Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der

10 thoughts on “Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft

  1. J.G. Keely J.G. Keely says:

    I can think of few instances where an author's reputation is different from the reality of who he was what he believed and what he wrote perhaps only Machiavelli has been as profoundly misunderstood by history Today Nietzsche tends to be thought of as a depressive nihilist a man who believed in nothing and an apologist for the atrocities of fascism but no description could be further from the truthThere probably are not many men who had reason than Nietzsche to feel resentful and miserable he grew up a sickly child prone to severe headaches which often left him literally blind with pain Then during his brief career in the cavalry he tore several muscles in his side and while serving as a medical orderly in the Franco Prussian war contracted a number of diseases These incidents would affect his health for the rest of his life leaving him bedridden and in pain for hours or days at a timeIt would not have been unreasonable to give in to misery and bitterness under such conditions but on those days when Nietzsche felt well enough to write he would emerge from his room with renewed passion and vigor taking long walks in the beauty of the countryside before returning home to labor in producing a philosophy not of misery but of joy Contrary to his reputation Nietzsche rejected nihilism outright he thought that if the world does not provide your life with a clear meaning it is up to you to go out and find one or create one not to wallow and whingeLikewise he spent much of his life railing against the foolishness of nationalism and bigotry indeed his famed falling out with the composer Wagner was over the increasingly nationalistic style of music the latter was producing So that being the case how did he gain such an unfortunate reputation at all?The first reason is that after his death his sister took over his estate and as she herself was a German nationalist and anti semite as was her prominent husband she had a number of her brother's papers rewritten to support these execrable positions and then published them posthumously in his name Of course this couldn't have fooled anyone actually familiar with Nietzsche's works and ideas as the rewrites were in direct contradiction to his previous writings but it still fooled manyThe second problem with the interpretation of his work is one that mirrors Machiavelli precisely the author's observations on the nature of the world are mistaken for suggestions for how the world should be It's like reading a book about crime scene investigation and because it admits that murder exists and describes the methods by which is is done assuming that it is an instruction book for murderers when in fact it is the opposite an instruction of how to combat them and stop themBoth Nietzsche and Machiavelli had a similar approach so the world can be a brutal place a place where people gain power not by being wise and respected but by dominating and taking advantage of others what are we going to do about it? For Nietzsche one of the necessary things we must do to free ourselves from this dominance over body and mind is to recognize that 'good' and 'evil' are just words words that have been used by the powerful to justify anything they might choose to do their 'just wars' against the 'evil foe' while that foe invariably preaches the same story in reverse painting themselves as the hero while in actuality both sides are motivated by greed and the desire for powerTo say that someone is 'evil' is to say that they have no rational motivation for what they do that we should not attempt to understand them but should oppose them without thinking about why It's a powerful tool to deny reality and so as individuals if we refuse to accept definitions of what is good or evil as they are handed down by those in power we will have taken the first step to freeing ourselves from mental tyrannyThis was what Nietzsche meant by 'The Superman' that the man of the future if he is to be free cannot allow anyone else to define his life for him cannot take authority for granted but must uestion the world without as well as the world within to discover for himself what is important and what is true His famous 'Will to Power' is the personal decision to wrest control of your life from those who would seek to dominate you To be free means being a philosopherAnd this is something I have tried to achieve for myself; but to unwind prejudice and ignorance is a lifelong battle and I'm certainly grateful to have in my search an ally like Nietzsche and the late Nietzsche scholar Rick Roderick Many have been the days when I felt run down and exhausted put upon and disrespected by an impersonal world bent on breaking to its will and at those times Nietzsche's joyful and witty deconstruction of that ridiculous artificial world has proven an invaluable comfort to me There is no authority who can tell you who you are no church no government no university no job and no individual In the end it is up to you to create yourself

