What do you think?
Rate this book
The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche
The first book on Nietzsche ever to appear in English, this examination by legendary journalist H. L. Mencken is still one of the most enlightening. Mencken wrote this book while still in his 20s, but his penchant for thoroughness was evident even at that young age—in preparation for writing this book, he read Nietzsche's works in their entirety, mostly in the original German. A brief biographical sketch is followed by clear and thorough explanations of Nietzsche's basic concepts and attitudes. Analyzed are Nietzsche's much-misunderstood concept of the superman, his concept of eternal recurrence, his rejection of Christianity, and his basic rationalism and materialism. Included are two essays on Nietzsche that appeared in Mencken's magazine The Smart Set subsequent to the publishing of the original edition of this book. Nearly a century after its original publication, this remains one of the clearest, most concise, and entertaining introductions to Nietzsche to date.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1908
46 people are currently reading
1060 people want to read
About the author
H.L. Mencken
637 books728 followersHenry Louis "H.L." Mencken became one of the most influential and prolific journalists in America in the 1920s and '30s, writing about all the shams and con artists in the world. He attacked chiropractors and the Ku Klux Klan, politicians and other journalists. Most of all, he attacked Puritan morality. He called Puritanism, "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."
At the height of his career, he edited and wrote for The American Mercury magazine and the Baltimore Sun newspaper, wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column for the Chicago Tribune, and published two or three books every year. His masterpiece was one of the few books he wrote about something he loved, a book called The American Language (1919), a history and collection of American vernacular speech. It included a translation of the Declaration of Independence into American English that began, "When things get so balled up that the people of a country got to cut loose from some other country, and go it on their own hook, without asking no permission from nobody, excepting maybe God Almighty, then they ought to let everybody know why they done it, so that everybody can see they are not trying to put nothing over on nobody."
When asked what he would like for an epitaph, Mencken wrote, "If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."
(from American Public Media)
At the height of his career, he edited and wrote for The American Mercury magazine and the Baltimore Sun newspaper, wrote a nationally syndicated newspaper column for the Chicago Tribune, and published two or three books every year. His masterpiece was one of the few books he wrote about something he loved, a book called The American Language (1919), a history and collection of American vernacular speech. It included a translation of the Declaration of Independence into American English that began, "When things get so balled up that the people of a country got to cut loose from some other country, and go it on their own hook, without asking no permission from nobody, excepting maybe God Almighty, then they ought to let everybody know why they done it, so that everybody can see they are not trying to put nothing over on nobody."
When asked what he would like for an epitaph, Mencken wrote, "If, after I depart this vale, you ever remember me and have thought to please my ghost, forgive some sinner and wink your eye at some homely girl."
(from American Public Media)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews
July 16, 2020
One of my favorite parts of older American intellectual culture, back when the middle and working-classes were enamored with the idea of self-improvement, was the genre of popular writing about philosophy that sought to make it accessible to the masses. Will Durant was the quintessential example of this, but in this entertaining summary of Nietzsche's life and thought by H.L. Mencken I discovered another great guide. I've tried to teach myself as much about Nietzsche as I can over the years including by directly reading his work, but it always helps to have a teacher. It helps that he's an amazing writer.
One new thing that I learned from this book is about the conflict between the gods Apollo and Dionysius and their relation to Greek tragedy in Nietzsche's thought. Apollo was the upholder of order and reifier of the status quo, while Dionysius was the destroyer and creator. Greek tragedy essentially depicted the conflict between these two gods, which was the essence of life as they saw it. Civilizations today have Apollonian and Dionysian components and the balance between them changes over time. It would seem to me that the United States is in a deep Apollonian stage today after the Dionysian outbursts that accompanied its rise as an empire, though a Nietzsche scholar would be better equipped to make that judgement.
Another idea that I was familiar with but learned more of from Mencken's analysis was the Nietzschean idea of the origins of morality. As per Nietzsche, morals are merely norms created in one age for the purposes of that age, devised to make life as successful and comfortable as possible within it. The will to live and the will to power – the forces that underpin all life and are more fundamental even than intelligence – design rules that are intended to facilitate their flourishing. But these dictates are then put into the mouth of Gods and acquire a force that is not easily left behind when times and requirements change. As time passes, the morals of old weigh people down like barnacles that need to be broken in order to let the species and its greatest members thrive.
Needless to say Nietzsche was no fan of Christianity or its "slave-morality" dictates to be kind to the weak and show them pity. In his mind this merely increased the suffering in the world by letting the naturally weak and suffering continue to live and produce more suffering progeny. A healthy race, a race of "supermen" would transcend this weakness forever and produce higher and higher forms of man. I would like to read "The Anti-Christ" after reading Mencken's summary of it here.
