IndexHeidegger's criticism of NietzscheHeidegger's criticism of Simone de BeauvoirConclusionHeidegger's criticism of NietzscheIn his criticism of Nietzsche's philosophy, Heidegger affirms a philosophy that is apparently the fulfillment of Western metaphysics . According to his arguments, Heidegger believes that Nietzsche's philosophy is a representation of the epitome of modern nihilism, which is the ultimate manifestation of the nihilistic impulse that is rooted in Western metaphysics from the beginning. In his criticism he states that Nietzsche's philosophy derives 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 Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayHeidegger criticizes Nietzsche's statement about the will to power in his philosophy. Nietzsche's statement on the will to power states that the will to power as well as time is unlimited. The statement is probably based on the probability of infinitely reprogramming a limited will to power over an unlimited time. Nietzsche argues that the process repeats itself again and again as the world changes. His philosophy of the will to power is a description of how he perceives the world (Heidegger 412). In his analysis of the will to power, Heidegger emphasizes that the metaphysics of presence is the interpretation of being present. 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 supposed doctrines of the will to power (Rasmus - Vorrath 44). In Nietzsche's doctrines he claims to have abolished metaphysics because he also abolishes the dualism that exists between appearance and reality. Being present and future existence in the world, as well as presence and absence entail the dualism described by Nietzsche. He states that the different pairs of opposites find themselves fused together in the will to power and in the external recurrence of the same. According to his doctrines, there is no territory of absolute presence, perfect identity and total rest. The external recurrence of the same is a concept that introduces the idea of ​​matter having both inert and animate dimensions. Matter is said to have a tendency to be in motion or at rest. However, matter is said to have a characteristic that leads to its movement from falling by its own force. The characteristics of matter, therefore, leave room for order to dissolve back into chaos. Heidegger criticizes Nietzsche's doctrines on the basis of a twofold statement. His philosophy states against that of Nietzsche that the fundamental elements of Platonism still exist in Nietzsche. Furthermore, he argues that Nietzsche fails to understand the commitment needed to overcome metaphysics. Heidegger also argues that the doctrines stated by Nietzsche on external recurrence and the will to power are definitions of metaphysics in two different ways. To begin with, Heidegger notes that explanations of external recurrence and will to power still have the possibility of entering the metaphysics of presence. Heidegger notes that recurrence is the making permanent of what becomes, as well as thinking about how certain what becomes is, in the time of its beginning. On the contrary, Nietzsche thinks of making presence permanent as a way of self-recapitulation of the identical (Rasmus -Vorrath 50). Heidegger adds to his criticism of Nietzsche that the external recurrence of the identical and the will to power are considered fundamental determinations of the entity as a whole. The most elusive and difficult statement defines the will to power as the strange coinage of identityof beings and the external recurrence of the same as coining 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 the entity refers to the fact that it is opposed to the idea of ​​its non-existence. Platonism in Nietzsche's philosophy is the identity of a particular being when confirmed by its form. For example, a particular dog has its own identity as it is related to the shape of a dog. Similar to man, his identity belongs to that of the human being. Platonism, therefore, explains the essence of the identity of particular beings with its materiality (Lozar 122). In the critique of assertions, Heidegger argues that the Plutonic distinction exists in the difference between the will to power and the external recurrence of the same. The will to power affirms the identity of all beings; therefore, it corresponds to the Platonic form. The external recurrence of the power also names the existence of the entity; therefore, it corresponds to the instantiation of the Platonic form. Heidegger differentiates 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 dualism in his doctrine; therefore, it also does not surpass metaphysics (Lozar 123). Heidegger thinks it is vital to overcome metaphysics by thinking about its distinctive theme. He states that the distinctive matter of his doctrines gives and takes away the different eras 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 criticism of Simone de BeauvoirHeidegger also interprets the philosophical work of Simone de Beauvoir in relation to his doctrines. Beauvoir's interpretation of disclosure agrees with characterizations that highlight different aspects. Beauvoir's interpretation is also, in many respects, faithful to Heidegger's development of the concept of time and being. Beauvoir describes Dasein by emphasizing revelation, which is the revealing aspect. On the other hand, Heidegger describes Dasein as revelation and clarification. The linguistic differences determine some connotative differences between the two philosophy experts. Heidegger criticizes Simone de Beauvoir based on his relationship with other philosophical thinkers such as Sartre. Heidegger states that Sartre was a chronic womanizer who, in their 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 were one of great intellectual achievement. Simone de Beauvoir is also criticized by Heidegger on the basis of his existential ethics. His notions of ambiguity and disclosure are challenged by Heidegger who draws his theories on finer threads. Simone de Beauvoir defines women's position in society as that of low social hierarchy due to their duties. Simone de Beauvoir also specifies the major role that women play regarding sex as social norms are defined in society in favor of males. Also note that a man must operate under gender constraints, so he cannot take on some roles. Simone de Beauvoir asserts that such constraints allow man to feel like a simple human being subjected to pure subjectivity (Simons 210). Simone de Beauvoir, in her doctrines, notes that there is no reason why women should be treated in a particularly submissive manner. . It recognizes the historical treatment of women as a failure and contingency in making these kinds of choices in society. Furthermore, it states that choices.