Free Will Through the Eyes of Nietzsche
In her essay “Nietzsche's Existentialist Freedom,” Ariela Tubert explains and articulates why she agrees with Robert Solomon about how Nietzsche’s ideas about what freedom truly is categorizes him as an existentialist thinker. In addition, Tubert also constructs an argument on how Nietzsche specifies a specific kind of freedom that humans have. Tubert defends her position and interpretation of Nietzsche within the four sections of her essay. In the first section, Tubert analyzes Nietzsche’s idea of fixed individual natures that then leads into her second section, which explains Nietzsche’s view on determinism and free will.
In the third section of the essay, Tubert argues how Nietzsche’s psychological claims lead to the idea that consciousness plays a role in free will. Lastly, Tubert explains how all of Nietzsche’s different views can be seen as compliments rather than opposing forces and as a result be able to view him as an existentialist thinker. This paper will closely examine and critique Tubert’s interpretation of both Solomon and Nietzsche within each section of her essay and conclude with a personal understanding of Nietzsche’s ideas.
According to Ariela Tubert, Nietzsche’s idea of fixed individual natures says that we, as humans, cannot create ourselves out of nothing. There has to be something already existing for us to be able to develop who we are. Nietzsche, however, specifies that depending on what is available to us when we come into existence along with our environment, it can reduce the number of opportunities we can have. Nietzsche also talks about how we, as humans, are held accountable for our actions, motives, the effect we have on other people, and lastly for our nature (Nietzsche 410). Tubert’s interpretation of this quote is, since our circumstances lead to our nature, therefore, our circumstances also lead to the options that we are allowed to have.
Order custom essay Free Will Through the Eyes of Nietzsche with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
Tubert then goes on to describe two concepts: global determinism and psychic determinism. Tubert introduces these two concepts in order to justify how Nietzsche's view on fixed individual natures is closer related to the idea of psychic determinism, how our circumstances do not automatically determine what our future will be, simply that our circumstances restrict the choices that we are allowed to have. For this reason, Tubert then mentions Solomon’s view of fate and how it contrasts with some parts of Nietzsche’s view on fixed individual natures. Likewise, she goes on to explain what fatalism and determinism mean and how they differ from each other.
To Solomon, fatalism simply means that the end result is determined, but the road to how we get to the end is not set in stone. Therefore, the story of every person’s life is led by what the end result is supposed to be. Tubert’s interpretation of how Solomon views fatalism is that it relies on the connection between a person’s character and how life ends a certain way. Tubert ends her first paragraph by giving a sculpture analogy to explain Nietzsche when he says how we cannot create ourselves out of nothing. When someone is an artist or a sculptor, in order to create art, he or she needs to have their supplies at hand. It is up to the artists which of the supplies they use, the same way individuals decide which characteristics they want to apply in their lives.
Nietzsche challenges dualistic ideas in various ways because we, as humans, like to think of two concepts as separate, like emotion and reason. Tubert focuses on the dichotomy of freedom and determinism and how Nietzsche challenges them, questioning whether we have free will or if our behavior is determined. Tubert briefly mentions a radical view of free will, self-causing, and the idea that you can create yourself out of nothing. How the idea of self-causing contradicts Nietzsche’s view of fixed individual natures, which “precludes self-creation out of nothing, but it does not preclude the possibility of choosing otherwise” (Tubert 413). Tubert acknowledges that Nietzsche is opposed to the idea of free will, which would make people think he must believe in determinism, when he is not.
On the other hand, Tubert mentions that Nietzsche does leave room that we, as humans, have freedom in making choices. Tubert then presents an idea where it is possible to disagree with Nietzsche, by denying that we are not self-causing at all, one has to therefore imply that all of our actions have already been determined for us. Tubert then returns to explaining Nietzsche’s view on determinism and individuals having alternative possibilities that we, as humans, are not free to do anything at all, but neither are we determined to do one thing. We have some amount of choice within limits.
