The Nietzsche Thread

[Mad_Michael]

This is the Nietzsche Thread

This thread exists for any and all serious inquires, questions, arguments or discussions of, or about, Nietzsche's ideas.

* * *

Nietzsche is one of the most complex and difficult to interpret of all western political theorists. His also, by far, one of the most significant.

One of the reasons that Nietzsche is particularly important and/or significant is that his words and ideas are not 'historical'. They are here, they are now - they inform and define the current intellectual environment of the world we live in. And most significantly, no one (to the best of my knowledge) has managed to provide any substantive 'rebuttal' to Herr Nietzsche's general theoretical assertions, as yet. This is part of the complexity and the mystique of Nietzsche.

I don't claim to be any 'super-expert' on Nietzsche, only that I do have a MA in Philosophy and I have studied Nietzsche (like Plato and Rousseau) extensively at both the undergraduate and graduate levels (and continuously since). I am personally very interested in the topic and thus any explication of Nietzsche's ideas here will certainly be coloured by my own interpretation of Nietzsche's works. Caveat emptor.

I personally have no particular agenda to argue or advance here regarding Nietzsche. I'm only making a place available here for Nietzsche discussions that might otherwise intrude upon other threads.

I will be happy to reply to any (serious) questions posted, to the best of my ability.

[WarOnIgnorance]

Lacking all those impressive credentials, I'd still like to give a layman's view on Nietzsche's work.

First a little word about his literary value. Unlike most of the philosophers, I reckon FN has a style of writing, especially ofcourse in "Also Sprach Zarathustra", that is only surpassed by the likes of Goethe or Schiller.

I would also suggest that he is perhaps the most misinterpreted and misrepresented philosopher of all time. The fact that the Nazis lay claim to his intellectual inheritance, didn't help here. Alas for the Nazis, it's clear that they didn't understand anything about his work, which is still the case in the public at large.

Not unlike Machiavelli, I see FN first as an observer. As the true Machiavellians were the Borgia's and de Medici's of his age and not the author, it is not FN that declared that 'Gott ist tot', but the people of the age FN lived in. It was not a wish that FN expressed, but a realization of a societal event that already had come to be, viz. the abandoning of the essential and crucial place that the Church had hitherto taken in people's life.
What FN meant, IMO, was that the totalitarian control of the Roman Church (with totalitarian in the most literal meaning) over society had ceased to be.

This misunderstanding I claim for that quote, is similar to the topic of 'nihilism', the negatively connotated and loaded -ism FN is usually associated with. It is only nihilism (zero-ism) from a clerical viewpoint. FN had made the previously discussed observation and moved on from there. He accepted the situation he found and sought for a humane continuance.

In one sentence, I'd say that FN suggested that 'man' would move 'beyond good and evil' and become an Ubermensch. This enormously loaded word has nothing to do with what the Nazis made of it but means the Beyond-Man. Man that has ceased to let his/her life and fate be controlled by the powers of Church-imposed morality and seeks out his own destiny. Man whose morals have descended from the mountain and mingled among those of mere mortals (ref. Zarathustra).

FN considered this 'discovery' as a gift to mankind (ref. Ecce Homo-Preface-4) but equally warned that this new line of thought does not come easily or falls from the sky. It's a destiny that has to be taken up voluntarily and decisive (Will to power).

[Mad_Michael]

Originally Posted by WarOnIgnorance

Lacking all those impressive credentials, I'd still like to give a layman's view on Nietzsche's work.

...

FN considered this 'discovery' as a gift to mankind (ref. Ecce Homo-Preface-4) but equally warned that this new line of thought does not come easily or falls from the sky. It's a destiny that has to be taken up voluntarily and decisive (Will to power).

Wow. Impressive. I couldn't imagine needing to add or change a word. One of the best 'brief' summaries I've ever seen upon the topic.

[Tree Hugger]

My reading of Nietzsche is pretty limited. I've read Beyond Good & Evil and bits and pieces of other books, particularly Thus Spake Zarathustra, but I've yet to read all of it.

Where should I start to really get a better grasp on his philosophy?

[WarOnIgnorance]

Originally Posted by Tree Hugger

My reading of Nietzsche is pretty limited. I've read Beyond Good & Evil and bits and pieces of other books, particularly Thus Spake Zarathustra, but I've yet to read all of it.

Where should I start to really get a better grasp on his philosophy?

