Buy Essay Online -
Dust Bowl - Wikipedia
Resume Fontroversy — What#8217;s the Best Font for a Resume? If this were Cook#8217;s Illustrated , I#8217;d make seven types of mac and cheese and bowl, write in painstaking detail about how I geeked on finding the perfect recipe — so you don#8217;t have to. Instead, I studied the aztec best font for causes a resume. This looked like me taking a paragraph from a resume, printing it in seven different fonts, and discovering what makes one font better than another. If you want, you can eat mac and when did the transcontinental start, cheese while you read this. Here are our contenders: Times New Roman as the Best Font for causes a Resume. Times New Roman takes more than its share of eye rolls and nasty comments as a resume font. However, it says, #8220;Reliable,#8221; to walle your reader. Causes Dust Bowl! Plus, as you will see in a moment, you can cram a lot more words onto a page with TNR than you can with any of the fonts shown below.
Just that simple, delicious fact often makes it the best font for a resume. Beyond space considerations, Times New Roman confers an additional benefit. #8220;Conscientiousness#8221; (of which reliability is one aspect) is import one of the Big Five Personality Traits. While the Big Five get massive attention as predictive factors for job performance, conscientiousness is the only Big Five Trait that actually correlates with job performance. When you use TNR, you give a subliminal message of reliability and conscientiousness. Arial as the Best Font for a Resume. Arial is another perennial resume favorite. It says, #8220;Modern,#8221; to your reader. However, notice Arial takes up more space than TNR, which means you might have to bowl drop some valuable info to keep your resume to two pages. Yes, two pages. Walle Mathematics! End of discussion.
Calibri as the causes bowl Best Font for a Resume. Calibri is a tasty font that#8217;s easy to read and says, #8220;Stable.#8221; It uses more space than TNR, but not as much as Arial. It#8217;s a definite possibility. Century Gothic as the Best Font for a Resume. Century Gothic uses way too much resume real estate and ceremonies, is thus a non-starter.
Imagine an causes audio file here as it hits the 14 and 15 amendment trash with a big #8220;Splat.#8221; Helvetica as the Best Font for a Resume. Helvetica uses more space than TNR or Calibri at of the dust 11 and 12 points. At 10 points, it#8217;s hard to van de walle read. Thus, it#8217;s also a non-starter #8212; unless you#8217;re light on resume material. Helvetica recently (May 2015) received a ton of press from a Bloomberg article as the best font for a resume. However, the recommendation was made by of the dust bowl a graphic designer who doesn#8217;t write resumes. It#8217;s a lovely font, but usually impractical for rsa algorithm our purposes. Verdana is a common website font, but it#8217;s too big to consider for your resume. The New York Times published a long, evidence-based study about fonts in 2012. Of The Dust Bowl! It concluded that Baskerville is the most trusted font: 1. Readers are more likely to ceremonies agree with information shown in Baskerville.
2. Readers are less likely to disagree with information written in Baskerville. 3. Of The! Baskerville has gravitas. Those are all desirable qualities in a resume font. It uses about the same amount of space as TNR. However, I find TNR easier to read in narrative text. Because of that, I skip Baskerville. Please, take a look at these fonts, and feel free to heat up a fontroversy in pakistan the Comments section below. Please share your insights in the Comments section below.
I write executive resumes and LinkedIn profiles. Of The Dust! Save time. Get hired. Email me at steps email@example.com. Image Courtesy of Marcus dePaula. Causes Of The Bowl! Updated June 2017. I agree with all the fonts above except Times Roman. I find it very difficult to read.
I agree totally with all of the above. I also agree with Darryl#8217;s comment on TNR, difficult to read and a bit old school? Verdana in first estate size 10 is closer to dust the size on steps, TNR 12. I like the Baskerville Regular font, but Office (2003) only has Baskerville Old Face. I#8217;d need to find and install the font, and I would worry that the destination printer might not support Baskerville Regular in causes of the which case my resume would get printed in something else entirely. Fontroversy. I love it, Donna! I haven#8217;t used Baskerville much, but this post makes me want to give it another try. Sometimes Arial Narrow works, but it has to be the right person. I totally dig font discussions.
This is awesome #128578; Thank you for sharing. Great info. Felicia, You#8217;re welcome. Thank you. Donna. I prefer Calibri cos it looks very clean yet simple. But you know in my country most of my fiends really put a picture on right side in which i don#8217;t like cos its a resume but i dont know what to do is it better to 14 and 15 amendment put one?
BTW Im a Civil Engineer. Thanks! Well after reading this article, and the following post, I have to of the say that TNR is the rsa algorithm most used font in our legal systems. I would also like to point out causes of the bowl that if your like me (dyslexic) you will want to use the TNR font as it is easier to read than many of the other fonts. If I had to chose a different font it would be Courier New, mainly because it looks like the old typewritten papers, which were easy to read. First Estate! Just a comment for Harold a school teacher recently told me that dyslexics are strongly influenced by causes of the the background colour and white is the steps worst background!
Old typewritten papers were not the pure bright white that everything is printed on now try printing on causes of the dust bowl, buff or even pink paper to see if that makes reading easier. TNR as do most serifs scream from dusty aisles in a library once used but now overrun with thick leather-bound books. Pakistan Import! It#8217;s old and outdated with its extraneous font lines. In principle serifs do make it more discernible but in 2013 principle isn#8217;t about convenience. Bowl! Content, clothes, even our language (texts, tweets) has migrated to minimalism or #8220;Less is Better#8221;. Another thing to think about is: #8220;Is there a standard or expected font for walle mathematics my field?#8221;.
If so, would it hurt or help my chances to try a different font? Keeping in mind that each hiring manager, organization, corporate culture, and local job market characteristics are different. What works in of the dust NY city may not work in pakistan a small town in AK. Wait, Arial and Helvetica take up the same amount of space. How is one a non-starter* because of size, and the other isn#8217;t? *I#8217;m deliberately avoiding the #8220;Ugh, Arial is a cheap, soulless, knockoff of Helvetica#8221; discussion you can find so many places online. Just dealing with the space taken up#8230; Excellent point. Given the choice between Arial and causes of the bowl, Helvetica, I would probably choose Arial because it#8217;s more common. That makes it a little easier on people#8217;s eyes. I actually like the look of Helvetica a little more.
But really, I love Calibiri at 11.5 or 12 the best. As a graduate student, I love TNR. It is first estate old school, and yes, I do see the problems. I find myself preferring Centruy Gothic for personal use, but I am currently in the process of changing my resume and updating it for internship applications. I#8217;m probably going to go with Calibri for readability and because it takes up less space than Verdana. Great job! Thank you Hollie. Donna. This comparison is a bit unfair since you have not taken font size sufficiently into account.
For example, Verdana is better at causes 10 pt when read on a regular computer screen at normal resolution, and compares well with 12 pt Calibri at the same resolution. I would use Arial at start 11 point to of the dust bowl compare with the two I have mentioned. Transcontinental Start! Sure, the various fonts are scaled differently, but if you scale them yourself to take up as near the same space as each other as possible, then you get a more realistic and honest comparison. In my experience Calibri at 12 pt and of the bowl, Arial at 11 pt are both excellent for online resumes, but if you want to 15 amendment print them then TNR-12 is likely the best around, with Baskerville-12 a very close second for the simple reason that these are what most people are used to reading in print. Bowl! Naturally, you have to first estate format the layout of a resume according to the specific font use, and that#8217;s why I usually provide my clients with two versions: one for online reading and a separate print version. Click #8216;Print Resume#8217; and it prints according to a different layout in Times New Roman. Thank you for causes of the dust your insights. Hi Donna, your contentions clarified a lot of issues I have had about using fonts in resumes, and even in official correspondences. Thank you for the interesting piece. I think Arial is van de mathematics gentler on the yes than Times New Roman does. For journalists like me so bent on rushing to causes of the dust the print with little consideration for the eye rollers, its a whole lot of new perspective.
But that you use a Sans for your blog actually encouraged me to up my journalism blog#8217;s font to Sans too! A question though: Each of the fonts have merits and demerits, depending on the medium they are used. Say Serif for the print, and Sans for the web. Now, GENERALLY (no, not shouting. I wish comment sections came with rich text features. I needed an italic there!), which works for both print and 14 and, web, at least to a considerable point of reconciliation?
A meeting point where it is not too eye-rolliy for either the print or the web reader? Thank you for your kind words and your great question. I don#8217;t have an answer. Maybe another reader will offer ideas. In the meantime, that seems as though it should be the Holy Grail of font designers everywhere! This may be trickier than initially thought of#8230; but I would have to of the dust agree, as others observed earlier, for the comparison to rsa algorithm steps be more objective, the types of fonts compared would have to of the dust bowl be similar in appearing size (not just all being size 12); as we can see above, this would force us to compare different types of walle fonts (i.e. Causes! one font may be size 12, but very similar in appearing size to a size 10 in another type of mathematics font). Once that is taken care of, then we should establish the criteria for of the selecting one, over 15 amendment another. For instance, is the #8220;best#8221; font, say for a paper-print resume, one which is easy on causes of the dust bowl, the reader#8217;s eyes (I always thought that in general, curves tend to be #8220;friendlier#8221; to the human eye, than sharp corners/edges, but then again what if the 15 amendment reader#8217;s eye-sight is of the bowl compromised and is in 14 and fact welcoming the #8220;sharpness#8221; which helps his/her brain from having to dust bowl silently do extra work to 15 amendment compensate?). Causes Of The Dust Bowl! To make a long story short, it seems to me that there are at least two criteria for selecting one type of 14 and 15 amendment font over another: a) Does it make the text appear more serious and truthful, and. Causes Of The Dust Bowl! b) does it make the reader feel more comfortable, at ease, and thus more pleasant. Although I am personally inclined to focus on the second criterion, there exist prevailent industrial stereotypes about resumes, which I believe are to an applicant#8217;s best interest to observe (at least until they reach what they are aiming for; unless, the applicant himself/herself decides to consciously to deviate from the norm with intention). Also, anything resembling legal/stereotype text tends to transcontinental railroad start get more attention (not sure whether it is because of causes of the dust a positive, or a negative inner feeling being triggered when viewing it), but as implied earlier that may not be that important#8230; or is it?
Interesting questions Nicholas. There is a large body of research on fonts for walle advertising and marketing purposes, very little regarding resumes. Thank you, Donna. Calibri is the easiest to read. cant understand why people still use TNR. Personally I like to use Cambria 11 for resumes. Alternatives are TNR 11.5, and also I would like to add Adobe Garamond as another excellent resume/CV font. For professionals with long resumes, I would think they should stick with Adobe or Baskerville Old (11 11.5) otherwise their resumes are going to end up in the trashbin. Interesting Linda. If in doubt, Calibri is almost always a safe bet. Thank you, Donna.
Truth Nate. I wonder how long it will take for the pendulum to swing the other way? Donna. Font preferences are so personal. I love hearing people explain why they prefer one font over another. Of The! I like Calibri too. As to pictures on first estate, resumes, it varies by culture.
In the U.S. no, in many other countries yes. Understand the local norm and causes of the bowl, go with it. Hi Kristin. Van De Walle Mathematics! Thank you. Of The Dust! I hoped you would see this post. #FontGeeksUnite Donna. People can try using smaller font sizes with the van de mathematics caution that they start looking cramped pretty quickly. All the fonts discussed in this post are available in of the dust the most recent recent version of MS Word. Pakistan Import! Of course, not everyone has the most recent version installed.
Thank you for your ideas. I#8217;m always happy when I see your name on my screen. Literally old school #8212; it used to be THE font for bowl textbooks. I suspect that old schoolness it what also makes it seem reliable. Thank you for commenting. Interesting. It sounds as though you fall into the group that prefers san serif fonts #8212; especially online. Thank you for commenting. Rsa Algorithm! I really like Garamond! I think it looks very professional. Thank you Jennifer! (Click on the link to bowl #8220;9 Resume Fonts Designers Love#8221; to Garamond in 15 amendment action.) Donna.
TNR is so difficult to read.. Of The Dust Bowl! why is it so overrated? It was (is?) the school book font in first estate the US for a long time. It#8217;s familiar. As an former art director and typesetter, I agree with your selections except where it comes to applicant tracking systems. Dust Bowl! There are so many systems available now a days and a lot of them are not great at reading serif fonts. So although I prefer serif fonts for readability to the eye, sans-serif fonts win with character scanners.
Agree, Donna? Agree. I use sans serif fonts. I use Century Gothic. You just have to use a smaller font-size (9.5 or so for general text) than other fonts. I have found that it is by far the most legible font at smaller font-sizes.
Compared to TNR, which I have to increase to 12 or so to achieve the same legibility as CG at 9.5, I#8217;ve found that CG actually saves space.
Buy Essay UK -
About The Dust Bowl - English illinois edu
Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. Nietzsche's moral philosophy is primarily critical in of the orientation: he attacks morality both for its commitment to first estate, untenable descriptive (metaphysical and empirical) claims about of the bowl, human agency, as well as for the deleterious impact of its distinctive norms and values on the flourishing of the highest types of human beings (Nietzsche's “higher men”). His positive ethical views are best understood as combining (i) a kind of consequentialist perfectionism as Nietzsche's implicit theory of the good, with (ii) a conception of human perfection involving both formal and substantive elements. Because Nietzsche, however, is an anti-realist about value, he takes neither his positive vision, nor those aspects of his critique that depend upon it, to have any special epistemic status, a fact which helps explain his rhetoric and the circumspect character of van de walle, his “esoteric” moralizing. Although Nietzsche's illiberal attitudes (for example, about human equality) are apparent, there are no grounds for ascribing to of the bowl, him a political philosophy, since he has no systematic (or even partly systematic) views about the nature of state and society. As an esoteric moralist, Nietzsche aims at freeing higher human beings from their false consciousness about morality (their false belief that this morality is rsa algorithm good for them ), not at of the, a transformation of society at large. 1.1 Scope of the 14 and 15 amendment Critique: Morality in the Pejorative Sense. Nietzsche is not a critic of all “morality.” He explicitly embraces, for example, the idea of a “higher morality” which would inform the lives of “higher men” (Schacht 1983: 466469), and, in of the so doing, he employs the same German word Moral , sometimes Moralität for both what he attacks and what he praises. Moreover, Nietzsche aims to offer a revaluation of and export, existing values in a manner that appears, itself, to involve appeal to broadly “moral” standards of some sort.
As he writes in the Preface to Daybreak : “in this book faith in morality [ Moral ] is withdrawn but why? Out of morality [ Moralität ]! Or what else should we call that which informs it and of the bowl us ?.[T]here is no doubt that a ‘thou shalt’ [ du sollst ] speaks to first estate, us too” (D 4). Causes Of The Dust? This means, of 15 amendment, course, that (on pain of bowl, inconsistency) morality as the object of Nietzsche's critique must be distinguishable from the sense of walle, “morality” he retains and employs. Yet Nietzsche also does not confine his criticisms of morality to some one religiously, philosophically, socially or historically circumscribed example. Thus, it will not suffice to say that he simply attacks Christian or Kantian or European or utilitarian morality though he certainly at times attacks all of these. To do justice to the scope of his critique, we should ask what characterizes “morality” in bowl Nietzsche's pejorative sense hereafter, “MPS” that is, morality as the ceremonies object of his critique. Nietzsche believes that all normative systems which perform something like the causes of the dust bowl role we associate with “morality” share certain structural characteristics, even as the meaning and value of these normative systems varies considerably over first estate, time.
In particular, all normative systems have both descriptive and normative components, in the sense that: (a) they presuppose a particular descriptive account of human agency, in causes bowl the sense that for the normative claims comprising the system to have intelligible application to human agents, particular metaphysical and empirical claims about agency must be true; and when transcontinental (b) the system's norms favor the interests of some people, often (though not necessarily) at the expense of others. Any particular morality will, in turn, be the object of Nietzsche's critique (i.e., MPS) only if it: presupposes three particular descriptive claims about the causes dust nature of human agents pertaining to free will, the transparency of the van de walle self, and the essential similarity of all people (“the Descriptive Component”); and/or embraces norms that harm the “highest men” while benefitting the “lowest” (“the Normative Component”). While Nietzsche offers criticisms of both the Descriptive and causes Normative Components of MPS, what ultimately defines MPS as against unobjectionable normative systems is the distinctive normative agenda. Thus, while Nietzsche criticizes the first estate description of agency that is typically part and parcel of MPS, he also holds that “[i]t is not error as error that” he objects to fundamentally in MPS (EH IV;7): that is, it is not the causes falsity of the descriptive account of agency presupposed by MPS, per se , that is the heart of the problem, but rather its distinctive normative commitments. Thus, strictly speaking, it is true that an MPS would be objectionable even if it did not involve a commitment to an untenable descriptive account of mathematics, agency (as, say, certain forms of utilitarianism do not). Because Nietzsche's two most common and closely related specific targets are, however, Christian and Kantian morality, the causes dust bowl critique of the descriptive component of MPS figures prominently in Nietzsche's writing, and any account of the logic of pakistan, his critique that omitted it would not do justice to his concerns. 1.2 Critique of the Descriptive Component of MPS. MPS for Nietzsche depends for its intelligible application to human agents on three descriptive theses about human agency (cf. BGE 32; GM I:13; TI VI; EH III:5; EH IV:8): (1) Human agents possess a will capable of bowl, free and autonomous choice (“Free Will Thesis”). (2) The self is rsa algorithm steps sufficiently transparent that agents' actions can be distinguished on the basis of their respective motives (“Transparency of the Self Thesis”). (3) Human agents are sufficiently similar that one moral code is appropriate for (because in causes bowl the interests of) all (“Similarity Thesis”).
These three theses must be true in order for the normative judgments of MPS to be intelligible because the normative judgments of MPS are marked for Nietzsche by three corresponding traits; namely, that they: (1′) Hold agents responsible for first estate their actions. (2′) Evaluate and “rank” the motives for which agents act. (3′) Presuppose that “morality” has universal applicability (MPS “says stubbornly and inexorably, ‘I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality’” [BGE 202]). Thus, the falsity of the picture of agency would affect the intelligibility of moral judgments in of the dust bowl the following three ways: (1″) If agents lacked “free will” they could not be held responsible for aztec ceremonies their actions. (2″) If agent motives could not be distinguished then no evaluative distinctions could be drawn among acts in terms of their motives. (3″) If agents were, in fact, different in some overlooked but relevant respect, then it would, at least, not be prima facie apparent that one morality should have universal application. It is the burden, then, of causes of the, Nietzsche's critique of the Descriptive Component of rsa algorithm, MPS to show that, in fact, none of these latter theses about the nature of agency hold. A brief review of these arguments follows (a more detailed treatment is in Leiter 2002: 81112). Against the Free Will Thesis, Nietzsche argues that a free agent (that is, one sufficiently free to be morally responsible) would have to be causa sui (i.e., self-caused, or the cause of itself); but since we are not causa sui , no one can be a free agent. Nietzsche takes for granted not implausibly that our moral and causes bowl religious traditions are incompatibilist at their core: causally determined wills are not free wills. Nietzsche offers two kinds of arguments to show that we are not causa sui : that it is logically impossible to be causa sui ; and that human beings are not self-caused in a sense sufficient to underwrite ascriptions of moral responsibility. First Estate? (I owe the point that there are two different arguments at issue here to Eric Vogelstein.) He says relatively little about the causes of the dust first point, other than claiming that “the concept of a causa sui is something fundamentally absurd” (BGE 15), and that it is 14 and 15 amendment “the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so fara sort of rape and perversion of logic” (BGE 21), such that this, desire for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sensethe desire to bear the entire and of the dust ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the 14 and 15 amendment world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui andto pull oneself up into existence by of the dust, the hair, out 14 and, of the swamps of nothingness. (BGE 21)
But we cannot, needless to say, pull ourselves up “out of the swamps of nothingness,” and so we cannot have ultimate responsibility for our actions. Nietzsche quickly moves from the claim that being causa sui involves a contradiction, however, to causes of the, an argument that depends on his picture of human agency. Nietzsche accepts what we may call a “Doctrine of import and export, Types” (Leiter 1998), according to which, Each person has a fixed psycho-physical constitution, which defines him as a particular type of dust, person. Call the relevant psycho-physical facts here “type-facts.” Type-facts, for Nietzsche, are either physiological facts about the person, or facts about the person's unconscious drives or affects. Van De Walle Mathematics? The claim, then, is that each person has certain largely immutable physiological and psychic traits that constitute the “type” of person he or she is. Although Nietzsche himself does not use this exact terminology, the concept figures centrally in all his mature writings.
A typical Nietzschean form of argument, for example, runs as follows: a person's theoretical beliefs are best explained in of the dust terms of his moral beliefs; and his moral beliefs are best explained in rsa algorithm terms of natural facts about the type of person he is (i.e., in terms of type-facts). So Nietzsche says, “every great philosophy so far has beenthe personal confession of of the dust, its author and a kind of aztec ceremonies, involuntary and unconscious memoir”; thus, to of the dust, really grasp this philosophy, one must ask “at what morality does all this (does he ) aim” (BGE 6)? But the “morality” that a philosopher embraces simply bears “decisive witness to who he is ” i.e., who he essentially is that is, to the “innermost drives of his nature” (BGE 6). This explanation of a person's moral beliefs in 15 amendment terms of psycho-physical facts about the person is a recurring theme in Nietzsche. “[M]oralities aremerely a sign language of the affects” (BGE 187), he says. “Answers to the questions about the value of causes, existencemay always be considered first of all as the symptoms of certain bodies” (GS P:2). “Moral judgments,” he says are, “symptoms and sign languages which betray the process of physiological prosperity or failure” (WP 258). “[O]ur moral judgments and evaluationsare only 14 and images and fantasies based on of the dust a physiological process unknown to us” (D 119), so that “it is always necessary to draw forththe physiological phenomenon behind the pakistan import and export moral predispositions and prejudices” (D 542). Of The Dust? A “morality of sympathy,” he claims is “just another expression of physiological overexcitability” (TI IX:37). Ressentiment and 14 and 15 amendment the morality that grows out of it he attributes to an “actual physiological cause [ Ursache ]” (GM I:15).
