Nietzsche’s Critique: Twilight of the Idols & Plato
Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols: Key Concepts
Summary of Texts (pp. 205-207)
- Nietzsche criticizes previous philosophers, calling them “conceptual mummies.” He suggests that to be a philosopher in their tradition is to engage in monotonous, gravedigger-like mimicry.
- He continues his critique, making an exception for Heraclitus. He argues that philosophers rejected the testimony of the senses because they revealed multiplicity and change (though he acknowledges Heraclitus was unfair to the senses). He believes philosophers falsified sensory experience. Nietzsche suggests Heraclitus was correct in stating that “being” is an empty fiction and that the apparent world is the only reality.
- Nietzsche asserts that science is valuable precisely because it accepts the testimony of the senses. He critiques metaphysics, psychology, logic, and mathematics, arguing that they fail to represent reality accurately.
- He exposes what he considers another significant error of philosophers: confusing the last with the first. He claims that great philosophers project their concept of God onto the world. Nietzsche criticizes both the concept of God and the concept of cause, arguing that God must be “buried.”
- He addresses the problem of error and appearance, suggesting that our prejudice for unity, identity, duration, substance, and cause leads us into error, but that we also need error.
- Nietzsche condenses his knowledge into four theses:
- First: He explains why the world has been described as an apparent reality underlying another reality.
- Second: He argues that the distinctive signs assigned to true things are actually hallmarks of non-being, originating from nothingness.
- Third: He asserts that inventing fables about another world makes no sense, unless it stems from a suspicion towards life. In that case, we take revenge on life by creating phantasms of another, better life.
- Fourth: He concludes that dividing the world into a true and an apparent world is a symptom of decadence, and that the tragic artist is not a pessimist.
Nietzsche and Plato: A Comparison
Nietzsche’s thought is particularly interesting when compared to Plato, who represents a completely different perspective on reality, rooted in rational idealism. Nietzsche was a connoisseur of Greek thought, later becoming a sharp critic, viewing it as the source of many problems that have plagued Western civilization.
There are some commonalities in the literary styles of both authors, who use myths and metaphors as teaching tools, sometimes employing a poetic style. Both also defend an aristocratic sense of existence, though from very different viewpoints. Plato advocates for an aristocracy of knowledge, where the wisest and most generous should govern an ideal society divided into rulers, guardians, and producers. Nietzsche, on the other hand, champions an aristocracy of creators of new values, with the Superman guided by a “master morality,” typical of those with high spirits who affirm life on earth.
The same contrast is evident in their perspectives. Plato uses the myth of the cave to illustrate that what is commonly accepted as true are merely shadows, and that only a few have access to true knowledge (the World of Ideas). Nietzsche criticizes what he considers the most exalted values of Western culture, tracing their origins to Platonic thought, which he sees as dogmatic and flawed due to its insistence on establishing rationality at all costs. According to Nietzsche, Platonic dogmatism becomes the fundamental error of Western culture.