An examination of Nietzsche’s perspective on morality

Nietzsche one of the most famous German philosopher, is well known for his critique towards traditional morality—particularly Christian morality and the prevailing values of his time—because he sees it as a system that restricts human vitality and hampers personal development.

Here are some of Nietzsche’s key arguments against morality, which we will explore and examine. We approach his perspective as both a critique and an intellectual exercise in challenging the status quo, as it likely was for him.

Considering Nietzsche’s 190 IQ, it’s difficult to dispute his depth and intellect, since he is one in a billion. However, this doesn’t mean we must agree with his beliefs, nor does it prevent us from understanding the origins of those beliefs.

This is by no means an attempt to critique his work or claim that I have thoroughly studied it. Rather, it is simply an effort to defend the concept of morality but also to play the devil’s advocate to really explore these ideas.

Who was Friedrich Nietzsche?

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was a German philosopher whose work has had a profound influence on modern philosophy, literature, psychology, and even art. Known for his radical critiques of traditional morality, religion, and society, Nietzsche challenged many of the prevailing norms of his time, arguing for a revaluation of values that would allow individuals to live authentically and embrace their fullest potential.

Nietzsche’s philosophy is often associated with the declaration that “God is dead,” a metaphorical statement that reflects his belief in the decline of traditional religious and moral systems. His critiques of Christianity, conventional morality, and societal constraints led him to develop concepts such as the “Übermensch” (Overman or Superman), the “will to power,” and “eternal recurrence,” all of which explore the potential for personal transformation, self-overcoming, and the creation of new values in a world without absolute truths.

Nietzsche’s writing is characterized by a passionate, poetic style, and his work often blends philosophy with elements of psychology, art, and even personal reflection. His ideas continue to provoke debate and inspire a wide range of interpretations, making Nietzsche one of the most influential and controversial philosophers in history.

His work

Friedrich Nietzsche’s bibliography spans a variety of works that address philosophy, morality, culture, religion, and the human condition. His writings are often challenging and dense, blending philosophical treatises with literary flair. Here is a list of his most notable works:

Major Works by Friedrich Nietzsche

1. The Birth of Tragedy (1872)

Nietzsche’s first major work, in which he explores the nature of Greek tragedy, the conflict between the Apollonian and Dionysian forces, and the role of art in human existence. It critiques the rise of rationality and its effects on culture, advocating for a balance between reason and emotion.

2. Human, All Too Human (1878)

A collection of aphorisms that marks a shift in Nietzsche’s thinking. This work deals with the nature of human psychology, the critique of metaphysical and religious ideas, and the problem of free will. It is more analytical and philosophical compared to his earlier work.

3. The Dawn (1881)

A continuation of Nietzsche’s exploration of morality, culture, and human psychology, this book critiques social norms, religion, and philosophical ideas, pushing for the individual to cultivate their own values.

4. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883–1885)

Perhaps Nietzsche’s most famous work, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” is a philosophical novel written in a poetic and aphoristic style. It introduces key concepts such as the Übermensch (Overman), the will to power, and eternal recurrence. The book is a mix of philosophical discourse, narrative, and myth.

5. Beyond Good and Evil (1886)

In this work, Nietzsche critiques traditional moral values and presents his philosophy of perspectivism. He argues against dualities like good/evil and challenges conventional philosophical systems, including those of Kant and Hegel. He also introduces his concept of the “will to power” as a fundamental driving force in life.

6. On the Genealogy of Morals (1887)

This work offers a historical critique of morality. Nietzsche explores the origins of concepts like guilt, responsibility, and asceticism, arguing that traditional moral systems were created by the weak to subjugate the strong. He introduces the concepts of “master morality” and “slave morality” and examines how societal values shape human behavior.

7. The Case of Wagner (1888)

Nietzsche’s critique of the composer Richard Wagner, with whom he had a complex personal and philosophical relationship. The work critiques Wagner’s music and ideology, particularly his association with Christian morality and the German cultural movement.

8. Twilight of the Idols (1888)

A short and accessible work that critiques the idols of Western thought, including religion, morality, and philosophy. Nietzsche attacks the traditional values of Western culture and presents his own philosophy as a revolutionary alternative. He also discusses his concept of “nihilism” and how it can be overcome.