All in all this popular summary of Nietsche is an enjoyable and useful read. I also enjoyed the short biography of the philosopher as an ordinary man, propped up on pillows at his sister's house discussing things both mundane and lofty into the night.
One new thing that I learned from this book is about the conflict between the gods Apollo and Dionysius and their relation to Greek tragedy in Nietzsche's thought. Apollo was the upholder of order and reifier of the status quo, while Dionysius was the destroyer and creator. Greek tragedy essentially depicted the conflict between these two gods, which was the essence of life as they saw it. Civilizations today have Apollonian and Dionysian components and the balance between them changes over time. It would seem to me that the United States is in a deep Apollonian stage today after the Dionysian outbursts that accompanied its rise as an empire, though a Nietzsche scholar would be better equipped to make that judgement.
Another idea that I was familiar with but learned more of from Mencken's analysis was the Nietzschean idea of the origins of morality. As per Nietzsche, morals are merely norms created in one age for the purposes of that age, devised to make life as successful and comfortable as possible within it. The will to live and the will to power – the forces that underpin all life and are more fundamental even than intelligence – design rules that are intended to facilitate their flourishing. But these dictates are then put into the mouth of Gods and acquire a force that is not easily left behind when times and requirements change. As time passes, the morals of old weigh people down like barnacles that need to be broken in order to let the species and its greatest members thrive.
Needless to say Nietzsche was no fan of Christianity or its "slave-morality" dictates to be kind to the weak and show them pity. In his mind this merely increased the suffering in the world by letting the naturally weak and suffering continue to live and produce more suffering progeny. A healthy race, a race of "supermen" would transcend this weakness forever and produce higher and higher forms of man. I would like to read "The Anti-Christ" after reading Mencken's summary of it here.
All in all this popular summary of Nietsche is an enjoyable and useful read. I also enjoyed the short biography of the philosopher as an ordinary man, propped up on pillows at his sister's house discussing things both mundane and lofty into the night.
May 3, 2015
H L Mencken's writing style is journalistic and intelligible yet largely plain which makes this very rudimentary introduction to Nietzsche very easy to get through (I believe it took me three days). However, I am not entirely sure I would recommend this book for two reasons. First, Mencken casts Nietzsche, a complex and multidimensional thinker, as a mere philosophical reiteration of Darwinian theory which is a crude and not particularly accurate assertion. Secondly, Mencken seems to think Nietzsche's philosophy is something more akin to Locke, Hobbes, or Aristotle in that it is meant to be applied in the governing of a society, when, actually, Nietzsche intended his philosophy to educate those with potential to rise above the "herd" and live according to their own values systems (the infamous and controversial "over-man/superman"). These two projections on Mencken's part make Nietzsche appear more like the proto-Nazi he has at times been misunderstood to be than the "free spirits" he counted himself among.
December 14, 2015
Nietzsche was a very interesting man. And so was his philosophy. While there is plenty wrong with it, indeed much of it is disastrous, there's a certain element of attraction to his deep seated cynicism and frustration toward the established opinion in general.
And of course Mencken is one of the greatest writers that America has ever produced. His stunning vocabulary, his wit, and his flowing sentences make the entire book a pleasure to read.
And of course Mencken is one of the greatest writers that America has ever produced. His stunning vocabulary, his wit, and his flowing sentences make the entire book a pleasure to read.
March 9, 2016
One of the first books to appear in the English language on Nietzsche, H. L. Mencken essentially outlines in a three-fold manner a brief historical biography, the substance of his philosophy, and Nietzsche's philosophical influences and critics. While Mencken's book was certainly influential, it being over one hundred years old, it suffers tremendously from lack of clarity, precision, and accuracy. Nietzschean scholarship has grown in great strides in one hundred years, thanks in large part to Kauffman, Hollingdale, and many others.
A few critiques: Mencken essentially brands Nietzsche as a darwinistic materialist, an anarchist, and misses on a lot of other spots when he tries to pinpoint the main themes of Nietzsche's philosophy. His praise for Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth Förster is unnerving, and he essentially sees Nietzsche's philosophy evolving progressively from Birth of Tragedy onwards, even though N himself said later in life he thought his first book was rubbish and wished he had never written it.
Mencken glosses over Nietzsche's critiques of Darwinism, materialism, evolutionary type systems, and essentially says when Nietzsche does critique those aforesaid topics you cannot take those critiques too seriously. Mencken also conflates Schopenhauer's will to life and N's will to power and says that they are "essentially the same thing."
Essentially what we have in Mencken's branding of N is an early 20th century English, darwinistic, materialist. I have read some good bios of N and his thought, and aside from the historical interest of this pioneering book bringing N to the English world, this book is not worth anyone's time.
