Nietzsche  

Within a couple of minutes I find, Freud on Nietzsche:

"a philosopher whose guesses and intuitions often agree in the most astonishing way with the laborious findings of psychoanalysis."

you find that quote and further reading at this site

did that link work? Also for an interesting connection see Foucault's rather good essay 'Nietzsche, Freud, Marx'.

Yes I'm afraid N was an unapologetic misogynist. I'm not really sure what a fascist is so I won't comment on that.

As for being a depressive or a joyful fellow, he was both. I haven't come across a single book or article that's mentioned it but it seems obvious to me that N was a Manic Depressive. He experienced delusions of grandeur well before the onset of syphillis.

72% classic for the exuberant "manic" stuff e.g. The Gay Science and Thus Spake Zarathustra and 28% dud for the misogyny.

Btw, Man and Superman is a play by George Bernard Shaw.

"We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today? We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its "realities", we do not believe that they will last. [...] We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights", "a free society", "no more masters and servants" has no allure for us. [...] Is it not clear that with all of this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen? [...] We who are homeless are too manifold and mixed racially and in our descent, being "modern men", and consequently do not feel tempted to participate in the mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking [...]. [...] The hidden Yes in you is stronger than all Nos and Maybes that afflict you and your age like a disease; and when you have to embark on the sea, you emigrants, you, too, are compelled to this by -- a faith!

Discuss.

Alternatively: suggest good books for beginning to make sense of Nietzsche. Esp. in relation to Heidegger and the overcoming of metaphysics; poetry; the 'homeless' condition.

K-blimey I'm enjoying this book!!!

Where's a good place to start with Nietzsche? 'Birth of Tragedy'? or 'Zarathustra'?

http://www.aliviastoys.com/popples/puffballt2.gif

sorry wrong thread

On the contrary...

right thread

oops :(

Best place to start is Twilight of the Idols then maybe Beyond Good and Evil.

depends on where you're coming from and what you want out of it

yeah but then Twilight of the Idols would probably be a good place to start for anyone. Maybe also Ecce Homo, for further lols and springboarding into other areas. I wouldn't start with either Birth of Tragedy (unless you feel like tracing the development of his thought in detail) or Zarathustra.

beyond good and evil, then genealogy, then gay science, then zarathustra, and then, well, whatever you like I guess....

I'd say The Gay Science.

i started with genealogy of morality and i think its as good a place to start as any--pretty good summation of ntz's late thoughts on religion, politics, morality, to some extent 'metaphysics'

i think gay science and zarathustra are great places to start, so im not sure why people are saying not to, but its fair to point out that theyre very 'poetic' and not quite as direct as something like birth of tragedy or genealogy

sometimes i tell people to start with Heidegger's lecture course on nietzsche just to spite them.

what a mean intellectual trick to play on them u bad grad student

you know, come to think of it, that's not a bad place to start!

He does have some valid points, but when he expands on women... I run for cover.

^^^ this is OTM

In many cases, to be sure, "peace of soul" is merely a misunderstanding—something else, which lacks only a more honest name. Without further ado or prejudice, a few examples. "Peace of soul" can be, for one, the gentle radiation of a rich animality into the moral (or religious) sphere. Or the beginning of weariness, the first shadow of evening, of any kind of evening. Or a sign that the air is humid, that south winds are approaching. Or unrecognized gratitude for a good digestion (sometimes called "love of man").

^ I still love shit like this tho looool

Read Walter Kauffman's book(s) on him(incl. the _Existentialism from Dosteovsky to..._). Kauffman also did the better translations of the guy.

Kauffman's zinger: "Everything Nietzsche knew about women was second-hand and third-rate."

Somewhat unrelated note, but Kauffman taught the guy whose classes on philosophy/existentialism I took as while still a young dorkling at Michigan.

