NIETZSCHE CONTRA POSTMODERNISM

C. Ellsworth Hood

 


NIETZSCHE CONTRA POSTMODERNISM

 

Is there today indeed enough pride, daring, courage, self-assurance, intellectual energy, responsibility, freedom of will so that in reality philosophy is now even possible on this earth?1

            Apparently not, at least if one judges from the chorus of postmodernist and deconstructionst voices heard in our world today. It is not self-assurance, intellectual energy and courage to think which greets our ears but a sometimes strained and sometimes shrill chorus of claims not merely to have overcome metaphysics, as Nietzsche had sought, but to have gone beyond and to have overcome philosphy itself. Where is one, once one has left behind the love of wisdom? What does this loud trumpeting signify? What do these brash pronouncements of the end of philosophy mean?

            Since Nietzsche is often regarded as an inspiration for or, if one dare say so, a source of such opinions, I thought it would be instructive to borrow his hammer and do a little philosophizing of my own, sound out a few idols. What do I hear? Not very delicate sounds, but then a hammer is a somewhat crude instrument. Which is not to say it is not entirely approriate. If my ear is attuned aright, what do I hear? Inharmonious, ill-tempered wrangling, vengeance, spite, rancor, a chorus of no say-ers,renouncers of all values and despisers of all creators of value, refusers of all that life has offered and has to offer.

"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close relatives?"

Why so soft, O my brothers, thus I ask you. Are you not my brothers?

Why so soft, so pliant, so yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts?

So little destiny in your eyes?2

            Indeed, why so hard, for we are brothers and sisters, we philosophers and you postmoderns, deconstructionists and assorted fellow travelers. So hard because I hear emptiness, the resonance of the void, in the hollow ring which answers from my hammer blows. A chorus of raucous, discordant voices, voices of spirits out of tune with themselves, stealth priests whose loud chanting is cover for rejection of life. The priestly crafts are as enchanting and as toxic to the human spirit as ever they were. These clever priests mask their service to the void, to the ascetic ideal, in cloaks of illusion woven of discourses of freedom, play, otherness and difference. Cross-dressers of the intellect, they, like those of other eras, set traps for unwary but venturesome spirits. How cunning of the ascetic ideal to mask itself, disguise itself once again, and appear in the guise of the free spirit.

            Clearly all this is very unclear. But then, to deconstruct deconstruction, even for the sake of the love of wisdom, does not necessarily entail enlightenment.

            Nietzsche's recurring insistence that all truth is perspectival, all seeing interpretive, all knowing interested, perspectival and interpretive, is itself open to more than one reading. His thinking is complex, multilayered and diverse. The result is that at times the various themes produce what is a difficult harmony at best. He vacillates between two ontologies and what the perspectival character of knowing means varies depending on which ontology is at the moment the interpretive stance. One ontology produces the reading that it is the human role to be the creator of values. It entails a self-assured, active confidence and self respect. The other leads to the ascetic ideal. They share the insistence that truths, values, convictions, are prisons, that one must be free not only of Eternal Truth but eternal truths and finally of truth itself.

            To see how vastly different in meaning the perspectival character of knowing can be, let us sound out two of Nietzsche's strongly drawn images, his "Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit" from Zarathustra and his image of lambs and birds of prey from The Genealogy of Morals. Herr Nietzsche, your hammer, please.

            In the Zarathustra image the spirit is imaged as camel,lion or child depending on the relation to the Great Dragon which symbolizes Truth,Value, Absolute Good. The camel is the spirit of obedience, slavery, bondage. When the Great Dragon shouts, this spirit obeys. The lion pronounces a sacred No. In the lonely desert it finds its last god; it will fight the Great Dragon, the great Thou Shalt. All values, roars the Great Dragon, are set;I am all truth. Thou shalt obey! Not so, says the lion. I will; that is my word. Freedom for the creating of new values, a freedom produced by pronouncing the sacred No , that the lion can do. But to create new values, Nietzsche says, that the spirit as lion cannot do. Why not? Because it too is defined by the Great Dragon, the great Thou Shalt, though negatively. It does not assert what truth, good, value are to mean, but only refuses duty, good, value, truth, as set forth by whatever god or gods are encountered.

