Considerazioni inattuali

by Friedrich Nietzsche

本书是尼采中晚期作品，收录了尼采四篇“沉思”：《《施特劳斯――表白者和作家》《历史学对于生活的利与弊》《作为教育者的叔本华》和《瓦格纳在拜雷特》，前两篇探讨消极的，令人忧虑的现象：“知识庸人”施特劳斯和历史学，后两篇是对神圣的救世主形象叔本华和瓦格纳的颂歌。尼采在本书中完成了一种彻底的重新评价，他将“不合时宜”等同于单纯性和真诚性的高贵品质，认为被敬仰和喜爱的哲学家在其关于生活价值的问题中想到的从来不是合乎时宜的德性，而是一种应当追求的更高和更纯洁的品质。

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, German Literature, Classics, History, Essays, 19th Century

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1876

About the author

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche was a German classical scholar, philosopher, and critic of culture, who became one of the most influential of all modern thinkers. He began his career as a classical philologist before turning to philosophy. He became the youngest person to hold the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel in 1869 at the age of 24, but resigned in 1879 due to health problems that plagued him most of his life; he completed much of his core writing in the following decade. In 1889, at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward a complete loss of his mental faculties, with paralysis and probably vascular dementia. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Nietzsche died in 1900, after experiencing pneumonia and multiple strokes.
Nietzsche's work spans philosophical polemics, poetry, cultural criticism, and fiction while displaying a fondness for aphorism and irony. Prominent elements of his philosophy include his radical critique of truth in favour of perspectivism; a genealogical critique of religion and Christian morality and a related theory of master–slave morality; the aesthetic affirmation of life in response to both the "death of God" and the profound crisis of nihilism; the notion of Apollonian and Dionysian forces; and a characterisation of the human subject as the expression of competing wills, collectively understood as the will to power. He also developed influential concepts such as the Übermensch and his doctrine of eternal return. In his later work, he became increasingly preoccupied with the creative powers of the individual to overcome cultural and moral mores in pursuit of new values and aesthetic health. His body of work touched a wide range of topics, including art, philology, history, music, religion, tragedy, culture, and science, and drew inspiration from Greek tragedy as well as figures such as Zoroaster, Arthur Schopenhauer, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Richard Wagner, Fyodor Dostoevsky, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
After his death, Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of his manuscripts. She edited his unpublished writings to fit her German ultranationalist ideology, often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism. 20th-century scholars such as Walter Kaufmann, R.J. Hollingdale, and Georges Bataille defended Nietzsche against this interpretation, and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available. Nietzsche's thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th- and early 21st-century thinkers across philosophy—especially in schools of continental philosophy such as existentialism, postmodernism, and post-structuralism—as well as art, literature, music, poetry, politics, and popular culture.

Reviews

[Stephanie Ricker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nietzsche is not as great as he thinks he is. Also, Schopenhauer isn't as great as Nietzsche thinks he is. Wagner isn't as great as Nietzsche thinks he is; although his music is pretty great, he's a jerk. Nietzsche is terribly quoteable, however. The thing is, you can't really run around spouting out Nietzsche quotes without people looking at you strangely.

[Dan · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Untimely” seems to stand here for: out-of-time, historical, un-fashionable, anti-modern, conservative, against facts and what works, against public opinion and democracy, philosophical, anti-Hegelian, truthful, and similar. Nietzsche goes around denouncing science, its facts, modern men, state, university, narratives of progress, his present Germany, the modern obsession with news and newspapers, philosophy professors, and so on. His attacks on Strauss and modern man are quite devastating and insanely funny; while his praises of Wagner and Schopenhauer are tolerable only with the hindsight that he will eventually turn against Wagner (too bad for us - and for Nietzsche - that he did not turn against Schopenhauer also). Surprisingly to me - the eternal return of the same appears at some point here.

[Bogdan Strugari · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Art is the work of a Man who is continually recreating Himself."

[Jerry · Rating 5 out of 5]

my first work of nietzsche. why do i kinda love him?

i swear the amount of times i wanted (and encouraged others) to be optimistic and individualistic instead of conforming to the masses and got told to not be so expressive of myself... i feel validated by nieztsche.

"No one can construct for you the bridge upon which precisely you must cross the stream of life."

i cant stop nodding my head.

[Conor · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'll start with why I liked this and why I was happy to be reading the big N again, then move on to why I didn't like it, and why this edition is lacking.

(or, if you're not up for reading the stuff below, he's a summary: I kind of liked it, and I'm never picking up a "available in english for the first time" translation ever again)

----ANECDOTE ALERT!----
I went to the museum of contemporary art the other day, and found an interesting little piece. A female character from a classic oil painting was taken out of context and placed on a mirror instead of a canvas. In case the purpose of this might be lost, a helpful placard explained that the addition of the mirror creates a situation wherein the viewer's role as participant becomes part of the piece. Light is thrown back on the viewer.
---REFLECTION ON ANECDOTE ALERT!----
This is something I was reminded of while reading the fourth essay when N says "...the task of modern art, too, suddenly becomes clear: stupefaction or delerium! To put to sleep or intoxicate...to defend man against himself...gaze into the flickering and smokey fire of their art, for they do not want light, they want bedazzlement; they hate light - when it is thrown upon themselves."

Which is exactly why I still like to read N; he was way ahead of his time. He does a fantastic job of speaking to people, who, at his time, were not born yet. It's to the point where I've heard people with a casual interest in philosophy say that his ideas are obvious. I've felt that this is because so many of them exist fulfilled already. These are the ideas that I like the most, the ones that he saw coming and traced the roots of, the ones that were untimely for him.

---And now back to the point---

What I don't like about these essays, are what timey is for him; his appreciation of Schopenhauer and Wagner, who he had net yet moved past, and the fact that his delicious style; that tasty fusion of Schopenhauer and La Rochefoucauld, isn't yet developed.

---And now to gripe---

This edition (Cambridge 1983) pissed me off. It's translated by R.J Hollingdale with an introduction by J.P. Stern, neither of whom any details are given on. Are they philosophers? Philogists? Plumbers? No one printing this edition seemed to know. What is clear is that they both seem willing to give their opinion of the text, without establishing any base of credibility, rather like some bespectacled and argyle-wrapped coffee house characters. Hollingdale assures us in the introduction that "there is nothing particularly 'untimely' about these four meditations - and then says they deal with contemporary themes and that nobody reads David Strauss seriously anymore. Wait...what?

Stern, in the meantime, shines with this gem of a footnote from p86:

"Alludes to the closing lines of Goethe's Faust. Nietzsche often alludes to the phrase, always in an ironic-humorous tone: he failed, I think, to discover any meaning in it."

Well, that's interesting...no, wait! What the hell? DID YOU JUST INTERJECT YOURSELF INTO THE TEXT?

WHERE IS WALTER KAUFFMAN WHEN I NEED HIM?!?!

*****Note: The new Cambridge editions (green cover) have a different and better introduction, and no longer have the offending footnote.

[شمس · Rating 4 out of 5]

. . . what he has to say about the deficiencies of an ‘entertainment culture’ ruled by public opinion is certainly not without contemporary relevance. —Introduction, Daniel Breazeale

One of the central theses of the Meditations is that every genuine and original thinker requires a degree of radical personal independence that is simply incompatible with any sort of institutional affiliation or sponsorship. It is the very independence of the true philosopher’s mode of living that confirms his or her right to be taken seriously as a philosophical educator. —Introduction, Daniel Breazeale
__________
There is, indeed, rejoicing that now ’science is becoming to dominate life’: that condition may, possibly, be attained; but life thus dominated is not of much value because it is far less living and guarantees far less life for the future than did a former life dominated not by knowledge but by instinct and powerful illusions. But the present age is, as aforesaid, supposed to be an age, not of whole, mature and harmonious personalities, but of labour and of the greatest possible common utility. That means, however, that men have to be adjusted to the purposes of the age so as to be ready for employment as soon as possible: they must labour in the factories of the general good before they are mature, indeed so that they shall not become mature—for this would be a luxury which would deprive the ‘labour market’ of a great deal of its workforce. Some birds are blinded so that they may sing more beautifully; I do not think the men of today sing more beautifully than their grandfathers, but I know they have been blinded. —On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, 7

__________
David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer
In any event, there exists a steadfast belief and an in fact notorious cultural deficiency seems to be apparent only to the select few. For all those whose views coincide with public opinion have covered their eyes and stoppered their ears—the incongruity must not be admitted to exist . . . (2)

But systematic and oppressive philistinism does not constitute a culture, even an inferior culture, merely because it possesses a system: it must always be the antithesis of a culture, namely a permanently established barbarity. (2)

An unhappy contortion must have taken place in the brain of the cultural philistine: he regards as culture precisely that which negates culture, and since he is accustomed to proceed with consistency he finally acquires a coherent collection of such negations, a system of un-culture, to which one might even conceded a certain ‘unity of style’ if it made any sense to speak of a barbarism with style. (2)

Public opinion in aesthetic matters is so insipid, uncertain, and easily misled, that it beholds such an exhibition of the sorriest philistinism without protest . . . (5)

But it is true that people of a certain age find it impossible to understand Kant . . . (6)

. . . a reason that has overstepped the bounds of the permitted. (7)

For it is precisely in such books that we find that repellent need for entertainment and that casual, only-half-listening accommodation with philosophy and culture and with the serious things of life in general. (8)

. . . accustomed to the slime of this newspaper language: they have in the strictest sense of the word lost all taste, and the most their tongue can still savour with any kind of pleasure is the totally corrupt and capricious. (11)
__________
On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life

. . . like an illuminated diary of his youth and in all this he finds himself again himself, his force, this industry, his joy, his judgement, his folly and vices. (3)

. . . a restless, cosmopolitan hunting after new and ever newer things. (3)

What happens all too often is that we know the good but do not do it . . . (3)

We moderns have nothing whatever of our own; only by replenishing and cramming ourselves with the ages, customs, arts, philosophies, religions, discoveries of others do we become anything worthy of notice, that is to say, walking encyclopaedias, which is what an Ancient Greek transported into our own time would perhaps take us for. With encyclopaedias, however, all the value lies in what is contained within, in the content, not in what stands without, the binding and cover; so it is that the whole of modern culture is essentially inward: on the outside the bookbinder has printed some such thing as ‘Handbook of inward culture for outward barbarians’. (4)

. . . but as a whole it remains weak because all those beautiful threads are not wound together into a powerful knot. (4)


Modern man suffers from a weakened personality. (5)

While the ‘free personality’ has never before been commended so volubly, there are no personalities to be seen, let alone free personalities - nothing but anxiously muffled up identical people. Individuality has withdrawn within: from without it has become invisible . . . (5)

In an age which suffers from this universal education, to what an unnatural, artificial and in any case unworthy state must the most truthful of all sciences, the honest naked goddess philosophy, be reduced! In such a world of compelled external uniformity it must remain the learned monologue of the solitary walker, the individual’s chance capture, the hidden secret of the chamber, or the harmless chatter of academic old men and children. No one dares venture to fulfil the philosophical law in himself, no one lives philosophically with that simple loyalty that constrained a man of antiquity to bear himself as a Stoic wherever he was, whatever he did, once he had affirmed his loyalty to the Stoa. All modern philosophizing is political and official, limited by governments, churches, academies, customs and the cowardice of men to the appearance of scholarship . . . Are there still human beings, one then asks oneself, or perhaps only thinking-, writing-, and speaking-machines? (5)

Only superior strength can judge, weakness is obliged to tolerate . . . (6)

To sum up: history is written by the experienced and superior man. He who has not experienced greater and more exalted things than others will not know how to interpret the great and exalted things of the past. When the past speaks it always speaks in an oracle: only if you are an architect of the future and know the present will you understand it. (6)

Satiate your soul with Plutarch and when you believe in his heroes dare at the same time to believe in yourself. (6)