IMO a minimum would be 'Beyond good and evil', 'The Genealogy of Morals', 'Also sprach Zarathustra' and 'Ecce Homo'. In that order.
If you like him, you'll end up reading everything anyway.

Which gives me the occasion to make a few comments on the personality of FN. It's often said that he is anti-Semitic. That is nonsense as reading his works wil show you. In fact FN is less critical of Jews than the average 19th century writer. Even against today's standards the argument isn't tenable as each critical remark about Jews can be countered by an appreciative one.

What is much more troublesome is that throughout his work he is very disrespectful of women. (e.g. Beyond good and evil; 232 ff). Except for an ornamental role they have little value to him. He dismisses them as 'degenerating'. Offcourse, a contemporary reader can extend his philosophy easily by including women in mankind and thus making up for FN's fault

I'm already having 2nd thoughts about my reading suggestion. "Twilight of the Idols" and "Human, all too human" are also crucial. In fact, all his works, except maybe for "The Birth of Tragedy" are extremely rich and condensed, reading all of them doesn't take that long. It's very unlikely though that from a single read you'll experience the full range of his ideas. After reading enough to reach the 'click' where one gets the primary ideas, one should reread the lot to really appreciate the quality.
Oh, and take extreme care to get a good translation. Walter Kaufmann would definitely be my suggestion.

2 cents an'all.

[WarOnIgnorance]

@MM :Thanks for the praise. It would seem that reading books has some value after all.

I'm interested in your perspective on FN's dismissal of 'philosophic laborers' vs. true, i.e. creative philosophers (BGAE, 'On Scholars'; 210ff). The idea of 'Philosophy with a hammer' is applicable there too, I think. Traditional philosophers are dismissed as mere value-archiving-clerks. Instead FN introduces the real philosopher as a creator of values.

This 'true' philosopher is then consequently also beyond good and evil (in the sense it's used in his work) and becomes a creator of value systems, i.e. of societal blueprints. Two questions here (if the reasoning above is valid, that is):
Is Nietzsche a true philosopher in his own idea of it ? (in his own mind he obviously was)
Is anybody else (before or after).
IMHO the answers would be 'Yes' and 'No' ?

[Mad_Michael]

As for reading Nietzsche, WOI nailed it rather well - including the Kaufmann recommendation.

Any and all of it is as difficult and as easy to read (or to start with) and as important as any other piece. Beyond Good and Evil is by far the most famous title, but there are many to choose from. And one reading of each book won't work. Nietzsche is not to be approached lightly or you will not understand it. It is not for the faint of heart or weak of mind.

@WOI, your questions are beautiful ones. I only fear that this thread become a playground between us and scares other people off. I was hoping for more basic stuff from the less Nietzsche-obssessed amongst us... bethatasitmay, I shall give a reply in a day or two.

[roddy]

I've got a gift card to a bookstore I've been meaning to use.. I'll probably start reading one of these tomorrow night. Until then I'm not qualified for even 'more basic' discussion..

[Rotten]

I've started to read "thus spoke Zarathustra" in norwegian, and I'm almost halfways. I've been reading for some time, but I don't want to rush it. I indentify with loads of the things he says, especially that about the state, in a chapter whose name I can not easily translate... Anyway, his words pretty much describe what I feel about the state aswell. I call myself an anarchist, but it might be just that I do not trust the government, and do not consider it, or any other way of govern, correct per se. I'm wondering a little about this thing, I guess it's hard to label Nietzsche politically. Perahaps irrelevant aswell.

I also would like to have some more easily description of the will to power, what I've read so far doesn't give much answers, and what I've looked for on the net doesn't satisy either. So could you perhaps try to give examples of will to power, if that is possible?

[IIIX]

Originally Posted by WOI

I see FN first as an observer. As the true Machiavellians were the Borgia's and de Medici's of his age and not the author, it is not FN that declared that 'Gott ist tot', but the people of the age FN lived in.

Wouldn't it suit your intent better to say that Nietzsche is the one who declared God's death - a death at the hand of other men?Other men who refused to look at the corpse, unlike Nietzsche!
To me, it looks like a perfect example of "FN as an observer" (I know, I'm not being an essential addition to the discussion )



As for Nietszche, I do have a question. When I read him, I sometime know that I am missing something; sometime I understand completely (doesn't happen so often ); and sometime it seems fairly simple. My question is: when it seems fairly simple, is it always that I missed something bigger, or does Nietzsche sometimes relax a little bit?



.