• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.137
• /
• pp.323-356
• /
• 2016

The present study examines Nietzsche's critique of Schopenhauer with regard to the problem of morality and the basis thereof. Schopenhauer's philosophy that each written life as objectification of the will, had an important impact on the early development of Nietzsche's philosophy. But nevertheless Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer because he denies life in the value of earthly life. Schopenhauer asserts that life is a painful matter because the blind govern all life, and pushes. But unlike Nietzsche, Schopenhauer buoyed the meaning of life, which increases again with the will to power and carry out. Of course there is some resemblance between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, namely equiprimordiality as both distance themselves from the traditional philosophy that characterizes the man as a rational being and understands. They both destruct the idea of philosophy as a science, and try together to build another philosophical horizon. But in terms of interpretations of life and morals, they have taken different paths. According to Schopenhauer, our life is ultimately sad and agonizing. To overcome this situation, we must deny the will to live and renounce it absolutely. He believes that the moral can eliminate the displacement of the blind will to live and overcome. But in comparison, Nietzsche claims that morality or any moral act is always driven out of resentment. But this resentment is nothing more than a revenge or retribution, which was invented by the weakness. But according to Nietzsche, the feeling of resentment clear will to live. The present paper examines whether Nietzsche's moral critique of Schopenhauer is possible and if so, such a moral critique of Nietzsche can be performed.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.139
• /
• pp.105-131
• /
• 2016

The notion of responsibility, which has now gained a firm foothold as one of the fundamental notions of philosophy and its neighboring disciplines, became the subject of philosophical enquiry only in the 19th century by Kierkegaard, who delved into the morality of critical self-awareness in ethical responsibility of the absolute self; and Nietzsche, who put emphasis on the responsibility of the sovereign self in coping with the problems of the future. Nietzsche is the first philosopher who took issue with the diminishment (Verkleinerung) of humanity-what he called human being's greatest disease-that swept Europe at that time. Concerns about Europe's future were the key movens of Nietzsche's philosophy revolving around the advent of nihilism in Europe and its solutions. He prepared alternative solutions in deep awareness that the ethics of good and evil firmly rooted in the traditional metaphysics and Christianity would not even catch the depth and breadth of the big problem of globalization brought about by modernism, let alone solve it. Nietzsche devoted his whole life to disseminating the knowledge that the future of humankind depends on removing these old ethics. This article traces Nietzsche's reflections on the ethical event of responsibility and provides an overview of the purview and scope contained in the meaning covered by the notion of responsibility in his philosophy beyond common norms and values.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.137
• /
• pp.277-321
• /
• 2016

Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy embraces characteristics of existential philosophy and philosophical anthropology. In his book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Nietzsche defined human beings as an existence with innate possibility for change, beings that stand at the borderline between "the last man" and "the ${\ddot{u}}bermensch$", raising a question over the meaning of human being's existential healthiness. The anthropological symptoms that Nietzsche's philosophy deals with trigger existential problems, and healing these anthropological symptoms is a precedent to healing an existence. In Nietzsche's philosophy, the ${\ddot{u}}bermensch$ is presented as a prototype of practical man with a healthy existence, born from endeavors to heal the last man prototype of a decadence that was prevalent throughout Europe at the time. Nietzsche found the root cause of nihilism found in Europe in philosophy, religion, metaphysics, and Christianity, and attempted a genealogical investigation on this aspect. In so doing, a philosophical problem surfaced whereby only one truth was used to force diverse existential styles into a uniform style. Nietzsche intensively criticized philosophy and philosophers that only studied truths from metaphysical-Christian-moral perspectives, as they overlooked the foundation of true existence and presented human beings of a feeble mind and will as a result. Nietzsche emphasized the practical role of philosophy that can contribute to the human being's ascent and growth based on realistic conditions of human existence described as the earth, that philosophy that can serve as a basis for existential transformation of human beings and their lives. The task of philosophers is to lay the groundwork for the possibility of changes for all human beings and their realization. This existential practical foundation of philosophy can be called the ${\ddot{u}}bermensch$, as it is healthy man, the "greatest reality" as Nietzsche desired.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.145
• /
• pp.297-324
• /
• 2018