9. The Antichrist (1888)

One of Nietzsche’s most provocative works, “The Antichrist” is a scathing critique of Christianity. Nietzsche argues that Christianity, in its traditional form, promotes weakness and subjugation and rejects life-affirming values like strength and vitality. This work presents a vision of a “new” humanity that rejects Christian morality.

10. Ecce Homo (1888)

Nietzsche’s autobiographical work, “Ecce Homo,” reflects on his life, works, and philosophy. In this book, he assesses his own contributions to philosophy and provides insight into his personal philosophy and thoughts on subjects like art, morality, and religion.

11. The Will to Power (Posthumous, 1901)

A collection of Nietzsche’s notes and unpublished writings, edited and compiled after his death by his sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. The work discusses Nietzsche’s concept of the “will to power” in more detail, exploring the implications of this idea for human life, culture, and society.

Other Notable Texts:

• Schopenhauer as Educator (1874) – A reflection on the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer and its impact on Nietzsche’s own ideas.

• The Wanderer and His Shadow (1880) – A set of aphorisms reflecting Nietzsche’s developing philosophy.

• The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music (1872) – An expanded version of his first work, later revised.

Nietzsche’s works were not always published during his lifetime, and many of his ideas remained in manuscript form or unpublished until after his mental collapse in 1889. His later writings were often edited by his sister, Elisabeth, which led to controversies about how his philosophy was presented, especially regarding his views on nationalism and anti-Semitism, which were not truly aligned with his original ideas.

His perspective on morality

1. Morality as a Denial of Life

Nietzsche believes that Christian morality, along with other traditional systems, condemns vital instincts (such as desires, the will to power, and self-assertion) by labeling them as sins or vices. He views this as a form of “life denial” that seeks to tame human instincts and suppress one’s true nature. According to him, this morality teaches people to repress their impulses and desires, keeping them from realizing their potential.

Christianity was founded on a model that promotes the overall well-being of society while also supporting the balance and personal well-being of individuals who adhere to its teachings.

Not every human impulse benefits society, nor is it always beneficial for the individual who gives in to it. For example, the institution of marriage, as a committed partnership between two people, often fosters deeper emotional bonds, stability, and equitable partnership, which can strengthen family structure and societal cohesion as opposed to polygamy.

The devil’s advocate

If we consider another species, such as an animal, its primary goal might be to reproduce and spread its genes as widely as possible—a strategy that could be viewed as natural rather than immoral.

Of course, while humans are not animals in the same sense, we do share certain primal instincts and the need to assure our legacy. Could the desire for multiple sources of offspring be a reflection of our natural instincts, making adultery or polygamy more understandable from a biological perspective?

2. Morality as a Tool of Power

Nietzsche argues that morality is not neutral; it is a tool of control and power. Christian morality, for example, was developed by the weak as a way to limit and control the strong, promoting values like humility, altruism, and self-sacrifice. By praising these qualities, morality prevents the powerful from asserting themselves and realizing their own strength. Nietzsche calls this the “slave morality,” which values submission and weakness, as opposed to the “master morality,” which celebrates strength and creation.

As depicted in Dune, the Bible—though written by humans, yet potentially inspired by God through human hands—can indeed serve as a powerful tool for guiding and influencing the population.

In reality, the Bible is more likely a collection of lessons and insights gradually shaped by the experiences of the community over time, which therefore can be seen as a form of morality and definitely holds some form of objective truth.

These lessons tend to resonate on a spiritual level and can even be effectively applied within the framework of game theory and ultimately life. It is perhaps the manifestation of the collective unconscious.

If religions are tools of control for governments, why don’t most modern societies enforce religion, but instead allow greater freedom for atheists? And why do justice systems aim for fairness rather than just favoring the leaders?

The devil’s advocate

What if religion was crafted by humans—not just ordinary individuals, but those seeking to exert control by shaping the narrative around values, thereby discouraging people from forming their own moral frameworks?