There is, indeed, rejoicing that now ’science is becoming to dominate life’: that condition may, possibly, be attained; but life thus dominated is not of much value because it is far less living and guarantees far less life for the future than did a former life dominated not by knowledge but by instinct and powerful illusions. But the present age is, as aforesaid, supposed to be an age,m not of whole, mature and harmonious personalities, but of labour and of the greatest possible common utility. That means, however, that men have to be adjusted to the purposes of the age so as to be ready for employment as soon as possible: they must labour in the factories of the general good before they are mature, indeed so that they shall not become mature—for this would be a luxury which would deprive the ‘labour market’ of a great deal of its workforce. Some birds are blinded so that they may sing more beautifully; I do not think the men of today sing more beautifully than their grandfathers, but I know they have been blinded. (7)

. . . our eternal destiny to be pupils of declining antiquity. (8)

The noblest and most exalted things make no effect whatever on the masses. (9)
__________
Schopenhauer as Educator

Let the youthful soul look back on life with the question: what have you truly loved up to now, what has drawn your soul aloft, what has mastered it and at the same time blessed it? (1)

I discovered how wretched we modern men appear when compared with the Greeks and Romans even merely in the matter of a serious understanding of the tasks of education. (2)

He is honest even as a writer; and so few writers are honest that one ought really to mistrust anyone who writes. I know of only one writer whom I would compare with Schopenhauer, indeed set above him, in respect of honesty: Montaigne. That such a man wrote has truly augmented the joy of living on this earth, Since getting to know this freest and mightiest of souls, I at least have come to feel what he felt about Plutarch . . . (2)

From his watchtower he has seen farther and more clearly than other men, down into the reconciliation of knowledge with being . . . (3)

He knew well that there is something higher and purer to be found and attained on this earth than the life of his own time, and that he who knows existence only in this ugly shape, and assesses it accordingly, does it a grave injustice. (3)

One no longer has the slightest notion how different the seriousness of philosophy is from the seriousness of a newspaper. (4)

As long as anyone desires life as he desires happiness he has not yet raised his eyes above the horizon of the animal, for he only desires more consciously what the animal seeks through blind impulse. (5)

We labour at our daily work more ardently and thoughtlessly than is necessary to sustain our life because to us it is even more necessary not to have leisure to stop and think. (5)

For the question is this: how can your life, the individual life, receive the highest value, the deepest significance? How can it be least squandered? Certainly only by living off the good of the rarest and most valuable exemplars and not for the good of the majority. (6)

Science is related to wisdom as virtuousness is related to holiness; it is cold and dry, it has not love and knows nothing of a deep feeling of inadequacy and longing. It is as useful to self as it is harmful to its servants, insofar as it transfers its own character to them, and thereby ossifies their humanity. As long as what is meant by culture is essentially the promotion of science, culture will pass the great suffering human being by with pitiless coldness, because science sees everywhere only problems of knowledge and because within the world of the sciences suffering is really something improper and incomprehensible, thus at best only one more problem.
But if one accustoms oneself to translating every experience into a dialectical question-and-answer game and into an affair purely of the head, it is astonishing in how short a time such an occupation will wither a man up, how soon he becomes almost nothing but bones. Everyone knows and perceives this fact: so how is it nonetheless possible for young men not to start back at the sight of such skeletons, but on the contrary again and again blindly to give themselves over to the sciences without restraint of selectivity? It can hardly originate in any supposed ‘desire for truth’: for how could there exist any desire at all for cold, pure, inconsequential knowldege! (6)

Such natures are collectors, explainers, compilers of indices and herbariums; they study and prowl around in a single domain simply because it never occurs to them that other domains exist. Their industriousness possesses something of the tremendous stupidity of the force of gravity: which is why they often achieve a great deal (6)

The only critique of a philosophy that is possible and that proves something, namely trying to see whether one can live in accordance with it, has never been taught at universities. (7)
__________
Richard Wagner in Bayreuth

We, on the other hand, we disciples of art resurrected, will have the time and the will for profound, serious reflection! (1)

The individual must be consecrated to something higher than himself. (4)

He has gone beyond all vanities of this sort. (5)

Here are two examples to demonstrate how perverse the sensibilities of our age have become and how the age has no perception of this perversity. In former times one looked down with honest nobility on people who dealt in money as a business, even though one had need of them; one admitted to oneself that every society had to have intestines. Now, as the most covetous of its regions, they are the ruling power in the soul of modern humanity. In former times there was nothing one was warned against more than against taking the day, the moment, too seriously; one was urged nil admiriari and to be concerned with matters of eternity; now only one kind of seriousness still remains in the modern soul, that directed towards the news brought by the newspapers or the telegraph. (6)

He who desired to liberate art, to restore its desecrated sanctity, would first have to have liberated himself from the modern soul. (6)

. . . friend of art and literature and aesthetically refined. (8)

[Brent · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written in Nietzsche's early formative years, from 1873-76, right after he penned his "Birth of Tragedy," Nietzsche's "Untimely Meditations" are truly "out of season." The four essays are all fairly short, but compiled together make a substantive book nevertheless.

The best two essays are the last two, viz., Nietzsche on history and Schopenhauer. In "On the Use and Abuse of History," Nietzsche explores ideas such as History being good only insofar as it contributes towards life. That "objectivity" was merely a late nineteenth century German historian staring down a well only to see the reflection of himself at the bottom. He ridicules "liberal arts" education, German culture (lack thereof), Hegelianism, the "spirit of the age," Statism, teleology, Darwinian evolution, Utilitarianism, and more.

Nietzsche saw the need to return back to the individual, back to art as a means of beauty, illusion, and passion, and back to forgetfulness as a means to understanding history as well as exercising power as a means to life, and not merely submitting passively to the "power of history," or the then popular pervasive notion that history was teleologically driving itself forward to ultimate conscienceness and final consummation, which Nietzsche laughs at as if "God was first created by history" (122).

These essays are instrumental in tracing Nietzsche's thought development whilst at his University post at Basel as a Dr. of philology. Ironically, Nietzsche ends his last essay chiding University Professors, in contradistinction to philosophy professors not bowed down to the State, who remain as free spirits, and individuals like the Ancient Greek philosophers or like Schopenhauer, who Nietzsche praises, albeit he would later break with Schopenhauerean metaphysics. "As soon as philosophy can sever itself from the universities and be purified from every impure motive, it will able to become such a tribunal" (171). Ironically, and poignantly, Nietzsche lived off his meager University pension until he went mad and forfeited his autonomy to the behest of his sister in 1889.

If nothing else, everyone should read the essay on history, which is brilliantly sarcastic, witty, and profound.

-Brent, February 22, 2015 Anno Domini

—-————————————————————

Re-reading again, the Cambridge edition with the Hollingdale translation, ten years later. 2025

Just finished reading for the second time ten years later. All I can say is wow. First of all, the beautiful Cambridge edition with critical footnotes and an excellent introduction made this edition worth the money. I’ll be citing this one as a reference over the older translation from here on out. Secondly, I was able to soak much more up the second time around as, naturally, I am older and have read much more and thus my scope and breath of knowledge is greater than it was a decade ago.

The best essays still remain Nietzsche on history (best) and Schopenhauer (second best). Strauss is good (third best) and there are some zingers in there against scientism of the age and the presumption of the Germans to have postulated their time as the creature exemplar of culture and knowledge. The last essay is the worst and is pretty much N in his sycophant stage towards Wagner. There are some interesting comments in it, though, about how a precocious child seems wise as a kid and childlike as an adult. Or how Wagner’s rôle was not a diviner of the future but of a soothsayer and synthesizer of past great cultures.

Nietzsche developed the monumental, antiquarian, and critical ways of viewing history. More than that there is the historical, ahistorical, and the suprahistorical methods of viewing history. With the unhistorical, Nietzsche wants us to forget, and to enclose ourselves with a boundary, a bounded horizon. We must pick and choose what will define us as individuals and what will define us as a culture. With the Suprahistorical, he points towards that which is “eternal and stable.” Namely, art and religion. He sees science, which serves to aggregate knowledge to mastery and remove all bounded limitations as inherently hostile and antagonistic to art and religion.

History must serve life to make to more abundant and full. Knowing when to remember and when to forget is key for a culture moving forward. Throughout all essays Nietzsche stressed key themes such as action over progress. He says great men doing heroic deeds as the reason history exists at all. Not as something that moves forward (progresses) towards a teleological goal, but as something that is constantly shifting and being redefined. N was no optimist, and constantly cut against the zeitgeist of his time. That’s why he called these essays “Untimely” or, against the cultural time or fashion of the day.

Nietzsche ridicules the German language and sees it in decline. He ridicules romantic music and decried the “modern symphony” which lacks form, although he lionizes Wagner and his modern Opera. He lambastes the culture of business, and desires us to return to thinking, solitude, and contemplative thought. He blames the “money makers” and pins a lot of modern problems on everything being exploited to make money and not for the thing in itself. He saw academia as a place where you were pigeonholed into a mold and not where you could do genuine philosophy. He praises Schopenhauer in this respect over Kant. He criticized modern art, poetry, religion (Schleiermacher and his theology of Gefühl). He excoriates Hegelianism and the neo-hegelianism of Germany at the time which he saw as the extreme form of presumptuousness and arrogance. He says something like: “how fitting that God should come to absolute knowledge of himself in the 19th century…and in Berlin of all places!” Which is absolutely hilarious. I am not gonna look up the quote right now because otherwise I would write a 5,000 word review replete with block quotes, because there were so many damn good ones. Oh, Nietzsche sees “art and religion” as the way to live “unhistorically” insofar as we are able to transcend the thinking thing, the ego, and live more accordance with our animal self, one with nature. I thought that was a very interesting admission, albeit this is very early Nietzsche and his ideas developed a lot subsequently.

Nietzsche would soon leave his academic post at Basil, and remain on salary with a modest stipend and travel Europe reading and writing his best books as a true “free thinker” and “philosopher of the future!”

“And here I recognize the mission of that youth I have spoken of, that first generation of fighters and dragon slayers…Do your hearts not laugh when you hope, you hopeful people?and how can we attain that goal? You will ask. At the beginning of a journey toward that goal, the god of Delphi cries to you his oracle: Know Thyself…The Greeks gradually learned to organize the chaos by following the Delphic teaching, and thinking back to themselves that is to their real needs, letting their pseudo-needs die out. Thus they became the first born and models of all future cultured nations. This is a parable for each one of us. He must organize the chaos within himself by thinking back to his real needs. His honesty, the strength and truthfulness of his character” (On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, 10).

Will be re reading many more works of Nietzsche as I continue to seek life!
-b

2/27/2025

[Sophie · Rating 1 out of 5]

was supposed to open my third eye but actually closed my two normal ones

0/10 would not recommend

[Illiterate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nietzsche berates bourgeois complacency (Strauss) and champions a late romanticism (Schopenhauer, Wagner) tied to creative action/life (History).

[hami · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very difficult book to read in English. The best translation I have found is the one by Ludovici and Collins. The worst is by R.J. Hollingdale Untimely Meditations published by Cambridge University Press. The good translation by Ludovici and Collins, however, is published by Digireads.com and has the worst introduction by anti-semitic and white-nationalist Oscar Levy written in 1909. His review was probably the most racist and white-nationalist academic writing I have ever read. The introduction of the Cambridge University Press by Daniel Breazeale is very deep and enlightening.

The Digireads book has the essays non-chronologically. It has the first and last meditation as Part 1 and has the second and third meditation as Part 2. It works better because I could just ignore the part 1, which contains the 2 most boring works of Nietzsche: “David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer” and “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth”. You need to have a full scholarship to read both of those essays and not fall sleep. Although Nietzsche admits that the real subject of the essays “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth” and “Schopenhauer as Educator” is himself, we don’t see the usual fire that is inside his writings in part 1 of meditations. I think, its mostly, due to Nietzsche’s narrow focus on the German condition rather than a border analyzation that we see in part 2 of the meditations. That might be the reason he abandons the projects after finishing the “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth”.

