INTRODUCTION

N is very famously known as ‘philosopher with a hammer’ because of exposing biases in

philosophers works. His book is written in aphorisms that are short sayings that express general
truths comments or opinions. Ad hominem attacks, that is attacking the philosopher and not the
argument, he chooses this method to show that there is a clear connection between the
personality, temperament and the experience of the philosopher and the arguments that they
make.

. one way to think about philosophy is the traditional way, that is it associated with it a particular
kind of activity, it has a fixed role, which was the role of the philosopher, asking fixed kind of
questions. Philosopher is defined by asking certain questions and answering them, but they will
change. But n argues that this way of the philosophy is not right bec there is no single social role
assigned to the philosopher, rather philosophers are people who inhabit different social roles.
He thinks philosopher is a free thinker

Prelude to the philosophy of the future- Prelude here means a starting point, so for n this is the
teaser and the beginning of a new philosophical system or a way of thinking i.e. appellation to
the free spirit whom n invites to take things forward. His philosophy of the future. It’s also a
critique of basic metaphysical positions which n sees as having a controlling influence on the
history of philosophy. The statement BGE is itself a rejection of opposite values, opposed
essence of the good against evil, antithetical to each other and bear no relationship. Stand for
immoralist position against the moralist in seeing good and evil as mutually interdependent.

Purpose behind BG&E He wants to challenge philosophical assumptions and expose biases
inherent in traditional philosophical thinking. He explores the idea of morality, truth and
humanity. He wants the readers to be more skeptical and question established moral
frameworks.

1. N starts the first section by raising the question of the “Value of Truth”, in the preface even
though he was talking about the truth issue being nature of the truth but in this section, he
starts with the will to truth and its value. He explicitly asks Why do pursue the truth, why do
we think it’s important? He uses the metaphor of the Sphinx and Oedipus, Now for n Sphinx
here is the will to truth who questions and demands answers. Thus, he asks about the
problem of the value of the will to truth, the value of the process of truth seeking.

2. Philosophers Faith in Opposite Values (the fundamental faith of the metaphysicians is the
faith in opposite values)
To understand the meaning of the opposite, his examples here are of good and evil, truth
and falsehood, freedom and necessity etc. what is the importance of opposites here is
explain further the “beyond in the title” i.e. to be beyond good and evil we need to think
them not as opposite. He characterizes the typical prejudice of philosophers as their
believe in the idea that these opposed values have an origin in one another. He mentions
 here how philosophers’ morals influence their metaphysics. Perhaps what appears as true
or selfless despite its appearance be less valuable than falsehood or selfishness. He ends
the section with the hypothesis that perhaps what appears to be opp is in fact entangled
in a historical process of development. This is a dangerous perspective to take to the
extent that the faith in opp. Might be a condition of life. Who is going to risk this
perhaps, a new philosopher.

3. The philosophers thinking is forced into conscious channel by unconscious instincts, this is a
direct attack to what is seen as the tradition of Descartes in philosophy. Logical principles
seem to be self- justifying, this logical relation between thoughts by which any philosopher
proves or disproves their proposition are also instinctual. Basic principles of logic are based
on the physiological requirements of preserving a certain type of life.
4. Value given to truth n says may have a little to do with the question of argument being true
or false, rather its value comes from the extent to which it is life-promoting, life-preserving.
Herein he talks about kants synthetic judgements apriori and they are proved valid through
transcendental reasoning. N says such judgements are conditions of the possibility of life
and therefore valid for us as long as we are alive and thus deemed to be true. This condition
for a judgement makes the truth or falsity of it not only irrelevant but also makes it more
likely that its false. The falsest are the most necessary arguments, this thus makes his way of
thinking dangerous
5. In this section he says philosophers do not have the honesty to admit that their philosophy
is based on assumptions, whims or wishes. Then ho goes on to attack Kant and Spinoza.
Even where philosophy is conscious even there it is dishonest and cowardly. It’s a call for
philosophers to be honest about their deception.
6. All philosophy is an involuntary confession/ memoir of its author. In this section he talks
about a close connection between a moral commitment and the idea of a “drive” this drive is
thought of as an intention meaning it shows the properties of having a goal or end. The
intention here is without a conscious. Key intention of any drive to achieve mastery over
other drives. This n calls the will to power.

7 and 8 in this section n agrees with Epicurus spiteful comment on Plato and his philosophies,
Platonist being merely actors and not genuine. For both intellect is not distinct from the
empirical senses and from the effects of feelings.

9. By wanting to 'return to nature', the Stoics are actually giving voice to a pride that wants to enforce
its morality on the world One is always living "according to nature" (how could a product of
nature not do this?) - so by advocating a life "according to nature", the Stoics are actually expressing
a will to make nature into what they understand it and want it to be; to tyrannize over nature, just as
they tyrannize over themselves.

