Abstract

Many people consider Nietzsche to be a philosopher who is fundamentally anti-theoretical. According to Bernard Williams, Nietzsche is so far from being a theorist that his writing "is booby-trapped not only against recovering theory from it but, in many cases, against any systematic exegesis that assimilates it to theory." Many people would specifically relate this viewpoint to Nietzsche's moral philosophy. They would contend that his arguments lack the structure and substance of ethical theory, even when he is making positive normative assertions rather than merely criticizing accepted morality. In my opinion, this widely held belief is the antithesis of illuminating. In my opinion, Nietzsche's positive moral beliefs are uncontroversial since they come under the broad category of what is now known as perfectionism. They are based on an idea of the good that they praise actions for bringing about or advancing, but this idea does not associate the good with pleasure or the fulfillment of desires; rather, it locates the good in objective human excellences that, according to Nietzsche, are centered on the ideas of strength and power. Perfectionism can be constructed as a systematic theory, just like other moral beliefs, and when it is, several issues regarding its composition and structure come up. When reading Nietzsche with these problems in mind, it is remarkable how frequently he offers solutions to them without stating them directly. Combining those responses yields a perfectionist philosophy with a distinctly Nietzschean undertone. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Leibniz, Hegel, Marx, Bradley, Brentano, Rashdall, and Moore are just a few of the thinkers who have embraced perfectionism. Before Brentano, for example, Nietzsche was, in my opinion, the most theoretical perfectionist; that is, he was more prone to identify and respond to theoretical queries. There is also a distinctive worth to his responses. Moral philosophers and philosophers are often tempted to sidestep challenging theoretical issues by asserting positive facts about the universe that allow for the compatibility of opposing solutions. Nietzsche is known for rejecting such hopeful assertions and demanding that the issues be addressed head-on. He does this, for instance, when he disputes the idea that the ideas that are most beneficial to us are also the most likely to be accurate, as well as numerous times throughout his presentation of perfectionism. The end effect is a rendition of the perspective that particularly highlights its unique characteristics and hazards. This paper will examine three facets of Nietzsche's perfectionism: his most basic explanation of human perfection, the moral framework he uses to support it, and the more particular human states he uses to define perfection.