will be aligned with the morals of the society.

Ethics are the moral guidelines within the society that people follow in order to know whether they are right or wrong. The irony of faith is that our interiority may conflict with the ethics making it hard to portray our exteriority freely.

Toward the end, the passage describes the difference between interiority and exteriority shoes not make the ethical be totally disregarded but make people have a different point of view. Instead of looking at things as either simply right or wrong, people can look at the newly found middle ground in a new light of accepting the differences that present themselves between ethics, interiority and exteriority. While interiority plays a larger role in defining what is ethical, exteriority is a major part expressing the things that we believe in. The way an individual determines their exteriority in influenced by their interiority but only to some extent. The passage simply illustrates how we can embrace slight deviation from religion in order to have the freedom to truly express who we are without necessarily being unethical.

Some of the issues that came up during the tutorial include differences in exteriority and ethics. For instance, when one’s interiority explains that it is important to not go after material things of the world. However, you will find that a church will ask for people’s contributions in order to get big screens for the church so as to enable everyone to see the pastor while preaching. Therefore, understanding when to draw the line between material things and development of the church might help bring a new understanding what is ethical in management of this religion. In the same way, getting a new perspective of exteriority and not simply fixating what interiority dictates helps people get a broader understanding of their faith. Their relation to the rest of the universe is going to take all factors into consideration. Read More