Things To Keep In Mind While Traveling To New Zealand During Covid

Things to keep in mind while traveling to New Zealand during Covid

We must remember how New Zealand handled and managed the entire pandemic scenario. It was the first country to declare a covid-free nation and implement a lockdown as soon as a single case of covid came into light recently. If you intend to travel to the safest country in the world, New Zealand, during this challenging time, there are a few things you should bear in mind before entering the country.

travel to New Zealand

Who can travel to New Zealand?

If you are a New Zealand citizen or a New Zealand resident with appropriate travel conditions, you can legally travel to the country.

Travelling from Fiji, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Papua New Guinea has been put on hold for some time due to their status as a “very high risk” country.

Only citizens, spouses, children, or parents of NZ citizens of the listed countries can travel to New Zealand.

You can only go to New Zealand if you have a reasonable cause for doing so, which Immigration New Zealand must approve.

If you’re coming from a country that is quarantine-free, you’re free to travel to NZ.

Requirements before entering NZ

Even if you have taken the vaccine, you must have a Covid negative certificate no more than 72 hours old from the scheduled departure time.

Make sure you book a spot in a managed isolation facility. After you’ve secured a spot, you’ll receive a voucher. You will not be allowed to board the airline if you do not have this voucher.


Who is exempted ?

For children aged 2 or below, test is not required.

Travelers from Antarctica, Norfolk Island, and most Pacific Islands are free from taking the test.

People who are unable to take the test because of certain medical reasons are exempted.

Cruise ships are prohibited from entering New Zealand; however, cargo ships, fishing vessels unloading catch, and ships arriving from Antarctica are permitted.

entering the NZ

What should you do after entering the country?

Make sure you follow the protocols to help keep the country safe by preventing the spread of Covid-19.

You will be required to complete 14-day quarantine in a managed isolation facility shortly after arriving in New Zealand.

Keep the voucher you received earlier safe since you may need it now to stay in a Managed Isolation Allocation System for quarantine.

If you miss out on managed isolation, you can reserve a place on emergency allocation. This is for passengers who must travel within 14 days after making their reservation. Because emergency allocation has a limited number of seats, make sure you complete it as soon as possible. It is, however, preferable to book a managed isolation in advance and reserve your spot at the earliest.

Travelers from countries that are declared quarantine-free are free from staying in quarantine.

Most importantly, do not go out during the quarantine period to ensure the safety of those around you.

The Relationship Between Philosophy And Culture

The Relationship Between Philosophy And Culture

There is a lot of speculation over the relationship between philosophy and culture. The topic has divided the scholars due to polarizing opinions. Some hold the view that philosophy and culture are two distinct entities, while some are of the opinion that these are two concepts for the same thing.

Definition of Philosophy

Philosophy has different definitions, but it is interchangeably used with the word “rationale.” It is used to refer to the guiding principle behind our actions. Every meaning of philosophy has its own intellectual background, orientation, age, etc.


Definition of Culture

It is the beliefs about the customs, arts, way of life, and social organization of a particular group.

The Relationship

During the Great Debate on African Philosophy, one of the issues was whether African culture could be referred to as African philosophy. It was noticed that the group that agreed with the crossover between culture and philosophy that the fundamental thought pattern addresses the fundamental issues about the people’s existence. The group included luminaries like Paulin Houtinki, Henry Maurier, W.A. Hart, Peter Bodurin, Odera, Oruka, etc. Both the groups could see eye to eye in regards to their opinions of the culture and philosophy crossover. While some vehemently disregarded any commonality between the two, the rest acknowledged the need for culture to support philosophy’s existence and philosophy to support culture’s existence.

Culture provides the raw materials for intellectual reflection that has led to the birth of philosophy. Though culture is not philosophy, it forms the backdrop where philosophy emerged. Africa, too has its own famous philosophers. It is understood that where is a question about the fundamentals of being a man, there is philosophy. Culture does make room for philosophy. Philosophy has infiltrated various aspects of cultures. Not only that, but philosophy also helps shape the current culture. It leads to consistency, logicality, criticality, coherence, and comprehensiveness. It is believed that if there were no philosophy and philosophers, religious fanatics would have labelled everything regarding our culture as anachronistic and, even worse, a fetish.

In conclusion

Philosophy and culture both are interdependent concepts. There is a strong relationship between the two. Culture holds the background for every philosophy and gives shape to its existence, the meaning to its morale. Philosophy gives us the rationale lens that saves us from anachronism. It allows us to think, question, critic, and then accept or reject any thought. There are elements of culture in philosophy and pieces of philosophy in every culture.

Study Philosophy To Become An Exceptional Writer

Study Philosophy to Become an Exceptional Writer

Studying and gaining an understanding of philosophical puzzles are bound to improve your thinking capacity and will let you write clearly, logically, and systematically. Here is an analysis in regards to why philosophy helps in writing better.

Externalization of thinking

One can gain fundamental thinking ability by being able to express the internal conversations. You would be able to express your thoughts coherently and clearly.

clear thinking

Systematic and clear thinking

You will learn to think through your ideas properly and understand them completely before expressing them and convincing others in intelligible ways.

Cultivate critical thinking

One can use argumentation and relentless questioning to refine our thinking and conceive an opinion.

The relationship between philosophy and writing

Witing originates inside the brain before it becomes a thought after being written. Conceptualizing the idea makes way for the practical act of putting the views on the book. It necessitates good thinking ability. To obtain good thinking, we need to study philosophy. It is the intelligent system to spot the tainted ideas and why it is flawed. Philosophy applies logic to make sense of every thought that arises in mind. It allows us to use systematic and analytical thinking to make sense of our thoughts.

Beginning the study of philosophy.

If you wish to be taught professionally by a qualified instructor, make sure your syllabus covers topics like the definition of philosophy and the applications of philosophy. You can take a formal course online to begin your journey by reading the works of Ancient Greeks, which marks the origin of Western philosophy.

Here are some strategies to apply philosophy in your writing

Revolutionize your thinking

Learn from the masters of thoughts and understand the essence of thoughts and writing. People are not born thinkers. It takes practice and refinery to develop the skill. To develop writing abilities, get your thinking abilities straight.

Comprehensively detail your projects.

For you’re looking to optimally and intellectually refine your writing, we can benefit from constructing outlines of your final drafts. It allows you to re-think your ideas and arguments and make sense of the basics. It is basically a roadmap that guides you on how to go about your day.

favorite writers

Understand your favorite writers

Get an understanding of why your authors are so great at what they do. There is so much to learn from these talented and influential writers, and you can apply these principles to your writing.

Improve your vocabulary

Many times, writing takes a lot of studies. To shorten the time, you can work on developing an expansive vocabulary to improve your writing standards. Vocabulary is essential in conveying the content in different prose styles. Also, spending more time reading other authors will challenge you to learn more and expand your vocabulary.

