Categories
Philosophy

Political Philosophy In “Of Cannibalism” By Michel De Montage

Michel De Montage’s Of Cannibalism uses several different themes and techniques to exemplify his belief that human nature is innately good. Imitation slanders the Resurrection Western culture by comparing them to uncivilized natives who live with nature. Imitation begins by bashing at the Western Worlds values and stating, “really it is those that we have changed artificially and led astray from the common order that we should rather call wild” (Imitation 152).
Imitation then refers to the natives life and highlights all of the stigmas that are absent in their lives, “the very words that signify lying, treachery, dissimulation, avarice, envy, belittling, pardon- unheard of” (Imitation 153)… Rather their culture values “valor against the enemy and love for their wives” (Imitation 154). According to Imitation the concept of human nature is eternally good and derives from the simplistic ways of the natives. The European Western culture refers to the natives who live with nature in simplicity and harmony as barbaric, when in laity they surpass the natives in several forms of barbarity… L think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; and in tearing him by tortures and the rack a body still full of feeling, in roasting a man bit by bit, in having him bitten and mangled by dogs and swine, than in roasting and eating him after he is dead” (Imitation 155). Essentially, Imitation is justifying the so-called “barbaric” natives and their practice of cannibalism by implying that his European people are even crueler due to the corruption of society.
Europeans have damaged the pure state of nature with their overspent, while the “savages” live in a state of bliss. “So we may call these people barbarians, in respect to the rules of reason, but not in respect to ourselves who surpass them in every kind of barbarity” (Imitation 158). Imitation is implying that part of our deferred human nature is to view any other belief, lifestyle, or ritual different than ours as barbaric”… Each man calls barbarism whatever is not his own 152).