"Beware of superfluous teleological principles!" Nietzsche, "The Will to Power"
A few critiques: Mencken essentially brands Nietzsche as a darwinistic materialist, an anarchist, and misses on a lot of other spots when he tries to pinpoint the main themes of Nietzsche's philosophy. His praise for Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth Förster is unnerving, and he essentially sees Nietzsche's philosophy evolving progressively from Birth of Tragedy onwards, even though N himself said later in life he thought his first book was rubbish and wished he had never written it.
Mencken glosses over Nietzsche's critiques of Darwinism, materialism, evolutionary type systems, and essentially says when Nietzsche does critique those aforesaid topics you cannot take those critiques too seriously. Mencken also conflates Schopenhauer's will to life and N's will to power and says that they are "essentially the same thing."
Essentially what we have in Mencken's branding of N is an early 20th century English, darwinistic, materialist. I have read some good bios of N and his thought, and aside from the historical interest of this pioneering book bringing N to the English world, this book is not worth anyone's time.
"Beware of superfluous teleological principles!" Nietzsche, "The Will to Power"
April 21, 2015
This was the first book written about Nietzsche in the English language. And it definitely feels 1908. Plenty of racism, sexism and other silly ideas. Mencken seemed like a high school debater who was given the assignment of defending Nietzsche's entire philosophy, even the most vile parts. The opening biographical section was super interesting as I hadn't read any Nietzsche biography before. I knew he was crazy the first time I read him but didn't know the details of his life (he's so freaking interesting: either the world's craziest philosopher or the most philosophic poet, depending on how you read him). So I'd recommend this book if you love reading Nietzsche, but whole heartedly would discourage you from reading it if you do not.
November 24, 2020
Henry Louis Mencken explores the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche in this book. The main drawback to the book is that it was the first examination of Nietzsche's thought in English. The author had little to go on besides Nietzsche's work. Despite this fact, he did an admirable job of explaining Nietzsche's ideas. It is interesting to see what someone thought of Nietzsche without the overshadowing of World War II and the Aryan Superman to mess with it.
May 8, 2010
This is a thorough, easy to read explanation of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy. Since Nietzsche if often hard to get through, this is a great book.
In my opinion, Friedrich Nietzsche is harsh but his main messages are totally right on when you filter out some of the garble. If you are all emotional and get upset by him, he would just say you are part of the herd anyway...
In my opinion, Friedrich Nietzsche is harsh but his main messages are totally right on when you filter out some of the garble. If you are all emotional and get upset by him, he would just say you are part of the herd anyway...
April 24, 2019
Five stars for Nietzsche's sharp vivisection of human psychology. One star for Mencken's cruelty and impatience toward the weak and "inefficient."
August 2, 2019
A couple weeks ago, as I was reading Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, I suddenly realized that Nietzsche sounds like an unfunny version of H.L. Mencken. Then I remembered this book exists. Unfortunately, in this particular book Mencken also reads like an unfunny version of Mencken. I think the task of writing about philosophy (especially since the subject is a man he so clearly reveres) forced him to be serious.
I thought this was a solid and entertaining exploration of Nietzsche’s life and thought, as seen though Mencken’s sympathetic eyes and related In Mencken’s distinct voice, and maybe filtered by his views. A good first (or in my case last)book to read about the mad German philosopher.
Mencken occasionally goes beyond merely outlining Nietzsche for the reader and shamefully displays his own racists and sexist ignorance. I’d say this is upsetting, but Mencken loved upsetting people like me and I don’t want to give him the satisfaction, so, instead I’ll just say that it’s disappointing to see the great smasher of mountebanks demonstrate that he was ready to fall for the baseless buncombe of his day as quickly as any hayseed, at least in matters of sex and race. This book is well over 100 years old though, so I cut him some slack.
I thought this was a solid and entertaining exploration of Nietzsche’s life and thought, as seen though Mencken’s sympathetic eyes and related In Mencken’s distinct voice, and maybe filtered by his views. A good first (or in my case last)book to read about the mad German philosopher.
Mencken occasionally goes beyond merely outlining Nietzsche for the reader and shamefully displays his own racists and sexist ignorance. I’d say this is upsetting, but Mencken loved upsetting people like me and I don’t want to give him the satisfaction, so, instead I’ll just say that it’s disappointing to see the great smasher of mountebanks demonstrate that he was ready to fall for the baseless buncombe of his day as quickly as any hayseed, at least in matters of sex and race. This book is well over 100 years old though, so I cut him some slack.
April 20, 2021
This was somewhat interesting. Now that I know this book was written in 1908 and by a 20-something-year-old a lot of the writing makes more sense. Mencken and Nietzsche would probably have been best palls. They both seem overly sure of themselves and of their ideas. What I liked most about the book is that it's divided into separate ideas that Nietzsche covered in his works. Mencken read all Nietzche's works and then instead of writing a chronological review of his works, Mencken separated Nietzche's work into different ideas and categories. I thought that was a helpful way of learning about Nietzche's thoughts and ideas.
