Destruction, Creation, and Existential Humanism as seen in Nietzsche

The Will to Power is an extremely non-linear work, and so, constructing a systematic study of it proves to be an extremely difficult undertaking. When reading Nietzsche, one also always runs the risk of misinterpretation. Due to Nietzsche’s process view of reality, it seems that this risk of misinterpretation is also greatly increased if his core concepts are examined in isolation to one another. For this reason, this work will attempt to present his core concepts through their relationships to one another. We shall see, then, that Nietzsche’s conception of nihilism and his critique of traditional reason are conceptually related to one another through the failings of the Christian-moral paradigm.
Before exploring the failures of the Christian-moral paradigm, it is important to have a solid grip on Nietzsche’s conception of this paradigm. First, it is important to note that Nietzsche understands the Christian-moral paradigm as previously being of practical survival value, insofar as it both granted man value from an external source, and protected us against what we perceived to be the suffering and evil inherent in the natural world. However, this external source of value and protection has its basis in a dualistic conception of the natural world. Thus, the Christian moral paradigm Nietzsche recognizes implies a type of dichotomy between a “true world” as it “ought” to be, and the world as it is.
As Nietzsche seems to see it, the world as it “ought” to be can be understood as the world of truth, justice, and all of the other moral “laws” that the Christian-moral paradigm posits as existing perfectly and permanently in heaven. The world as it is, in Nietzsche’s view, then, may be understood as corruptible, transient, and devoid of any inherent morality. I.e. as a process of becoming that is not goal oriented. Within this dualistic framework, Nietzsche seems to see man as addicted to the comforts provided by this world as it “ought” to be. However, this addiction is proving to be problematic in two ways. First, the world as it “ought” to be is founded upon the traditional conception of God as the ultimate external source of value. Secondly man’s addiction to the world as it “ought” to be entails a denial of the world as it is. So, we shall see that as this traditional conception of God became less and less existentially viable The Christian-moral paradigm was left without any meaningful foundation However, addictions are difficult to break, and so man continues to cling to the groundless Christian-moral paradigm out of fear of facing the world as it is. Also, it is through this addiction to a crippled paradigm that nihilism begins to show itself.
Now, it is important here to explore the destruction of the foundation of the Christian-moral paradigm, as it is of key importance for understanding the advent of nihilism. In the sections of The Will to Power this work deals with, Nietzsche seems to offer few arguments as to why God is no longer an existentially viable concept. Instead, he seems to concern himself more with the negative individual and social symptoms manifested due to the loss of the traditional conception of God. Nietzsche does mention briefly, that “since Copernicus, man has been rolling from the center toward X”. It seems, then, that a further elaboration of the scientific developments that took place prior to Nietzsche’s writings may provide valuable insights as to the reasons why the traditional conceptions of God have lost existential viability.
First, the Copernican revolution that Nietzsche briefly alluded to, reorganized our conceptual framework of the universe. Prior to this revolution, the earth was considered to be the center of the universe, around which, all of the celestial bodies orbited. This understanding seems to slot well with the idea that the earth was created by God, and we were placed on this earth to fulfill his divine plan. This view was shaken, however, as a heliocentric universe made it more difficult to conceive of the earth as the central platform for God’s plan. Secondly, the progression from Aristotelian to Newtonian physics seems to challenge the validity of the traditional conception of God. Where Aristotelian physics is largely teleological (firmly rooted in the existence of the prime mover), Newtonian physics is governed by forces and mechanistic laws that are not necessarily dependant on the existence of God. Thus, we see that these scientific developments challenge the foundations of the Christian-moral paradigm. Man, however, has become dependant on this external Christian world as a source of value. When we see that this external source of value does not exist, nihilism rears its head and we become forced to look upon the world as it is.
Nietzsche defines nihilism as “the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability” ; however, he also recognizes two types of nihilism: active nihilism and passive nihilism. To attempt to interpret this, we may see nihilism as a type of transitional phase. This transition may be schematized as follows, in order to establish a foundation for further investigation of Nietzsche’s nihilism:

Christian-moral paradigm -> Passive Nihilism-> Active nihilism

With this understanding, we find ourselves in a position to evaluate the exact nature of Nietzsche’s “passive” and “active” nihilism, the ways in which the two relate to a failing Christian-moral paradigm, and the understanding of nihilism as the elimination of value, meaning, and desirability.