10. problem of real versus apparent- this problem occupies his contemporaries who are eager but
assuming this eagerness is a genuine pursuit to the will to truth, except in the cases like the scholar
or nihilist would be a misunderstanding. There are other philosophers as the skeptical anti- realist
and knowledge microscopist who deal with the problem differently, they argue against appearance
and n agrees with them. He rejects the modern approaches to the pursuit of philosophy like
positivism but not to go backwards, he accuses these for going backward to some previous faith or
old theologian faith.

11. this section is a famous critique to Kant’s theoretical philosophy. synthetic a priori judgments by
notoriously rigid logic, Kant was actually revealing his pride, stating, in effect His account of basic
conditions of knowledge and experience, an analysis of these basic conditions led to the study of
principles governing the activity of the faculties. N asks one simple question what is gained by
claiming that one has discovered a “faculty”

He then moves on to talk about German philosophy saying that post Kant it became youthful and
full of energy. His main question here is why is belief in synthetic a priori judgments necessary? such
judgements are not held because they are true, we do not have a rightful claim to them rather we are
compelled to believe in them. we find Nietzsche here apparently making a distinction between the
kinds of beliefs that human beings must hold true, and knowledge concerning why those beliefs
must be held to be true.

12. Atomism- both metaphysical and modern version, n ascribes the successful refutation of these
theories to Boscovich and Copernicus. He says that atomism is most dangerous when acting below
the surface as unconscious urge. A mode of thinking with close analogies to physical atomism keeps
showing in other areas of thought like the Christian idea of the soul, considered to be atom-like in its
separability, foundational unity, immortality. See from term paper

13. criticism to Darwin and evolution theory- for n the core of evolution theory is the assumption
that living beings have a will to survive both on their own and by passing on their inherited or new
traits. This section argues that the drive to survive, to self-preserve, is derivative although common.
More primordial is the will to power, which could just as well manifest itself in a self-destructive act of
a discharge of strength. In the case of survival as a drive he is also pointing towards teleological
principles, one that describes something in terms of its end. Thus, having survival as a goal would be
a teleological description of life.

14. n says that all physics/ natural philosphy is a world interpretation and arrangement meaning
according to us, in our own image. that physics finds or even invents patterns in nature, but does not
actually understand them. PLATONISM UNDERSTAND

15. in idealistic philosophy phenomenon is that which appears as part of nature and is dominated by
the concept of cause and effect. External world others argue is a product of our sense organs(world
being the effect and our organs being the cause) thus our sense organs would be the cause of
themselves. He concludes that “CAUSA SUI” something that is a cause of itself is absurd.

16. ARGUMENT AGAINST CARTESIAN TRADTION OF PHILOSOPHY- Descartes who considered

himself to be a true radical skeptic was immediately certain about “I THINK” but n says that there is a
contradiction between immediate and certain. In order to be certain one needs to know what it is,
knowing involves comparing it to something already known- comparing what one is doing now to
what one knows about thinking in order to be certain if one is doing thinking. Therefore, arrival at
certainty is a mediated process. Therefor what is certain could never be so immediate.

17. problem of logic and language- he asserts that a thought arises when it wishes not when I
wishes. This idea he says is similar to older atomism, which looked for both the power and material
particle it resides in.

18. free will- he says that even though free will has been refuted many a times, but refuting is once
more is a feeling of strength. The capacity be completely in refutation of it means also having the
strength to abandon the assumption of its living without ayone paying attention and the refuge that
free will provides.

19. will, n believes is not immediately available to inspection ( like Schopenhauer said whom n
believed) according to n is a set of complex phenomena.

Will consists of a set of feelings: the feeling of the state above and state towards and feeling of this
away and towards.

Every act of will has a commanding thought,this thought is integral to the willing

Will is an :affect: of command

In willing we are both commanding and obeying

For n willing is a moral phenomena WRITE MORE AFTER UNDERSTANDING

20. ideas though appear to be separate are a part of primitive system of interrelated ideas. The family
resemblance of western philosophy goe sin hand with the commonness of grammer of western
language. What is behind these grammatical functions- the spell of physiological value judgements
and racial conditiond, this lang influences the belief system. He also takes this ananlysis to be diff
than the empiricism of locke who says that mind is a tabula rasa, to which n says that there is a
physiological inheritance that influences our interpretation of the world.

21. : Once again, N. thinks the answers to the free will question are better assessed for their value
than their truthfulness. He sees in libertarian free will the absurdity of viewing oneself as a causa sui;
in determinism, however, he sees the possibility of weak-willed fatalism, wherein one denies all
responsibility for oneself, takes the side of criminals, and disguises this weakness in "socialist pity".
Thus, either answer could be potentially dangerous (regardless of whether it is the true answer); thus
N's conclusion that the operative question is not of a free or unfree will, but as to whether or not one
has a strong or weak will.