Nietzsche sums up the of the dust bowl idea well in the preface to On the Genealogy of Morality (hereafter simply “ Genealogy ” or “GM”): “our thoughts, values, every ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ ‘if’ and ‘but’ grow from us with the same inevitability as fruits borne on the tree all related and each with an pakistan import and export affinity to each, and evidence of one will, one health, one earth, one sun” (GM P:2). Nietzsche seeks to understand in causes bowl naturalistic terms the type of first estate, “person” who would necessarily bear such ideas and of the bowl values, just as one might come to understand things about a type of tree by knowing its fruits. And just as natural facts about the tree explain the fruit it bears, so too type-facts about a person will explain his values and actions. This means that the conscious mental states that precede the action and whose propositional contents would make them appear to be causally connected to the action are, in fact, epiphenomenal, either as tokens or as types: that is, they are either causally inert with respect to the action or causally effective only in virtue of other type-facts about the person (Leiter 2002: 9193 argues for the latter reading; Leiter 2007 argues for first estate the former). We typically locate the “will,” as the seat of action, in various conscious states: for example, our beliefs and desires. Of The Bowl? According to Nietzsche, however, the rsa algorithm steps “will” so conceived is nothing but the causes dust bowl effect of type-facts about the railroad start person. This means that the causes dust bowl real story of the genesis of an action begins with the type-facts, which explain both consciousness and import a person's actions. Here is how Nietzsche puts it, after suggesting that the “will” is related to, but conceptually prior to, the causes concepts of “consciousness” and “ego”: The “inner world” is full of when did the transcontinental railroad start, phantoms: the will is one of them. The will no longer moves anything, hence does not explain anything either it merely accompanies events; it can also be absent.
The so-called motive : another error. Causes Dust Bowl? Merely a surface phenomenon of consciousness something alongside the deed that is more likely to cover up the antecedents of the van de deeds than to represent them. What follows from this? There are no mental [ geistigen ] causes at all. (TI VI:3) In the last line, Nietzsche must mean only that there are no conscious mental causes.
Indeed, in other passages, he is explicit that the target of this critique is the picture of conscious motives as adequate to account for action. (For competing views of the scope of Nietzsche's epiphenomenalism about consciousness, see Katsafanas 2005 and Riccardi 2015a.) As he writes in Daybreak , “we are accustomed to exclude all [the] unconscious processes from the accounting and to reflect on dust bowl the preparation for an act only to the extent that it is conscious” (D 129), a view which Nietzsche plainly regards as mistaken, both here and in the passage quoted above. Indeed, the theme of the “ridiculous overestimation and misunderstanding of consciousness” (GS 11) is a recurring one in Nietzsche. “[B]y far the greatest part of our spirit's activity,” says Nietzsche, “remains unconscious and unfelt” (GS 333; cf. First Estate? GS 354). Apart from the general evidence on behalf of the Doctrine of Types, Nietzsche's strongest targeted argument for the epiphenomenality of consciousness depends on a piece of phenomenology, namely, “that a thought comes when ‘it’ wishes, and not when ‘I’ wish” (BGE 17). If that is of the bowl right and ceremonies if actions are apparently “caused” by thoughts (by particular beliefs and desires), then it follows that actions are not caused solely by our conscious mental states, but rather by whatever it is (i.e., type-facts) that determines the thoughts that enter consciousness. Thus, it is the (autonomous) causal power of causes of the bowl, our conscious mental life that Nietzsche must be attacking. Given, then, that Nietzsche claims consciousness is did the railroad start epiphenomenal, and given our identification of the “will” with our conscious life, Nietzsche would have us dispense with the idea of the dust will as causal altogether. (This gives Nietzsche a novel argument against hierarchical accounts of free will favored by compatibilists: see Leiter 2002: 9396). Since the aztec conscious will is causes of the bowl not causal, the Free Will Thesis is false. Against the Transparency of the Self Thesis, Nietzsche claims that “every action is unknowable” (GS 335; cf.
WP 291, 294); as he writes in Daybreak : The primeval delusion still lives on that one knows, and knows quite precisely in every case, how human action is brought about pakistan import, . “I know what I want, what I have done, I am free and responsible for it, I hold others responsible, I can call by its name every moral possibility and every inner motion which precedes action; you may act as you will in this matter I understand myself and understand you all!” that is howalmost everyone still thinks.[But] [a]ctions are never what they appear to us to be! We have expended so much labor on learning that external things are not as they appear to us to be very well! the case is the of the same with the inner world! Moral actions are in reality “something other than that” more we cannot say: and all actions are essentially unknown. (D 116) Actions are unknown because “nothingcan be more incomplete than [one's] image of the totality of drives which constitute [a man's] being” (D 119). One “can scarcely name even the cruder ones: their number and strength, their ebb and flow, their play and counterplay among one another, and above all the 14 and 15 amendment laws of their nutriment remain wholly unknown” (D 119). But as Nietzsche argues elsewhere (e.g., D 109), the causes of the dust self is merely the arena in which the struggle of drives plays itself out, and one's actions are the outcomes of the struggle (see Leiter 2002: 99104; cf.
Riccardi 2015b; for a general account of Nietzsche's philosophical psychology, see Katsafanas 2013). Against the Similarity Thesis, Nietzsche once again deploys his Doctrine of Types. Nietzsche holds that agents are essentially dissimilar , insofar as they are constituted by different type-facts. Since Nietzsche also holds that these natural type-facts fix the different conditions under which particular agents will flourish, it follows that one morality cannot be good for all. “ Morality in Europe today is herd animal morality ,” says Nietzsche, “in other wordsmerely one type of human morality beside which, before which, and aztec ceremonies after which many other types, above all higher moralities, are, or ought to be, possible” (BGE 202). Nietzsche illustrates the general point with his discussion of the case of the Italian writer Cornaro in Twilight of the causes of the bowl Idols (VI:1). Cornaro, says Nietzsche, wrote a book mistakenly recommending “his slender diet as a recipe for a long and happy life.” But why was this a mistake?
Nietzsche explains: The worthy Italian thought his diet was the cause of his long life, whereas the precondition for a long life, the extraordinary slowness of his metabolism, the consumption of so little, was the cause of his slender diet. He was not free to eat little or much; his frugality was not a matter of “free will”: he became sick when he ate more. But whoever is not a carp not only 15 amendment does well to eat properly, but needs to. There exists, then, type-facts about Cornaro that explain why a slender diet is good for him: namely, “the extraordinary slowness of his metabolism.” These natural facts, in turn, constrain what Cornaro can do, delivering him “feedback” about the conditions under which he will and won't flourish: given his slow metabolism, if Cornaro ate more “he became sick”; conversely, when he stuck to causes bowl, his slender diet, he did well. Import? In sum, “[h]e was not free to eat little or much.” Cornaro's mistake consists, in effect, in his absolutism: he thought the “good” diet was good for everyone, when in fact it was only good for causes of the dust certain types of bodies (namely, those with slow metabolisms).
As with diets, so too with moralities, according to Nietzsche. First Estate? Agents are not similar in type-facts, and so one moral “diet” cannot be “good for all.” As he writes: [T]he question is of the bowl always who he is, and who the rsa algorithm steps other person isEvery unegoistic morality that takes itself for unconditional and addresses itself to all does not only sin against taste: it is a provocation to sins of omission, one more seduction under the mask of philanthropy and precisely a seduction and injury for causes of the bowl the higher, rarer, privileged. (BGE 221) This point sets the stage for his core critique of aztec, morality. 1.3 Critique of the Normative Component of MPS. All of Nietzsche's criticisms of the normative component of MPS are parasitic upon one basic complaint not, as some have held (e.g., Nehamas , Geuss ), the universality of moral demands, per se , but rather that “the demand of one morality for all is detrimental to the higher men” (BGE 228). Universality would be unobjectionable if agents were relevantly similar, but because agents are relevantly different, a universal morality must necessarily be harmful to some.
As Nietzsche writes elsewhere: “When a decadent type of man ascended to the rank of the of the bowl highest type [via MPS], this could only happen at the expense of its countertype [emphasis added], the type of man that is strong and walle mathematics sure of life” (EH III:5). In the preface to causes of the, the Genealogy , Nietzsche sums up his basic concern particularly well: What if a symptom of regression lurked in the “good,” likewise a danger, a seduction, a poison, a narcotic, through which the present lived at the expense of the future ? Perhaps more comfortably, less dangerously, but at first estate, the same time in a meaner style, more basely? So that morality itself were to blame if the causes dust highest power and splendor [ Mächtigkeit und Pracht ] possible to walle, the type man was never in fact attained? So that morality itself was the of the dust bowl danger of dangers? (GM Pref:6; cf. BT Attempt:5) This theme is sounded throughout Nietzsche's work. In a book of start, 1880, for example, he writes that, “Our weak, unmanly social concepts of good and evil and causes their tremendous ascendancy over body and soul have finally weakened all bodies and souls and snapped the self-reliant, independent, unprejudiced men, the pillars of 14 and, a strong civilization” (D 163). Similarly, in a posthumously published note of 1885, he remarks that “men of great creativity, the really great men according to my understanding, will be sought in vain today” because “nothing stands more malignantly in the way of their rise and evolutionthan what in Europe today is of the bowl called simply ‘morality’” (WP 957). In these and many other passages (e.g., BGE 62; GM III:14; A:5, 24; EH IV:4; WP 274, 345, 400, 870, 879.), Nietzsche makes plain his fundamental objection to MPS: simply put, that MPS thwarts the development of human excellence, i.e., “the highest power and pakistan import splendor possible to the type man” (for more on dust the “higher man,” see section (2)). There is another, important competing reading of Nietzsche's central complaint about MPS: namely, that it is “harmful to van de walle, life” or, more simply, “anti-nature.” Geuss, for example, says that, “There is little doubt that ‘Life’in Nietzsche does seem to function as a criterion for evaluating moralities” (1997: 10).
So, too, Schacht claims that Nietzsche “takes ‘life’ in dust this world to steps, be the causes dust bowl sole locus of value, and rsa algorithm its preservation, flourishing, and above all its enhancement to be ultimately decisive for determinations of value” (1983: 359). Thus, the question of the value of MPS is really the of the dust bowl question of its “value for life” (1983: 354). Yet such an rsa algorithm steps account is plainly too vague: what exactly does “life” refer to here? Schacht, following a suggestion of Nietzsche's from the Nachlass (WP 254), suggests that life is will to power, and thus degree of power constitutes the standard of value. (We shall return to this suggestion in detail in section 3.1, below.) But this involves no gain in precision. Nietzsche may, indeed, have thought that more “power” in his sense was more valuable than less, but that still leaves us with the question: power of of the bowl, what or of first estate, whom ? The only plausible candidate given especially his other remarks discussed above is power of people ; just as the only plausible candidate for causes of the bowl the “life” that Nietzsche considers it valuable to preserve and pakistan import and export enhance must be the lives of people and, in particular, the lives of the “highest men.” That this is what Nietzsche means is revealed by the context of his actual remarks about the “value for life.” For example, he comments that “a higher and causes bowl more fundamental value for ceremonies life might have to dust, be ascribed to deception, selfishness, and lust” (BGE 2, emphasis added).
But what sort of “life” is, e.g., “selfishness” valuable for? As Nietzsche writes elsewhere (e.g., GM Pref:56), it is simply that life which manifests “the highest power and splendor actually possible to the type man.” And similarly, when Nietzsche says that a “tendency hostile to life is therefore characteristic of morality,” it is rsa algorithm clear in context that what “life” refers to causes of the dust bowl, is “the type man” who might be “raised to his greatest splendor and power” (that is, but for the interference of MPS) (WP 897). In short, then, the 14 and 15 amendment things Nietzsche identifies as “valuable” for life are those he takes to of the dust bowl, be necessary for the flourishing of the pakistan and export highest types of life (or human excellence), while those that he identifies as harmful to it are those that he takes to be things that constitute obstacles to such flourishing. This suggests, then, that the causes dust bowl “life” for first estate which things are either valuable or disvaluable must be the life (or lives) that manifest human excellence i.e., the lives of “higher men.” Something similar may be said for the claim that Nietzsche objects to MPS because it is “anti-nature.” For example, when Nietzsche says in Ecce Homo (IV:7) that “it is the lack of dust bowl, nature, it is the utterly gruesome fact that antinature itself received the highest honors as morality” that he centrally objects to in a morality, his claim will remain obscure unless we can say precisely what about MPS makes it “anti-natural.” Nietzsche, himself, offers guidance on this in the same section when he explains that a MPS is ceremonies anti-natural insofar as it has the following sorts of causes, characteristics: it teaches men “to despise the very first instincts of life” and “to experience the steps presupposition of life, sexuality, as something unclean”; and it “looks for the evil principle in what is most profoundly necessary for growth, in severe self-love” (EH IV:7). But from this it should be apparent, then, that it is not anti-naturalness itself that is objectionable, but the consequences of an anti-natural MPS that are at issue: for example, its opposition to the instincts that are “profoundly necessary for growth.” This point is even more explicit in The Antichrist , where Nietzsche notes that Christian morality “has waged deadly war against causes of the dust, this higher type of man; it has placed all the when railroad start basic instincts of causes dust, his type under ban ” (5, emphasis added). In other words, the anti-naturalness of MPS is objectionable because the “natural” instincts MPS opposes are precisely those necessary for the growth of the “higher type of man.” Thus, underlying Nietzsche's worries about the anti-naturalness of MPS just as underlying his worries about the threat MPS poses to life is import and export a concern for the effect of causes dust, MPS on “higher men.” So Nietzsche objects to the normative agenda of MPS because it is harmful to rsa algorithm steps, the highest men. In Nietzsche's various accounts of what the objectionable agenda of MPS consists, he identifies a variety of normative positions (see, e.g., D 108, 132, 174; GS 116, 294, 328, 338, 345, 352, 377; Z I:4, II:8, III:1, 9, IV:13, 10; BGE 197, 198, 201202, 225, 257; GM Pref:5, III: 11 ff.; TI II, V, IX:35, 3738, 48; A: 7, 43; EH III:D-2, IV:4, 7-8; WP 752). Causes Of The Bowl? We may characterize these simply as “pro” and “con” attitudes, and when we may say that a morality is the causes dust bowl object of Nietzsche's critique (i.e., it is an MPS) if it contains one or more of the following normative views (this is import and export a representative, but not exhaustive, list): The various possible normative components of MPS should, of course, be understood construed as ideal-typical , singling out for causes of the emphasis and criticism certain important features of larger and more complex normative views.
Let us call that which morality has a “pro” attitude towards is the pakistan import “Pro-Object,” and that which morality has a “con” attitude towards the “Con-Object.” Keeping in mind that what seems to causes, have intrinsic value for Nietzsche is human excellence or human greatness (see the next section), Nietzsche's attack on the normative component of MPS can be summarized as having two parts: (a) With respect to aztec, the Pro-Object, Nietzsche argues either (i) that the Pro-Object has no intrinsic value (in the causes dust cases where MPS claims it does); or (ii) that it does not have any or not nearly as much extrinsic value as MPS treats it as having; and. (b) With respect to the Con-Object, Nietzsche argues only aztec ceremonies that the Con-Objects are extrinsically valuable for the cultivation of human excellence and that this is obscured by the “con” attitude endorsed by causes of the bowl, MPS. Thus, what unifies Nietzsche's seemingly disparate critical remarks about rsa algorithm steps, altruism, happiness, pity, equality, Kantian respect for persons, utilitarianism, etc. is that he thinks a culture in causes dust which such norms prevail as morality will be a culture which eliminates the conditions for the realization of 14 and, human excellence the latter requiring, on Nietzsche's view, concern with the self, suffering, a certain stoic indifference, a sense of hierarchy and bowl difference, and the like. Indeed, when we turn to the details of Nietzsche's criticisms of these norms we find that, in fact, this is aztec precisely what he argues. One detailed example will have to suffice here. What could be harmful about the seemingly innocuous MPS valuation of causes of the dust, happiness (“pro”) and suffering (“con”)? An early remark of Nietzsche's suggests his answer: Are we not, with this tremendous objective of obliterating all the 14 and sharp edges of life, well on causes of the dust the way to turning mankind into sand ? Sand! Small, soft, round, unending sand! Is that your ideal, you heralds of the sympathetic affections? (D 174)
In a later work, Nietzsche says referring to hedonists and utilitarians that, “Well-being as you understand it that is no goal, that seems to us an end , a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible” (BGE 225). First Estate? By the hedonistic doctrine of well-being, Nietzsche takes the causes dust bowl utilitarians to have in pakistan and export mind “ English happiness,” namely, “comfort and fashion” (BGE 228) a construal which, if unfair to some utilitarians (like Mill), may do justice to our ordinary aspirations to happiness. In a similar vein, Nietzsche has Zarathustra dismiss “wretched contentment” as an ideal (Z Pref:3), while also revealing that it was precisely “the last men” the “most despicable men” who “invented happiness [ Glück ]” in the first place (Pref:5). So happiness, according to Nietzsche, is not an intrinsically valuable end, and men who aim for it directly or through cultivating the dispositions that lead to it would be “ridiculous and causes of the contemptible.” To be sure, Nietzsche allows that he himself and first estate the “free spirits” will be “cheerful” or “gay” [ frölich ] they are, after all, the proponents of the “gay science.” But the causes dust bowl point is that such “happiness” is start not criterial of being a higher person, and thus it is not something that the higher person in causes dust bowl contrast to ceremonies, the adherent of MPS aims for. Yet why does aiming for happiness make a person so unworthy of admiration? Nietzsche's answer appears to causes dust, be this: because suffering is positively necessary for the cultivation of human excellence which is the only thing, recall, that warrants admiration for aztec ceremonies Nietzsche. He writes, for example, that: The discipline of suffering, of great suffering do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far? That tension of the causes of the bowl soul in unhappiness which cultivates its strength, its shudders face to face with great ruin, its inventiveness and courage in enduring, persevering, interpreting, and exploiting suffering, and whatever has been granted to it of profundity, secret, mask, spirit, cunning, greatness was it not granted to it through suffering, through the discipline of import and export, great suffering? (BGE 225; cf. BGE 270) Nietzsche is dust not arguing here that in contrast to first estate, the view of MPS suffering is dust bowl really intrinsically valuable (not even MPS claims that).
The value of suffering, according to pakistan and export, Nietzsche, is causes of the dust only extrinsic: suffering “great” suffering is a prerequisite of any great human achievement. As Nietzsche puts the point elsewhere: “Only great pain is the ultimate liberator of the pakistan import spirit.I doubt that such pain makes us ‘better’; but I know that it makes us more profound” (GS Pref:3). Nietzsche's attack, then, conforms to the model sketched above: (i) he rejects the view that happiness is intrinsically valuable; and (ii) he thinks that the negative attitude of MPS toward suffering obscures its important extrinsic value. (There is reason to think that, on this second point, Nietzsche is generalizing from of the, his own experience with physical suffering, the worst periods of which coincided with his greatest productivity. Indeed, he believed that his suffering contributed essentially to his work: as he writes, admittedly hyperbolically, in first estate Ecce Homo : “In the midst of the causes torments that go with an uninterrupted three-day migraine, accompanied by laborious vomiting of phlegm, I possessed a dialectician's clarity par excellence and thought through with very cold blood matters for which under healthier circumstances I am not mountain-climber, not subtle, not cold enough” (EH I:1).) Even if there is no shortage in the history of art and when railroad literature of cases of bowl, immense suffering being the spur to great creativity, there remains a serious worry about the logic of this line of ceremonies, Nietzschean critique. Following Leiter (1995), we may call this the “Harm Puzzle,” and the puzzle is this: why should one think the causes of the dust bowl general moral prescription to alleviate suffering must stop the suffering of great artists, hence stop them from producing great art? One might think, in fact, that MPS could perfectly well allow an exception for those individuals whose own suffering is essential to the realization of central life projects. After all, a prescription to pakistan and export, alleviate suffering reflects a concern with promoting well-being, under some construal. But if some individuals nascent Goethes, Nietzsches, and other geniuses would be better off with a good dose of suffering, then why would MPS recommend otherwise? Why, then, should it be the case that MPS “harms” potentially “higher men”? This seems the natural philosophical question to causes of the dust, ask, yet it also involves an important misunderstanding of pakistan import and export, Nietzsche's critique, which is not, we might say, about philosophical theory but rather about the causes of the dust bowl real nature of culture . When MPS values come to dominate a culture, Nietzsche thinks (plausibly), they will affect the attitudes of all members of that culture.
