Section 125 in The Gay Science is one of Nietzsche’s most well-known pieces of academic writing. It is also one of his most misinterpreted. Written in 1882, a year before the release of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883), The Gay Science introduces some of Nietzsche’s principal philosophical ideas for the first time. The proclamation that “God is dead” (The Gay Science 181) is one of the more radical of these. Although an atheist himself, Nietzsche’s announcement of God’s passing is not intended to be seen as an atheistic argument to convince the reader of God’s nonexistence. Rather, it is an observation. Following the Enlightenment period, Nietzsche observed that God’s role in society was diminishing, and by declaring that “God is dead,” he meant to imply that we are no longer chained to this religious source of meaning and truth. This passage has often been misinterpreted to frame Nietzsche as a nihilist, as readers mistakenly think that he is advocating for a lack of moral bedrock and foundation. But Nietzsche is actually doing nothing of the sort. Whilst he acknowledges the danger of nihilism as a result of God’s disappearance from society, he was by all accounts terrified by such a prospect, and both the passages surrounding Section 125 in The Gay Science, and some of his ideas in Thus Spoke Zarathustra are devoted to the positive aspect of this message: the prospect that the gap left by God could be replaced by an alternative, better, source of life meaning which we create for ourselves rather than receive from an external force.
Yet Nietzsche’s excitement in both The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra around the positive aspects of this message is something that I just cannot mirror. Given historical evidence and Nietzsche’s own recognition in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I do not think it is actually possible for someone to entirely create their own moral values. The far more likely implication is that the God-less void might lead some people to utterly lose their direction (like the Pope in Thus Spoke Zarathustra), and others to replace religion with other sources of objective value (e.g. socialism, fascism). My interpretation attributes Nietzsche with the view of strong nihilism, the view that the collapse of religious values can be seen as an incredible opportunity to create your own code of values. However, I come into conflict with this view because I think it overestimates human capabilities – I think that God’s “death” would almost certainly result in weak nihilism, “a will to nothingness” that amounts to intense pessimism and a longing for a new objective external system of values.
Firstly, it is important to fully unpack the announcement of the madman in Section 125. Once again, Nietzsche is not declaring the death or non-existence of God in a theological sense. This is implicit in the statement “God is dead,” as it connotes that God had to have been alive at some point, and an atheist argument attacking God’s existence would not suggest this. The madman’s announcement in this case is using the word God to mean ‘God’s role and influence in society as a source of truth.’ The death of God refers to decline in religiosity in Europe over the Enlightenment period, which killed the idea of a supernatural meaning of life. The statement is a cultural observation, and not a philosophical argument in and of itself. This meaning of the madman’s announcement is made especially evident by Section 343 in The Gay Science, where Nietzsche explicitly says that the phrase “God is dead” refers to how “belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable” (TGS 279). The irony of ‘God’s death’ is that, as the madman alludes to by naming the crowd as the murderers, it was a result of peoples’ pursuit of the truth (in the Enlightenment period). In other words, the catalyst for searching for objective truth (God) led to its own destruction because of human beings’ pursuit of truth. This interpretation of the madman’s announcement that stresses the death of objective and external truth in society, is also supported by evidence from Section 120 of The Gay Science. Nietzsche asserts that what would be said as “virtue is the health of your soul” should now be read as “your virtue is the health of your soul” (TGS 176). This subtle change of phrasing illustrates Nietzsche’s view that human beings should no longer accept an objective determination of virtue in their decision making, but rather use their own (“your” own) individual created virtue. This interpretation is explicitly supported by evidence from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, when he proclaims that we should do “away with such a god” in favour of being a god (Thus Spoke Zarathustra 374). This is a more explicit explanation of the ideas within the madman’s announcement. Nietzsche’s use of ‘god’ again refers to god as source of objective truth and value, so by suggesting that we ourselves should be god, he is advocating for human beings to create their own values following the “death” of god.
This interpretation of the madman’s announcement also reveals some of Nietzsche’s views on whether the death of religious morality as a source of truth in society is a good or bad thing. As I interpret it, he makes it very clear that it is a very bad thing if nothing replaces God’s role in society. This is indicated by the imagery of the lit lantern in the early morning. Nietzsche writes how the madman reveals his announcement whilst holding a lit lantern in broad daylight for allegorical purposes (TGS 181). It represents how in the absence of God and religion, there is nothingness (in terms of objective values), and as a result the madman questions whether the light that lanterns provide is now needed in the morning to illuminate this nothingness. The allegory of the lantern is also placed aside other language that demonstrates the uncertainty of the void that the “death” of God brings about. The madman questions “wither are we moving” in an effort to illustrate the newfound confusion around what truths and values humans will impose on their own lives (TGS 181). Nietzsche is terrified of the consequences of God’s death if nothing comes in its place. In Section 121, he recognises that these “articles of faith” (faith in God as a source of moral objectivity) are needed for people to cope with the pains of life (TGS 121). However, as much as he is frightened by the possibility of the decline in religiosity in Europe, he also views it as a great opportunity.
