Nietzsche and the Art of Self-Creation

In The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Richard Schacht, philosopher and professor, correlates Friedrich Nietzsche’s admiration for art to his concepts of the ubermensch and morality, while asserting these concepts build upon Nietzsche’s first scholarly work, The Birth of Tragedy. Schacht writes:

“The strongly creative flavor of Nietzsche’s notions of such a ‘higher humanity’ and associated ‘higher morality’ reflects his linkage of both to his conception of art, to which he attached great importance. Art, for Nietzsche, is fundamentally creative (rather than cognitive), serving to prepare for the emergence of a sensibility and manner of life reflecting the highest potentiality of human beings. Art, as the creative transformation of the world as we find it (and of ourselves thereby) on a small scale and in particular media, affords a glimpse of a kind of life that would be lived more fully in this manner, and constitutes a step toward emergence. In this way, Nietzsche’s mature thought thus expands upon the idea of the basic connection between art and the justification of life that was his general theme in his first major work, The Birth of Tragedy.” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 616-617)

For this paper, I would like to explore Nietzsche’s main theories through the lens of his concept of the Apollinian and Dionysian duality as described in The Birth of Tragedy. I will first outline some of Nietzsche’s main theories, namely, the death of God, slave and master morality, the overman (or ubermensch), will to power, perspectivism, amor fati and eternal recurrence while showing how these concepts relate to overcoming in order to create oneself. Next, I will outline Nietzsche’s concepts of the Apollinian and Dionysian in The Birth of Tragedy. Finally, I will interpret each of Nietzsche’s main theories through his concept of the Dionysian and Apollinian duality in art. Ultimately, I will argue the value of Nietzsche’s theories is on the existential and individual level, namely in the art of self-creation.

Regarding the death of God, Nietzsche writes in the voice of a madman, “We have killed him […]! We are all his murderers!” (Gay Science, 103). The madman, as philosopher and author Douglas Soccio interprets the parable, asserts the weapons we used to murder God, were “scientific and technological progress” which replaced humanity’s faith in God (Archetypes of Wisdom, 468). The madman continues, “Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breath upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker?” (Gay Science, 103). Nietzsche asserts without God to assign meaning, purpose, and morality to humanity, humans are left alone in a cold, dark, empty, nothingness. Nietzsche writes, “How shall we console ourselves?” and “Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it?” (Gay Science, 103). Nietzsche suggests, in place of God, we ourselves must create ourselves into the ones who assign purpose, meaning and morality to our lives.

Soccio notes, for Nietzsche, the death of God means “all values must be revalued” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 469). Nietzsche proclaims “Evaluation is creation: hear this, you creators!” and continues “Through valuation only is there value; and without valuation the nut of existence would be hollow. Hear this, you creators! Change of values-that is a change of creators. Whoever must be a creator always destroys. First, peoples were creators; and only in later times, individuals. Truly, the individual himself is still the latest creation.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 53). Nietzsche is asserting not only is the creation of values necessary for existence, but it is through destruction of the “peoples” values the individual can create their own values, thus, creating their own individual existence.

Nietzsche asserts slave morality is born of “ressentiment” which “becomes creative and gives birth to values” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 472). Ressentiment, Nietzsche explains, is an “inversion of the value-positing eye,” a “need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 472). Nietzsche states “slave morality always first needs a hostile external world,” “external stimuli in order to act at all-its action is fundamentally reaction” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 473). For Nietzsche, slave morality is created from the bitterness of those enslaved, metaphorically speaking, who place themselves at the moral end of the value system while placing those who are not enslaved at the immoral end of the value system. Nietzsche asserts, those enslaved are merely reacting to their enslavement to create values. Soccio explains “slave morality is alien to true individuality,” it “is so opposed to the authentic individual that his or her own self-creating urges and impulses are stifled in favor of ‘external stimuli’ that function as guidelines from others,” and it is “uncreative” “because it is ‘always a reaction,’ never an originating impulse” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 474). Even while those enslaved seem to be creating values, their creation is inauthentic and uncreative because it is merely a reaction.