If MPS values emphasize the badness of suffering and the goodness of 14 and, happiness, that will influence how individuals with the potential for great achievements will understand, evaluate and conduct their own lives. If, in fact, suffering is a precondition for these individuals to do anything great, and if they have internalized the norm that suffering must be alleviated, and that happiness is the ultimate goal, then we run the risk that, rather than to put it crudely suffer and dust create, they will instead waste their energies pursuing pleasure, lamenting their suffering and seeking to alleviate it. MPS values may not explicitly prohibit artists or other potentially “excellent” persons from ever suffering; but the risk is that a culture like ours which has internalized the norms against suffering and for rsa algorithm pleasure will be a culture in which potential artists and other doers of great things will, in fact , squander themselves in self-pity and the seeking of pleasure. So Nietzsche's response to the Harm Puzzle depends upon an empirical claim about what the real effect of bowl, MPS will be. The normative component of MPS is harmful not because its specific prescriptions and proscriptions explicitly require potentially excellent persons to forego that which allows them to flourish (the claim is aztec ceremonies not that a conscientious application of the “theory” of MPS is incompatible with the flourishing of causes bowl, higher men); rather, the rsa algorithm steps normative component of MPS is harmful because in practice , and especially because of of the dust bowl, MPS's commitment to the idea that one morality is appropriate for all, potentially higher men will come to first estate, adopt such values as applicable to themselves as well. Thus, the normative component of MPS is harmful because, in reality, it will have the effect of leading potentially excellent persons to value what is in fact not conducive to their flourishing and devalue what is in fact essential to causes bowl, it. In sum, Nietzsche's central objection to MPS is that it thwarts the development of human excellence. First Estate? His argument for this, in each case, turns on identifying distinctive valuations of MPS, and showing how as in causes bowl the case of norms favoring happiness and devaluing suffering they undermine the first estate development of individuals who would manifest human excellence. Causes Bowl? (For discussion of other examples, see Leiter 2002: 134136.)
2. Nietzsche's Positive Ethical Vision. While Nietzsche clearly has views about the states of affairs to which positive intrinsic value attaches (namely, the flourishing of walle mathematics, higher men), there is more disagreement among interpreters about causes bowl, what kind of ethics arises from the latter valuation so central to his critique of import, morality. The two leading candidates are that Nietzsche embraces a kind of virtue ethics (e.g., Hunt 1991; Solomon 2001) and that he is a kind of perfectionist (Hurka 1993, Hurka 2007). Causes Dust Bowl? These accounts turn out to overlap the perfections of the latter account are often the virtues of the former though the perfectionist account will prove to have certain other advantages, discussed below. Any account of Nietzsche's “positive ethics” confronts a threshold worry, namely, that Nietzsche's naturalistic conception of persons and agency and, in particular, his conception of persons as constituted by non-conscious type-facts that determine their actions makes it unclear how Nietzsche could have a philosophical ethics in any conventional sense. If, as Nietzsche, says, we face “a brazen wall of transcontinental, fate; we are in prison, we can only causes dream ourselves free, not make ourselves free” (HAH II:33); if “the single human being is a piece of 14 and 15 amendment, fatum from the front and from the rear, one law more, one necessity more for all that is of the bowl yet to come and to be” (TI V:6); if (as he says more hyperbolically in Nachlass material) “the voluntary is absolutely lackingeverything has been directed along certain lines from the beginning” (WP 458); if (again hyperbolically) “one will become only that which one is rsa algorithm steps (in spite of all: that means education, instruction, milieu, chance, and accident)” (WP 334); then it is hardly surprising that Nietzsche should also say, “A man as he ought to be: that sounds to us as insipid as ‘a tree as he ought to be’” (WP 332). Yet a philosopher reluctant to talk about “man as he ought to be” is plainly ill-suited to the task of developing a normative ethics, understood as systematic and of the dust bowl theoretical guidance for how to live, whether that guidance comes in the form of pakistan import and export, rules for dust bowl behavior or dispositions of ceremonies, character to be cultivated. (There is an additional, and special difficulty, for those who think Nietzsche is causes bowl a virtue ethicist, namely, that he also thinks genuine virtues are specific to individuals, meaning that there will be nothing general for pakistan import and export the theorist to say about them [see, e.g., Z I:5].) This means we must approach the causes of the dust question of Nietzsche's “positive” ethics in terms of ceremonies, explicating (1) what it is Nietzsche values, (2) what his criteria of causes dust bowl, evaluation are, and (3) what evaluative structure , if any, is exhibited by the answers to (1) and (2). We go wrong at the start, however, if we expect Nietzsche to produce a normative theory of any familiar kind, whether a virtue ethics or otherwise. Importantly, the preceding points should not be read as denying that Nietzsche thinks values and evaluative judgments can have a causal impact on actions and aztec ceremonies how lives are lived. Causes Of The Dust? After all, there would be no point in van de mathematics undertaking a “revaluation of values” if such a revaluation would not have consequences for, e.g., the flourishing of higher men, or if MPS values did not have deleterious causal consequences for those same people.
Values make a causal difference, but, given Nietzsche's epiphenomenalism about causes of the, consciousness (discussed, above, in 1.1), they do not make this difference because of aztec, free, conscious choices individuals make to of the dust bowl, adopt certain moral rules or cultivate certain dispositions of character. We can better appreciate Nietzsche's unusual views on first estate this score by looking more closely at of the dust bowl, the popular, but mistaken, idea that Nietzsche calls on people to “create themselves” (on the general topic, see Leiter 1998). Alexander Nehamas, for example, reads Nietzsche as endorsing an ethics of self-creation. For Nietzsche, Nehamas says, “The people who ‘want to become those they are’ are precisely ‘human beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give themselves laws, who create themselves’ (GS, 335)” (1985, p. 174). Unfortunately, Nehamas truncates the 14 and quote from The Gay Science at a misleading point. For Nietzsche, in the full passage, continues as follows: To that end [of creating ourselves] we must become the best learners and discoverers of causes, everything that is lawful and necessary in the world: we must become physicists in ceremonies order to be creators in this sense [ wir müssen Physiker sein, um, in jenem Sinne , Schöpfer sein zu können ] while hitherto all valuations and ideals have been based on ignorance of of the dust bowl, physics . Therefore: long live physics! (GS 335) Creation “in this sense” is, then, a very special sense indeed: for it presupposes the discovery of what is pakistan and export “lawful and necessary” as revealed by physical science! The passage begins to causes of the dust, make more sense in context.
For in this same section, Nietzsche claims that “every action is unknowable,” though he adds: our opinions, valuations, and tables of what is good certainly belong among the most powerful levers in the involved mechanism of our actions, butin any particular case the first estate law of their mechanism is dust bowl indemonstrable [ unnachweisbar ]. This observation leads Nietzsche immediately to the suggestion that we should create “our own new tables of what is good,” presumably with an eye to effecting the causal determination of our actions in new ways. However, we need help from science to identify the lawful patterns into which values and actions fall; even if the mechanisms are indemonstrable, science may at least reveal the rsa algorithm patterns of causes dust, value-inputs and action-outputs. So to create one's self, “in this sense,” is to accept Nietzsche's basically deterministic picture of van de walle mathematics, action as determined by sub-conscious causes (type-facts) that are hard to identify but to use science to help identify those “values” which figure in bowl the causal determination of action in new, but predictable, ways. Values, then, have a causal impact upon how people act and thus also on their life trajectories; but we cannot expect these impacts to flow from rsa algorithm steps, free, conscious choices that persons make. This would explain, of causes, course, why we find so little in Nietzsche by way of rsa algorithm, argumentative or discursive support for his evaluative judgments: such intellectual devices are precisely the causes of the dust bowl ones that would appeal to our conscious faculties, and rsa algorithm steps thus would be idle with respect to the desired outcomes. Nietzsche's often violent rhetorical style, by contrast, might be expected (or so Nietzsche presumably thinks) to have the requisite non-rational effect on his desired readers those “whose ears are related to ours” (GS 381). Of The? (More on this issue in ceremonies Section 4, below.) If Nietzsche does not have a typical normative ethics, he certainly has no shortage of views about evaluative questions. For example, it is clear from the earlier discussion of Nietzsche's critique of morality that he assigns great intrinsic value to of the bowl, the flourishing of when did the transcontinental start, higher men. But who are these “higher men” and why does Nietzsche assign value to them? (Note that while Nietzsche speaks in Thus Spoke Zarathustra of the “superman” as a kind of ideal higher type, this concept simply drops out of his mature work (except for a brief mention in EH in the context of dust bowl, discussing Zarathustra ). “Higher men” is an important concept in first estate Nietzsche; the causes dust “superman” is nothing more than a rhetorical trope in steps the highly stylized Zarathustra. Of The Dust? ) Nietzsche has three favorite examples of “higher” human beings: Goethe, Beethoven, and Nietzsche himself! What makes these figures paradigms of the “higher” type for Nietzsche, beyond their great creativity (as he says, “the men of great creativity” are “the really great men according to my understanding” (WP 957))?
Following Leiter (2002: 116122), we can identify five characteristics that Nietzsche identifies as distinctive of “higher men”: the higher type is solitary, pursues a “unifying project,” is healthy, is life-affirming, and practices self-reverence. Taken together, they are plainly sufficient to make someone a higher type in Nietzsche's view, though it is not obvious that any one of these is necessary, and various combinations often seem sufficient for explaining how Nietzsche speaks of higher human beings. First, higher types are solitary and van de walle deal with others only instrumentally. Bowl? “Every choice human being,” says Nietzsche, “strives instinctively for a citadel and a secrecy where he is saved from the crowd, the many, the great majority” (BGE 26). “[T]he concept of greatness,” he says in the same work, “entails being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being able to be different, standing alone and having to rsa algorithm steps, live independently [ auf-eigne-Faust-leben-müssen ]” (BGE 212). Indeed, the higher type pursues solitude with something of causes bowl, a vengeance, for he “knows how to make enemies everywhere,[He] constantly contradicts the great majority not through words but through deeds” (WP 944). Unsurprisingly, then, the great or higher man lacks the railroad start “congeniality” and “good-naturedness” so often celebrated in contemporary popular culture. “A great manis incommunicable: he finds it tasteless to be familiar” (WP 962). More than that, though, the of the higher type deals with others, when he has to, in a rather distinctive way: “A human being who strives for something great considers everyone he meets on ceremonies his way either as a means or as a delay and obstacle or as a temporary resting place” (BGE 273). Causes Bowl? Thus, “a great manwants no ‘sympathetic’ heart, but servants, tools; in his intercourse with men, he is always intent on first estate making something out of causes of the dust, them” (WP 962). The great man approaches others instrumentally not only because of his fundamental proclivity for solitude, but because of another distinguishing characteristic: he is 15 amendment consumed by his work, his responsibilities, his projects. Second, higher types seek burdens and responsibilities, in the pursuit of some unifying project . “What is noble?” Nietzsche again asks in a Nachlass note of 1888. His answer: “That one instinctively seeks heavy responsibilities” (WP 944). So it was with Goethe: “he was not fainthearted but took as much as possible upon himself, over himself, into himself” (TI IX:49).
But the higher type does not seek out causes of the, responsibilities and tasks arbitrarily. “A great man,” says Nietzsche displays “a long logic in all of 14 and 15 amendment, his activityhe has the ability to extend his will across great stretches of his life and to causes dust, despise, and van de reject everything petty about him” (WP 962). This is the trait Nietzsche sometimes refers to causes of the, as having “style” in “character” (GS 290). (Note that this famous passage (GS 290) merely describes those “the strong and 15 amendment domineering natures” who are able “‘to give’ style” to of the bowl, their character; it does not presuppose that just anyone can do so and it is not a recommendation that everyone try to do so.) Indeed, Nietzsche understood his own life in these terms: [T]he organizing “idea” that is destined to rule [in one's life and work] keeps growing deep down it begins to command; slowly it leads us back from aztec ceremonies, side roads and wrong roads; it prepares single qualities and fitnesses that will one day prove to dust bowl, be indispensable as means toward a whole one by one, it trains all subservient capacities before giving any hint of the 14 and 15 amendment dominant task, “goal,” “aim,” or “meaning.” Considered in this way, my life is simply wonderful. For the task of a revaluation of all values more capacities may have been needed than have ever dwelt together in a single individual.I never even suspected what was growing in me and one day all my capacities, suddenly ripe, leaped forth in their ultimate perfection. (EH II:9). Earlier in Ecce Homo , Nietzsche describes himself as a higher type, “a well-turned-out-person” (EH I:2), and dust thus we may conclude that it is a characteristic only of the higher type that he is rsa algorithm steps driven in pursuit of a project in the way described here. Causes Of The Dust? Indeed, it turns out to be precisely this kind of instinctive drivenness that Nietzsche has partly in mind when he praises “health.”
Third, higher types are essentially healthy and resilient. One essential attribute of the “well-turned-out-person ”is that he “has a taste only for steps what is good for him; his pleasure, his delight cease where the measure of of the, what is good for him is transgressed. Pakistan? He guesses what remedies avail against what is harmful; he exploits bad accidents to his advantage” (EH I:2). But this is just to say that a higher type is healthy , for health, Nietzsche tells us, means simply “instinctively cho[osing] the right means against wretched states” (EH I:2). Causes Bowl? This permits us to import, understand Nietzsche's own declaration in of the bowl Ecce Homo that he was “ healthy at bottom ” (EH I:2), a seemingly paradoxical claim for a philosopher whose physical ailments were legion.
Yet “health,” for Nietzsche, is van de walle mathematics a term of art, meaning not the absence of sickness, but something closer to resilience , to how one deals with ordinary (physical) sickness and setbacks. “For a typical healthy person,” Nietzsche says, “being sick can even become an energetic stimulus for life, for living more. This, in fact, is how [my own] long period of sickness appears to me now it was during the years of my lowest vitality that I ceased to be a pessimist; the instinct of causes of the dust bowl, self-restoration forbade me a philosophy of poverty and discouragement” (EH I:2). To cease to be a pessimist is to reject MPS, for only under the color of MPS does life appear to lack value. Thus, being healthy, in turn, entails a distinctive non-pessimistic attitude towards life which is yet a fourth mark of the import and export higher type. Fourth, higher types affirm life, meaning that they are prepared to will the eternal return of causes, their lives . In Beyond Good and Evil , Nietzsche describes “the opposite ideal” to that of moralists and pessimists like Schopenhauer as “the ideal of the most high-spirited, alive, and mathematics world-affirming human being who has not only come to terms and learned to get along with whatever was and is, but who wants to have what was and is repeated into all eternity” (BGE 56).
Put more simply: the higher type embraces the doctrine of the eternal recurrence and thus evinces what Nietzsche often calls a “Dionysian” or “life-affirming” attitude. A person, for Nietzsche, has a Dionysian attitude toward life insofar as he affirms his life unconditionally; in causes of the dust particular, insofar as he affirms it including the “suffering” or other hardships it has involved. So someone who says, “I would gladly live my life again, except for my first marriage,” would not affirm life in the requisite sense. Thus, we may say that a person affirms his life in Nietzsche's sense only steps insofar as he would gladly will its eternal return: i.e., will the repetition of his entire life through eternity. In fact, Nietzsche calls “the idea of the eternal recurrence” the causes dust “highest formulation of affirmation that is at all attainable” (EH III:Z-1; cf. BGE 56). Higher men, then, are marked by a distinctive Dionysian attitude toward their life: they would gladly will the van de repetition of their life eternally. Strikingly, Nietzsche claims that precisely this attitude characterized both himself and Goethe. Speaking, for example, of the neglect by his contemporaries of his work, Nietzsche writes: “I myself have never suffered from all this; what is necessary does not hurt me; amor fati [love of fate] is of the dust bowl my inmost nature” (EH III:CW-4). Regarding Goethe, Nietzsche says that, “Such a spiritstands amid the cosmos with a joyous and trusting fatalism, in the faith that all is redeemed and affirmed in the whole.Such a faith, however, is the highest of 15 amendment, all possible faiths: I have baptized it with the name of Dionysus ” (TI IX:49). Finally, the causes of the dust higher type of human being has a distinctive bearing towards others and especially towards himself: he has self-reverence. “The ‘higher nature’ of the great man,” says Nietzsche in a striking Nachlass note of 1888 “lies in when start being different, in incommunicability, in distance of rank, not in an effect of any kind even if he made the whole globe tremble” (WP 876; cf.
GS 55). This is perhaps the most unusual feature of Nietzsche's discussion of the higher type, for it suggests that, at bottom, being a higher type is a matter of “attitude” or “bearing.” In a section of Beyond Good and Evil , Nietzsche once again answers the question, “What is noble?”, this time as follows: “It is not the works, it is the faith that is decisive here, that determines the order of causes dust bowl, rank: some fundamental certainty that a noble soul has about itself, something that cannot be sought, nor found, nor perhaps lost. The noble soul has reverence [Ehrfurcht] for itself” (BGE 287). Self-reverence to revere and respect oneself as one might a god is no small achievement, as the proliferation of “self-help” programs and van de walle pop psychology slogans like “I'm OK, you're OK” would suggest. Self-loathing, self-doubt, and self-laceration are the norm among human beings; to possess a “fundamental certainty” about oneself is, Nietzsche thinks quite plausibly, a unique state of affairs. Allied with this posture of self-reverence are other distinctive attitudes that distinguish the causes bearing of the steps higher man. “The noble human being,” says Nietzsche, “honors himself as one who is causes of the powerful, also as one who has power over ceremonies, himself, who knows how to speak and be silent, who delights in being severe and of the dust hard with himself and respects all severity and hardness” (BGE 260). (The higher man, unsurprisingly, is no hedonist: “What is noble?” asks Nietzsche: “That one leaves happiness to the great majority: happiness as peace of soul, virtue, comfort, Anglo-angelic shopkeeperdom a la Spencer” (WP 944).) In an earlier work, Nietzsche explains that: [T]he passion that attacks those who are noble is peculiar.It involves the use of a rare and singular standard cold to everybody else; the discovery of values for which no scales have been invented yet; offering sacrifices on altars that are dedicated to van de walle, an unknown god; a courage without any desire for dust honors; self-sufficiency that overflows and gives to men and things. (GS 55) Indeed, the ability to first estate, set his own standard of dust, valuation is one of the most distinctive achievements of the first estate higher type, as we saw already in the discussion of solitude. And “the highest man” says Nietzsche is “he who determines values and directs the will of millennia by giving direction to the highest natures” (WP 999).
Considered all together, it becomes clear why creatives geniuses like Goethe, Beethoven, and causes of the Nietzsche himself should be the preferred examples of the higher human being: for the characteristics of the higher type so-described are precisely those that lend themselves to artistic and creative work. A penchant for solitude, an van de absolute devotion to one's tasks, an indifference to causes of the bowl, external opinion, a fundamental certainty about oneself and one's values (that often strikes others as hubris) all these are the traits we find, again and again, in artistic geniuses. 14 And 15 Amendment? (It turns out, for example, that Beethoven, according to of the, his leading biographer, had almost all these characteristics to a striking degree; for when did the transcontinental railroad start discussion, see Leiter 2002: 122123.) If “the men of great creativity, the really great men according to my understanding” (WP 957), men like Goethe and Beethoven, are Nietzsche's paradigmatic higher types, whose lives are models of flourishing excellence, is there anything systematic to be said about the theory of value that undergirds these judgments and informs, in causes of the dust turn, Nietzsche's critique of 14 and, morality (MPS) on the grounds that it thwarts the of the development of such men? One popular idea (e.g., Schacht 1983, Richardson 1996) is that higher men exemplify “power,” which is first estate claimed to dust, be Nietzsche's fundamental criterion of value. Such readings, alas, have to employ the 14 and 15 amendment concept of “power” rather elastically, since the conglomeration of traits of bowl, higher human beings noted above don't seem to be, in any ordinary sense, instances of “power” or its manifestation. Import And Export? (Treating Nietzsche's fundamental criterion of value as “power” confronts even more serious textual and philosophical obstacles: see Section 3.1, below.) More illuminating is Hurka's view (1993 and Hurka 2007) that Nietzsche's evaluative posture conjoins perfectionism with maximizing consequentialism: what has value are certain human excellences (or perfections), and bowl states of affairs are assessed in terms of their maximization of these excellences.
As Hurka helpfully observes (1993: 75), Nietzsche seems to operate with the opposite of Rawls's maximin principle, what Hurka calls approriately “maximax.” Hurka states this as a rule for conduct (“each agent's overriding goal should be not a sum or average of aztec ceremonies, lifetime value, but the greatest lifetime value of the single most perfect individual, or, if perfections are not fully comparable, of the few most perfect individuals” [1993: 75]), but given the earlier caveats about reading Nietzsche as a conventional normative theorist, it is better to treat maximax as reflecting the implicit structure of dust bowl, Nietzsche's revaluation of values: he rejects MPS because it fails to maximize the perfection of the highest human beings, and he does so without, it appears, any regard for the costs to the herd of such a rejection (see Section 4). This leaves the question whether there are (formal or substantive) criteria of “perfection” for Nietzsche? Many writers (e.g., Hurka 2007; Nehamas 1985; Richardson 1996) are attracted to the idea that “style” or “unity” is import a criterion of excellence or perfection for Nietzsche, and, indeed, as noted above, the pursuit of a unified or coherent life project is a characteristic feature of those Nietzsche deems to be higher men. Causes Of The Dust? Whether such style or coherence suffices is a vexed interpretive question, since it is not entirely clear that the 14 and 15 amendment formal criterion of style or unity is available only to Goethes and Beethovens: did not Kant, that “catastrophic spider” as Nietzsche unflatteringly calls him (A 11), exhibit an extraordinarily coherent style of creative productivity over many years? Others (e.g., Magnus 1978) take Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence (the hallmark of life-affirmation, as noted above) as the criterion of a well-lived life: perfection is a matter of living in bowl such a way that one is ready to gladly will the repetition of one's life, in all its particulars, in to eternity. This, too, seems both too thin and too severe as a criterion of perfection standing alone: too thin, because anyone suitably superficial and complacent might will the eternal return; too severe, because it seems to require that a post-Holocaust Goethe gladly will the repetition of the Holocaust. Nehamas (1985), who shares some of Magnus's view, adds an idioscynratic element to this account: he claims that Nietzsche does not describe his ideal person his “higher man” but rather “exemplifies” such a person in the form of the “character” that is constituted by and exemplified in his corpus. Nietzsche, however, describes at great length and in many places (e.g.
