What do you think?
Rate this book
From Shakespeare to Existentialism
s/t: Essays on Shakespeare and Goethe; Hegel and Kierkegaard; Nietzsche, Rilke and Freud; Jaspers, Heidegger and Toynbee
Explores such themes as philosophy versus poetry, post-World War II German thought, art, tradition, and truth in a collection of essays.
Explores such themes as philosophy versus poetry, post-World War II German thought, art, tradition, and truth in a collection of essays.
455 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1960
18 people are currently reading
623 people want to read
About the author
Walter Kaufmann
111 books554 followersWalter Arnold Kaufmann was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet. A prolific author, he wrote extensively on a broad range of subjects, such as authenticity and death, moral philosophy and existentialism, theism and atheism, Christianity and Judaism, as well as philosophy and literature. He served for over 30 years as a Professor at Princeton University.
He is renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He also wrote a 1965 book on Hegel, and a translation of most of Goethe's Faust.
He is renowned as a scholar and translator of Nietzsche. He also wrote a 1965 book on Hegel, and a translation of most of Goethe's Faust.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
July 1, 2014
Expecting so much of this book (I'm not sure why), I was so very dissapointed by the time I finished it. Kaufmann's arrogance and narcissism truly shine through in this work. He proves that he doesn't understand Heidegger's intent at all, and so he settles with berating him. The last half or so of the book is nothing but criticisms that often seem held together only by the fact that Kaufmann uttered them, and his word is law.
If this man hadn't made such fine translations of Nietzsche I'm pretty sure his name would have faded with the rolling of time's waves.
If this man hadn't made such fine translations of Nietzsche I'm pretty sure his name would have faded with the rolling of time's waves.
August 13, 2011
The reviewer who indicates that this is not a good introduction to the thinkers in question is probably right - this book is best read with a fair amount of relevant reading under your belt. Personally, I think Kaufmann's analysis is brilliant and illuminating, but it is exactly that: Kaufmann's analysis, not merely an introduction to the thinkers in question.
July 9, 2021
It's humorous, very witty, composed in true Nietzchean fashion. I truly enjoyed his erudite insights.
It's a pugnacious read however, perhaps to be viewed as a critique, especially apropos the works of Karl Popper, Sonen Kierkegaard, and Arnold Toynbee. Although Walter Kaufmann brandishes his weapons of irony, polemic, sarcasm, and pathos with masterful skill and class.
From translating the veiled writing of Heidegger, to the resplendent poetry of Rilke, he covers much ground in this work.
Overall, I'd give a 3.5
It's a pugnacious read however, perhaps to be viewed as a critique, especially apropos the works of Karl Popper, Sonen Kierkegaard, and Arnold Toynbee. Although Walter Kaufmann brandishes his weapons of irony, polemic, sarcasm, and pathos with masterful skill and class.
From translating the veiled writing of Heidegger, to the resplendent poetry of Rilke, he covers much ground in this work.
Overall, I'd give a 3.5
March 30, 2021
Occasionally he offers a worthwhile observation, but all in all I find his insights very banal. He barely scratches the surface of any of the philosophies identified in the book, and a lot of what he offers in terms of critique is hackneyed or recycled thoughts from his other books. For me there wasn't much of anything I hadn't heard elsewhere already.
April 23, 2013
Kaufman's discussion on Goethe, Hegel and Nietzsche is illuminating. By the end of the book, however, his insights become less informative and increasingly invidious, irrelevant, and tedious. His chapters on Kierkegaard and Heidegger fail to provide a substantial exposition of the respective philosophical views; instead it focuses on single failings of the philosophers: Kierkegaard is presented as overly, dogmatically Christian and Heidegger, obscure and ambiguous. The book culminates in a tirade against Toynbee taking up what seems like an unnecessarily lengthy discussion (about 50 pages) about a man who is not a scholar, historian, poet, or prophet. If Toynbee has nothing to offer, beyond influence to Americans who don't know any better, and is rather irrelevant to the topic of existentialism, why bring him up at all? Kaufman's criticism and scholarship is admirable. But the book lacks aim, focus, and, by its end, objectivity.