Passive nihilism can be understood as a weary form of nihilism that does not seek to attack the values that it recognizes as meaningless. To aid in the understanding of this, we may attempt to create a portrait of the passive nihilist. The passive nihilist is one who has psychologically realized that God (I.e. the foundation of the Christian-moral paradigm) is not existentially viable, yet he or she remains addicted to the comforts that paradigm provides. In other words, the passive nihilist has realized that the alleged “true world” as it “ought” to be is illusory, however, out of fear of the world as it is, the passive nihilist seeks another form of escape.
This form of escape results in decadence, the consequences of which can be recognized as: addiction to vice, weakness of the will, alcoholism, and a host of other escapist tactics for denying the world as it is. It is important to note that Nietzsche does not recognize nihilism as the cause of this decadence; rather, the cause of decadence seems to be associated with attachment to the failing Christian-moral paradigm. So, it seems that the passive nihilist is too weary to attack the values of the Christian-moral paradigm that they recognize as being grounded in meaninglessness. However, they continue to adhere to the baseless moral system, and seek to posit a new form of escape from the world as it is through decadence. Thus, decadence provides the escapist comforts that the traditional conception of God no longer can. We see, then, that addiction to vice, alcoholism, etc. become a type of new metaphorical heaven for the passive nihilist. This new heaven, though, becomes an inherently destructive force, and as faith in the Christian-moral paradigm declines, the passive nihilist will perish through these self-destructive escapist tactics.
The remedy for this self-destructive escapism can be realized through active nihilism. Nietzsche sees active nihilism as an increase in the power of the spirit that, in its actualized form, represents a violent and destructive force that seeks to eliminate all authoritarian value systems that inhibit the value-forging abilities of the individual. So, like the passive nihilist, the active nihilist psychologically recognizes the meaninglessness at the foundation of the Christian-moral paradigm. However, instead of adhering to an unjustified moral system, and continuing to seek self-destructive forms of escape from the world as it is, active nihilism seeks to destroy the failing paradigm. The active nihilist, then, breaks the addiction to the non-viable external value source that leads to the self-destructive cycle of decadence. So, the active nihilist sheds his or her attachment to the failing Christian-moral paradigm and embraces the world as it is (decadence and all). Thus, the dualistic schism between the illusory world as it “ought” to be and the world as it is becomes mended.
It is important to note here, that while Nietzsche defines active nihilism as a violent and destructive force, he seems to recognize a unity between the acts of destruction and creation. For example, Nietzsche defines “good” as having some kind of ability, and using it to create. In order to create anything, however, one can make the argument that something else must be first destroyed. In order for Michelangelo to sculpt the Statue of David, for example, he had to first destroy a block of marble. So, Michelangelo had the ability to sculpt, and he used that ability to create a beautiful work of art, thus this was a “good” action. One would be hard pressed to make a legitimate claim that the destruction of the block of marble, and the subsequent creation of the Statue of David, was not a “good” act. So, if we may liberate the term “destroy” from the negative connotations generally associated with it, we begin to see destruction as a necessary component of the creative process. Much in the same way that Michelangelo had to destroy a block of marble in order to create the Statue of David, we see that the active nihilist must destroy the failing Christian-moral paradigm in order to create a new and more viable value system.
This Christian-moral paradigm, however, seems to be on a course for inevitable self-destruction. As God loses existential viability, the paradigm becomes supported by passive nihilism. This results in mankind’s continued addiction to the comforts this paradigm provided. As man is no longer able to take comfort in the external value source that is God, he has sought alternative denials of the world as it is, through addiction to decadence. We may see, then, that the Christian-moral paradigm once provided an infinite value for each individual. However, that value became groundless through the destruction of the traditional conception of God. Remnants of this, and other associated values, though, are still found in politics, economics, and other human social structures, though they are now grounded on self-destructive passive nihilism. We thus end up with a diseased system governing human social structures. This system, as it has become supported by passive nihilism and decadence, will then necessarily negate itself through the self-destructive aspects of its new foundations. Subsequently, active nihilism will provide the destructive force necessary to initiate the creative process. This, then, will Result in the final negation of the Christian-moral paradigm and the positing of a new existentially viable one.