D 201; GS 55; BGE 287; NCW Epilogue:2; WP 943) the types of persons he admires; and he also describes himself as such a person (e.g., EH I:2) In any case, Nehamas's view would have the odd consequence that for Nietzsche to have had a positive ethical vision at any point earlier in first estate his career he would have had to anticipate writing the series of books he actually wrote, such that his ethical ideal would be properly exemplified in them! Needless to say, there is no reason to think this was Nietzsche's view. Nietzsche holds that moral (i.e., MPS) values are not conducive to the flourishing of human excellence, and it is by reference to of the, this fact that he proposed to assess their value. The enterprise of assessing the value of ceremonies, certain other values (call them the ‘revalued values’) naturally invites the metaethical question: what status metaphysical, epistemological do the values used to undertake this revaluation (the ‘assessing values’) enjoy? (It is doubtful Nietzsche has a definite semantic view about causes dust bowl, judgments of value: cf. Hussain 2013, esp. 412.) Following Leiter (2000), we may distinguish “Privilege Readings” of Nietzsche's metaethics which claim that Nietzsche holds that his own evaluative standpoint is when transcontinental railroad either veridical or better justified than its target from those readings which deny the claim of privilege. (Note that defenders of causes bowl, this latter, “skeptical” view need not read Nietzsche as a global anti-realist i.e., as claiming that there are no truths or facts about anything, let alone truths about walle, value a reading which has now been widely discredited. There is, on the skeptical view at issue here, a special problem about the objectivity of value.) Privilege Readings of Nietzsche can come in three varieties: Intuitionist Realist (I-Realist); Naturalist Realist (N-Realist); and Privilege Non-Realist (P-Non-Realist). The proponents of these views would hold the following: (i) According to causes dust bowl, the I-Realist, there are non-natural normative facts, which are sui generis, and van de which are apprehended by some appropriate act of normative ‘perception.’ (ii) According to the N-Realist, there are normative facts because normative facts are just constituted by causes dust, certain natural facts (in some sense to first estate, be specified).
(iii) According to the P-Non-Realist, there are no normative facts, but some normative judgments still enjoy a privilege by dust, virtue of their interpersonal appeal or acceptance. To say that there are ‘normative facts’ will mean, for purposes here, that norms are (in some sense) objective features of the world. No one, to date, has construed Nietzsche as an I-Realist, but Schacht (1983) and Wilcox (1974), among many others, have defended an N-Realist reading, while Foot (1973) has defended a P-Non-Realist reading. Pakistan Import And Export? We consider the difficulties afflicting these Privilege Readings in turn. According to the N-Realist reading, Nietzsche holds, first, that only power really has value and, second, that power is an objective, natural property. Nietzsche's evaluative perspective is privileged, in of the bowl turn, because it involves asssessing (i) prudential value (value for an agent) in terms of degree of power, and (ii) non-prudential value in terms of maximization of prudential value (i.e., maximization of first estate, power). (A cautionary note about terminology here: by ordinary conventions, the N-Realist proper holds that value itself is a natural property, not simply that what has value is dust a natural property.
There is no clear textual evidence of Nietzsche's view on this subtle question, yet it still makes sense to use the first estate “N-Realist” label for two reasons: first, defenders of this reading treat Nietzsche's view as “naturalistic”; and, second, it is in fact ‘naturalistic’ in a familiar nineteenth-century sense, i.e., it denies that there are any supernatural properties. In the dust theory of value, then, one might plausibly think of Nietzsche as being a kind of naturalist in import the sense of resisting religious and quasi-religious theories that view goodness as supervening on non-natural (e.g., the “Forms”) or supernatural properties; as against this, Nietzsche claims that goodness supervenes on a (putatively) natural property, namely power.) According to Schacht, Nietzsche's account of “the fundamental character of life and the world” as will to power is supposed to “ground” his own evaluative standpoint (1983: 348349). As Nietzsche writes (in a passage Schacht quotes): “assuming that life itself is the will to power,” then “there is nothing to life that has value, except the degree of causes of the, power” (WP 55). Nietzsche's revaluation of values, then, assesses moral values on the basis of their “degree of power,” something which constitutes an “objective measure of value” (WP 674). Van De? Hence the privilege of his view: it embraces as an evaluative standard the only thing in life that (in fact) has value (namely power), and causes of the dust bowl employs this “objective measure of value” in the revaluation (e.g., by criticizing Christian morality because it does not maximize “power”). What exactly is first estate Nietzsche's argument on the N-Realist reading? When pressed, commentators are never very clear. Schacht, for example, writes: Human life, for Nietzsche, is ultimately a part of a kind of vast game[which] is, so to speak, the only game in causes of the dust town.The nature of the game, he holds, establishes a standard for the evaluation of everything falling within its compass.
The availability of this standard places evaluation on footing that is as firm as that on which the comprehension of life and the world stands. When Transcontinental Railroad? (1983, p. 398) Talk of “the only game in causes dust bowl town” is far too metaphorical, however, to bear the philosophical weight demanded. From the fact that “life itself is the will to power,” how does it follow that power is the only standard of value? From the fact, for example, that all life obeys the laws of fundamental physics, nothing follows about the appropriate standard of first estate, value. What Schacht and dust bowl others seem to have in mind is first estate something like John Stuart Mill's argument for utilitarianism, which proceeds from the premise that since happiness is the causes dust only thing people desire or aim for, it follows that happiness is the only thing that possesses intrinsic value. Walle? This argument, though, is famously unsuccessful: from the fact that only happiness is desired, nothing at of the dust, all follows about what ought to be desired. Attempts to construe Nietzsche's argument in rsa algorithm an analogous way encounter similar problems (Leiter 2000 explores the analogy in detail). On Mill's well-known and oft-criticized ‘proof’ of the principle of utility from his 1861 Utilitarianism , to show that something is visible, we must show that it is causes of the seen; and to show that something is audible, we must show that it is heard; analogously, (P) to show that something is desirable (i.e., valuable), show that it is import and export desired. Millian hedonism holds that only of the happiness or pleasure is first estate intrinsically desirable or valuable (‘Prescriptive Hedonism’). Let us call ‘Value Nihilism’ the view that there is dust nothing that has value or is valuable (or desirable).
To get Prescriptive Hedonism from (P), then, plug in ‘Descriptive Hedonism’ the thesis that people do in fact desire only pleasure as an end. If (P) is aztec ceremonies valid, Descriptive Hedonism true, and causes Value Nihilism false, then the truth of Prescriptive Hedonism follows. ((P), of course, is not valid, a point to which we will return.) Notice, now, that the rsa algorithm same type of causes of the dust bowl, argument seems to capture what the N-Realist construal of Nietzsche has in mind. That is, to get the N-Realist Nietzschean conclusion that what is valuable is power, take (P) and plug in aztec ceremonies a strong form of Nietzsche's descriptive doctrine of the will to power the doctrine, roughly, that all persons intrinsically ‘desire’ only power. If (P) is dust valid, Value Nihilism false, and the descriptive doctrine of the will to transcontinental start, power is true, then the normative conclusion about power, which Schacht is after, seems to bowl, follow. (Note, of course, that the Millian Model argument as formulated so far would show only railroad that power is causes of the what is non-morally valuable or good for an agent. Of course, if the Millian Model argument for prudential value or non-moral goodness does not work, then that provides a very strong (if defeasible) reason for supposing that there is pakistan import no further argument for causes bowl the related account of non-prudential value as consisting in maximization of power.) What are the problems with this “Millian argument”? The first problem, of course, is that (P) is not valid.
While from the fact that x is heard, it follows that x is audible, it does not follow from that fact that x is desired that x is desirable in the sense necessary for the argument . For while ‘audible’ can be fairly rendered as ‘can be heard,’ ‘desirable,’ in the context of Prescriptive Hedonism, means ‘ ought to be desired’ (not ‘can’ or ‘is’ desired). Thus, while it follows that: it does not follow that, If x is 14 and desired, then x ought to be desired (‘is desirable’). Yet in claiming that pleasure or power are valuable, Mill and the N-Realist Nietzsche are advancing a normative thesis. Causes Of The Dust Bowl? The truth of aztec ceremonies, this normative thesis, however, simply does not follow from the corresponding descriptive thesis. Many, of course, have thought this too facile a response. Supplement the argument, then, by of the, adding an ‘Internalist Constraint’ (IC), one that many philosophers have found plausible in the theory of ceremonies, value: (IC) Something cannot be valuable for a person unless the person is capable of caring about (desiring) it.
The (IC) is motivated by the thought that it cannot be right to say that ‘X is valuable’ for causes of the someone when x is alien to anything a person cares about or could care about: any plausible notion of value, the (IC) supposes, must have some strong connection to a person's existing (or potential) motivational set. How does the (IC) help? Recall (P): (P) To show that something is desirable (i.e., valuable) show that it is first estate desired. Now the (IC) puts a constraint on what things can, in fact, be desirable or valuable: namely, only causes dust those things that agents can, in fact, care about or desire. Ceremonies? This suggests that we might reformulate (P) as follows: (P′) To show that something is causes dust desirable (i.e., valuable), show that it is or can be desired.
(P′) now is simply a different formulation of the (IC): if we accept the (IC) then we should accept (P′). Aztec Ceremonies? But what happens, then, if we grant the truth of dust bowl, Descriptive Hedonism: namely, that only pleasure is, in fact, desired. In that case, it would now follow that only van de walle pleasure is desirable (ought to be desired) (assuming, again, that Value Nihilism is false). That is, since something ought to of the dust, be desired only if it can be desired (internalism), then if only x can be desired, then only pakistan x ought to be desired (assuming that Value Nihilism is of the dust false). Will this argument rescue the N-Realist Nietzsche?
Two obstacles remain. The first, and perhaps less serious one, is 14 and that we must have some reason for accepting the (IC) or, more modestly, some reason for thinking Nietzsche accepts it. It is not clear, however, that there are adequate textual grounds for saying where Nietzsche stands on causes of the this question. Since the (IC) does, however, seem to be presupposed by the Nietzschean remarks from the Nachlass that support N-Realism in the sense that such remarks do not constitute a good argument without the (IC) let us grant that Nietzsche accepts the aztec ceremonies (IC), and causes bowl let us simply put aside the contentious issue of whether we ought to accept the (IC) as a general philosophical matter. A second difficulty will still remain: namely, that the argument for N-Realism still depends on the truth of the relevant descriptive thesis, in Nietzsche's case, the doctrine of the will to power. This presents two problems.
First, in mathematics the works Nietzsche chose to publish, it seems clear that he did not, in fact, accept the doctrine in the strong form required for the N-Realist argument (namely, that it is only power that persons ever aim for or desire). Second, it is of the dust bowl simply not a plausible doctrine in its strong form. For the Millian Model argument for first estate N-Realism to work in its new form (that is, supplemented with the (IC)) it must be the case that that which ought to causes dust, be desired (‘is valuable’) are the only things that are, in fact, desired. Since the N-Realist Nietzschean conclusion is steps that only power is valuable, power must be the only thing that is, in fact, desired (assuming, again, that something is causes valuable, i.e., that Value Nihilism is false). Many, of course, have thought that Nietzsche held precisely this view, and he plainly says much to suggest that. 15 Amendment? Zarathustra states that, “Where I found the living, there I found will to causes dust bowl, power” (Z II:12); Nietzsche refers to “the will to power which is the will of life” (GS 349); he says “the really fundamental instinct of van de mathematics, lifeaims at the expansion of power ” (GS 349); “life simply is causes dust bowl will to power,” meaning a striving “to grow, spread, seize, become predominant” (BGE 259); he refers to first estate, his “theory that in all events a will to power is causes of the operating” (GM II:12); he claims that “[a] living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength life itself is will to power ” (BGE 13); and so on. The difficulty is that Nietzsche says other things which might suggest that the when transcontinental railroad start stronger remarks are misleading; for example: Life itself is to my mind the instinct for growth, for durability, for an accumulation of forces, for causes of the dust bowl power : where the will to power is lacking there is decline. Rsa Algorithm Steps? It is dust my contention that all the supreme values of mankind lack this will. (A 6) But if all actions manifested this will , then this will could never be found lacking.
Yet Nietzsche thinks it can be lacking, which means he must countenance the possibility that not everyone aims for (‘desires’) power. This passage is import and export not atypical. Later in the same work, he returns to the same theme concerning “[w]herever the will to power declines in any form” (A 17). In the immediately preceding work he claims that the “effects” of liberal institutions are “known well enough: they undermine the will to causes bowl, power” (TI IX:38). And in the immediately subsequent work (his last), Nietzsche refers to “the terrible aspects of reality (in affects, in aztec desires, in the will to power)” (EH IV:4), which certainly sounds as if will to power is causes of the dust simply one among various characteristics of first estate, reality alongside affects and causes dust bowl desires, rather than the pakistan essential core of them all. Three other general textual considerations count against attributing the strong doctrine of the will to power to Nietzsche. Causes Of The Dust Bowl? First, if, as the defenders of the strong doctrine believe, “his fundamental principle is the ‘ will to power’ ”, then it is hard to understand why he says almost nothing about rsa algorithm, will to power and nothing at all to suggest it is his “fundamental principle” in of the bowl the two major self-reflective moments in the Nietzschean corpus: his last major work, Ecce Homo , where he reviews and assesses his life and writings, including specifically all his prior books (EH III); and the series of new prefaces he wrote for The Birth of Tragedy , Human, All Too Human , Dawn , and The Gay Science in 1886, in which he revisits his major themes. That this putative “fundamental principle” merits no mention on either occasion strongly suggests that its role in Nietzsche's thought has been greatly overstated. Second, the view at issue presupposes an unusually strong doctrine of the will to power: a doctrine, to the effect, that all life (actions, events) reflects the will to ceremonies, power. But recent scholarship has cast doubt on causes of the whether Nietzsche ultimately accepted such a doctrine.
The single most famous passage on will to aztec ceremonies, power in the Nietzschean corpus, for causes example, is the concluding section (1067) of first estate, The Will to Power , where he affirms that, “ This world is the causes of the bowl will to power and nothing besides ! And you yourselves are also this will to power and 14 and nothing besides!” Although a favorite of commentators for many years, the passage has now been conclusively discredited by the leading scholar of the Nachlass , the causes of the late Mazzino Montinari. Montinari has shown that Nietzsche had, in fact, discarded the passage by the spring of 1887 (1982, pp. Aztec Ceremonies? 103104)! It was, as Montinari notes, made part of the Köselitz-Forster compilation of The Will to Power (the basis for the English-language edition by Kaufmann and bowl Hollingdale) notwithstanding “Nietzsche's literary intentions” (1982, p. 104). Finally, Maudemarie Clark has argued that Nietzsche could not have accepted the 14 and very strongest form of the doctrine of the will to power namely, that all force , animate and inanimate, is will to of the, power given the putative argument he gives for it. Clark points out aztec ceremonies, that the only argument for this doctrine of the causes of the will to did the transcontinental, power in Nietzsche's published works in of the bowl Section 36 of Beyond Good and Evil is cast in the conditional form: if we accept certain initial hypotheses, then, Nietzsche thinks, the van de walle mathematics strong doctrine of the will to power follows. But one of the antecedents of this conditional is the “causality of the will,” and Clark argues that Nietzsche clearly rejects such causality elsewhere in his work (e.g., GS 127, TI II:5, TI VI:3). Therefore, this section cannot constitute an argument for the strongest doctrine of the of the dust bowl will to 14 and 15 amendment, power that Nietzsche, himself, would actually accept! Rather than embracing the strongest form of the doctrine, Clark argues that Nietzsche is, somewhat ironically, illustrating the very flaw of philosophers he warns against in the surrounding passages: namely, their tendency to propound theories of the essence of causes dust bowl, reality that are just projections of their own evaluative commitments (Clark 1990, pp.
212227). Thus, Nietzsche says of the Stoic talk of living “according to nature” that “while you pretend rapturously to rsa algorithm, read the canon of your law in nature, you want something opposite.Your pride wants to causes, impose your morality, your ideal, on nature” (BGE 9). How, Clark wonders, could Nietzsche's own doctrine of will to power be exempted from such a charge? (Note, too, that Montinari claims that the one surviving relic of 1067 of The Will to Power in the published works is precisely the ironic Section 36 of Beyond Good and Evil (1982, p. 104).) What, then, does Nietzsche believe about will to first estate, power? As others have noted (e.g., Clark 1990: 209212), Nietzsche's doctrine of will to power in its original deployment and most of its later development is psychological in causes dust bowl character: the will to power is posited as the did the best psychological explanation for a wide variety of human behaviors. But as the causes dust bowl preceding passages and considerations make clear, Nietzsche could not have believed that will to power was the exclusive explanation for all human behavior. To the extent he sometimes seems to embrace this stronger claim (see the example, above), we must simply take Nietzsche to have overstated his case something which his penchant for van de walle mathematics hyperbolic rhetoric and polemics often leads him to do or to be engaged in the kind of ironic move described by Clark, above. That would, of course, be quite fortunate, since it is hardly plausible that will to power is the exclusive explanation for all human behavior.
There is an additional, textual worry for the argument that will to power provides an dust objective criterion of value lurking here as well. Nietzsche only makes the remarks that seem to suggest that power is an objective criterion in passages from the 14 and Nachlass , work that Nietzsche never published during his lifetime. Thus, even if one thought that Nietzsche really held the strong descriptive doctrine of the will to of the dust, power the doctrine that all animate force (perhaps all force) is aztec will to power in his published works, it is still the causes of the bowl case that he only first estate uses this doctrine to causes of the, argue for the normative conclusion in Nachlass material. Since scholars have now raised important doubts about the canonical status of van de walle, this Nachlass material (Montinari 1982, pp. 92104; Hollingdale 1985, pp. 166172, 182186), this might suggest that a view ought not to be attributed to causes, Nietzsche solely on the basis of its articulation in these notebooks, which is exactly what the N-Realist reading requires. Although not attributing to Nietzsche any kind of value realism, Philippa Foot, like Schacht, wants to show that Nietzsche is doing something more than simply expressing his idiosyncratic view, a view that admits of aztec, no interpersonal justification. While agreeing that Nietzsche's intention is, in part, “to present us with a clash of interests the good of the strong against that of the weak,” Foot adds that “this is not all he wants to suggest” (1973: 162).
Noting that Nietzsche “seems to want to say that anyone who is strong, independent, and so on anyone who fits his description of the higher type of causes dust bowl, man is one who has value in himself” (163), Foot goes on to explicate this notion of “value” as follows: [I]t does make sense to say that we value strong and exceptional individuals. We do find patterns of reaction to exceptional men that would allow us to see here a valuing rather similar to valuing on aesthetic grounds. I am thinking of the interest and admiration which is the common attitude to remarkable men of exceptional independence of mind and strength of will. [Nietzsche] is appealing to our tendency to admire certain individuals whom we see as powerful and splendid. [There is] a similarity between the way we attribute value (aesthetic value) to walle, art objects and the value that Nietzsche attributes to a certain kind of man, both resting on a set of causes of the dust bowl, common reactions. (1973: 163) So Nietzsche, on ceremonies this account, does not claim that his evaluative perspective is veridical; he simply claims that it enjoys a certain sort of interpersonal appeal, owing to our “common attitude to remarkable men,” “our tendency to admire certain individuals,” to dust bowl, find them aesthetically appealing. There may be no fact-of-the-matter as to whether higher men are or are not really valuable, but Nietzsche's evaluative standpoint is privileged by walle, virtue of its appeal to all of us. We're all interested, it seems, in the flourishing of higher men. Yet Nietzsche could not embrace the view that the flourishing of “higher men” will appeal to “ our tendency” to of the bowl, admire such men or to any sort of aztec, “common” attitude, given the logic of his critique of morality.
This follows from what we may call Nietzsche's ‘Callicleanism,’ after Plato's Callicles in the Gorgias . It has now become something of a commonplace for commentators to note that Nietzsche did not accept one sort of causes dust bowl, Calliclean view, namely, the view that “anyone who is to live aright should suffer his appetites to grow to the greatest extent and not check them” ( Gorgias , 419e) (cf. Nehamas 1985: 202203; BGE 188). Yet there remains a more important respect in walle which Nietzsche's view is Calliclean: namely, in its embrace of the Calliclean doctrine that the inferior employ morality to make “slaves of those who are naturally better” ( Gorgias , 491e-492a), that the weaker folk, the majorityframe the laws [and, we might add, the morals] for their own advantage’ in order to ‘frighten [the strong] by saying that to overreach others is shameful and evil’ ( Gorgias , 483b-d). In short, Callicles' view is that morality is causes dust bowl simply the prudence of the weak, who unable to do what the strong can do, opt instead to walle mathematics, put the actions of the strong under the ban of morality. This, of course, is causes dust bowl essentially Nietzsche's view as well. So, for first estate example, Nietzsche describes slave morality as simply ‘the prudence [ Klugheit ] of the lowest order’ (GM I:13), and he observes that “everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor iscalled evil ” (BGE 201), that “[m]oral judgments and bowl condemnations constitute the favorite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited” (BGE 219), and he claims that the “chief means” by which the when transcontinental start “weak and mediocreweaken and pull down the of the stronger” is “the moral judgment” (WP 345). Recall, now, that Foot wanted to resist the view that in his revaluation Nietzsche simply “present[s] us with a clash of interests the good of the strong against that of the ceremonies weak” (1973: 162); instead, Foot suggests that Nietzsche is appealing to a ‘common’ tendency to causes dust, admire higher men, men who would otherwise be thwarted by aztec ceremonies, the reign of moral values.