Reasons Why You Should Study Philosophy

Reasons why you should study Philosophy

Many people have always misunderstood philosophy. People sometimes mistake it for a method of preaching to others, but it is much more. Philosophy is a part of everyone’s life in some form, and it helps in solving life’s issues. Here are a few reasons why you might consider pursuing a degree in philosophy.

You will begin to ask questions.

When you begin to learn, you begin to ask questions. As a result, philosophy can be considered as a means of opening your mind and allowing you to question what is present and happening around you. When you study philosophy, you’ll find yourself asking questions like what, why, how, and when about everything you encounter.


Philosophy is connected with every discipline.

Since philosophy is an interdisciplinary study, you can learn something from every subject. Every subject you come across will provide you with a piece of information. It can range from technical areas like math and science to theory-based disciplines like history and literature. Rather than restricting you to a narrow space, philosophy allows you to explore more.

Study anywhere

If you’re undecided about studying in college, this might be the best option for you. Because philosophy is taught throughout the world, you can go wherever you want and study at any university.

The evolvement of thinking

Indeed, philosophy will alter your way of thinking. You will learn how thinking has changed and progressed from ancient times to the present while studying philosophy. You’ll explore notable names like Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as their philosophies, which are still important today. Plato’s “Allegory of the Cave,” one of his most famous theories, is still important today since it explains that one should always observe with one’s own eyes before interpreting anything.

Develop critical thinking

Develop critical thinking

One of the essential aspects of philosophy is that it helps develop critical thinking and reasoning skills. It allows you to look at problems from a different outlook and come up with answers. However, there isn’t just one answer to philosophy but many, and it all relies on your perspective and way of thinking.

Improved speaking skills

Studying philosophy will also help you improve your public speaking skills. If you believe you are not a good speaker and are unfit to compete in debates, philosophy may help you change your mind. When you begin studying philosophy, you will notice that you will also be developing your debate skills in addition to expanding your knowledge. You’ll find yourself presenting your point of view to others to establish a different viewpoint on the subject.

Learn something

Learn something new every day

Philosophy, like the days, is a subject that changes over time. Every day, you will perceive a new perspective on things. Because ideas change over time, so does perception. With time, you will grow more sensible and will not be restricted. You will learn more and more each day as time goes on.

Facts On New Zealand Labour Party 

Facts on New Zealand Labour Party

The Labour Party of New Zealand is a political party that is centered on the left. Labour’s platform program refers to democratic socialism as the party’s basic ideal, although analysts describe the party as social-democratic and practical in reality. New Zealand’s Labour Party aspires to create a more just and equal society based on a mixed economy. Let us have a look at the history and objectives of the New Zealand Labour Party to know them better.

Labour party

History of the Labour party in New Zealand

In 1916, the New Zealand Labour Party amalgamated several socialist and trade union organizations, such as the Unified Labour Party and the Social Democratic Party.

It is well-known among trade unions and low-income voters as the most powerful party.

In 1935, it won 53 seats with a substantial majority, becoming the first Labour government under Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage.

The party was in power constantly until 1949, following which it was only in control for brief intervals until 1975.

Under the leadership of David Lange, the party regained power in 1984, supporting economic reform and enacting legislation preventing nuclear warships from accessing the country’s ports.

In 1999, the party became the strongest in Parliament, and Clark was elected Prime Minister.

However, the Labour Party was defeated by the National Party in the 2008 election. The condition worsened by the fact that its representation in Parliament fell from 43 to 34 seats in the 2011 elections.

The party won 46 seats in the 2017 general election after forming a government with New Zealand First and receiving support from the Green Party.

In nearly a decade, Jacinda Ardern became the first Labour prime minister.

She led the party to a massive victory in the 2020 parliamentary election, capturing almost 49 percent of the vote.

About The New Zealand Labour Party

The New Zealand Labour Party, the country’s ruling party since 2017, is a social-democratic political party.

The New Zealand Labour Party is the country’s oldest political party, having been founded in 1916.

It is regarded as one of the two major political parties in the country.

From the 2008 general elections to the 2017 general elections, the Labour Party was the opposition party for nine years. It was the second-largest party in the House of Representatives of New Zealand.

Since August 2017, Jacinda Ardern, the current Prime Minister of New Zealand, has been the party’s leader.

Objectives of New Zealand Labour Party

The party believes in giving competent men and women opportunities through free elections to implement the party’s policies and goals.

Creating and sustaining an economy that can attract and keep all citizens’ knowledge, talents, and efforts.

Ensuring a fair distribution of the nation’s products and services for the welfare of all citizens.

Promoting and preserving all New Zealand residents’ liberties and well-being.

Educating the masses about democratic socialism’s ideals and goals, as well as economic and social equality.

All About The Use And Abuse Of Political Hypocrisy

All About The Use And Abuse Of Political Hypocrisy

In American politics, the term politician is synonymous with hypocrite. The unlaudable history of politicians does not help.

Hypocrisy is part and parcel of politics.

Time and again, philosophers have argued that hypocrisy is essential in politics. In fact, it is inevitable in political systems due to the persuasive rhetoric that it involves.  It is considered to be a moral necessity to until the absence of an alternative to achieve comparable goods. These justify the need for hypocrisy in politics.

definition of hypocrisy

The definition of hypocrisy

Hypocrisy is not sheer inconsistency between a person’s deeds and words. It pays homage to morality for the reasons of personal benefit like excusing oneself or shelter from the blame. Many a time, hypocrisy is not what runs the politics. Sometimes a politician may have a change of heart over a public policy, and not always; it would be a self-serving reason. It might also be that they have merely changed their mind.

Differentiating between actions in accord with and actions from duty

According to Kant, actions from duty have moral worth. There are lots of disagreements between the consequentialists in terms of hypocrisy and political values and, ultimately, the ethic of conviction and the ethic of responsibility. The ethic of conviction refers to the consistency of the inner relation to integrity, whereas the ethic of responsibility means a clear understanding of the consequences of one’s actions. These schools of thought favor that hypocrisy is not a sin as long it is directed for good.

Traits of an excellent politician

A good politician is capable of offending someone who places weight on the ethic of conviction. An effective politician can promote his goals without caring for the reasons unless it makes him a less reliable advocate of them. But an excellent politician would refer his values by managing sincerely and eradicating hypocrisy from politics.

excellent politician

In conclusion

Extreme attachment to the ethic of conviction can be dangerous to anti-hypocrisy. A war must be started without self-consciousness. Self-deceived hypocrisy is detrimental and hazardous as the politician has to keep themselves in check constantly. Also, self-righteousness may license the politician to operate outside the boundaries of morality. This can lead to falling prey in the hands of further insidious hypocrisy that most of us would stay away from.