Now that we have accounts of the failings of the Christian-moral paradigm, and the advent of nihilism, we are in a position to explore Nietzsche’s critique of traditional reason. Within his critique, we may find several unifying themes. Namely, we may see that logic is derived from a limited perception of reality, that this logic is useful as a practical survival mechanism rather than a means to discover absolute Truth, and that the misapplication of traditional logic has led to the positing of an illusory “true world.” Through these themes, then, Nietzsche seeks a revaluation of traditional reason, in which, logic is stripped of its universal application to reality and becomes limited to only the aspect of reality that is apparent to us. We will see, then, that this revaluation of traditional reasoning necessarily implies a revaluation of the Christian-moral paradigm as well.
When we interpret the world, we generally interpret it as composed of distinct, objects. In other words, I recognize myself as distinct from the chair, the chair from the keyboard, etc. Nietzsche, however, understands this conception of reality as being extremely limited, though necessary for the preservation of the human species. He seems to be heavily influenced by Charles Darwin here, in that he recognizes that we only have senses for a limited number of perceptions, namely, those that perceive phenomena that are necessary for our survival. For this reason, we grasp only a limited amount of reality, and interpret it according to our survival needs. It is out of this limited perception of reality, then, that we have developed logic. Logic is founded upon a conception of the world as being composed of distinct and independently existing entities. In this way, it is able to recognize the continuity of identity of distinct objects, and the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle. So we see, then, that logic exists solely as a method of categorizing our little slice of reality.
If, then, logic is founded upon a limited perception of reality, it may be employed only as a survival mechanism, not as a means to discover absolute Truth. For example, logic must be used in order to posit the “law” of cause and effect. If we did not have a proper understanding of this “law,” the survivability of our species would surely be inhibited. However, we must recognize that belief in the “law” of cause and effect should only be interpreted as applicable to our limited perception of reality, not as an absolute Truth. In other words, the proper function of logic is to provide a conceptual framework for the limited perception of reality that we experience; however, it should not be universally applied in an attempt to discover absolute Truth. While this world may seem logical to us, this is due to the fact that logic is only applicable to that aspect of reality that is apparent to us.
Man, however, has a deep desire to discover some sort of absolute and eternal Truth. This desire necessarily results in a misapplication of reasoning that leads us to posit an illusory “true world”. As was previously discussed, logic is founded on the conception of a world as being composed of distinct things. Though, through rational investigation of this conception of the world, philosophers came to realize that this world is merely the world as it is apparent to us. So, they proceeded to misapply the tools that were developed to schematize the apparent world, in order to posit a true world that perfectly conformed to the laws of logic. Philosophy, however, fails to recognize reason as a tool that may promote the survival of our species, and mistakenly interprets it as a criterion for truth. Additionally, this understanding necessarily implies that reason has the ability to discover eternal and unchanging truth; the existence of which, Nietzsche denies.
We may elaborate on this understanding through the metaphor of an iceberg. Only 10% (the tip) of an iceberg is visible to us, while 90% remains hidden below the waterline. Now, if one attempted an investigation into the nature of an iceberg, without having any previous experience with one, they may begin by schematizing the tip, i.e. the portion of the iceberg that is visible to them. They may perceive various shapes in the tip of the iceberg; take measurements of its volume, etc. However, after a thorough investigation, they may notice that the tip of iceberg is constantly changing. The ice melts, and reforms, thus rendering their perceptions and measurements imperfect. So, in pursuit of the “true nature of an iceberg” the investigator may then attempt to use the tools that he or she developed to schematize the tip of the iceberg to posit a true, unchanging form of “iceberg.” However, through his systematic study of the tip of the iceberg, the investigator would fail to realize that the remaining 90% of the iceberg remained below the waterline. Thus, his positing of the “true iceberg” was based on a limited perception of the iceberg as a whole, and subsequently existed as an illusory truth that stands directly opposed to the reality of the situation.