            For the play, the game of creation of new values, there is needed a sacred Yes. "Innocence is the child and forgetting, a new beginning, play, a self-rolling wheel, a first-mover, a sacred Yes-saying."3 Followers,says Nietzsche,I do not want, but create yourselves to be creating ones; that is my wish.4 The ontology in this image is that of the finely tuned balance of Apollonian and Dionysian elements as found in the early portions of The Birth of Tragedy The balance is produced by the spirit itself, self-assured,confident, resourceful in its self creation and the entailed evaluation of values, in its assertion of meaning in its world. There is enough Apollonian measure, moderation, limit, balance structure, to give coherence to the Dionysian energies of motion, disruption, exhuberance and chaos. The spirit as child is creative of the order, intelligibility, structure necessary to life, but free and competent to redefine, reevalute, remeasure; free to create new values. This is the human role: to be the determiner of meanings in an otherwise meaningless universe. That entails that first the spirit determine the meaning of itself, of being the creator of value. It is in this evaluation that the power, strength, ontological significance of the human spirit becomes evident.

             In this ontology we find the criterion whereby to evaluate the evaluations, the values created. There is a measure, a standard, by which to judge values, truths, goods, a perspective from which to judge the perspectival, interested, interpretations which are put forth as truths, goods, values, whether eternal or otherwise. Creating ones shalt thou create. Therein lies the criterion.

Are you the victorious one, the self-conqueror, the ruler of your passions, master of your virtues? Thus I ask you.

Or does the animal and necessity speak in your wish? Or alienation? Or discord in yourself?

I would have your victory and your freedom long for a child. Living monuments shall you build to your victory and your liberation.

Beyond yourself shall you build.But first you must yourself be built right-measured in body and soul.

...a creating one shall you create.5

            What do we hear if we apply Nietzsche's hammer to a second of Nietzsche's idols, sound out his lambs and birds of prey image found in the Genealogy?

That lambs dislike large birds of prey does not seem strange, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs.... To expect that strength will not manifest itself as strength, as the desire to overcome, to crush, to be master, as a thirst for enemies, conflict and triumph is every bit as absurd as to expect that weakness will manifest itself as strength.6

The ontology encountered here is vastly different from what was found in the Zarathustra passages. The reading of what the perspectival, interpretive, interested character of truth is vastly different as well. We are, in spite of Nietzsche's evident intent, on our way to the ascetic ideal. Lambs and birds of prey are treated alike as sheer quanta of energy, power, unaccountable for who they are or what they do. Schopenhauer's ghost is all too prominent in the dull thud Nietzsche's hammer elicits from this Nietzschean image.

A quantum of strength is equivalent to a quantum of urge, will, activity,... and it is only under the deception of language (of the arch-fallacies of reason petrified in language), which understands and misunderstands all activity as conditioned by an agent--the subject--that it can appear otherwise.7

"Vanity of vanity, all is vanity" is not far removed. The criterion by which to evaluate values, goods, truths, is lost in this Dionysian universe of raw urge and unaccountability. The self-creators who would create themselves as creators of value, the measurers of all who first give measure to themsleves as beings capable of measuring, are here swept into the wild seething cauldron of indifference. The invitation to eradicate the creator of meaning,to see all as text, to see the creator of meaning as an arch-fallacy of reason petrified in language, is readily apparent. We arrive at the ascetic ideal from which one can conclude with equal legitimacy ascetic denial or cynical affirmation. In a world of indifference these come to mean the same thing. In a void there are no distinctions. At best there are mere differences which make no difference.

            Nietzsche's text continues to drive home the annihilation of the human spirit, of the spirit which would create itself to be a creating one. He uses lightning as his analogy. There is no lightning whose activity is the brilliance. The lightning and its brilliance are one and the same and they simply are what they are. Likewise with weak and strong, with human individuals. Linguistic error leads us to believe and act as if there

were behind the strong an indifferent agent, free to manifest its strength or contain it. But no such agent exists; there is no being behind the doing.8

We,too, are, as Schopenhauer had argued, but urges of the blind, incessant struggle of cosmic will, some large quanta, some small, but all equally blind will, urge, activity. There is, in this ontology, no longer room for the victorious one, self-conqueror, ruler of one's passions and master of one's virtues. The animal and necessity speak in one's wishes, whether they be weak or strong. One is but a pure piece of indifference in an indifferent universe.

            When we tap each of these ontological images, each of these idols, the hammer elicits not only different fundamental tones, but differing harmonic sequences as well. One is full- toned, in harmony with itself, confident, self-assured. It is a symphony of intelligence, active, alert, in its synthesis of dynamic possibility and meaningful structure, first in itself and then in its creations. The other emits a dreadful clanging, a cacaphony of discord,dissolution, unhappiness, ill-tempered barking of dogs in the basement of existence. Rejection, refusal, denial, discord, a carping, whining complaint against all that creativeness has produced and all who have been creators, unable even to say No and mean it.

