Plato and Nietzsche’s Approaches Essay

Human beings are different by nature not only in character, but also in logic. Therefore, a single issue can generate many arguments each with a different perspective. However, it is how one defends his or her own view that matters.

Philosophers in particular are known to have diverse views regarding different issues including life and death. Plato’s death practice argument and Nietzsche’s eternal recurrence are examples of such diverse views by philosophers. It is important to note, however, that the two philosophers do not give direct meaning in their arguments.

To begin with, Plato’s argument that philosophers should practice death is meant to advice all people, especially philosophers, to prepare for death. He views death as an imminent and only savior that will separate philosophers from the lies and inequities of the world. Philosophers should not be happy with the desires of the body such as food, clothes and other materialistic things.

Consequently, they should be ready for any possible way to extricate themselves from the body. According to the argument, death is a separation of the body and the soul. While the body is finite and has no use after death, the soul is immortal and is the only useful part of a philosopher.

Bodily desires and conclusions are viewed as inaccurate and misleading as far as a philosopher’s quest for truth is concerned. In this regard, the best realities of life, as well as the truth, are better approached in thought alone.

Practicing death will make people approach issues more confidently because they will have nothing to fear. The fear of death is what makes many people fear saying the truth. Consequently, when one is not afraid of death, he or she can be ready to say the truth boldly without fear or favor.

Similarly, practicing death will help one approach issues more objectively knowing that the body interferes with one’s judgment. Additionally, the knowledge that one’s soul is immortal and it is the one that matters will make a person more responsible.

On the other hand, Nietzsche’s argument means that everything in the world is just but a replication of what happened in the past. According to the argument, the world is recurrent and will continue to recur infinitely. Therefore, there is nothing new that happens in the world that has never been witnessed before. Pain, disasters, diseases and all other sorrows that are happening now or those that have happened in history will recur again.

As a result, man should accept suffering as part of life because there is nothing that can be done about it. Nietzsche argues that human beings have no control over what has happened, what is happening or what will happen in the future. The argument is similar to the reincarnation believe by the Hindu religion.

Unfortunately, the ideology might make people highly irresponsible knowing that they can only play a spectator role in the world. Moreover, it is crucial to note that nobody has ever come forward and claimed to be aware of what happened in the last part of his or her life. Consequently, subscribing to the idea will not change people in any way since they will be confident that their past deeds will not haunt them.

Of the two arguments, I prefer Plato’s approach. To begin with, Plato gives real life examples of how practicing death is vital to philosophers’ lives and by extension all human beings. Arguably, death is imminent in any human being’s life, whether one prepares for it or not. Therefore, instead of living in fear of something that cannot be avoided, it is sensible to be ready for it, as and when it comes.

This is the ideology that the fighters of freedom in countries that were once colonized subscribed to in their struggle for independency. If they were afraid of death, their countries would be probably under colonial rule to date.

Arguably, great men in the history of human rights and other societal issues for example, Martin Luther King Jr., were aware that death would come if they went ahead with their endeavors but that did not deter them. Accepting death as a price that one has to pay for certain issues made them brave and even more vibrant in their quest for justice.

In contrast, believing in eternal recurrence is likely to mislead people. People can be tempted to stop working towards the prevention of evil in society. Anyway, it will be pointless to work tirelessly wasting one’s energy in trying to prevent what will definitely recur. Moreover, it is erroneous to imagine that nothing changes in the world because definitely, the Earth is not the way it was 1000 or even 50 years ago.

Much has changed: some things have become extinct like the dinosaurs, while others have emerged. However, practicing death is also misleading by assuming that truth is found only when the body and the soul have separated.

That is impossible to proof and Plato does not provide any explanation to support the argument. Nevertheless, though they argue from different points of view, the two philosophers concur that the soul of a human being is immortal.