March 11, 2019
This book is not an introduction to philosophy or to the philosophers in it discussed. A fairly solid knowledge of writers such as Hegel, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Heidegger is necessary to benefit from this volume. Furthermore, it would be best if the reader already knew something of Kaufmann and his ideas and perspectives before tackling this book. In Kaufmann's words, he defends Hegel against his detractors and Kierkegaard against his admirers :) He also has reverence for Rilke (which he should), and few positive things to say about Heidegger.
October 19, 2024
KAUFMANN’S FIRST COLLECTION OF ESSAYS
Walter Arnold Kaufmann (1921-1980) was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet, who taught for over 30 years at Princeton University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1959 collection, “This book is the fruit, albeit not the only one, of almost ten years’ work. Drafts for various chapters have appeared here and there, but all of them have been revised, for the most part very extensively… the book traces a historical development---and gradually various themes are developed… The outlook toward which this book points is developed more fully in my ‘Critique of Religion and Philosophy.’ Here are some of the historical studies out of which my Critique has grown; there are some of my own conclusions… This is certainly not positivist historiography but writing that comes perilously close to existentialism… But we need not choose between positivism and existentialism… One can write … without embracing the profoundly unsound methods and the dangerous contempt for reason that have been so prominent in existentialism.”
In the first essay, he observes, “There have never been so many writers, artists, and philosophers. Any past age that could boast of more than one outstanding sculptor or philosopher the whole world over and more than three good writers and painters wins our admiration as unusually productive; and many an age had none of great distinction.” (Pg. 2)
He states, “Against the tendency of modern critics to assimilate Homer, Sophocles, and Socrates to Christian norms and to write as if great poetry and high morality were necessarily Christian, one has to insist how relatively isolated phenomenon Christian culture has been and that even in the West it could be pictured with equal justice as an episode that, with the possible exception of ‘The Divine Comedy,’ produced no literary work to equal either Greek or Hebrew literature, of Shakespeare.” (Pg. 89)
He suggests, “Goethe’s development probably helped to suggest to Hegel the interesting, but surely untenable, idea that ALL styles, outlooks, religions, and philosophies can be arranged in a single sequence of increasing maturity… This was the second great error which affects not only the ‘Phenomenology’ but also the later works.” (Pg. 160)
He points out that Hegel did NOT use the “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” model that is often used to characterize his thought: “Both Marx and Kierkegaard… did Hegel a grave injustice when they misinterpreted his dialectic as a tireless three-step, moving mechanically from theses to antitheses and hence to syntheses. The triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is encountered in Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, but mentioned only once in the twenty volumes of Hegel’s works… not approvingly but at the end of his critique of Kant, in the lectures on the history of philosophy. A similar disapproval of this ‘triplicity’ is found earlier in the preface to the Phenomenology.” (Pg. 166)
He notes, “In his famous lecture on ‘Existentialism,’ [Jean-Paul] Sartre has called [Karl] Jaspers a professed Catholic, though his background is in fact Protestant and his religious outlook quite nondenominational. The… ‘Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church’ wrongly classifies him as a
‘Christian’ existentialist. Jaspers’ faith is distinctly Kantian and not at all centered in Christ. In his philosophy of history, too, he does not find the ‘axis’ of history in the Incarnation but in the age of the Hebrew prophets, the Greek philosophers, Confucius, Lao-tzu, and the Buddha.” (Pg. 285)
He states, “Freud… could not possibly have felt that his work was above all criticism, as so many of his critics have alleged he did… it is noteworthy that Freud told a close friend that The Future of an Illusion ‘had little value.’ And ‘to Ferenczi he was still more outspoken in his derogation of the book: ‘Now it already seems to me childish; fundamentally I think otherwise; I regard it as weak analytically and inadequate as a self-confession.’” (Pg. 327)