            Obviously, readings of existence from each of these perspectives are going to sound very different. That all truth is perspectival, interested, interpretive will also mean something very different. To be a creator of value in an otherwise indifferent universe is not at all the same as to be an arbitrary assertion of will, passion, urge, activity, with no ability to determine whether or how to express or not to express what one is. The difference is that between sheer arbitrary, unaccountable assertion of values and intelligent creative evaluation of the values as they are created, between nihilism and existentialism. One perspective is that of the self-assured, active confident Yes-sayer. The other perspective is that of the void--carping, complaining, a reactive rejection of all that the creators have created, a rejection born of a loathing for the creators. No-sayers whose very No is a disguised Yes to the ascetic ideal.

            Are not these self-proclaimed post-moderns actually pre-modern, pre-medieval, perhaps even pre-historical? The ascetic ideal in a most insidious form? For who would suspect that beneath the mocking jests, the smiles, the biting critiques, the delightful satires, humor, play, the delight in ferreting out of secrets of the old masters, the dazzling ability to set even a Hegel to dancing, there lurks the ascetic priest in devoted service to the ascetic ideal?

            Does not Zarathustra say

...when I called upon you to break up the good and the tables of the good, then did I first launch mankind on his high seas.

And now comes to him the great terror, the great watchfulness, the great sickness, the great loathing and great sea-sickness.9

Does not this describe what postmoderns and deconstructionists are doing and achieving? Have they not earned Zarathustra's honor?

the destroyers of morality the Good and the Just call me; my story is immoral.10

Do they not merit this high recognition? Have they not heard Zarathustra's message, heeded his call?

O my brothers! Wherein lies the greatest danger to all human future? Is it not in the good and the just?

By those who speak and in their hearts feel: We know already what the good and just is: we have it already, and woe to any who still search here.11

Does not this aptly describe these venturesome spirits who dare to challenge the tradition, the author, the foundation, seriousness, the tyranny of the already established, the center, logic, truth, and reason, those who speak for possibility, openness, future, flexibility, play, difference?

            Here, you take the hammer. Strike, sound out the idol. Hark! What do you hear? Do you hear what I hear? No? Strike again, for perhaps I have heard wrong--or wrongly heard, for we philosophers have to be constantly on our guard lest we be deceived by our own suspiciousness. Our knowing, too, is perspectival, interpretive, and we need to ask ourselves how much of what we believe we see is in how we do our looking, how much of what we believe we hear is in how we do our listening.

            Strike once more and we'll listen together. Fully capable intelligence entails

an ability to have one's pros and cons within one's command and to engage or suspend them at will so that one knows how to make the diversity of perspectives and psychological interpretations useful for intellection.12

Hush! We're listening now for overtones. "That, precisely, is what we postmodern, post-philosophy writers are up to. We work day and night with ceaseless energy to critique foundationalism, eternal truths, the center, all that is taken as universal,necessary, true. We too can borrow Nietzsche's tools, this time his telescope. He was right. To see things for once through the wrong end of the telescope is revealing, rewarding in new insights, new possibilities. Difference, otherness, strangeness, appear in an effulgence which seems to promise inexhaustable riches for life, future and happiness. Staunch rejectors, we are, of philosophic myths of pure will-less, painless, timeless knowers and of pure reason, absolute knowledge and all such concepts which Nietzsche says

presuppose an eye such as no living being can imagine, an eye which must have no direction, whose active and interpretive powers must be abrogated--precisely those powers that make seeing a seeing something...13

Free spirits, fearless adventurers, probers of every belief, every value, every good, every truth, every foundation, egalitarians of the mind, that is what we are. Our perspective is every perspective for there are only perspective and perspectives, difference and differences; and all perspectives are therefore equal."

            Free? Is this really so? Strike again; listen once more. Have we heard aright? Every mind, Nietzsche says, has its own timbre and it is only necessary to listen to the tone of a mind as it speaks to know its timbre.

