Simone Weil versus Friedrich Nietzsche on the Good Life
Simone Weil and Friedrich Nietzsche’s views, opinions and instructions on the “Good Life” and how to acquire it are extremely different. Their views would be considered on the opposite ends of the scale in almost all aspects and this makes a comparison an interesting spectacle. Weil, born in Paris France in 1909, wrote on subjects such as “the needs for the soul”, “freedom of speech” and “justice”. Here views heavily influenced by the time and era she lives in and her religion (Christian). Nietzsche, dying nine years before Weil’s birth, lived to write of his views on more uncommon philosophies like “the will to power”, “levels of morality” and perhaps his most controversial “god is dead”. Nietzsche was born in Germany and was not a religious man. In order to further analyse the differences in these two very famous philosophies it is required that the following aspects of their writings are compared.
The most apparent difference in Weil’s philosophies and Nietzsche’s philosophies is equality and justice. Nietzsche does not set rules that one should follow to acquire the good life and explains very quickly that although all men strive for it, he does not believe that it is possible for all men to acquire it at all. Weil’s philosophy believes that the good life (“a satisfied soul”) is always something man should working towards. Working towards this is possible by satisfying the needs for one’s soul. She lists specific requirements of men to bring them closer to this satisfaction. There are no boundaries as to who can acquire this good life in Weil’s philosophy and rather than expecting that one man would have to try harder to acquire it, she argues that all men should be working equally to ensure the accessibility of this good life for all. This idea can be heard in her writings of Justice, she explains that those who are poorer should be given more chance to commit crime to create a more equal playing field. Nietzsche’s philosophy is rather un-optimistic of the human race and as a result he believes an attempt to improve it would do little good, this explains his lack of advice and rules. Rather, Nietzsche takes on a more factual based approach to his philosophy treating it as more of a informational piece than an educational piece. Weil however believes that an attempt to improve the world through education of the needs for the soul can provide aid for a damaged world. This explains why Weil’s writings are revolved around certain expectations, rules and advice. The fact that Nietzsche and Weil have very different intentions for their writings makes differences extremely common but also not directly contradicting as they have distant subjects. Similarities in their philosophies involve a combined understanding of inequality in the current world, some men being more capable than others but that’s as far as it goes.
In terms of being correct in these philosopher’s writings, it is more reasonable to say that Nietzsche’s writings are the victor simply because his writings do not need reason, but rather are the reason for everything. Nietzsche explains the decline in human’s ability to live the good life with the Geniality of Morals in which the common state of mind called “Slave Morality” is far easier to spread to others because of it’s contagious properties. However, the Geniality of Morals focuses more on analysing the difference between “Slave” (the inferior) and “Noble” (the superior) moralities rather than explaining which is better. This helps contribute to the notion that Nietzsche’s writings were more factual than persuasive. His calculations, although very depressing, are without a doubt more “correct” than Weil’s.
To conclude, Nietzsche’s philosophy, although more mundane and defeatist in its conclusion, is technically more correct than Weil’s. The reason being that Weil’s rules are inconsistent, contradicting and most importantly not viable to ever be considered sensibly. Weil’s rules could never be used practically and this breaks her argument, both by removing its worth from a realistic point of view and questioning her understanding of what is right and what is possible. Nietzsche’s philosophy does not make the mistake that Weil’s does by not attempting to set rules that would work for all of mankind, rather his philosophy is based on analysing and understanding the human race further.