  2. Bniep Bniep says:

    I recommend but with a warning The vast majority of people will not get much out of this book Filtering through these reviews I see a lot of people who are clearly not meant for Nietzsche's writing They tend to fall under a couple of categories1 Easily Offended when Nietzsche says something they find offensive they are turned off reading the book Nietzsche will offend you However2 People who make a superficial reading and criticize accordingly This follows from 1 Those who are initially offended always seek ways to find themselves offended and read Nietzsche like he was an idiot Seek and ye shall find If you want to read Nietzsche as such he will give you plenty of material 3 Those who want a clear list of premises and a linear argument Nietzsche's thought is ordered Much of this book develops thematically though and not through premises Some won't like that style but there is a reason Nietzsche is renowned for his writing This leads into4 People who don't think like Nietzsche Because Nietzsche doesn't write straight treatises you need to understand the lines of thought he proposes Those who don't see those lines commonly write negative reviews complaining about how Nietzsche doesn't prove his assertions This leads to the final5 People who don't understand Nietzsche's project This also has a lot to do with Nietzsche's style This book is not supposed to give formally structured arguments If you read Nietzsche according to some rubric you deem appropriate you miss his point entirely Suggestions1 Just because something is wrong it doesn't mean it lacks value Stop reading Nietzsche like a science textbook filled with facts Also stop reading him like he is attempting to make a logically impenetrable argument in defense of a single thesis 2 Look for the nuances and appreciate them Was Nietzsche a misogynist? Yes He was also a very thoughtful misogynist whose writings on women actually do hold some value He contextualizes these passage in the introduction to that section where he explicitly recognizes his own prejudices as a personal stupidity Read in that light his comments are actually uite interesting Secondly he writes of the condition of woman in many passages not woman as a fixed essence The two are uite distinct Much of what is offensive at first glance is actually passing judgment upon the character of humanity at large When he argues for example that men had good reason for not allowing women to speak in church he isn't making an argument that women are inferior to men Rather it is an argument based upon the euality of sexes He doesn't want to give women the chance to prove themselves just as foolish as men Behind their silence Nietzsche notes they are untainted by their real nature Whether or not you take Nietzsche to be making a serious suggestion here he is obviously not making a offhand misogynistic comment In the same way we don't dismiss the Greeks on the grounds of their caste based society it is silly to dismiss Nietzsche for a misogyny he acknowledges as his own weakness 3 Nietzsche writes to spark a line of thoughts and uestions not to answer all of them Tons of the complaints start from the presupposition that Nietzsche should write according to a goal they have established for him If you don't understand Nietzsche's goals don't fashion your own for him 4 It is entirely possible that you are not the type of person who can identify with Nietzsche on any sort of personal level His work isn't meant to be read in a removed way If you don't understand his criticisms on a personal and emotional level not just logically this book may not be for you Just don't make the leap and call him unintelligent or a loose cannon Most of the times it is his readers that are bringing excessive emotion to the book and their emotional reading that renders it obtuse

  3. Samadrita Samadrita says:

    Beyond Good and Evil simplified by Nietzsche's Ghost with the borrowed use of an uncouth female GR reviewer's desktopiI hate Germans and their silly jingoistic sense of self worth iiWomen are fucking stupid and have no depth 'They're not even shallow' It is with Germans almost as it is with women one never fathoms their depths; they don't have any that is all iiiNo bloody German university or professor spares a thought for my writings Miserable old fools I approve of the lone goodly Danish professor who sees the value of my work though Ten years and nobody in Germany has felt bound in conscience to defend my name against the absurd silence under which it lies buried it was a foreigner a Dane who first possessed sufficient refinement of instinct and courage for this who felt outraged by my alleged friends ivScrew notions of traditional moralityvScrew the Church Screw religion The concept of God invented as a counterconcept of life everything harmful poisonous slanderous the whole hostility unto death against life synthesized in this concept in a gruesome unity The concept of beyond the true world invented in order to devaluate the only world there is in order to retain no goal no reason no task for our earthly reality viScrew Martin Luther for restoring Christianity at the very moment it was on the verge of annihilation viiJews are cool So was ZarathustraviiiEurope and the world are headed along the path of war and destruction the likes of which have never been witnessed before For when truth enters into a fight with the lies of millennia we shall have upheavals a convulsion of earthuakes a moving of mountains and valleys the like of which has never been dreamed of The concept of politics will have merged entirely with a war of spirits; all power structures of the old society will have been exploded all of them are based on lies there will be wars the like of which have never yet been seen on earth Disclaimer Before I am labeled a philistine and the philosophy majors Nietzsche enthusiasts Doctoral students and venerated college professors descend on me with their metaphorical pitchforks the format of this review is not to be considered a veiled mockery of the great philosopher or an affront to his ideas Just a flippant response to a first reading To be taken in good humor

  4. Keith Keith says:

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with him Friedrich Nietzsche was an angry little man who protected himself from the Mean Old World by swaddling himself in an exaggerated ego and an even exaggerated moustacheRather than suggest that you read any or all of his works I've taken the liberty of creating a Nietzsche Book Generator that you can use to construct your very own philosophical tomes in the comfort of your own homeJust follow these simple steps1 Make one or completely ridiculous claims2 Cover your ass by asserting that anyone who disagrees with you is simply too stupid to understand what you're saying aka The Emperor's New Clothes method of argument3 When you run out of things to say just write the most misogynistic thing that comes to mind4 Be sure to dazzle the reader with your endless supply of Latin clichés5 Repeat steps 1 4 two hundred times or so and you've got yourself a bookThen all that's left is to sit back and prepare to be taken seriously by a large number of otherwise intelligent people