The madman’s announcement also reveals Nietzsche’s view that the loss of objective values could have overwhelmingly positive implications. He actually claims that all men born after this defining historical moment will “belong to a higher history,” which seems to confidently imply that in his view the positive implications will outweigh the negative implications (TGS 181). Although Nietzsche was concerned by the dangerous prospect of people having no objective values, his views ultimately could be summarised as those of a ‘strong nihilist.’ He has a positive perspective of moral nihilism, because he believes that the eradication of objective values and truth leaves the joyous opportunity for humans to create their own set of individual values. Evidence for this view of Nietzsche, and this positive implication of the ‘death of god’ is found in Section 343 of The Gay Science. He describes how the collapse of Europe’s core truth structure is not a bad thing, but rather an exciting opportunity that is “scarcely describable” (TGS 280). When he hears the news, he does not feel dread, but rather an overflow of positive motion to the extent it feels like a “new dawn” (TGS 280). Nietzsche acknowledges in this passage that the future is not necessarily more “bright” (by which he means easier for the individual) as a result of God’s ‘death’ in Europe, but it is certainly a better one. Human beings now will have to live based upon their own will, instead of constraining their will with objective truths. Nietzsche’s positive view of the implications of the madman’s announcement is summed up well by the ship analogy that he uses. He recognises that it’s akin to the ship finally being let out from harbour and back onto the seas: there is certainly added danger, but it is “open sea,” and there are no constraints put upon it.
Nietzsche’s developed the implications of “God is dead” in the prologue to Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He put emphasis on the positive aspect of the message, by pursuing the idea that human beings could now become gods themselves, in the sense that they can create their own morality and set of values. It is here that Nietzsche proposes the concept of the Übermensch (TGS 125). As outlined by Zarathustra, an Übermensch is someone who creates all their own values, and does not follow any objective truths. There is no unjustifiable act for an Übermensch as long as it is a full manifestation of the person’s will. If someone does justify something in anything other than their own will, then they cannot be considered an Übermensch. For example, if someone genuinely willed to murder someone, and felt no remorse or guilt for it whatsoever, there would be no problem in Nietzsche’s eyes. He would only critique someone who did this and then realised that their act was not a real representation of their will (e.g. they didn’t actually want to murder someone). The significance of Nietzsche’s conception of the Übermensch in relation to the madman’s announcement is that it’s a positive view which Nietzsche sees as the answer to the shake-up in European society.
Given this interpretation of the madman’s announcement and the subsequent implications of his message, Nietzsche’s positive view of this new nihilist world new need scrutinising. Some philosophers have critiqued Nietzsche’s views regarding the Übermensch replacing objective morality as a self-contradiction. Although the madman’s announcement leads Nietzsche to advocate the creation of our own values in the model of the Übermensch, criticism has been levelled at Nietzsche as if someone was to follow his teachings then they would not be living life entirely according to their own created set of values, but rather the set of values that Nietzsche created. In this sense, Nietzsche’s philosophy could be considered just a replacement form of dogma with life affirmation replacing truth. However, there is a fundamental difference between following Nietzsche’s advice and following Christian dogma (for example). That is the effect. When people choose to create their own values, they create their own values. But two Christians will have similar values and approach life in the same way. Whilst theoretically both Nietzsche’s view and Christianity both create values for other people, internalising Nietzsche’s philosophy of the Übermensch would result in an entirely different result, that of life affirmation. The goal of life affirmation cannot be considered as dogmatic as the pursuit of truth, as in the latter, there is external objectivity that one has to take values from, whereas the former is entirely internal.
Nonetheless, even though I do not think that Nietzsche’s view surrounding this is self-contradictory, it is overly optimistic to believe that there could be any positive implications of the madman’s announcement, as in reality it is not possible for anyone to create all of their own values. There will always be a point where one would have to rely on a form of external objective truth. It is impossible to escape human culture, and hence an Übermensch-to-be would need to not take on social concepts like money or language, as they would not have created these. For someone to truly create all of their own values, they would not be able to engage in society. As a result of this critique of Nietzsche’s view, the implication of “God is dead” would be vastly different. Rather than act a stimulus for a new form of self-imposed morality and value-setting, the God-less void could lead instead to some people losing their direction. Nietzsche actually recognises this himself. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the old pope tells him that since he “retired” from God (stopped using religion as a source of objective truth and value), he has been “yet not free, nor even cheerful except in my memories” (TSZ 371). This is the reality of a world without any form of objectivity. It would leave a huge void, which could not be filled by the actual impossible task of living only by your will. Human beings need objective truth, as there are too many stimuli and decisions to be made in life to just follow your own will. It is far more likely that to fill this void, one source of objective truth (religion) will end up being replaced by another (e.g. socialism, fascism).
Nietzsche’s passage where the madman announces that “God is dead” can be interpreted as an explanation of his view that the positive implications of a world with no objective value or truth outweigh the negative ones. He believes that the dearth of objective value would lead to some human beings creating their own value. However, I see no positive aspects to the message of the madman. The ideal of the Übermensch is impossible to achieve, and the lack of life meaning and objectivity would be more likely to cause strife, or bring about a new type of objectivity to appeal to. “God” might be dead, but the human desire for objective truth would live on.
Works Cited
Nietzsche, Friedrich, and Walter Kaufmann. The portable Nietzsche. Penguin Books, 1976.
Nietzsche, Friedrich, and Bernard Williams. The gay science: with a prelude in German rhymes and an appendix of songs. Cambridge University Press, 2004.