One of the most admired and the most hated philosophers of all time, perhaps no man in history as sharply divides common opinion as Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Like James Joyce in literature and Citizen Kane in film, Nietzsche is the name of choice thrown around by pseudo-intellectuals seeking to show off their sophistication, but few have read anything of substance concerning him, and fewer still truly understand his philosophy. His legacy is forever in darkness due to the worldwide influences of a man who misinterpreted Nietzsche's teachings to a tragic degree, a man called Adolf Hitler. Nonetheless, if there is one philosopher I would recommend everyone take another look at, he supplants all the rest.
I will begin with a short biography. I find it’s useful to know a philosopher’s life story in order to better understand their work and what may lie behind it, but I realize that not everyone agrees. If you really don’t care, feel free to skip this paragraph.
Born in 1844 in Germany, Nietzsche was the son of a prominent and devout Christian minister. When he was four, his father died suddenly of a brain disease, and his two-year old brother joined him in oblivion six months later, the first of a long line of misfortunes and disappointments that would solidify his dark outlook on humanity. He studied theology to become a priest like his father, but he soon became almost fanatically disillusioned of Christianity. He was drafted, and when he was 23, he was seriously injured after being thrown off his horse. A brilliant philologist, he was made a professor at age 24, and soon began an acquaintance with the famous composer Wagner. As he reached his thirties, his world began to fall apart. His health worsened, and in 1876, a marriage proposal to a Dutch piano student was rejected. Around this time, he became disillusioned with his former friend Wagner (he hated a work that Wagner declared a masterpiece), most of his other acquaintances, and with Germany in general. His health worsened, and he resigned from his professorship. He gave up German citizenship and began traveling around Europe, never staying in the same place for long. He fell in love with another girl in Rome, Lou Salome, but once again, he was refused. Salome would later become a disciple of Sigmund Freud, who would be influenced greatly by Nietzsche’s philosophy and psychology. Nietzsche’s physical and mental condition worsened, but at this time he wrote his most famous works. Then, in 1889, he suffered a complete mental breakdown. In a scene oddly reminiscent of one in Dostoevski’s Crime and Punishment, Nietzsche was walking through the streets when he saw a man whipping a horse. He threw his arms around the horse’s neck in protest and lapsed into complete insanity. He lived with his mother for seven years until she died, then was taken care of by his sister Elisabeth until his death. This sister was an important character in her own right, for she had married a Nazi (against Nietzsche’s requests), and sought to establish an anti-Semitic colony. She would later attempt to complete a few of his later works, and would be instrumental in introducing Nietzsche’s words to the purposes of Hitler’s Nazi Party.
Now to the substance of the issue. Many philosophers criticize Nietzsche for several reasons. One is the style of his philosophizing. A writer by nature, his ideas are often put forth as statements. Unlike the more analytical philosophers, he does not spend much time proving points, and often they are in the form of little anecdotes or concealed by literary devices. This makes him more interesting to read, and very quotable, but leads to some going so far as to say that he isn’t even a philosopher. Many of his ideas can be supported, even if he does not do it himself, and if one clears ones’ mind enough, even the rest seem to make a great deal of sense and are difficult to argue against. At the very least, he makes no more assumptions than the rest of us, and even those opposed to his claims must decide what it is that makes their own beliefs any better than his. Another problem is that his writing is often laced with personal vendettas and obsessions that occasionally obscure the more universal points. Barbs against contemporary figures that he dislikes (such as Wagner) are fairly common. The greatest of these, however, is his rabid anti-Christianity. He sometimes saw himself as the Antichrist, and his books are largely directed towards criticizing Christianity and its ideals. He is also fairly humorous in his rather sexist view of women, but it is unclear just how sincere his comments against them are.
Of course, many of you are wondering when I will actually get to his ideas. As I have said before, he is a fantastic writer, and no way better could I describe his ideas than in his own words. I had better begin by giving you an idea of his main points to put his own statements into context. He saw human characteristics split into two main groups, Apollonian (intellectual, logical, etc.) and Dionysian (emotional, full of desires, etc.) and insisted a balance of both was important. An overriding idea in his work deals with the idea of a “superman”. This superman is unaffected by the Christian-propagated morality that keeps great men from achieving. He emphasized that there was no absolute morality, but that the strong man creates his own. He was an Egoist, and a staunch supporter of the artistic enterprise. He focused on the enjoyment of this life, and fought against conviction, particularly of the religious variety. Since quoting Nietzsche is such a staple of intellectual culture, here is a stockpile of philosophical ammunition for you to impress your colleagues with.
The higher we soar, the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.
Man is something to be overcome.
The masses seem to me worthy of notice in only three respects: first as blurred copies of great men, produced on bad paper with worn plates, further as a resistance to the great, and finally as the tools of the great; beyond that, may the devil and statistics take them.
Christianity gave Eros poison to drink; he did not die of it, but degenerated into a vice.
