For class we had to read the passage and answer a few questions but Im stuck on it Passage: MORALITY AS ANTI-NATURE by Friedrich Nietzsche 1889 FONT SIZEAAAA Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher, famous for his heavy criticism of the morality propagated by Christianity. In the excerpt below from his book Twilight of the Idols , Nietzsche seeks to challenge, unravel and completely do away with the moral notions of his day. However, Nietzsche was not a nihilist 1 Or a relativist 2 . Rather, he proposed a humanistic \u201clife-affirming\u201d morality that comprised every part of man: the mind and the body, the animalistic and the divine. As you read, think about where our moral notions come from. Which aspects of our human nature do we suppress? Which do we embrace? “Nietzsche” by Walter Kaufmann is in the public domain. [1]All passions3 have a phase when they are merely disastrous, when they drag down their victim with the weight of stupidity\u2014and a later, very much later phase when they wed the spirit, when they \u201cspiritualize\u201d themselves. Formerly, in view of the element of stupidity in passion, war was declared on passion itself, its destruction was plotted; all the old moral monsters are agreed on this: ill fault tour les passions.4 The most famous formula for this is to be found in the New Testament, in that Sermon on the Mount, where, incidentally, things are by no means looked at from a height. There it is said, for example, with particular reference to sexuality: \u201cIf thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.\u201d Fortunately, no Christian acts in accordance with this precept.5 Destroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity\u2014today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity. We no longer admire dentists who \u201cpluck out\u201d teeth so that they will not hurt any more. To be fair, it should be admitted, however, that on the ground out of which Christianity grew, the concept of the \u201cspiritualization of passion\u201d could never have been formed. After all, the first church, as is well known, fought against the \u201cintelligent\u201d in favor of the \u201cpoor in spirit.\u201d How could one expect from it an intelligent war against passion? The church fights passion with excision6 in every sense: its practice, its \u201ccure,\u201d is castratism7. It never asks: \u201cHow can one spiritualize, beautify, deify8 a craving?\u201d It has at all times laid the stress of discipline on extirpation9 (of sensuality, of pride, of the lust to rule, of avarice10, of vengefulness). But an attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life. The same means in the fight against a craving\u2014castration, extirpation\u2014is instinctively chosen by those who are too weak-willed, too degenerate11, to be able to impose moderation on themselves; by those who are so constituted that they require La Trappe12, to use a figure of speech, or (without any figure of speech) some kind of definitive declaration of hostility, a cleft between themselves and the passion. Radical means are indispensable only for the degenerate; the weakness of the will\u2014or, to speak more definitely, the inability not to respond to a stimulus\u2014is itself merely another form of degeneration. The radical hostility, the deadly hostility against sensuality, is always a symptom to reflect on: it entitles us to suppositions13 concerning the total state of one who is excessive in this manner. This hostility, this hatred, by the way, reaches its climax only when such types lack even the firmness for this radical cure, for this renunciation14 of their \u201cdevil.\u201d One should survey the whole history of the priests and philosophers, including the artists: the most poisonous things against the senses have been said not by the impotent15, nor by ascetics16, but by the impossible ascetics, by those who really were in dire need of being ascetics. [5]The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it represents a great triumph over Christianity. Another triumph is our spiritualization of hostility. It consists in a profound appreciation of the value of having enemies: in short, it means acting and thinking in the opposite way from that which has been the rule. The church always wanted the destruction of its enemies; we, we immorality and Antichristian, find our advantage in this, that the church exists. In the political realm too, hostility has now become more spiritual\u2014much more sensible, much more thoughtful, much more considerate. Almost every party understands how it is in the interest of its own self-preservation that the opposition should not lose all strength; the same is true of power politics. A new creation in particular\u2014the new Reich17, for example\u2014needs enemies more than friends: in opposition alone does it feel itself necessary, in opposition alone does it become necessary. Our attitude to the \u201cinternal enemy\u201d is no different: here too we have spiritualized hostility; here too we have come to appreciate its value. The price of fruitfulness is to be rich in internal opposition; one remains young only as long as the soul does not stretch itself and desire peace. Nothing has become more alien to us than that desideratum18 of former times, \u201cpeace of soul,\u201d the Christian desideratum; there is nothing we envy less than the moralistic cow and the fat happiness of the good conscience. One has renounced the great life when one renounces war. In many cases, to be sure, \u201cpeace of soul\u201d is merely a misunderstanding\u2014something else, which lacks only a more honest name. Without further ado or prejudice, a few examples. \u201cPeace of soul\u201d can be, for one, the gentle radiation of a rich animality19 into the moral (or religious) sphere. Or the beginning of weariness, the first shadow of evening, of any kind of evening. Or a sign that the air is humid, that south winds are approaching. Or unrecognized gratitude for a good digestion (sometimes called \u201clove of man\u201d). Or the attainment of calm by a convalescent20 who feels a new relish in all things and waits. Or the state which follows a thorough satisfaction of our dominant passion, the well-being of a rare repletion. Or the senile21 weakness of our will, our cravings, our vices. Or laziness, persuaded by vanity to give itself moral airs. Or the emergence of certainty, even a dreadful certainty, after long tension and torture by uncertainty. Or the expression of maturity and mastery in the midst of doing, creating, working, and willing\u2014calm breathing, attained \u201cfreedom of the will.\u201d Twilight of the Idols22\u2014who knows? Perhaps also only a kind of \u201cpeace of soul.