Depending upon the situation, hypocrisy is favorable, and sometimes it is not the right thing to do. Insincere politicians support the integrity of villains, while some espouse wrong values without placing faith in them. It is instead a consequentialist style of reasoning.

Wait Just A Moment, Before You Begin Married Life

Married Life

Here’s ten tips for a great marriage from Friedrich Nietzsche to help you make it succeed.


Friendship is the highest form of love, according to the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, because great friends inspire each other and can even push each other towards the ideal of the Übermensch (German word for superman)

While he was doubtful that many people would be strong enough for this kind of higher relationship, Nietzsche saw friendship as essential to a good marriage. Sex, in contrast creates complications because a relationship based on romantic feelings is unlikely to endure a lifetime. Furthermore, the ontological differences between men and women tend to turn love into a war. In order to overcome the power games in the arena of love, Nietzsche thus challenges lovers to be great friends.

Drawing on Nietzsche’s plethora of aphorisms on friendship, marriage, sex and power relationships, this article outlines how Nietzsche thought the institution of and approach to marriage could be re-invigorated in ways conductive to more successful relationships and greater human achievements. While some of Nietzsche’s ideas about marriage at first appear to be outrageous, much of what Nietzsche recommends is as relevant and challenging today as it was in his own time. Indeed, Nietzsche himself prophesied that the world would not be ready for his ideas until “sometime in the year 2000” (Fuss & Shapiro, 1971, p. 91)


Nietzsche admires the ancient Greek model of relationships, where friends were great, men were warriors and women were for their recreation (1883-85/1969. p. 91). Yet he views modern marriage as another example of the collapse of standards in our hedonistic world that is heading for nihilism. In order to overcome this predicament, Nietzsche advocates a philosophy of “aristocratic radicalism” (Fuss & Shapiro, 1971, p. 104), where a few courageous and strong human beings take up the challenge of becoming an Ubermensch.


An Ubermensch (loosely translated as “superman”) is one “who transcends” (MacIntyre, 1998, p. 225), strives passionately and creatively to go beyond, lives life to the fullest, constantly combats and overcomes obstacles to be a greater person, and rejects comfort and security. Nietzsche regards heterosexual romantic relationships as generally being an irritating distraction from this goal because of the inherent power struggles.

Two things should be noted before we begin. Firstly, Nietzsche lived from 1844 to 1900: an era in which the roles of men and women in society were very different from today. The dominant role of women was to be wife and mother, and, whilst women’s rights were certainly being discussed, with the first women’s rights convention held in 1848, women’s suffrage and women working in areas such as academia did not become widespread in Europe until well into the twentieth century.

Secondly, on reading Nietzsche, one might be tempted to conclude that, because Nietzsche says some critical things about women, he is a misogynist. However, current thinking in Nietzsche scholarship often warns against taking Nietzsche’s writings prima facie (e.g. Abbey, 1996; Helm, 2004; Oppel, 2005; Secomb, 2007) – mainly because he weaves such a hugely complex web of meanings. Furthermore Nietzsche says scathing things not only about women, but also about many different groups of people – including men – and is often contradictory. For example, in Human, All Too Human (1878-80/1996), Nietzsche says that “The perfect woman is a higher type of human being than the perfect man” (p. 150), which suggests that he also had great respect for women at times.


Nietzsche’s aim is to challenge our assumption about many issues – not only about gender roles, but also about Christianity, conventional morality, politics and the Enlightenment, to name just a few. I would thus agree with Secomb (2007) when she asserts that, “Despite, or perhaps because of, his unconventional approach, Nietzsche is able to challenge and disturb our most settled convictions forcing us to rethink taken-for-granted notions and assumptions” (p. 29). Many of Nietzsche’s remarks about women, loving relationships and marriage are, at face value, outrageous by modern standards. However, in the spirit of Nietzsche, my aim in exploring a few of his suggestions relating to loving relationships and marriage is to embrace his challenge, to acknowledge his contradictions, and to look beyond his provocations. In light of this, this paper analyses ten of Nietzsche’s ideas about how to make marriages great.



Before walking down the aisle, Nietzsche advises the betrotheds to ask themselves this question: “Do you believe you are going to enjoy talking with this woman up to your old age? Everything else in marriage is transitory, but most of the time you are together will be devoted to conversation” (1878- 80/1996, p. 152). Thus, being interested in one another is infinitely more important to the success of a relationship than being attracted to each other. One hundreds years before Harry met Sally, Nietzsche was advocating that, in order to preserve a friendship between a man and a woman, “a slight physical antipathy” is required (1878-80/1996, p. 151).

“He who marries for love must live in grief” says the Spanish proverb.


For Nietzsche, a marriage based only on romantic love is on shaky ground because it is fleeting: “Sensuality often makes love grow too quickly, so that the root remains weak and is easy to pull out” (1886/1990, p. 98). It is much better if there is no sexual attraction to confuse the friendship. “How many married men there are who have experienced the morning when it has dawned on them that their young wife is tedious and believes the opposite” (Nietzsche, 1881/1997, p. 150). To avoid this complication, he recommends preparing lovers for the inevitable evaporation of attraction in order to curb the disappointment when it happens: “Sometimes it requires only a stronger pair of spectacles to cure the lover, and he who had the imagination to picture a face, a figure twenty years older would perhaps pass through life very undisturbed” Nietzsche (1878-80/1996, p. 154).

Romantic love relationships are bound to sizzle and fizzle, Zarathustra, the protagonist of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathusrta (1883-85/1969), argues that romantic love relationships are just brief follies and that it is stupid to turn a folly into a long-term commitment (p. 96). Earlier, in Human, All Too Human, Nietzsche stresses the insanity of love-matches: “Marriages contracted from love (socalled love-matches) have error for their father and need for their mother” (p. 151). For marriage to be based on romantic love, as modern marriages often are, undermines the whole institution by basing it on an idiosyncrasy – and “You never, ever base on institution on an idiosyncrasy” (Nietzsche, 1888/2005b, p. 215).


In Twilight of the Idols (1888/2005b), Nietzsche notes that marriage has become completely irrelevant and irrational (p. 215). Nietzsche had already highlighted in Daybreak (1881/1997) that marriage is “very often and almost as a general rule refuted” and thus has “introduced a very great deal of hypocrisy and lying into the world” (p. 21). Would it not be better to remain friends and lovers, without creating complications with vows that will inevitably be broken? If lovers continue to walk down the aisle while in love, Nietzsche suggests making it illegal:

We ought not be permitted to come to a decision affecting our whole life while we are in the condition of being in love, nor to determine once and for all the character of the company we keep on the basis of a violent whim: the oaths of lovers ought to be publicly declared invalid and marriage denied them: – the reason being that one ought to take marriage enormously more seriously! (1881/1997, p. 98).