  5. Trevor Trevor says:

    290 Every deep thinker is afraid of being understood than of being misunderstoodIf Nietzsche had started here – rather than nearly ending with this thought – he might have been comprehensible His readers might have said – ‘oh right so that is how it is going to be is it? We’re dealing with some smart arse that is going to play games with us – well play away’But he doesn’t start here – he starts here“SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman what then?”Now my lecturer at university got very excited over this idea In fact he was writing his doctorate on precisely this idea – called it something like ‘Nietzsche’s Women’ So I pretty much read this book as if it was written as an exploration of truth being defined as whatever a sort of German version of Victorian sexual relationships would have had the stereotype of ‘woman’ be And really Nietzsche to me simply doesn’t sustain this metaphor at all Later in the work when he talks of women a highly sexist version of women admittedly but he talks of women not of truth I ought to say something about how the book is structured Firstly there is a Preface nine parts and a final sort of ramble that I guess is supposed to be uite ‘artistic’ The whole is divided into 296 numbered paragraphs Some of these paragraphs can go for a couple of pages which gets to be a pain in the bum to read as they are thick text and uite dense Others are aphorisms and can be uite direct “141 The belly is the reason man does not easily take himself for a god” – or obscure to the point of incomprehensibility “184 There is a wild spirit of good naturedness that looks like malice” Some of these end up on desk calendars most don’tThe paragraphs which I think my lecturer must have struggled over most were those from 233 to 239 – where Nietzsche discusses the ‘weaker sex’ This seems to me to be standard sexist nonsense and says nothing interesting about either women or truth Right then – my division of the spoilsThe GoodFrom 247 “The preacher was the only one in Germany who knew the weight of a syllable or a word in what manner a sentence strikes springs rushes flows and comes to a close; he alone had a conscience in his ears often enough a bad conscience for reasons are not lacking why proficiency in oratory should be especially seldom attained by a German or almost always too late The masterpiece of German prose is therefore with good reason the masterpiece of its greatest preacher the BIBLE has hitherto been the best German book Compared with Luther's Bible almost everything else is merely literature something whichhas not grown in Germany and therefore has not taken and does not take root in German hearts as the Bible has done”I like this because I think it is based on a profound truth that texts written that are not written to be voiced often do sound hollow and lack something very important I also liked some of the aphorisms not least “132 One is punished most for one’s virtues” yeah tell me about it and the final one which since I first read it about 20 years ago has stayed in my memory and been something I have sought to avoid “185 ‘I do not like it’ – Why? – ‘I am not up to it’ – has anyone ever answered like that?” I would like to think that I have tried to be someone who has answered like that – that is to admit to myself if no one else when I have not understood something because it is beyond me But this aphorism is even deeper than this – nevertheless one should seek to avoid talking of disliking something because it hurts one’s vanity in its being too far beyond where one is currently up toThe BadI find his rants against democracy and socialism – against what he calls the ‘herd mentality’ – uite obnoxious From 202 after discussing Anarchists who are “Apparently in opposition to the peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution ideologues and still so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a free society those are really at one with them all in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than that of the AUTONOMOUS herd to the extent even of repudiating the notions master and servant ni dieu ni maitre says a socialist formula; at one in their tenacious opposition to every special claim every special right and privilege this means ultimately opposition to EVERY right for when all are eual no one needs rights any longer;” the rant continues on and on in yet another example of Nietzsche’s endless sentences – and one I can only assume that doesn’t read terribly well even in German despite his own advice uoted earlier As one who is proud to call out – even in French if necessary – Neither God nor Master his rants did nothing to convince me otherwise Having seen some of the morons who float to the top and call themselves ‘cream’ – I will happily struggle against every special right and special claimHis criticism of the English in 252 “It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race to hold on firmly to Christianity they NEED its discipline for moralizing and humanizing” is the sort of trite and pointless nonsense meant only as an insult that undermines his arguments generallyThe EvilI have a rather visceral reaction to some topics – eugenics is one that poisons the very depths of my heart’s blood I find it hard to think clearly about something that I have such a potent reaction against – and naturally Nietzsche is uite in favour of such hideous excesses When he doesn’t talk about Darwin in contempt he reiterates the least interesting conclusion the need for a ‘struggle for existence’ to strengthen the ‘race’ oh how the rightwing love such notions as ‘survival of the fittest’ – as if human culture wasn’t premised on mutual protection to make us strong despite all of our frailties – see for example 262 “A species arises a type becomes fixed and strong through protracted struggle against essentially constant unfavourable conditions” – oh yeah says who? And so he begins his most obnoxious part of the work “What is Noble?” with the line “Every elevation of the type ‘man’ has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society” Or in 258 “Its an aristocratic society’s fundamental faith must be that society should not exist for the sake of society but only as foundation and scaffolding upon which a select species of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and in general to a higher existence” Blah blah blah At university when I would point to passages like these and complain about their obnoxious implications – that the majority of humanity is cast in the role of the play thing of the ‘powerful’ – I would be told not to see such statements as being about ‘society’ as such but rather about the individual And this has become the standard the received reading of Nietzsche – that he was really about taking control of one’s own life and making life an artistic project and such blather – but I’ve never been able to read him in this way His pronouncements on society are clear and unambiguous He may not be the forerunner of Hitler as he was made out by his sister but the fact remains he is not hard to twist into a rightwing ideologue – his views are poisonous to society And they are meant to be read as a social formula – I have yet to be convinced otherwiseBeyondI’ve gone back to reading Nietzsche again because twenty years ago I read him and hated him Since then I’ve read many commentaries and listened to some lectures from the Teaching Company in which he is greatly praised by people I found uite sensible and worthwhile I thought that perhaps I really had disliked him because I was not up to him But if that was true then it is still true now I find Modern Philosophy’s obsession with the individual and the ‘meaninglessness’ of the world to be a dead end I find it as dull as dishwater and part of the reason I stopped reading philosophy and went on to reading about the advances in neural science instead for example I uickly become bored with obscurantism and if there is one thing that the children of Nietzsche do exceptionally well it is obscurantism – Oh Heidegger Oh Sartre Oh Derrida As wrong as that might make me – I’m just not interested enough in the rants of someone who simply does not want to be clear Life is too shortNow an aside Throughout this book there are odd punctuation marks – perhaps the cause of the sentences never seeming to come to an end Anyway one of these marks is and it seemed a bit out of place but also made me think of smileys or emotes or whatever these hideous things are called “ ” Except in this case they looked like little penises scattered throughout the text After a while I couldn’t help feel this was uite appropriate

