Question

You will be asked to come up with two original questions based on the work of two different authors in each week’s required readings. Think about what stood out to you in the works in question—what ideas, theories, or approaches did you find to be interesting, engaging, or perhaps intriguing or challenging? Your task is then to do your best to answer each of your own questions as incisively and thoroughly as possible within a word-count range of around 350-500 words maximum (posts with fewer than 250 words will not receive any credit). The word count includes your question but not any citations. You must cite at least one source, which will be the particular essay or article from the required readings you are addressing.

Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Preface, Parts 1, 2, & 3: [§1-62] pp. 3-57.

Study Guide: SparkNotes on Beyond Good and Evil. (Note: These notes cover the entire book; the section that relates to your specific assignment can be found on pp. 1-12; these notes will be very helpful in understanding Nietzsche's thinking, especially for those new to his work.).

My question is: What certainties are guaranteed in life? or you can change the question is if you can find a better one.

Answer 1

If we were to reflect back on to the profound musings of Nietzche, then he would begin his answer to the concerning questioning with the opening sentence, "The only certainties in life are that there are no immediate certainties."

He absolutely deplored the linguistic seductions and he believed that words had a way to gift wrap certain facts, only to present them in a way that was inherently illusive. He did not believe that there was harmony between two contradictions and that one could give birth to another, but quite the contrary; he said that a solitary thing has an origin of its own, and isn't dependent upon its existent contradiction. As he speak about truth he decidedly sheds light in the cat that truth and falsity are in synchronicity, that is they are in cahoots with one another.

He says that there is no absolute truth and that we shouldn't hence seek for an absolute truth because if we do, we have pigeonholed the entire paradigm, and made ourselves elusive and blind - as a result - because seeking an absolute truth means that we have failed to look at a given conundrum through different vantage points; have been dogmatic, as a result, to a solitary confined perspective that we claim, or want, to be the absolute truth.

He was of the view that free will is only believed by those who have an inner monologue to fulfill and try to prove a certain something in order to display a certain conviction that would be reflected through. That was the philosophers paradigm that isn't only limited to the misgivings of a philosophers but also a lay. He said that this inward certainty is prevalent 'to render obedience'