dietl, on 21 October 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:
Grief, on 21 October 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:
Actually, the Nazi association is largely because of a very biased editing job, iirc, and now people go into it with pre-conceptions that they really ought not to have. To say that he intended it as it was taken by the nazis is unfair, just as it would be unfair to any of the other figures the nazis lauded and used to justify themselves.
Most of what could be called contradictions are probably a result of the narrative framework, which presents more the story of a developing philosophy than a cohesive whole. The book does become much more obscure as it progresses though.
Specifically the way he presents Ubermensch, I felt, was very different to the prejudices the word now carries. Essentially it is someone who can strip themselves of harmful moral/ideological dogmas and achieve self-actualisation - the idea of "going over oneself" and "climbing upon one's own shoulders", as he presents it. He talks about them being built around a morality based upon joy and later talks about why it follows that this is something that should be shared (easy to see how it gets twisted, but he doesn't present it as something that should be imposed, but that people should be guided to where possible, it being a deeply personal thing).
Have you read Beyond Good and Evil? I'd recommend it as a far better starting point, less of the pseudo-religious framework, less oblique references etc.
It might also be worth reading some secondary literature about him.
Well, he was very highly regarded by the nazis and he definitely was a big influence (there are for instance the things about war that come to mind), but I'm not saying that he would have been one. In Zarathustra there is a lot that suggests that Nietzsche would be actively against the things the nazis did. Would he have lived that long he might have told them how they misinterpreted his work.
What bothered me about the "Übermensch" wasn't the whole nazis interpretation, but that he wasn't very specific about it.. The more he wrote about it the more I got the feeling that it was just a naive concept he had in mind. But I can't really tell because I didn't finish Zarathustra.
I'm aware that I didn't give Nietzsche a fair chance, but I got the feeling that he isn't a philosopher that would be worth checking out for me. There are surely alot of good things that can be gotten from reading him but you really have to look past some bad stuff.
Nietzsche is best, imo, as a destructive/critical philosopher. He's very sharp on where other people are just trying to justify the moral outlook they already hold as somehow objective (super common really). I find he gets a little shakier when he starts suggesting what sort of system would be a good replacement, but I still found it interesting.
If his non-specificity bugged you I'd really suggest Beyond Good and Evil as being rather different. It's more concerned with a philosophical discourse and clearly outlining the ideas, rather than being deliberately obscure.
The Ubermensch is certainly idealistic. After all, it's the end point of his proposed system, and so is really comparable to attaining Nirvana, going to Heaven etc. Since his system is more based on what is observably attainable, the Ubermensch essentially represents the ultimate peak of this - that is, being totally and completely happy/at peace etc, having absolutely nothing being a negative effect.
I took it as more the logical end point of his system - a goal. But I don't complain about the idealism much for the same reason I don't complain that the idea of achieving Enlightenment is idealistic - I think it's sort of the point.
It's been a while but I don't think Zarathrustra even claims to have achieved it (at least for large parts of the book, he presents a progression imo), and describes it more as a vision that he is the prophet of.
There are plenty of reasons not to like it. The vague style and tone it adopts is certainly one, and one of my gripes with it. But I wouldn't dismiss Nietszhe based on it. He may not be for you as you suggest, but he does have a range of work, and that's one of his least readable. It's a later work (if major), and I felt the background of his other work made it more accessible. I'd say it's an unfortunate to start with in a lot of ways really. And I wouldn't say the connection with the Nazis is a reason at all really, it kind of bugs me that he gets so coloured by later events. He was undoubtedly prominent in their propoganda, and they definitely did twist parts of his work, but it really is twisted, it just doesn't mean that in context. It's like the association people have with Wagner, or the altered meaning of a Swastika, and I think it's a shame.
Help