  6. Ahmad Sharabiani Ahmad Sharabiani says:

    Jenseits von Gut und Böse Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft Beyond good and evil Friedrich Nietzsche In Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche accuses past philosophers of lacking critical sense and blindly accepting dogmatic premises in their consideration of morality Specifically he accuses them of founding grand metaphysical systems upon the faith that the good man is the opposite of the evil man rather than just a different expression of the same basic impulses that find direct expression in the evil man The work moves into the realm beyond good and evil in the sense of leaving behind the traditional morality which Nietzsche subjects to a destructive critiue in favor of what he regards as an affirmative approach that fearlessly confronts the perspectival nature of knowledge and the perilous condition of the modern individualتاریخ نخستین خوانش روز بیست و پنجم ماه سپتامبر سال 1983 میلادیعنوان فراسوی نیک و بد پیش درآمد فلسفه ی آینده؛ نویسنده فریدریش ویلهلم نیچه؛ مترجم از متن آلمانی داریوش آشوری؛ تهران، وزارت فرهنگ و آموزش عالی، مرکز مطالعه فرهنگها، 1358 در 296ص؛ شابک 9644870441؛ موضوع اخلاق و فلسفه فیلسوفان آلمان سده 19معنوان فراسوی نیک و بد پیش درآمد فلسفه ی آینده؛ نویسنده فریدریش ویلهلم نیچه؛ مترجم داریوش آشوری؛ تهران، خوارزمی، 1361 در 296ص؛ شابک 9644870441؛ عنوان فراسوی نیک و بد درآمدی بر فلسفه ی آینده؛ نویسنده فریدریش ویلهلم نیچه؛ مترجم سعید فیروزآبادی؛ تهران، جامی، 1387 در 247ص؛ شابک 9789642575244؛ فراسوی نیک و بد، در واپسین سال‌های زندگی «فریدریش ویلهلم نیچه»، در سال 1886میلادی انتشار یافت؛ عنوان اصلی کتاب «فراسوی نیک و بد پیش درآمدی بر فلسفه آینده» است؛ نویسنده در واپسین سال‌های عمر خویش دوره‌ ای سخت را گذرانده‌ و این کتاب حاصل زمستان یکی از سال‌های عمر ایشانست، که به گفته ی خویش بسیار مهم بوده‌ است؛ایشان در یکی از نامه‌ های خویش به دوست خود می‌نویسند از این زمستان بهره‌ ای فراوان بردم و اثری نگاشتم که دشواری‌های فراوانی دارد و حتی از انتشار آن گاهی می‌هراسم و لرزه بر اندامم می‌افتد؛ نام این کتاب چنین است «فراسوی نیک و بد پیش درآمدی بر فلسفه آینده»؛ برگردان فارسی کتاب را نخستین بار جناب «داریوش آشوری» از نسخه ی متن آلمانی کتاب برگردانده‌ استتاریخ بهنگام رسانی 16031399؛ ا شربیانی