Definitely the Genealogy of Morality. I teach it in my Intro courses almost every semester. Skip Book II on first reading, though; that's not where the action is.

there is hell of action in book II--

We Germans certainly do not think of ourselves as an especially cruel and hard-hearted people, even less as particularly careless people who live only in the present. But just take a look at our old penal code in order to understand how much trouble it takes on this earth to breed a “People of Thinkers” (by that I mean the European people among whom today we still find a maximum of trust, seriousness, tastelessness, and practicality, and who, with these characteristics, have a right to breed all sorts of European mandarins). These Germans have used terrible means to make themselves a memory in order to attain mastery over their vulgar basic instincts and their brutal crudity: think of the old German punishments, for example, stoning ( — the legend even lets the mill stone fall on the head of the guilty person), breaking on the wheel (the most characteristic invention and specialty of the German genius in the realm of punishment!), impaling on a stake, ripping people apart or stamping them to death with horses (“quartering”), boiling the criminal in oil or wine (still done in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), the well-loved practice of flaying (“cutting flesh off in strips”), carving flesh out of the chest, and probably covering the offender with honey and leaving him to the flies in the burning sun.

definitely the grossest essay in the book

btw if ur looking for good secondaries i recommend this bad boy highly:

http://www.amazon.com/Reading-New-Nietzsche-David-Allison/dp/0847689794

i like kaufmann a lot, and appreciate what he did for american nietzsche scholarship, but i think he misses a lot of what is totally awesome about nietzsche's thought.

Putting the Bosch back into the Boche up there.

I'm pretty fond of the end of Book I, when he quotes Aquinas and Tertullian to the effect that Christians long to see the wicked tortured eternally in hell, and so they're just as fond of power and cruelty as the "beasts of prey" Nietzsche favors. But in 1.5 hours I will teach the part of Book III on the Assassins to our majors, and that is probably my favorite bit in anything N wrote.

surprised by the lack of BGE love!

thanks max that looks like a good read!

i like BGE. also i have kaufmann's philosopher psychologist antichrist book and it's v. good and made me smarter

yeah but u dont like peter gabriel so is ur opinion really worth anything at all

jk like i said i like kaufmann i just think sticking with kaufmann solo is going to give u a very one-sided reading

btw robert allison who wrote "reading the new nietzsche" is also the editor of this way cool little book:

http://www.amazon.com/New-Nietzsche-Contemporary-Styles-Interpretation/dp/0262510340

which i have never finished

Our publisher just quoted Nietzsche in the monthly letter he sends out announcing who won the cartoon contest.

i agree with u max, no hard feelings about PG

w/ N skip the secondary lit and go for the source; there are decent translations, and he's such a fun read. Though after 7 years of teaching him I still get nervous doing so.

theres absolutely no reason not to actually read the ntz--and yes nietzsche happens to be a great a lucid writer for a german philosopher!--but if youre going for it w/ no background and without reading it in a class it can be v. helpful to have a guide to process whats going on--less so maybe with a text like genealogy but if nothing else reading a secondary can help you place n. in a larger historical context which imho is crucial to getting as much as you can out of it

sure; there are still some issues in N that I'm really confused above, e.g. N says that we are the will to power and nothing more, but how does that square with our seeming to be flesh-and-blood? Is will flesh-and-blood? It's the sort that's probably talked up in the secondary lit but I think it's good to struggle with it myself, in the spirit of being a yes-sayer.

part of the problem with the secondary too is that there is about 1000000000000000000000000 things written about neech and 90% of it, especially in english, is either 'misogynist/fascist, dont read' or ayn rand-style readings or just straight-up batshit... i recommend allison to ppl i know who want to 'do' nietzsche cause its pretty even-handed, straightforward, and clear (you know, all the things that nietzsche himself isnt)

yeah i took stuff in undergrad about him but not an entire class and i feel like i need secondary txts once in a while (also i was a math major, so lol). it makes reading the real thing more fun if you have more context.

and i was gonna say what max just said, with most things written about him being wrong people go in with wrong ideas and go "oh yeah i can see why ppl say he is a proto-nazi" and then read the whole thing wrong

Max, what do you think of dear, departed Robert Solomon?

anyone read karl lowith on nietzsche? thoughts?

(Tbf, I'd probably rather go see the latter and would be able to hum a tune from it more easily.)

The reason nazis misunderstand him is not because they mistakenly thinks he hated Jews, but because they think he liked Germans.

a. i don't think he hates jews though he clearly blames them for the slave mentality & christianity. nb that i think he misunderstands judaism (which does not jettison discipline for mercy but takes a moderate path btwn the two).

b. putting aside whether he liked germans, his philosophy clearly resonated w the nazis. maybe the nazis didn't like the german either as having been corrupted by jewish meekness, but insofar as they were executing his program of strength, dominance, power etc (nb to the extent that it could be separated from ressentiment) they're on the same page.

c. "Cowardice is underlined in the word xaxo/v,12 as in deilo/v13 (the plebeian in contrast to the a0gaqo/v): perhaps this gives a clue as to where we should look for the ety- mological derivation of the ambiguous term a0gaqo/v.14 In the Latin word malus15 (to which I juxtapose me/lav)16 the common man could be char- acterized as the dark-skinned and especially the dark-haired man (‘hic niger est –’),17 as the pre-Aryan occupant of Italian soil who could most easily be distinguished from the blond race which had become dominant, namely the Aryan conquering race, by its colour; at any rate, I have found exactly the same with Gaelic peoples, – fin (for example in Fin-gal), the word designating the aristocracy and finally the good, noble, pure, was originally a blond person in contrast to the dark-skinned, dark-haired native inhabitants." i mean what are we talking about here if not the obvious.

sorry the greek c/p got all fucked up

I've never really gotten his theory of the a0gaqo, I have to admit.

for some comparison and sorry i know i'm being as inflammatory as possible making this link but i think it lays out clearly some of the obvious sympathies btwn FN and AD:

"The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision." H. Rauschning Hitler speaks, p.220

"Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear." Rauschning op. cit. p.222

i do nietzsche suggests in other parts of GM that i've read that the jewish innovation into the human complicated but made more interesting the human figure - that in some way it was a contribution to humanity even if ultimately it corrupted humanity and needs to overcome. but by prioritizing and privileging the master (the blond, the powerful, etc) over the slave he is clearly taking sides and lo and behold it turns out to be the exact same side that the fascists took but i'm supposed to believe that they're the ones that are confused!

sorry i'm typing one-handed while holding baby, getting kids ready for bed so so many typos

I'd definitely say he hated Jews. He seems to have hated everyone. Nazis didn't read Nietzsche, they read Nietzsche as edited by his proto-nazi sister, which probably helped the resonance.

but they could've just read GM where all the quotes above appear

He was forever railing against the stupidity of anti-Semitism, so I'm not sure how that tallies with the idea that he hated Jews.

Though I suppose it gave him another good reason to hate Germans.

I'm not quite sure what your argument is, but it's beyond discussion that Nietzsche loathed German nationalism, anti-semitism (while still, as I would say, hating Jews) and Wagner, and that that was toned down after his mental illness by his sister, leading to a much more unequivocal embrace by the nazis. They did very much get him wrong. That does not mean it's particularly wrong to call him a hateful psychopath or whatever you want to call him.

yeah i don't think he hates jews (tho my opinion on this is constantly evolving) but i do think he "hates" judaism but again i think a. he doesn't fully hate it (he appreciates that it forced humanity to change and in some ways that change was not good), and b. he doesn't really get judaism except as the progenitor of christianity. he blames the jews for jesus (and that their hatred of him was feigned in order to get the critique assimilated into hellenism) but he really should see that the reason jews hate jesus is the same reason he does - bc jesus abrogated the covenant and abolished the obligations entirely in favor of redemption/mercy. but judaism is not all that merciful as anyone who has read the OT knows. i thought "he must know this himself" and my conclusion is that maybe he felt like once the kernel of 'slave mentality' was permitted, even moderated and mediated, it is inherently totalizing and christianity was the inevitable conclusion. you can't just have a little bit of kindness/compassion/whatever - even a little bit keeps opening wider. it's kinda the fundamental logic of egalitarianism (there's always someone new to extend equality to) and BTW that nietzsche will not truck w/ equality i think should be troubling for anyone.

xp tldr if you follow nietzsche's breakdown you will come to a place of psychopathic anti-egalitarianism. that psychopathic anti-egalitarians like him should therefore not be a surprise.

have only read the first half of this but it's an interesting read so far:

https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2397/twilight-of-the-anti-semites/

I'm not sure he does hate Jesus tbh.

again insofar as he appreciates the wrinkle maybe not but idk he really seems to hate jesus

i'm not committed to having a conversation about nietzsche or most philosophical writings anymore, because while i was once interested and invested a lot of time in them, i grew tired of them, but:

Do you have a link or reference for good commentary on these? It doesn't seem like they've been addressed on the thread.

― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, February 11, 2018 2:35 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

try alexander nehamas's book on nietzsche. it goes into how to read him and explains some of his perspectives. i wouldn't spend any money on it, though

also kaufmann is the one translator avid nietzsche readers prefer, at least while i was in university (it's been a very a long time)

anyway the rest of this isn't directed at you sund4r

iirc we spent an extra week reading nietzsche than any other philosopher, for a total of i want to say three weeks, give or take. the first day and a half we went through all the dumb, contradictory, potentially racist/immoral/wacky stuff with our prof saying there was strong indication that he suffered from mental illness and psychotic episodes from very early in life. so this contributed to his unconventional writings, because they weren't treaties or systematic texts, and at one point N actually said his writings weren't supposed to be systematic, which would make his writings professionally unphilosophical for the time, but you know, people got interested

and that's kind of the thing. the wacky stuff is due to him essentially dropping into a subject and taking a quick shit and bailing. he described it as taking a quick cold shower and getting out though, as far as i remember? so he knows what he's doing. and then there's his artist side, so he's not a philosopher in the classical sense

we spent a lot of time discussing his critique on christianity and christian-based morals in 19th c western europe. i thought his anti-semitism was debunked by jewish scholars, but i have never read any of them. we certainly never read N's writings as critique of judaism, and judaism was only mentioned, iirc, when comparing how christianity had strayed far from it, but this part is hazy in my mind

the thing i remember from it is how european society was supposedly built on christian morals but there was not a trace of it anywhere, and it was in a moral decline. and we spent a lot of time discussing why N basically hated christianity as it was practiced in 19th c europe

i also remember how N's erratic and meandering writings could be interpreted the opposite way our prof and the class was interpreting him, and there were pretty big assumptions made, which didn't seem to matter to anyone

meh, always felt bad for N but he is good for memes

Erratic and meandering does sound otm. His arguments are pretty half baked.

this book looks cool:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche_and_Asian_Thought

mordy, i've only read GM a little bit, quite a while ago, but a few things come to mind

1. starting at least from GS, i think coincident with his heightened interest in the possibility of knowledge that can be 'incorporated', as well as his overt employment of highly rhetorical personae and tactics (not always the case: compare to the fairly cool restraint of HH), n. starts making what seems to be deliberately ambiguous use of a variety of ethical and philosophical concepts that have, etymologically, physiological or physical 'original' meanings - for instance connected to the roots of virtue in 'strength' as well as excellence, or to 'nobility' and ideas of heredity. but it goes the other way, too, so that he uses concepts with still primarily physiological or physical senses, which he tends to belabor, in senses that appear intentionally not to have repudiated traditional valences they had in religious or philosophical contexts, like the idea of virtue as the health of the soul. the point of the ambiguity is hard to suss out. but

2. in certain ways this makes the overt racialization and biologicalization of the GM genealogies suspicious.

3. i've read, somewhere - i checked a couple books and didn't see it, but perhaps i'm recalling a paper by ken gemes about GM being fairly ironic, which appears in the 'oxford readings in philosophy' collection of papers on nietzsche - a plausible argument that the three essays comprising GM are intentionally internally inconsistent, using among other things the blond beast framing to accomplish... something suitably critical. i forget what. the gemes paper leans on the opening line about how we're strangers to ourselves. the idea would be not that we find out about ourselves immediately from nietzsche's accounts, but that their misleading attractiveness to 'us' for various reasons enables quasi-psychoanalysic possibilities of uncomfortable/unwanted/terrifying self-knowledge.

i think very broadly Nietzsche's attitude towards the monotheistic faiths is similar to an orthodox Marxist's take on capitalism - a necessary evolutionary step in the development of human society which needed to be shucked off as part of the next evolutionary step. when/if he's thinking of humanity as a whole his stance is not the modern atheist's "no God because science". he's only thinking of faith as a human construct and its relations to other human ideological constructs.

how much he understood about the actual experience and meaning of individual people's Jewish/Christian faith in his own time i'm not sure, i think "not that much" and i don't think it mattered too much to him - he deals in archetypes or generalizations. he treats Faith in a similar way to Law - control mechanisms that were outliving their usefulness for the development of the species

the race archetype stuff - Aryans, Celts, Latins etc is indefensible bollocks but was considered reasonably mainstream scientific history at the time, especially in Germany which was the spiritual home of that kind of "science" in the latter 19th century. the notion of waves of racial types subjugating each race that came before them travels a long way into 20th century history, and not just the Nazi variety. which isn't a defence of Nietzsche but an observation of a part of his milieu.

i didn't mean to get into this at this time of the morning but one further thought for me is that there's a constant metaphorical/allegorical element to his work - stuff that can be entirely fairly considered to be political philosophy is always working on at least one level as personal psychological philosophy - "overcoming" and "the will to power" are as much fantasies of personal struggle with state power/ideology as they are blueprints for fascist aggression.

i agree Mordy that it's far too simple to say that right wingers are "misreading" Nietzsche when they find his ideas appealing - but the same is true of the interpreters of the central texts of monotheism - most "bad" actors, even bad faith actors, have based their arguments on defensible - if selective - readings of the texts

sorry i started writing that before j posted so i have to read back what he said too

neh i ain't got much to say, certainly nothing mordy wants to hear ('read slower!')

i'm not sure my reading comprehension is the problem! if anything maybe i need to read quicker to see more contradictions or complications.

make him sound less like a goon, you mean

of GM in Ecce Homo N writes:

"Every time a beginning that is calculated to mislead: cool, scientific, even ironic, deliberately foreground, deliberately holding off. Gradually more unrest; sporadic lightning; very disagreeable truths are heard grumbling in the distance---until eventually a tempo feroce is attained in which everything rushes ahead in a tremendous tension. In the end, in the midst of perfectly gruesome detonations, a new truth becomes visible every time among thick clouds."

and then what is the "new truth" of Book I (the subject of your quotes, Mordy)? In Section 13 of Book I, N writes:

"For just as common people separate the lightning from its flash and take the latter as a doing, as an effect of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from the expressions of strength as if there were behind the strong an indifferent substratum that is free to express strength—or not to. But there is no such substratum: there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is simply fabricated into the doing—the doing is everything."

This is the will to power: a wholesale replacement of the traditional metaphysics of actor and action into a new metaphysics wherein there is only action, only motion; or maybe not such a new metaphysics, for maybe we are back to Heraclitus. But what N highlights here is the consequence of this new metaphysics for attributions of responsibility, on which traditional morality rests: there is no responsibility, the actor cannot be held responsible for his actions, the actor is his actions.

And yet. In the preface to GM (so important, and so neglected) and in Book III N indicates how there is no perspective-independent knowledge. So all the claims of the book, all claims whatsoever, including this one, are only glimpses of something wider, something perhaps ungraspable as a whole by agents like us. In the end a shrug, this is just my opinion, man; and the reader is left to assemble more and more such opinions, and if she has the power, to make herself into more and more of these opinions, of these perspectives, to have one's pro and contra in one's power.

"Admittedly, to practice reading as an art in this way one thing above all is necessary, something which these days has been unlearned better than anything else—and it will therefore be a while before my writings are "readable"—something for which one must almost be a cow and in any case not a "modern man": ruminating..."

Mordy did you ever read BGE?