Instead of doing away with marriage altogether, Nietzsche seeks in Twilight of the Idols to reinvigorate it by inventing “new ideals” (1888/2005b, p. 98).

He draws us back to first principles to look at why marriage existed in the first place: it was about what was good for the family and society. Ancient Greek marriages had solid foundations because they were rational business arrangements, roles were very clearly defined, couples could not get divorced, and love was not a factor in the decision. Marriage “knew how to be heard above the accidents of feeling, passion, and the distractions of the moment” (Nietzsche 1888/2005b, p. 215).

While in most western cultures today this idea seems old-fashioned, there are many cultures in which arranged marriages still exist. For the rest of us, Nietzsche advises that it would be much more sensible to marry not only because the individuals happen to be in lust, but by taking other factors into account, such as being able to talk to the spouse, and to maintain he family’s “power, influence and wealth” for future generations (1888/2005b, p. 215). To do this, strong and healthy offspring are required.


If Nietzsche were a god looking down on humanity, he says he would be hugely disappointed with what he saw going on with modern marriage. With people marrying for love, mateselection is based on chance, and making babies is, thus, a random exercise. Mankind is capable of “amazing” things, and yet “individuals are squandered” because they get so swept away with the frivolity of romantic loving that they give “no thought to the fact, indeed that through procreation he could prepare the way for an even more victorious life” (Nietzsche, 1881/1997, p. 97) This is also a theme in The Will to Power (1883-88/1968), where Nietzsche explains that creating new generations of even more amazing individuals is a great achievement and even the ultimate expression of an individual’s power (p. 360). So, it is actually in the individual’s greatest self-interest to marry not for love, but in order to create strong, healthy, well-educated children.

Nietzsche advocates that we improve the human species and build great civilisations through careful mate selection. Zarathustra says: “You should propagate yourself not only forward, but upward!” (1883- 85/1969, p. 95). Through discerning gene matching, the parents should be able to create children greater than themselves.

While marriage is, of course, not a necessary condition for procreation, Nietzsche thinks the family unit would certainly assist in building those new generations: “May the garden of marriage help you to do it!” (1883- 85/1969, p. 95). Yet, perhaps loving and super-baby making are not as mutually exclusive as Nietzsche might think. For, when in love, and not simply lusty animal attraction, partners tend to think very highly of each other, and thus it is logical that the lovers would also think that their partners would be able to produce good offspring.


If romantic love is ephemeral, promising to love your partner forever is absurd and a lie, according to Nietzsche. Love that lasts a lifetime is the exception, not the rule. Love, like any other feeling, is not within the individual’s power. Nietzsche’s argument is as follows: love is a feeling; feelings are involuntary; and a promise cannot be made based on something that one has no control over.

What one can promise, however, are actions. In a loving relationship, one can promise actions that “are usually the consequences of love” (Nietzsche, 1878-80/1996, p. 42). It would be much more appropriate to recognise this contingency and be honest about it. To avoid deception in wedding vows, Nietzsche recommends saying something along these lines:


This will not be deceptive, because one is promising to act as if still in love, rather than mistakenly promising the feeling of love.

Nietzsche is convinced that this would be perfectly acceptable and that the beloved will still say “I do” to marriage when being confronted with a partner who is uncertain about how long the loving feeling will last. He assumes the still popular view that feelings are involuntary and that love is thus not a choice. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with Nietzsche that feelings are involuntary, one has to acknowledge that Nietzsche is right in recognising the absurdity of promising on their wedding day, there is a much better chance of the marriage enduring. Since romantic love relationships are often not strong enough to ensure a lifetime, other motivations are needed. Yet let us now consider the possibility of adapting marriage to better suit romantic love relationships.


To avoid the problem of the temporary nature of romantic love relationships, why do people not agree to short-term marriages upfront? Nietzsche even considered the option of a twoyear marriage for himself at one stage. To understand Nietzsche’s reasoning in this regard, we must first better understand Nietzsche’s view of friendship. In The Gay Science (1882/2001), Nietzsche refers to a noble kind of friendship called a “STAR FRIENDSHIP”:

We are two ships, each of which has its own goal and course; we may cross and have a feast together, as we did – and then the good ships lay so quietly in one harbour and one sun that it may have seemed as if they had already completed their course and had the same goal. But then the almighty force of our projects drove us apart once again, into different seas and sunny zones … (p. 159).

Despite many of Nietzsche’s own star friendships turning sour, he glorifies them and seems to truly appreciate the short time they lasted. Applying this same concept to romantic love relationships, the risk for lovers is not only that they loving feeling may wane, but that people change too. Like ships that come together and separate in the star friendship, so too do lovers have their own personal goals and seek to pursue their own paths that may not be synergistic. Thus the custom of marriage where two people are bound together for life is naturally untenable.

In Human, All too Human, Nietzsche suggests that it would be much better (for men, presumably) to do away with the custom of one wife for life and instead “one might very well consider whether nature and reason do not dictate that a man ought to have two marriages” (p. 156). The first marriage is the most important and necessary for a man’s education; it should be when the man is twentytwo years old to a women who is “intellectually and morally superior and who can lead him through the perils of the twenties” (Nietzsche 1878-80/1996, p. 156). A second marriage, while useful, is not necessary; it should be during a man’s thirties and to a younger disciple “whose education he would himself take in hand”. Later in life, man should preferably be without a wife because marriage “is often harmful and promotes the spiritual retrogression of the man” (Nietzsche 1878-80/1996, p. 156). In a later work, Nietzsche cites a raft of great philosophers who have not been married as evidence for this incompatibility between marriage and personal fulfilment: “Heraclitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer”, with only Socrates as the ironic exception (1887/1989, P. 107).

While Nietzsche does not go into detail on how serial monogamy could be of benefit to women, he recognises that it would require generosity on their part – hence the title he gives the aphorism discussed in the previous paragraph: “Opportunity for female generosity” (1878-80/1996, p. 156). Nevertheless, the star friendship is not just a male domain. However, once children are introduced, this argument is in conflict with Nietzsche view that a strong family unit is better for a child’s upbringing and education. With regard to such contradictions, it could nevertheless be argued that Nietzsche is simply presenting various options to couples and by no means insisting that every suggestion needs to be accepted as indispensably part of a comprehensive and systematic solution.