He comments about Heidegger: “In all his later writings, Heidegger insists on the importance of questions and not on answers, on thinking rather than conclusions… He fills pages with scorn for the superficial answers given by others but… argues that the impossibility of final answers is a feature of our age and keeps alive the hope that, if we follow him… some of us may yet enter the promised land… in his lectures he makes so much of the courage and tenacity of the attempt to face Being that … The fascination of his lectures and books is due in no small measure to the way in which he manages to keep alive the hope that in just a few more pages, or surely before the course is over, we may see something that even now reduces any other enterprise to insignificance.” (Pg. 344-345) Later, he adds, “What stands between him and greatness is neither the opaqueness of his style… nor his temporary acceptance of Nazism… but his lack of vision. After everything has been said, he really does not have very much to say.” (Pg. 365)
He asserts, “If a single factor accounts more than any other for [historian Arnold] Toynbee’s popularity in the United States, it is surely his concern with religion---not simply the fact of his concern but above all the nature of his concern. In an age in which books become bestsellers because they seem to prove scientifically that the Bible is right, Toynbee could hardly fail to be a popular success. His frequent references to God and Christ and his thousands of footnote references to the New Testament, which record his every use of a biblical turn of speech, assure the Christian reader that the Bible is proved right, while his growing hope for a vast syncretism pleases those who feel that the one thing needful is a meeting of East and West. Toynbee makes a great show of religion… but he presses no unequivocal or incisive demands… Toynbee’s religion is ingratiating---like that of politicians and our most successful magazines. He offers us history, social science, anecdotes, schemes, entertainment---all this and heaven, too.” (Pg. 407)
This is an extremely thought-provoking, controversial, and opinionated volume---that will for just those reasons be of tremendous interest to anyone studying contemporary philosophy.
Walter Arnold Kaufmann (1921-1980) was a German-American philosopher, translator, and poet, who taught for over 30 years at Princeton University.
He wrote in the Preface to this 1959 collection, “This book is the fruit, albeit not the only one, of almost ten years’ work. Drafts for various chapters have appeared here and there, but all of them have been revised, for the most part very extensively… the book traces a historical development---and gradually various themes are developed… The outlook toward which this book points is developed more fully in my ‘Critique of Religion and Philosophy.’ Here are some of the historical studies out of which my Critique has grown; there are some of my own conclusions… This is certainly not positivist historiography but writing that comes perilously close to existentialism… But we need not choose between positivism and existentialism… One can write … without embracing the profoundly unsound methods and the dangerous contempt for reason that have been so prominent in existentialism.”
In the first essay, he observes, “There have never been so many writers, artists, and philosophers. Any past age that could boast of more than one outstanding sculptor or philosopher the whole world over and more than three good writers and painters wins our admiration as unusually productive; and many an age had none of great distinction.” (Pg. 2)
He states, “Against the tendency of modern critics to assimilate Homer, Sophocles, and Socrates to Christian norms and to write as if great poetry and high morality were necessarily Christian, one has to insist how relatively isolated phenomenon Christian culture has been and that even in the West it could be pictured with equal justice as an episode that, with the possible exception of ‘The Divine Comedy,’ produced no literary work to equal either Greek or Hebrew literature, of Shakespeare.” (Pg. 89)
He suggests, “Goethe’s development probably helped to suggest to Hegel the interesting, but surely untenable, idea that ALL styles, outlooks, religions, and philosophies can be arranged in a single sequence of increasing maturity… This was the second great error which affects not only the ‘Phenomenology’ but also the later works.” (Pg. 160)
He points out that Hegel did NOT use the “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” model that is often used to characterize his thought: “Both Marx and Kierkegaard… did Hegel a grave injustice when they misinterpreted his dialectic as a tireless three-step, moving mechanically from theses to antitheses and hence to syntheses. The triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is encountered in Kant, Fichte, and Schelling, but mentioned only once in the twenty volumes of Hegel’s works… not approvingly but at the end of his critique of Kant, in the lectures on the history of philosophy. A similar disapproval of this ‘triplicity’ is found earlier in the preface to the Phenomenology.” (Pg. 166)