That one there always sounds hoarse; is it possible he has thought himself hoarse? ...But whoever thinks words is an orator, not a thinker; (he betrays that he does not think things does not think the substance of the matter),but only in respect of things....14

Now do you hear? False tones, false overtones and the more overtones, the more false. There is no foundation. There is no center. What has one said when one says that? There is no author. Now what has one said when one has said that? There are texts and readings of texts. But texts are themselves mere conflations. An author, a subject, a creator who thought something and said something is a bit of mythology, philosphy, superstition. There are only readings and readings of readings. Criteria to judge are absent since any criterion would itself be a reading or a function of a reading. Do you hear it now? Sound

the idol once more. Hear the out-of-tuneness?

The ascetic treats life as a maze in which we must retrace our steps to the point at which we entered or an error which one corrects through an act, which one must correct, for he demands that one go with him, he forces where he can his evaluation of being.15

            And what is that ideal in postmodernism? Critique, complaint, rejection, decentering, deconstruction, a negation of author, text, creator. A technique, a method, an approach. Words. Words and more words. Readings and more readings, which are, of course, more words. Words in respect of things, but not thinking things? These word charmers are masters of the art, but are they thinkers? Or are they trying to invent a methodology, a technique, an established modus operandi which will unlock the text, show that the apparent author neither exists nor said what he or she seemed to believe he or she was saying. Rather than dealing with what the author said, believed, argued, thought they seek an approach whereby to avoid doing so and thereby avoid any thinking at all. It is thinking about, thinking with reference to, thinking in respect of, but not thinking. It critiques, it reviews, it reads and it rereads; it chews and spits up and chews again and again the thinking done by the philosophers, unable ever to digest it.

            Now do you hear what I hear? Nietzsche's hammer, once more.

If read from a distant star, the large print of our earthly existence would lead one to conclude that the earth is strictly an ascetic star, a cranny of disgruntled, proud, repulsive creatures who can not rid themselves of self-loathing, hatred of earth and of all living things, who inflict on themselves as much pain as possible solely out of pleasure in giving pain....16

All those unhappy souls, those critiquing, complaining, refuting, rejecting, objectors to all that is or has been, this chorus of disgruntled voices, is our old enemy, the ascetic ideal, in its most recent disguise. These brazen spirits who claim to be showing there is no author, no thinker, no creator, but only texts and readings for which there is and can be no criterion by which to evaluate readings, no evaluation, no means whereby to distinguish true from false, good from evil, myth from science, are singing the old dirge of the ascetic ideal, but in a new more aggressive form. The void resonates, resounds, shouts in the ill-tempered, discordant chanting of our postmoderns. The inharmonious clamor is disagreeable enough to listen to, that is agreed. But listen. Listen carefully. Again.

            We are told there is no author, no thinker, no creator. We are told there are interpretations and interpretations of interpretations, that there is no way to judge for there are no standards, criteria, no foundation, no truth since anything claimed to be such is itself but a function of some reading or other, some interested perspective. So one reading is as valid as another, all are equally justified because equally arbitrary, pure inventions of the writer, who presumably is not an author, but is also an arbitrary phenomenon, a point of view for which there is neither reason nor justification. There are no privileged perspectives. There are no neutral agents, free to manifest their strength or contain it.

A quantum of strength is equivalent to a quantum of urge, will, activity..,, and it is only under the deception of language (of the arch-fallacies of reason petrified in language), which understands and misunderstands all activity as conditioned by an agent--the subject--that it can appear otherwise.17

Yes, Nietzsche did say that and voiced the ascetic ideal, nihilism, when he did so. And so do our postmoderns when they recite their litanies of readings of readings.

            But hush, there is more. Sometimes softer, sometimes louder, a different tone is heard, one startlingly out of tune with the earlier more developed tone. If one reading, one interpretation, is as valid as another, if there is no privileged position, no privileged perspective, why is there no author's perspective, for surely that would be as legitimate as any other? That all perspectives are mere readings of readings is itself either a mere reading or it is a privileged perspective. If privileged, how and why? If not, we are plunged in the depths of the void, nihilism. As if this were not bewildering enough, those clever priests have more in store for us. They tell us there is no author and in the midst of doing so tell us what the writings attributed to that product of the arch-fallacy of reason actually mean. The presumed author neither existed nor exists and did not say what she or he thought she or he was saying--but our postmodern writer does know. Know? Well, writes. Writes? The text writes a rewriting.... Enough. Once more, either privileged or the void. Either there is some significance in what is being written, hence privileged and the whole approach empty nonsense, or it is purely arbitrary presumption on the part of the writer and we have the void. Or there is no writer and the text is rewriting itself. If this last, it would seem either the void has become eloquent and the nihilism of a Schopenhauerean cosmic will has reappeared or the ghost of Hegel has returned and the Weltgeist resurrected, continues on its grisly way--the void appears in a rational guise. A strange, discordant, raucous and difficult set of tones and overtones.