The aim might have been to label natural instincts as immoral, thereby reducing competition and minimizing the risk of power being challenged or overturned.

3. Morality as a Human Creation, Not an Objective Truth

For Nietzsche, morality is not an absolute truth but a human and historical construct. He rejects the notion that moral values are universal or objective. Instead, he sees morality as a product of social, cultural, and historical circumstances that evolve over time. This relativist view leads him to criticize moral systems that present themselves as eternal truths, as they are, in his view, shifting conventions.

In a world where nearly everything can be debated as a subjective truth, morality becomes part of this discourse. If life were a simulation, for instance, would it be considered immoral to kill someone in a video game, since it isn’t real?

We don’t see nature or animals as immoral, even though they can kill or act with apparent cruelty. From a perspective outside of human judgment, concepts of good and evil are neutral—simply two forces that balance each other.

As humans, endowed with free will and self-awareness, we must approach morality through our subjective lens. With the ability to experience both pain and love, we naturally lean toward feeling loved, though pain undeniably provides contrast. Combined with compassion, this inclination fosters an instinct for altruism and grace.

If immorality and its negative effects on people’s lives can be established as a statistical fact, then the opposite of immorality could, in turn, be considered an objective truth as much as karma. These concepts have been verified across cultures and time, even within untouched, primal tribes. Morality is as objective as fields like social science or psychology, where correlations are strong, though some exceptions and variants may exist.

The devil’s advocate

Why do so many religions exist within different periods, location and with differing rules if their principles are meant to be universal? What if all religions were created with a shared purpose: to maintain control over the dominated and ensure they do not rebel nor compete for resources in the marketplace?

4. Resentment and Vengeance in Christian Morality

Nietzsche introduces the concept of ressentiment to describe the emotional response of those who, unable to dominate others through strength or intelligence, find indirect ways to seek revenge. According to him, Christian morality values qualities like forgiveness and humility not out of love or altruism, but as a way for the weak to seek vengeance against the strong and the happy. The weak invent a morality that condemns the strong, the wealthy, and those who enjoy life, allowing them to take revenge for their own frustrations.

This argument closely resembles the notion that those who despise aristocrats are often the ones who are unable to become one.

I’ve never found this argument to be true. We’ve seen many successful individuals with strong moral character who excelled in their fields and were even regarded as geniuses or virtuosos. In fact, people who are admired rather than envied often tend to be those who rank highly in terms of morality. The respect for sportsmanship and athletes is partly because they represent, in a way, an objective moral ideal.

Morally successful people often attain everything by virtue, while those who lack moral principles may struggle to have it all, resorting to immoral means to achieve their desires, as exemplified by the Epstein case.

The devil’s advocate

What if the narratives of morality and religion have been instilled so deeply and for so long that remnants of these teachings are imprinted in our DNA? To the point where much of the population experiences emotions aligned with the principles of a “slave morality.”

For a celebrity to gain acceptance from the public, they must align themselves with the prevailing sentiments and emotions of the crowd.

5. Morality Against the “Will to Power”

Nietzsche proposes the concept of the will to power as a fundamental human drive to surpass oneself, to create, and to affirm one’s existence. Traditional morality, in his view, stifles this will to power by imposing limits and rules that inhibit individuals from rising above societal and biological constraints. By suppressing this creative and affirming force, morality smothers essential life forces.

Self-sacrifice is often seen as the ultimate demonstration of one’s worth. We’ve all heard of the child who risked his life to save his sister from an attacking dog, even ending up with scars on his face as a result. This child embodies morality and is instinctively admired, as his actions demonstrate the ultimate courage and selflessness—proving these qualities through deeds rather than mere words.

“Turning the other cheek” can also be a sign of strength. Take Oleksandr Usyk, for instance, the unified Cruiserweight and Heavyweight champion. He never responds to insults from Tyson Fury because they don’t affect him—he is confident in his own identity. Usyk later demonstrated his worth by proving himself in the ring even going as far as avoiding to Knockout his opponent. That is grace and strength.

The devil’s advocate

What if the fundamental purpose of any life form is merely to survive and reproduce, with the sole guiding principle being to do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal?