The last Christian died on the cross.
The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
Insanity is the exception in individuals. In groups, parties, people, and times, it is the rule.
There are no facts, only interpretations.
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
Faith: not wanting to know what is true.
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
Although the most acute judges of the witches and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchery, the guilt nevertheless was non-existent. It is thus with all guilt.
And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.
Art is not merely an imitation of the reality of nature, but in truth a metaphysical supplement to the reality of nature, placed alongside thereof for its conquest.
At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
Egoism is the very essence of a noble soul.
Fanatics are picturesque, mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.
He who has a strong enough why can bear almost any how.
In large states public education will always be mediocre, for the same reason that in large kitchens the cooking is usually bad.
Is life not a thousand times too short for us to bore ourselves?
It is always consoling to think of suicide: in that way one gets through many a bad night.
It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them!
Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.
Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.
There cannot be a God because if there were one, I could not believe that I was not He.
There is always some madness in love. But there is also always some reason in madness.
When one has not had a good father, one must create one.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.
What is done out of love takes place beyond good and evil
(And of course, The Big One, the three words that Woody Allen claims as the beginning of the era of modern man.)
God is dead. (full quote below)
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!" As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances. "Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God's decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto." Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves." It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: "what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?"
4.30.2005
Nietzsche
Posted by
Eriatlov
at
6:29 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
just i can say
Nietzshe know me
the Man is God
Thank you for highlighting Neitzsche. I believe he was hated so because he said things that other people think but are afraid to verbalize. He was grossly misunderstood and I believe he took some pleasure in knowing that only kindred spirits would understand his wordplay. Thanks for being a friend of Neitzsche. Michelle
I tried reading a Nietzsche book...BEYOND GOOD & EVIL and I just couldnt. hahaha Perhaps if I was breastfed as an infant I could read him but...I will have to stick to snippets and profound quotes.
I don't think his legacy will forever be in darkness. You seem to be recomending his readings, who say's others won't do the same?
"There are no facts, only interpretations."
- from Nietzsche's Nachlass.
interesting site about existentialism, by the way you can visit www.kurzweilai.net -cool site, more on scientific studies and accelerating inteliigence
I like the setup. I don't know much about what you're talking about though. So I guess I should either read more or get out more huh? Lol
Hey thanks for the comment glad you like my poetry. I like your blog its pretty cool. well talk to you later bye
Hey Albert I'm wuyen from 'Stop Discrimination of the Vertically Challenged' and I've come to visit your blog!
Unfortunately contrary to what you believe I can't understand the contents of your blog haha! I'm totally not philosophical in any way but I'm glad you took notice of my blog anyway. I just prefer to spout nonsense once a while hee.
Hope to see you pretty often in my blog!
Hey, Marcela Paz, if you like Nietzsche so much, learn how to spell his name. I'll bet you pronounce it with a long E at the end, too. LOL You know, Nietzsche hated people asking him to teach them to be philosophers and to live like him. That's totally missing the point of everything Nietzsche teaches us. If he heard you call him God, he'd tell you that. If you're idolizing Nietzsche, you might as well just be a Christian. You don't get it.
Leave the philospehr to tend his own..it's mind's like his that open up the world view..not just point and banter,neener-neener..keep it up..expand our mind's..some are just to vast to ingest his keen mentality..i get you..I hear you..write on.
Hi Eriatlov,
I have been reading your site and really dig it. This is from my blog, accordingtomichelle and I'd like to know your thoughts on my most recent pontification:
PONTIFICATION_On The Secret to True Love
Love is nothing more than ones interpretation of certain "feelings" which are caused by chemical reactions in the brain. Based on experience, a person is able to sort out "feelings" that are pleasant and those that are unpleasant and arrive at a personal definition of what these "feelings" mean. The pursuit of "true love" is a fantasy. It is important to note that exploration of these chemical sensations can prove to be gratifying, but only temporarily. It is difficult to top extraordinary sensations like "falling in love" and like a drug, constant pursuit will just increase the level of chemicals in the brain required to sustain happiness. Those who journey for a lifetime in pursuit of "the one" will likely find the goal unattainable because with each relationship, the expectation of "happiness" will increase. In the end, they will be empty and over-stimulated. Those who choose to "settle down" and accept the gratification they have, can at least expect to enjoy a predictable level of stimulation.
Thank you for your support and your thoughts, Michelle. Your comment carries particular relevance to a certain other contributor on this site, who claims to be madly in love forever and ever. Like you, I am cynical about this kind of thing and have a standing wager with said contributor that his chemical infatuation will soon run out of steam. I would agree with your assertion that, like a drug, these chemical obsessions eventually lose their potency, but I am not entirely convinced their pursuit is wholly without merit.