            The hammer, again, please. Can we get, for once, a clear, coherent, sustained tone, one whose harmonic series is audible all the way to the end? I think so, sour and disagreeable as it may be.

...learning today is a hiding place for all sorts of discontent, gnawing skepticism, self-deprecation, guilty conscience. It is itself the restlessness of lack of ideals, the want of a great love....

How much does learning hide these days, or, at least, how much does it wish to hide?18

What is the meaning of the denial of freedom, reason, judgment, the denial of creativeness which has an awareness of its own identity, power and responsibility? What indeed? It is not so much a what as the absence of a what. The senseless industry, mad intensity, easily wounded pride, of our best scholars should tell us something. If that doesn't, then the fact that their creativeness is exhausted in critique, restatement, rereading, should make it clear what we are listening to.

            In Nietzsche's time the lie was a "Beyond"; in our time it is this world, our world, our life, culture, our creativeness which is under attack as the lie. This human world is now the lie denounced in favor of--nothing. The void has become the purpose and our creativeness exhausted in erasing, refusing, rejecting, vilifying what creativeness has earlier brought forth. Too weak to say a sacred Yes, we groan on, in chorus, reciting our dismal litanies of Nos.

            This is not to say that No does not need to be said. It is to say that No is not enough. More important is why we seem unable to say Yes. In our day we have, in one way, gone beyond Nietzsche, but not to a new freedom; we have gone beyond philosophy, but not to a new thinking. We have not gone beyond metaphysics, but confuse the metaphysics of the void with a new thinking and unthinkingly serve the ascetic ideal, the void, nihilism.

What a triumph to deny belief in the I, to deny the reality of one's own self, indeed a triumph not merely over the senses, over appearances, but a far higher sort of triumph,a triumph in a cruel and violent assault on reason.19

Our scholars have found a way to do violence to reason yet further than Nietzsche had in mind. He was thinking of Kant's noumenal realm and its inaccessability to our reason. We have outdone that, for while it may be humiliating to reason that there is a realm from which it is excluded, there remain both reason and its proper domain. The violence done to reason in our time is far more profound for our scholars tell us there is neither reason nor realm from which it is excluded. For us, our world, our reason, our thought, too, is nothing. We have turned our world and ourselves into a void and made that void our purpose.

            Ideas, however, have consequences, even if we try to convince ourselves that they do not.The ascetic ideal is profoundly dangerous, particularly in its insidious presentation by its postmodern priests. There is a perhaps subtle but very significant difference between "all truth is perspectival, lies necessary for life," together with a summons to creators to assume their role in life and a nihilistic "all is text and text is but interpretation of interpretation" together with a denial of the power to judge, discriminate among and evaluate differences. The apparent investment of creative power in the reader is deceptive. It is so because while it would seem to place the reader at the center, it, in fact, denies all centeredness and swallows up the reader in that decentering. The creator, whether as author or reader, is drained of reality and only a context of texts remains. With the loss of author, creator, comes loss of ability to make distinctions and in this void one reading, one interpretation, is as good or as bad as another since there is no way to judge. No thinking, no creating, no creative dialogue with thinkers, authors, is possible. But murder, death camps, mass suicide,mass murder certainly are. And in a world without lights, without meanings, without creators who can create meaning, without thinkers with that power, self-assurance, responsibility, we end in the nihilistic "Nothing is true;everything is permitted."

Here now is real freedom in that belief in truth itself is cancelled.20

 Really? Or do we hear in Nietzsche's words the void? It depends on whether we read this text from the ontological perspective of the child in Zarathustra or from the perspective of the lambs and birds of prey ontology in the Genealogy. The death of God does not in itself produce freedom. It can as well produce a more vicious bondage to the ascetic ideal. In its metamorphosis from God to the Void, the Void becomes more profoundly empty. One can no longer even shake one's fist in defiance at an angry heaven for there is neither heaven at which to shake one's fist nor ground upon which to stand to do so nor an author to be capable of the deed.

            Nietsche asks if it is possible there are effective antagonists to the ascetic ideal among the few idealists remaining among philosophers, scholars and scientists in his day, but immediately concludes to the contrary, even though those unbelievers believe they are such free thinkers.