For couples wanting to marry. Nietzsche proposes a trial first. Zarathustra says: “Allow us a term and a little marriage, to see if we are fit for the great marriage! It is a big thing always to be with another!” (1883-85/1969, p. 228). Nietzsche argues that people rush amorously into marriage and, when it goes wrong, it causes the couple as well as everyone around them a great deal of aggravation. Just be honest, urges Zarathustra, and say: “We love each other, let us see to it that we stay in love! Or shall our promise be a mistake?” (Nietzsche, 1883-85/1969, p. 228). Had the lovers taken Nietzsche’s advice and promised the semblance of love, not the continuation of the feeling of love, it would have been easier to keep the promise and to stay together, as expectations had already been set. Further trying to convince us that love actually is irrelevant in a marriage, Nietzsche writes:

Sample of reflection before marriage. – Supposing she loves me, how burdensome she would become to me in the long run! And supposing she does not love me, how really burdensome she would become to me in the long run! – It is only a question of two different kinds of burdensomeness – therefore let us get married! (1881/1997, p. 172).

Presumably, setting expectations low will avoid disappointment in the long run. Married couples will inevitably encounter problems, however, and Nietzsche has a couple of other alternatives for how to make marriage work.


Zarathustra says that “Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has one solution: it is called pregnancy” (Nietzsche, 1883- 85/1969, p. 91). Pregnancy is the solution because it is the only reason that a woman needs a man: “Man is for woman a means, the purpose is always the child” (Nietzsche, 1883-85/1969, p. 91). Taking these comments at face value, Diethe (1989) reads Nietzsche as saying that women are “completely defined by the reproductive urge” and their “sole instinct is to crave for children” (p. 867); permanently craving for sex, women are predators or “vamp-like femmes fatales” who seduce men simply for impregnation (pp. 865, 867).

This interpretation fits nicely with Nietzsche’s idea that people should choose mates based on the criterion of attempting to produce strong offspring. It is thus only natural for women to sue their skills of seduction to this end. Nevertheless other scholars , such as Ackermann (1990, p. 123), encourage us not to jump to conclusions, because it is unclear whose pregnancy is being discussed; elsewhere, Nietzsche also uses pregnancy as a metaphor for creativity.

Yet the two interpretations – woman as sex animal and woman as stimulating creativity – are not mutually exclusive. The underlying assumption in this suggestion is that women are capable of being independent and do not need a man for anything except sperm.

Woman, in her quest to create a superbaby, uses man to impregnate her. Yet it could also mean that men and women use each other as fertiliser for creativity, and as such use marriage as a launching pad to greater things and to achieve greater goals.


Can a woman be a good wife. “friend, assistant, mother, family head and housekeeper.” Business woman and concubine to boot (Nietzsche, 1878- 80/1996, p. 157)? Nietzsche realises that all these roles and expectations put a huge strain on a woman and concedes that “it would be too much to demand of her” (1878-80/1996, p. 157). In this regard, Abbey (1997) notes that, “a century before its becoming common currency in the western world, Nietzsche saw the problem of the superwoman!” (p. 85).

Nietzsche assumes that men naturally need sex more than women do, and his solution is not to help a wife out with the housework, but to relieve women of the burden of satisfying their husband’s sexual desires by finding a “natural assistant, namely concubinage” (1878- 80/1996, p. 157). Anticipating some resistance, Nietzsche urges women to think of the “higher conception” of marriage as a “soul-friendship” in which sensuality is “a rare occasional means to a greater end” – that is, creating children (1878-80/1996, p. 157). This is a neat solution for Nietzsche because, as he suggests elsewhere, fidelity comes naturally to a woman but not to a man (1882/2001, p. 228).

One compelling explanation for the concubine suggestion is that, in Nietzsche’s time, contraception was not widespread, so sex often resulted in reproduction (Diethe, 1989, p. 866). Nietzsche is simply proposing clarification of the role of women as mother as distinct from that of woman as sex partner. While there is no supporting evidence for this essentialist idea that woman are naturally faithful, one might still appreciate that Nietzsche has good intentions in seeking creative ways to reduce a wife’s stress levels. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that introducing a concubine into a marriage may only increase a wife’s stress.


Whereas women naturally like peace and comfort, men want quite the opposite; mean welcome challenges and obstacles, according to Nietzsche (1878-80/1996). Women hate to see men suffer and try to help them to have easier lives by removing obstacles; yet doing so is very frustrating for men. Zarathustra explains the phoenix-like rebirth that comes from the most harrowing experiences; “You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame: how could you become new, if you had not first become ashes?” (Nietzsche, 1883-85, p. 90). Like giving birth, great creations and achievements are painful: “all becoming and growth, everything that guarantees the future involves pain” (Nietzsche, 1888/2005b, p. 228).

This idea relates to what Nietzsche had first-hand experience of, having been very ill for most of his life. In a letter to a friend he wrote: “My illness has been my greatest boon; it unblocked me, it gave me the courage to be myself” (Fuss & Shapiro, 1971, p. 114). Constantly overcoming the obstacles and challenges in life, he thought, provided strength of character and could bring the greatest rewards and creativity.

One of Nietzsche’s most enduring maxims, “What doesn’t kill me makes me stronger” (1888/2005b, p. 157), was something he seemed to truly believe. The greater the challenge, the greater the achievement when it is overcome. Like a predecessor, Max Stirner, who advocated preserving life only in order to squander it, Nietzsche admires people who care more about challenging than safeguarding themselves: “I love those who do not wish to preserve themselves. I love with my whole love those who go down and perish: for they are going beyond” (1883-85/1969, p. 217).

While Nietzsche makes some sweeping generalisations about the ontological differences between men and women, there is certainly merit in acknowledging that people have different preferences. Just because two people are in love does not mean that they have to pretend to be the same – which is perhaps why they need a whip.

9. Take a Whip to Her!

“Are you visiting women? Do not forget your whip!” is a piece of advice given to Zarathustra and which has created a huge amount of speculation as to its meaning (Nietzsche, 1883-85/1969, p. 93). Taken literally, one might believe it suggests disdain for women and advocates physical violence against them. Yet the context of the quotation causes us not to jump to conclusions. The advice is given to Zarathustra by an old woman as a special gift of thanks and she warns him to keep it a secret – perhaps because in the wrong hands it would be misunderstood.

Solomon and Higgins (2000) argue that, because Zarathustra has been talking abut differences in the way men and women experience and practises love, “the old woman presents the sexes as engaged in a power struggle that the male is by no means assured of winning” (pp. 7-8). Indeed, Nietzsche says elsewhere that love is war and “the deadly hatred between the sexes!” (1888/2005a, p. 236).

Shortly before Thus Spoke Zarathustra was written, a photograph was taken of Nietzsche with two of his close friends at the time; Lou Salome and Paul Ree. The photograph shows Salome driving a pony-trap and brandishing a whip, with Nietzsche and Ree between the shafts. While the photograph, orchestrated by Nietzsche may have simply been a bit of fun, it shows that “the men are the potential victims” (Thomas, 1980, p. 117).