Master morality, Nietzsche asserts, “develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself” and “acts and grows spontaneously, it seeks its opposite only so as to affirm itself more gratefully and triumphantly” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 473). Soccio explains master morality, “in contrast to slave morality, is an aesthetic-heroic code of honor. That is, the overman looks only to himself or herself for value. And value is defined in aesthetic terms” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 475). For Nietzsche, it seems, master morality is the self-affirming creative result of individuals who see the world and themselves, not in terms of “good” and “evil,” but in shades of aesthetic value, and who are not afraid to view the “ugly” in themselves in order to reaffirm even more the “beautiful,” thus transforming the “ugly” into the “beautiful.”

Soccio notes both the underman of slave morality and the overman of master morality possess will to power, however, “For the overman, the will to power is expressed openly, honestly, and nobly through exuberant, life-affirming self-creation and self-imposition” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 475). While, contrarily notes Soccio, the underman’s slave morality is “a distortion of the will to power” “shaped by feelings of gross inadequacy” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 472; 475). Schacht explains, Nietzsche envisioned “exceptional human beings capable of an independence and creativity elevating them above the level of the general human rule […] and through Zarathustra proclaimed the Ubermensch […] to be ‘the meaning of the earth,’ employing this image to convey the ideal of the overcoming of the ‘all-too-human’ and the fullest possible creative ‘enhancement of life.’ (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 616). The overman seeks out life, individuality, creativity and self-creation whereas the underman seeks comfort in conformity to deal with their own feelings of inadequacy.

Of the will to power, Nietzsche writes, “And life itself spoke this secret to me. ‘Behold,’ it said, ‘I am that which must ever overcome itself’” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 101). Nietzsche continues, “‘Whatever I create and however much I love it-soon I have to oppose it and my love: so my will wills it.”’ and “‘Only where there is life is there also will: but not will to life, rather-so I teach you-will to power!’” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 101). For Nietzsche, “all efficient force univocally,” “the world viewed from the inside, the world defined and determined according to its ‘intelligible character” is all the will to power (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 238). Soccio notes, for Nietzsche, all truths, which result in values, “are aesthetic creations which serve” and are “manifestations of the will to power” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 462-463). Nietzsche asserts, “Willing liberates: for willing is creating: thus I teach. And you should learn solely in order to create!” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 177). Everything concrete or abstract, for Nietzsche, is a representation of a naturally inherent will to power to overcome and control. It seems, for Nietzsche, the will to power is a force of opposition pushing one to overcome and control every aspect of life. For Nietzsche, the will to power is a creative force, overarching all of nature, which offers the individual freedom through its ability to create.

Regarding amor fati, Nietzsche writes, “‘To redeem what is past, and to transform every ‘It was’ into ‘Thus would I have it!’-that alone do I call redemption!’” and “All ‘It was’ is a fragment, a riddle, a fearful chance-until the creating will says to it: ‘But I willed it thus!’ Until the creating will says to it: ‘But I will it thus! Thus shall I will it!’” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 121-123). Soccio quotes Nietzsche as stating, “The fatality of nature cannot be disentangled from the fatality of all that which has been and will be. He is not the result of special design, a will, a purpose” but instead “One is necessary, one is a piece of fate” and “We deny God; in denying God, we deny accountability: only by doing that do we redeem the world” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 476). Soccio quotes Nietzsche later as stating “My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be other than it is, not in the future, not in the past, not in all eternity. Not merely to endure that which happens of necessity, still less to dissemble it…but to love it” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 477). Soccio explains, through Nietzsche’s amor fati “we realize that we exist as parts of a complex whole that can be only precisely what it is and cannot be otherwise” (Archetypes of Wisdom, 477). Through Nietzsche’s amor fati, or love of fate, it seems, one realizes the fatality of their existence, accepts the fatality, then uses their creative will to transform the fatality into what was and is necessary. By transforming the fatality into what was and is necessary, one would redeem themselves and their experiences as being necessary. By redeeming themselves and their experiences as necessary, one in turn views the fatality with love instead of bitterness, and thus, is capable of asserting to oneself they would not have willed themselves or their experiences any other way.

