OPPapers.com Essay Index >> Philosophy >> &Quot;Value For Life&Quot; And Nietzsche
We have many free term papers and essays on &Quot;Value For Life&Quot; And Nietzsche. We also have a wide variety of research papers and book reports available to you for free. You can browse our collection of term papers or use our search engine.
Submitted by VanAise on November 4, 2006
Category: Philosophy
Words: 971 | Pages: 4
Views: 856
Popularity Rank: 7,337
Average Member Grade: N/A (Add a Comment / Grade this Paper)
What is so significant about the concept of a “value for life?” Are our concepts and commitments only valid in regards to their usefulness?
In “The Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” Nietzsche makes the comment that persons should “ serve history only to the extent that history serves life”, or perhaps in others words humanity should perceive, comprehend and interpret history only to the point of its utility. Further, he advocates what he calls the “active forgetting” of events, the letting go of them, for he argues that “when it [history] attains a certain degree of excess, life crumbles and degenerates, and through this degeneration history itself finally degenerates also.” On face value such a concept may not seem very insightful, but a closer analysis raises some important questions and these will be the focus of this paper.
One of the most important issues that arises when introducing the reader with the concept of a “value for life” is precisely what is meant by such a term, for its significance is crucial to assessing Nietzsche’s comments on history. If history is to be subservient to life, as he suggests, then what does life mean? Given the content of the text it appears that he uses the term to refer to the seemingly never-ending process of “becoming”, the constant flux that creates the future. Thus as long as history assists this process then history of useful. But then we come to another important line of enquiry. Whose process of becoming is he referring to? The individual’s or the collective’s? As I see it, the text on this point is not entirely clear. He seems to move between the individual and society at will, leaving one with the nagging sensation of the Aristotelian concept of the common good. However regardless of whether he refers to one or the other the most pressing question is who gets to define for both the individual or society or both what is good for life and what is not? It is on this point...
You must Login to view the entire paper.
If you are not a member yet, Sign Up for free!