This paper aims to reconstruct the theme of the crisis of modernity and its overcoming possibility as one of the most intense implications of Nietzsche philosophy on the theme of "love". It analyses Nietzsche's statements about love, from the onset of physical desire for the opposite sex, through the forms of religiously distorted love, such as compassion and charity, to the amor fati as the positive affirmation of life. For Nietzsche, love is basically an urge to grow out of the possessive craving for power. The impulse of love is part of life, because it is willpower that makes man. Christianity, which linked sexual impulses to sin, made eros immoral. Nietzsche says we must overcome Christian love, which intends to deny human nature and reality and superimpose other ideals, and learn to love beyond itself. In the Nietzsche philosophy, it is the love of one's fate.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.126
• /
• pp.345-376
• /
• 2013

Der vorliegende Beitrag zielt darauf ab, Nietzsches Einstellung zum Christentum zu $er{\ddot{o}}rtern$. Nietzsche gilt als einer der eindeutigsten Kritiker des Christentums in der $abendl{\ddot{a}}ndischen$ Geistesgeschichte. $F{\ddot{u}}r$ Nietzsche ist das Christentum nicht nur eine Religion, sondern auch eine Wertvorstellung, an der sich die $europ{\ddot{a}}ische$ Kultur orientiert hat. Nietzsche setzt sich die $vollst{\ddot{a}}ndig$ ${\ddot{U}}berwindung$ des Christentums zum Ziel, weil es der entscheidende Grund des Untergangs der $europ{\ddot{a}}ische$ Kultur ist. Ist Nietzsche Antichrist? Die Antwort auf die Frage ist sehr umstritten, denn Nietzsches Einstellung zum Christentum ist ambivalent. Freilich fokussiert Nietzsche seine Kritik nicht auf den Religionsstifter selbst, sondern auf den Apostel Paulus. In den verschiedenen Phasen seines Werkes erscheint Jesus in unterschiedlicher Weise. Er lehnt die Person Jesus nicht $grunds{\ddot{a}}tzlich$ ab, negiert aber den 'Typus' Jesus, z. B. als 'Idiot' und 'decadent'. Paulus ist der entscheidende Antipode $f{\ddot{u}}r$ Nietzsche. Der Apostel Paulus ist der wahre $Begr{\ddot{u}}nder$ des Christentums und der Sklavenmoral der Christen. Der vorliegende Aufsatz gibt Antworten auf die Fragen: Erstens, was das Christentum $f{\ddot{u}}r$ Nietzsche ist. Zweitens, wie Karl Jaspers Nietzsches $Verh{\ddot{a}}ltnis$ zu Jesus und Paulus besonders in Nietzsche und das Christentum beurteilt. Drittens, welches Problem die Interpretation von Jaspers besonders in Bezug auf seinen Begriff des 'Umgreifenden' hat.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.130
• /
• pp.187-218
• /
• 2014