Michael De Imitation believes that the natives lifestyle is our origin of society; the Western culture is the lifestyle presented by the soiled human mind. He tastes “Neither is it reasonable that art should gain the pre-eminence of our great and powerful mother nature. We have so surcharged her with the additional ornaments and graces we have added to the beauty and riches of her own works by our inventions, that have almost smothered her” (Imitation 1 52) thus exemplifying how our society has taken away the value of purity and simplification.
Consequently, Imitation sheds light upon how our human nature also continuously pushes us to reach further than we can. Our society originated upon simplicity of the natives “They are still in that pappy state of desiring only as much as their natural needs demand, anything beyond that is superfluous to them” (Imitation 1 56) we have evolved to become a barbaric society that finds natures purity mundane. The ethnographic resource that Imitation used to determine his stance upon human nature is primarily a secondary source man who lived with the natives for ten to twelve years.
Essentially, Imitation used the information from this man to draw his conclusions regarding human nature and the origin of our society. This information enabled him to make a drastic comparison between he two groups, allowing him to oversimplify the natives and bash on the Western Europeans. With these resources, Imitation stated that our pure unsoiled human nature is good and our society and desire to strive for more has corrupted us and consequently propelled the evolution in human behavior.
All of Montage’s beliefs are primarily drawn from another man who lived with the natives, since this is a secondary resource Montage’s credibility is highly questionable and more likely to be biased upon is interpretation of that man. Another significant writer whose thoughts and ideas correlate with Michael De Imitation is Rousseau Jean-Jacques. In Rousseau The Social Contract and Discourses he described all the different types of inequalities that exist between humans in an attempt to determine whether they are “natural/physical” or “unnatural”.
His overall belief, like Imitation, is that human nature is innately good and it is our society that has corrupted us. Rousseau states that the savage man is self sufficient and content with what he has, “l see him satisfying his hunger at the first brook; finding his bed at the foot of the tree which afforded him a repast; and, with hat, all his wants supplied” (Rousseau 47). Rousseau begins by explaining how the nature of man is very similar to that of an animal and the only difference between man and animals appear when the concept of perfectibility and free will is included. With this difference, that in the operations of the brute, nature is the sole agent, whereas man has some share in his own operations, in his character as a free agent. The one chooses and refuses by instinct, the other from an act of free will” (Rousseau 53). The underlying inequality between the two demonstrates that man yearns to Moore the nature in which things must be and rather chooses to follow their free will, “men run into excesses which bring on fevers and death; because the mind depraves the senses, and the will continues to speak when nature is silent” (Rousseau 54).
It is in our human nature to adapt to our natural environments and survive upon what nature has provided us with; ‘those who come well formed into the world she renders strong and robust, and all the rest she destroys” (Rousseau 48). Rousseau questions the civilized man by highlighting what his abilities could be without machines. He states “If he has n axe, would he have been able with his naked arm to break so large a branch? If he had a sling would he be able to throw a stone with so great velocity… F he had a horse, would he have been himself so swift of a foot? “(Rousseau 48). All of these questions emphasize that man is and should be capable of completing all basic tasks without the aid of machines that our society has created. An isolated man without all of these equipment’s is forced to adapt and shape himself to his environment, thus proving that our human nature is self sufficient and good without societies corruption. We ay conclude that the origin of our society consists of savage men who did not have the power civilized men do.
Essentially, the change in our society corrupted human nature and caused a great sense of inequality “Give civilized man time to gather all his machines about him, and he will no doubt easily beat the savage; but if you would see a still more unequal contest, set them together naked and unarmed, and you will soon see the advantage of having all our forces at our disposal”(Rousseau 48). Thus proving how our society has corrupted natural law and created new forms of inequality that defy eternalness. The overall force that propelled a change in our society is the increase of human population.
As times began to evolve men started to settle down, build families, and create languages, which resulted in the development of reason and ultimately striped us from our natural environment. “By become inning domesticated they lose half these advantages… As he becomes social and a slave, he grows weak, timid, and servile; his effeminate way of life totally enervates his strength and courage” (Rousseau 52). Rousseau drew his ethnographic resource from Thomas Hobbler’s work n the state of human nature by countering him completely.
Hobbes believed that when a man is in his natural state his is in an egocentric violent state, and society is the only way to prevent that. Rousseau defies his beliefs by claiming the opposite, when a man is in a state of nature he is with peace and happiness and society is what corrupts that. The last philosophical writer, Thomas Hobbes, portrays a perspective on human nature that defies Imitation and Rousseau. Hobbes believes that human nature is entirely greedy and ill without the stabilization provided by a greater power such as he establishment of a state to protect all its citizens.
Hobbes begins his argument by claiming that he has found a greater equality than strength amongst men, which is their wisdom (Hobbes 183). He then continues to State that human nature is greedy, envious, and self praising ‘Yet they will hardly believe that any so wise as themselves, for they see their own wit at hand and other men’s at a distance” (Hobbes 184). This explains why man lives in a constant state of reaction to the worldly encounters he has, thus provoking his desires and wants in the world.
At a pure state of nature man is essentially fighting three things “Competition, diffidence, and glory” and this is all for the desire of gain, safety, and reputation of man (Hobbes 185). Essentially, the state of nature makes men go against each other and create a constant state of war “during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in the condition which is called Ware; and such a Ware, as if every man, against every man” (Hobbes 185). In a pure state of nature any man can kill anyone creating a constant fear and anxiety since everyone is essentially equal.
When taking a journey his arms himself, and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep he locks his odors; when even in his house he locks his chests” (Hobbes 186-187). Hobbes claims that it is not a sin that human nature is to feel insecure and greedy of one another because everyone man just wants to protect his own life, but the only solution is to have a greater power to protect everyone’s right. “The desires and other passions of men are in themselves no sin. “No more are the actions that proceed from those passions, till they know a Law that forbids them”(Hobbes 187).
By having a greater power protecting everyone’s life, man is able to live in a state of peace “Where there is no Common Power, there is no Law; Where no Law, no Injustice Force and Fraud are in Ware the two Cardinal virtues” (Hobbes 188) Hobbes believes that having a greater power to protect all men’s lives is what our society originated upon. Without society, man alone is a greedy, lustful, and selfish for the protection of his own well- being. In a state of pure nature all men are equal and anyone can kill each other, our society (greater power) comes in to protect everyone of their sights, thus saving humanity.
Essentially, mans envious selfish desire propelled a change for a higher power, thus demonstrating the evolution of human history from solitude to civilization. Hobbes most likely used the Jesuit Relations as his ethnographic resources to draw his conclusions. This to some degree is a biased conclusion because he is stating that the only solution to the greedy human nature is a greater power of protection, in reality there may be several other solutions as well. All three philosophical thinkers are similar and very different in regards to the concept of human nature.
In general, all three thinkers agree that society has propelled a change within our human nature. Imitation and Rousseau believe that society corrupted our human nature, while Hobbes believes that it protected us. Overall, the thought processes and beliefs of all writers are biased in regards to the time period they are living in. Each writer is speaking in perspective to what is going on in the current society and their interpretations of it. This allows us to understand how our history has changed and the overall effects it has upon human nature; which is constantly evolving based on society.