I think the most sympathetic reading of Mencken's opinion of Nietzche's general ideas was that life is a battle and struggle and that a good life is one worth fighting for. I think it's pretty easy for Mencken to take these ideas a little too far into the extreme where most people in 2021 wouldn't agree with his conclusions. In fact, there were several instances where Mencken takes Nietzche's ideas to their logical extremes and they are basically unworkable in a modern setting. They might make logical sense, and they might be the correct conclusions, but they would make the world unlivable.
One section I found really enjoyable was the section on science, skepticism, and knowledge. It sounded like Nietzche was pretty skeptical about science's ability to prescribe how the world should be. Science is good for testing ideas about how the world is but we can't always take the results from those experiments and use them to dictate how people should act. He also does a good job explaining why people need to be more skeptical in their lives and why we need to questions authority if we want to live our best lives.
I think the most sympathetic reading of Mencken's opinion of Nietzche's general ideas was that life is a battle and struggle and that a good life is one worth fighting for. I think it's pretty easy for Mencken to take these ideas a little too far into the extreme where most people in 2021 wouldn't agree with his conclusions. In fact, there were several instances where Mencken takes Nietzche's ideas to their logical extremes and they are basically unworkable in a modern setting. They might make logical sense, and they might be the correct conclusions, but they would make the world unlivable.
One section I found really enjoyable was the section on science, skepticism, and knowledge. It sounded like Nietzche was pretty skeptical about science's ability to prescribe how the world should be. Science is good for testing ideas about how the world is but we can't always take the results from those experiments and use them to dictate how people should act. He also does a good job explaining why people need to be more skeptical in their lives and why we need to questions authority if we want to live our best lives.
June 9, 2010
This book is best as a basic background to the life of Nietzsche and an overview of basic elements of his philosophy. And I do mean basic. If what the book presents was the fullness of Nietzsche's philosophy it would be a wonder that any professional philosopher would pay any attention to him at all. The book presents Nietzsche as a modern skeptic drawing out the results of Darwinian theory in terms of how it would affect our system of values and the nature of truth. It does not deal with the aspects of Nietzsche that would make him a philosopher who straddled the modern and post-modern world. He was more than a Descartes type skeptic- he began to question the nature of language itself and what that means for hte possibility of any meaningful human knowledge at all.
The other demerit I must give Mencken is his racism. I'm sorry, no, I can't just ignore it as a product of his era and it adds to a sense of a superficial understanding of the philosophy.
The other demerit I must give Mencken is his racism. I'm sorry, no, I can't just ignore it as a product of his era and it adds to a sense of a superficial understanding of the philosophy.
May 12, 2008
The best, clearest summary of Nietzsche's philosophy and wonderful medicine for anyone sick with self-doubt or apathy. Mencken's interpretation is borderline fascist, but I think that a kind of personal fascism - ordering onesself around - is O.K. during drastic measures. The antisuicide. That said, good medicine isn't good every day. Nietzsche argues for progress, when progress is what is sinking the ship.
February 13, 2021
An excellent review of the key philosophies of Nietzsche. I’d recommend it to anyone who has a slight interest in his way of thinking. The chapter length is perfect and the author keeps the reader engaged.
December 14, 2010
The writing is superb. Mencken evaluated Nietzsche by the standards of 1908 before the 20th Century had a chance to take Nietzschian philosophy to its horrifying ends.
March 5, 2017
H.L Menken illuminates the life, times and work of Nietzsche with great clarity and lucid style. Anyone getting into Nietzsche's ideas and writing would do well to start with this volume.
March 25, 2019
Here are some things one could publish in 1908 (some the same things, I fear, people say quietly today):
-Five hundred years ago a statesman's fame rested frankly and solely on the victories of his armies; today we profess to measure him by his skill of keeping these armies in barracks.
-It is apparent, on brief reflection, that the negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience; that he must remain the inferior of the stronger and more intelligent white man so long as he retains racial differentiation.
-As everyone who has given a moment's thought to the subject well knows, a man's first concern in the world is to provide food and shelter for himself and his family, while a woman's foremost duty is to bear and rear children.
We read Nietzsche because he's interestingly wrong. To read somebody who solemnly reports on Nietzsche as right but sometimes too high spirited makes for unpleasant reading.
Here are some typos. I hope somebody can Elizabeth Bishop them:
...an auto-reversion to simpler and more primitive ideas, which fanned the dormant energy of the Greeks into flame and so allowed them to accomplish their owl salvation.
...the dionysian impulse to destroy, to bum the candle, to "use up" life...
The modem Japanese, who are fledgling individualists...
-Five hundred years ago a statesman's fame rested frankly and solely on the victories of his armies; today we profess to measure him by his skill of keeping these armies in barracks.