The young Nietzsche was into Schopenhauer, Goethe, and Machiavelli. The mature Nietzsche was into Stendhal, Dostoyevsky and (again) Machiavelli. He might have been inspired by La Rochefoucauld for his aphorisms in the latter part of his life but I don’t think the influence was as high as other figures.

It is also understandable that writing of thesis meditations is simultaneous with Nietzsche’s shift of interest from philology to philosophy. Nietzsche seems to be focusing on concepts of “culture” and evolution of “culture through education”, especially in “Schopenhauer as Educator”. I am not sure if by culture he means national culture? I wouldn’t expect him to know any better, especially that 140 years ago culture was widely understood to belong to nations. The state was the precursor to culture. In that view, without state, there would be no culture –a colonial idea that dominated the 19th century Europe and dehumanized southern peoples with a darker complexion. Montserrat Guibernau has a great essay on this topic in analyzing Anthony D. Smith’s national identity and culture. She focused on the idea that the European conception of nation and culture often mixed with the notion of state. In this view, the existence of nations without state becomes undermined.

The right-wing interpreters of Nietzsche admire this book because it contains most of Nietzsche’s philosophy minus the most important part; “harsh and direct attack on Christianity”. Currently –but for not much longer– I live in Finland. The brute skin-head racism here functions similar to the rest of the white-majority countries. The idea that a traditionally white nation cannot become mixed with darker peoples. Recently, Jussi Halla-aho the leader of the second-largest political party in Finland (True Finns) announced that the only “real Finnish people” are white and Christian. Simultaneous with this type of violence, some white academics who see themselves in opposition with the far-right mentality, think racism is an import of globalization and a side effect of the current economic system. They omit the notion of racial/cultural homogeneity and monochrome Christian practices and its history.

On Nietzsche’s criticism of Christianity, Reza Aslan comes to mind, an academic who wrote the book “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth” on the life of Jesus. Since 2013, he received much criticism simultaneous with death-threats solely because he is Muslim. In some part of the book, he argued how the catholic church has preferred to promote Jesus as a peaceful spiritual teacher rather than a politically motivated revolutionary who urged his followers to keep his identity a secret.

Going back to Nietzsche, his meditation “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life” was the essay that inspired Foucault in his work on madness. “Schopenhauer as Educator” has probably inspired other post-modern thinkers who were interested not just in culture but in different modes of thinking and knowledge production. Edward Said ends his introduction of Orientalism (1978) with a quote from Raymond Williams and invites us to engage in a process which will result in “unlearning” of “the inherent dominative mode” [of thinking]. We see the roots of this idea not just in “Schopenhauer as Educator” but in Nietzsche’s life itself. How do you break with your teacher and friend, who have uplifted you to where you are? And more important than that how do you engage in a field that is completely antagonistic to what you have been taught? We can see the evolution of Nietzsche’s oeuvre from “Richard Wagner in Bayreuth” to “Nietzsche contra Wagner” which he wrote in the last years of his career. And we can see a change in Nietzsche’s mode of living from Wagner years to his solitude and madness. Similar to his Zarathustra who first ascents to the mountains to solitude, then descend back to humanity. One might interpret this process as an Eternal Return (eternal recurrence) -a non-Deleuzian interpretation of the concept which is contrary to Deleuze’s Eternal Return as the moment in which extremity of differences is reached.

As far as historical heretics and political activists names such as Mansur Al-Hallaj and Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi come to my mind. Mansur al-Hallaj was a Persian mystic, poet and teacher of Sufism in his book, “Kitaab al-Tawaaseen” (902) he mentions:

If you do not recognize God, at least recognize His sign, I am the creative truth
because through the truth, I am eternal truth.
— Ana al-Haqq (I’m the truth/God)

This is the place where we have to be reminded of “writing with one’s own blood”, writing as an activist, making art as an activist. A more contemporary figure that comes to mind in reading Nietzsche’s Meditations is Malcolm X. He has definitely read Nietzsche or at least “On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life”. Malcolm understood the notion of healing the wounds which he also referred to in some of the interviews. Thinking about Nietzsche’s emphasis on the philosopher’s way of life, and what Nietzsche himself has done to Wagner, we can see a correlation to Malcolm X’s life. What Malcolm X has done to Elijah Muhammad is not much different than what Nietzsche has done to Wagner (although we can agree that anti-semitic Wagner was a much lower and nastier character than Elijah Muhammad). How do you break apart from your teacher, admit our mistake, mature yourself and your ideas? In almost every photo or interview, Malcolm X is smiling and laughing. How to maintain a cheerful attitude toward life in the midst of dark and gloomy events?

Malcolm X was always direct and on point. One of the examples of ideal greatness which Nietzsche used in Thus Spoke Zarathustra was borrowed from ancient Persians: “To speak the truth, and be skillful with bow and arrow”. Shooting well with arrows has a connotation to be on point and straight forward. (1)

“In order to determine this degree of history and, through that, the borderline at which the past must be forgotten if it is not to become the gravedigger of the present, we have to know precisely how great the plastic force of a person, a people, or a culture is. I mean that force of growing in a different way out of oneself, of reshaping and incorporating the past and the foreign, of healing wounds, compensating for what has been lost, rebuilding shattered forms out of one’s self. There are people who possess so little of this force that they bleed to death incurably from a single experience, a single pain, often even from a single tender injustice, as from a really small bloody scratch. On the other hand, there are people whom the wildest and most horrific accidents in life and even actions of their own wickedness injure so little that right in the middle of these experiences or shortly after they bring the issue to a reasonable state of well being with a sort of quiet conscience.” (On the Use and Abuse of History for Life, translated by Ian C. Johnston)

Malcolm X’s life can be an embodiment of Nietzschean philosophy, a better example than the life Nietzsche lived himself. One can argue that Malcolm X might have been slightly inspired by Nietzsche, or maximally Malcolm X completed Nietzsche’s philosophy by actualizing it in his own life. Nietzsche’s philosophy is not made to be actualized or utilized in a state level, cultural level, or worst national-cultural. It starts with the individual and stops at the individual level. His critique of modernity and modern humans is one and the same.

“Every philosophy which believes that the problem of existence is touched on, not to say solved, by a political event is a joke- and pseudo-philosophy. Many states have been founded since the world began; that is an old story. How should a political innovation suffice to turn men once and for all into contented inhabitants of the earth? But if anyone really does believe in this possibility he ought to come forward, for he truly deserves to become a professor of philosophy at a German university…” -Schopenhauer as Educator, translation by R. J. Hollingdale, 1984 Cambridge University Press

“Culture and the state—let no one deceive himself here—are antagonists: ‘cultural state’ is just a modern idea. The one lives off the other, the one flourishes at the expense of the other. All great periods in culture are periods of political decline: anything which is great in a cultural sense was unpolitical, even antipolitical.”–Twilight of the Idols, translated by Large, Duncan. (2)

In a talk about Nietzsche and Derrida, Spivak mentioned that the life of an activist requires more than writing. Gramsci, Malcolm X, and such people didn’t just write books, they had notebooks or a series of essays and speeches. Gramsci and Malcolm X were operating outside of the academy, next to their communities and comrades where their struggle was taking shape. They were writing with blood.

At the first look, there might not be any similarity between Malcolm X and Nietzsche. The former was a political activist and the latter was a philosopher-artist. The former was a Muslim minister and the latter was a Christian heretic and son of a Lutheran minister. Malcolm was nationally famous at the time of his assassination. Nietzsche was almost unknown outside of his close circle at the time of his death. Yet, there might be some parallel characteristics between the two. In the past, there has been some informal comparison between these two figures and their works. For instance, Malcolm X’s House Negro Speech and Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morality.

Both Nietzsche and Malcolm X were tired of their contemporary condition, the political climate of their region, and the failed struggles of the past generations that were passed on to them. Nietzsche took refuge in Greek tragedy, classical antiquity and Pre-Socratic philosophy. Malcolm took refuge in Islam, international black struggles, Pan-Africanism and Organization of Afro-American Unity. They both experienced a dramatic shift in their ideology and position, although with different intensities. Nietzsche shifted away from Wagner and German Wagnerism, and Malcolm X shifted from Elijah Muhammad and Nation of Islam toward a more comprehensive radical positionality, especially in regard to white Americans.

When Malcolm was in prison he read Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Kant. In his autobiography, he described his education: “Many who today hear me somewhere in person, or on television, or those who read something I’ve said, will think I went to school far beyond the eighth grade. This impression is due entirely to my prison studies.” (3)

One contrast between Malcolm and Nietzsche’s life is that Nietzsche’s isolation and his idea’s of solitude have very radical individual aspect built into it, while Malcolm’s struggle as much as it was personal, to a great degree it was a predicate from the general social isolation of African-Americans in pre-Civil Rights Act of 1964 America. Both Malcolm and Nietzsche disliked alcohol drinking and smoking.

"The heaviest weight. -What if some day or night a demon were to steal into your loneliest loneliness and say to you : ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it you will have to live once again and innumerable times again; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unspeakably small or great in your life must return to you, all in the same succession and sequence - even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned over again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’ Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: 'You are a god, and never have I heard anything more divine.’ If this thought gained power over you, as you are it would transform and possibly crush you; the question in each and every thing, 'Do you want this again and innumerable times again?’ would lie on your actions as the heaviest weight!" Nietzsche, Friedrich. The Gay Science. Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 194.

I like to connect Nietzsche with the new “Iranian nationalism” and opposition to the Islamic Republic which sometimes results in Islamophobia and another version of Uncle Tomism of the Middle East. Nietzsche is a very dangerous thinker, he can mess you up or uplift you to a higher human. As he says, “I am not a man, I am a Dynamite!”. What you get out of Nietzsche can depend on many things, how you read him, and when you read him, where you are in society and where you have come from. Nietzsche is not only against God, but he is against the god-like sovereign world-view. The universalism of European objectivity and concepts such as theology, history and even science are deeply problematic for him.

Reading Nietzsche after leaving Iran to Germany transformed Aramesh Dustdar an Iranian Heideggerian philosopher into an Islamophobe. In 2010, after the Green movement in Iran, he wrote a letter to Jürgen Habermas, condemning Islam and calling the recent events in Iran as “Shia-Iranian…magic show” staged by a bunch of crafty “pretenders to philosophy.” (4) This letter sparked a lot of debate among Iranian intellectual community condemning Dustdar for his Eurocentric views upholding the orientalist banner: non-Europeans are incapable of thinking.

According to Badiou (wink wink), Modernism started in music before fine arts and Richard Wagner was one of the people who started it. Even if we want to speak in such a categorical language, Wagner’s violent modernism was challenged by Nietzsche who took up the task of overcoming the centricity of the absolute mediums. He identified as an artist more than a philosopher and often used poetry in his works. He believed that old-school rigid theoreticians inside European academies and philosophy as a whole are following the footpath of Hegel’s absolute knowledge and scientific objectivity. Something that he saw very dangerous and sought to overcome.

“What people in earlier times gave the church, people now give, although in scantier amounts, to science.”

Anti-semitic Wager used the term Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art) for his operas where all sorts of visual and auditory mediums were combined: music, dance, theatre, and images. There is an array of white supremacists supporting Wagner’s case (from Hitler to today’s Roger Scruton) on defending Wagner and bringing back the very white/pure European modernity which Scruton calls “high culture”, he writes: “Modern high culture is as much a set of footnotes to Wagner as Western philosophy is, in Whitehead’s judgement, footnotes to Plato”. (5)

“…let us leave the superhistorical people to their revulsion and their wisdom. Today for once we would much rather become joyful in our hearts with our lack of wisdom and make the day happy for ourselves as active and progressive people, as men who revere the process. Let our evaluation of the historical be only a western bias, if only from within this bias we at least move forward and not do remain still, if only we always just learn better to carry on history for the purposes of living! For we will happily concede that the superhistorical people possess more wisdom than we do, so long, that is, as we may be confident that we possess more life than they do. For thus at any rate our lack of wisdom will have more of a future than their wisdom.”