  7. Elenabot Elenabot says:

    A bit of well meaning advice right at the start don't read Nietzsche for moral insight or you'll drive yourself insane with rage or else inhale some of the poison gas here Read him instead for his insights into the nature of value truth and knowledge Nietzsche angers us most when he most successfully shows us how naked we humans are without our most cherished faiths whether it be in human nature natural law the power of reason or in a transcendent being to ground our incomplete finite utterly contingent existence into a cosmic meaning He shows us that value lies at the center of reasoning and that morality as well as every ideal of excellence falls because every purely rational metaphysical grounding for value has failed He also reminds us how much of what we take to be knowledge is normative through and through and also in danger of crumbling in a naturalistic worldview Therein lies his true contributionMuch that is said about Nietzsche is ridiculously point missing and amounts to no than a nitpicking over details that are peripheral to his system Peripherals such as his virulent misogyny don't I think suffice to diminish the value of his key contributions to philosophy He is a challenging thinker to come to terms with in part because he doesn't deign to present an airbrushed counterfeit of himself but instead presents his thinking about the conflicting sides of his nature including those areas filled with festering resentment and at times hatred We expect philosophy to proceed from a much edited manicured persona and it is right here at the start that he defies our expectation and instead chooses to put his whole personality on the table for our dissection All of it He is uniue in that he tries to philosophize with his whole self We cannot read him unless we strive to do the same and attain a bit honesty about the complexity of what drives us As Vaihinger pointed out in his The Philosophy of As If Nietzsche's work can best be read astaking the Kantian critical project to its radical conclusion This is because he asks the uestions that even Kant didn't feel the need to ask namely uestions about the foundations that make critiue possible any critiue I have to admit with Vaihinger that Kant and Nietzsche are best understood in terms of each other Nietzsche's work furthers the Kantian exploration of the structure of experience by taking into account the ways that our embodiment shapes meaning in ways that Kant's transcendental starting point prevented him from taking into account Nietzsche takes his stance with the embodied experiencing meaning creating subject It is this starting point that motivates the epistemological perspectivism and constructivism which leads to his notoriously radical critiues of foundational metaphysical conceptsNietzsche shows here how the materialist paradigm by pushing value and meaning out of its reigning world picture leaves us with the existential problem of overcoming nihilism I understand nihilism as the severing of a vital sustaining link between mind and world; it is the loss of our capacity to register the external world as a source of value and meaning This work brings the problem of value center stage Somehow we must find a source of meaning within subjective activity entirely unmoored from sustaining connection with the external world Whether the alienated self conceived as creator suffices to provide itself with such a source of meaning which I think it doesn't is the big uestion his philosophy leaves us withHis self description as an inverse Socrates turns out to be literally true here though perhaps his real enemy is Plato for his attempt to co opt Socrates Much that Nietzsche does is to undo the Platonification of Socrates which misleads us into replacing the fundamental uestion of self knowledge with the uestion of metaphysics Plato has perverted the purpose of philosophy – Know Thyself by seeking to reduce the process of self knowledge to the process of a metaphysical speculation that seeks to situate the self in an objective order Scientific cosmology is no answer either for him The only thing that'll fix the damage he says here will be to go back to the pre Platonic Socratic roots of critiue and to dig deeper to ask the truly foundational uestions anew and without loaded dice And the big unasked uestion for him is What is the value of truth if we understand that its only grounding is the embodied striving of individuals to realize their characteristic mode of existence? Most important is his claim that accepting the starting point of the embodied subject logically leads us to see ontology as a species of axiology – ie of aesthetics and morals His analysis shows how metaphysics after Plato has been structured in terms of a tacitly presupposed normative and ultimately aesthetic definition of truth One can recall Plato’s normative definition of the forms as the only objects that really count as knowledge This is especially evident in Plato’s metaphorical identification of the True with the Beautiful and the Good in Diotima’s speech in the Symposium where he normatively defines the highest act of knowing as one that is simultaneously cognitive theoretical morally transformative and aesthetically satisfying Instead Nietzsche busts the construct time and again to show how ontological principles and epistemological rules are rightly seen as mere coordinates set by “the perspective optics of human life” which define the shape the real can take for us Ontologies are constructs that are defined in relation to embodied perspective taking The golden thread that runs through his scattered rambling critiues of “the prejudices” that grounded the philosophies of the Stoics the Kantians the Cartesians the Christians and even the materialist atomists is his exposition of the way that each has committed the fallacy of ignoring embodiment while presupposing creative embodied processes of meaning making in order to get its thinking in motion Ignoring embodiment has led to reifying its products into ontologies which he characterizes as “aesthetic anthropomorphisms” The key to his argument especially in his essay On Truth and Lies is giving cognitive priority to image based rather than linguistic thinking and showing that the latter is based on the former In his analysis metaphysics emerges as the product of an aestheticizing simplification of the real which abstracts from real experienced particulars in order to construct general patterns that are then “baptized” with the honorific status of “first principles” This imagistic process generates all the “aesthetic anthropomorphisms” and “regulative fictions”that grounds all our reasoning Among those foundational constructs listed by Nietzsche are substance individual thing object ego causal agent causal relation law of nature forms ontological principles etc All such epistemic and metaphysical principles are grounded entirely in a subjective ultimately aesthetic necessity They define in other words the parameters within which we can maintain a coherent life enhancing perspective on the real Ultimately for Nietzsche these beliefs in a permanent order did not win out because they were “the most true but the most useful” Even logic with its to Nietzsche infamous claim to purity and disembodied independence from the human condition isn’t immune as he notes in his discussion of “the fictions of logic” He points out the ways that logic is based on presuppositions that correspond to nothing in reality as for instance the ideas of euality identity and perfect isolability of individual things which can correspond to the logical variablesMathematics too according to him is grounded on “aesthetic