In this context, could a deserter in war be seen not as a coward, but as someone wise enough to avoid death and ensure the survival of their genetic lineage?

Isn’t turning the other cheek a path to defeat and submission, similar to the Native Americans who, though more spiritually inclined than their conquerors, ultimately lost?

6. The Concept of the Übermensch (Overman) vs. Traditional Morality

As an alternative to morality’s emphasis on equality, pity, and self-denial, Nietzsche introduces the concept of the Übermensch (or “Overman”), an individual who creates his own values and frees himself from society’s moral constraints. The Übermensch embodies strength, creation, and self-assertion. Nietzsche sees this figure as an alternative to traditional morality: rather than following society’s rules, the Übermensch creates his own ethics based on personal growth and self-fulfillment.

There’s nothing wrong with creating your own set of values, as long as they aren’t driven purely by self-interest. The goal is to ensure that these values remain altruistic, to prevent them from becoming hedonistic, as self-interest often leads to tyranny.

Having your own belief system is actually a positive thing, as it signifies your individuality. However, it can be challenging to reconcile that with the wisdom of trillions of ancestors and the notion of believing you are wiser than all of them.

The devil’s advocate

What if the real goal isn’t altruism, but rather competition for resources and the creation of inequality? Isn’t the main purpose of a company to create value for its owners by paying employees as little as possible and charging customers as much as possible?

Aren’t the most profitable businesses those that exploit insecurities and other psychological vulnerabilities to sell overpriced products or empty promises? Isn’t an employee by definition a tool that is used to create wealth for an owner?

7. Critique of Pity and Altruism

Nietzsche especially critiques pity, which he sees as a weakness that prevents us from valuing strength, health, and greatness, instead promoting suffering by encouraging weak and dependent behaviors. He argues that pity devalues life because it glorifies suffering and prevents individuals from becoming strong and self-reliant. In his view, altruism is a form of self-negation that prevents people from fully asserting themselves.

Life undoubtedly contains an element of randomness and luck. Someone born with an IQ of 190 must acknowledge that they are likely privileged and cursed.

Pity is a form of compassion that not only fosters social cohesion but also reminds us that the person suffering could easily be ourselves. It embodies humility and respect for those who didn’t receive the same opportunities, recognizing that, were we in their shoes, we would also desire to be treated with respect and kindness. Once again, this is a form of strength and in no way diminishes other concepts of strength, such as independence.

The devil’s advocate

What if, in order to reach your full potential, like Will Hunting, you had to leave your friends behind and shed the compassionate “I’m no better” mindset?

What if it was precisely this slave morality that he needed to abandon in order to become everything he was capable of, by working for the agency who would leverage his genius with the most possible effectiveness?

Overall analysis on Nietzsche perspective

An unfiltered perspective

I believe Nietzsche was attempting to adopt the most unfiltered perspective on morality, seeking to understand it from the viewpoint of the creator, or the “source code,” where the concepts of good and evil are neutral. In this sense, they are simply two opposing forces that must coexist and balance each other.

Interestingly this perspective is also present in the Bible and in Christianity.

“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you know so much. Who determined its dimensions and stretched out the surveying line? What supports its foundations, and who laid its cornerstone as the morning stars sang together and all the angels shouted for joy?”

Job 38:4-11 NLT

The will to power and balancing force

The question is whether a person, seeing the world through a filtered lens, can truly grasp the neutrality of good and evil, and morality from the perspective of the creator or the source code. And if so, would this understanding give them an advantage over other humans who can’t?

Thus, while understanding the neutrality of good and evil could provide a clearer lens through which to view the world, its practical advantage depends on how one uses that knowledge in their interactions with others and in their own life.

If you consider the will to power, a central concept in Nietzsche’s philosophy, refers to the fundamental drive within all beings to assert and enhance their strength, influence, and creativity, often by overcoming obstacles and transcending limitations, then this would definitely be an advantage.

That being said, whether one acts immorally or even morally with the sole intent of acquiring great strength and influence, such actions will ultimately lead to their downfall. This is because the inherent constraints of the “source code” — the fundamental laws that govern existence — are designed to restore balance, ensuring that no one force can dominate indefinitely. No matter how one seeks power, whether through manipulation or righteous means, the system will always self-correct, preventing any individual from maintaining unchecked control or influence for too long.