We may, then, understand the misapplication of logic in a similar fashion. Rather than leading us to an understanding of Truth, logic actually leads us away from reality and towards a fictitious world when it is considered to be a criterion for truth. As was previously discussed, logic is founded upon a conception of the world as being composed of distinct objects. The misapplication of logic, then, posits a “true world” as a world of things-in-themselves that perfectly adhere to our logical framework. We may see examples of this in the positing of the Platonic Realm of Forms and the traditional conception of God.
Plato seems to have posited the Realm of Forms in response to a denial of the transient and corruptible world of appearances. The Realm of Forms, then, exists as a permanent and unchanging “true world”. If one applies our rational framework to the world of appearances, discrepancies will always arise. For example, if one were to attempt to posit the equality of two seemingly distinct objects, precise investigation would determine that perfect equality is impossible to find in this world. However, we still have an idea of perfect equality. So, if logic is considered to be a criterion for Truth, then Plato is able to posit the idea that there ought to be a “true world” of Forms that perfectly adheres to our rational framework.
Similarly, the Christian-moral paradigm recognizes the transient and corruptible nature of the world as it appears to us; and subsequently posits a dualistic split between the “true world” and the world of appearances. The “true world,” for this paradigm, is characterized by the conception of the permanence and perfection of God. Thus, the impermanence and suffering found in this world can be denied as illusory, through the positing of the “true world” of permanence and perfection. This “true world”, then, can provide justification for the perceived moral necessities of the existence of “perfect” values such as compassion and justice, that we find lacking in the world as it appears to us.
Nietzsche understands these supposedly “true worlds” to be completely illusory, and directly opposed to the nature of reality. It is a mistake of reasoning to assume that if the world appears to us as a world of things, yet we find discrepancies in our categorization of these things, then a “true world” of rationally or morally perfect things must exist. For Nietzsche, a realm of perfectly rational, things-in-themselves is nonsensical, as no thing can exist without other things. Thus, we see that reality, for Nietzsche, is properly understood through the interconnections between all things, and an embracing of the world as it is. However, we become seduced by the allure of an alleged perfect realm, and as a result we attribute absolute value to this realm, and deny value to the world as it is. In other words, we have attributed our value in an illusory source.
We may see then, that the proper employment of logic is fundamental to Nietzsche’s critique of traditional reasoning. Logic has long been interpreted to be a criterion for truth, rather than a survival tool. As a result, we have seen that philosophers mistakenly assume that logic may be employed to speculate about the nature of realty, beyond the world as it appears to us. This leads to the positing of illusory “true worlds” such as the Platonic Realm of Forms, and the traditional understandings of God. However, if we keep reasoning in check, and employ it as a useful tool, rather than a means to discern truth, then the rational grounding of the “true worlds” erodes. We see, then, that this revaluation of reason necessarily entails a revaluation of the Christian-moral paradigm as well. Thus, in a proper Nietzschean fashion, we find ourselves back at the beginning of this work.

Part Two

Nietzsche is perhaps one of the most controversial philosophers to have written since the dawn of the modern era. The structuring of his work easily lends itself to misinterpretations that may seem shocking and offensive to many readers. In The Will to Power, many of his formulations of important concepts seem to be a bit vague, and often paradoxical. We may see, then, that if one attempts to understand these concepts in isolation from one another, rather than fitting them into Nietzsche’s much larger schema, a misinterpretation of his work is almost certainly inevitable. Two of these misinterpretations, namely, the dismissal of Nietzsche’s work as mere perspectivism and the understanding of Nietzsche as having no real regard for the welfare of humanity, will be explored in the following. Subsequently, we will see that both of these misinterpretations can be related back the attempt to understand Nietzsche’s concepts independently from one another.
The vague and paradoxical nature of Nietzsche’s work transforms any attempt at systematic investigation into a glimpse into the mind of the investigator. For this reason, it may be argued that Nietzsche’s work should only be considered a perspective; a poorly formulated perspective that can make no legitimate claims to understanding Truth. After all, Nietzsche himself completely rejects conceptions of Truth. So, it remains to be seen, why should one even devote time to understand is work? What value does it have?