“Insofar as history stands in the service of life, it stands in the service of an unhistorical power and will therefore, in this subordinate position, never be able to (and should never be able to) become pure science, something like mathematics. However, the problem to what degree living requires the services of history generally is one of the most important questions and concerns with respect to the health of a human being, a people, or a culture. For with a certain excess of history, living crumbles away and degenerates. Moreover, history itself also degenerates through this decay.” (6)

insideanairport
***

[Anuraag Sharma · Rating 4 out of 5]

He who thus asks, and asks in vain, will have to look towards the future.

[Griffin Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of the dozen or so Nietzsche works I have read this would certainly make my top 5. This is a collection of 4 essays, one criticizing David Friedrich Strauss' hot air and empty words, one in praise of the famous romantic composer (who he would later turn against) Richard Wagner, one on the philosophy of history (which, I believe, is the one work of Nietzsche that undergrads will often read, this essay also apparently changed the life and approach of Foucault), and one extolling the philosophy and life of Arthur Schopenhauer.

I would give the first, third, and fourth essays all 4, probably 5, stars; some familiarity with the figures addressed renders the numerous jokes and criticisms more appreciable.

The second essay (on Wagner), however, I did not appreciate. I would attribute this partly to my superficial knowledge of the man -- for all I know about him comes from Nietzsche -- and to my unfortunate philistinism regarding classical music.

[Ryan]

This book consists of 4 longish essays from early in Nietzsche's career. The misunderstood German has stated that Schopenhauer as Educator is a great synopsis of his overall view of the world. This is the only essay of the four that I have read. This alone is well worth the price of the book.

Schopenhauer as Educator is the kind of edifying philosophy that I really love. In spirit it has many similarities with Emerson's Self-Reliance.

If you are interested in Nietzsche you have to read this book. Unless, of course, you don't care to.

[Chris M.H · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow.

Incredible. Makes me glad my trade for a time was gardening and that perhaps I should return; in earnest.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 2 out of 5]

Denna har mer karaktär av dagbok, att göra upp med de delar av Nietzsches intellektuella arv som han känt att han vuxit ur. Precis som de flesta sådana skrifter är den inte speciellt läsvärd.

[Ive · Rating 5 out of 5]

You were wrong, You were right.
You were the darkness, You were the light.
Seeing and thinking differently isnt wrong at all. What a gift and the curse to see the world through these eyes.
Beautiful yet scary.

And all the “Wagner stuff”? Oh maaan, totally agree.

[Gerrit G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mostly polemics, the one about Schopenhauer is good, the one about history great.

[Christian · Rating 5 out of 5]

To Nietzsche, clarity can sit in a comprised motley of only rare, uncommon, affirmative and essential things necessitated by those that come unwarily striking with an assertive primness. His utter concern and piercing critique amongst his own, the Germans, led to the healthy isolation and time of meditation of himself. Around the time this work was published with the four installments, his thirst for knowledge and understanding of human nature began to surface - in his way of saying, he was beginning to 'become' and cultivate his 'self-overcoming': the development of the 'philosophical genius'.

With his patent release of emotion as well as rational reasonableness of vitiation to the Germans, it was 'public opinion' that directly appealed to him, how the masses behave instrumentally,(radically silent about strange but necessary instincts) how the paradigms of sociable time played out, and most importantly, how thinking became unimportant and considered the least stimulating activity to them. His development of becoming the philosophical genius rose incrementally once he abdicated from teaching as a Philologist professor due to his approaching illness that unexpectedly prowled within him. It was however, the pushing stimulant that led to his wondrous discovery of solitude, where he announced in his meditations, that is where one can truly begin to find oneself, develop and cultivate their genius and become what one aspires to be in accordance to the inherent principles of nature. This is no simple, easy and innocuous task for one that can miraculously discover the beauty of necessity of their solitude, as he also mentioned. It became transparent to him that in all places, their is always only a few that can and will strive and mentally fight for this growth of oneself that lies deep within. Yes, only a few that can feel above 'the others', the public opinion adherents, while sober, aware, variegated, distinctive, affirmative and strong willing to confront the hardships life squanders unto them. (we could say all but many do not heed!)

Decision making remained something indecisive in many Germans as previously mentioned. With the few that could rise above, like Nietzsche himself, from the collective norm of 'imitated activity', as he called it, his exploring and vivid descriptions of Schopenhauer and Wagner were a splendor and great aid to those in high hopes to discover and master this genius within themselves. Through this exploration of oneself, one can still become wary to learning the essentials of life, reluctant to accept the immoral realities of existence itself, and possibly even taciturn to the automated publicly opinionated once becoming sentient that they will perceive them as irreparably insane. But this is the type of suffering and treatment required for one to give new culture to the people, to work on only themselves and then after reaching mastery teach those what man can only comprehend through rigorous solitude.

Culture was also noted as something deadly and necessary at the same time for the becoming of life. It shouldn't be adulterated however, that it comes off as sly to those that suffer and are venturing for new and life-affirming objectives. Nietzsche resumes with that thought to strongly display the adventurous pains Schopenhauer exemplified, as he noted him as 'educator' - one every spirit looking for cultivation can learn from. Schopenhauer developed an unfortunately predominant lifestyle of limitations on forever longing to not become anything like the genius Nietzsche prescribes with illumination. However, it is because Nietzsche understood Schopenhauer's disposition as a pessimist and an irrational radical, he employed himself to teach the few free-spirited and conscientious readers virtually through Schopenhauer's unalterable pattern of forever suffering. As unfortunate it was for Schopenhauer, he understood his disposition to life and could not improve his introspective perception and that is what Nietzsche stratified. Speaking directly on Schopenhauer, he was very inclined to consume knowledge and make it applicable to his everyday living, but on his venture for this knowing, this way to become, he underestimated truth from the very beginning. He held one facet of himself that forever willed through his own world of idealism; then there lies his other phase where he dangerously fought for truth but remained outweighed by his moralistic side of seeking a personal utopia. He became synchronous with the abyss, forever floating in the dark passageways of nothingness but this deemed as beneficial to those aiming to overcome this almost impossible, but possible, surmountable adventure Schopenhauer never strayed from - it is why he deserves at least some merit.

Art and music to Nietzsche, as described in this writing, already hold existence elsewhere before becoming envisaged and manifested in one's creation or edifice of work. The same as art allows many to become ponderous, contemplative and reflective to sometimes other aspects of life is how one feels when dreaming. That precise assertion is more magnetic to those deliberate in mind of Nietzsche's assessment of life itself, as he dangerously spilled in The Birth of Tragedy, his first published book. His old friendship with the German musician Richard Wagner was an unexpected transfiguration. Nietzsche goes to extreme and necessary levels of thought for the sake of art to explain his growing aversion of the music of Wagner and its moral placements. Wagner, like Schopenhauer, could also be viewed and embodied as an educator. Wagner was a man of education, general to be more candid, which comprised a 'tyrannical' side to him as Nietzsche specifically said. The other was the more artistic, free-going, intrepid and colorful side of Wagner that allowed him to understand his creations more realistically, personally (in a naturalistic sense), profoundly and declare himself quietly as the tragic hero that will learn to overcome his former creations. Nietzsche stated that through experiencing tragedy, hardships, suffering, baleful contortions through experimentation of life, then that is when one can equate themselves with nature and forever mobilize in repose. Wagner, according to Nietzsche, understood where the art of his music was heading as a theatrical performer. And the only way to grasp this greatness that is already within him, he immediately transferred the whole of himself to being solitary. It was there he found his 'true self', the honest and luminous soul that 'became' out of enforced solitude to deliver to the masses (who probably never understood the vital transition in his music) a bewildered and enriching style of expression. He was blown into realization once he experienced this necessary tragedy of experimentation with the inner complexities of his inner self and brought it to his outer self, shattering in him something 'tyrannical', overly moral and blemished.

"For an event to possess greatness two things must come together: greatness of spirit in those who accomplish it and greatness of spirit in those who experience it. No event possesses greatness in itself, though it involve the disappearance of whole constellations, the destruction of entire peoples, the foundation of vast states or the prosecution of wars involving tremendous forces and tremendous losses: the breath of history has blown away many things of that kind as though they were flakes of snow. It can also happen that a man of force accomplishes a deed which strikes a reef and sinks from sight having produced no impression; a brief, sharp echo, and all is over. History has virtually nothing to report about such as it were truncated and neutralized events. And so whenever we see an event approaching we are overcome with the fear that those who will experience it will be unworthy of it. Whenever one acts, in small things as in great, one always has in view this correspondence between deed and receptivity; and he who gives must see to it that he find recipients adequate to the meaning of his gift. This is why even the individual deed of a man great in himself lacks greatness if it is brief and without resonance or effect; for at the moment he performed it he must have been in error as to its necessity at precisely that time; he failed to take correct aim and chance became master over him - whereas to be great and to possess a clear grasp of necessity have always belonged strictly together."

With these Untimely Meditations, Nietzsche began to show new developing colors of himself and manifested new ideals, but more naturalistic ones that played in concordant motion with nature. It was fortunate up to that time for him to experience this self-rumination and position as a developing iconoclast that began to beseech the oppressed for necessary and pragmatic reasons, which eventually led to his solidified disposition to universal education, cultural reformation, the paradoxical complexities of art, the logical dissection of Christianity and the contriving will to overcome nihilism.

[Gokhan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nietzsche’nin, kendi dönemindeki tüm zorluklar ve zorunluluklara rağmen, kendine karşın kendi felsefesini, kendinden emin ve övünçle yaratmayı başardığını düşündüğü ünlü düşünür Schopenhauer’ı, tüm bu yönleriyle kültür mirasına bulunduğu katkıda izlediği yolu, felsefe yapmak üzere kendine illa bir örnek aramak isteyenler için “eğitici” olarak gösterdiği, izlek kabul ettiği kitabıdır.

Nietzsche, sözü geçen zorlukları eserinde sınıflara ayırırken, bu vesileyle, dönemin Almanyasında “güzel biçim” adı verilen içi boş kültüre çekiçlerini indirmekten de geri kalmıyor.

Sistem eleştirilerinin yanında elbette yazarın önermelerini de içeren kitap, felsefenin üniversitelerde ona bir şey katan değil ancak ondan çalan, içi boş ve devlet eliyle bilinçli olarak basitleştirilmiş bir bilim haline geldiğinin altını çiziyor. Buna çare olarak ise Nietzsche, kendi kalıplarıyla tanımladığı gerçek hakikat yolunun, devlet elinden ve bilim bezirganlarından arındırılmış, sınırları olmayan bir ortamda, yüksek bir mahkeme tarafından sürekli bir düşünsel kovuşturmaya uğramasına salık verilen, bu bağlamda rahatsız edilmesi gereken, aylak ve berduş bir gezgin gibi seyyahlık etmesi beklenen düşünürlerin sayesinde gerçekleşebileceğini öne sürüyor.

Zamana Aykırı Bakışlar -3’te ele alınan tema ve etrafında dönen fikirler, okurda, kendini kitap boyunca ilerleyerek büyüten ve sonuç olarak da iyi-kötü ayakları yere basan, sağlam ve üzerine düşünmeye değer alternatif bir düşünce ortaya koyuyor.

