To what extent do you agree with his definition of history and his analysis of it?

The purpose of philosophy

I) Nietzsche – On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life
According to Plato, Socrates famously stated, “that the unexamined life is not worth living,” and argued in favor of philosophy as the best way to understand how to live. Subsequently, some of humanity’s most famous thinkers have either tried to support or rebut not only Plato’s beliefs, but also his metaphysical/philosophical approaches to knowledge. By the 19th Century, and after several thousand years of grand philosophizing from the Aristotelians, the Kantians, and the Utilitarians, the skeptics and the nihilists Friedrich Nietzsche began to wonder openly whether anything had been accomplished. Nietzsche, in his On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life, considers this very question – what is the point of studying the past – especially the ideas, morals, and philosophies of prior generations? To answer this question, please address the following specific topics.

1) Define and provide textual examples of what Nietzsche means by the term “history.”

2) Evaluate both the pros and cons of using history to guide a person’s life.

3) To what extent do you agree with his definition of history and his analysis of it?

4) Next, which of the philosophers that we have decided, do you believe that Nietzsche would argue is still worthy of study? Make sure to support your answer with plenty of examples from the text.

II) Weber – Politics as a Vocation
In the lecture, Politics as a Vocation, Weber provides us with an explanation of the evolution of the modern state as well as how a person can live both for or from politics. Please write an essay which explains Weber’s analysis of the creation of the modern state (in particular how the contemporary state differs from earlier forms) and how these changes have impacted both would be politicians and the bureaucrats who are now employed in increasingly large and powerful government institutions. When writing your answer please be sure to address the following specific concerns:

1) How does the modern state represent a perfection of prior forms of government?

2) What does it mean to make a living for or from politics and how does this affect the process of governing?

3) Next, to what extent can political and ethical activity (as defined by Weber to be either an ethics of conviction or responsibility) coexist in the modern world? 4) Lastly, do you see Weber as primarily optimistic or pessimistic about the future of modern politics and is he correct?