Of eternal recurrence, Nietzsche writes, “all things eternally return and we ourselves with them” and “‘I come again […] not to a new life or a better life or a similar life: I come again eternally to this identical and selfsame life, in its greatest and its smallest” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 189-190). Schacht explains, Nietzsche conceived of the world as being “without beginning or end, in which things happen repeatedly in the way they always have” and he used the eternal return “chiefly to depict his conception of the radically non-linear character of events in this world and […] to provide a way of testing our ability to live with it” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 616). Schacht continues, “If we are sufficiently strong and well disposed to life to affirm it even on the supposition that it will only be the same sequence of events repeated eternally, we have what it takes to endure and flourish in the kind of world in which Nietzsche believed we find ourselves in the aftermath of disillusionment,” after the death of God (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 616). For Nietzsche, eternal recurrence is a perspectival tool to be used by individuals to reaffirm amor fati, to see if they would still love the fatality of their lives, even if their lives repeated exactly the same way for all of eternity. By reaffirming their love of fate through seeking eternal return, the individual overcomes the self-depreciating aspects of their lives to create themselves anew.

Regarding perspectivism, Nietzsche writes one should know “how to employ a variety of perspectives and affective interpretations in the service of knowledge” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 555). Furthermore, Nietzsche writes, “There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective ‘knowing’; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, the different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our ‘concept’ of this thing […] be” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 555). Nietzsche’s perspectivism asserts we are not passive observers of the world and our experiences. For Nietzsche, whenever we view, and subsequently interpret, anything concrete or abstract in the world, we do so through a perspective. Nietzsche’s perspectivism asserts, in order to obtain knowledge, one must recognize they view and interpret the world through a perspective, then make themselves view the world through as many perspectives as possible.

Schacht explains, even while Nietzsche rejects the concept of “absolute knowledge,” he did argue if the things in the world are “viewed in the multiplicity of perspectives” of the things’ relations to other things, then “they admit of a significant measure of comprehension” (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 615). Additionally, Schacht asserts, for Nietzsche, there is “no knowledge at all-even of ourselves and the world of which we are a part-that is absolute, non-perspectival, and certain” however, there is “a good deal about ourselves and our world that he became convinced we can comprehend” and “Our comprehension may be restricted to what life and the world show themselves to be” to us but for us, this is reality (The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 615). According to Schacht’s interpretation of Nietzsche, our knowledge is limited to what we experience of the world, and for us, this is the only reality, thus, truth. To add to Schacht’s interpretation, it follows then, by closely looking at how we view and interpret the world through different perspectives, we could learn a lot about ourselves. One could create their existence based off what they learn about themselves by analyzing their perspectival interpretations of the world.

In The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche writes “the continuous development of art is bound up with the Apollinian and Dionysian duality […] involving perpetual strife with only periodically intervening reconciliations” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 33). Nietzsche writes the Apollinian and the Dionysian are opposites which together “are artistic energies” “in which nature’s art impulses” are expressed in “the [Apollinian] image world of dreams, whose completeness is not dependent upon the intellectual attitude or the artistic culture of any single being; and then as intoxicated reality [of the Dionysian], which likewise does not heed the single unit, but even seeks to destroy individual and redeem him by a mystic feeling of oneness” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 38). Nietzsche is describing, within the inherent nature of humans, there exist two halves of a whole, each with its own characteristics, which, at times conflict with each other, and at other times intervene. The Apollinian characteristics are metaphorically like dreams, or illusions, which are creations within themselves, not dependent upon the human intellectual capacities of the individual but are solely formations of and for the individual existence. The Dionysian characteristic is of intoxication and is also not dependent upon the intellectual capacities of the individual, but is the urge to destroy the individual so that the individual can become one with the whole of nature.