These negators and solitaries of today, unconditional in their claim to intellectual purity, these hard, strong, continent, heroic minds, who constitute the intellectual elite of today, all these wan atheists, antichristians, immoralists, nihilists, these skeptics and suspenders of judgment and suspenders of the intellect...these last idealists of learning in whom alone today intellectual conscience is alive and is embodied--they believe themselves to be as free from the ascetic ideal as it is possible.... But I will reveal something to them...,that the ascetic ideal is precisely their ideal and it is they, and perhaps they alone, who represent it today.21

They do so, Nietzsche says, because they still believe in truth and hence cannot be free beings. In our time, the ascetic priests do not believe in truth, that is true, but they do believe. They believe in untruth, in not-the-truth, in the void. And the first premise, the foundational belief of their system of unbelief is rejection of the dignity, worth, value inherent in the human person.

Has not man's self-belittling, his determination to belittle himself been in incessant progress since Copernicus? Ach, his belief in his worth, uniqueness, irreplaceableness in the hierarchy of being is annihilated--he has become an animal, animal literally and without allowance or reservation.... Since Copernicus man has proved to be on an inclined plane--he rolls ever faster away from the center. Whereto? Into the void.22

Indeed so. The death of God was followed by the death of ideals and principles and that by the death of the creator of gods and ideals, the death of the person. The void now announces itself in voices of indifferent difference.

            Once more, the hammer. Do you hear it now? That loud, raucous, ill-tempered tone, out of tune even with itself, perpetuated in disharmonius overtones, each series more out of tune than the one before it? Nietzsche's own out of tuneness with himself has had its effect. The rejection of essence, of truth, necessity, of subject, means very different things depending on whether one listens to Zarathustra and his summons to become what we are, the child, and live in that world of thinkers who, in their self-creation, create worlds or whether we listen to the void become eloquent in the lambs and birds of prey ontology and live in a world of arbitrary meaninglessness, a world in which the person too is a mere function of arbitrary meaninglessness.

            Absence of purpose, absence of projecting purpose, is not the same as being free of purpose, as Plato and Kant would have made clear to Nietzsche and his postmodern followers, if he and his followers had read these authors with their minds as well as with with their eyes and thought their way through to the thinking of these authors rather than merely interpreting them. To have one's pros and one's cons within one's command is quite another thing from reducing all pros and cons to equivalence and indifferent difference.

Is there today indeed enough pride, daring, courage, self-assurance, intellectual energy, freedom of will so that in reality philosophy is now even possible on this earth?23

Yes, I think there is, as there always is. The danger is that we may let these nihilistic, skeptical, suspenders of recognition of worth in our human nature, these belittlers of mankind, the author, creator and all the creations of this creativeness, charm us to become co-worshippers at the shrine of nihilism. Still, thinkers are what we are. To think is to create a world, to provide meaning, direction, coherence and the criterion for such creation is in recognition of the infinite intrinsic worth of the creator. The worth lies in the being of being the creator. To be free of purpose is not absence of purpose, but is to be creator of oneself as creator of purpose.

A creating one shalt thou create, a victorious one, self-conqueror and ruler of one's passions and master of one's virtues.24

            The hammer, please, one last time. What resonance, what fullness of fundamental tone, in tune with itself, well-tempered, harmonious in overtones and sequences of overtones, rich beyond measure in promise of happiness and future.

     Even the hammer is itself set to singing.


Endnotes

  1. Friedrich Nietzsche, Zur Genealogie der Moral in Werke in drei Bänden (München: Carl Hanser Verlag, 1962), II,857. All further Nietzsche references are to this edition. All translations are those of the author.

  2. Friedrich Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra, Werke,II,460.

  3. Ibid.,294.

  4. Ibid.,332.

  5. Ibid.,332.

  6. Friedrich Nietzsche, Genealogie... in Werke... II,789.

  7. Ibid.,789.

  8. Ibid.,790.

  9. Zarathustra, Werke,II,459.

  10. Ibid.,330.

  11. Ibid. 458.

  12. Genealogie, Werke II,860.

  13. Ibid., 860-61.

  14. Ibid., 851.

  15. Ibid., 858.

  16. Ibid., 858-59.

  17. Ibid., 789.

  18. Ibid., 888.

  19. Ibid., 860.

  20. Ibid., 889.

  21. Ibid., 889.

  22. Ibid., 893.

  23. Ibid., 857.

  24. Zarathustra, Werke,II,332.

 

 

 

 

Originally published in PHILOSOPHY TODAY, vol 41:3 1997. Copyright DePaul University. Posted with permission of the publisher. Published Essays