Nietzsche - the literary philosopher

[Kjertesvein]

I have an assignment in school: How did Nietzsche present his philosophy through his literary works? I'll later present the different books I'll be using, but in the mean time please give me your take on it. I've read Thus Spoke Zarathustra (an epic story on biblical proportions) and the Genealogy of Morals (which resembles other dry lecturers of other philosophers). I'm also reading Beyond Good and Evil, a book which try to stuff too much into a book designed for future philosophers. I've also got all the other books, if you want to cite chapter.

Thanks. and regards,

~Wille

[Amorphos]

I hevent read much of Nietzsche’s works except Zarathustra, frankly I don’t feel the need to because so many philosophers talk about him ~ in philosophical circles it’s a bit like Christianity generally; one can learn all they need to know about it without even trying. He is very interesting though, and I think some of his thinking seeped into the punk movement I was part of.

We should note that much of what he wrote is something of a rehash of what other thinkers and poets thought…

"The fox provides for himself, but God provides for the lion." (William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, plate 9.)

There appears to be this idea that ‘nature is something’, which all creatures take instruction from.
Nietzschean objectivity seems to be like that, but it removes all value systems and just places the thing itself in full view, such that morals and ethics may be considered after that.

Consider sexuality, if you presented it in all its aspects throughout the human and natural world, an observer may think your works to be evil ~ but its beyond good and evil! Its simply saying this is how it is, ones beliefs and values may vary from individual to individual culture to culture etc, yet the thing itself remains what it is.

Some people took it to mean that that’s all there is, we should be brutish even, as like nature. Perhaps he also thought that? Yet for me its about looking at what is and then adding ones values accordingly, but always remembering that they are always relative and on the periphery of what is real.

[VikingOfSixth]

I would recommend Twilight of the Idols to begin with. A very short work and he is puts forward his general goals of philosophy without any exhaustive discussions on linguistics and the such. Then with this knowledge moving into one of his more literary works might be easier.

[Kjertesvein]

Sorry guys for keeping your waiting, but I've been pretty busy preparing new sales job, selling cars and a host of double mid-terms (Japanese, hist., ethics, etc. )

My case will be something out of this subforum, but still relevant. How does Nietzsche present his work around his varied literature?

I will mainly dance around this issue by going past a structure of Persuasio's Logos, Pathos and Ethos. I will not only look into Nietzsche prose style and it's similarities, but also differences. I will base this partly on literary analysis, partly based on the understanding of his language philosophy, epistemological and aesthetic ideas (the three main types overlap). A text analysis in each chapter.

Structure
It was Aristotle who divided the three variations of persuasio into three categories: Logos, Pathos and Ethos. This does not mean that the rhetorical forms of persuasio is the same as in Nietzsche's style, but are just three words which is the basis of reelection upon his style of writing. Logos for example is the sense of 'matter itself' as Aristotle view on evidence is not the same as for Nietzsche, who sees this as the least interesting. He is a man of suspicion to wards logical evidence. As a scholar of language, is believes that language show more then just information, and sees how to get the reader to think for himself. I will also argue that Nietzsche is aware of rhythm and sound, and I will try to portrait this as well. Human, all too Human.
Pathos will cover perspectivism and it's epistemological aspects of his later work. There is a moment of caprice in 1880s. I will try to examine pathos in the traditional sense, as a motivator and passion to something held close to heart. I might look into irony and the ambiguity of his texts, putting my repertoire of knowledge of literature to the test. The morality of genealogy, how each segment tries to portray a specific mod. What is he getting at?
To the late Nietzsche, there are no objective and true metaphysical theories - Only a persons perspective about it. The question often becomes, who are talking? And to this question, Nietzsche answers to position himself in his later works. Not only as the man-above, but also a man who you are lucky to come across. At this point I'll take on Twilight of the Idols as to reflect upon Ethos.

Zarathustra, well, I'm getting sceptical as to what to get out of it.

I hevent read much of Nietzsche’s works except Zarathustra, frankly I don’t feel the need to because so many philosophers talk about him ~ in philosophical circles it’s a bit like Christianity generally; one can learn all they need to know about it without even trying. He is very interesting though, and I think some of his thinking seeped into the punk movement I was part of.

We should note that much of what he wrote is something of a rehash of what other thinkers and poets thought…

"The fox provides for himself, but God provides for the lion." (William Blake, The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, plate 9.)

There appears to be this idea that ‘nature is something’, which all creatures take instruction from.
Nietzschean objectivity seems to be like that, but it removes all value systems and just places the thing itself in full view, such that morals and ethics may be considered after that.

Consider sexuality, if you presented it in all its aspects throughout the human and natural world, an observer may think your works to be evil ~ but its beyond good and evil! Its simply saying this is how it is, ones beliefs and values may vary from individual to individual culture to culture etc, yet the thing itself remains what it is.

Some people took it to mean that that’s all there is, we should be brutish even, as like nature. Perhaps he also thought that? Yet for me its about looking at what is and then adding ones values accordingly, but always remembering that they are always relative and on the periphery of what is real.

You are quite right indeed. Herzogin Anna Bibliothek in Weimar hold about 28500 registered papers on Nietzsche. Al tough there are about 300 who deals with his style, most of them deals with theoretical implications of his style. What they don't deal with is - what is Nietzsche's style? That, they take for granted!