-It is apparent, on brief reflection, that the negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience; that he must remain the inferior of the stronger and more intelligent white man so long as he retains racial differentiation.
-As everyone who has given a moment's thought to the subject well knows, a man's first concern in the world is to provide food and shelter for himself and his family, while a woman's foremost duty is to bear and rear children.
We read Nietzsche because he's interestingly wrong. To read somebody who solemnly reports on Nietzsche as right but sometimes too high spirited makes for unpleasant reading.
Here are some typos. I hope somebody can Elizabeth Bishop them:
...an auto-reversion to simpler and more primitive ideas, which fanned the dormant energy of the Greeks into flame and so allowed them to accomplish their owl salvation.
...the dionysian impulse to destroy, to bum the candle, to "use up" life...
The modem Japanese, who are fledgling individualists...
July 11, 2023
A thorough exploration of Nietzsche's highly controversial philosophy, which arguably laid some of the groundwork for fascism, postmodernism, and moral relativism.
Mencken's interpretation places particular emphasis on the Social Darwinist elements of Nietzsche's thought, possibly reflecting more of Mencken's viewpoint than Nietzsche's original intent.
Despite this, the book provides valuable insights into an influential intellectual figure and an era that nurtured some of the most chilling (almost sociopathic) ideas, such as morality being purely a social construct, Judeo-Christian 'slave morality' (like humility and compassion) being deplorable, the notion that the strong should not be constrained by the weak, and ultimately even the idea that aiding the poor weakens the race and inhibits the development of the übermensch.
Mencken's interpretation places particular emphasis on the Social Darwinist elements of Nietzsche's thought, possibly reflecting more of Mencken's viewpoint than Nietzsche's original intent.
Despite this, the book provides valuable insights into an influential intellectual figure and an era that nurtured some of the most chilling (almost sociopathic) ideas, such as morality being purely a social construct, Judeo-Christian 'slave morality' (like humility and compassion) being deplorable, the notion that the strong should not be constrained by the weak, and ultimately even the idea that aiding the poor weakens the race and inhibits the development of the übermensch.
May 31, 2021
The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by H.L. Mencken
The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by H.L. Mencken is well written, but, somewhat confusing. The way that I understand it is, that he opposes kindness and love. He thinks that the poor and downtrodden, should be satisfied, with their lot. They should be happy to e bruled by their superiors.
The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by H.L. Mencken is well written, but, somewhat confusing. The way that I understand it is, that he opposes kindness and love. He thinks that the poor and downtrodden, should be satisfied, with their lot. They should be happy to e bruled by their superiors.
September 3, 2016
Nietzche is dated. The book is dated. Written by Henri Louis Mencken in the early part of 20th century, the book feels like a product of a bygone era.
The Nietzsche philosophy had regular sexist, racist undertones but the author doesn't question them, as the book is from another era when casual racism and misogyny were rampant.
Nietzsche is a good read for those who still want find a reason to question the existence of religion. If not then the book will appear a bit dated and feel stale.
Nietzsche of course has his place in the development of human thought.
Nietzsche’s questioned as to why all ideals, whether explicitly religious or not, presumes an afterlife that is better than the ‘here and now’.
In Nietzsche’s eyes, such a fabrication negates us from seeing the beauty of life on Earth.
He condemned attempts to deny actual truth in the name of false realities, instead of accepting the real as it is.
Nietzsche accuses all the grand scientific, metaphysical and religious systems, of having systematically ‘despised’ the body and the senses in the interests of reason and rationality.
Hence Nietzsche says: “I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of extraterrestrial hopes.”
Nietzsche came under the sway of Schopenhauer when young and he imbibed much of the what the eternal pessimist expounded. If Schopenhauer proclaimed on Will to Live , Nietzsche borrowed his ideas and padded it up in his Will to Power.
Schopenhauer explained that the universe and everything in it is driven by a primordial will to live, which results in a desire in all living creatures to avoid death and to procreate. For Schopenhauer, this will is the most fundamental aspect of reality – more fundamental even than being.
Schopenhauer’s negation of the will was a saying "no" to life and to the world, which he judged to be a scene of pain and evil.
Schopenhauer saw this world as the product of a malignant Will.
Schopenhauer renounced life, he said the world is Hell, don’t seek happiness in it.
Nietzsche on the other hand affirmed life and espoused earthly values. He rejected Platonic/Christian ideals of the “other world” being more real than this one, and argued forcefully for living fully here.
Nietzsche's formula for greatness in a human being was ‘Amor fati’.
That is “ to want nothing to be other than as it is, neither in the future, nor in the past, nor in all eternity. Not merely to endure what happens of necessity, still less to hide it from oneself – but to love it…“
The Nietzsche philosophy had regular sexist, racist undertones but the author doesn't question them, as the book is from another era when casual racism and misogyny were rampant.