He notes, “In his famous lecture on ‘Existentialism,’ [Jean-Paul] Sartre has called [Karl] Jaspers a professed Catholic, though his background is in fact Protestant and his religious outlook quite nondenominational. The… ‘Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church’ wrongly classifies him as a
‘Christian’ existentialist. Jaspers’ faith is distinctly Kantian and not at all centered in Christ. In his philosophy of history, too, he does not find the ‘axis’ of history in the Incarnation but in the age of the Hebrew prophets, the Greek philosophers, Confucius, Lao-tzu, and the Buddha.” (Pg. 285)
He states, “Freud… could not possibly have felt that his work was above all criticism, as so many of his critics have alleged he did… it is noteworthy that Freud told a close friend that The Future of an Illusion ‘had little value.’ And ‘to Ferenczi he was still more outspoken in his derogation of the book: ‘Now it already seems to me childish; fundamentally I think otherwise; I regard it as weak analytically and inadequate as a self-confession.’” (Pg. 327)
He comments about Heidegger: “In all his later writings, Heidegger insists on the importance of questions and not on answers, on thinking rather than conclusions… He fills pages with scorn for the superficial answers given by others but… argues that the impossibility of final answers is a feature of our age and keeps alive the hope that, if we follow him… some of us may yet enter the promised land… in his lectures he makes so much of the courage and tenacity of the attempt to face Being that … The fascination of his lectures and books is due in no small measure to the way in which he manages to keep alive the hope that in just a few more pages, or surely before the course is over, we may see something that even now reduces any other enterprise to insignificance.” (Pg. 344-345) Later, he adds, “What stands between him and greatness is neither the opaqueness of his style… nor his temporary acceptance of Nazism… but his lack of vision. After everything has been said, he really does not have very much to say.” (Pg. 365)
He asserts, “If a single factor accounts more than any other for [historian Arnold] Toynbee’s popularity in the United States, it is surely his concern with religion---not simply the fact of his concern but above all the nature of his concern. In an age in which books become bestsellers because they seem to prove scientifically that the Bible is right, Toynbee could hardly fail to be a popular success. His frequent references to God and Christ and his thousands of footnote references to the New Testament, which record his every use of a biblical turn of speech, assure the Christian reader that the Bible is proved right, while his growing hope for a vast syncretism pleases those who feel that the one thing needful is a meeting of East and West. Toynbee makes a great show of religion… but he presses no unequivocal or incisive demands… Toynbee’s religion is ingratiating---like that of politicians and our most successful magazines. He offers us history, social science, anecdotes, schemes, entertainment---all this and heaven, too.” (Pg. 407)
This is an extremely thought-provoking, controversial, and opinionated volume---that will for just those reasons be of tremendous interest to anyone studying contemporary philosophy.
October 12, 2025
Listen. This book started great. I had a bias towards picking up this book because I liked his translation of Beyond Good and Evil and Ecce Homo. His interpretation of Nietzsche might be the only one that does him justice against the constant misinterpretation his philosophy faces from both continental and analytic philosophers. I do see why they say he's only really good as an introductory Nietzschean author, because every single criticism of all the other philosophers revolved around comparing them to Nietzsche. He was very obviously anti-institutional religion at the start, and his criticism of Kierkegaard was harsh, but also fair. I definitely agree with his appointment of Freud as Nietzsche's heir, and loved the comparison of Heidegger's verbosity to the book The Castle by Kafka, which he, funnily enough, brought up multiple times throughout the book (so glad I've read it, it was very fun to recognize the reference). However, as the book progressed, he unfortunately became less analytical in his critique and more... personal? It was his deeply unfair characterization of Toynbee that made me realize this man might have some... less than unsavory opinions on the Middle East... and all of this was in the very last chapter, which had me finishing the book with a really bad taste in my mouth :( While I do think there was a lot of insightful intertextuality, specifically between poets, authors, and philosophers (Shakespeare/Goethe/Rilke) I do think the book backslid through all that it had built up over the last few chapters.
June 27, 2019
Picked this up again as I was researching Felix Mendelssohn. I read this alongside Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Ecce Homo and some others.