Categories
Philosophy

Sri Aurobindo Essay

We have provided below some essay on Sri Aurobindo under various words limit in order to help students during any competition or exam. Now-a-days, essays or paragraphs writing are common strategy followed by the teachers in schools and colleges. It helps students in enhancing their skill and knowledge about any topic.
Long and Short Essay on Sri Aurobindo in English
All the Sri Aurobindo essay provided here are written using easy and simple sentences in order to fulfill the students need and requirement. So, students can select any of the essays given below:

Sri Aurobindo Essay 1 (100 words)
Sri Aurobindo Ghose was born on 15th of August in 1872 at Calcutta, Bengal Presidency, British India
(now Kolkata, West Bengal, India). He was born as Aurobindo Acroyd Ghose to the Krishna Dhun Ghose (father) and Swarnalotta Devi (mother). He had two elder siblings (named as Benoybhusan and Manmohan) and two younger siblings (named as Sarojini and Barindrakumar).
His communication language was English from the early childhood however he also learned Hindi language to communicate with servants. He was from Bengali family however his father always believed in British culture for his family. He was sent to the English-speaking Loreto House boarding school in Darjeeling with his elder siblings in order to improve their language skill.
Sri Aurobindo Essay 2 (150 words)
Sri Aurobindo Ghose was an Indian nationalist, yogi, guru, philosopher, short story writer, essayist, poet, translator, critic, playwright, journalist, historian, and autobiographer. He was a great modern philosophers and a prolific author who had given his views on God, nature, humankind, and universe in his various writings of poetry and prose. He always believed in the unity which we mostly see in his all the writings. He was born as Aurobindo Acroyd Ghose on 15th of August in 1872 at Calcutta, Bengal Presidency, British India (now called as Kolkata, West Bengal, India). His parents were named as Krishna Dhun Ghose and Swarnalotta Devi.
He was third child out of six children and born in the high-caste standing family. Because of his father’s interest in the western lifestyle, he and his siblings learned western way of life very well including English speaking skill from the childhood. He was given an English nanny from the early childhood and took his first formal education from the convent school in Darjeeling.

Sri Aurobindo Essay 3 (200 words)
Aurobindo Acroyd Ghose was born in Calcutta in a Bengali family on 15th of August in 1872. His father name was Krishna Dhun Ghose (Assistant Surgeon of Rangapur in Bengal) and mother name was Swarnalotta Devi. He was born in a well established and high standard Bengali family where he was provided all the standard facilities from the early childhood. The surrounding environment of his family was completely influenced by the western culture. Two elder siblings of him were Benoybhusan and Manmohan and younger siblings were sister Sarojini and brother Barindrakumar.
Young Aurobindo was very brilliant and knew well the speaking English however also learned Hindustani language to communicate with servants.
Sri Aurobindo was an Indian nationalist, great philosopher, guru, yogi, and a poet. He joined the Indian independence movement against British rule and became an influential leader and later a spiritual reformer. His visions and views were towards the human progress and spiritual evolution in the country. He took his studies for Indian Civil Service at King’s College, Cambridge, England. He went to jail many times because of writing some articles against British rule in India. Later he left politics and moved to Pondicherry for spiritual work.

Sri Aurobindo Essay 4 (250 words)
Sri Aurobindo was born on 15th of August in 1872 in Calcutta. His father, Krishna Dhun Ghose, was very enthusiastic towards his education and sent him London for higher studies. His mother name was Swarnalotta Devi. He was very brilliant boy in study and knew well the English speaking. Once he sat and passed in the prestigious examination of Indian Civil Service (conducted in London) however could not selected as he refused to give test in riding which was a compulsory test. It was not the matter that he was not interested in riding test however he was not interested to serve British rule through his services. He sat in the exam only to satisfy his father as he wanted him to become a Civil Service officer.
He completed his studies in London and returned to India then he started actively participating in Indian politics by joining the Indian independence movement. Once he joined the terrorist movement where he edited a weekly magazine “Jiigantar”. Due to the fear of being arrested by the British Government, he escaped to Pondichery where he got some relief and continued his activities. Later he changed to be a Saint in his life and he started serving for humanity and welfare of Indian people. It was the time when he got popularity as Sri Aurobindo. He opened various Ashrams which are now used to teach people about how to live a healthy and happy life.