Nietzsche is a good read for those who still want find a reason to question the existence of religion. If not then the book will appear a bit dated and feel stale.
Nietzsche of course has his place in the development of human thought.
Nietzsche’s questioned as to why all ideals, whether explicitly religious or not, presumes an afterlife that is better than the ‘here and now’.
In Nietzsche’s eyes, such a fabrication negates us from seeing the beauty of life on Earth.
He condemned attempts to deny actual truth in the name of false realities, instead of accepting the real as it is.
Nietzsche accuses all the grand scientific, metaphysical and religious systems, of having systematically ‘despised’ the body and the senses in the interests of reason and rationality.
Hence Nietzsche says: “I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and do not believe those who speak to you of extraterrestrial hopes.”
Nietzsche came under the sway of Schopenhauer when young and he imbibed much of the what the eternal pessimist expounded. If Schopenhauer proclaimed on Will to Live , Nietzsche borrowed his ideas and padded it up in his Will to Power.
Schopenhauer explained that the universe and everything in it is driven by a primordial will to live, which results in a desire in all living creatures to avoid death and to procreate. For Schopenhauer, this will is the most fundamental aspect of reality – more fundamental even than being.
Schopenhauer’s negation of the will was a saying "no" to life and to the world, which he judged to be a scene of pain and evil.
Schopenhauer saw this world as the product of a malignant Will.
Schopenhauer renounced life, he said the world is Hell, don’t seek happiness in it.
Nietzsche on the other hand affirmed life and espoused earthly values. He rejected Platonic/Christian ideals of the “other world” being more real than this one, and argued forcefully for living fully here.
Nietzsche's formula for greatness in a human being was ‘Amor fati’.
That is “ to want nothing to be other than as it is, neither in the future, nor in the past, nor in all eternity. Not merely to endure what happens of necessity, still less to hide it from oneself – but to love it…“
December 5, 2016
This book is a satisfactory summary of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Having read this, I feel like I understand Nietzsche's philosophy, and I have no lingering curiosity towards reading his own words in order to understand it any better (primarily because the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche is.... not very good, from what I can tell).
It is also, I think, a summary of the philosophy of HL Mencken, who is an enthusiastic fan of the man who provides his subject matter. Normally I think I would rather hear an intelligent critic's summary of any given philosophy than a rabid fan's, but in this case Mencken's outlook somewhat adds to the reading experience.
There are probably not a lot of people these days, other than maybe the type of person who listens to death metal, who can subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophy entirely. This is because on the one hand, Nietzsche is a fan of science, societal progress, and rejection of traditional morality, typically associated with the left. But on the other hand, he is an advocate of aristocracy and the subjugation of the weak to the strong, typically associated with the right. However, Mencken's own views combine these two outlooks. In fact, Mencken is known for his mockery of American white rural Christianity from an elitist aristocratic perspective. This is a practice which in our age has been taken up by those who are ostensibly on the left and in opposition to hierarchy, but in Mencken it is associated with an open contempt for democracy.
As the book develops, it's hard not to perceive a shift away from Nietzsche's actual views into an increasingly frenzied defense of many social Darwinist doctrines that most today would consider somewhat reprehensible. I knew that Mencken was a racist, but I was under the impression that this was a fact only revealed in his personal diary entries, published posthumously. In fact, midway through this book, he casually comes out in favor of African-American slavery. The chapter "On Women" is also... interesting, in the sense of "wow, this is what you could write in the year 1907". This transition into an elitist polemic is somewhat entertaining to read and provides a good complement to the exposition of Nietzsche's philosophy, perhaps shedding light on the sort of mindset that his writing might lead to.
It is also, I think, a summary of the philosophy of HL Mencken, who is an enthusiastic fan of the man who provides his subject matter. Normally I think I would rather hear an intelligent critic's summary of any given philosophy than a rabid fan's, but in this case Mencken's outlook somewhat adds to the reading experience.
There are probably not a lot of people these days, other than maybe the type of person who listens to death metal, who can subscribe to Nietzsche's philosophy entirely. This is because on the one hand, Nietzsche is a fan of science, societal progress, and rejection of traditional morality, typically associated with the left. But on the other hand, he is an advocate of aristocracy and the subjugation of the weak to the strong, typically associated with the right. However, Mencken's own views combine these two outlooks. In fact, Mencken is known for his mockery of American white rural Christianity from an elitist aristocratic perspective. This is a practice which in our age has been taken up by those who are ostensibly on the left and in opposition to hierarchy, but in Mencken it is associated with an open contempt for democracy.