anthropomorphisms” that are reified into ontologies Mathematical reasoning according to Nietzsche cannot get off the ground without the foundational “illusion of identity” of individual things and of substances since mathematical concepts such as lines would not be possible without the substance mode ontology that these myths support And what about the physicist’s pride and joy the atoms and the laws of nature? Both are in Nietzsche’s eyes abstract residues of our “mythological dreaming” “Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature There are only necessities there is nobody who commands nobody who obeys nobody who trespasses” “The total character of the world however is in all eternity chaos in the sense not of a lack of necessity but a lack of order arrangement form beauty wisdom and whatever names there are for our aesthetic anthropomorphisms” Nothing absolutely nothing escapes his stringent reorientation of philosophy in terms of the constructive processes of the embodied subject Even Kant's critiue of reason the instrument of all knowing assumed too much right at the start and thereby fell short of asking the truly foundational uestions “How are synthetic judgments a priori possible?’ Kant asked himself – and what really is his answer? ‘By virtue of a faculty But is that – an answer? An explanation? Or is it not merely a repetition of the uestion? How does opium induce sleep? ‘By virtue of a faculty’” Nietzsche suggests here that Kant is begging the uestion that such principles are accessible to us embodied existents “But such replies belong in comedy and it is high time to replace the Kantian uestion by another uestion ‘Why is belief in such judgments necessary?' – and to comprehend that such judgments must be believed to be true for the sake of the preservation of creatures like ourselves; though they might of course be false judgments for all that”He goes on to note that “synthetic judgments a priori should not ‘be possible’ at all; we have no right to them” Kant thus assumed too much when he assumed their possibility He assumed we had a “right” to such principles Instead a genuine critiue of reason must consider the chilling possibility that human nature may just not be the kind of thing that is made for the kind of truth that we have thus far thought we sought From Nietzsche’s perspective then it looks like Kant didn’t altogether “critiue” the ontological principles of past metaphysics; rather he projected them inward as “faculties” in the subject that support “synthetic a priori principles”To all of the pseudo discovery projects of past metaphysics Nietzsche retorts “you would like all existence to exist only after your own image” It wasn’t knowledge of the real that was sought after all despite our explicit and self flattering claims to the contrary The traditional metaphysical approach to self knowledge involved us in an effort to “measure reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self identical” “Philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself the most spiritual will to power to the ‘creation of the world ’to the causa prima”Nietzsche points out that we cannot assume what most needs proving namely that there is an ontological correlate to our truth and value concepts He asks us instead to start by “supposing that is that not just man is the measure of all things” From this reversed starting point we ca no longer assume that knowing the truth will be knowing the good and the beautiful as Plato did Knowing the truth may not bring us the fulfillment we seek Truth may be ugly and it may be evil It may not be about the furtherance of life but may instead reveal its insignificance If we can’t assume objective normative standards as the grounds of truth then the uestion of the status of truth hinges on identifying the true nature of our drives since it is our drives that remain as its only possible foundation “I do not believe that a ‘drive to knowledge’ is the father of philosophy; but rather that another drive has employed understanding as a mere instrument” So which drive powers the pursuit of knowledge? “Behind all logic there stand valuations or clearly physiological demands for the preservation of a certain type of life” It is the drive to the realization of our characteristic mode of life that powers all we do including our pursuit of knowledge Perhaps the best motto of Nietzsche's thought can be expressed in one of his followers' Ernst Becker's words “We create the world that we need in order to discover ourselves” If we were honest Nietzsche says we would recognize that the true value of a judgment for us is not its truth value but rather its “life promoting” value As he puts it in The Gay Science“We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live by positing bodies lines planes causes and effects motion and rest form and content; without these articles of faith nobody now could endure life But that does not prove them Life is no argument The conditions of life might include error” Even though such basic ideas have a subjective necessity by virtue of their being part of “the perspective optics of life” and because as such they have “their regulative importance for us” we must recognize that they may have limited accuracy as “mere foreground estimates” I think that such observations make Nietzsche's analysis of the epistemological conseuences of Darwinism much accurate than is that of most other optimistic evolutionists He realizes that if reason is but the late adaptation of an organism it loses even that last albeit relavitized perspectivized transcendental foundation that Kant sought to give it What kind of a truth can an organism claim whose reason is but an organ adapted to seeking out the conditions in which the organism can secure its wellbeing? Knowledge as part of this larger organismic self furthering project is but an instrument to wrest control over the environment to impose our shape over it and to ultimately reduce the world to our own terms So the take home points for me ontologies are formalized lifeworlds in Husserl's terms ie they reflect our attempts to bridge the divide and conceive the world as our home; they also specify what the world must be like if it is to support and fulfill our drive to realization the psychological function of the pursuit of knowledge has to do with our uest for self realization than with the attainment of impersonal objective truth and we cannot make the oh so convenient yet fundamental assumption of post Platonic metaphysics the assumption that objective truth is life affirming Perhaps such truth once purged of our life affirming constructs spells out a world that is radically Other and opposed to life's strivings an entropic universe anyone? Now take a breath for a minute and really think about how deep this criticism really cuts As a friend of mine put it it is difficult to abide with Nietzsche on this point to really follow him and take our uestioning this far It is difficult to sustain this level of critical elucidation of these tacit life practices which alone ground our thinking even though each time we erase our steps and delude ourselves into thinking that we're setting up our edifices on the firm foundation of the structure of being itself The big uestion is of course whether Nietzsche's is the inevitable conclusion of the critical tradition that Kant initiated Is this the inevitable last word? Does this tradition if pursued intransigently really leave us in this abysmal pit of doubt? Does the fact of the knower's embodiment really mean the dissolution of all foundations? We must come to grips with Nietzsche much carefully if we are to answer these still vital uestions