[Luis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Este es material primerizo de Nietzche, por lo que vale decir que no he leído a Nietzche, ese que luego escalaría al panteón filosófico popular.
Vale rescatar las precisiones en los ensayos sobre Schopenhauer y Wagner, pero no sé hasta qué punto era necesaria la lluvia de flores sobre los dos. Diría que Nietzche tenía unas nociones enfrentadas contra la realidad de su tiempo y encontró cómo encapsularlas en la vida y obra del filósofo y del artista.
Las consideraciones intempestivas vienen en cuatro ensayos:
1. El primero sobre David Strauss, a quien considera falto de carácter, deshonesto y superficial y, básicamente, un escritor basura.
2. El segundo es un tremendo ensayo sobre la Historia y sus usos, del que destaco su remate sobre la "liberación" de la juventud mediante una rebelión ante la repetición, la imitación de lo que se les ha enseñado y, en cambio, la experimentación de la vida.
3. El tercero, sobre la educación y lleno de flores para Schopenhauer, en el que plantea que el objetivo de la educación debe ser crear individuos ejemplares y no meros acumuladores de conocimiento.
4. El último, sobre el artista y lleno de flores para Wagner: El arte purificador, liberador, transformador, restaurativo.
Toca leer con calmita.

[S h a y a N · Rating 3 out of 5]

"انسان مدرن از ضعف شخصیت آسیب دیده است. این هویت تضعيف شده انسان مدرن یادآور شهروند رومی است که در عصر امپراتوری قدیم روم و در پی برخورد با ملیت هایی که به زیر سلطه داشت، اندک اندک اصالت خود را از دست داد. انسان مدرن به تماشاچی بی هدفی تبدیل شده که جنگ ها و انقلاب های بزرگ نمی‌توانند زمان درازی بر او تاثیر بگذارند. او حتی از کنار اعجاز آمیزترین وقایع به آسانی می‌گذرد و حماسه ای برای سرودن ندارد."
تاملات نابهنگام چهارتا رساله س که مهمترینش درباره سودمندی تاریخ برای زندگی بود که به نظرم تنها بخش خوب کتاب بود. بخش اول راجع به دیوید اشتراوس نویسنده و منتقد مذهبی بود که نیچه اونو آماج حملات خودش قرار داده بود. بخش سوم راجع به شوپنهاور و تاثیری که روی نیچه گذاشته بود صحبت کرده بود که اونم احساس میکنم از وسطاش دیگه از بحث اصلی منحرف شده بود و به نقد دولت و وضعیت فلسفه آلمان پرداخته بود. بخش آخر هم راجع به واگنر و هنر واگنری تو زمانی که نیچه هنوز از واگنر ناامید نشده بود. درکل احساس میکنم این کتاب نیچه بجز بخش دومش جذابیت کتابای دیگه ش رو برام نداشت. یه جورایی آلمانی ترین نوشته نیچه بود. یعنی کتابی که صرفا برای مخاطب آلمانی شاید جذاب باشه و موضوعات عمیق و انسانی که تو کتابای دیگه ش هست خیلی اینجا مطرح نبود.

[Petter Gran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Det ligger jo et paradoks i det vitenskapelige menneskets vesen: det oppfører seg som lykkens stolteste lediggjenger, som om tilværelsen ikke er noe håpløst og bekymringsfullt, men en fast eiendom garantert for evig tid. Det virker tillatt for ham å vie et helt liv til spørsmål som i grunnen er viktige kun for dem som er forsikret for en evighet. De skrekkeligste avgrunner åpner seg rundt ham, denne arvingen av de få timer, hvert skritt burde minne ham om: hvorfor? Hvor hen? Hvorfra? Men hans sjel brenner for oppgaven med å telle pollentråder på blomster eller å kløyve steiner langs veikanten, og til dette arbeidet vier han sin fulle og hele oppmerksomhet, og han legger ned all sin lyst, sin kraft og sitt begjær.

[HBrowne · Rating 3 out of 5]

Taken together - not Nietzsche at his best. Each essay can be judged individually though, and Schopenhauer as Educator was the best for me - advocating for philosophy as a lifestyle and for its separation from a university system that was already sclerotic (and now—terminal) in favour of the bravery to live opposed to the values of the age.

[Treppchen · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 stars for Schopenhauer as Educator

[Aria Izik-Dzurko]

I do harbour a profound desire for the genius within me, Nietszche, but you, sir, have set the bar so impossibly high. And yes, I confess, I do cling relentlessly to the past, but this is simply because the past includes your (in fact, very timely) wisdom and unmistakeable wit.

[hmmm]

Full disclosure i skimmed the end of the boring wagner one

[K · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nietzsches werk blijft altijd een inspirerende voedingsbodem voor het denken. In deze review verzamel ik een aantal citaten, vat ik een aantal kerngedachten samen en lever ik op enkelen ook een eigen reflectie.

Ik begin met een aantal mooie of inzichtrijke citaten:

“Waar het hart vol van is, daar loopt de mond van over.” (p. 29)

“Altijd is de scheppende mens in het nadeel geweest tegenover hem die alleen maar toekeek en niet zelf de hand aan de ploeg sloeg; zoals de politieke tinnegieter te allen tijde verstandiger, rechtvaardiger en bedachtzamer is geweest dan de regerende staatsman.” (p. 105)

“Er is veel kracht voor nodig om te kunnen leven en tegelijk te vergeten in hoeverre leven en onrechtvaardig-zijn één en hetzelfde is.” (p. 111)

“Ik ken geen beter levensdoel dan aan het grote en onmogelijke, animea magnae prodigus [begiftigd met zielegrootheid], te gronde te gaan.” (p. 159)

“Wanneer de grote denker de mensen veracht, veracht hij hun luiheid: want die maakt dat zij fabrieksgoed lijken, indifferent, niet waard om mee om te gaan en wijzer van te worden.” (pp. 177-178)

“Je moet het leven een beetje brutaal en gevaarlijk opvatten: vooral omdat je het zowel in het ergste als in het gunstigste geval altijd zult verliezen.” (p. 179)

“Niemand kan de brug voor je bouwen waarover juist jij de rivier van het leven moet overschrijden, niemand behalve jij alleen.” (p. 179)

“Hoe kan de mens zichzelf kennen? Hij is een duistere, verborgen zaak; en al heeft de haas zeven huiden, de mens kan zichzelf zeven maal zeventig keer afstropen zonder te kunnen zeggen: ‘Dit ben je nu werkelijk, dit is geen buitenkant meer.’” (p. 180)

“Laat de jonge ziel op zijn leven terugblikken en de vraag stellen: wat heb je tot dusver waarlijk liefgehad, wat heeft je ziel aangetrokken, wat heeft haar beheerst en tegelijk gelukkig gemaakt?” (p. 180)

“Elke filosofie die gelooft dat het probleem van het bestaan door een politieke gebeurtenis verlegd of zelfs opgelost kan worden, is een scherts- en pseudo-filosofie. … Hoe zou een politieke vernieuwing kunnen volstaan om de mensen eens en voor al in tevreden aardbewoners te veranderen?” (p. 203)

"Wat is ons door al deze bespiegelingen duidelijk geworden? Dat overal waar de cultuur thans het energiekst bevorderd lijkt te worden, niemand iets van dit doel weet." (p. 237)

“Een gebeuren heeft slechts dan grootheid wanneer er twee factoren samenwerken: de geestelijke grootheid van hen die het voltrekken, en de geestelijke grootheid van hen die het beleven.” (p. 267) “overeenstemming tussen daad en ontvankelijkheid”

“Dat één individu, in de loop van een gewoon mensenleven, iets volstrekt nieuws kan neerzetten, is ongetwijfeld stuitend voor hen die bij de geleidelijkheid van alle ontwikkeling zweren alsof het een soort zedenwet is: zij zijn zelf traag en eisen traagheid – en nu zien zij iemand die zeer snel is, weten niet hoe hij dat doet en nemen het hem kwalijk” (p. 269)

“De grootsheid en onontbeerlijkheid van de kunst ligt juist hierin dat zij de schijn wekt van een eenvoudiger wereld, van een vluggere oplossing van de levensraadsels. Niemand die aan het leven lijdt kan deze schijn ontberen, zoals niemand de slaap ontberen kan.” (p. 287)
“De vereenvoudiging van de wereld bestaat altijd hierin, dat de blik van de kennende mens weer opnieuw heer en meester is geworden over de ontzaglijke overvloed en woestheid van een schijnbare chaos en dat hij datgene tot eenheid samenbalt wat vroeger als onderling onverenigbaar uiteenlag” (pp. 288-289)

“Opdat de boog niet breke, is er de kunst.” (p. 288)


DE VERLOREN NOODZAKELIJKHEID VAN HET LEVEN
Het voelt tegenwoordig alsof een groot gedeelte van ons leven niet meer noodzakelijk is. Vroeger, voordat de 'beschaafde' samenleving bestond, handelde de mens uit pure noodzaak om te overleven. Een mensenlichaam is geëvolueerd om te bewegen, eten te verzamelen, te jagen, etc. Tegenwoordig echter hebben we het contact met onze biologische 'natuur' verloren, en kan men van weinig dingen die we doen echt zeggen dat ze 'noodzakelijk' zijn.

Ik bedoel hiermee een 'eerste orde' noodzakelijkheid: de handeling heeft direct met het beoogde doel te maken (als iemand honger heeft, dan pakt diegene eten). Een 'tweede orde' noodzakelijkheid zou een indirecte handeling zijn om zijn doel te bereiken: de handeling heeft niet direct iets met het beoogde doel te maken, maar leidt er wel toe (iemand ruilt iets voor eten). Een 'derde orde' noodzakelijkheid zou een extra voorwaarde toevoegen aan het beoogde: het doel wordt alleen beoogd als het aan een extra criterium voldoet (ik wil eten, maar iets lekkers).

Het ziet er naar uit dat de oude beschavingen in een tweede orde noodzakelijkheid leefden. De handelingen die zij uitvoerden stonden in dienst van het leven, van hun directe behoeften. Met betrekking tot de artefacten die uit deze tijd stammen, haalt Nietzsche Schopenhauer aan: "De schoonheid van de antieke vaten, zegt Schopenhauer, berust hierop dat ze op zo'n naïeve manier uitdrukken wat ze zijn en waartoe ze dienen; en hetzelfde geldt voor al het andere gerei van de Ouden: ze geven je het gevoel dat als de natuur vazen, amforen, lampen, tafels, stoelen, helmen, schilden, pantsers enzovoort zou voortbrengen, ze er zo zouden uitzien." Met andere, versimpelde woorden: de artefacten zijn zichzelf, zijn gemaakt uit noodzakelijkheid.

Tegenwoordig zijn de dingen zichzelf niet meer, niet ontstaan uit een zekere noodzakelijkheid, maar gefabriceerd omwille van een winstbelang. En hoewel artefacten in het verleden ook versieringen kenden, die geenszins een noodzakelijke toevoeging zijn, waren deze versieringen toch het gevolg van een bepaalde techniek. Het was handwerk, en moest de wetten van het handwerk gehoorzamen. Nu, in een wereld met synthetische materialen en fabrieken die artefacten aan de lopende band produceren voor de massa's, is het laatste grijnsje noodzakelijkheid uit de versiering verdwenen. De versiering is een zwendel geworden.

Daarbij komt nog dat ook onze levensstijlen beroofd zijn van hun noodzakelijkheid. Waar de primordiale mens noodzakelijk gezond was, moeten wij nu een primordiale levensstijl simuleren om gezond te zijn. We simuleren met sport onze oorspronkelijke bezigheid, namelijk bewegen, en met gezond eten wordt bedoeld onverwerkt eten, eten zoals het te vinden is in de natuur. Zelfs contact wordt gesimuleerd, maar deze gedachten kan ik beter bespreken in mijn review van Simulation and Simulacra van Baudrillard.