Sri Aurobindo Essay 5 (300 words)
Aurobindo Acroyd Ghose was born in Calcutta, Bengal Presidency, India on 15th of August in 1872 to the Krishna Dhun Ghose (his father) and Swarnalotta Devi (his mother). He was given a western culture environment in his family thus he was very fast in speaking English however also learned Hindustani to communicate through the servants. He was born in a well established and modern Bengali family where his father always given priority to the British culture.
He was sent to Loreto House boarding school in Darjeeling to learn English-speaking in order to improve language skills. Then, he was sent (after education at Loreto Convent, Darjeeling) to the England for further studies where he studied at St. Paul’s School, London and got a senior classical scholarship. Later he joined another college in London named King’s College, Cambridge in 1890.
Sri Aurobindo Ghose was one of the most popular philosophers of modern India. For some time he was also a leader of the Indian independence movement who later became a yogi, guru and a mystic. After completing his studies from abroad, he returned to India and got indulge in Indian culture, religion and philosophy. He also learned Sanskrit in India. Later he involved in the freedom movement of the country against British rule. He was involved in the activity when Indian people were requested to prohibit and stay away from all the foreign-made goods and programmes of British rule. For his pro-swaraj activities, he was arrested and jailed by the British rule in Alipore for a year in 1910.
During his imprisonment he got spiritual experience which influenced him a lot and led him to become a yogi. After imprisonment he went to Pondicherry and founded an ashram. He successfully published a philosophical journal named “The Arya” in which he mentioned his famous writings such as ‘The Synthesis of Yoga’, ‘The Ideal of Human Unity’, and ‘The Life Divine’.

Sri Aurobindo Essay 6 (400 words)
Sri Aurobindo Ghose was born as Aurobindo Acroyd Ghose who later became famous as Sri Aurobindo Maharishi. He was a great philosopher, patriot, revolutionary, guru, mystic, yogi, poet, and humanist. He was born in Kolkata in 1872 on 15th of August in a standard Bengali family. His family surrounding environment was full of British culture because of his father interest. He took his early childhood education by the English nanny so he developed good English speaking skill. His later studies were completed in Darjeeling and London.
His father Krishna Dhun Ghose always wanted his sons to enter to the Indian Civil Service. To achieve this success he sent Aurobindo Ghose to study in England where he was admitted to the good English school. He was a multilingual person and knew English, French, Bengali, Sanskrit, etc very well. He was very natural to the English as it was his childhood language. He was well aware that English was good medium of communication at that time. Using English language to exchange expression, ideas, and instruction was of great advantage. He was a person of high moral character which made him able to become a teacher, writer, thinker, and editor. He was a good writer who wrote in his various writings about humanity, philosophy, education, Indian culture, religion, and politics.
He met Bal Gangadhar Tilak in Ahmadabad Congress Session in 1902 where he really got influenced by his dynamic and revolutionary personality. He joined the Indian freedom struggle by getting inspired with Bal Gangadhar Tilak. He again joined the Congress at Lucknow in 1916 and became a chief supporter with Lala Lajpat Rai and Bipin Chandra Pal for the militant nationalism in order to get freedom from British rule. They requested people to come forward and do sacrifices for the freedom. They never accepted any help and support from the Britishers as they always believed in “Swaraj”.
He got some help from the Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in order to extend revolutionary activities outside the Bengal. Various effective ways of achieving freedom including refusal of foreign goods and militant actions are mentioned by the Aurobindo in his “Bande Mataram”. His effective writings and speeches helped him to spread the message of Swadeshi, Swaraj, and boycott of foreign things to the people of India. He was the founder of Sri Aurobindo Ashram Auroville. He died on 5th of December in 1950 in Pondicherry (currently called Puducherry), French India.