  8. knig knig says:

    Why exactly should I strive to be kind and not cruel? Why am I being taught to be fair and not selfish all my life? Why should I subscribe to eual rights non discrimination egalitarianism and freedom of speech?Nietzsche posits that the above mentioned virtues and aesthetic and or moral imperatives or indeed any imperatives are merely legacy the result of Darwinian although he does not use this word ualities which have ensured the survival and prosperity of the ‘issuing’ authority Good and evil salvation of the soul and growth has nothing to do with it As social structures change so does the concept of morality This of course is the point where his ingenious treatise of master and slave morality comes in Under ‘feudal’ conditions it is the rulers who determine the conception of ‘good’ and morality ‘We truthful one’s – the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves as it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are liars insignificant and cowards It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were applied first to men and were only derivatively applied at a later period to actions The noble man regards himself then as a determiner of values he does not reuire to be approved of he alone passes the judgment’ On slave morality ‘supposing the abused and oppressed were allowed to moralise? What will be the common element in their moral estimates? Probably a pessimistic suspicion with regard to the entire situation of man will find expression perhaps a condemnation of man together with his situation The slave has an unfavourable eye for the virtues of the powerful a scepticism of anything ‘good’ there honoured he would fain persuade himself that an happiness found there was not genuine Those ualities which serve to alleviate the existence of sufferers are brought into prominence it is here that sympathy the kind helping hand the warm heart patience diligence and humility attain to honour for here they are the most useful ualities and almost the only means of supporting the burden of existence Here is the seat then of the famous antithesis of good and evil’In essence it is this ‘slave morality’ which arose incumbent on certain socio economic conditions which no longer exist today which has prevailed and which tells me to be kind and fair and not cruel Why has it prevailed? Because it has been propped up by the Church for its own reasonsaccording to Nietzsche which are not the subject of my review Under this argument there can be no intrinsic value attached to say my being ‘kind’ or ‘’euitable’ or any such it is an essence an arbitrary signifier devoid of inherent ‘good or evil’ simply an evolving measure of utility imposed by the establishment in order to normalise expected intragroup behaviour based on social and cultural conditions at the prevailing time The idea that morality is a tool for managing expectations is intriguing In essence in any subject object interaction the ualitative determination of the action in terms of ‘good and evil’ is not objective phenomena it is simply an arbitrarily shared agreement between the two entities The bible for example condones slavery In the Unforgiving Slave Mathew 1821 35 there are a lot of people throwing themselves at each other’s feet depending on rank and debate on forgiveness should you do it 7 or 77 times 7 times But interestingly neither slave nor master seem in the least bit preoccupied about the institution of slavery There is an expectation an agreement on both sides of the euation at that particular time that slavery is a non negotiable condition and certainly not contra morality The ethical uandary arises when their is a mismatch between subject object expectations So how many times should you forgive? 7? 77? Not at all? What determines this decision? The negation in the first instance of a universal morality ‘ The demand for one morality for all is detrimental to the higher man’ which can be applied as a ‘sympathetic action’ and the determination of person specific morality is informed particularly by ‘the power to will’ namely that intra group we are not all eual A hierarchy of power circular in nature is established whereby everyone surrenders their will to someone else everyone has power over someone else Therefore a ‘sympathetic action’ ie moral action is not an independent objective and universal phenomenon but must be by default be derived from the dynamics of the specific subject object agreement from which it emanates In essence a ‘higher excellence’ individual’ is the originators of his own ‘personalised’ morality which will constantly adapt and evolve according to the specificity of the recipient The above process is relevant only to higher excellence individuals eg superman eg those who do not follow the slave mentality outlined above And it is by no means a pain free process the man who is a product of contrary instincts finds himself the hotbed of values which struggle with one another and are seldom at peace It is a weak man whose desire is that the war within him should come to an end; happiness appears to him in the character of a soothing medicine the happiness of repose undisturbedness of repletion’ which effectively portains the shutdown of mental faculties and free will the strive for perfection and completion a ‘dumbing down’ and surrender to the status uo the non crystallisation of endless possibility Instead Nietzsche argues ‘if men in addition to their powerful and irreconcilable instincts have also indoctrinated in themselves a subtlety for carrying on the conflict in themselves there then arisesthose marvellously incomprehensible and inexplicable beings predestined for’conuest achievement fulfilmentIn essence suffering is an essential prereuisite and necessary for the cultivation of human excellence If an individual were to internalise the norm that suffering must be alleviated then instead of suffering to ‘create’ all energy is wasted suandered in self pity and lament A possible explanation for Nietzsche’s insistence on suffering is his conception of a human being is one constituted by non conscious type facts that determine his actions ‘One will become only what one is’ and ‘he can only follow to the end what is fixed about him’ His argument here is informed by a reversal of the Cartesian ‘I am therefore I think’ to ‘I think therefore I am’ caveated with an epihenomenological explanation of the occurrence of thoughts; a thought arrives ‘when it wishes not when ‘I ‘wish Conseuently it follows that actions are not caused by conscious but rather than unconscious will If so then it is not possible to resolve a conflict against one own self So far so much waffle Not that Nietzsche doesn’t waffle because he does Epi consciousness will of power normative and descriptive components of morality so the fuck what? Where exactly is the ‘show me the money’ shot here? I come away withI suffer Its been a life long project; with an end goal to alleviation Now I am free because I I accept that suffering is OK its a non balancing euation I do not need to ‘gas’ it I need to accept it Its not something I will ever neutralise If you can’t beat them join them I will NOT waste any energy in suppression tactics I will instead harness it and make it work for me God the reliefI will no longer measure my worth in accordance with accepted dogma and penalise myself if I feel I fall short Morality is arbitrary there is no objective good and evil I will make my own morality It is OK then to take the path less travelled and not subscribe to ‘slave morality’ If there is subject –object disagreement is it possible perhaps that you are wrong and I am right? Does your disagreement and sense of entitlement obviate my sense of reason? My life is determined by ‘will of power’ You can go on and disagree be a Jesuit But I accept that I will hurt people and that people will hurt me despite my best efforts Even when I think I’m labouring for the ‘greater good’ someone will be coming unstuck for it This is OK It is a fallacy to strive for perfection in the non hurting business One man’s poison is another man’s meatBut finally The money shot I don’t need to hate myself Instead of wasting energy on penitence and self flagellation I need to be finding my own ‘little community’ I would much rather sin with a group of five than suffer in isolation amongst millions If I failed you you weren’t for me We just don’t have ‘ subject object’ agreement I don’t want to give up my morality for you I don’t want you to give up your morality for meI want us to share a moralityIs this a drunken review?