The chapter on Kierkegaard is helpful if at times defensively full of question begging. Kaufmann, like Nietzsche, regards Christian 'morals' as an unfortunate sidetrack in human development. For those Christians who aren't sure if Kierkegaard was a Christian at all, note that the enemies of Christ regarded him as one.
Some clarifications are in order. Morality is often used interchangeably with 'Ethics' in post modern philosophy, since ethics had become an empty category. Christianity means in most post Kantian writings a system of moral choices. The result of these exceptions becomes the call to magnanimity, man and the pitiless Cosmos forever in confrontation, and the one who looks away is the loser.
The chapter on Kierkegaard is helpful if at times defensively full of question begging. Kaufmann, like Nietzsche, regards Christian 'morals' as an unfortunate sidetrack in human development. For those Christians who aren't sure if Kierkegaard was a Christian at all, note that the enemies of Christ regarded him as one.
Some clarifications are in order. Morality is often used interchangeably with 'Ethics' in post modern philosophy, since ethics had become an empty category. Christianity means in most post Kantian writings a system of moral choices. The result of these exceptions becomes the call to magnanimity, man and the pitiless Cosmos forever in confrontation, and the one who looks away is the loser.
March 14, 2023
This is an academic text of which I understand nothing. Not helpful at all.
May 21, 2008
When I picked up Walter Kaufmann's From Shakespeare to Existentialism, I was expecting an intellectual history, a contextual account of some of Europe's greatest thinkers from the past two hundred years. Instead, what I got was more akin to literary criticism, primarily textual analysis. This is not bad by any means, just not what I was looking for. Kaufmann is extremely opinionated, and his one-sided accounts are not suitable as an introduction to the material. But for those that have already read Goethe, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Toynbee, this book should be of interest.
In the first half of the book, which covers Shakespeare, Goethe, and Hegel, Kaufmann is very insistent that one not read them through a Christian lens. While he makes a very good point, he rather belabors his point and reveals a strong anti-Christian preference. Since Kaufmann is a Nietzsche scholar, it should not come as a surprise that his favorite subject is the hero of this book. Particularly insightful is how Kaufmann linked him with Shakespeare and Goethe.
In the last half of the book, Kaufmann excoriates Heidegger for his impenetrable prose and evasive position. Toynbee also takes a real beating in this account, but Toynbee has long since dropped out of view, perhaps partly thanks to Kaufmann.
In the first half of the book, which covers Shakespeare, Goethe, and Hegel, Kaufmann is very insistent that one not read them through a Christian lens. While he makes a very good point, he rather belabors his point and reveals a strong anti-Christian preference. Since Kaufmann is a Nietzsche scholar, it should not come as a surprise that his favorite subject is the hero of this book. Particularly insightful is how Kaufmann linked him with Shakespeare and Goethe.
In the last half of the book, Kaufmann excoriates Heidegger for his impenetrable prose and evasive position. Toynbee also takes a real beating in this account, but Toynbee has long since dropped out of view, perhaps partly thanks to Kaufmann.
December 7, 2016
Now this is not exactly a new book. And that shows, mainly in the last chapters.
In essays, this deals with men, and the older characters (Shakespeare, Nietzsche) have proved their mettle more than the more recent characters dealt with (Toynbee) and so make for the more interesting reading.
Themes include poetry vs philosophy, Nietzsche vs Rilke, and some roasting of Heidegger and Toynbee. (well that's not a theme. But you see what I mean. Not very interesting either)
In essays, this deals with men, and the older characters (Shakespeare, Nietzsche) have proved their mettle more than the more recent characters dealt with (Toynbee) and so make for the more interesting reading.
Themes include poetry vs philosophy, Nietzsche vs Rilke, and some roasting of Heidegger and Toynbee. (well that's not a theme. But you see what I mean. Not very interesting either)
Read
July 27, 2011An amazing collection of essays about diverse topics in philosophy. He has shed light on so many philosophers with this book. I have now gained a better appreciation of Shakespeare and Hegel and know how to navigate through much of the bulk of what is now called modern and contemporary philosophy.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews