Explain and evaluate Nietzsche’s reasons for maintaining that Socrates was decadent

Uncategorized

Please choose at least one of the following discussion questions and respond with an initial post as a thread in this discussion board forum. The post must be a minimum of 250 words in length and demonstrate course-related knowledge. You may also use outside resources in the post, properly cited in APA.

What does Nietzsche mean by “doing philosophy with a hammer” (pp. 31-32)? How is this supposed to lead to the “twilight of the idols”? What do you think he means by a “revaluation of values” (p. 31) in this regard?
Explain and evaluate Nietzsche’s reasons for maintaining that Socrates was decadent (39-44).
What does Nietzsche mean when he says that the “true world” has finally become a fable (45-51)? Does he offer a basis for this claim? How do the claims of Christianity run directly counter to this perspective? How might a Christian respond to a Nietzschean in this respect?
What does Nietzsche mean by calling morality “anti-nature”? What kind of morality is he talking about? What sort of “nature” is he talking about? Is his characterization of Christian morality fair? What kind of “morality” does he think is in accordance with nature? How is this an inversion of Christianity? What do you think would be its consequences, and why? Are these consequences an argument against it? Why or why not?
What are the “four great errors” that have, according to Nietzsche, corrupted humanity (58-65)? Which one of them does he think has corrupted morality and religion? Why? How would you respond to this claim?
What erroneous motive does Nietzsche think lies behind the doctrine of free will (64-65)? Do you think it is possible to rid ourselves of the concepts of guilt and responsibility? What would it be like to live that way? Does this seem either possible or advisable?
Nietzsche proposes that we can interpret a morality (a specific sort of value system) as a symptom and boldly asserts that “there are no moral facts whatever” (66-70). Many people agree with this kind of moral relativism these days and think that we need to make a sharp distinction between facts and values. How would you respond to this? Do you think that every value judgment is just someone’s subjective interpretation? How would you argue against this contention?

In addition to the initial post, reply to 2 other classmates’ posts. Each reply must be a minimum of 150 words in length and be substantive in content, adding to the discussion the classmate began in his/her original post.

Continue to order Get a quote

Our guarantees

Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.

Money-back guarantee

You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.

Zero-plagiarism guarantee

Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.

Free-revision policy

Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.

Privacy policy

Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.

Fair-cooperation guarantee

By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.