Which philosophers have contradicted Nietzsche?

Does Nietzsche agree with Aristotle?

Nietzsche also believes in human excellence, and would agree with Aristotle that there is a biological component to it and surely (though he would deny this on grumpy days) a social component: we are profoundly self-ignorant and do need other people to help us realize our virtue.

Does Nietzsche agree with Socrates?

Nietzsche sees Socrates as a sort of inflection point in the history of philosophy. He had serious problems with Socrates’ students and the overall affect that Socrates had on the course of Ancient Greek society and culture philosophy itself. However — Nietzsche also had a great admiration for Socrates.

How did Nietzsche contradict himself?

The “Nietzsche contradicts himself whenever he pleases and doesn’t care because logic is for lesser minds” line seems to me (and all of the writers in the aforementioned volume) like a superficial reading of Nietzsche that misunderstands the extent to which he’s a rigorous and consistent thinker.

What Marxists think about Nietzsche?

But mostly they seem to be in dialectic opposition to each other. Marx’s view on the value of community and “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” seems antithetical to Nietzsche’s views on master vs slave morality and his ideal ubermensch.

What did Nietzsche think of Aristotle?

Nietzsche claimed that Aristotle made two errors in his formulation of the tragic experience and especially of the concept of catharsis because he misidentified both.

Does Nietzsche believe in human nature?

Out of his critique of the Christian interpretation of human life Nietzsche reconceives humanity as “natural humanity” and the human being as homo natura. Löwith maintains that Nietzsche questions Christian morality on the basis of the distinction between what the human being is and what it means.

How are Aristotle and Nietzsche similar?

It is clear that both Aristotle and Nietzsche share a common conception of acquired dispositions as integral to moral action. The true unification of instinct and habit, however, lies in the connections that each philosopher draws between these acquir ed dispositions and the body.

How are Aristotle and Nietzsche similar?

It is clear that both Aristotle and Nietzsche share a common conception of acquired dispositions as integral to moral action. The true unification of instinct and habit, however, lies in the connections that each philosopher draws between these acquir ed dispositions and the body.

What is MacIntyre’s choice between Aristotle and Nietzsche?

MacIntyre’s argument against Nietzsche is that if the original rejection of Aristotle was in fact a mistake, then it follows that each of the following philosophies based upon this rejection would be ill informed and unnecessary.

Where does MacIntyre agree with Aristotle?

Money has a role to play in the virtuous life; there are certain virtues, such as generosity, which are impossible or at least very difficult to carry out without money – here MacIntyre agrees with Aristotle. But a life spent pursuing money is a wasted life, as far as MacIntyre is concerned.

Is MacIntyre a Marxist?

MacIntyre began his career as a Marxist, but in the late 1950s, he started working to develop a Marxist ethics that could rationally justify the moral condemnation of Stalinism.

Is MacIntyre an analytic philosopher?

Up to then, MacIntyre had been a relatively influential analytic philosopher of Marxist bent whose moral inquiries had been conducted in a “piecemeal way, focusing first on this problem and then on that, in a mode characteristic of much analytic philosophy.” However, after reading the works of Thomas Kuhn and Imre …

Why does MacIntyre think that the Enlightenment project has failed us?

MacIntyre thinks that any such justificatory project must fail. It will fail because there is an “ineradicable discrepancy between their shared conception of moral rules” and what they all shared in their conception of human nature (50).

What is Aristotle virtue ethics?

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is the quest to understand and live a life of moral character. This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through practice.

Why do we use after virtue?

After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory is a book on moral philosophy by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre. MacIntyre provides a bleak view of the state of modern moral discourse, regarding it as failing to be rational, and failing to admit to being irrational.

What is Emotivism theory?

emotivism, In metaethics (see ethics), the view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker’s or writer’s feelings.

How long is after virtue?

Product Details

Are the virtues?

“Virtues” are attitudes, dispositions, or character traits that enable us to be and to act in ways that develop this potential. They enable us to pursue the ideals we have adopted. Honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, fidelity, integrity, fairness, self-control, and prudence are all examples of virtues.

What is the highest virtue?

Truth

Truth is the highest virtue, but higher still is truthful living.

What are the 4 human virtues?

The cardinal virtues are four virtues of mind and character in both classical philosophy and Christian theology. They are prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. They form a virtue theory of ethics.

Related posts:

What is the Lange’s viewpoint on laws of nature? What did Confucius mean by reflection and imitation? What was Wittgenstein’s argument against Cantor’s transfinite numbers and where did he make his objection? How do empiricists explain zeno’s paradox(es)? Is Appeal to Pity really an Argument from Compassion? Evolution and Popperian falsifiability? Cannot we argue that pluralism ‘unite[s] the family of causes’ `in virtue of the epistemological facts of how we use them in our thinking`? If we had a hive mind, could we discover it? Are selflessness and selfishness mutually exclusive? Is Goodman’s new riddle of induction a restatement of Hume’s problem of induction?