\u201d I reduce a principle to a formula. Every naturalism in morality\u2014that is, every healthy morality\u2014is dominated by an instinct of life, some commandment of life is fulfilled by a determinate canon of \u201cshalt\u201d and \u201cshalt not\u201d; some inhibition and hostile element on the path of life is thus removed. Anti-natural morality\u2014that is, almost every morality which has so far been taught, revered, and preached\u2014turns, conversely, against the instincts of life: it is condemnation of these instincts, now secret, now outspoken and impudent23. When it says, \u201cGod looks at the heart,\u201d it says \u201cno\u201d to both the lowest and the highest desires of life, and posits God as the enemy of life. The saint in whom God delights is the ideal eunuch.24 Life has come to an end where the \u201ckingdom of God\u201d begins. Once one has comprehended the outrage of such a revolt against life as has become almost sacrosanct25 in Christian morality, one has, fortunately, also comprehended something else: the futility, apparentness, absurdity, and mendaciousness26 of such a revolt. A condemnation of life by the living remains in the end a mere symptom of a certain kind of life: the question whether it is justified or unjustified is not even raised thereby. One would require a position outside of life, and yet have to know it as well as one, as many, as all who have lived it, in order to be permitted even to touch the problem of the value of life: reasons enough to comprehend that this problem is for us an unapproachable problem. When we speak of values, we speak with the inspiration, with the way of looking at things, which is part of life: life itself forces us to posit values; life itself values through us when we posit values. From this it follows that even that anti-natural morality which conceives of God as the counter-concept and condemnation of life is only a value judgment of life\u2014but of what life? Of what kind of life? I have already given the answer: of declining, weakened, weary, condemned life. Morality, as it has so far been understood\u2014as it has in the end been formulated once more by Schopenhauer27, as \u201cnegation of the will to life\u201d\u2014is the very instinct of decadence28, which makes an imperative of itself. It says: \u201cPerish!\u201d It is a condemnation pronounced by the condemned. [10]Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: \u201cMan ought to be such and such!\u201d Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms\u2014and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: \u201cNo! Man ought to be different.\u201d He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig29: he paints himself on the wall and comments, \u201cEcce homo!\u201d30 But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to him, \u201cYou ought to be such and such!\u201d he does not cease to make himself ridiculous. The single human being is a piece of fatum31 from the front and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is yet to come and to be. To say to him, \u201cChange yourself!\u201d is to demand that everything be changed, even retroactively.32 And indeed there have been consistent moralists who wanted man to be different, that is, virtuous\u2014they wanted him remade in their own image, as a prig: to that end, they negated the world! No small madness! No modest kind of immodesty! Morality, insofar as it condemns for its own sake, and not out of regard for the concerns, considerations, and contrivances33 of life, is a specific error with which one ought to have no pity\u2014an idiosyncrasy34 of degenerates which has caused immeasurable harm. We others, we immorality, have, conversely, made room in our hearts for every kind of understanding, comprehending, and approving. We do not easily negate; we make it a point of honour to be affirmers. More and more, our eyes have opened to that economy which needs and knows how to utilize everything that the holy witlessness of the priest, the diseased reason in the priest, rejects\u2014that economy in the law of life which finds an advantage even in the disgusting species of the prigs, the priests, the virtuous. What advantage? But we ourselves, we immorality, are the answer. Question #1. PART A: One of the central ideas of the text is that morality as it is taught to society goes against our human nature. Which of the following best states another central idea of the text? A Humanity should not be governed by any morality; humans should indulge in whatever impulses come naturally to them. Those who purport to be moralists often behave the least morally. Passions and desires should be avoided in order to achieve moral perfection. DTo live \u201cmorally\u201d \u2013 or according to Christian dogma \u2013 is to devalue life. question2. PART B: Which of the following quotations best supports the answer to Part A? A \u201cDestroying the passions and cravings, merely as a preventive measure against their stupidity and the unpleasant consequences of this stupidity\u2014today this itself strikes us as merely another acute form of stupidity.\u201d ( Paragraph 1) B \u201cAn attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.\u201d (Paragraph 2) C Every naturalism in morality\u2014that is, every healthy morality\u2014is dominated by an instinct of life.\u201d (Paragraph 8) D \u201cBut even when the moralist addresses himself only to the single human being and says to him, \u201cYou ought to be such and such!\u201d he does not cease to make himself ridiculous.\u201d (Paragraph 10) question3. According to Nietzsche, who is the main culprit of Anti-Natural morality? A The Christian church B The degenerates of society C The anti-moralists D Those who succumb to passion question4. PART A: What does the word \u201cwitlessness\u201d mean as it is used in paragraph 12? A Compassion B Stupidity C Devoutness D Repulsion PART B: Which phrase from the paragraph best supports the answer to Part A? A “room in our hearts” B “diseased reason” D “disgusting species” In paragraph 7, Nietzsche begins the majority of his sentences with the word \u201cOr\u2026\u201d Why is this structure effective in helping Nietzsche make his argument? An It emphasizes which notions of \u201cpeace of soul\u201d are most misunderstood. B It proposes a multitude of alternative ways to view the notion of \u201cpeace of soul.