Table of contentsHeideggerian critique of NietzscheHeideggerian critique of Simone de BeauvoirConclusionHeideggerian critique of NietzscheIn his critique of Nietzsche's philosophy, Heidegger sets out a philosophy that is apparently the culmination of Western metaphysics. According to his arguments, Heidegger believes that Nietzsche's philosophy is a representation of the embodiment of modern nihilism, which is the ultimate manifestation of the nihilistic impulse rooted from the beginning in Western metaphysics. In his critique, he claims that Nietzsche's philosophy comes from the last metaphysician of the West while Nietzsche is considered the first metaphysical thinker. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Heidegger criticizes Nietzsche's assertion of the will to power in his philosophy. Nietzsche's assertion about the will to power asserts that the will to power as well as time is unlimited. The claim probably rests on the probability of continually rescaling a limited will to power over an unlimited period of time. Nietzsche argues that the procedure repeats itself as the world changes. His philosophy of the will to power is a description of how he views the world (Heidegger 412). In his analysis of the will to power, Heidegger emphasizes that the metaphysics of presence is the interpretation of present being. Heidegger argues that the metaphysics of presence also includes the distinction between the world of being and the world of future events in Nietzsche's so-called doctrines of the will to power (Rasmus - Vorrath 44). In Nietzsche's doctrines, he claims to have abolished metaphysics. because it also abolishes the dualism that exists between appearance and reality. Present being and future existence in the world, as well as presence and absence result in the dualism described by Nietzsche. He asserts that the different pairs of opposites are mixed in the will to power and in its external recurrence. According to his doctrine, there is no territory of absolute presence, perfect identity and total rest. External recurrence of the same is a concept that introduces the idea of ​​matter having both inert and animate dimensions. Matter is described as tending to be either in motion or at rest. However, matter is said to have a characteristic that causes it to move from its fall by its own power. The characteristics of matter therefore allow order to dissolve back into chaos. Heidegger criticizes Nietzsche's doctrines based on a double assertion. His philosophy asserts against Nietzsche's that the fundamental elements of Platonism still exist in Nietzsche. Furthermore, he argues that Nietzsche does not understand the commitment it takes to overcome metaphysics. Heidegger also argues that Nietzsche's asserted doctrines of external recurrence and the will to power are definitions of metaphysics in two different ways. To begin with, Heidegger notes that the theories of external recurrence and the will to power still have the possibility of adhering to the metaphysics of presence. Heidegger notes that recurrence consists of making permanent what becomes as well as reflecting on the security of what becomes, at the moment of its beginning. On the contrary, Nietzsche thinks of making presence permanent as a means of self-recapitulation of the identical (Rasmus-Vorrath 50). Heidegger adds to his criticism of Nietzsche that the external recurrence of the same and the will to power are held to be fundamental. determinations of beings as a whole.The most elusive and difficult statement defines the will to power as the strange creation of the identity of beings and the external recurrence of it as the creation of the identity of beings in a different way. His philosophy therefore creates a distinction that defines and supports metaphysics. Heidegger states that the identity of beings refers to the fact that they are as opposed to the idea of ​​their non-existence. Platonism in Nietzsche's philosophy is the identity of a particular being when endorsed by its form. For example, a particular dog has its identity since it is linked to the shape of the dog. Similar to man, his identity belongs to that of human beings. Platonism therefore explains the essence of the identity of particular beings through its materiality (Lozar 122). In criticizing these assertions, Heidegger argues that the plutonic distinction exists in the difference between the will to power and the external recurrence of it. The will to power affirms the identity of all beings; thus, it corresponds to the Platonic form. The external recurrence of power also names the existence of beings; it therefore corresponds to the instantiation of the Platonic form. Heidegger differentiates the will to power from external recurrence as a principle of power and the latter as a principle of identity. Heidegger notes that Nietzsche fails to overcome the dualism of his doctrine; thus, it does not also go beyond metaphysics (Lozar 123). Heidegger believes that it is vital to move beyond metaphysics by reflecting on its distinctive subject. He asserts that the distinctive matter of his doctrines gives way and carries away the different epochs of the history of being. Heidegger notes the importance of thinking the truth of being and the exact meaning of being (Lozar 124). Heidegger's Critique of Simone de Beauvoir Heidegger also interprets Simone de Beauvoir's philosophical work in relation to her doctrines. Beauvoir's interpretation of disclosure is consistent with characterizations that emphasize different aspects. Beauvoir's interpretation is also, in many ways, faithful to Heidegger's development of the concept of time and being. Beauvoir describes Dasein by emphasizing unveiling, which is the revealing aspect. On the other hand, Heidegger describes Dasein as revelation and clarification. Linguistic differences lead to connotative differences between the two philosophy experts. Heidegger criticizes Simone de Beauvoir based on her relationships with other philosophical thinkers such as Sartre. Heidegger claims that Sartre was a chronic womanizer who, in his relationship with Simone de Beauvoir, constantly lied to each other and to others whom they easily manipulated. Heidegger notes that Simone de Beauvoir betrays and manipulates others as objects of her incessant need for satisfaction. There is a disjunction between philosophy and the philosopher; thus, Heidegger notes that his politics are many intellectual achievements. Simone de Beauvoir is also criticized by Heidegger on the basis of her existential ethics. His notions of ambiguity and revelation are challenged by Heidegger who pulls his theories along finer threads. Simone de Beauvoir defines the position of women in society as one of low social hierarchy due to their duties. Simone de Beauvoir also clarifies the major role that women play as a sex since social norms are defined in society in favor of men. She also notes that a man must operate within the constraints of gender, which prevents him from taking on certain roles. Simone de Beauvoir asserts that such constraints allow man to feel like a simple human subject to pure subjectivity (Simons 210). Simone de Beauvoir,.