Perhaps, to answer these questions, we may turn back to the vague and paradoxical formulations of Nietzsche’s concepts. Nietzsche was an extremely intelligent man, and so it seems that he could have formulated many of his concepts in a much more coherent way. Perhaps, then, we may come to understand his vague and paradoxical formulations as a vital aspect of his system as a whole. Perhaps it was Nietzsche’s intention, not to develop a clear system that had one interpretation, but a system that existed as a matrix, from which, many interpretations could be derived. In other words, perhaps his system should be recognized as a catalyst for individual interpretation, and subsequent investigation, into process views of reality; rather than a clearly delineated method of thinking. Through this interpretation, Nietzsche would be able to embrace the idea that his system is “merely” a perspective, and present it as a starting point for individual investigation into process views of reality that may prove to be more existentially viable for mankind. In this way, he is also able to maintain his rejection of absolute Truth, and posit the value of his system in so far as it proves to be existentially viable for mankind.
Often times, Nietzsche is also misunderstood as promoting a purely destructive force, and having no real regard for humanity. This seems to stem from an attempt to understand his conception of destruction in isolation from creation. As was discussed in the previous section, Nietzsche seems to recognize a unity between destruction and creation. In this way, destruction becomes a necessary component of the creative process. So, we see that Nietzsche is really pointing towards a continual creative process that relies on destruction as a necessary component, though this message may easily become obscured through his bombastic and provocative prose.
Through a misunderstanding of Nietzsche as advocating a purely destructive force, it then becomes tempting to regard him as having no real regard for humanity. For example, Nietzsche often refers to the self-destructive tendencies of passive nihilists as setting the stage for the coming to power of the active nihilists. In this oversimplified way, it becomes possible to misinterpret Nietzsche as advocating the destruction of the masses as a means to offer the active nihilists the freedom to create.
Upon a closer reading, however, Nietzsche’s work seems to recognize a sickness inherent in our dominating social structures, and he offers us active nihilism as a cure for this sickness. Nietzsche does not see the nihilism he is offering as the cause of the social ills that are generating so much suffering in our world. Rather, he sees this suffering and disease as a result of attachment to a crippled paradigm. Therefore, Nietzsche offers active nihilism as the remedy for this disease. The active nihilist must, then, struggle for power and seek to destroy the ailing paradigm, in order to initiate the creative process that will result in the positing of a new, existentially viable, paradigm. In this light, Nietzsche appears to be much more accurately equated to a healer than a barbarian.
It is important to note here, that Nietzsche seems to recognize the historical inevitability of the destruction of our ailing paradigm as contingent upon the self-destruction of the passive nihilists. We see, then, that Nietzsche seems to recognize that the “sloughing off” of the weak-spirited passive nihilists is a necessary occurrence in the creative process. However, the new, existentially viable, paradigm that is posited will necessarily promote the preservation of our species. While this portrait of Nietzsche may seem grim, it is important to recognize that the system he is positing is, in fact, geared towards the greater good of humanity. So, while this portrait may seem a bit grim, it is important to recognize Nietzsche is attempting to better humanity in an almost utilitarian fashion. However, where Utilitarianism attempted to gloss over the issue of death in service of the greater good, Nietzsche embraced them as a necessary aspect of reality.
So, we see that Nietzsche’s system may be grossly misunderstood if it is examined piecemeal rather than holistically. When his conceptions of creation and destruction are unified, for example, we may begin to understand Nietzsche as a humanist that embraces the world, warts and all, as a continual creative process. This conception of Nietzsche is starkly opposed to traditional misconceptions of him as a destructive barbarian. However, it is important to recognize that if Nietzsche’s system can be understood as a matrix, our of which a multiplicity of individual interpretations can be derived, then this investigator’s interpretation can make no legitimate claims of Truth. Additionally, by systematically illustrating Nietzsche’s core concepts, the investigator seems to be presenting an aspect of his or her own thinking, as it is reflected out of Nietzsche’s vast system.