But for a Calliclean like Nietzsche, it is causes part of the very appeal of morality that it does thwart the when start flourishing of higher men. Causes Bowl? If that is right, then he could not think that the flourishing of aztec, “higher men” would appeal to everyone. It is precisely because it doesn't that morality arises in the first place, as a means for the low and base to thwart the flourishing of the high. This is not to deny that higher men may still be admirable in the eyes of the base and low (hence their envy); it is to of the dust, deny, however, that Nietzsche's evaluative perspective that it is an objection to morality that it thwarts the and export high could enjoy a privilege in virtue of this shared admiration. On the of the Calliclean picture, there is a fundamental hostility between the high and low, the strong and the weak, one which will not be bridged by inviting the rsa algorithm low to admire the high, or the of the dust weak, the strong. 14 And 15 Amendment? “The well-being of the majority and the well-being of the few are opposite viewpoints of value,” Nietzsche says in the ‘Note’ at the end of the first essay of the Genealogy . And in Nietzsche's revaluation, it appears, there is no evaluative standpoint from which one could successfully mediate and reconcile the normative claims of the opposing moralities. If Nietzsche is causes dust not a realist about value, then he must be an anti-realist: he must deny that there is any objective fact of the first estate matter that would privilege his evaluative perspective over its target. (This, in fact, is the causes dust bowl most familiar reading outside the secondary literature on Nietzsche; one finds this view of pakistan import, Nietzsche's metaethics, for example, in the sociologist Max Weber and the moral philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre, among many others.) We must be careful about the kinds of of the dust bowl, judgments to which this anti-realism applies. Recall that in first estate his critique of causes dust, morality, Nietzsche appears to hold that, e.g., “herd” morality is good for van de mathematics the herd, but that it is bad for higher men. He says, for bowl example, that, “The ideas of the aztec herd should rule in the herd but not reach out of the, beyond it” (WP 287; emphasis added); and elsewhere he describes slave morality as simply “the prudence of the van de walle lowest order” (GM I:13).
It may appear that regarding value judgments pertaining to welfare or prudential goodness what is good or bad for particular sorts of persons Nietzsche believes there is an objective fact of the matter, though one relative to type-facts about persons. But this is not right: while Nietzsche believes it is objectively correct that different moralities have certain effects on different kinds of people, that these effects are good or bad itself admits of anti-realist interpretation (cf. Leiter 2015: 119 for a revision of the view defended in causes dust bowl Leiter 2002). Even more importantly, though, Nietzsche's anti-realism applies to the “revaluative” judgment that follows upon these judgments about the effects of different moralities: that is, the judgment that because herd morality is good for the herd but bad for higher men, herd morality (or the universal reign of herd morality) is bad or disvaluable. Nietzsche certainly says much that sounds like he is rsa algorithm denying the objectivity of values. Zarathustra tells us that, “Verily, men gave themselves all their good and causes of the bowl evil [ Gut und Böse ]” (Z I:15) and that “good and evil that are not transitory do not exist” (Z II:12).
In The Gay Science , Nietzsche explains that, “Whatever has value in our world now does not have value in itself, according to its nature nature is always value-less, but has been given value at some time” (301; cf. D 3). Aztec? Indeed, like certain radical anti-realists, he tends to equate evaluative questions with matters of taste. “What is of the now decisive against Christianity is pakistan import our taste [ Geschmack ], no longer our reasons” (GS 132), he writes, noting later in of the bowl the same work that what counts as “justiceis by all means a matter of import, taste, nothing more” (GS 184). Nietzsche's central argument for anti-realism about value is explanatory : moral facts don't figure in the “best explanation” of experience, and so are not real constituents of the objective world. Moral values, in short, can be “explained away.” Such a conclusion follows from Nietzsche's naturalism (on the latter, see the causes of the dust bowl competing accounts in Janaway 2007 and Leiter 2013). As we saw in the context of Nietzsche's critique of morality, Nietzsche thinks a person's moral beliefs can be explained in naturalistic terms, i.e., in terms of type-facts about that person.
Thus, to explain a person's moral judgments, one needn't appeal to van de mathematics, the existence of objective moral facts: psycho-physical facts about the person suffice. Thus, since non-evaluative type-facts are the primary explanatory facts, and since explanatory power is the mark of objective facts, it appears that there cannot be any value facts. Moral judgments and dust bowl evaluations are “images” and “fantasies,” says Nietzsche, the mere effects of type-facts about agents (D 119). To describe Nietzsche as a moral anti-realist is so far only to ascribe to him a metaphysical view: namely, that there are no objective facts about what is morally right and wrong. It is a somewhat vexed interpretive question whether we should also ascribe to Nietzsche a particular view about the semantics of moral judgment, a topic about which no philosopher prior to the 20 th century had a workedout view (see again Hussain 2013). For example, while it seems clear (from the passages quoted above) that Nietzsche has distinct views on the central metaphysical question about value, it seems equally apparent that there are inadequate textual resources for ascribing to him a satisfying answer to the semantic question.
Elements of his view, for example, might suggest assimilation to what we would call non-cognitivism and, in particular, expressivism. For example, in describing master and first estate Christian morality as “opposite forms in the optics of value [ Werthe ],” Nietzsche goes on to assert that, as opposite of the dust bowl, “optical” forms, they “areimmune to walle mathematics, reasons and refutations. One cannot refute Christianity; one cannot refute a disease of the of the bowl eye. The concepts ‘true’ and ‘untrue’ have, as it seems to van de walle mathematics, me, no meaning in optics” (CW Epilogue). Causes Of The Bowl? This passage typical of first estate, putatively expressivist passages in Nietzsche is, however, ambiguous.
For the passage could mean that “true” and “false” are meaningless not because evaluative judgments are essentially non-cognitive, but rather because competing evaluative views are immune to the effects of reasoning. There may be rational grounds for thinking one view better than another, perhaps for causes dust thinking one true and the other false, but since reasoning has so little impact in this context, it is “meaningless” (in the van de mathematics sense of pointless) to raise issues of of the dust bowl, truth and falsity. More recently, Hussain (2007) has argued that we read Nietzsche as a fictionalist about moral value: granted that Nietzsche is an anti-realist about value (there exists no objective fact about what has value in-itself), Hussain wonders what it is those who “create values” can understand themselves to have done? Valuation, in this Nietzschean world, Hussain argues, involves a kind of “make-believe,” pretending that things are valuable-in-themselves, while knowing that nothing, in fact, has such value. There is a pressing philosophical question here whether “make-believe” about value really could suffice for valuing but also an interpretive problem: does Nietzsche really think that moral judgments express beliefs , that is, truth-apt propositional attitudes which then requires fictionalist treatment?
It would be astonishing if any 19 th -century philosopher were to have a clear answer to such a question (Hussain 2013 seems to have come around to this view). While Nietzsche was, to be sure, among the first to recognize the extent to which linguistic and grammatical practices generate metaphysical assumptions and problems, he simply did not view metaphysical questions themselves as best framed as issues about the semantics of a given region of discourse (e.g., are the terms genuinely and successfully referential, or are they “merely” expressive?). It is first estate doubtful, then, that there are adequate grounds for assigning Nietzsche a view on such subtle matters as whether ethical language is primarily cognitive or non-cognitive, when it clearly evinces aspects of dust, both descriptive and prescriptive discourse. Two aspects of Nietzsche's work may, however, seem to be in tension with value anti-realism, even understood as only a metaphysical doctrine: first, his reliance on the distinction between “higher” and “lower” types of human beings; and 14 and 15 amendment second, the force and dust bowl seriousness with which he presents his evaluative judgments. As we saw, above, Nietzsche's critique of morality presupposes a distinction between higher and lower types of rsa algorithm, people. But are there objective facts about who is “high” and who is “low”? And if so, would such a view be compatible with anti-realism? Suppose there are objective facts about bowl, “high” and transcontinental railroad “low”: Goethe really is causes a higher type, and first estate the herd animal really is a lower type. Causes Of The Bowl? But there is still no objective fact about whether MPS is non-prudentially disvaluable just because it has the effect of thwarting the flourishing of objectively higher types.
Realism about “high” and “low” does not entail realism about non-prudential value, so the argument might go. Such a response cannot work for two reasons. 15 Amendment? First, the causes dust bowl judgment that “X is a higher person” includes a significant evaluative component: “Goethe is a higher type” is mathematics not evaluatively neutral in of the bowl the manner of first estate, “Goethe is a taller than average type.” In saying that someone is a higher type, we seem committed to some positive evaluative attitude towards that person (e.g., that it is good to have persons like that around). If there is an objective fact that “X is a higher type,” and it is a fact that MPS thwarts the flourishing of higher types, then it would seem that at least some objective weight must accrue to the Nietzschean position that MPS is disvaluable because of this effect it has. Second, if it is an objective fact that Goethe is a higher type and, say, Hitler is a herd animal, then the following counterfactual would seem to be true: (C) If Hitler had been like Goethe, he would have been better off. He would have been better off because he would have been a higher type, instead of a lower type and causes dust it is an objective fact that the high are really high, and the low are really low. But this seemingly objective judgment that Hitler would have been better off had he been more like Goethe is a non-prudential value judgment; it is not a judgment about what is good for Hitler under the circumstances, but rather a judgment about what would make Hitler better off, but for his circumstances. In general, it seems that conceding the van de mathematics objectivity of “high” and dust “low” permits one to make objective non-prudential value judgments like: the good of the higher type is first estate superior to the good of the causes of the bowl lower type.
For these reasons, if Nietzsche is an anti-realist about non-prudential moral value, then he must also be an anti-realist about judgments of “high” and when start “low,” It may be an objective fact that MPS thwarts the flourishing of those Nietzsche regards as higher types; but it is not an objective fact that they are really higher. In fact, there is causes dust bowl textual evidence that this is exactly Nietzsche's view. For example, in Thus Spoke Zarathustra , Nietzsche writes that, “Good and evil, and first estate rich and poor, and high and low [ Hoch und Gering ], and all the names of values arms shall they be and clattering signs that life must overcome itself again and again” (Z II:7). Here Nietzsche is explicit that “high and low” are simply “names of values,” just like “good and dust evil.” But since, as we have just seen, Nietzsche is an anti-realist about these latter evaluative concepts, it should hardly be surprisingly that he is an anti-realist about the former. The actual contexts in which Nietzsche marks traits as “high” and “low” invite the same reading. Consider, for example, the exposition in the Genealogy (I:14) of the sense in which slave morality is the steps “prudence of the of the lowest order” (GM, I:13). According to Nietzsche, slave morality takes certain typical characteristics of the first estate “lowest order” and redescribes them in morally praiseworthy lights. So, for example, their impotence becomes “goodness of heart,” their anxious lowliness becomes “humility,” their “inoffensiveness” and “lingering at of the bowl, the door” becomes “patience”, and their desire for import and export retaliation becomes a desire for justice. If Nietzsche were really a realist about the concept of causes bowl, “lowness”, then we ought to be able to identify the objective facts in virtue of which something is transcontinental really low.
Yet when Nietzsche tries to causes bowl, describe all patience as nothing more than a “lingering at the door” and all humility as simply “anxious lowliness,” it is van de walle natural to think that there is no “objective” fact about “lowness” here but simply a polemical and evaluatively loaded characterization. To think that all humility is really “anxious lowliness” is just to identify oneself as one who shares Nietzsche's evaluative sensibility, one “whose ears are related to ours” (GS 381), one “predisposed and predestined” for Nietzsche's insights (BGE 30). In short, given the way in of the dust which Nietzsche actually speaks of the “high” and “low,” we should understand Nietzsche's metaethical position as also characterizing these terms: to say that “X is low” is not to describe an objective fact, but rather to identify oneself as sharing in a certain evaluative sensibility or taste. There remains a final interpretive difficulty: for Nietzsche simply does not write like someone who thinks his evaluative judgments are merely his idiosyncratic preferences! On the metaethical position elaborated here, it seems Nietzsche must believe that if, in response to his point that “morality were to blame if the highest power and splendor actually possible to the type man was never in fact attained” (GM Pref:6), someone were to say, “So much the better for van de walle mathematics morality!”, there would be nothing further to of the, say to walle, that person: at the best, Nietzsche might turn his back and causes bowl say, “Oh well doesn't share my evaluative tastes.” Yet there seems to be a substantial amount of Nietzschean rhetoric (see, e.g., BGE 259; TI V:6 IX:35; EH IV:4, 7, 8) that cannot be reconciled with this metaethical view, and which cries out instead for some sort of realist construal. Aztec? Three sorts of considerations, however, block the inference from Nietzsche's rhetoric to the conclusion that he embraced a realist metaphysics of value. First, while the rhetoric is forceful, the language of truth and falsity is conspicuously absent. As some of the passages quoted above suggest, Nietzsche writes with great force and passion in opposition to dust bowl, MPS.
But it is striking that he does not use the when epistemic value terms the language of causes dust bowl, truth and falsity, real and unreal in this context. Aztec? This, of course, might not be notable, except for the fact that in his equally forceful attacks on, e.g., Christian cosmology, or religious interpretations of natural events, he invokes the of the conceptual apparatus of truth and falsity, truth and lie, reality and appearance, all the time (cf. Leiter 1994, pp. 336338). Thus, for 15 amendment example, Nietzsche lampoons Christian cosmology as lacking “even a single point of contact with reality” and as “pure fiction” which “falsifiesreality” (“ die Wirklichtkeit fälscht ”) (A, 15). Such epistemic value terms are strikingly absent in Nietzsche's remarks about value. Causes Of The Dust Bowl? One natural explanation for this difference in rhetoric natural especially in light of the when did the start substantial evidence for his anti-realism is precisely that in the moral case he does not think there is causes of the dust bowl any fact of the matter. Second, in undertaking a “revaluation of all values,” Nietzsche, as we have seen, wants to alert “higher” types to the fact that MPS is not, in fact, conducive to their flourishing.
Thus, he needs to “wake up” his appropriate readers those whose “ears are related” to his to the dangers of MPS, a task made all the more difficult by aztec ceremonies, MPS's pretension to dust, be “morality itself.” Given, then, that Nietzsche's target is a certain sort of misunderstanding on the part of pakistan import and export, higher men, and given the difficulty of supplanting the norms that figure in this misunderstanding (the norms of MPS), it should be unsurprising that Nietzsche writes with passion and force: he must shake higher types out of their intuitive commitment to the moral traditions of two millenia! Moreover, Nietzsche's naturalism, and the prominent role it assigns to non-conscious drives and type-facts, leads him to be skeptical about the causes of the bowl efficacy of reasons and arguments. But a skeptic about the efficacy of rational persuasion might very well opt for persuasion through other rhetorical devices. Third, and perhaps most importantly, a rhetorical tone like Nietzsche's looked at first estate, in the context of his life does not really suggest realism about the content, but rather desperation on the part of the causes of the bowl author to reach an increasingly distant and uninterested audience. The Nietzsche who was almost completely ignored during the years before illness erased his intellect and deprived him of first estate, his sanity might have resorted to more and more strident and violent rhetoric in of the bowl frustration over not being heard and first estate not because he was a realist. Indeed, in the absence of explicit evidence of of the, value realism, this seems the did the start most plausible explanation for the vast majority of the passages with which we have been concerned in this section.
For these various reasons, then, the character of Nietzsche's rhetoric can be understood as compatible with his anti-realism about value. 4. Causes Bowl? Nietzsche's Lack of 14 and 15 amendment, a Political Philosophy. When the Danish critic Georg Brandes (18421927) first introduced a wider European audience to Nietzsche's ideas during public lectures in of the dust 1888, he concentrated on Nietzsche's vitriolic campaign against morality and what Brandes dubbed (with Nietzsche's subsequent approval) Nietzsche's “aristocratic radicalism.” On this reading, Nietzsche was primarily concerned with questions of value and culture (especially the value of morality and its effect on culture), and his philosophical standpoint was acknowledged to be a deeply illiberal one: what matters are great human beings, not the “herd.” The egalitarian premise of all contemporary moral and political theory the premise, in one form or another, of the equal worth or dignity of each person is simply absent in Nietzsche's work. 15 Amendment? This naturally leads to the question: what politics would Nietzsche recommend to us in light of his repudiation of the egalitarian premise? A striking feature of the reception of Nietzsche in the last twenty years is the large literature that has developed on Nietzsche's purported political philosophy. Two positions have dominated the literature: one attributes to Nietzsche a commitment to aristocratic forms of social ordering (call this the “Aristocratic Politics View” [e.g., Detwiler 1990]), while the other denies that Nietzsche has any political philosophy at all (call this the “Anti-Politics View” [e.g., Hunt 1985]). More recently, Shaw (2007) has staked out bowl, a third position, namely, that Nietzsche was, in fact, concerned with the normative legitimacy of state power, but was skeptical that with the demise of religion, it would be possible to achieve an effective normative consensus in society at large that was untained by the exercise of state power itself.
Whether Nietzsche is really interested in these issues has been contested (Leiter 2009). Here we will concentrate on the two dominant lines of interpretation, noting that the evidence favors the second view. Even the when start casual reader knows, of course, that Nietzsche has intense opinions about everything , from German cuisine to the unparalleled brilliance (in Nietzsche's estimation) of of the dust, Bizet's operas, not to mention various and first estate sundry “political” matters. The interpretive question, however, is whether scattered remarks and parenthetical outbursts add up to systematic views on questions of philosophical significance. Is Nietzsche even interested in political philosophy? Martha Nussbaum (1997: 1) declares that, “Nietzsche claimed to be a political thinker, indeed an important political thinker”, but she can produce no clear textual evidence in support of that contention. Of The Dust? She notes that, “In Ecce Homo he announced that he was ‘a bringer of glad tidings like no one before me,’ and that those glad tidings are political” (1997: 1). In fact, Nietzsche does not say the 14 and 15 amendment “tidings” are political; indeed, as the earlier discussion of his critique of morality shows, the “tidings” are directed only at select readers, nascent higher human beings, for whom morality is harmful. Causes? That this section from Ecce Homo (IV:1) concludes with the and export hyperbolic claim that only with Nietzsche does “the earth [first] know[ ] great politics ” does as little to establish that he has a political philosophy as the claim, in the very same passage , that Nietzsche's “glad tidings” will cause “upheavals, a convulsion of earthquakes, a moving of dust, mountains and valleys” does to establish that he has a geological theory. Nussbaum goes on to suggest that “serious political thought” (1997: 2) must address seven precise topics (e.g., “procedural justification” [“proceduresthat legitimate and/or justify the resulting proposals” for aztec “political structure”], “gender and the family,” and “justice between nations”) most of which, of course, Nietzsche does not address. (Marx does not address most of them either.) Instead of drawing the causes bowl natural conclusion Nietzsche was not interested in 14 and questions of political philosophy she, instead, decries his “baneful influence” in political philosophy (1997: 12)! Those who claim to find a political philosophy in Nietzsche typically rely on a handful of causes dust, passages most often, sections 5657 of The Antichrist as the pakistan and export slender evidence on the basis of which elaborate views about the ideal forms of social and political organization are attributed to Nietzsche.
In particular, Nietzsche is said to endorse (in A 5657) the caste-based society associated with the Hindu Laws of Manu as his political ideal: The order of castes, the supreme, the dominant law, is merely the sanction of causes of the bowl, a natural order , a natural lawfulness of the first rank, over which no arbitrariness, no “modern idea” has any powerNature, not Manu, distinguishes the aztec ceremonies pre-eminently spiritual ones, those who are pre-eminently strong in muscle and temperament, and those, the third type, who excel neither in one respect nor in the other, the mediocre ones the last as the great majority, the first as the elite. (A 57) This reading, however, does not withstand scrutiny, as Thomas Brobjer (1998) has argued. As Brobjer notes, the only other published discussion of the laws of Manu, in Twilight of the causes of the Idols , is highly critical, not laudatory (pp. 304305); Nietzsche's discussions of rsa algorithm steps, comparable caste-based societies are all critical (pp. 308309); and of the bowl Nietzsche's unpublished notebooks contain numerous entries on the theme “a critique of the Laws of Manu” (pp. 310312). The passage from The Antichrist only seems laudatory when read out of pakistan import, context; as Brobjer remarks: [Nietzsche's] purpose [in these passages in dust bowl The Antichrist ] is to make the contrast with Christianity as strong as possible, to provoke the first estate reader, to make the reader “realize” that even the laws of Manu is causes of the bowl higher and more humane than Christianity.
Whereas Christianity destroys, the intention at least of the laws of rsa algorithm steps, Manu was to save and protect. (1998, pp. 312313) In other words, the rhetorical context of the causes of the bowl passage is crucial, though it is typically ignored by commentators defending the Aristocratic Politics View. Indeed, the passage quoted above from A 57 is transcontinental railroad specifically introduced to illustrate the use of the “holy lie” (the lie being, in of the dust this case, the claim that “nature, not Manu” distinguishes the ceremonies castes). Causes? And as even the title of the book would suggest, Nietzsche's target is Christianity, and pakistan import and export the laws of Manu are invoked simply to drive home that point.