Imago Dei

The idea that humans are made in the image of God comes from the Bible, specifically in the book of Genesis, where it is stated:

“So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” — Genesis 1:27.

This concept, known as the Imago Dei, holds deep theological significance across various religious traditions, particularly in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It suggests that humans reflect certain attributes or qualities of God, though not in a literal sense. Here are a few interpretations of why humans are made in the image of God:

1. Moral and Spiritual Capacity: Humans are seen as reflecting God’s moral nature, with the capacity for love, justice, creativity, and free will. Being made in God’s image means humans have the potential to make moral choices and to relate to God on a personal level.

2. Rational and Creative Nature: Humans are endowed with reason, intellect, and creativity, similar to how God is described as being omniscient and the creator of the universe. In this view, humans mirror God’s ability to think, create, and bring order to the world.

3. Relational Aspect: The concept of being made in God’s image also emphasizes the relational aspect of humanity. Just as God is relational, especially in the Christian belief in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), humans are capable of forming relationships, both with God and with one another. The ability for deep, meaningful relationships is seen as part of the divine likeness.

4. Stewardship of Creation: In the Bible, humans are also given the role of stewards of the earth. Being made in the image of God means that humans are entrusted with the responsibility to care for and nurture creation, reflecting God’s ongoing creative and sustaining work.

5. Dignity and Value: Being made in God’s image also imbues human life with intrinsic dignity and value. It is a reminder that humans are sacred and have worth, not based on status, wealth, or power, but because they bear the image of God.

In essence, being made in the image of God means that humanity shares a unique relationship with God, possessing qualities that reflect God’s nature, such as reason, creativity, relationality, and the capacity for moral decisions. This concept highlights both the sanctity and responsibility inherent in being human.

In my view, this suggests that from the creator’s perspective, good and evil could be neutral, and perhaps we have no right to judge them, as they might essentially be the same entity or an entanglement.

However, the fact that humans are capable of experiencing emotions and morality, understand the beauty and value of grace suggests that these too were designed by the creator, intended for us to experience, even though, unlike him, we cannot fully comprehend them.

Perhaps life isn’t an experience humans should see through the creator’s lens, but rather through the lens he designed for them. Imagine a game being scrutinized critically instead of being actively played. While this might offer the player some advantage, the essence of the game lies in the experience itself.

If some players were to gain an unfair advantage, would the creator restore balance, allowing humans to still experience life within this framework? And could this imbalance actually be necessary to create meaning within the experience? Would those embarking on this adventure themselves become the force that restores balance?

In this case, through the lens of morality, could evil be seen as exploiting “flaws of the code” to gain power, while genuine competence development would naturally lead to power as an indirect result? Would evil naturally evoke disgust and hatred, while good inspires beauty and admiration? Perhaps for the purpose of this same balance a clear cut answer can never be formulated.

If humans are created in the image of the creator, how would you react if someone were to judge your creation positively or negatively?

Is Nietzsche’s analysis of morality an attempt to dissect and leverage the “lines of the code” for power, so to speak? If so, could this be considered immoral or even “evil”, or opposing to the ethical rules of the game and would it therefore bring negative consequences into his life as a penalty? Or is this just his way of personal transcendence?

It could be said that goodness seeks balance, while evil pursues absolute control. In this sense, goodness might be viewed as a more ideal force, promoting harmony and fairness. However, it’s important to remember that these concepts can be complex, and their definitions can vary depending on cultural, philosophical, and individual perspectives. Goodness may be seen as more conducive to collective well-being, but the ideal force might also depend on how one defines balance and control within the context of morality and power.

The herd morality

Herd morality, a term popularized by Nietzsche, refers to a moral framework that prioritizes conformity, obedience, and the collective over individual freedom, strength, or authenticity. In herd morality, values like equality, humility, and sympathy are emphasized, often to promote social harmony and avoid conflict. Nietzsche viewed this as a way of suppressing individuality and excellence, as it encourages people to fit in rather than to stand out or pursue greatness.