Furthermore, Nietzsche writes “let us imagine how into this [Apollinian] world, built upon mere appearance and moderation and artificially dammed up, there penetrated, in tones ever more bewitching and alluring, the ecstatic sound of the Dionysian festival; how in these strains all of nature’s excess in pleasure, grief, and knowledge became audible, even in piercing shrieks” (The Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 47). The individual builds an illusionary existence of moderation and restraint, then into their existence enters an excess of emotion and knowledge of the reality behind their built up illusion. Nietzsche continues, “The muses of the arts of ‘illusion’ paled before an art that, in its intoxication, spoke the truth. […] The individual, with all his restraint and proportion, succumbed to the self-oblivion of the Dionysian states, forgetting the precepts of Apollo. Excess revealed itself as truth. Contradiction, the bliss born of pain, spoke out from the very heart of nature” (The Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 47). The individual finds the truth of their existence through the intoxication of emotion, of suffering, and seeks comfort in a unity with nature as a whole. Nietzsche states, “And so, wherever the Dionysian prevailed, the Apollinian was checked and destroyed” and vice versus (The Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 47). The interplay of the illusion of the individual existence, of moderation and restraint, and the intoxication of the emotional existence of the individual when succumbing to the whole of nature, proceeds checking and balancing each other.

Nietzsche also writes “Knowledge kills action; action requires the veils of illusion […] Not reflection, no-true knowledge, an insight into the horrible truth outweighs any motive for action, […] in […] the Dionysian man” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 60). The individual becomes paralyzed by the knowledge and truth of the reality of their existence. In order to survive, the individual must turn to the Apollinian illusion. Nietzsche continues, “Now no comfort avails any more; longing transcends a world after death, even the gods; existence is negated along with its glittering reflection in the gods or in an immortal beyond” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 60). The individual can no longer take comfort in unity with nature as a whole and existence, along with any sort of faith in God or heaven, becomes meaningless. Nietzsche states, “Conscious of the truth he has once seen, man now sees everywhere only the horror or absurdity of existence […] he is nauseated” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 60). The individual knows the suffering and meaninglessness of existence, and becomes mentally sickened. Nietzsche continues, “Here, when the danger to his will is greatest, art approaches a saving sorceress, expert at healing. She alone knows how to turn these nauseous thoughts about the horror or absurdity of existence into notions with which one can live: these are the sublime as the artistic taming of the horrible, and the comic as the artistic discharge of the nausea of absurdity” (Basic Writings of Nietzsche, 60). Art, as a creative outlet for the excess of emotion, transforms the meaninglessness, absurdity, and suffering, into a masterpiece and human condition of awe inspiring beauty.

Bernd Magnus and Kathleen M. Higgins assert, for Nietzsche, the Apollinian and the Dionysian are opposing aspects of each individual human, in which the Apollinian aspect places the individual “separate from the rest of reality” to “contemplate it dispassionately” whereas the Dionysian aspect places the individual within the “tumultuous flux” of reality where “individuality is overwhelmed by the dynamics of the living whole” (The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, 22). Magnus and Higgins assert, “Nietzsche believed that a balance of these principles is essential if one is both to recognize the challenge to one’s sense of meaning posed by individual vulnerability and the recognize the solution, which depends on one’s sense of oneness with a larger reality” (The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, 22). Magnus and Higgins reaffirm the Apollinian and Dionysian duality as an interplay between the individual outside of reality, outside of the emotional aspects of their existence, and the individual becoming succumbed within the reality, within the emotional whole of nature. The solution to the individual vulnerability, which Magnus and Higgins discuss, I propose, is a unity to a larger reality through specifically the art of self-creation.

For Nietzsche, art is a symbolic manifestation of the creativity inherent in nature, and inherent in humanity. Humans are naturally artists. Art is fundamentally creative and thus, is transformative. Before the death of God, the individual created their existence, meaning and purpose, around the illusion of God. The individual, thus created an illusion of existence for themselves and transformed their reality into this existence. After the death of God, the individual fails to create and transform further, when they lack the perspectival tools to view themselves and their experiences within the world. Once the individual sees the truth of reality, the demise of the illusion of God and the demise of the illusion of their prior existence, the individual is thrown into the chaotic and emotional reality of existence. All becomes meaningless and absurd as contradictions define reality.