Thus, although Manu and Christianity both depend on lies, at least the Manu lies, according to Nietzsche, are not put in the service of bowl, Christian ends, i.e., “poisoning, slander, negation of life, contempt for pakistan import the body, the degradation and self-violation of man through the concept of sin” (A 56). Similarly, Nietzsche goes out of his way to show that Christian views of dust bowl, female sexuality compare unfavorably with Manu views (A 56). The most balanced and careful defense of the Aristocratic Politics View, Detwiler (1990), is not able to 15 amendment, adduce much additional evidence. For example, Detwiler (1990) ends up relying quite heavily on an essay the 27-year-old Nietzsche never published (1990: 39-41, 63)! As to passages in the “mature” corpus, Detwiler adduces ones that “appear[ ] to have explicit political implications” (1990: 43; cf. 44), or that “strongly suggestpolitical consequences” (1990: 4546), or that “raise the issue of troubling political implications of of the dust bowl, Nietzschean immoralism” (1990: 49). But “implications” and “consequences” are one thing, and first estate having a political philosophy another. The canon of political philosophers is composed of thinkers (like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) who have philosophical views about political questions the state, liberty, law, justice, etc. not thinkers whose views about of the, other topics merely had “implications” for when did the transcontinental start politics. As the conscientious Detwiler admits: “[t]he political implications of Nietzsche's revaluation of values are never center stage for long” (1990: 58). Yet it is natural to think that Nietzsche's attack on morality does indeed have real political implications. When Nietzsche commends the laws of Manu for “mak[ing] possible the causes dust higher and the highest types” (A 57), this resonates, all too obviously, with Nietzsche's central concern that morality is harmful to the highest types of first estate, human beings.
Yet the undeniable “resonance” fails to show that Nietzsche endorses the laws of Manu. Most obviously, the “higher types” protected by the laws of Manu essentially a priestly caste have nothing in common with the of the nascent Goethes that concern Nietzsche. Nietzsche's worry for these potential higher types is, as we have seen, that they suffer from false consciousness , i.e., the false belief that “morality in the pejorative sense,” i.e., MPS, is good for them. MPS is a threat to the flourishing of nascent Goethes, and it is this flourishing that interests Nietzsche above all. It would suffice for Nietzsche's purposes that nascent Goethes give up their faith in MPS in other words, it is individual attitudes not political structures that are Nietzsche's primary object (“The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd,” says Nietzsche, “and not reach out beyond it” [WP 287]). That should hardly be surprising if we recall Nietzsche's sustained hostility to politics throughout his career, as defenders of the Anti-Politics View emphasize. Even in the early Untimely Meditations , this hostility is 15 amendment already evident. So, for example, Nietzsche comments: Every philosophy which believes that the problem of existence is touched on, not to say solved, by a political event is a joke- and causes of the dust pseudo-philosophy.
Many states have been founded since the world began; that is an old story. First Estate? How should a political innovation suffice to causes bowl, turn men once and for all into contented inhabitants of the first estate earth? [That people think the causes of the bowl answer to van de, existential questions might come from politics shows] that we are experiencing the consequences of the doctrinethat the state is the highest goal of mankind and that a man has no higher duty than to serve the state: in which doctrine I recognize a relapse not into paganism but into causes of the dust stupidity. It may be that a man who sees his highest duty in serving the state really knows no higher duties; but there are men and duties existing beyond this and one of the duties that seems, at least to me, to be higher than serving the state demands that one destroys stupidity in every form, and therefore in this form too. That is why I am concerned with a species of man whose teleology extends somewhat beyond the welfare of a state, and with [this kind of first estate, man] only in causes of the dust bowl relation to a world which is again fairly independent of the aztec ceremonies welfare of a state, that of culture. (U III:4) The same, almost anarchistic attitude is apparent in of the bowl Thus Spoke Zarathustra , where Nietzsche calls the “statethe coldest of all cold monsters” and remarks, aptly enough, that “the statewhatever it says it liesEverything about it is false” (Z I:11). “Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is when did the transcontinental railroad start not superfluous” (Z I:11) Of course, it is only the latter individual that really interests Nietzsche. And who is that individual?
The next section (Z I:12) tells us: he is the one who values his “solitude,” which is precisely what the of the dust “marketplace” of politics violates, with its “showmen and actors of great [sic] things.” “Far from the market place and aztec from fame happens all that is great” (Z I:12): in other words, great things (and great people) are to be found far from the realms of politics and economics. Passages like these seem to support the Anti-Politics View. Dust? On this account, Nietzsche occasionally expresses views about political matters, but, read in context, they do not add up to a theoretical account of any of the questions of rsa algorithm steps, political philosophy. Causes Dust Bowl? He is first estate more accurately read, in the end, as a kind of esoteric moralist , i.e., someone who has views about human flourishing, views he wants to communicate at least to a select few. “This book belongs to the very few,” he says of The Antichrist , though the point holds more generally. Indeed, Nietzsche is clearly describing his own work when he writes in an earlier book that, It is not by any means necessarily an bowl objection to a book when anyone finds it impossible to understand: perhaps that was part of the author's intention he did not want to be understood by first estate, just ‘anybody.’ All the nobler spirits and tastes select their audience when they wish to communicate; and choosing that, one at the same time erects barriers against ‘the others.’ All the more subtle laws of any style have their origin at this point: they at the same time keep away, create a distance, forbid ‘entrance,’ understanding, as said above while they open the of the ears of those whose ears are related to ours. First Estate? (GS 381) Or similarly: “Our highest insights must and should sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for causes dust bowl them” (BGE 30). Did The Railroad? Nietzsche, the esoteric moralist, wants to reach only select individuals those nascent higher human beings who are “predisposed and predestined” for his ideas and alter their consciousness about morality.
The larger world, including its forms of political and economic organization, is of the dust simply not his concern. Even without a political philosophy, however, there remain disturbing questions about Nietzsche's critique of aztec, morality and its political implications . For example, when Nietzsche objects that morality is an obstacle to “the highest power and splendor possible” to man, one is tempted to object that this gets things perversely backwards. For surely it is the lack of morality in dust social policy and public institutions a lack which permits widespread poverty and ceremonies despair to persist generation upon generation; that allows daily economic struggle and uncertainty to define the basic character of dust bowl, most people's lives that is most responsible for a lack of human flourishing. Surely, in a more moral society, with a genuine commitment to social justice and human equality, there would be far more Goethes, far more creativity and when did the railroad start admirable human achievement. As Philippa Foot has sharply put it: “How could one see the present dangers that the world is in as showing that there is too much pity and too little egoism around?” (1973, p. 168). Here, though, one must remember the earlier discussion of Nietzsche's critique of morality. Consider the Nietzsche who asks: “Where has the last feeling of decency and self-respect gone when even our statesmen, an causes dust otherwise quite unembarrassed type of man, anti-Christians through and through in their deeds, still call themselves Christians today and attend communion?” (A 38). Clearly this Nietzsche is under no illusions about the extent to which public actors do not act morally. Indeed, Nietzsche continues in even more explicit terms: “Every practice of ceremonies, every moment, every instinct, every valuation that is dust bowl translated into action is today anti-Christian: what a miscarriage of aztec ceremonies, falseness must modern man be, that he is not ashamed to be called a Christian in spite of all this!” (A 38). What, then, is going on here? If Nietzsche is not, contrary to Foot's suggestion, embracing the of the bowl absurd view that there is aztec ceremonies too much pity and altruism in causes of the the world, what exactly is his critical point?
Recall Nietzsche's paradigmatic worry: that a nascent creative genius will come to take the norms of MPS so seriously that he will fail to realize his genius. Rather than tolerate (even welcome) suffering, he will seek relief from hardship and aztec ceremonies devote himself to the pursuit of pleasure; rather than practice what Nietzsche calls “severe self-love”, and attend to himself in the ways requisite for productive creative work, he will embrace the ideology of altruism, and reject “self-love” as improper, and so forth. It is not, then, that Nietzsche thinks people practice too much altruism after all, Nietzsche tells us that egoistic actions “have hitherto been by far the most frequent actions” (D 148) but rather that they believe too much in the value of altruism, equality, happiness and causes dust bowl the other norms of MPS. Even though there is neither much altruism nor equality in the world, there is almost universal endorsement of the value of first estate, altruism and equality even, notoriously (and as Nietzsche seemed well aware), by those who are its worst enemies in causes of the bowl practice. So Nietzsche's critique is that a culture in the grips of MPS, even without acting on MPS, poses the rsa algorithm steps real obstacle to flourishing, because it teaches potential higher types to causes of the bowl, disvalue what would be most conducive to their creativity and value what is irrelevant or perhaps even hostile to it. When Did The? Nietzsche's worry, in short, is that the man in the grips of MPS becomes “ imprisoned among all sorts of of the dust, terrible concepts [ schrekliche Begriffe ]” that leave him “sick, miserable, malevolent against himself: full of hatred against the springs of life, full of suspicion against all that was still strong and happy” (TI VII:2, emphasis added). So, contrary to Foot, Nietzsche is not claiming that people are actually too altruistic and too egalitarian in their practice; he is 15 amendment worried that (as a consequence of the slave revolt in morals, etc.) they are now “imprisoned among.concepts” of equality and altruism, and that this conceptual vocabulary of causes of the bowl, value is itself the obstacle to the realization of certain forms of human excellence.
That is a very different charge, one that raises subtle psychological questions that no one, to date, has really explored. To be sure, one might still object that if our society really were more altruistic and rsa algorithm egalitarian, more individuals would have the chance to flourish and do creative work. Yet it is precisely this moral optimism common, for example, to of the dust, utilitarians and Marxists this belief that a more moral society would produce more opportunity for walle mathematics more people to do creative work that Nietzsche does, indeed, want to of the, question. Nietzsche's illiberal attitudes in this regard are once again apparent; he says to take but one example that, “We simply do not consider it desirable that a realm of walle, justice and harmony [ Eintracht ] should be established on causes of the dust earth” (GS 377). First Estate? It is bad enough for Nietzsche that MPS values have so far succeeded in causes of the dust bowl saying, “stubbornly and inexorably, ‘I am morality itself, and nothing besides is morality’” (BGE 202); it could only be worse on his view if more and more of our actions were really brought into accord with these values. Ceremonies? For Nietzsche wants to urge contrary to the moral optimists that in a way largely unappreciated and (perhaps) unintended a thoroughly moral culture undermines the conditions under which the most splendid human creativity is possible, and generates instead a society of Zarathustra's “last men” (Z P:5): “What is causes bowl love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?” thus asks the last man, and he blinks. The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as in eradicable as the flea-beetle; the last man lives longest.
“We have invented happiness,” say the 14 and 15 amendment last men, and bowl they blink. If we are trained always to think of happiness and comfort and safety and the needs of others, we shall cut ourselves off from the preconditions for creative excellence on the Nietzschean picture: suffering, hardship, danger, self-concern, and the rest. Consider a particularly powerful statement of this view. Speaking of those “eloquent and van de walle mathematics profoundly scribbling slaves of the democratic taste and its ‘modern ideas’” who seek to promote “the universal green-pasture happiness of the herd” and who take “suffering itselffor something that must be abolished” (BGE 44), Nietzsche retorts that when we look at, how the of the dust bowl plant “man” has so far grown most vigorously to a height we think that this has happened every time under the opposite conditions, that to van de walle mathematics, this end the dangerousness of his situation must first grow to the point of enormity, his power of of the dust, invention and simulation (his “spirit”) had to walle mathematics, develop under prolonged pressure and constraint into refinement and audacity. Causes Bowl? We think thateverything evil, terrible, tyrannical in van de walle man, everything in him that is bowl kin to beasts of prey and serpents, serves the enhancement of the species “man” as much as its opposite does. Indeed, we do not even say enough when we say only that much. Pakistan? (BGE 44) At the causes dust bowl end of this passage, Nietzsche does hint at first estate, a role for morality as well it is just that what morality opposes is causes of the equally important. Pakistan? He, of course, qualifies this by of the dust bowl, suggesting that even to concede their equal importance may “not even say enough”: that is, perhaps there will not be much role for ceremonies morality at all in the conditions under which “the plant ‘man’” will grow to its greatest heights.
But notice that, even in this passage, what is called for is not a political transformation, but an individual one, that of the nascent higher human being: it is “his situation” that “must first grow to the point of enormity” and it is “ his power of invention and simulation” that “had to develop under prolonged pressure and of the dust constraint into refinement and audacity.” As he writes in a Nachlass note of 1887, regarding those “human beings who are of any concern to me”: “I wish [them] suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of when transcontinental railroad, self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished” (WP 910). This is not the dust outline of a political program, but rather a severe regimen for the realization of individual potential at least for the select few. A. Nietzsche's Writings and Key to Citations. For untranslated material and pakistan import and export emendations to of the bowl, existing translations, I have relied on Friedrich Nietzsche, Sämtliche Werke: Kritische Studienausgabe in 15 Bänden , ed. G. Colli M. Montinari (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1980); this is cited as KSA, followed by the volume number, a colon, and the fragment number(s). Nietzsche's works are cited as follows, unless otherwise noted: roman numerals refer to when did the start, major parts or chapters in Nietzsche's works; Arabic numerals refer to sections, not pages. The Antichrist , in The Portable Nietzsche (below). Of The Dust Bowl? Cited as A. Beyond Good and Evil , trans. W. Kaufmann, New York: Vintage, 1966.
Cited as BGE. The Birth of Tragedy , trans. W. Kaufmann, New York: Vintage, 1966. Cited as BT. The Case of Wagner , trans. W. Kaufmann, New York: Vintage, 1966. Cited as CW. Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality , trans. R.J.
Hollingdale, ed. M. Clark B. Leiter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Cited as D. Ecce Homo , trans. W. Kaufmann, New York: Vintage, 1967. First Estate? Cited as EH. The Gay Science , trans. W. Kaufmann, New York: Vintage, 1974. Cited as GS. Causes Of The Bowl? On the Genealogy of Morality , trans.
M. Clark A. Import And Export? Swensen, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998. Cited as GM. Human, All-too-Human , trans. R.J. Dust Bowl? Hollingdale, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986. Cited as HAH. Nietzsche contra Wagner , in The Portable Nietzsche (below). Cited as NCW.
Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks , trans. M. Cowan, Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1962. Cited as PTAG. Ceremonies? Philosophy and causes of the dust Truth: Selections from pakistan import and export, Nietzsche's Notebooks of the causes of the Early 1870's , ed. trans. D. 14 And 15 Amendment? Breazeale, Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1979.
Cited as PT, by page number. The Portable Nietzsche , ed. trans. W. Kaufmann, New York: Viking, 1954. Cited as PN, by page number. Thus Spoke Zarathustra , in The Portable Nietzsche (above). Causes Of The Dust Bowl? Cited as Z. Twilight of the Idols , in The Portable Nietzsche (above). Cited as TI. Untimely Meditations , trans. R.J. Hollingdale, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Cited as U. The Will to Power , trans.
W. Kaufmann R.J. Hollingdale, New York: Vintage, 1968. Cited as WP. B. References and transcontinental start Works on Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy. Brobjer, Thomas, 1998. “The Absence of Political Ideals in Nietzsche's Writings: The Case of the Laws of Manu and the Associated Caste-Society,” Nietzsche-Studien , 27: 300318. Clark, Maudemarie, 1990. Causes Of The Bowl? Nietzsche on when did the transcontinental start Truth and dust Philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. , 1994. “Nietzsche's Immoralism and the Concept of Morality,” in Schacht (1994). , 2001. “On the Rejection of Morality: Bernard Williams's Debt to Nietzsche,” in Schacht (2001). Clark, Maudemarie and Brian Leiter, 1997. “Introduction” to Nietzsche's Daybreak , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Detwiler, Bruce, 1990. Nietzsche and the Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foot, Philippa, 1973. “Nietzsche: The Revaluation of Values,” reprinted in Richardson Leiter (2001). Gemes, Ken, and when transcontinental start John Richardson (eds.), 2013. The Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche , Oxford: Oxford University Press. Geuss, Raymond, 1997. “Nietzsche and Morality,” European Journal of Philosophy , 5: 120. Hollingdale, R.J., 1985.
Nietzsche: The Man and His Philosophy , London: Ark Paperbacks. Hunt, Lester, 1985. “Politics and Anti-Politics: Nietzsche's View of the State,” History of causes, Philosophy Quarterly , 2: 453468. , 1991. Nietzsche and van de walle the Origin of Virtue , London: Routledge. , 1993. “The Eternal Recurrence and Nietzsche's Ethic of Virtue,” International Studies in Philosophy , 25 (2): 311. Hurka, Thomas, 1993. Causes Dust Bowl? Perfectionism , Oxford: Oxford University Press. , 2007. “Nietzsche: Perfectionist,” in Leiter Sinhababu (2007). Hussain, Nadeem, 2007. “Honest Illusions: Valuing for Nietzsche's Free Spirits,” in Leiter Sinhababu (2007). , 2013. Railroad? “Nietzsche's Metaethical Stance”, in Gemes and Richardson (2013). Dust Bowl? Janaway, Christopher, 2007. Beyond Selflessness: Reading Nietzsche's Genealogy , Oxford: Oxford University Press. Katsafanas, Paul, 2005. “Nietzsche's Theory of Mind: Consciousness and Conceptualization,” European Journal of Philosophy , 13: 131. , 2013. “Nietzsche's Philosophical Psychology,”, in Gemes and Richardson (2013).
Leiter, Brian, 1994. “Perspectivism in Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals ,” in Schacht (1994). , 1997. “Nietzsche and the Morality Critics,” Ethics , 107: 250285. Reprinted in ceremonies Richardson Leiter (2001). , 1998. “On the Paradox of Fatalism and Self-Creation in Nietzsche,” in C. Of The Dust Bowl? Janaway (ed.), Willing and Nothingness: Schopenhauer as Nietzsche's Educator , Oxford: Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Richardson Leiter (2001). Steps? , 2000. “Nietzsche's Metaethics: Against the Privilege Readings,” European Journal of Philosophy , 8: 277297. , 2002. Nietzsche on of the dust Morality , London: Routledge. , 2007. “Nietzsche's Theory of the when Will,” Philosophers' Imprint , 7 (7): 115. , 2009. “Review of Shaw (2007)”, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews , 2009.01.21 [Available online]. , 2013. “Nietzsche's Naturalism Reconsidered,” in Gemes and Richardson (2013). , 2015. Nietzsche on Morality , 2nd edition, London: Routledge. Causes Dust? Leiter, Brian and Neil Sinhababu (eds.), 2007. Nietzsche and 14 and 15 amendment Morality , Oxford: Oxford University Press. Magnus, Bernd, 1978. Bowl? Nietzsche's Existential Imperative , Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
May, Simon, 1999. Nietzsche's Ethics and his “War on Morality” , Oxford: Clarendon Press. Montinari, Mazzino, 1982. Aztec? Nietzsche Lesen , Berlin: de Gruyter. Causes? Nehamas, Alexander, 1985. First Estate? Nietzsche: Life as Literature , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, esp. Causes Bowl? Chs. 57. Rsa Algorithm? Nussbaum, Martha, 1997. “Is Nietzsche a Political Thinker?” International Journal of Philosophical Studies , 5: 113. Reginster, Bernard, 2006.
The Affirmation of Life: Nietzsche on Overcoming Nihilism , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Riccardi, Mattia, 2015a. “Nietzsche on the Superficiality of Consciousness”,in M. Dries (ed.), Nietzsche on Consciousness and the Embodied Mind , Berlin, de Gruyter. , 2015b. “Inner Opacity: Nietzsche on Introspection and dust bowl Agency”, Inquiry , 58: 221243. Richardson, John, 1996. Nietzsche's System , Oxford: Oxford University Press, esp. Ch 3. Richardson, John, and Brian Leiter (eds.), 2001. Nietzsche , Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schacht, Richard, 1983. Pakistan? Nietzsche , London: Routledge, esp. Chs. IV-VII. (ed.), 1994.
Nietzsche, Genealogy, Morality , Berkeley: University of California Press. (ed.), 2001. Nietzsche's Postmoralism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shaw, Tamsin, 2007. Nietzsche's Political Skepticism , Princeton: Princeton University Press. Solomon, Robert C., 2001. “Nietzsche's Virtues: A Personal Inquiry,” in dust Schacht (2001). Wilcox, John, 1974. Truth and Value in aztec Nietzsche: A Study of dust, His Metaethics and Epistemology , Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Williams, Bernard, 1993. “Nietzsche's Minimalist Moral Psychology,” European Journal of Philosophy , 1: 414. Reprinted in Schacht (1994). Nietzsche Chronicle, maintained by Malcolm Brown, Dartmouth College Brian Leiter's Nietzsche Blog Journal of Nietzsche Studies. The Encyclopedia Now Needs Your Support. Please Read How You Can Help Keep the Encyclopedia Free. View this site from another server:
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab, Center for van de mathematics the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University.
Pay for Exclusive Essay -
What caused the Dust Bowl? | HowStuffWorks
A Day in of the dust, the Life of first estate, a FedEx Driver. I have been a FedEx Home Delivery driver for a little more than three years. I am what is causes bowl called a supplemental driver, meaning I work for a contractor who owns the vehicle I drive. Railroad Start. I get paid by the day rather than the causes of the bowl hour or by the stop, so no matter how long I work it is the same pay. Some days I get home around 5PM and some nights (around Christmas) it may be 10PM. On my typical day at 14 and 15 amendment FedEx (Tuesday-Saturday) I get up at 4:30AM and get ready for causes dust bowl work.
I leave home shortly after 5 and pakistan import and export, gas up my van. Dust Bowl. When I get to van de, the FedEx terminal around 5:45, I start scanning my packages and loading my van. I am one of the first drivers there on causes dust bowl most mornings because I like to get the loading done and get dispatched as soon as possible. My route is typically about 150-170 miles and a normal day has me doing 75-80 stops. The way my FedEx route is set up, I take pressure off of other routes by doing some of their stops. Thus my route changes slightly from day to day depending on where exactly I am running. When I am dispatched I collect my overview maps and turn by turn directions as well as a manifest for my stops.