As the book develops, it's hard not to perceive a shift away from Nietzsche's actual views into an increasingly frenzied defense of many social Darwinist doctrines that most today would consider somewhat reprehensible. I knew that Mencken was a racist, but I was under the impression that this was a fact only revealed in his personal diary entries, published posthumously. In fact, midway through this book, he casually comes out in favor of African-American slavery. The chapter "On Women" is also... interesting, in the sense of "wow, this is what you could write in the year 1907". This transition into an elitist polemic is somewhat entertaining to read and provides a good complement to the exposition of Nietzsche's philosophy, perhaps shedding light on the sort of mindset that his writing might lead to.
June 16, 2021
As someone whose understanding of Nietzsche was little more than the facts and quotes commonly known to most semi-educated people, I found this book to be very interesting and informative. The first third deals with his biography, the rest with his philosophy. Mencken, as always, enlivens the subject with his biting wit and hyperbolic style, making it much more entertaining than it might otherwise have been.
As for Nietzsche's philosophy, I myself find little of value. Some of his thoughts or ideas I concur with or find interesting, but on the whole I find his philosophy largely disagreeable. It smacks heavily of Social Darwinism, and reminded me on many occasions of Ayn Rand, which is never a good thing. A world in which the philosophy of Frederich Nietzsche was widely applied would be one that the overwhelming majority of people would find utterly miserable, a world that in my opinion would hardly be worth living in.
Mencken frankly criticizes the iconoclastic philosopher throughout the book, stating in no uncertain terms that which he disagrees with, or that which he finds absurd. Mencken however, to a much larger degree than myself, tends to agree with Nietzsche and share his outlook, which, as a fan of Mencken, I couldn't help but find disappointing. Overall, a very worthwhile and enjoyable read, because regardless of one's opinion of Nietzsche, he was an important and influential figure that the well-rounded person would do well to familiarize themselves with, and this book will certainly provide that.
As for Nietzsche's philosophy, I myself find little of value. Some of his thoughts or ideas I concur with or find interesting, but on the whole I find his philosophy largely disagreeable. It smacks heavily of Social Darwinism, and reminded me on many occasions of Ayn Rand, which is never a good thing. A world in which the philosophy of Frederich Nietzsche was widely applied would be one that the overwhelming majority of people would find utterly miserable, a world that in my opinion would hardly be worth living in.
Mencken frankly criticizes the iconoclastic philosopher throughout the book, stating in no uncertain terms that which he disagrees with, or that which he finds absurd. Mencken however, to a much larger degree than myself, tends to agree with Nietzsche and share his outlook, which, as a fan of Mencken, I couldn't help but find disappointing. Overall, a very worthwhile and enjoyable read, because regardless of one's opinion of Nietzsche, he was an important and influential figure that the well-rounded person would do well to familiarize themselves with, and this book will certainly provide that.
October 5, 2022
Naturally you will seldom find good books in Nietzsche’s thought written in the last 50 years. You really have to find old out of print books like this to get a balanced view of his philosophy without the modern PC bias of today. It’s more comprehensive than Ludovici’s book and has an excellent bibliography for further study. Ostara Publications edition.
October 5, 2013
A basic introduction, but valuable for getting your bearings with Nietzsche. Some readers will find Mencken's often breezy, sometimes arrogant writing style off-putting. Definitely not PC by today's standards, but I found it to refreshing to read something so obviously from a different era.
February 8, 2014
Mencken is one of the writers who succeeds at making me legitimately relaxed in the process of reading. It's good start and gives basic elements of Nietzsche's philosophy!
June 10, 2022
I was happy when I heard that H. L. Mencken had written about Nietzsche. The thought that one of these giddy iconoclasts had written about the other gave me a warm fuzzy feeling. I’m glad I read this book, and I generally enjoyed Menken’s signature over-the-top-itude. Mind you, where Mencken’s interpretation is concerned, even I could see that the way he weirdly makes Schopenhauer’s “will to live” identical to Nietzsche’s “will to power” is a mistake.
The thing that shocks one about this book are the moments when you realize that Mencken has swallowed the worst of Nietzsche hook, line, and sinker e.g.: “The history of the hopelessly futile and fatuous effort to improve the negroes of the Southern United States by education affords one such proof. It is apparent, on brief reflection, that the negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience; that he must remain the inferior of the stronger and more intelligent white man.” The chapters on Civilisation and Women and Marriage are despicable, as opposed to merely being something you can disagree with.
And while I like some of Nietzsche’s ideas – such as the constant clash and rebalancing between the Apollonian and Dionysian perspectives – I completely disagree with fundamental aspects of his philosophy. As a small example, his principle of eternal return is plain silly.
But the most considerable disagreement I have with Nietzsche is that I do not see human life as a zero-sum game in which my winning requires your losing. Instead, life is characterized by games in which “win-win” is a real probability and where everyone can come out farther ahead if games are played cooperatively. The choice in characterizing our world is likewise not, as Nietzsche has it, the false dichotomy between “winner takes all” and “everyone must be precisely equal.” Groups of people can constantly advance while some individual members are relatively ahead, and the matter of who is ahead for now constantly shifts.