The undermen, find comfort in the herd, failing to create, thus failing to transform, themselves. The overman sees the truth of reality is not God, but instead the will to power and through this realization unifies with the whole of nature. Utilizing the will to power, the overman re-evaluates the values of the herd and creates values of his own based on the aesthetic qualities inherent within nature, thus the overman further transforms. Next, the overman creates and thus transforms and redeems the past through amor fati. The overman creates the past as necessary for his existence by utilizing his creative will to power. Now the overman can affirm his longing for the eternal return. The overman longs for his same life in all the minute details to be replayed over again throughout eternity, thus utilizing the creative force of his will to power to overcome the suffering of existence and thus creating his existence anew.

The process of destruction and creation is, like the Apollinian and Dionysian duality, a never ending artistic process. The overman creates his new existence which becomes an illusion to be dissected and destroyed through perspectivsm. Then the individual finds himself again thrown into the chaotic, emotional, absurdity of meaningless existence, to once again use his creative will to power to create himself. The overman composes, molds, writes or paints himself, as an artistic creation within the duality of the Apollinian and Dionysian forces inherent in his nature, to create his existence over and over again. The Apollinian force always placing the overman outside of the reality of himself, emotionless behind an illusion of existence. The Dionysian force always bringing him back to the whole of reality, forcing the emotion onto him, tearing away the illusion to show him the truth of his existence. The overman uses his creative will, like a masterful artist, to balance these two opposing forces resulting in ongoing self-creation.

Nietzsche viewed all of the natural world, as stemming from creative, artistic energies. All of his main concepts speak to the individual existence as a creative and artistic endeavor. For Nietzsche, the highest individual, the overman, is the master of the art of self-creation, who constantly creates his existence anew. Therefore, the value of Nietzsche’s work is in the individual existence creating itself as a living, never completed, work of art.

Works Cited

Magnus, Bernd, and Kathleen M. Higgins. “Nietzsche’s Works and Their Themes.” The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Print.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Basic Writings of Nietzsche. New York: Random House, Inc., 2000. 33; 38; 47; 60; 238; 472; 473; 555.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 2008. 103.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 2005. 53; 101; 121-23; 177; 189-90.

Schacht, Richard. “Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm.” The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Print.

Soccio, Douglas J. “The Anti-Philosopher: Friedrich Nietzsche.” Archetypes of Wisdom. 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print.

*I would like to thank Prof. Shannon Atkinson at SLCC and Prof. Greg Spendlove at SLCC for their critiques on the rough drafts of this paper.

6 thoughts on “Nietzsche and the Art of Self-Creation

  1. I have been considering a certain potential counter argument to my essay regarding the ubermensch practicing the art of self creation.

    The counter argument would assert what makes the ubermensch, the ubermensch is that he would not need to create himself. The argument contends the ubermensch would recognize all is the will to power and would accept all is the will to power. It would be those with the slave mentality who would need to create themselves because they couldn’t deal with the meaninglessness, purposelessness and randomness of the will to power. Therefore, for the ubermensch to be the ubermensch, he would just go with wherever the will to power takes him and not need to fight the will to power by trying to create himself.

    However, in response, this counter argument doesn’t seem so uber. What I mean is, this counter argument essentially makes the ubermensch a tool and a puppet of the will to power, and this doesn’t seem to be very uber at all.

    Instead, perhaps, the ubermensch is uber because he balances the Dionysian chaotic will to power of the whole with his own Apollinian will to power to control and for order. The balance between these two forces is how the ubermensch creates himself. If it is all the will to power, perhaps then the ubermensch is simply a master at manipulating the will to power.

  2. This was great. Simple and direct for a layman like me while still allowing me to reason and discover for myself. In today’s post modern, technological world, being an ubermensch is ideal.