I also get a spare scanner battery so if mine dies I won't have to return to the shop to first estate, get a new battery. Of The Bowl. When I get dispatched and on the road before 7:30AM, I am a happy camper. As you may imagine, dogs are a big part of the pakistan and export delivery driver's day. Most are friendly -- though of course some are not. As I write this article I am recovering from causes bowl a dog bite to my right leg and van de mathematics, the dog is in quarantine with animal control. The dog was some kind of collie and a little bit taller than knee-high to me. I was trying to deliver a package to the home right as it was getting dark. The dog was frantic and I could see he was scared of me as he ran and hid in the garage. While trying to ease the package to a spot near the garage but out of the path of of the bowl, any cars, the homeowner suddenly came out.
As soon as he spoke to me, the van de mathematics dog attacked me and bit me three or four times in the same spot on my leg. The homeowner was extremely nice about the situation and apologetic. I did not seek medical treatment but did call animal control at my boss's request so we could ascertain if the dog had rabies. In my only previous serious dog attack, the homeowner thought it was funny and said the causes of the dust dog only import and export ripped my pants and didn't bite me. I pointed out that a mystery of causes of the dust bowl, great proportions had taken place as I never saw pants bleed before.
His German shepherd tried to bite me again on a later date but I avoided him. I do get nipped from time to time by little ankle-biter dogs, Poodles can be a holy terror! But by and large, most dogs are barkers and not biters. Many even come up with a ball or a stick in their mouth, wanting to play. I carry dog treats to ceremonies, give to all the dust bowl dogs on aztec ceremonies my route whether they are friendly or not.
One dog even protects the delivery drivers who come to his house. This has happened to me on several occasions and to causes dust bowl, at least one other driver that I know of. The dog is when did the railroad start a big male German shepherd and there is a female coon dog of some sort there as well. The female wants to bite any visitors to the house. The big male escorts the driver to the porch and back to the truck. When the female moves in to bite, the big male rolls her over like a football block. He won't bite her but he knocks her down every time to protect the driver. Causes Of The. Dogs are not the only animals we contend with as delivery drivers. I have been chased by geese, roosters, goats and one bull who escaped his pasture. I have been hissed at by cats and first estate, wolf-whistled at by some sort of talking bird inside a house.
I saw the pervert looking at of the dust me from inside his cage. What I enjoy about FedEx is meeting interesting people and learning about new places I have not seen in my home state. First Estate. I have delivered to plenty of people who work in NASCAR as drivers or crew, and even to cousins of mine who I didn't know existed until then. Bowl. My pet peeves about being a delivery driver are people who don't put aggressive dogs in a pen and those who don't use address markings anywhere on their house. We always find the house, but lack of an address marking can cause a delay of a day sometimes. All in all, working as a delivery driver is a good job -- and aztec, I sure need the exercise that all the walking provides.
Want more news like this? Sign up for causes of the Finance Report by AOL and get everything from business news to did the transcontinental start, personal finance tips delivered directly to of the dust, your inbox daily! Emails may offer personalized content or ads. And Export. Learn more. You may unsubscribe any time. Millennials are saving twice as much as baby boomers — and they could be on track . Trump EPA to of the bowl, propose repealing Obama#39;s centerpiece CPP climate regulation.
Walmart is offering a surprising perk for customers buying the new Google Home dev. Facebook is spending $1 billion for a building that no one will work in. MORGAN STANLEY: These niche coffee chains could be the next Starbucks. Amazon wants to 14 and 15 amendment, make more products available for two-day delivery, so it#39;s launchi. 5 tax deductions Republicans might take away -- How could you be affected?
Netflix is raising its prices starting this month. Of The Dust. Open plan offices are so terrible that a new company is did the transcontinental railroad selling. Causes Dust. Global gender gap starts taking hold as early as 10 years ol. Lights Out: 7 night-time rituals that will make you happy an. 4 ways to get work done after hours. Quotation Marks with Periods and Commas. Quick Dirty Tips. 5 Books That Can Change Your Life. 2017 Oath Inc.
All rights reserved. Sign up for Finance Report by pakistan AOL and get everything from breaking finance news to money-saving tricks delivered directly to your inbox daily! Emails may offer personalized content or ads. Learn more. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Order Essay -
The Dust Bowl - United States American History
essay world war one About World War I. T he First World War was truly #145;the Great War#146;. Its origins were complex. Its scale was vast. Its conduct was intense. Dust? Its impact on military operations was revolutionary. First Estate? Its human and material costs were enormous.
And its results were profound. The war was a global conflict. Thirty-two nations were eventually involved. Twenty-eight of these constituted the causes dust, Allied and Associated Powers, whose principal belligerents were the British Empire, France, Italy, Russia, Serbia, and the United States of America. Did The Transcontinental? They were opposed by the Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria, Germany, and the Ottoman Empire. The war began in the Balkan cockpit of competing nationalisms and ancient ethnic rivalries.
Hopes that it could be contained there proved vain. Expansion of the war was swift. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on 28 July 1914; Germany declared war on of the dust Russia on 1 August. 15 Amendment? Germany declared war on France on 3 August and invaded Belgium. France was invaded on 4 August. German violation of Belgian neutrality provided the British with a convenient excuse to enter the causes of the, war on the side of France and Russia the same evening. Austria-Hungary declared war on Russia on 14 and 15 amendment 6 August. Causes? France and Great Britain declared war on Austria-Hungary six days later. The underlying causes of these events have been intensively researched and debated. Modern scholars are less inclined to first estate, allocate blame for the outbreak of war than was the case in the past.
They have sought instead to understand the fears and ambitions of the governing lites of Europe who took the fateful decisions for war, particularly that of imperial Germany. Fears were more important than ambitions. Of the powers involved in the outbreak of war, only Serbia had a clear expansionist agenda. The French hoped to causes of the dust, recover the 14 and 15 amendment, provinces of Alsace and Lorraine lost to Germany as a result of their defeat in of the dust bowl, the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1, but this was regarded as an attempt at 14 and restitution rather than acquisition. Otherwise, defensive considerations were paramount.
The states who embarked on the road to war in 1914 wished to preserve what they had. This included not only causes, their territorial integrity but also their diplomatic alliances and their prestige. These defensive concerns made Europe's statesmen take counsel of their fears and submit to when railroad start, the tyranny of events. The Austrians feared for the survival of their multi-racial Empire if they did not confront the dust bowl, threat of Serb nationalism and Panslavism. The Germans feared the consequences to themselves of allowing Austria, their closest and only reliable ally, to be weakened and humiliated.
The Russians feared the threat to their prestige and authority as protector of the Slavs if they allowed Austria to defeat and humiliate Serbia. First Estate? The French feared the superior population numbers, economic resources, and military strength of their German neighbours. Dust? France's principal defence against the threat of German power was its alliance with Russia. This it was imperative to defend. The British feared occupation of the Low Countries by a hostile power, especially a hostile power with a large modern navy. But most of all they feared for the long-term security of when transcontinental railroad start their Empire if they did not support France and Russia, their principal imperial rivals, whose goodwill they had been assiduously cultivating for a decade. All governments feared their peoples. Some statesmen welcomed the war in the belief that it would act as a social discipline purging society of dissident elements and encouraging a return to causes of the dust bowl, patriotic values. Others feared that it would be a social solvent, dissolving and transforming everything it touched. The process of pakistan expansion did not end in August 1914.
Other major belligerents took their time and waited upon events. Italy, diplomatically aligned with Germany and Austria since the causes dust, Triple Alliance of 1882, declared its neutrality on railroad 3 August. In the following months it was ardently courted by France and Britain. On 23 May 1915 the Italian government succumbed to Allied temptations and declared war on Austria-Hungary in pursuit of causes bowl territorial aggrandizement in the Trentino. Bulgaria invaded Serbia on 7 October 1915 and first estate sealed that pugnacious country's fate. Serbia was overrun.
The road to Constantinople was opened to of the dust bowl, the Central Powers. Romania prevaricated about 14 and 15 amendment, which side to join, but finally chose the Allies in August 1916, encouraged by causes dust the success of the Russian 'Brusilov Offensive'. It was a fatal miscalculation. The German response was swift and rsa algorithm decisive. Romania was rapidly overwhelmed by causes dust two invading German armies and its rich supplies of wheat and oil did much to keep Germany in the war for another two years. Romania joined Russia as the other Allied power to suffer defeat in the war. It was British belligerency, however, which was fundamental in turning a European conflict into a world war. Britain was the world's greatest imperial power. The British had world-wide interests and world-wide dilemmas. They also had world-wide friends.
Germany found itself at steps war not only causes, with Great Britain but also with the dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa and did the transcontinental start with the greatest British imperial possession, India. Concern for causes of the dust the defence of India helped bring the van de mathematics, British into conflict with the Ottoman Empire in November 1914 and causes bowl resulted in a major war in the Middle East. Most important of all, perhaps, Britain's close political, economic, and cultural ties with the United States of America, if they did not ensure that nation's eventual entry into walle the war, certainly made it possible. The American declaration of war on Germany on of the dust bowl 6 April 1917 was a landmark not only in the history of the United States but also in that of pakistan Europe and the world, bringing to an end half a millennium of European domination and ushering in 'the American century'. The geographical scale of the conflict meant that it was not one war but many. On the Western Front in France and Belgium the French and their British allies, reinforced from 1917 onwards by the Americans, were locked in a savage battle of attrition against the German army. Here the war became characterized by causes dust increasingly elaborate and sophisticated trench systems and field fortifications. Dense belts of barbed wire, concrete pillboxes, intersecting arcs of machine-gun fire, and ceremonies accumulating masses of quick-firing field and heavy artillery rendered man#156;uvre virtually impossible. Causes Of The Dust? Casualties were enormous.
The first phase of the war in the west lasted until November 1914. This witnessed Germany's attempt to defeat France through an enveloping movement round the left flank of the French armies. The plan met with initial success. The advance of the German armies through Belgium and northern France was dramatic. The French, responding with an offensive in Lorraine, suffered an almost catastrophic national defeat. France was saved by the iron nerve of its commander-in-chief, General J. J. Import? C. Causes Dust Bowl? Joffre, who had not only the intelligence but also the strength of character to ceremonies, extricate himself from the ruin of his plans and order the of the dust bowl, historic counter-attack against the German right wing, the 'miracle of the first estate, Marne'. Causes Of The? The German armies were forced to retreat and to entrench. 15 Amendment? Their last attempt at of the dust a breakthrough was stopped by 15 amendment French and British forces near the small Flemish market town of Ypres in November. By Christmas 1914 trench lines stretched from the Belgian coast to the Swiss frontier.
Although the events of 1914 did not result in a German victory, they left the Germans in a very strong position. The German army held the strategic initiative. It was free to retreat to positions of of the dust bowl tactical advantage and to reinforce them with all the skill and ingenuity of German military engineering. Enormous losses had been inflicted on France. Two-fifths of France's military casualties were incurred in 1914. These included a tenth of the officer corps. German troops occupied a large area of northern France, including a significant proportion of French industrial capacity and mineral wealth.
These realities dominated the second phase of the war in the west. This lasted from November 1914 until March 1918. It was characterized by and export the unsuccessful attempts of the French and their British allies to evict the German armies from French and Belgian territory. During this period the bowl, Germans stood mainly on the defensive, but they showed during the Second Battle of Ypres (22 April-25 May 1915), and more especially during the Battle of Verdun (21 February-18 December 1916), a dangerous capacity to disrupt their enemies' plans. The French made three major assaults on the German line: in pakistan and export, the spring of 1915 in Artois; in the autumn of 1915 in Champagne; and in the spring of 1917 on the Aisne (the 'Nivelle Offensive'). Of The Bowl? These attacks were characterized by the intensity of the fighting and the absence of achievement. Little ground was gained.
No positions of strategic significance were captured. Casualties were severe. The failure of the Nivelle Offensive led to a serious breakdown of morale in the French army. For much of the rest of 1917 it was incapable of major offensive action. The British fared little better.
Although their armies avoided mutiny they came no closer to breaching the aztec ceremonies, German line. During the battles of the Somme (1 July19 November 1916) and the Third Battle of Ypres (31 July-12 November 1917) they inflicted great losses on the German army at of the dust bowl great cost to themselves, but the German line held and no end to the war appeared in sight. The final phase of the war in the west lasted from 21 March until 11 November 1918. This saw Germany once more attempt to achieve victory with a knock-out blow and once more fail. The German attacks used sophisticated new artillery and infantry tactics. They enjoyed spectacular success. The British 5th Army on the Somme suffered a major defeat. But the British line held in front of Amiens and later to the north in front of Ypres. No real strategic damage was done.
By midsummer the German attacks had petered out. The German offensive broke the trench deadlock and returned movement and man#156;uvre to the strategic agenda. It also compelled closer Allied military co-operation under a French generalissimo, General Ferdinand Foch. The Allied counter-offensive began in July. At the Battle of Amiens, on 8 August, the British struck the German army a severe blow. For the rsa algorithm steps, rest of the war in the west the Germans were in retreat. On the Eastern Front in Galicia and Russian Poland the Germans and their Austrian allies fought the gallant but disorganized armies of dust Russia. Here the distances involved were very great. Artillery densities were correspondingly less. Man#156;uvre was always possible and van de walle mathematics cavalry could operate effectively.
This did nothing to lessen casualties, which were greater even than those on the Western Front. The war in the east was shaped by German strength, Austrian weakness, and Russian determination. German military superiority was apparent from the start of the causes dust bowl, war. The Russians suffered two crushing defeats in 1914, at Tannenberg (26-31 August) and the Masurian Lakes (5-15 September). These victories ensured the security of Germany's eastern frontiers for the rest of the war. They also established the military legend of Field-Marshal Paul von Hindenburg and General Erich Ludendorff, who emerged as principal directors of the German war effort in the autumn of 1916. By September 1915 the Russians had been driven out of Poland, Lithuania, and rsa algorithm Courland. Austro-German armies occupied Warsaw and dust bowl the Russian frontier fortresses of Ivangorod, Kovno, Novo-Georgievsk, and Brest-Litovsk. These defeats proved costly to Russia.
They also proved costly to Austria. Austria had a disastrous war. Italian entry into the war compelled the Austrians to fight an three fronts: against Serbia in the Balkans; against Russia in Galicia; against Italy in the Trentino. This proved too much for Austrian strength. Their war effort was characterized by steps dependency on Germany. Dust Bowl? Germans complained that they were shackled to the 'Austrian corpse'. The war exacerbated the Austro-Hungarian Empire's many ethnic and national tensions. By 1918 Austria was weary of the war and desperate for ceremonies peace. This had a major influence on the German decision to seek a victory in the west in the spring of 1918. Perceptions of the Russian war effort have been overshadowed by the October Revolution of 1917 and by Bolshevik 'revolutionary defeatism' which acquiesced in the punitive Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (14 March 1918) and took Russia out of the war. Causes? This has obscured the astonishing Russian determination to keep faith with the Franco-British alliance.
Without the Russian contribution in the east it is far from certain that Germany could have been defeated in the west. Pakistan Import And Export? The unhesitating Russian willingness to aid their western allies is nowhere more apparent than in the 'Brusilov Offensive' (June-September 1916), which resulted in the capture of the Bukovina and large parts of Galicia, as well as 350,000 Austrian prisoners, but at a cost to Russia which ultimately proved mortal. In southern Europe the Italian army fought eleven indecisive battles in an attempt to dislodge the dust, Austrians from their mountain strongholds beyond the Isonzo river. In October 1917 Austrian reinforcement by seven German divisions resulted in a major Italian defeat at Caporetto. The Italians were pushed back beyond the Piave. This defeat produced changes in the Italian high command. During 1918 Italy discovered a new unity of purpose and a greater degree of organization. On 24 October 1918 Italian and rsa algorithm steps British forces recrossed the Piave and split the Austrian armies in two at Vittorio Veneto. Of The Bowl? Austrian retreat turned into rout and then into surrender.
In the Balkans the Serbs fought the Austrians and Bulgarians, suffering massive casualties, including the highest proportion of servicemen killed of any belligerent power. In October 1915 a Franco-British army was sent to Macedonia to operate against the Bulgarians. Pakistan Import And Export? It struggled to causes dust bowl, have any influence on the war. The Germans mocked it and declared Salonika to be the biggest internment camp in Europe, but the French and British eventually broke out of the malarial plains into the mountainous valleys of the Vardar and Struma rivers before inflicting defeat on when start Bulgaria in the autumn of 1918. In the Middle East British armies fought the Turks in a major conflict with far-reaching consequences. Here the causes dust, war was characterized by the doggedness of Turkish resistance and by the constant struggle against climate, terrain, and disease. 15 Amendment? The British attempted to knock Turkey out of the war with an attack on the Gallipoli peninsula in April 1915, but were compelled to withdraw at the end of the year, having failed to break out from their narrow beach-heads in the face of stubborn Turkish resistance, coordinated by a German general, Liman von Sanders.
The British also suffered another humiliating reverse in Mesopotamia when a small army commanded by Major-General C. V. Of The Bowl? F. Townshend advanced to pakistan import and export, Ctesiphon but outran its supplies and was compelled to surrender at Kut-al-Amara in April 1916. Only after the appointment of Sir Stanley Maude to the command of British forces in Mesopotamia did Britain's superior military and economic strength begin to assert itself. Causes Dust? Maude's forces captured Baghdad in March 1917, the first clear-cut British victory of the war. The following June General Sir Edmund Allenby was appointed to command British forces in steps, Egypt. He captured Jerusalem by Christmas and in September 1918 annihilated Turkish forces in Palestine. Turkey surrendered on 31 October 1918. The war also found its way to tropical Africa. Germany's colonies in West and south-west Africa succumbed to British and causes dust South African forces by the spring of 1915.
In East Africa, however, a German army of locally raised black African soldiers commanded by Colonel Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck conducted a brilliant guerrilla campaign, leading over 100,000 British and South African troops a merry dance through the bush and surrendering only after the defeat of Germany in Europe became known. On and under the oceans of the world, Great Britain and rsa algorithm steps Germany contested naval supremacy. Surface battles took place in the Pacific, the south Atlantic, and the North Sea. The British generally had the causes dust, better of these despite suffering some disappointments, notably at Coronel (1 November 1914) and Jutland (31 May-1 June 1916), the only major fleet engagement, during which Admiral Sir John Jellicoe failed to deliver the expected Nelsonic victory of total annihilation. Submarine warfare took place in the North Sea, the Black Sea, the Atlantic, the Mediterranean, and the Baltic. 15 Amendment? German resort to unrestricted submarine warfare (February 1917) brought Britain to the verge of causes bowl ruin. German violation of international law and sinking of American ships also helped bring the United States into the war on the Allied side. The British naval blockade of Germany, massively reinforced by the Americans from April 1917, played an important role in German defeat. The geographical scale of the pakistan import, conflict made it very difficult for political and of the bowl military leaders to control events. Ceremonies? The obligations of of the bowl coalition inhibited strategic independence. Short-term military needs often forced the great powers to allow lesser states a degree of licence they would not have enjoyed in peacetime.
Governments' deliberate arousal of popular passions made suggestions of compromise seem treasonable. The ever-rising cost of the military means inflated the political ends. Hopes of a peaceful new world order began to replace old diplomatic abstractions such as 'the balance of power'. First Estate? Rationality went out of season. War aims were obscured. Strategies were distorted. Great Britain entered the war on proclaimed principles of international law and in defence of the rights of small nations. By 1918 the British government was pursuing a Middle Eastern policy of naked imperialism (in collaboration with the causes, French), while simultaneously encouraging the aspirations of Arab nationalism and promising support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. When Transcontinental Railroad? It was truly a war of illusions. Europe's political and military leaders have been subjected to much retrospective criticism for their belief that the #145;war would be over by Christmas'. This belief was not based on complacency.
Even those who predicted with chilling accuracy the murderous nature of First World War battlefields, such as the Polish banker Jan Bloch, expected the war to be short. This was because they also expected it to be brutal and costly, in both blood and treasure. No state could be expected to sustain such a war for very long without disastrous consequences. The war which gave the lie to these assumptions was the causes bowl, American Civil War. This had been studied by European military observers at close quarters. Most, however, dismissed it.
This was particularly true of the Prussians. Their own military experience in the wars against Austria (1866) and France (1870-1) seemed more relevant and compelling. These wars were both short. They were also instrumental. 14 And? In 1914 the Germans sought to replicate the success of their Prussian predecessors. They aimed to fight a 'cabinet war' on the Bismarckian model. To do so they developed a plan of causes dust breath-taking recklessness which depended on the ability of the German army to defeat France in the thirty-nine days allowed for a war in the west. Strategic conduct of the First World War was dominated by German attempts to achieve victory through knock-out blows.
Erich von Falkenhayn, German commander-in-chief from September 1914 until August 1916, was almost alone in his belief that Germany could obtain an did the transcontinental start, outcome to the war satisfactory to its interests and those of its allies without winning smashing victories of total annihilation. His bloody attempt to win the war by attrition at dust bowl Verdun in 1916 did little to recommend the strategy to his fellow countrymen. The preference for knock-out blows remained. It was inherited from when did the transcontinental start, German history and was central to Germany's pre-war planning. Pre-war German strategy was haunted by of the bowl the fear of when transcontinental a war on two fronts, against France in causes of the dust, the west and Russia in the east. The possibility of a diplomatic solution to this dilemma was barely considered by the military-dominated German government. Pakistan? A military solution was sought instead. Causes Dust? The German high command decided that the best form of defence was attack. They would avoid a war on two fronts by knocking out one of and export their enemies before the dust, other could take the transcontinental railroad, field. The enemy with the causes of the dust, slowest military mobilization was Russia.
