What “prejudice” does Nietzsche uncover regarding philosophers’ pursuit of the truth? In his view, is the truth of greater value than lies and deception in promoting a good life? What unconsciously guides or directs philosophical reasoning? What does Nietzsche mean when he says that philosophy “always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise.”
What is Nietzsche’s criticism of eudaimonism or hedonism?
In the film, The Matrix, what does Neo learn is the truth about reality—and what does he learn is a lie or a fabrication? Which does the film suggest is preferable, or more conducive to a good life: knowing the truth or living a lie?
Sample Solution
Nietzsche uncovers the prejudice that philosophers often make assumptions about the nature of truth without fully examining them. He suggests that there is a personal, subjective element to philosophical reasoning, and an underlying bias towards one’s own beliefs in what is “true” or “good.” While Nietzsche does not wholly dismiss the pursuit of truth, he maintains that it must be accompanied by self-reflection so as to avoid making sweeping, unfounded assumptions about the world.
Nietzsche does not prioritize truth over lies and deception in promoting a good life; rather, he argues that their relative value depends on context and perspective. He notes that lies can sometimes serve useful purposes if employed strategically, while truths can also bring harm given certain circumstances. Ultimately, Nietzsche believes it is important to think critically and reflectively before forming any judgments about either truth or falsehood.
Sample Solution
Nietzsche uncovers the prejudice that philosophers often make assumptions about the nature of truth without fully examining them. He suggests that there is a personal, subjective element to philosophical reasoning, and an underlying bias towards one’s own beliefs in what is “true” or “good.” While Nietzsche does not wholly dismiss the pursuit of truth, he maintains that it must be accompanied by self-reflection so as to avoid making sweeping, unfounded assumptions about the world.
Nietzsche does not prioritize truth over lies and deception in promoting a good life; rather, he argues that their relative value depends on context and perspective. He notes that lies can sometimes serve useful purposes if employed strategically, while truths can also bring harm given certain circumstances. Ultimately, Nietzsche believes it is important to think critically and reflectively before forming any judgments about either truth or falsehood.
as an excuse to wage war in response to anticipated wrong,’ suggesting we cannot just harm another just because they have done something unjust. Other factors need to be considered, for example, Proportionality.
Thirdly, Vittola argues that war should be avoided (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332) and that we should proceed circumstances diplomatically. This is supported by the “last resort” stance in Frowe, where war should not be permitted unless all measures to seek diplomacy fails (Frowe (2011), Page 62). This means war shouldn’t be declared until one party has no choice but to declare war, in order to protect its territory and rights, the aim of war. However, we can also argue that the war can never be the last resort, given there is always a way to try to avoid it, like sanctions or appeasement, showing Vittola’s theory is flawed.
Fourthly, Vittola questions upon whose authority can demand a declaration of war, where he implies any commonwealth can go to war, but more importantly, “the prince” where he has “the natural order” according to Augustine, and all authority is given to him. This is further supported by Aristotle’s Politics ((1996), Page 28): ‘a king is the natural superior of his subjects.’ However, he does later emphasise to put all faith in the prince is wrong and has consequences; a thorough examination of the cause of war is required along with the willingness to negotiate rival party (Begby et al (2006b), Page 312& 318). This is supported by the actions of Hitler are deemed unjustly. Also, in today’s world, wars are no longer fought only by states but also non-state actors like Al-Queda and ISIS, showing Vittola’s normative claim on authority is outdated. This is further supported by Frowe’s claim that the leader needs to represent the people’s interests, under legitimate authority, which links on to the fourth condition: Public declaration of war. Agreed with many, there must be an official announcement on a declaration of war (Frowe (2011), Page 59-60&63).
Finally, the most controversial condition is that wars should have a reasonable chance of success. As Vittola reiterated, the aim of war is to establish peace and security; securing the public good. If this can’t be achieved, Frowe argues it would be better to surrender to the enemy. This can be justified because the costs of war would have been bigger (Frowe (2011), Page 56-7).
Consequently, jus ad bellum comprises several conditions but most importantly: just cause and proportionality. This gives people a guide whether it’s lawful to enter a war or not. However, this is only one part of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, it can be seen above that jus ad bellum can be de