One of the more interesting interpretations builds on the idea that, when in love, there is a strong desire to dissolve the feeling of otherness and ‘make the same’ (Nietzsche, 1881/1997, pp. 210- 211). Nietzsche thinks this to be madness, arguing that distance is essential to keep power over oneself: “The thinker must always from time to time drive away those people he loves”, because love tends to blind one to the truth, giving lovers power to deceive and to seduce; conversely, driving lovers away tends to reveal their malice and helps one to distance oneself from them (1881/1997, pp. 197-198).

Perhaps the will is to help Zarathustra with either creating or preserving a “motivating distance” (Ackermann, 1990, p. 124). Distance from women is very important for Nietzsche so as not to spoil the mystery and beauty of the feminine: “The magic and the most powerful effect of women is, to speak the language of the philosophers, action at a distance” (1882/2001, p. 71). Derrida (1979), drawing on the power struggle between men and women, suggests that a man must keep his distance to avoid falling under the spell of a woman’s “beguiling song of enchantment” and as such to remain free to “seduce without being seduced” (p. 49).

It is most unlikely that Nietzsche means physical violence when Zarathustra was advised to take a whip to women. It is much more likely that the comment is metaphorical and that the whip is to be used by either or both lovers to preserve distance from one another, in order to avoid forgetting their individuality. In the context of loving relationships, we will now explore the possibility that the whip is for the great Zarathustra to give to a woman to help him be even greater. The best type of relationship is one where the partners are brave enough to “whip each other into shape” so to speak.


For Nietzsche, friendship is the “ultimate ideal” of love and “a kind of ideal of Being-with-Others” (Solomon, 2003, pp. 95, 157). He admires the ancient Greek ideal of friendships between men and agreed with Aristotle that great friends could inspire each other. This kind of friendship is neither about mutual benefit nor based on pleasure and enjoyment. While a great friendship may include all these elements, the key difference is that really great friends help one another to become better people through “a shared higher thirst for an ideal above them” (Nietzsche, 1882/2001, p. 41); in other words, each friend acts like a “catalytic muse” for the other (Lungstrum, 1994, p. 137).


Nietzsche says that “man is something that should be overcome”, and yet this is something that is extremely difficult to do on one’s own (1883- 85/1969, p. 41). The individual, if left alone for too long without friends, can too easily fall into a rut. For, as Nietzsche warns in Beyond Good and Evil (1886/1990), “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you” (p. 102). Thus, the friend is valued not so much for his or her gaze, as Jean-Paul Sarte later envisaged, but rather for his or her ability to pull the individual up from the depths of the abyss and be a launching pad to a greater existence.

Yet being a great friend is not an easy task. The best teachers are the hardest critics and should be wary of being too sympathetic towards the friend. Zarathustra says: “Let your pity for your friend conceal itself under a hard shell” (Nietzsche, 1883-85/1969, p. 83). Secomb (2007) highlights that “Friends do not unquestioningly uphold, reinforce and echo our attitudes but provide new perspectives and interrogate our presuppositions” (pp. 30-31). Indeed, sometimes great friends must be so ruthless that they are also the enemy: “If you want a friend, you must also be willing to wage war for him: and to wage war, you must be capable of being an enemy” (Nietzsche, 1883- 85/1969, p. 82).

Nietzsche is challenging all of us to be better friends. He urges lovers not to get caught in power games but instead to help each other find the way to becoming an Ubermensch. While Nietzsche tends to be a little vague on what the Ubermensch entails, he thought the best kind of love “arouses longing for the Superman” (1883-85/1969, p. 96). This kind of love propels us to want to be the best kind of person we can be. It is precisely this kind of great friendship that will make a great marriage. In fact, “The best friend will probably acquire the best wife, because a good marriage if founded on the talent of friendship” (Nietzsche, 1878-80/1996, p. 150).


In After Virtue, MacIntyre (2007) argues that “it is in his relentlessly serious pursuit of the problem, not in his frivolous solutions that Nietzsche’s greatness lies” (p. 114). Yet this paper has shown that Nietzsche put forward at least ten practical, if at times mutually exclusive, suggestions for how to make marriages more successful, many of which are still relevant today. While initially some of these suggestions may appear frivolous, I have shown through a number of alternative interpretations that Nietzsche’s solutions are extremely insightful. For example, Nietzsche provides sage and universal advice when he says that marriage should be based on something more rational than romantic loving alone, that lovers should be honest with each other from the very beginning, and that lovers should learn to stand on their own two feet and never forget their own goals in life; so, too, when he highlights the great achievement in creating a wonderful child. The emergence of fertility clinics where parents can create “bespoke babies” by choosing physical traits and screening for defects and diseases suggests that there is indeed a demand for creating stronger and more attractive children cosmetically (Sherwell, 2009). Nietzsche is simply arguing a natural form of this through partner selection rather than in test tubes.

Moreover, the issue of stay-at-home versus working mothers and the conflicting roles of mother, wife and career woman is still topical today. Alluding to the fact that all a woman needs a man for is for sperm, one might wonder if Nietzsche foresaw a diminishing need for men as breadwinners and the breakdown of the nuclear family – both of which would hinder a child’s upbringing. Indeed, recent United States census data show that four out of ten births were to unmarried women. This was more than in any other year in the nation’s history, and three-quarters of those mothers were 20 or older (Ventura, 2009). The wide availability of contraception puts seriously into question whether all these pregnancies were accidental. If marriage were to become obsolete, Nietzsche would have been hugely disappointed and worried about the impact of that on children’s development.

Nietzsche did not have it all worked out. Indeed, he seemed to find women confusing at times, as shown, for example, as we have already seen, in his saying that they are “a riddle”. Yet he saw it as natural that people fall in love and like to get married. When marriages fall apart, they can be painful, because promises get broken and people get damaged and weakened. Loving relationships he thought, can be wonderful when they are between two strong individuals. Yet such a thing is rare, and great marriages are even rarer. Yet that does not mean that great loving relationships are impossible. He gives us ideas how to do it well and make it work wonderfully. It will not be easy. It will create conflict. At times, the lovers will have to be enemies. Yet Nietzsche would approve because he welcomed challenges and obstacles in life.

Labour Party wins General Election

General Election

As New Zealand adapts to a Government led by Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party, the leaders from other countries send their congratulations: On Friday, Austarlia’s Malcolm Turnbull told 3AW he had congrtulated M/s Ardern and would  work constructively with her.  US president, Donald Trump’s administration has congratulated the new Prime Minister, Jacinda Adern on forming the next NZ government. A statement from the U.S Department of State on Saturday (NZT) said the US-New Zealand relationship is strong.Jacinda Ardern performed a ‘near-miracle’ to win the election – Helen Clark.