LIJDT DE MODERNE MENS AAN EEN TE GROOT HISTORISCH BEWUSTZIJN?
In het essay 'Over nut en nadeel van de geschiedenis voor het leven' pleit Nietzsche ervoor in onze benadering van de geschiedenis, de geschiedenis in dienst te stellen van het leven: “Als we dit maar steeds beter leren: geschiedenis ten dienste van het leven te beoefenen” (p. 99).
Nietzsche begint het essay met een tegenstelling, namelijk tussen de historische mens en het onhistorische dier: “De mens vraagt het dier wel eens: waarom vertel je me niet over je geluk en kijk je me alleen maar aan? Het dier wil wel antwoorden en zeggen: dat komt doordat ik altijd meteen vergeet wat ik wilde zeggen – maar toen vergat het ook dit antwoord alweer en zweeg: zodat de mens zich erover verwonderde. Hij verwondert zich echter ook over zichzelf: dat hij niet kan leren te vergeten en zich aldoor aan het verleden vastklampt: hij mag nog zo ver, nog zo snel weglopen, de ketting loopt mee” (p. 91)
Het dier leeft onhistorisch, “want het gaat op in het heden, als een getal, zonder dat er een wonderlijke breuk overblijft, het kan geen komedie spelen, verbergt niets en manifesteert zich op elk willekeurig moment geheel en al als dat wat het is, kan dus gewoon niets anders dan eerlijk zijn [nadruk toegevoegd]” (pp. 91-92).
De mens die niet kan vergeten, daarentegen, is “ertoe veroordeeld … overal een worden te zien: zo iemand gelooft niet meer in zijn eigen zijn, gelooft niet meer in zichzelf, ziet alles in bewegende stippen uiteenvloeien en verdwaalt in deze stroom van het worden: hij zal ten slotte, net als de ware leerling van Heraclitus, zijn vinger nauwelijks meer durven op te steken. Voor elk handelen is vergeten nodig” (p. 93).

Dit doet sterk denken aan het onderscheid tussen de stier en de muis dat De Ondergrondse Man maakt in Dostojevski’s Aantekeningen uit het Ondergrondse. De stier is een wilde macht, die gewoon maar doet wat het doet, zonder er echt bij na te denken. Als de stier een muur ziet, doet het hem niets en beukt hij er tegenaan. Wanneer de muis echter al denkt aan de mogelijkheid van een muur, dat er iets is dat hem kan stoppen, is dat al genoeg om zichzelf te paralyseren. Zo lijdt de muis doordat hij te veel denkt aan inertie.
Dit is precies wat Nietzsche bedoelt met analytische overdenking: “Aldus maakt het historisch besef zijn dienaren passief en retrospectief; en bijna alleen door voorbijgaande vergeetachtigheid, wanneer dat besef toevallig even pauzeert, wordt de lijder aan de historische koorts actief, om, zodra de actie voorbij is, zijn daad te ontleden, door analytische overdenking haar verdere invloed te verhinderen en haar ten slotte tot ‘geschiedenis’ te reduceren” (p. 145). In dit geval heeft de dienaar echter toch iets gedaan, maar reduceert hij de invloed van zijn handelen vervolgens tot geschiedenis

Volgens Nietzsche is het nodig jezelf enigszins af te zonderen van de omvang van de wereld: “Al het levende kan slechts bínnen een horizon gezond, sterk en vruchtbaar worden; is het niet bij machte een horizon om zich heen te trekken en anderzijds te zelfzuchtig om de eigen blik binnen een vreemde horizon op te sluiten, dan kwijnt het dof of ijlings een vroege ondergang tegemoet” (p. 94). Een te groot historisch besef weerhoudt de plastische kracht van de mens tot uiting te komen, om te groeien, om vitaliteit uit te stralen:

Het historische weten en voelen van een mens kan zeer beperkt zijn, zijn horizon begrensd als die van een alpendalbewoner, bij elk oordeel kan hij een onrecht begaan, bij elke ervaring de vergissing te denken dat hij de eerste is die deze ervaring heeft – en ondanks alle onrechtvaardigheden en vergissingen staat hij toch in onverwoestbare gezondheid en vitaliteit voor ons en is een lust voor ieders oog; terwijl vlak naast hem de veel rechtvaardiger en beter onderlegde mens sukkelt en instort, omdat de lijnen van zijn horizon steeds weer opnieuw rusteloos verschuiven, omdat hij zich niet meer uit het veel fijnere web van zijn rechtvaardigheden en waarheden tot een krachtig willen en begeren kan bevrijden. (pp. 94-95)

DE MONUMENTALE, ANTIQUARISCHE EN KRITISCHE RELATIE TOT DE GESCHIEDENIS
De monumentale geschiedenis: De actieve en machtige mens die grote voorbeelden nodig heeft.

“Dat de grote momenten in de strijd van enkelingen een keten vormen, dat zich in hen een bergketen der mensheid vormt die duizenden jaren overspant, dat het hoogtepunt van zo’n lang vervlogen moment voor mij nog levend, licht en groot is” (p. 101).
“fakkelwedloop van de monumentale geschiedenis” (p. 102)
“geloof in de saamhorigheid en continuïteit van het grote aller tijden, het is een protest tegen de wisseling van de generaties en tegen de vergankelijkheid” (p. 102)
De monumentale benadering van de geschiedenis is belangrijk omdat hij de mens laat zien wat er mogelijk is en mogelijk kan zijn, hij inspireert de mens tot grote hoogten.

Maar! De monumentale geschiedenis is een versimpeling van de geschiedenis: “Hoeveel verschillen moeten, wil zij deze versterkende werking uitoefenen, daarbij over het hoofd worden gezien, met hoeveel geweld moet de individualiteit van het verleden in een algemene vorm worden geperst en moeten alle scherpe hoeken en lijnen ten behoeve van de overeenstemming worden afgevlakt!” (p. 103).
Hier schuilt dus een gevaar: “De monumentale geschiedenis misleidt door analogieën: zij zet met verleidelijke punten van overeenkomst de moedigen aan tot roekeloosheid, de geestdriftigen tot fanatisme” (p. 105).
“Over het geheel genomen is het echter een gevaarlijk symptoom wanneer de geestelijke worsteling van een volk zich voornamelijk op het verleden richt, een teken van verslapping, van terugval en zwakte: zodat zij nu op een hoogst gevaarlijke wijze aan elke om zich heen grijpende koorts, bijvoorbeeld de politieke koorts, blootgesteld zijn.” (pp. 279-280)

De antiquarische geschiedenis: De conserverende en bewonderende mens, die “trouw en liefdevol terugblikt op dat waaruit hij afkomstig is, dat waarin hij zich ontwikkeld heeft” (p. 107).

Maar bij de antiquarische mens wordt de ziel eerder door het bezit bezeten.
“Al het oude en voorbije dat nog binnen het gezichtsveld valt, [wordt] simpelweg als even eerbiedwaardig aanvaard, maar alles wat dit oude niet met eerbied tegemoet treedt, dus het nieuwe en wordende, afgewezen en bestreden” (p. 109)
“Wanneer de geest van een volk zozeer verhardt, wanneer de geschiedenis zo dienstbaar is aan het voorbije leven dat zij het voortleven en vooral het hogere leven ondermijnt, wanneer het historisch besef het leven niet meer conserveert maar mummificeert, dan sterft de boom, onnatuurlijk genoeg, van boven naar de wortels toe af – en ten slotte gaan gewoonlijk de wortels zelf te gronde. De antiquarische geschiedenis ontaardt zodra het frisse leven van het heden haar niet meer bezielt en enthousiasmeert” (pp. 109-110)
Maar ook in het geval dat de antiquarische blik op de geschiedenis de samenleving niet geheel en al bevriest, dan nog ontstaat er het gevaar dat deze blik de anderen overwoekert. “Zij kan nu eenmaal alleen leven conserveren, niet voortbrengen; daarom onderschat zij altijd het wordende, omdat zij daar geen instinct voor heeft” (p. 110)
“Als de geschiedenis zelf maar netjes ‘objectief’ bewaard blijft, namelijk door het soort mensen dat zelf nooit geschiedenis zal kunnen maken.” (p. 125)

De kritische geschiedenis: De mens die de geschiedenis kan amputeren, wanneer die het leven verzwakt.

“[De mens] moet de kracht hebben, en van tijd tot tijd ook gebruiken, om een verleden in stukken te breken en op te lossen, teneinde te kunnen leven: dit bereikt hij door het voor het gerecht te dagen, nauwkeurig te ondervragen en ten slotte te vonnissen. … Het is niet de gerechtigheid die hier rechtspreekt; en nog minder is het de genade die hier het oordeel velt: maar alleen het leven, die duistere, drijvende, onverzadigbaar zichzelf begerende macht. Zijn vonnis is altijd ongenadig, altijd onrechtvaardig, omdat het nooit uit een zuivere bron van kennis voortvloeit. … Er is veel kracht voor nodig om te kunnen leven en tegelijk te vergeten in hoeverre leven en onrechtvaardig-zijn één en hetzelfde is.” (p. 111).

EEN VOORBODE VAN DE CULTURE WARS
In dit boek schrijft Nietzsche regelmatig over ‘cultuur,’ dat hij als volgt definieert: “Cultuur is vóór alles eenheid van artistieke stijl in alle uitingen van een volk. [En het] tegenovergestelde daarvan, barbaarsheid, dat wil zeggen: stijlloosheid of een chaotisch [sic.] mengelmoes van alle mogelijke stijlen” (p. 12). Op pagina 116 noemt Nietzsche de definitie wederom: “eenheid van artistieke stijl in alle levensuitingen van een volk.”
Ik moet zeggen dat ik Nietzsches opvattingen over cultuur niet altijd deel. Ik vind ze regelmatig getuigen van een cultureel essentialisme waar ik het principieel mee oneens ben.

Nietzsche schrijft over de Franco-Duitse oorlogen en wijst erop dat, hoewel Duitsland de oorlog gewonnen heeft, dat niet betekent dat Duitsland de betere cultuur heeft, dat Duitsland heeft gewonnen omdat de Duitse cultuur beter zou zijn dan de Franse. Ik denk dat het mensen tegenwoordig vaak aan dit inzicht ontbreekt, nu er openlijk gesproken wordt over vermeende culture wars.


TEGEN MISPLAATST OPTIMISME
Net zoals Voltaire in zijn tijd verzette Nietzsche zich tegen het optimisme, gedefinieerd als het idee te leven in de beste aller werelden. Waar Voltaire zijn kritiek in Candide uitte jegens Leibniz, doet Nietzsche dit voornamelijk in het polemische essay gericht op Strauss. “Bij passages als deze grijpt men Schopenhauers plechtige verklaring dat het optimisme, voor zover het niet het gedachteloze gepraat van een soort mensen is achter wier platte voorhoofden alleen maar woorden wonen, hem niet alleen een absurde, maar ook een waarlijk gewetenloze manier van denken toeschijnt, een bittere bespotting van het onnoemelijke lijden der mensheid” (p. 40).