In particular, I question the ability of an individual to "settle down and accept the gratification they have", for the same reasons you give to the nature of love. Any form, or almost any, of "gratification" is bound by the same chemical nature as "love" and is doomed to the same 'experiential tolerance'. A "predictable level of stimulation" will surely get used to the same as love, if not chemically, then psychologically. Love is perhaps a doomed striving, as you say, but one might argue that these stridings upward are essential to the true enjoyment of life. Even if the end is unreachable, the struggle itself ultimately brings the enjoyment. Life itself is a drug, and no matter what we do, we will never be able to maintain any sort of gratification for any considerable period of time once we have achieved it. As my father once explained (he's a mathematician, so bear with his choice of analogies), "It is not the value of the function that counts, but the value of the derivative."
Quite fortunately, I have in my possession a relevant quote, from the namesake of this topic himself. With perhaps a slight stretch of the imagination, it summarizes the conflict of whether the pursuit of love is ultimately beneficial, whether it is better to experience those peaks of gratification that soon fall into "emptiness and overstimulation", or whether it is better to follow a simple, stable, "predictable level" of enjoyment.
"Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent."
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
Here's a thought: I think that if one is going to say that Nietzsche is misunderstood because people don't take the time to read him and really understand him, then one also has to agree the same for Christianity. I am not saying that this is in fact the case, but if the argument is going to be made to defend N. in this way, so also it is the case that many people have wrongly dismissed Christianity. Just a thought.
Kyle,
A fair claim you have made. However, there is a glitch. Those who dismiss Christianity as fallacious, ridiculous, or evil (or all of the above), more often than not know more about Christianity than the majority of Christians do.
For example, Bertrand Russell, the humanitarian philosopher actually became a philospher partly in search of validation for Christianity (or any other religion). Only after obtaining extensive knowledge about the history, theology, and teachings of Christianity did he dismiss it as fallacious. Similarly, many atheists or agnostics know quite a bit about Christian theology and Church history--indeed a significant amount more than most people of faith do.
For these reasons, I think that your claim does not hold true in most situations. It may in some, though.
Good thinking though, it is always good to try to make connections where it seems plausible to do so.
Moreover, I neglected to mention that I think that it is this very plethora of knowledge about Christian history and theology that in fact causes many to turn away from it. Conversely, it is the lack of knowledge about Nietzsche that causes people to turn away from him. Thus, the analogy does not quite work.
I would agree and disagree with you. I agree that there are "some" who know more about Christianity and subsequently dismiss it. However, I ask from where does their knowledge of Christianity come? My take (I am biased, being a New Testament PhD) is that all understanding of Christianity as it should be must come from this source. Knowledge of Christianity based on experience or study of its history is inadequate, just as knowledge of Nietzsche based on stories told of him and not his writings is inadequate. So, I would still say that lack of real knowledge of Christianity is primarily causes people to dismiss it. Knowledge of the legacy of Christianity is not the same as picking up the New Testament and genuinely attempting to understand what it is all about. I am not saying that people will find it compelling (like Russell, though I think he did not have adequate knowledge of it, either). I am saying that a proper understanding of CHristianity comes from reading the material, just as proper understanding of N. comes from reading his stuff; and I think for both there are many who have not rightly understood.
Additionally, understanding both N. and Christianity from the source material involves interpretation; so what is the locus of N.'s thought? Similarly, what is the locus of Christianity? There are still problems, but nevertheless, one must begin with the source documents for a proper understanding, whether it is Neitzsche or Christianity or James Joyce!
A humorous quote about Nietzsche (I remain neutral regarding its truth value!):
"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." Leo Tolstoy
We can at least be certain that the latter claim is true. As for the former, I cite my neutrality.
There are indeed many aspects of Christianity as it is understood and practiced today that are not derived specifically from the New Testament, and it might be best, as Kyle says, to consider the original source. My fellow contributor Mr. Berriz, as I have remarked to him, carries many ideas about morality that are quite Christian at their core. However, the faults I find with Christianity lies not only with the fringes and historical hypocrisy of Christianity but with this core itself. As Berriz suggests, the core ideas of Christianity are not unknown to atheists and agnostics as well as Christians and the bible is widely read at least in parts. Nietzsche is often known only through association with Nazi Fascism and a few quotes out of context, primarily "God is dead", which is why I have included more context so the reader can identify the slightly more complicated sentiments behind the statement. It is unfair, however, to claim that people like Bertrand Russell, who have extensively studied the very foundational works you claim as the basis of Christianity and found articulable reasons why they are in error simply "did not have adequate knowledge of it". If they misinterpreted something in their analyses, it is your job to point out specifics. Ultimately, the clouded, dark, often shockingly disturbing nature of Christian history largely stems from flaws in the source ideas themselves, perhaps as much as faulty interpretations of them.
I would say that the flaws are from the faulty interpretations and not the sources. It is also the job of those who find problems with Christianity to be more specific in how the problems with the history of Christianity stem from the sources themselves more than faulty interpretations and misuse of those sources. Where do I respond to Russell's problems with Christianity? Here on the site or somewhere else?
I love this blog.
Post a Comment