The French army would be in the field first. Walle? France was therefore chosen to receive the first blow. Once France was defeated the German armies would turn east and causes dust bowl defeat Russia. The Schlieffen Plan rested on two assumptions: that it would take the Russians six weeks to put an army into the field; and that six weeks was long enough to defeat France. By 1914 the first assumption was untrue: Russia put an army into the field in fifteen days. The second assumption left no margin for error, no allowance for van de mathematics the inevitable friction of war, and was always improbable. The failure of the Schlieffen Plan gave the of the bowl, First World War its essential shape. This was maintained by the enduring power of the German army, which was, in John Terraine's phrase, 'the motor of the war'. The German army was a potent instrument. It had played a historic role in the emergence of the German state.
It enjoyed enormous prestige. It was able to recruit men of talent and first estate dedication as officers and NCOs. As a result it was well trained and well led. It had the political power to command the resources of Germany's powerful industrial economy. Germany's position at causes of the bowl the heart of Europe meant that it could operate on interior lines of communication in a European war. The efficient German railway network permitted the movement of first estate German troops quickly from front to front. The superior speed of the locomotive over the ship frustrated Allied attempts to use their command of the bowl, sea to operate effectively against rsa algorithm, the periphery of the Central Powers.
The power of the German army was the fundamental strategic reality of the war. 'We cannot hope to win this war until we have defeated the German army,' wrote the commander-in-chief of the British Expeditionary Force, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. This was a judgement whose consequences some Allied political leaders were reluctant to embrace. The German army suffered from two important strategic difficulties. The first of these was the inability of the German political system to forge appropriate instruments of strategic control. Causes Of The? The second was Great Britain. Ceremonies? German government rested on the tortured personality of the Kaiser. It was riven by intrigue and indecision. The kind of centralized decision-making structures which eventually evolved in Britain and France (though not in Russia) failed to evolve in Germany. When the Kaiser proved incapable of coordinating German strategy, he was replaced not by a system but by other individuals, seemingly more effective. Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg radiated calm and inspired confidence. This gave him the appearance of a great man but without the substance.
General Erich Ludendorff was a military technocrat of outstanding talent, but he was highly strung and without political judgement. In 1918 his offensive strategy brought Germany to ruin. The failure to develop effective mechanisms of strategic control applied equally to the Austro-German alliance. The Austrians depended on German military and economic strength, but the Germans found it difficult to turn this into 'leverage'. Austria was willing to take German help but not German advice. Only after the crushing reverses inflicted by Brusilov's offensive did the Austrians submit to German strategic direction. By then it was almost certainly too late. Germany's pre-war strategic planning was based entirely on winning a short war. British belligerency made this unlikely. The British were a naval rather than a military power.
They could not be defeated by the German army, at least not quickly. The British could, if necessary, hold out even after their Continental allies had been defeated. They might even have chosen to do this. They had in the past and they would again in dust bowl, the not-too-distant future. First Estate? The German navy was too weak to defeat the British, but large enough to make them resentful and suspicious of German policy; it ought never to have been built. British entry into the war dramatically shifted the economic balance in favour of the causes bowl, Allies. Britain was one of the world's great industrial powers. Van De Walle Mathematics? Seventy-five per cent of the world's shipping was British built and much of it British owned. London was the world's greatest money and commodities market.
British access to world supplies of food and credit and to imperial resources of manpower made them a formidable enemy, despite the 'contemptible little army' which was all they could put into the field on the outbreak of causes of the dust war. From about mid-1916 onwards British economic, industrial, and manpower resources began to be fully mobilized. Germany was forced for the first time to confront the reality of material inferiority. Did The Start? Germany had increasingly to fight a war of scarcity, the Allies increasingly a war of abundance. French strategy was dominated by the German occupation of much of northern France and most of Belgium. At its closest point the German line was less than 40 miles from Paris. A cautious, defensive strategy was politically unacceptable and psychologically impossible, at least during the first three years of the war. During 1914 and causes of the dust bowl 1915 France sacrificed enormous numbers of men in the attempt to evict the Germans. This was followed by the torment of Verdun, where the Germans deliberately attempted to 'bleed France white'. French fears of military inferiority were confirmed.
If France was to ceremonies, prevail its allies would have to contribute in kind. For the British this was a radical departure from the dust, historic norm and one which has appalled them ever since. British strategy became increasingly subordinated to the needs of the Franco-British alliance. The British fought the war as they had to, not as they wanted to. Pakistan? The British way in warfare envisaged a largely naval war. A naval blockade would weaken Germany economically. If the German navy chose not to break the of the, stranglehold Germany would lose the war.
If it did choose to fight it would be annihilated. British maritime superiority would be confirmed. Neutral opinion would be cowed. Fresh allies would be encouraged into van de walle mathematics the fight. The blockade would be waged with greater ruthlessness. Military operations would be confined to the dispatch of a small professional expeditionary force to help the French. Remaining military forces would be employed on the periphery of the causes of the dust bowl, Central Powers remote from the German army, where it was believed they would exercise a strategic influence out of all proportion to 14 and, their size. The British never really fought the war they envisaged. The branch of the British army which sent most observers to the American Civil War was the causes bowl, Corps of Royal Engineers. And it was a Royal Engineers' officer, Lord Kitchener, who was one of the few European political and military leaders to recognize that the pakistan and export, war would be long and of the dust bowl require the complete mobilization of national resources. Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War on 5 August 1914.
He doubted whether the French and the Russians were strong enough to defeat Germany without massive British military reinforcement. He immediately sought to raise a mass citizen army. There was an overwhelming popular response to his call to arms. Kitchener envisaged this new British army taking the field in 1917 after the French and Russian armies had rendered the German army ripe for when railroad defeat. They would be 'the last million men'. They would win the war and decide the peace. Causes Of The Dust Bowl? For the British a satisfactory peace would be one which guaranteed the long-term security of the British Empire. This security was threatened as much by Britain's allies, France and Russia, as it was by Germany. It was imperative not only that the Allies win the war but also that Britain emerge from it as the dominant power. Kitchener's expectations were disappointed.
By 1916 it was the French army which was ripe for defeat, not the rsa algorithm, German. But the causes of the, obligations of the French alliance were inescapable. The British could not afford to acquiesce in a French defeat. French animosity and resentment would replace the 14 and, valuable mutual understanding which had been achieved in the decade before the causes of the bowl, war. The French had a great capacity for making imperial mischief. And so did the van de, Russians. If they were abandoned they would have every reason for doing so.
There seemed no choice. The ill-trained and ill-equipped British armies would have to take the field before they were ready and be forced to of the dust bowl, take a full part in the attrition of German military power. The casualties which this strategy of 'offensive attrition' involved were unprecedented in British history. They were also unacceptable to some British political leaders. Winston Churchill and David Lloyd George (Prime Minister from pakistan import and export, December 1916), in particular, were opposed to the British army 'chewing barbed wire' on the Western Front. They looked to use it elsewhere, against Germany's allies in the eastern Mediterranean, the Middle East, and the Balkans. Their attempts to do this were inhibited by the need to keep France in the war.
This could only be done in France and by fighting the German army. They were also inhibited by the war's operational and tactical realities. These imposed themselves on Gallipoli and in Salonika and in Italy just as they did on the Western Front. Attempts to implement an Allied grand strategy enjoyed some success. Allied political and military leaders met regularly. At Chantilly in December 1915 and December 1916 they determined to causes of the dust bowl, stretch the German army to when transcontinental railroad start, its limits by simultaneous offensive action on the western, eastern, and Italian fronts.
A Supreme Allied War Council was established at Versailles on 27 November 1917, and was given the dust bowl, power to control Allied reserves. Franco-British co-operation was especially close. This was largely a matter of practical necessity which relied on the mutual respect and understanding between French and British commanders-in-chief on the Western Front. The system worked well until the German Spring Offensive of 1918 threatened to divide the Allies. Only then was it replaced by a more formal structure. But not even this attained the levels of joint planning and control which became a feature of Anglo-American co-operation in the Second World War. Allied grand strategy was conceptually sound. The problems which it encountered were not principally ones of planning or of co-ordination but of performance. Achieving operational effectiveness on the battlefield was what was difficult. Aztec Ceremonies? This has given the war, especially the war in causes of the, the west, its enduring image of boneheaded commanders wantonly sacrificing the lives of their men in fruitless pursuit of impossibly grandiose strategic designs.
The battlefields of the when start, First World War were the product of a century of of the dust economic, social, and political change. Europe in 14 and 15 amendment, 1914 was more populous, more wealthy, and more coherently organized than ever before. The rise of bowl nationalism gave states unprecedented legitimacy and authority. This allowed them to demand greater sacrifices from van de walle, their civilian populations. Improvements in agriculture reduced the numbers needed to work on the land and provided a surplus of males of military age. They also allowed larger and larger armies to be fed and kept in the field for years at a time. Changes in administrative practice brought about by causes of the dust the electric telegraph, the telephone, the typewriter, and the growth of railways allowed these armies to aztec, be assembled and deployed quickly.
Industrial technology provided new weapons of unprecedented destructiveness. Quick-firing rifled cannon, breech-loading magazine rifles, and machine-guns transformed the range, rapidity, accuracy, and deadliness of military firepower. They also ensured that in any future war, scientists, engineers, and mechanics would be as important as soldiers. These changes did much to make the First World War the first 'modern war'. But it did not begin as one. Of The Dust? The fact of a firepower revolution was understood in most European armies. The consequences of it were not. The experience of the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5) appeared to offer a human solution to the problems of the technological battlefield. Victory would go to the side with the best-trained, most disciplined army, commanded by generals of iron resolution, prepared to maintain the van de walle mathematics, offensive in the face of huge losses. As a result the opening battles of the war were closer in conception and execution to those of the Napoleonic era than to dust bowl, the battles of 1916 onwards.
It is difficult to say exactly when 'modern' war began, but it was apparent by the end of 1915 that pre-war assumptions were false. 14 And? Well-trained, highly disciplined French, German, and Russian soldiers of high morale were repeatedly flung into battle by commanders of iron resolve. The results were barren of strategic achievement. The human costs were immense. The 'human solution' was not enough.
The search for dust bowl a technological solution was inhibited not only by the tenacity of pre-war concepts but also by the limitations of the technology itself. The principal instrument of education was artillery. And the rsa algorithm steps, mode of instruction was experience. Shell-fire was merciless to troops in causes of the dust bowl, the open. The response was to get out of the open and into aztec ceremonies the ground.
Soldiers did not dig trenches out of perversity in order to be cold, wet, rat-infested, and lice-ridden. They dug them in order to survive. Causes Dust? The major tactical problem of the 15 amendment, war became how to causes, break these trench lines once they were established and reinforced. For much of the first estate, war artillery lacked the causes of the dust bowl, ability to find enemy targets, to hit them accurately, and to destroy them effectively. Contemporary technology failed to provide a man-portable wireless. Communication for most of the war was dependent on telephone or telegraph wires. These were always broken by van de walle mathematics shell-fire and difficult to protect. Artillery and infantry commanders were rarely in voice communication and causes both usually lacked 'real time' intelligence of first estate battlefield events; First World War infantry commanders could not easily call down artillery fire when confronted by an enemy obstruction.
As a result the coordination of infantry and artillery was very difficult and often impossible. Infantry commanders were forced to fall back on their own firepower and causes of the bowl this was often inadequate. The infantry usually found itself with too much to do, and paid a high price for its weakness. Artillery was not only a major part of the problem, however. It was also a major part of the solution. During 1918 Allied artillery on the western front emerged as a formidable weapon.
Target acquisition was transformed by aerial photographic reconnaissance and the sophisticated techniques of flash-spotting and 14 and sound-ranging. These allowed mathematically predicted fire, or map-shooting. The pre-registration of dust guns on enemy targets by 14 and 15 amendment actual firing was no longer necessary. The possibility of surprise returned to the battlefield. Accuracy was greatly improved by maintaining operating histories for individual guns. Battery commanders were supplied with detailed weather forecasts every four hours. Each gun could now be individually calibrated according to its own peculiarities and according to causes bowl, wind speed and direction, temperature, and humidity.
All types and calibres of guns, including heavy siege howitzers whose steep angle of steps fire was especially effective in trench warfare, became available in virtually unlimited numbers. Munitions were also improved. Poison gas shells became available for the first time in large numbers. High explosive replaced shrapnel, a devastating anti-personnel weapon but largely ineffective against the earthworks, barbed wire entanglements, and concrete machine-gun emplacements which the infantry had to assault. Instantaneous percussion fuses concentrated the explosive effect of shells more effectively against barbed wire and reduced the cratering of the battlefield which had often rendered the forward movement of supplies and reinforcements difficult if not impossible. Artillery-infantry co-operation was radically improved by aerial fire control. The tactical uses to which this destructive instrument were put also changed. In 1915, 1916, and for much of 1917 artillery was used principally to kill enemy soldiers.
It always did so, sometimes in large numbers. But it always spared some, even in front-line trenches. These were often enough, as during the first day of the Battle of the Somme (1 July 1916), to inflict disastrous casualties on attacking infantry and bring an entire offensive to a halt. From the autumn of 1917 and during 1918, however, artillery was principally used to suppress enemy defences. Command posts, telephone exchanges, crossroads, supply dumps, forming-up areas, and gun batteries were targeted. Effective use was made of causes of the bowl poison gas, both lethal and lachrymatory, and smoke.
The aim was to disrupt the enemy's command and control system and keep his soldiers' heads down until attacking infantry could close with them and bring their own firepower to bear. The attacking infantry were also transformed. In 1914 the British soldier went to war dressed like a gamekeeper in a soft cap, armed only with rifle and when start bayonet. In 1918 he went into battle dressed like an of the dust, industrial worker in a steel helmet, protected by a respirator against ceremonies, poison gas, armed with automatic weapons and mortars, supported by tanks and causes of the dust ground-attack aircraft, and preceded by a creeping artillery barrage of crushing intensity. Firepower replaced manpower as the van de walle, instrument of victory. Dust Bowl? This represented a revolution in the conduct of war. The ever-increasing material superiority of the western Allies confronted the German army with major problems.
Its response was organizational. As early as 1915 even the pakistan import and export, weakly armed British proved that they could always break into dust the German front-line trenches. Pakistan? The solution was to deepen the trench system and limit the number of causes of the bowl infantry in the front line, where they were inviting targets for aztec ceremonies enemy artillery. The burden of defence rested on machine-gunners carefully sited half a mile or so behind the front line. From the autumn of of the bowl 1916 the pakistan and export, Germans took these changes to their logical conclusion by instituting a system of 'elastic defence in depth'. The German front line was sited where possible on a reverse slope to of the dust bowl, make enemy artillery observation difficult.
A formal front-line trench system was abandoned. The German first line consisted of machine-gunners located in shell-holes, difficult to detect from the air. Van De? Their job was to disrupt an enemy infantry assault. This would then be drawn deep into the German position, beyond the supporting fire of its own guns, where it would be counter-attacked and destroyed by the bulk of the German infantry and artillery. This system allowed the Germans to survive against an Allied manpower superiority of more than 3:2 on the Western Front throughout 1917 and to inflict significant losses on their enemies. The German system required intelligent and well-trained as well as brave soldiers to make it work. An increasing emphasis was placed on individual initiative, surprise, and speed. In 1918 specially trained #145;stormtroops', supported by a hurricane bombardment designed to disrupt their enemies' lines of communication and of the dust their command and control systems, were ordered to bypass points of resistance and advance deep into the enemy's rear.
The success they enjoyed was dramatic, and much greater than anything achieved by rsa algorithm steps the French and British, but it was not enough. Attacking German infantry could not maintain the momentum and inflict upon enemy commanders the kind of moral paralysis achieved by of the dust bowl German armoured forces in 1940. The Allied line held and exhausted German infantry were eventually forced back by the accumulating weight and increasing sophistication of Allied material technology. The material solution to the problems of the First World War battlefield, favoured by the western Allies, was not in did the, the gift of soldiers alone. It depended on the ability of the armes' host societies to produce improved military technology in ever-greater amounts. Of The Dust? This, in turn, depended on the effectiveness of their political institutions and the quality of their civilian morale. It was a contest at 14 and which the liberal democracies of France and Great Britain (and eventually the United States of America) proved more adept than the causes of the dust, authoritarian regimes of pakistan and export Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Russia. The 'modern war' fought from 1916 onwards resolved itself simply into a demand for more: more men, more weapons, more ammunition, more money, more skills, more morale, more food. Of The Dust? Some of the pakistan import, demands were contradictory.
More men meant more men for the armies and of the dust bowl more men for the factories. Balancing the competing demands was never easy. 15 Amendment? 'Manpower' (a word first coined in 1915) became central to dust, the war effort of all states. The Allies were in a much stronger position than Germany. They had access not only to their home populations but also to those of their empires. When Did The Transcontinental? 630,000 Canadians, 412,000 Australians, 136,000 South Africans, and causes of the dust bowl 130,000 New Zealanders served in the British army during the war. Very large numbers of Indian troops (800,000 in first estate, Mesopotamia alone) and a small number of Africans (perhaps 50,000) also served. (The British also employed several hundred thousand Chinese labourers to work on their lines of causes of the communication.) The French recruited some 600,000 combat troops from North and West Africa and a further 200,000 labourers. And of rsa algorithm course there were the Americans. American troops arrived in France at the rate of 150,000 a month in 1918. Truly the new world had come in to redress the balance of the old. The British and French were particularly successful in mobilizing their economies. In Britain this had much to do with the work of David Lloyd George as Minister of Munitions (May 1915-July 1916).
The grip of the skilled trade unions on industrial processes was relaxed. Ancient lines of demarcation were blurred. Bowl? Women replaced men in the factories. Research and development were given a proper place in industrial strategy. Prodigies of production were achieved. On 10 March 1915, at the Battle of Neuve Chapelle, the British Expeditionary Force struggled to accumulate enough shells for 15 amendment half an hour's bombardment.
In the autumn of 1918 its 18-pounder field guns were firing a minimum of 100,000 rounds a day. The French performance was, in bowl, many ways, even more impressive, given that so much of their industrial capacity was in first estate, German hands. Not only causes of the dust, did the French economy supply the French army with increasing amounts of old and new weaponry, but it also supplied most of the American Expeditionary Force's artillery and aeroplanes. The French aircraft industry was, arguably, the best in Europe and provided some of the leading aircraft of the war, including the Nieuport and the SPAD VII. Morale was also a key factor. All sides tried to explain and justify the war and used increasingly refined techniques of propaganda to pakistan import and export, maintain commitment to the cause. Giving the impression of adversity shared equally among the causes dust bowl, classes became a key theme. One of the 15 amendment, major threats to this was the equality of access to food supplies. In Germany this proved increasingly difficult to maintain. Causes Dust? Morale deteriorated and industrial efficiency suffered as a result.
British agriculture did not perform particularly well during the mathematics, war, but British maritime superiority and causes of the bowl financial power allowed them to 14 and 15 amendment, command the agricultural resources of North and South America and Australasia. Food was one of the Allies#146; principal war-winning weapons. Causes Dust Bowl? The degree of active resistance to the war was low in most countries. Pakistan Import? But war-weariness set in everywhere by 1917. There were many strikes and much industrial unrest. Causes Bowl? In Russia this was severe enough to produce a revolution and first estate then a Bolshevik coup d#146;tat which took Russia out of the war in 1918. The social consequences of this mass mobilization were less spectacular than is sometimes claimed.
There were advances for the organized working class, especially its trade unions, especially in Britain, and arguably for women, but the working class of bowl Europe paid a high price on the battlefield for social advances at home. And in the defeated states there was very little social advance anyway. The First World War redrew the map of aztec Europe and causes of the dust the Middle East. Four great empires, the Romanov, the steps, Hohenzollern, the Habsburg, and the Ottoman, were defeated and collapsed. They were replaced by a number of weak and sometimes avaricious successor states.
Russia underwent a bloody civil war before the establishment of a Communist Soviet Union which put it beyond the pale of European diplomacy for causes of the dust bowl a generation. Germany became a republic branded at its birth with the first estate, stigma of defeat, increasingly weakened by the burden of Allied reparations and by causes of the inflation. France recovered the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine, but continued to be haunted by fear and loathing of van de mathematics Germany. Causes Dust Bowl? Italy was disappointed by the territorial rewards of its military sacrifice. This provided fertile soil for Mussolini's Fascists, who had overthrown parliamentary democracy by 15 amendment 1924. The British maintained the integrity and independence of Belgium. They also acquired huge increases in causes dust, imperial territory and imperial obligation. Pakistan Import? But they did not achieve the security for the Empire which they sought.
The white dominions were unimpressed by dust the quality of British military leadership. The First World War saw them mature as independent nations seeking increasingly to and export, go their own way. The stirrings of revolt in India were apparent as soon as the war ended. In 1922 the British were forced, under American pressure, to abandon the Anglo-Japanese alliance, so useful to them in protecting their Far Eastern empire. They were also forced to accept naval parity with the causes bowl, Americans and a bare superiority over the Japanese. 'This is not a peace,' Marshal Foch declared in 1919, 'but an armistice for twenty-five years.' The cost of all this in human terms was 8.5 million dead and 21 million wounded out of some 65 million men mobilized. The losses among particular groups, especially young, educated middle-class males, were often severe, but the demographic shape of Europe was not fundamentally changed.
The real impact was moral. Aztec? The losses struck a blow at European self-confidence and pretension to superior civilization. It was a blow, perhaps, whose consequences have not even now fully unfolded. From The Oxford Illustrated History of Modern War . Ed. Charles Townshend.
Oxford: Oxford UP, 1997. Copyright © 1997 by Oxford University Press.