  3. The problem with the continual art of self creation: The people you leave behind in the pursuit of self-creation! Identity comes from being from someone (or someplace) or for someone (like a father for a child). Strengthening, healing, and rightly ordering our relationships is classically understood as redemption. In the Nietzschean universe we simply leave our old identities (thus our old relationships) in order to create a new one. The uberman might feel a moment of ecstasy but the child he abandoned is wounded to the heart. The child be abandoned will be marked with a new identity by the father who left him. Furthermore, activity flows from identity, and the child abandoned will become the adult who abandons. The wounded will become the wounder.

    “Whatever I create and however much I love it-soon I have to oppose it and my love.” F. Nietzche

    1. Not sure I can agree that we are leaving things behind. From my understanding Nietzche thought we should always be striving to improve ourselves. If we can improve who we are be being better fathers or mothers than we are not abandoning our relationships, but improving them. Walter Kaufmann used your same quote, but said “the will to power is a striving…it is essentially a striving to transcend and perfect oneself.” So we do not need to leave people behind we need to recognize that “being” a father/mother/friend is not enough we need to try to be better. If we love where we are in life or a relationship we should not just stay the way we are, but strive to be greater.

  4. Walter Kaufman writes:

    Some of Nietzsche’s reasons for calling his fundamental principle a ‘will to power’ rather than an ‘instinct for freedom’ or an Eros have been considered briefly; but did Nietzsche really have in mind something that might have been designated by these other terms? Two points may be developed in answer to this question.

    First, the will to power is a striving that cannot be accurately described either as a will to affect others or as a will to ‘realize’ oneself; it is essentially a striving to transcend and perfect oneself. Nietzsche’s opposition to the conception of a will to live or of a desire for self-preservation is due to this insistence that nothing that is alive is sufficient unto itself. This is explicitly stated in Zarathustra:

    And life itself confided this secret to me: “Behold,” it said, “I am that which must always overcome itself. Indeed, you call it a will to procreate or a drive to an end, to something higher, farther, more manifold: but all this is one…Rather would I perish than forswear this; and verily, where there is perishing…there life sacrifices itself for [more] power…Whatever I create and however much I love it–soon I must oppose it and my love; …’will to existence’: that will does not exist…not will to life but…will to power. There is much that life esteems more highly than life itself” [Kaufman quoting Nietzsche from Thus Spoke Zarathustra II, 12]

    Oscar Wilde, who agreed with Nietzsche that “all men kill the thing they love,” wrote a short, one-page “poem in prose” that he entitled “The Artist.” The artist wants to create a bronze image but finds no bronze in all the world except a previous work of his. He melts down his former creation to be able to use the bronze for his new work. This seemed to Nietzsche the essence of creativity and the way of all life.

    […] the will to power is essentially a creative force. The powerful man is the creative man; but the creator is not likely to abide by previously established laws. A genuinely creative act contains its own norms, and every creation is a creation of new norms. The great artist does not stick to any established code; yet his work is not lawless but has structure and form. Beethoven did not conform to the rules of Haydn or Mozart; yet his symphonies have form throughout: their form and law Beethoven created with them.

    From Walter Kaufman, Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, pp. 248-250

  5. To be sure, since writing this essay I have developed serious concerns with Nietzsche’s idolization of strength and power. However, I still find something appealing about Nietzsche’s conception of artistic self-creation.

    Nietzsche’s creativity goes well beyond base physical procreation. Base physical procreation may be a rudimentary aspect of the will to power, the will to create, but a higher form of creation is artistic creation.

    Artistic creation of oneself means giving one’s life a form and meaning that does not simply follow established norms.

    One chooses how to give form and meaning to their lives instead of allowing others to give form and meaning to their lives. Moreover, this choice is continuous. One continuously gives their life form and meaning anew. Whatever they choose in life, they choose over and over again to give it form and meaning.

    So, even though Nietzsche did not speak about parenthood in any significant way, what he is claiming is entirely consistent with the claim that one can choose to be a parent, choose to give form and meaning to being a parent, choose anew to give form and meaning to being a parent, and choose continuously to be a better and better parent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s