Fredrich Nietzsche Believed That an Individual Should

Fredrich Nietzsche believed that an individual should create his own set of values, which are developed in isolation from society, religion or authority. This paper discusses whether such an approach is possible at all and whether it is optimal, too. IS IT POSSIBLE TO CREATE VALUE FOR ONESELF Fredrich Nietzsche believed that an individual should create his own set of values, which are developed in isolation from society, religion or authority. For this purpose, he deconstructed collectivism or "herdism" so as to purport that man create his own values.

Nietzsche believed that society should not be allowed to influence an individual' values, his sense of right and wrong; where a society is a group of people who come together for some common purpose. This society possesses common values and judgements, which are not necessarily the judgements of any other society. Nietzsche lamented that since society only exists as a pack, there is no individual morality, but only collective morality.

Therefore even if new values are created and the old ones defied, the most influential would rule the development of new values, which again would not let individuals make their own choices but force them to comply with the new value paradigm of the society.

In The Gay Science Nietzsche states that morality ranks "human drives and actions, [and] always express (es) the needs of a community and herd: whatever profits it." As a result, instead of man creating his own values of right or wrong, based on his individual assessments, the "herd" gives them to him, denying man of his individuality. Therefore, an individual becomes a "function of the herd" who cannot create his own values and live by them.

Nietzsche also considered religion to be yet another form of collectivism where an individual is forced to make choices under the influence of a given code. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883-1885) he stated "God is dead." He believed that religion, in his time, had lost its meaning and influence over people. As a result, it could no longer function as a foundation for moral values. Moreover, since religion has its fixed codes, it does not give an individual the freedom to create his own values in isolation.

Therefore an individual is bound to form his values in accordance with the values given by religion. In a similar way, Nietzsche believed that authority figures also hindered individual efforts to form individual values. In Beyond Good and Evil (1886) and Genealogy of Morals (1887), he argued his point through the example of authority figures in history.

He said that the warriors, who originally dominated society, had defined their own strength and nobility as "good," and the weakness of the common people as "bad." Later, when the priests and common people came to dominate society, they redefined their own weakness and humility as "good" and the strength and cruelty of the warriors whom they feared as "evil." This shows that with time, collective definitions of right and wrong change.

Therefore if an individual is under the influence of the society, where the authority figures keep changing, then the individual would not be able to form his own values; and instead would keep swaying with the tide. As a result, an individual would not be able to make optimum choices based on his own values, which he creates to satisfy himself and not to please others.

The arguments presented by Nietzsche show that individual creation of values is not possible while the influencing factors such as society, religion and authority are present. However it is important to determine whether individual creation of values is at all possible since society, religion and authority cannot be avoided altogether. This paper thus determines whether what Nietzsche has wanted for an individual is possible or not. The fact that an individual does not exist in a vacuum cannot be ignored.

Therefore it is impossible to claim that an individual can create his values in isolation from society, religion and authority. At least one of these three factors will always be present while an individual is developing or re-evaluating his values. Therefore, though it is possible to minimize the influence of the determinants (society, religion and authority), it is impossible to eliminate the influence of them altogether.

As a result, it is advisable to attach minimum weightage to the determinants rather than trying in vain to create values in a vacuum, which might not even be applicable in the real world. Besides this, these determinants can also play a role by presenting alternative choices and data, which an individual can use, in developing his own set of values. Hence other than exerting both useful and negative influences, the determinants are very much real and cannot be avoided.

However, as mentioned above, it is possible to minimize their negative influence and make use of the positive ones. Beginning with society, we will see whether our hypothesis is workable or not. An individual's choices and/or preferences are very much influenced by the kind of society he lives in. The society's norms shape his choices so much so that if an individual prefers to do things his way, he soon suffers as an outcast.

However it is possible to create his own values while keeping those of society's in mind. For instance, in school, a student can form his values which are different from fellow students by accommodating theirs into his own set so that not only his values are more workable but are also reflective of what he wants. For example, if a student believes that romantic relationships at school level should be avoided, he can do so for himself but avoid telling others to do the same.

Such an approach would not only minimize friction but it will also set an example. Moreover such a student can still be friends with them and observe their values to determine where they go wrong. Then instead of rejecting values of his fellow students outright, he can try to understand them and even adopt them with his own modifications. Similarly, the environment that we live in today, glorifies material success. An individual who chooses to contribute to the society in some way rather than.