Comparison of Nietzsche’s Philosophy with Other Philosophers
Heraclitus and Parmenides
Heraclitus believed that reality is in constant flux, while Parmenides argued for immutability. Both, however, distrusted the senses, believing they deceive us. Nietzsche, like Heraclitus, asserted that reality is constantly changing. However, unlike them, he believed that the senses themselves do not lie, but rather that lying is the interpretation given by reason to the information provided by the senses.
Socrates and Plato
Nietzsche criticized Socrates for rejecting the senses and valuing reason, believing this led to the decline of Greece. He considered purely rational individuals weak for not accepting life as it is. Plato, seeking to overcome the relativism and skepticism of the Sophists, pursued true and universal knowledge. He introduced the division between the true and apparent world, with the world of ideas being eternal, rational, and immutable, while the world of appearances is despised. Nietzsche considered Plato’s world of ideas a fiction, a nonexistent world subordinate to the tangible world. He reversed the Platonic hierarchy, asserting that the real world is the sensible world, the world of life.
Christianity
Nietzsche viewed Christianity, rooted in Platonism, as the origin of an unnatural morality that condemns life. He believed it reversed the values of ancient Greece, proposing a slave morality in contrast to the heroic moral. Nietzsche sought another transvaluation of values, replacing Christian slave morality with the morality of the superman, who embraces life and passions, accepting the death of God.
Hume and Kant
Nietzsche agreed with Hume that there are no laws in nature and that relations between things are not necessary since there is no God to require it. Both rejected metaphysics, Nietzsche because he considered it a sign of decadence and Hume because we only have impressions of it. Nietzsche also shared Hume’s criticism of superstition, ecclesiastical power, and metaphysics. However, he rejected Kant’s transcendental idealism, both the rethinking of metaphysics from the postulates of practical reason and the optimism in his philosophy of history. Nietzsche believed that neither Christian dogma could be justified by practical reason nor was there reason to hope for moral progress.
Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx
Nietzsche, Freud, and Marx are considered “masters of suspicion” for their break with traditional philosophy. Freud attributed all psychic life to the influence of sexual appetite, Marx sought to explain all ideology from economic interests, and Nietzsche attributed the origin of our ideas and morality to the underlying life force: powerful (superman) or weakened (slave).
Hume, Ockham, and Descartes
Hume, influenced by Newton, attempted to apply the Newtonian method to moral science. He also referred to Newton to establish a kind of “law of gravity” for the contents of consciousness. Regarding God, Hume argued that we cannot affirm God’s existence beyond our impressions. He neither affirmed nor denied God’s existence, stating that we lack sensory impressions to do so. William of Ockham similarly believed that God is not provable by reason, advocating for faith over reason in understanding God. In this sense, Ockham can be considered a precursor to Hume’s skepticism about God’s existence. Hume adopted a deist perspective, believing that God created the world and its laws but does not intervene in it.
Descartes, Hume, and Kant on Knowledge
The problem of knowledge is a common concern for Descartes, Hume, and Kant. Descartes believed that reason is the source of truth and defended innate ideas, leading to unlimited knowledge. Hume, on the contrary, denied nativism, arguing that the origin and value of knowledge lie in experience, which only provides absolute certainty in mathematics. Kant agreed with Hume against Descartes, stating that both reason and experience are sources of knowledge.
Hume, Descartes, Locke, Berkeley, and Kant on Ideas
In his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Hume distinguished between impressions and ideas, with ideas being faint memories of impressions. For Descartes and Locke, an idea is a representation of reality. In Kant, the term “idea” has a different meaning, referring to metaphysical realities beyond experience.
Hume, Descartes, Ockham, Kant, Locke, and Berkeley on Metaphysics
Another difference between Hume and Descartes lies in metaphysics. For Descartes, metaphysics is fundamental, and he distinguishes three metaphysical realities: self, God, and the world. Descartes asserted the reality of the self as a thinking substance: “I think, therefore I am.” Hume denied this, arguing that we only have intuitions of our impressions and not of a unified self. Hume rejected metaphysics as unscientific and empty. Ockham shared this view, considering metaphysics as nonsense and advocating for the removal of terms not related to concrete concepts (Ockham’s razor). Kant also denied metaphysics as knowledge of pure reason, but considered it morally significant. Locke accepted Descartes’s metaphysics, while Berkeley denied the material world but accepted the self and God.
Hume, Aristotle, and Ockham on Empiricism
Hume and Aristotle share some common ground but also differ in their views. Aristotle maintained an empiricist approach, where knowledge is based on sensory perception. Hume was also an empiricist, believing that knowledge comes from experience and that there are no innate ideas, a view shared by Aristotle. However, while Aristotle believed in both the senses and reason’s ability to abstract, Hume denied any form of abstraction, reducing everything to experience and considering universal ideas as mere names. Ockham shared this thought. Hume’s fundamental contribution was to take empiricism to its logical conclusion.