Drie typen persoonlijkheden (pp. 207-213): Rousseau, de revolutionaire en destructieve; Goethe, de bespiegelende zonder actie; Schopenhauer, de waarachtige, heroïsche mens

Nietzsche voorvoelde de moderne drang tot afleiding
“Wij weten allen op sommige ogenblikken dat de meest uitvoerige voorbereidingen in ons leven alleen maar getroffen worden om onze eigenlijke taak te ontvluchten, dat wij graag ergens ons hoofd zouden willen verstoppen, alsof ons honderdogige geweten ons daar niet te pakken zou kunnen krijgen. … Wanneer wij alleen zijn en zwijgen, zijn wij bang dat ons iets in het oor zal worden gefluisterd, en daarom haten wij de stilte en verdoven onszelf met sociaal verkeer.” (p. 217)

[Berkay Aras · Rating 4 out of 5]

*Aslında her insan çok iyi bilir ki: Dünyaya yalnızca bir defalığına, tek örnek olarak gelmiştir ve bu kadar şaşırtıcı renklilikteki birçok şeyi, kendisindeki gibi tek bir şey halinde bir araya getiren bir o kadar da tuhaf rastlantı, ikinci bir kez gerçekleşmeyecektir: Bilir ama bir vicdan rahatsızlığı gibi gizler bunu - niçin? Geleneğe uyulmasını isteyen ve kendisini de gelenekle gizleyen komşusundan duyduğu korku yüzünden. ... İnsanlar korkak olduklarından daha fazla tembeller ve özellikle de, mutlak bir dürüstlüğün ve çıplaklığın kendilerine yükleyeceği zorluklardan korkarlar en çok. Yalnızca sanatçılar, böyle ödünç alınmış davranışlarla ve eğreti kanılarla kayıtsızca ortalıkta dolaşmaktan nefret ederler ve herkesin sırrını, vicdan rahatsızlığını, her insanın bir defalık bir mucize olduğunu ifşa ederler; biz insanlara, insanın kaslarının en küçük bir kıpırtısına kadar bizzat kendisi, yalnızca kendisi olduğunu ve daha fazlasını, insanın bu biricikliğinin kesin bir sonucu olarak, güzel ve bakılmaya değer olduğunu, doğanın her yapıtı gibi yeni ve inanılmaz olduğunu ve kesinlikle can sıkıcı olmadığını söylemeye cesaret ederler. Büyük düşünür, insanları aşağıladığında onların tembelliğini aşağılamaktadır: çünkü bu tembellik yüzünden birer seri imalat ürünü, önemsiz, ilişki kurmaya ve eğitilmeye değmez olarak görünmektedirler. Kitleye dahil olmak istemeyen insanın yapması gereken şey, kendine razı olmayı bırakmaktır; kendisine seslenen vicdanını dinlemelidir: "Kendin ol! Şimdi yaptığın, düşündüğün ve arzuladığın şeylerin hiçbiri sen değilsin."

B.: Nasıl keseyim şimdi bu büyük paragrafı bir tarafından.. Şu iç sesimize kulak vermek çok mu cidden?, minimini vızıltısı: kendin ol kendin ol...; onu duymayan ya da istemeyen tembellik midir, dışarıdaki gürültüde kaybolmayı yeğleyen... iç ses kimlerde gürül gürül? böylelikle yaman mı yaman bir yaşama atılan (ama bir o kadar değerli): Sanatçıların mı... Tam burada Sanatçı demişken.., müthiş bir kavram eleğimiz olmalı.. Zira bu aralar her şeyin sanat takısı var...

*Kendi ölçütlerimize ve yasamıza göre yaşamak için: Ortaya çıkmak için sonsuz zamanımız varken, özellikle bugün yaşıyor oluşumuz, neden ve niçin özellikle şimdi ortaya çıktığımızı göstermek için kısacık bir bugünden fazla zamana sahip olmayışımız, akıl almaz bir durumdur. Kendi varoluşumuz hakkında kendimize karşı sorumluyuz; bu yüzden, bu varoluşun gerçek dümencileri de kendimiz olmalıyız ve varoluşumuzun kör bir rastlantısallığa benzemesine izin vermemeliyiz. Biraz pervasızca, biraz tehlikeli yaşamalı bu varoluşu.

B.: “Şimdi”… İnsan “şimdi”ye varabilmek için çok fazla “geleceğe yatırım” yolu alıyor. O “gelecek” nezaman “şimdi”ye erecek? Çok çok az kişide o “şimdi” çiçeği açıyor kanımca.

*Tek bir yol vardır dünyada, senden başka kimsenin gidemeyeceği: Nereye mi götürür bu yol? Sorma, yürü o yolu. Kimdi şu cümleyi söyleyen: “Bir adam yolunun onu nereye götürdüğünü bilmediği zamanlardakinden daha fazla yücelemez asla”?

B.*: Sorma yürü o yolu… Delice soru atmosferlerinde yetişen bir insana gözükebilen o biricik yol için şimdi yeni bir meydan okuma: sormadan yürümek onu..!

*… Şimdiye kadar neyi sevdin içtenlikle, ne çekti ruhunu kendine, ona hükmeden ve aynı zamanda seni mutlu eden neydi? Bu yüce şeyler dizisini gözünün önüne getir, belki varlıkları ve sonuçlarıyla bir yasa sunarlar sana, asıl benliğinin temel yasasını. Karşılaştır bu şeyleri, birinin bir diğerini nasıl bütünlediğini, genişlettiğini, aştığını, yücelttiğini gör, şimdi üzerinden çıkarak kendine doğru yükseldiğin bir merdiven oluşturduklarını gör;…

* Hayalimdeki eğitici filozof, merkezi gücü keşfetmekle kalmayacak; onun öteki güçlere karşı yok edici bir etkide bulunmasını önlemeyi de bilecektir: belki de, onun eğitiminin görevi, sanırım insanı bir bütün olarak, canlı bir devinim içindeki bir güneş ve gezegenler sistemi biçiminde yeniden oluşturmak ve onun en üst mekaniğinin yasasını kavramaktır.

*… Öte yandan insanların başına gelebilecek en neşeli ve en iyi şey, en derin şeyi düşündükleri ve özellikle en canlı şeyi sevmeleri gerektiği için ve özellikle en canlı şeyi sevmeleri gerektiği için ve sonunda bir bilge olarak güzel olana eğilim duyan galiplerden birine yakın olmaktır. Onlar gerçekten konuşurlar, kekelemezler ve lafı da uzatmazlar; hareket ederler ve gerçekten yaşarlar, insanların genelde yaşadıkları gibi tekinsiz maskeler ardında da yaşamazlar: Bu yüzden onların yanında kendimizi bir kez olsun gerçekten insanca ve doğal hissederiz ve Goethe gibi seslenesimiz gelir: “Canlı bir şey nasıl da harika, nefis bir şeydir! Nasıl da yerini bulmuştur; nasıl da hakiki, varlık doludur.”

B.: Yaşam’ağı ben, mucizenin anlamıyla denkdeğer görüyorum: anlatımdaki yaşam farklı, ona ben yazın diyorum; ama asıl olanı..: kendine anlattığını eylediğin -yani bilinç ile varlık ayrımını yapmak icap ediyor-; tabiri caizse artık konuşma makinasılığından çıkıp; gerekli bir sessizliğin sahibesi olduğun zaman… meydana çıkıyor.

* Shopenhauerin etkisinden çözümlenen 3 unsur: Dürüstlük, neşelik, kalıcılık. Kendi kendisiyle ve kendisi için konuştuğundan ve yazdığından ötürü dürüsttür; en zor şeyi düşünerek yendiği için neşelidir ve öyle olması gerektiği için kalıcıdır. …bir yerçekimi yasası gibi zorunlu olarak işler.

*Çünkü felsefe insanlara, hiçbir tiranlığın içeri giremeyeceği bir sığınağı, iç dünyanın mağarasını, gönlün labirentini açar..

* Diğer yandan da, ‘yalnızca kendi yaşamını oku ve buradan genel yaşamın hiyerogliflerini çöz’ der her büyük felsefe. … Kişi onu yalnızca kendisi için, kendi zavallılığını ve zorunluluğunu, kendi sınırlılığını kavramak için, yani: Benliğini feda etmek, onu en soylu niyetlere ve özellikle de adalete ve merhamete tabi kılmak için yorumlamalıdır.
… Doğaya yardımcı olmak ve onun budalalıklarını ve sakarlıklarını biraz telafi etmek için erk kazanmaktır bu hedef. Önceleri yalnızca kişinin kendisi için: ama kendisi sayesinde nihayetinde herkes için.

B.: Eylemin daima kendine doğru; ötekine de cabası, dolaylı olarak kendinden sekerek…
*Yaşamak demek tehlike içinde olmak demektir.
*Tüm büyük düşünürlerin asıl işi, şeylerin ölçüsünü, ayarını, ağırlığını belirleyen kişi olmaktır.
*…önce yaşamın hakiki, kanlı canlı, sağlıklı olmasını gösterilmesini isteyecektir. En azından kendisinin adil bir yargıç olabildiğine inanması için, canlı bir insan olması gerektiğini hissedecektir. Özellikle yeni filozofların yaşamın, yaşama istencinin en güçlü savunucuları olmalarının ve yaşadıkları bitkin zamanların içinden, yeni bir kültürü, yüceltilmiş yeni bir Physisi özlemelerinin nedeni budur. Ne var ki bu özlem aynı zamanda onları bekleyen tehlikedir de: içlerinde savaşan yaşamın reformcusu ve filozoftur: yani yaşamın yargıcıdır. Zafer hangi doğrultuda olursa olsun, içinde bir kaybı da barındıracaktır.

B.: Sanat ve felsefenin belki de en yüce kazandırdığı şey: canlı olmak. Kimsenin(!) de göremediği o kazanç. Canlı bir karakterin perde arkasını görmek büyük mesele tabi.

*Bu varoluşu yüreğinin derinliklerinde olumluyormusun sen? Yetiyor mu sana? Onun savunucusu, onun kurtarıcısı olacak mısın? Çünkü senin ağzından çıkacak tek bir sahici “Evet!” sözcüğüyle bu ağır suçlarla itham edilen yaşam özgür kalacak.

*Dobra dobra konuşacak olursak: Daha iyi olması için bir kere adamakıllı kötü olmamız gerekiyor. Schopenhauer insanı, hakikatliğin gönüllü ızdırabını üstlenir; bu ızdırap, kendi başına buyrukluğunu yok etmesine ve varlığının bütünüyle dönüşmesi ve değişmesi için hazırlanmaya yarar; yaşamın asıl anlamı da bu dönüşüm ve değişime götürmektir…

*…Sizi mükemmelliğe taşıyan en hızlı hayvan, acı çekmektir.
* Felsefeciler, sanatçılar ve azizler: Hakikatli insanlardır bunlar, artık hayvan-olmayanlardır; asla sıçramayan doğa, onlar göründüklerinde ve onların görünmesi sayesnde, biricik sıçrayışını gerçekleştirir.

*Kendimizde ve dışımızda filozofun, sanatçının ve azizin üretilmesini teşvik etmek ve böylelikle doğanın tamamlanması için çalışmak… Çünkü doğa, filozofa nasıl gereksinirse, sanatçıya da gereksinir, metafizik bir amaç için, yani kendisini kendisi hakkında aydınlatmak için…

* Bilim kendisine hizmet edenlere ne kadar zarar verirse kendisine o kadar yarar sağlar, kendi karakterini onlara aktarır ve böylelikle onların insanlığını adeta kuru kemiğe çevirir.

*…Çünkü adalet ateşinden bir kıvılcım, bir bilginin ruhuna düştüğünde, onun yaşamını ve çabasını ışıtmaya ve arıtarak süslemeye yeter; dolayısıyla böyle bir bilginin artık huzuru kalmaz, sıradan bilginlerin işlerini yürüttükleri ılık ya da donuk ruh halinden sonsuza dek kovulur.

*Doğaya aykırı bir biçimde bilgin olmaya eğitmekten daha zor ne olabilir ??

*Doğanın, filozofları ve sanatçıları ortaya çıkartarak, insanlara yaşamı anlamlı ve önemli kılmak istediği, kurtulmayı gereksinen kendi dürtüsü açısından kesindir; ama filozoflarla ve sanatçılarla ulaştığı etki ne kadar belirsiz, ne kadar zayıf ve donuktur!

*Sanatçı ve filozof, doğanın amaçlarındaki bilgeliğin en mükemmel örneklerini oluştursalar bile, onun araçlarının amaca uygunluğuna karşı birer kanıttırlar. Herkese nişan aldıkları halde, küçük bir gruba isabet ettirirler; oysa bu çok az kişiye denk gelen mermiler de , filozofun ve sanatçının onları fırlatış anındaki güçle isabet etmezler.

*…Çünkü filozofun asıl dersi kendisinden alması gerekir ve kendi kendisi için, tüm dünyanın sureti ve kısaltması işlevini görür. Bir kimse kendisine yabancı görüşlerin aracılığıyla bakarsa, mucizeye bakın ki, orada gördüğü şey de yalnızca..: yabancı görüşlerdir!..