\u201d C It contrasts Nietzsche\u2019s conception of \u201cpeace of soul\u201d with that of other philosophers. D It criticizes the numerous ways in which humanity is inherently weak and aggressive. Much of this excerpt focuses on Nietzsche\u2019s criticisms of religion and society; however, toward the end of the essay he discusses an alternative morality. Paraphrase these ideas on the lines below, using evidence from the text in your response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Correct Answer and Explanation is :<\/strong><\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n Part A<\/strong>: One of the central ideas of the text is that morality as it is taught to society goes against our human nature. Which of the following best states another central idea of the text? Part B<\/strong>: Which of the following quotations best supports the answer to Part A? Nietzsche criticizes the Christian approach to morality, particularly its opposition to human passions and desires. He suggests that the Christian moral code does not support life but undermines it by discouraging natural human instincts. In the passage, he argues that the church, in its effort to suppress passions (such as sensuality and pride), attacks the very essence of life, thus \u201cthe practice of the church is hostile to life.\u201d This view aligns with the answer in Part A, where Nietzsche suggests that Christian morality, or traditional morality, devalues life by denying its natural impulses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Answer<\/strong>: Nietzsche\u2019s central critique of anti-natural morality points to the Christian church as the primary force behind the moral repression of human instincts. He argues that the church\u2019s teachings encourage a hatred of passions, which he believes leads to a rejection of life itself. For Nietzsche, the Christian church\u2019s condemnation of life\u2019s natural instincts, such as sensuality and pride, aligns with a “degenerative” morality that stifles life and vitality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Part A<\/strong>: What does the word \u201cwitlessness\u201d mean as it is used in paragraph 12? Part B<\/strong>: Which phrase from the paragraph best supports the answer to Part A? In paragraph 12, Nietzsche uses the term “witlessness” to describe the inability to understand life and morality clearly, suggesting a form of ignorance or stupidity. The phrase \u201cdiseased reason\u201d indicates a distorted or flawed way of thinking, reinforcing the idea that \u201cwitlessness\u201d refers to a lack of rational understanding. Nietzsche criticizes moralists who reject life\u2019s passions, deeming them as exhibiting “witlessness” due to their distorted view of morality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In paragraph 7, Nietzsche begins the majority of his sentences with the word \u201cOr\u2026\u201d Why is this structure effective in helping Nietzsche make his argument? By using “Or\u2026” repeatedly in paragraph 7, Nietzsche introduces several different ideas and possibilities regarding what “peace of soul” might represent. This rhetorical strategy reflects his rejection of a singular, dogmatic view of morality and suggests that “peace of soul” can be interpreted in many different ways. Each alternative presented challenges the traditional Christian view of peace, helping Nietzsche advance his argument that morality should embrace a variety of human experiences and instincts rather than suppressing them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the latter part of the essay, Nietzsche critiques the traditional Christian morality for its condemnation of life\u2019s natural instincts, claiming that it encourages the repression of passions and desires. He asserts that such an approach is rooted in weakness and degeneration. For Nietzsche, life should be embraced in its entirety, including passions and desires, as they are integral to human vitality. In contrast to the ascetic ideals of the church, he proposes a morality that is life-affirming, one that values the full spectrum of human experience. Nietzsche believes that by affirming life, including its contradictions and passions, humanity can achieve a higher form of existence. This new morality should not suppress, but rather spiritualize, human desires, transforming them into something greater and more profound.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" For class we had to read the passage and answer a few questions but Im stuck on it Passage: MORALITY AS ANTI-NATURE by Friedrich Nietzsche 1889 FONT SIZEAAAA Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was a German philosopher, famous for his heavy criticism of the morality propagated by Christianity. In the excerpt below from his book Twilight of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[25],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-185670","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-exams-certification"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185670","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=185670"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/185670\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=185670"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=185670"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.learnexams.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=185670"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Question 1:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Answer<\/strong>:
D. To live \u201cmorally\u201d \u2013 or according to Christian dogma \u2013 is to devalue life.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nQuestion 2:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Answer<\/strong>:
B. \u201cAn attack on the roots of passion means an attack on the roots of life: the practice of the church is hostile to life.\u201d (Paragraph 2)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanation:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Question 3:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A. The Christian church<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanation:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Question 4:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Answer<\/strong>:
B. Stupidity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Answer<\/strong>:
B. \u201cdiseased reason\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanation:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Question 5:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Answer<\/strong>:
B. It proposes a multitude of alternative ways to view the notion of \u201cpeace of soul.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\nExplanation:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Paraphrase of Nietzsche\u2019s Criticism and Alternative Morality:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n