  9. Tara Tara says:

    Nietzsche definitely had the Will to Power The Power to Argue Logically Employing Thoroughly Supported Well Developed Premises and Reaching Incisive Cogent Conclusionsnot so much Still I did find uite a few of his wittily phrased sass attacks pretty entertaining Mostly

  10. Håkon Håkon says:

    Beyond Good and Evil is a profound book about the Power passion and love of individuals Nietzsche offers us in this book a way of life in which one's Will to Power is the fundamental principle of society and the individualNietzsche criticizes every philosophy hitherto as having been deceived by a presupposed moral system or at least a moral end goal therefore not reaching for truth rather making truths so as to validate its moral preachingsChristianity too fell into the trap of valuing truth despite the fact that there was nothing truthful about it This lead Christianity to create truths and mis truths in order to add value to that which they perceived to be the righteous pathOne would therefore assume that Nietzsche was a supporter of the Scientific method but even this he says is a falsity for the goal of science for most scientists would be to create Utopia through science therefore a moral evaluationWhat Nietzsche rebelled against here was the magnitude through which these moral systems preached truth yet ignored the fact that there was nothing true about the statements made It was the hypocrisy of it Be honest Call it what it is A mis truth to rationalize one's morality Only when man admits to its mis truths can it go about being moral If you want all your beliefs criticized and uestioned and also all other people's beliefs criticized and uestioned this book does it to perfection Few philosophers are able to critiue all systems of belief with such passionate and rich language and still do it so naturally Almost impulsivelyMany have criticized Nietzsche for his nihilistic nature But this is frankly not true Nietzsche is filled with passion of life which one can obviously see through his writing and is also incredibly capable of love for it is Beyond Good and Evil he argues that one can truly love that which deserves it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft [PDF / Epub] ☉ Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft Author Friedrich Nietzsche – ما وراء الخير والشر كتاب ينتمي إلى المرحلة الختامية من حياة نيتشه المبدعة، ويتميز بأسلوب جديد لم يعهد في مؤلف ما وراء الخير والشر Gut und PDF/EPUB À كتاب ينتمي إلى المرحلة الختامية من حياة نيتشه المبدعة، ويتميز بأسلوب جديد لم يعهد في مؤلفاته قبلاً فهو يخلو من أي كلمة طيبة، فقد أتت تعابيره قاسية وصارمة وفعّالة ففي كتابه هذا يعتمد وبأسلوب عنيف نقد الحداثة التي دخلت حياة البشر وشتتها، لتجعل منها أداة تحركها بما يتناسب مع متطلبات الحياة الحديثة فأطلّ على أعماق نفسه بنظرة متفحصة ليكتب لنا بعبارات مختصرة رأيه Jenseits von PDF/EPUB ² في العديد من المواضيع التي تعدّ بنظره ذات أهمية ويجب أن تنقد وتوضح ولكن بأسلوبه الجديد البعيد عن الحداثة.