Categories
Philosophy

Comparing and Contrasting the Philosophies

Chelsea Long Philosophy 100-005 Prompt 2 Final Essay Even though they were separated by thousands of years, hundreds of miles, and different cultures, the philosophical views of Friedrich Nietzsche and Plato can be examined and weighed against each other in many different ways. Friedrich Nietzsche, born in 1844, was a German philosopher whose main goal was to erect a new image for the people and to create a free spirit in them. Plato, born in 427 B. C. , was a Greek philosopher whose main goal was to create a new way of thinking about the world itself, knowledge itself, philosophy itself, and the individual.
Both philosophers have obvious similarities; their literary style of writing is perhaps the most apparent, but also their desire to create a new way of thinking for the people in which they hoped to influence. Nietzsche thought that by standing outside of society and looking at it from a different view, one could take on the ideal of a free spirit. Analogous to this view is Plato’s view from the allegory of the cave which illustrates humans as being completely unaware of what the actual world is.
Even though they lived in completely different societies, both philosophers thought that the view of the world that society holds shelters the individual from seeing the true nature of reality. However, the nature of said reality was very different for both philosophers. Nietzsche believed in a “what you see is what you get” kind of view of reality. His “amor fati” view of reality posed that in order to achieve an optimistic view; the individual must learn to love fate. This also involves accepting reality for exactly what it is and not creating a false sense of “reality”—what the person would “like” to see.