Definition Of The Id , Ego And Super Ego

Super Ego

The id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud’s structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction our mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends; the super-ego plays the critical and moralizing role; and the ego is the organized, realistic part that mediates between the desires of the id and the super-ego. The super-ego can stop one from doing certain things that one’s id may want to do.

Although the model is structural and makes reference to an apparatus, the id, ego and super-ego are purely symbolic concepts about the mind and do not correspond to actual (somatic) structures of the brain such as the kind dealt with by neuroscience. The concepts themselves arose at a late stage in the development of Freud’s thought as the “structural model” (which succeeded his “economic model” and “topographical model”) and was first discussed in his 1920 essay Beyond the Pleasure Principle and was formalized and elaborated upon three years later in his The Ego and the Id. Freud’s proposal was influenced by the ambiguity of the term “unconscious” and its many conflicting uses.

The id (Latin for “it”) is the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains a human’s basic, instinctual drives. The id is the only component of personality that is present from birth.[4] It is the source of our bodily needs, wants, desires, and impulses, particularly our sexual and aggressive drives. The id contains the libido, which is the primary source of instinctual force that is unresponsive to the demands of reality.[5] The id acts according to the “pleasure principle”—the psychic force that motivates the tendency to seek immediate gratification of any impulse[6]—defined as, seeking to avoid pain or unpleasure (not ‘displeasure’) aroused by increases in instinctual tension.[7] If the mind was solely guided by the id, individuals would find it difficult to wait patiently at a restaurant, while feeling hungry, and would most likely grab food from neighbouring tables.[8]

According To Freud The Id Is Unconscious By Definition:

“It is the dark, inaccessible part of our personality, what little we know of it we have learned from our study of the Dreamwork and of the construction of neurotic symptoms, and most of that is of a negative character and can be described only as a contrast to the ego. We approach the id with analogies: we call t a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations. … It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle.”[9]

In the id,

“contrary impulses exist side by side, without cancelling each other out. … There is nothing in the id that could be compared with negation … nothing in the id which corresponds to the idea of time.”[10]

Developmentally, the id precedes the ego; i.e., the psychic apparatus begins, at birth, as an undifferentiated id, part of which then develops into a structured ego. Thus, the id:

“contains everything that is inherited, that is present at birth, is laid down in the constitution—above all, therefore, the instincts, which originate from the somatic organization, and which find a first psychical expression here (in the id) in forms unknown to us.”[11] Wikipedia: Id, ego and super-ego

In his Critique of Pure Reason, (1781) Immanuel Kant significantly extended the range of a priori truths (prior to experience). He held that we bring to bear on the world not only our senses, nor only those a priori truths which unfold from definitions. The way in which our minds operate on the world is dictated by the way our minds are constituted, and this constitution is also a priori, that is it does not derive from experience, though, like the unfolding of definitions, it will subsequently be applied to experience. In other words we are born with a mind that can re-interpret light waves into images and objects. (refer diagram)

Forty years earlier, David Hume had demonstrated that we have no evidence to be certain that there is such a thing as a cause: all we can know is that very often, or even always within our finite experience, A is followed by B. Similarly, he showed that when we talk about space and time we are merely expressing our repeated experiences of physical and temporal distance. He then added that of course we cannot in real life do without the notions of cause, space or time; we constantly show that we have a belief in causes etc., but he insisted that they were only beliefs, and that we have no philosophical reason for knowing that they really existed.

Kant now asked himself why ‘we cannot do without ‘these notions. Hume had suggested it was because they were useful and that without them we just couldn’t live; but he was clear that the entertaining of such notions lacked philosophical rigour and was therefore was a kind of intellectual laziness. Kant was sure that there was a great deal more to it than that. He held that thinking in terms of causes was not a philosophical aberration, but arises out of the very essence of the way the human mind is constituted, the essence of the way it is compelled to reason. When the mind looks at the world, it has no choice but to view it with the ideas that are built into the mind. This looking Kant called: Anschauungen. The German noun means ‘views,’ and the technical translation into English, ‘intuitions,’ does not in its everyday sense capture the meaning at all, although it does come from the Latin; intueri, meaning to look upon. Leibniz had called these ideas ‘tools’ of the understanding; Kant called them Concepts and Categories, and they too are a priori: that is to say they come before any experience and they shape the experiences we subsequently have. Therefore we can say that the images we see are formed through a process of synthesis, made possible by the apparatus of our mind.

Both Leibniz and Kant knew that these tools of understanding are not present in a baby, but in their view they are genetically programmed to develop without having to rely on experience. The baby cannot play football because its leg muscles are not developed; but they are programmed to develop naturally as it matures. In the same way, the baby is not aware of tools of understanding, but they are also programmed to develop as the baby matures. Locke had said that the mind at birth is tabla rasa – a blank slate – and that there are no innate ideas. Leibniz and Kant differed from him in claiming that such developments are innate and not the result of experience, though experience and training may speed up and refine the development of these tools so that we can use them more effectively. So the world reaches us already mediated through these tools of understanding. And what follows from that is that we can have no direct knowledge of the world as it is before this mediation has happened. The world as it is before mediation is what Kant calls the noumenal world, or in a memorable phrase Das Ding an sich, which means: “The thing in itself,” but whose sense would be more accurately caught by translating it as “the thing (or world) as it really is” (as distinct from how it appears to use). He calls the world as it appears to us (after mediation through our tools of understanding) the phenomenal world.

These tools of understanding, which I will be describing below, also have what Kant called a transcendental character. These are ideas which transcend or go beyond any one person’s ideas and are shared by all human beings, not by any one self but by the transcendent self, and are not therefore merely individual constructs. The subjectivism necessarily involved in a situation where the objective nature of the noumenal world must be hidden from us is therefore a collective subjectivism. As such, it presents a kind of objectivity against which the subjectivity of an individual can be assessed. For example, in their developed state these collective views present a system of reasoning in the context of which we can say whether an individual is using reason properly or not. That part of Kant’s teaching which deals with the nature of the ideas which all human beings share is therefore called: Transendental Idealism

Bertrand Russell explains Kant’s theory with an analogy, which I’m expanding a little here. If all people were born with blue tinted spectacles that they could never take off, the unphilosophical person would assume that all the colours of the world have a bluish tinge. But philosophers, once they have realised (since we all wear them we might call them transcendental spectacles) are an irremovable part of our visual equipment and will come to understand that we cannot know what the colours of the world are really like because they can only reach us as mediated by our transcendental spectacles. The philosopher will know that he is receiving signals from outside: he will be aware that there is something ‘out there’ which is sending the signals, but he will also know that the signals he is capable of receiving depend on the nature of our receiving apparatus. The apparatus may, by its very nature, distort the signals and indeed miss out a whole range of them. To those signals we cannot receive we are blind, and we can have no conception of them.