This argument is made when Nietzsche says that there is a correlation between the states of minds with other things that can actually be known. What is not known is what “causes” our free will; therefore, Nietzsche cannot hold a view of determinism. The way that Tubert interprets Nietzsche is focusing more on a psychological theory rather than a metaphysical one. Under this circumstance, Nietzsche claims that the origin of our actions are unknown. According to Tubert, Nietzsche’s view on alternative possibilities is that we, as humans, have no knowledge of them. Further, if we somehow did know, we would constantly try to love through cause and effect. We do not truly know what our future holds or what drives us to do things.
Tubert begins her third section by presenting a view from Brian Leiter and how he argues how Nietzsche’s psychology denies that humans have free will. That Nietzsche’s psychology denies that humans can have alternative possibilities. To Leiter, “Nietzsche takes consciousness to be epiphenomenal” (Tubert 416). Tubert presents Leiter’s view of Nietzsche to then be able to defend and set up her view of Nietzsche, which is that consciousness has an indirect effect on the choices we make, together with how we develop our character. Tubert also argues how the metaphysical claim, that we do not have free will, is not what Nietzsche’s psychology is trying to invest him in.
Instead, Tubert introduces Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment, how we become our own biggest critics when we make ourselves feel guilty. Ressentiment consequently is a symptom of us creating moral values, how we try to add importance to certain beliefs we have. With this meaning in mind, ressentiment changes when our thoughts change, when our morals change. “Consciousness may play a role in affecting our drives, we don’t really have any control over our conscious minds, it is a purely a result of our drives” (Tubert 417).
Humans are strange because we do not truly know what affects our actions, other than there is a connection between the three things that Tubert mentions in the quote. Tubert ends her second section through interpreting how consciousness arose in humans according to Nietzsche. Consciousness is simply a tool that we, as humans, have to be able to live with one another; otherwise, we would be self-destructive.
Tubert explains how Nietzsche’s views the ideas of freedom and self-creation makes it possible to categorize him as an existentialist thinker. Tubert, once again, acknowledges that Nietzsche is opposed to the idea of free will, but that we as humans at least have some freedom in making choices. How Nietzsche’s view of what free will is not, does not relate to textbook facts, but rather our own experiences. The definition Tubert provides is true “freedom” is being able to make choices and act according to the morals we have been taught. To make use of the tools we have been giving even if we do not use them all, this is what freedom means to Nietzsche. The downside of this though is that sometimes we are not aware that we have a bit of freedom in simple choices.
Nietzsche call these our drives, and they can be weakened or made stronger depending on how we decide to express them. An example Tubert gives is how different people express their anger, one can walk away from it or can obsess about it later and get upset all over again. Nietzsche does not think that self-creation and fixed individual natures are separate but rather complementary, to focus on the most necessary parts of these two concepts. To become self-overcoming by knowing how to differentiate between wants and needs, and also being aware of the tools that we were given that can help us make this distinction. Tubert finalizes her essay by stating how Nietzsche and Sartre share the same definition for the idea of self-creation, being aware of what tools you were given and deciding on you will use them.
To summarize what was was said, I examined and critiqued Tubert’s interpretation of both Solomon and Nietzsche within each section of her essay. From what I understood, Nietzsche challenges different types ideas that fall under dualism, Tubert focuses on freedom and determinism through the four sections of her essay. Throughout the essay however, Tubert kept presenting other arguments and ideas in order to better defend hers, which sometimes was misleading.
Tubert began her essay by defending why she agrees with Robert Solomon about how Nietzsche’s ideas about what freedom truly is categorizes him as an existentialist thinker. Then mentions that although Nietzsche does not believe in free will, we have freedom in some of the choices we make. This idea is then explain through Nietzsche’s psychological claims, the idea that consciousness plays a role in free will. Tubert finalizes her arguments by explaining how all of Nietzsche’s different views can be seen as compliments rather than opposing forces and as a result be able to view him as an existentialist thinker.
Cite this Page
Free Will Through the Eyes of Nietzsche. (2023, Feb 12). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/free-will-through-the-eyes-of-nietzsche/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