Because of Nietzsche’s opinion that ‘God is dead” he believed that this life was all there was, so the best way to live was to realize the true actuality of the world, and to also use the love of what is real and actual to enjoy life. Plato, on the other hand, had a completely different concept of reality. His theory of the “forms” illustrated everything that we see in this world as just a less perfect model of the actual “form” of the thing or idea. Nothing that we see in this world is actual or perfect, but is just an imperfect imitation.
Plato’s divided line interpretation presents the universe into the visible realm (images, copies, plants, animals) and the intelligible realm (mathematics, ideas, and the forms); literally a two-tiered view of reality. This differs greatly from Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche rejects this “two-tiered” view of reality; he believes that having this view of reality is actually detrimental and hinders the individual from living a full and optimistic life. Although their views on how the individual is shielded by society are similar, the view on reality of Nietzsche and Plato is one of the main differences in their philosophical outlooks.
Nietzsche and Plato both put a considerable amount of emphasis on creating the individual and viewing life as a work of art that is a canvas for knowledge and value, thus asking the question: “What constitutes a virtuous life? ” Both philosophers believe in turning ones back on the morals and values that society holds and exploring these morals and values for the individual themselves. One of the most famous Greek aphorisms is “know thyself. ” Nietzsche and Plato both believe that creating ourselves as individuals will lead to happiness.
However, the journey of self-discovery is different for each philosopher. Plato believes that knowledge is the most important factor in the creation of virtue and happiness. Seeking after knowledge leads to the affirmation of values and virtue, which then leads to happiness. By taking the time to learn and wonder and discover understanding for ourselves, we can achieve contentment. Nietzsche, on the other hand, believes that pure academic scholarship is not the way to liberate the free-thinkers of the future.
Also, Nietzsche considers the revaluation of values, which means that old values need to be reconsidered to find justification of life within life. He believes that knowledge has the ability to not take itself too seriously. Nietzsche is an advocate for uniting knowledge and play. He supposes that we create our values ourselves and do not discover them from nature or reason, as supposed by Plato. However, both philosophers believe that knowing your own ignorance and having a willingness to accept the fact that we are sometimes wrong and at fault is a vital step in creating the morals and values that we hold.
Another main similarity between the philosophies of Nietzsche and Plato is the belief that the greatest individual is not the wealthiest, but the thinker, the artist, the musician, and namely, the philosopher. Both hold the love of wisdom in high regard (although Plato holds it in higher regard that Nietzsche). The goal of this is to pass on the views of one to many, therefore changing the views of society. With or without meaning to, both of these philosophers are trying to evoke a rise in society. Plato and Nietzsche both were suspicious of government and wanted people to be at war with their time.
From doing so, they hoped to create a change on an individual’s outlook on life. As with most philosophers, the philosophical method of both Plato and Nietzsche was influenced by philosophers before them. Plato is the well-known protege of Socrates. Many of Plato’s dialogues include Socrates in them or are written about Socrates, such as The Apology, which is Plato’s account of the trial of Socrates. These are called Plato’s Socratic Dialogues. The philosophical views of Socrates greatly influenced the views of Plato. Nietzsche was widely influenced by the philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer.
After studying the view of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche’s writings sometimes included him supporting or rejecting Schopenhauer’s philosophical viewpoint. The optimism found in Nietzsche’s philosophy results from his rejection of Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophical viewpoint. One of the biggest differences between Plato and Nietzsche comes from their view of Socrates. While Socrates was a role model to Plato, he was the opposite for Nietzsche. Socrates often demanded the “truth at all costs” –meaning that no matter how much hurt or disorder the truth costs, it should still be told for the sake of truth itself.
Nietzsche questioned to what extent truth can be endured. He then goes on to shift the term he uses for truth. “Truth” is errors believed to be true by philosophers (examples are equal things, substance, and free will). Nietzsche’s TRUTH relies on the recognition that previous “truths” are founded on errors and that knowledge is limited, which is the opposite of Socrates’ conception of truth. By letting go of previous “truths” we can thus understand the TRUTH. Not all truth comes from knowledge, but from error as well.
Another main difference between the philosophical views of Socrates and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche looked at philosophy as an “intellectual science” and not a science. He viewed philosophy in more of a humanities category and as a spiritual science. Socrates, on the other hand, viewed philosophy as the most important of all sciences. Nietzsche also criticizes Socrates in other ways. He attacks his personality. To Nietzsche, Socrates “pretended” to be a rebel against society (a sort of “free spirit” in Nietzsche’s book); however, when Socrates was sentenced in Athens, he gave in and became a “slave to society. Nietzsche’s philosophy says that this life is all we have so we need to enjoy it. From looking at Socrates’ famous last words: “Now that I am dying, I owe the god of medicine a debt,” Nietzsche concludes that Socrates didn’t enjoy his life. Socrates is saying in his last words that life is just one big disease. This goes against all of Nietzsche’s philosophy, which unites the tragedy of existence with the comedy of life. The viewpoint of Nietzsche and Plato on the philosophical view of Socrates is a major difference between the two philosophers. Much of Nietzsche’s philosophy comes from his conclusion that “God is dead. This view on religion is another major difference between Plato and Nietzsche. While Nietzsche was considered an atheist, Plato believed in the principle of God. Plato’s “God” was the Form of “the Good. ” The “Good” did not even fall on Plato’s divided line but was raised above it, shining down all both the visible and intelligible realm. Everything strives to be like the Form of the Good, but can never attain it (similar to the Christian view of Jesus –a perfect “good” that people strive to be but can never reach). Because Nietzsche and Plato had such differing views on religion, their philosophies as a whole are quite different.
There are similarities that can be picked out of both men’s viewpoints –however the conceptual differences outweigh the resemblance. Plato’s and Nietzsche’s differing views on the nature of reality, the journey of self-discovery, the philosophy of Socrates, and religion cause Nietzsche to be critical of Plato. Nietzsche completely rejects much of Plato’s core philosophical view. The main aspect Nietzsche is critical of Plato is Plato’s two-tiered view of the world. Nietzsche whole philosophy is centered on the realization that what we have now is all we will ever have.
Plato takes that philosophy and changes it completely – creating a whole new realm that is not visible to the human eye. Even though both philosophers believe in overcoming society, the importance of self-creation, knowing your own faults, and putting the philosopher in high acclaim, I would argue that the differences between the Nietzsche and Plato cannot be reconciled. The foremost cores of their philosophical viewpoints will never match up. Nietzsche will never agree with a two-tiered view of reality and one of Plato’s biggest belief systems is the Forms. Socrates will always be a hero to Plato, whereas he is not in Nietzsche’s opinion.
One of the philosopher’s would have to change the entire concepts of their philosophy in order for the two viewpoints to reconcile. Personally, I agree more with Nietzsche’s philosophy. Even though I do not believe that God is dead, I do think that religion is dying in our society. We are experiencing a cultural shift toward a more secular society. In the wake of this, I have noticed people have started to live their lives for the “right-now. ” Also, I think that we should love fate and accept the reality of lives. In my opinion, people who live in a fantasy land aren’t truly living.
People who accept their disappointments in life and are still happy and optimistic are more admirable to me. Additionally, I like how Nietzsche thinks that we should take the time to create ourselves in life. Creating yourself, to me, is the most important thing we can do. By looking away from what society tells us to do or be, we can truly becoming “free” and in doing so, live happier lives. I feel as though Nietzsche wants us to enjoy the small things in life and to take life as it comes. Honestly, Nietzsche has been my favorite philosopher to read and study, and the one whose viewpoint I agree with the most.