Nietzsche stellt in seiner Philosophie den "${\ddot{U}}bermensch$" als existenziales Ideal des Menschen sowie als Menschentyp der Zukunft und "die ${\ddot{u}}bermenschliche$ Zukunft" als Zukunft des gesunden Menschen vor. Der ${\ddot{U}}bermensch$ und die ${\ddot{u}}bermenschliche$ Zukunft beinhalten in Nietzsches Philosophie den Sinn des gesunden Menschen und seiner gesunden Zukunft. Nach Nietzsche kann dieses gesunde Ideal durch die aktive Praxis des Menschen endlich verwirklicht werden. Nietzsche unterscheidet das aktive und das passive Verhalten des Menschen und leitet daraus die zwei $gegens{\ddot{a}}tzlichen$ Menschentypen her, also den aktiven Menschen (Herr der Moral des Lebens - geistig Starker) und den passiven Menschen (Sklave der Moral des Lebens - geistig Schwacher). Aber die Typologie dieser anthropologischen Differenz zielt nicht auf die Dualisierung der absoluten Differenz, sondern auf seine relativistisch-relationale ${\ddot{U}}berwindung$. Auf diese Weise setzt die philosophische Anthropologie Nietzsches im Grunde seine eigene praktische Philosophie voraus. Ferner bestimmt Nietzsche den Menschen als Zwischenwesen, das $hei{\ss}t$, dass der Mensch in Also sprach Zarathustra an der existenzialen Grenze zwischen Tier und ${\ddot{U}}bermensch$ und in seiner anthropologischen ${\ddot{A}}sthetik$ an der ${\ddot{a}}sthetischen$ Grenze zwischen $Versch{\ddot{o}}nerung$ und $Verh{\ddot{a}}sslichung$ des Lebens steht, sowie als $M{\ddot{o}}glichkeitswesen$, das an dieser Grenze durch die existenziale $Selbst{\ddot{u}}berwindung$ und die ${\ddot{a}}sthetische$ Selbstgestaltung in jedem Moment seine $Ver{\ddot{a}}nderungsm{\ddot{o}}glichkeit$ $sch{\ddot{o}}pferisch$ verwirklichen kann. Das Ziel dieser Arbeit ist es, aufgrund Nietzsches anthropologischen $Verst{\ddot{a}}ndnisses$ die anthropologische Methodologie zu $er{\ddot{o}}rtern$, die er $f{\ddot{u}}r$ die Verwirklichung der immanenten $Ver{\ddot{a}}nderungsm{\ddot{o}}glichkeit$ des Menschen in seiner Philosophie vorstellt.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.148
• /
• pp.291-326
• /
• 2018

The present lecture aims to discuss Nietzsche's critique of metaphysics, religion and morality through the affect. Nietzsche's philosophical attempt for the existential health of man made possible by the affirmation of the earth as a world of realistic life. The affirmation about the nascent Earth means that one feels the world as a world of pleasure. But metaphysics and religion have imagined the earthly world of this world as a place against lust. That is, metaphysics and religion suppress the actual affect of man. From the aspect of metaphysics, religion and morality, the human affect is dangerous. But according to Nietzsche, affect is the basic condition revealed by man's nature. The present lecture aims to discuss Nietzsche's critique of metaphysics, religion, and morality in the guide to his concept of affect.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.139
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2016

We must heed the late $19^{th}$ century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. He criticized toleration in the same context as he strongly denied the slave morality, i.e. morality of the weak, and victims paralyzing humanity. Therefore the toleration that Nietzsche makes the target of criticism is an excuse which enables the weak to conceal their own cowardliness and powerlessness and to take such a dismissal as justice. Of course, Nietzsche proposes a further alternative. It is not toleration coming from weakness but toleration coming from strength and can be called 'the great toleration.' The great toleration is the virtue that only human beings who can also use opposite thought or opinion for themselves can show.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.148
• /
• pp.327-356
• /
• 2018

The aims this paper to examine Nietzsche's criticism on Paul's transvaluation of values. First, I will examine Socrates' transvaluation of values through which, Greek culture was deconstructed. He opened a path for the transvaluation of values before Paul and Nietzsche and reorganized Greek culture around his own values. I will also analyze the 'will to power' hidden behind Socrates' transvaluation of values. Second, I will examine the essence of the Paul's transvaluation of values. I will trace how Paul, through his transvaluation of values, could become the center of Christianity and, in turn, control European Culture. I will also show the difference between the teachings of Jesus and the arguments of Paul. Third, I will look at the Nietzsche's criticism on Paul's transvaluation of values. The key to Nietzsche's criticism on Paul is to evaluate Paul's transvaluation of values in terms of his will to power. And I will also look at the problems of Nietzsche's criticism on Paul. Fourth, I will look at Nietzsche's transvaluation of values. It is accomplished in such a way that he makes Socrates' and Paul's transvaluation of value alters. His transvaluation of values will be critically examined for strength in life and world understanding over Socrates' and Paul's transvaluation of values.

• The Science & Technology
• /
• s.477
• /
• pp.94-95
• /
• 2009