In this view, herd morality can lead to a culture where people conform to group norms without questioning them, often sacrificing personal desires, ambitions, or values for the approval of the group. Nietzsche criticized this as a way of keeping people dependent, passive, and manageable, rather than inspiring them to develop unique strengths, pursue self-actualization, and challenge societal limits.

In contrast, he advocated for what he called “master morality,” where individuals create their own values based on personal integrity, strength, and creativity, rather than merely adhering to the moral standards of the collective.

Herd morality can be understood as a kind of collective ethics that has veered away from genuine moral values and become a tool for leveling individuality. Unlike a naturally shared morality that may arise from shared values or community bonds, herd morality often stems from resentment. Rather than uplifting individuals, it seeks to pull others down to an average level, born from frustration with inequalities in talent, intelligence, or success. This mindset, rather than celebrating or encouraging differences, aims to eliminate them altogether in the name of “fairness” or “equality.”

It’s this drive that pushes for the equality of outcome rather than the equality of opportunity. This can lead to stifling exceptional abilities and discouraging personal achievement, ultimately prioritizing uniformity over growth. Nietzsche argued that this kind of morality is less about genuine concern for others and more about bringing down those who excel. Rather than stemming from a healthy desire to help others thrive, it masks a deep-seated bitterness toward natural disparities. In this way, herd morality may undermine both individual potential and the overall progress of society by restricting uniqueness in favor of conformity.

The herd morality vs the collective unconscious

The concepts of herd morality and collective unconscious are both rooted in collective human experience but differ significantly in origin, function, and impact on individuals.

1. Herd Morality: Popularized by Nietzsche, herd morality describes a type of morality that emphasizes conformity, obedience, and equality, often at the expense of individuality and personal excellence. Nietzsche saw herd morality as driven by a desire to level differences, stemming from resentment of exceptional qualities like talent, intelligence, or strength. It enforces a kind of moral standard that discourages individuals from standing out or challenging norms, and it can suppress personal aspirations in favor of group harmony. Herd morality is therefore viewed as a social construct that influences behavior consciously and, at times, oppressively, to maintain uniformity within a group.

2. Collective Unconscious: Coined by Carl Jung, the collective unconscious refers to a deep, universal layer of the unconscious mind shared across humanity. Unlike herd morality, which is a surface-level social phenomenon, the collective unconscious consists of inherited archetypes, symbols, and primal patterns that shape our instincts, dreams, and creative expressions. These archetypes are not imposed by society but emerge naturally across cultures and time periods, giving rise to shared themes in myths, religions, and stories. The collective unconscious operates beneath conscious awareness and influences personal and cultural development in ways that transcend any single society’s morality or ethics.

In summary:

• Herd morality is a social phenomenon that enforces conformity and seeks to reduce individual differences, often through external pressures.

• The collective unconscious is a psychological foundation shared by all humans, shaping how we perceive the world on a deeper, instinctive level.

Where herd morality seeks uniform behavior, the collective unconscious gives rise to universal symbols and archetypes that enrich human experience without diminishing individuality.

The weaponization of compassion

The weaponization of compassion occurs when individuals or groups exploit empathy as a means of control or manipulation. This tactic leverages people’s natural desire to help and protect others, often by invoking sympathy to justify actions that may not align with true compassion. For example, institutions or leaders might portray certain policies as “compassionate” to gain support, even if those policies primarily serve a hidden agenda or consolidate power.

On a personal level, individuals may use victimhood or appeals to empathy to sidestep accountability or exploit others’ goodwill. This strategy can blur ethical boundaries, making it difficult to discern genuine compassion from disguised self-interest, and ultimately risks eroding trust. When compassion is weaponized, it distorts a powerful moral force, turning it into a tool for manipulation rather than a foundation for authentic human connection.

Nietzsche warned us about the weaponization of compassion by highlighting how it can be used to suppress strength and autonomy, manipulating people into conformity and dependence under the guise of morality. Excess, even in compassion, is not necessarily beneficial.