B.: Hakiki özgün olabilmek ne kadar zordur. Kopyalama ne kadar çoktur etrafta…

*.. Ancak gerçekten kaşlarını çatan, hakikatin bıçağıyla her şeyi, devleti de masaya yatıran bir insan ortaya çıkacak olduğunda, devlet her şeyden önce kendi varoluşunu olumladığından, böyle bir insanı kendisinden dışlamak ve ona bir düşman muamelesi yapmak hakkına sahiptir.

*..Birincisi, devlet felsefi hizmetçilerini kendisi seçer kurumlarına ve gereken sayıda tutar; böylece, iyi ve kötü filozoflar arasında bir ayrım yapabiliyormuş edasını takınır ve dahası, tüm kürsülerine onları yerleştirebilmek için her zaman yeterince iyi filozof olması gerektiğini var sayar. Devlet şimdi yalnızca filozofların iyi oluşları açısından değil, iyi olanların zorunlu sayısı açısından da otorite kesilmiştir. İkincisi, seçtiklerini belir bir yerde, belirli insanlar arasında, belirli bir işi yapma üzere yaşamaya zorlar; seçtiklerinin, istekli olan her akademik çırağı eğitmeleri gerekir, hem de her gün, saptanmış saatler içinde. Soru: Bir filozof her gün öğretecek bir şeyleri olması yükümlülüğünü, vicdan rahatlığıyla kabul edebilir mi? Bildiğinden daha fazlasını biliyormuş izlenimini vermesi gerekmez mi? … Asıl önemlisi, kendi dehası onu ne zaman çağırırsa ve nereye çağırırsa peşinden gitmek gibi harika bir özgürlükten mahrum bırakmaz mı kendisini?
… Denilecektir ki, böyle biri bir düşünür değil, olsa olsa sonradan düşünen, üzerine düşünen biri olur; ama özellikle daha önceki tüm düşünürleri iyi bilen bir bilgin olur, bunlar hakkında öğrencilerinin bilmediği bir şeyleri her zaman anlatabilecektir.

*Bir felsefeye yönelik, mümkün olan ve bir şeyler de kanıtlayan biricik eleştiri, bu felsefeye göre yaşanıp yaşanamayacağını deneme hiçbir zaman üniversitelerde öğretilmemiştir: Aksine her zaman sözcükler hakkındaki sözcüklerin eleştirisi öğretilmiştir. Şimdi, yaşamda fazla bir deneyimi olmadan, sözcüklerden ibaret elli sistemin ve bunların elli eleştirisinin yan yana ve iç içe muhafaza edildiği genç bir zihni düşünün – nasıl bir ıssızlık, nasıl bir yabanileşme, felsefe eğitimine yönelik nasıl bir alay!

B.: Üniversite felsefesinin mezar taşında böyle yazmalıymış: “Kimseyi üzmedi” . Müthiş bir yanılsamalık var diye görüyorum: “felsefe” eğitiminin şu bazı hocalarında. Felsefe çiçeğinin özünü yemiyorlar da, onu satıyorlarmış gibiler. Eğitimi yemek pembe giyecek prestij vs. ile takas etmek gibi bilinçsiz bir durumları var. Düşünürlerin bilginliğini yapıyorlar sınıflarda… Fakat… Onlar olmadan -ayak işi yapanlar olmadan- da deha doğabilir mi? Bundan işte emin olamadım.

*Bırakın filozoflar hiç olmazsa yabanıl olarak yetişsinler, onlara burjuva mesleklerinde görev alma ve uyum sağlamaya dair hiçbir umut vermeyin, onları maaşlarla daha fazla pohpohlamayın, dahası: Kovuşturun onları, acımasız davranın onlara – göreceksiniz, harika şeyler olacak!
…(Devletin kendisi de çok iyi biliyor, asla hizmet etmemenin asla maaş almamanın, hakikatin özünde bulunduğunu.)

[Iancu S. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this is one of his earlier books, many themes of Nietzsche's mature thought are foreshadowed here, even in those pieces about subjects (e.g. Schopenhauer, Wagner) that Nietzsche ostensibly had a change of heart later.

From 1st meditation:

“But what view does our philistine culture take of these seekers? It assumes them to be finders, not seekers, and seems to forget that it was as seekers that they regarded themselves. 'We have our culture, do we not?' they say, 'for we have our classics, do we not? Not only have the foundations been laid, but the building itself stands already upon them - we ourselves are this building.' And the philistine raises his hand to his own brow.”

“statues … and the naming of festivals and societies … - all these things are merely cash payments by means of which the cultural philistine settles accounts with them so as not to have to follow after them and to go on seeking.”

"To the philistine … the idea of an erring God [is] more attractive than that of a miracle-working one. For he himself, the philistine, commits errors, but has never yet performed a miracle."

"How is it possible that, given the limitless experimentation with language everyone is permitted to indulge in, certain individual authors nonetheless discover a universally agreeable tone of voice?"

2nd meditation

"that which in the past was able to expand the concept 'man' and make it more beautiful must exist everlastingly, so as to be able to accomplish this everlastingly. That the great moments in the struggle of the human individual constitute a chain, that this chain unites mankind across the millennia like a range of human mountain peaks, that the summit of such a long-ago moment shall be for me still living, bright and great - that is the fundamental idea of the faith in humanity which finds expression in the demand for a monumental history. But it is precisely this demand that greatness shall be everlasting that sparks off the most fearful of struggles. For everything else that lives cries No. The monumental shall not come into existence - that is the counter-word."

Such monumental history must be kept in check, though, since 'the past itself suffers harm' by overemphasizing a handful of individual facts. By comparison, the antiquarian style of history:

"knows only how to preserve life, not how to engender it; it always undervalues that which is becoming because it has no instinct for divining it"

"In truth, no one has a greater claim to our veneration than he who possesses the drive to and strength for justice. For the highest and rarest virtues are united and concealed in justice as in an unfathomable ocean that receives streams and rivers from all sides and takes them into itself. The hand of the just man who is empowered to judge no longer trembles when it holds the scales; he sets weight upon weight with inexorable disregard of himself, his eye is unclouded as it sees the scales rise and fall, and his voice is neither harsh nor tearful when he pronounces the verdict. "

"The truth is that few serve truth because few possess the pure will to justice, and of these few only a few also possess the strength actually to be just. To possess only the will is absolutely not enough: and the most terrible sufferings sustained by mankind have proceeded precisely from those possessing he drive to justice but lacking the power of judgment; which is why nothing would promote the general wellbeing more mightily than to sow the seeds of correct judgment as widely as possible, so that the fanatic would be distinguished from the judge and the blind desire to be a judge from the conscious ability to judge. But where could a means of implanting the power of judgment be found! - man will always remain in doubt and trepidation whether, when truth and justice are spoken of, it is a fanatic or a judge who is speaking to them."

"When the past speaks it always speaks as an oracle: only if you are an architect of the future and know the present will you understand it."

"Anything that constrains a man to love less than unconditionally has severed the roots of his strength: he will wither away, that is to say become dishonest."

A prescient comment, given today's relentless use of machine language to describe humans (e.g. "I wasn't productive, today" as opposed to "creative"; and also in light of the 'Bayesian reasoning shows Shakespeare is outdated because today's writers have more information', i.e. they have more 'raw materials', as Sam Bankman-Fried idiotically claimed) - "I regret the need to make use of the jargon of the slave-owner and employer of labour to describe things which in themselves ought to be thought of as free of utility and raised above the necessities of life; but the words 'factory', 'labour market', 'supply', 'making profitable', and whatever auxiliary verbs egoism now employs, come unbidden to the lips when one wishes to describe the most recent generation of men of learning...

They are in truth not 'harmonious' natures; they can only cackle more than ever because they lay eggs more often: though the eggs, to be sure, have got smaller and smaller (though the books have got thicker and thicker)"

“If only the ground will go on bearing us! And if it ceases to bear us, that too is very well: - that is their feeling and thus they live an ironic existence.”

From 3rd meditation:

"public opinion, that is to say private laziness".

"they are those true men, those who are no longer animal, the philosophers, artists and saints; nature, which never makes a leap, has made its one leap in creating them, and a leap of joy moreover, for nature then feels that for the first time it has reached its goal - where it realizes it has to unlearn having goals and that it has played the game of life and becoming with too high stakes"

“Thus only he who has attached his heart to some great man receives thereby the first consecration to culture; the sign of that consecration is that one is ashamed of oneself without any accompanying feeling of distress, that one comes to hate one's own narrowness and shrivelled nature, that one has a feeling of sympathy for the genius who again and again drags himself up out of our dryness and apathy and the same feeling in anticipation for all those who are still struggling and evolving, with the profoundest conviction that almost everywhere we encounter nature pressing towards man and again and again failing to achieve him, yet everywhere succeeding in producing the most marvellous beginnings, individual traits and forms: so that the men we live among resemble a field over which is scattered the most precious fragments of sculpture where everything calls to us: come, assist, complete, bring together what belongs together, we have an immeasurable longing to become whole.

This sum of inner states is, I said, the first consecration to culture; I now have to describe the effects of the second consecration, and I realize that here my task is more difficult. For now we have to make the transition from the inward event to an assessment of the outward event; the eye has to be directed outwards so as to rediscover in the great world of action that desire for culture it recognized in the experiences of the first stage just described; the individual has to employ his own wrestling and longing as the alphabet by means of which he can now read off the aspirations of mankind as a whole. But he may not halt even here; from this stage he has to climb up to a yet higher one; culture demands of him, not only inward experience, not only an assessment of the outward world that streams all around him, but fin ally and above all an act, that is to say a struggle on behalf of culture and hostility towards those influences, habits, laws, institutions in which he fails to recognize his goal: which is the production of the genius”

"culture is promoted by all those who are conscious of possessing an ugly or boring content and want to conceal the fact with so-called 'beautiful form"

"As long as what is meant by culture is essentially the promotion of science, culture will pass the
great suffering human being by with pitiless coldness, because science sees everywhere only problems of knowledge and because within the world of the sciences suffering is really something improper and incomprehensible, thus at best only one more problem"

From the 4th:

"The individual must be consecrated to something higher than himself - that is the meaning of tragedy"

[blaz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Essay collection written by Nietzsche after the Birth of Tragedy, and right before his repudiation of Schopenhauer and split from Wagner. The middle two essays, On the Use and Abuse of History for Life and Schopenhauer as Educator, are stunners. Here Nietzsche begins his criticism of ‘knowledge for its own sake’, objectivity, academics, mass education, journalism, and democratic modernity. At the same time, he champions individuality, greatness, art, passionate feeling and living one’s philosophy. This last point is perhaps the most important for Nietzsche’s own life, and reflects his deep reverence for the Greeks: “The only critique of a philosophy that is possible and that proves something, namely trying to see whether one can live in accordance with it, has never been taught at universities: all that has ever been taught is a critique of words by means of other words”. This became the credo for the rest of his life, as well as the rest of his thought. Nietzsche’s spirit here, as ever, is artful, playful, incisive and invigorating in equal measure.

The other two essays are not quite as interesting. David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer, is a vicious critique of the aforementioned thinker, who was quite the public darling in his day. Strauss’ scientific-progressive liberalism is excoriated by Nietzsche as vulgar and degenerate, and is presented as a viewpoint indicative of mainstream German thought at the time. He spends a lot of time dunking on normie intellectuals and calls them cultural philistines (correct), but the essay drags on in taking apart quotes from Strauss piece by piece.

I didn’t finish the final essay, Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. Easily the least interesting on the lot as he spends all of it fawning over how great Wagner is. Useful as a bit of cultural history for late 19th century Germany, but little of interest beyond that. Nietzsche’s thoughts on art and the role of the artist are better illumined elsewhere.