Also, though many interpret Nietzsche as a social Darwinist, it was Darwin himself who said, “As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” (The Descent of Man)
The thing that shocks one about this book are the moments when you realize that Mencken has swallowed the worst of Nietzsche hook, line, and sinker e.g.: “The history of the hopelessly futile and fatuous effort to improve the negroes of the Southern United States by education affords one such proof. It is apparent, on brief reflection, that the negro, no matter how much he is educated, must remain, as a race, in a condition of subservience; that he must remain the inferior of the stronger and more intelligent white man.” The chapters on Civilisation and Women and Marriage are despicable, as opposed to merely being something you can disagree with.
And while I like some of Nietzsche’s ideas – such as the constant clash and rebalancing between the Apollonian and Dionysian perspectives – I completely disagree with fundamental aspects of his philosophy. As a small example, his principle of eternal return is plain silly.
But the most considerable disagreement I have with Nietzsche is that I do not see human life as a zero-sum game in which my winning requires your losing. Instead, life is characterized by games in which “win-win” is a real probability and where everyone can come out farther ahead if games are played cooperatively. The choice in characterizing our world is likewise not, as Nietzsche has it, the false dichotomy between “winner takes all” and “everyone must be precisely equal.” Groups of people can constantly advance while some individual members are relatively ahead, and the matter of who is ahead for now constantly shifts.
Also, though many interpret Nietzsche as a social Darwinist, it was Darwin himself who said, “As man advances in civilization, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races.” (The Descent of Man)
September 4, 2022
H.L. Mencken liked to mythologize himself with stories about his hard-knock life as a Baltimore Sun copyboy whose education and manners were entirely picked up from drunken reporters. His pugnacity and lack of charm, when confronted by fools, were no doubt picked up in saloons, but he was nothing less than a true intellectual and one of this country’s great natural resources. In his twenties, he read every word written by Herr Nietzsche in German and wrote this first English language criticism. Mencken understood this philosophy set out to define the boundaries of 20th Century thinking in a post-liturgical world and would succeed even amongst those who misunderstood or intentionally misinterpreted it. Mencken challenges and entertains on every page: hey kids, philosophy is a lot more fun than you think. A real treat.
March 27, 2020
I read this book to gain some knowledge of the philo-psychosocial landscape of the time that would set the scene for Dr. Carl Jung, who I’m currently fascinated by. I was somewhat worried by the fact that the book was written in 1908 about a philosopher from the 19th century (I am very much the layman), but Mencken’s account of Nietzsche’s life and philosophy is wonderfully written and compelling.
I have some qualms with a couple of Nietzsche’s ideas, but such arguments are largely outside the scope of this review. Mencken’s passion for Nietzsche and his ideas are palpable in these pages; if you are looking for an introduction to Nietzsche, this is a great place to start.
I have some qualms with a couple of Nietzsche’s ideas, but such arguments are largely outside the scope of this review. Mencken’s passion for Nietzsche and his ideas are palpable in these pages; if you are looking for an introduction to Nietzsche, this is a great place to start.
August 25, 2021
Wow, 20th century David Simon was a massive racist. Who could have guessed?
In all seriousness, this book is a very mixed bag. The biographical section is garbage on account of using his sister's biography of him as a primary source, but it is important that this was written only a few years after Nietzsche's death, and the personal and philosophical strain between Friedrich and Elisabeth was not yet public knowledge. The evaluation of Nietzsche's philosophy has some interesting insights, and the chapter on his influences I actually highly recommend reading if you can find it on JSTOR or something similar
In all seriousness, this book is a very mixed bag. The biographical section is garbage on account of using his sister's biography of him as a primary source, but it is important that this was written only a few years after Nietzsche's death, and the personal and philosophical strain between Friedrich and Elisabeth was not yet public knowledge. The evaluation of Nietzsche's philosophy has some interesting insights, and the chapter on his influences I actually highly recommend reading if you can find it on JSTOR or something similar
June 11, 2022
I have read that Nietzsche was a nihilist, but this is a misrepresentation of his philosophy in my opinion. Mencken sought to make Nietzsche's philosophy of reason and individualism available for general readers. In this effort I consider Mencken was successful. The book is easy to read and gave the core of Nietzsche's arguments in titled sections. It is a period piece of turn of the century and so gives an incomplete, though not entirely incorrect, view of education in America and England as an example.
April 1, 2024
Niets (my short for Nietzsche) was a bit of a nut case. His theories—although, at times, vague, tunnel-visioned, or nearly self-contradicting—are undeniable. Mencken breaks them down nicely, especially the notion about the inevitable cross-referential clash of philosophy and art; exquisitely depicted by the interesting friendship between a thinker and a composer (Niets and Wagner).
Displaying 1 - 30 of 54 reviews