A lack of focus on relationships

It’s fair to say that Nietzsche could be described as a solitary figure, even advocating that solitude is the ideal way of being. However, this perspective introduces a bias, as most people inevitably live within social groups shaped by traditions and culture.

These elements are the foundation of a person’s sense of belonging, though they can sometimes hinder individuality. This may be because many people prioritize the well-being of the group over their own, which, in my view, is a healthy and balanced way of thinking.

The story of the horse : Nietzsche acceptance of empathy ?

The story about Nietzsche and the horse is widely believed to be true, though some details may have been romanticized over time. According to accounts, in early 1889, while Nietzsche was in Turin, Italy, he witnessed a horse being whipped by its owner. Disturbed by the cruelty, Nietzsche reportedly rushed over, threw his arms around the horse’s neck, and burst into tears. Some versions say he whispered comforting words to the horse, and then collapsed, marking the onset of his mental breakdown.

Shortly after this incident, Nietzsche was taken back to Basel by his friends, where he fell into a state of mental and physical decline. From then on, he lived the remainder of his life largely incapacitated, being cared for by his mother and later his sister.

Though the exact details may vary in different tellings, the horse incident has become a powerful symbol, often interpreted as Nietzsche’s final empathetic gesture and a tragic climax of his life. It has also been the subject of various analyses, as some see it as a moment when Nietzsche’s intense philosophical confrontation with human suffering may have reached a breaking point.

Conclusion

In summary, Nietzsche critiques traditional morality as something that diminishes individual potential, stifles personal growth, and limits creativity. Instead, he advocates for a revaluation of our instincts, strength, and self-assertion in order to cultivate a more authentic, free, and creative human experience.

This perspective is thought-provoking, as it challenges us to deconstruct conventional moralities, pushing us to face difficult truths and gain a deeper understanding of ourselves. It’s always valuable to challenge universally held beliefs in order to strengthen them further.

Ultimately, I don’t think Nietzsche completely rejected the concept of accepted morality as “weak” in general; rather, he critiqued those who used morality as a shield to justify their lack of personal growth.

It’s worth to note that given his personal circumstances, such as his unmarried status, lack of children, and the rejection he experienced from Lou Salomé—possibly influenced by social expectations or accepted moral standards—Nietzsche, like many, might have fallen into a form of nihilism and cynicism.

In his attempts to dismantle traditional views on morality, could Nietzsche have been addressing the very ideal of the man he believed he needed to become in order to earn admiration and perhaps love? In this sense, might he have sought a form of vengeance or emotional release, something many of us can relate to at times?

Nietzsche’s rejection of societal expectations, while admirable in many ways, led to a life of isolation, poverty, and personal struggle. His personal life didn’t always align with the ideals he promoted, such as the importance of relationships and community. While it’s essential to separate a person’s work from their personal life, it’s hard to ignore that all aspects of a person’s existence are interconnected and the goal of gaining insight through philosophy is perhaps a means to enhance our lives.

The name “Nietzsche” is of German origin and is derived from the Old High German word “niht,” meaning “nothing” or “none.” Therefore, “Nietzsche” could roughly translate to “nothingness” or “the one who is not” in a very literal sense, though this is more of an etymological curiosity than a reflection of the philosopher’s views but life always manages to express itself artistically, and Nietzsche was likely a man who sought to overcome his own limitations by analyzing deeply nihilism.

That said, Nietzsche’s critique of morality was deeply rooted in his broader philosophical ideals about individualism, power, and the human condition. While his personal experiences likely influenced his perspective, it would be an oversimplification to claim that his rejection of morality was driven solely by resentment or personal disappointments. His critique was part of his broader vision for transcending societal norms and embracing a life-affirming path of self-overcoming and perhaps challenging herd morality rather than the collective unconscious present in religion.

The devil’s advocate

What if Nietzsche was right, and many of today’s leaders are in top positions because they broke free from traditional views of morality to create their own values therefore becoming dominant?

What if they are merely presenting us with a façade, convincing us to believe in morality to be on the side of the public opinion?

It seems that this is what happens in a true meritocracy, like the free market, which essentially mirrors life in the jungle—lacking societal structures or constraints where only the will to power prevails.