But will the philosopher really know that there is something sending the signals? Should Kant not rather have said that he will assume the existence of an external source of the signals? To understand the full significance of what Kant was saying requires us to consider the limitations imposed on us by our sense of reason. Our reason does not read off or deduce from the signals of the noumenal world what the world is like. The way our sense of reasoning interprets those signals constitutes the phenomenal world. This interpretation forms our ‘knowledge,’ and because knowledge is interpretation, it is not so much something we have as something we do. We shape the phenomenal world with our tools of understanding. For example, because we cannot perceive the noumenal world directly, we cannot know whether it has an order or not. Therefore such sense as we have of the universe being orderly is not imposed by the universe on us, but is imposed by us on the universe.

Kant believed that by his insight he had brought about a ‘Copernican Revolution.’ Copernicus had replaced the old idea that the earth was the centre of the universe: the sun was now its centre. This radically shifted the perspective of how we understand the world. Kant created a similar shift of perspective, from the idea that the world as we experience it is something that is given to our minds to the notion that it is determined by our mind. In the 19th century the Germans particularly took to this conception that the world is a product of the mind (and, later of the Will). More soberly, 20th century scientists and philosophers reinforced the notion that we can only understand the world through the conceptual apparatus, the tools of understanding that we have.

It is important to realise that, though the tools of understanding are not adequate to reveal to us the real nature of the ‘thing-in-itself,’ they are extremely effective in our understanding of the world.

What then are the tools of understanding? Kant called some of them concepts and others categories, though he sometimes refers to concepts as categories. Both have the same characteristics of imposing order on our perceptions. There are first the concepts of Space and Time. Our minds are made in such a way that we have to order our perceptions in a spatial and temporal way; and they cannot imagine a world which has more than three dimensions or does not obey a temporal sequence. If, therefore, in the noumenal world more than three dimensions or some sort of non-sequential time did not exist, we would be incapable of not grasping that. When he comes to categories, these are an elaboration of Leibniz’s ‘tools of understanding.’ For Leibniz these had been the innate notions of being, substance, unity, identity, contradiction and cause. Kant divided categories into four groups, each of which he then subdivided into three further groups. The more effectively we use our reason, the more fully comprehensible the phenomenal world will be for us. Kant as a child of the Age of Reason trusted implicitly and explicitly that reason will give us a wholly reliable and coherent account of the phenomenal world and an increasingly perfect understanding of the laws of nature which govern the phenomenal world.

This article is an abridged version of an article by Ralph Blumenau that appeared in Philosophy Now entitled Kant and the Thing in itself.

On The Four Fold Root Of The Principle Of Sufficient Reason

Schopenhauer's book

The purpose of this short essay is to explain some of the points contained in Schopenhauer’s book; The Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. One of the book’s assumptions is that the universe is an understandable place, conforming to deterministic laws and exhibiting predictable patterns and regularities. A more recent proposition of this theory is referred to as;

The Fine-Tuned Universe

which explains that Fine-tuning refers to the surprising precision of nature’s physical constants. To explain the present state of the universe, even the best scientific theories require that the physical constants of nature and the beginning state of the Universe have extremely precise values.

Schopenhauer said that nothing is without a reason for its being and/or that there is always something else to which its existence can be understood and thereby ‘nothing ever comes into being or ceases to be.’ Causes and effects are always changes in what already exists. Hence the coming into being of a new thing is really nothing but change in what already existed,

Schopenhauer describes the Law of Causality as stipulating that for every ‘change’ that occurs in the phenomenal world there must have been some preceding event , that caused it to take place.

Time, Space and Causality

We are so constituted that every thing we are aware of in our sense-experience must appear to us in temporal terms, i.e. the linear progression of past, present, and future. Thus the spatio-temporal features of the world are of a subjective origin: to use an analogy it is as if we were born with an irremovable pair of spectacles upon our noses, through which every thing is seen as being ordered and arranged in a particular way.

Schopenhauer explains that each temporal instant is dependent upon its predecessor, and is in a sense implied by it—only in so far as one instant has elapsed can another come into being; in this manner succession is held to constitute the essence of time. Likewise position is central to the idea of space; to speak of the position of any thing is to indicate the relations in which it stands to other things similarly locatable in space.

Schopenhauer divides the subjects of causality into four categories (fourfold Root)

* Causal reasons for empirical objects
* Logical (propositional) inferences
* Geometrical (space and time)
* Explanations of Actions—Motives

Schopenhauer insists that causes and effects are changes or events not entities or things. The notion of a first cause is absurd, every cause necessarily presupposes a preceding cause and so on infinitely.

Schopenhauer maintains that perception permits an organism to stay alive or is fundamental to its existence by providing the capacity to ‘orientate itself and interact with the surrounding environment and to assimilate things which might be useful in providing nourishment.

Schopenhauer believes that every human action is the product of two factors: motive (external object of desire or aversion) and character (the individual will of the actor). An event of being confronted with the motive, properly speaking, is the cause; the character of the actor is the force that reacts to the motive.

Life is inextricably bound up with what it lacks, this means that deficiency and want are a constitutive part of life itself.

According to Schopenhauer, we come to know ourselves just as we come to know everything else. We observe our own behaviour, and after a while we come to know our own tendencies and needs in terms of our self-organisation.

Philosopher, Richard Taylor who wrote an introduction to this early work of Schopenhauer’s commented that: “Schopenhauer never abandoned the ideas in this book but simply built upon them, in the very rich and profound philosophy that he devoted the rest of his life to creating. Thus when, late in his life, a new edition of The Fourfold Root was brought out, its author added to it here and there, freely referring to other of his writingsthat were seperated from this one by decades. A reader might therefore easily get the impression that this earliest of Schopenhauer’s works was one of his latest. Such consistency and singleness of purpose is not altogether common among philosophers.”

Most Viewed

All About The Use And Abuse Of Political Hypocrisy

All About The Use And Abuse Of Political Hypocrisy
In American politics, the term politician is synonymous with hypocrite. The unlaudable history of politicians does not...

Definition Of The Id , Ego And Super Ego

Super Ego
The id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's...

Facts On New Zealand Labour Party 

Facts on New Zealand Labour Party
The Labour Party of New Zealand is a political party that is centered on the left. Labour's...

Human Beings Are Inextricably Entangled In Stories

Human Beings
Plato refers to stories and myths that serve as a point of departure and exemplification for his...

Labour Party wins General Election

General Election
As New Zealand adapts to a Government led by Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party, the leaders...