FINAL #07
7. How would Nietzsche criticize Ramana Maharshi's philosophical and ethical system of thought? Be accurate and use quotes to back up your assertions.
ramana maharshi's and friedrich's philosophical systems are quite the opposite of each other. one that is quite obvious is that ramana maharshi bases all his teachings on divine reasonings, while nietzsche claims that there is no such thing as a divine being and that human beings have power to control their own life. ramana maharshi claims that our true self is the I, the deathless spirit that dwells within our body, while the body itself is disposable and of no significant importance. nietzsche will completely criticize this view since he himself regards the physicality as being superior. while maharshi thinks that the deathless self, the spirit, is what we should concern about and that we "attach too much importance to the body," nietzsche thinks that it is wrong to deny one's passions. he claims that "to exterminate the passions and desires merely in order to do away with their folly... seems to us today merely an acute form of folly." this line depicts clearly nietzsche's admiration for passion and desires, and that one should act accordingly to one's passion and desires because only in such a way can one get to the higher humanity level, which is the superman.
ramana maharshi's belief in destiny will be one main point that nietzsche would criticize. maharshi's idea of destiny undermines nietzsche's concept of will to power. nietzsche believes that man can only evolve for the better if he can will himself to power, and to master nature as a final goal. but maharshi's idea of destiny makes such a concept unconvincing because no matter how much a man tries to will himself to power, if destiny does not allow, he will not gain dominance over nature. another difference would be nietzsche's anti-god system and maharshi's pro-god system. nietzsche claims that god is dead while maharshi holds in highest regard god and spirituality.
ramana maharshi's and friedrich's philosophical systems are quite the opposite of each other. one that is quite obvious is that ramana maharshi bases all his teachings on divine reasonings, while nietzsche claims that there is no such thing as a divine being and that human beings have power to control their own life. ramana maharshi claims that our true self is the I, the deathless spirit that dwells within our body, while the body itself is disposable and of no significant importance. nietzsche will completely criticize this view since he himself regards the physicality as being superior. while maharshi thinks that the deathless self, the spirit, is what we should concern about and that we "attach too much importance to the body," nietzsche thinks that it is wrong to deny one's passions. he claims that "to exterminate the passions and desires merely in order to do away with their folly... seems to us today merely an acute form of folly." this line depicts clearly nietzsche's admiration for passion and desires, and that one should act accordingly to one's passion and desires because only in such a way can one get to the higher humanity level, which is the superman.
ramana maharshi's belief in destiny will be one main point that nietzsche would criticize. maharshi's idea of destiny undermines nietzsche's concept of will to power. nietzsche believes that man can only evolve for the better if he can will himself to power, and to master nature as a final goal. but maharshi's idea of destiny makes such a concept unconvincing because no matter how much a man tries to will himself to power, if destiny does not allow, he will not gain dominance over nature. another difference would be nietzsche's anti-god system and maharshi's pro-god system. nietzsche claims that god is dead while maharshi holds in highest regard god and spirituality.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home