I would recommend Twilight of the Idols to begin with. A very short work and he is puts forward his general goals of philosophy without any exhaustive discussions on linguistics and the such. Then with this knowledge moving into one of his more literary works might be easier.

Registered.

~Wille

[Denny Crane!]

He presented it in German, and that always makes a difference. I personally find anything thing originally composed in German and translated into English a pain in the arse to read, the prose doesn't carry across well.

[Kjertesvein]

Luckily for me I'm Norwegian. Ergo, it's much easier to understand. Underbevisthet doesn't have to find a middle ground between mind and consciousness. His works have also recently been translated into well formulated Norwegian (Spartacus 2009) by non other then my teacher, who wrote a Master on this very subject in his youth. Triple lucky I might note.

~Wille

[Claudius Gothicus]

He presented it in German, and that always makes a difference. I personally find anything thing originally composed in German and translated into English a pain in the arse to read, the prose doesn't carry across well.

I been driven to the conclusion that it's not something intrinsically related to the language(even though it can put quite a few obstacles by itself)... but more connected to the actual ''style'' of those who wrote it.

Some examples:

-Most French Authors on fields of Social Science or Philosophy are a ing pain in the ass, however maybe the Founder of the whole thing(Emile Durkheim) can red as easily as an Englishman due to the ''straightforwardness'' of his style: ''We define A as a correlation of B, C and D'' kind of statements.

-Even though Germans in general are absolutely ridiculously hard to understand(yes Hegel we are particularly looking at you) in some cases, like Weber's ''The Protestant Ethos...'' the ideas are pretty clear and so are his definitions in ''Economy and Society''. While on the other hand reading Habermas or Luhmann is not really that complicated.

-A third example, Talcott Parsons, if there's something that characterizes most American authors it's their straightforwardness, Talcott simply breaks that trend and makes our reading of his very interesting systems theory a complete nightmare.

The style might be very well influenced by the times but there certainly is a ''personal touch'' to every writer that can't be overlooked, XVIII century Philosophers can be easier to understand(Locke, Montesquieu and Hobbes being major examples) but there's rare cases of ''pain in the ass'' ones like Kant or Rousseau that take more than a few readings and quite some hours to get them going...

[Denny Crane!]

And Foucault never forget him. I found him to be rather tedious even if I enjoyed his narrative for its content.

[Claudius Gothicus]

And Foucault never forget him. I found him to be rather tedious even if I enjoyed his narrative for its content.

I've found Foucault to be rather easy to read... I also liked his ''Pessimistic Functionalism'' on the roles of the State and Institutions but yeah, maybe it does have a lot to with the actual article or maybe the translation altogether.

However, and being a major supporter of Modernity, I've been finding myself more and more opposed to the whole philosophical movement construed around Nietzsche, himself and other jerks like Guattari. I just can't stand Postmodernism, given that moral relativism is in my eyes the most dangerous form of political conservatism.

[Denny Crane!]

I've found Foucault to be rather easy to read... I also liked his ''Pessimistic Functionalism'' on the roles of the State and Institutions but yeah, maybe it does have a lot to with the actual article or maybe the translation altogether.

However, and being a major supporter of Modernity, I've been finding myself more and more opposed to the whole philosophical movement construed around Nietzsche, himself and other jerks like Guattari. I just can't stand Postmodernism, given that moral relativism is in my eyes the most dangerous form of political conservatism.

Well you probably found him easy to read because your a sociologist, you know..."one of them"

Nah I mean certainly better than the German Ilk we speak of but rather complex to approach from a pure laymans point of view, through in the vagaries of translation and a lot of new terminology and it'll throw you off base for a while.

I wouldn't have said there was a whole movement around Nietzsche from what I've found he is one of those things people pass through rather than linger on. It's a stage philosophy students go through, much like students often go through a Marxist stage. For a while these ideas are revolutionary and the best thing ever and then they grow up.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Well you probably found him easy to read because your a sociologist, you know..."one of them"

I can honestly say I haven't red the bald Frenchman for at least more than 8 months now... so I don't exactly remember how hard it was for me in the beginning, what I'm certain of is that having my mind trained to see ''wholes and parts'' ''interdependency'' and ''social functions'' pretty much helped me understand all of those concepts played a role in Foucault's texts, in a negative light of course.

Nah I mean certainly better than the German Ilk we speak of but rather complex to approach from a pure laymans point of view, through in the vagaries of translation and a lot of new terminology and it'll throw you off base for a while.

Yeah, terminology is certainly a ... one of the main problems of Social Science(and the reason why, in opposition, Economics is greatly respected when compared to the others) is not formalizing terms. Semms like every new author wants to be the founder of a new language.

I wouldn't have said there was a whole movement around Nietzsche from what I've found he is one of those things people pass through rather than linger on. It's a stage philosophy students go through, much like students often go through a Marxist stage. For a while these ideas are revolutionary and the best thing ever and then they grow up.

Yes it's true that Nietzsche plays one of those ''intellectual stage'' roles in a reader's mind... but in some cases the whole ''pespectivism'' concept can end up pretty ingrained in some people's ideology which in turn leads to them relativism, and in some cases, defenders of the indefensible.

I have witnessed professors defend Traditional Rituals who are well beyond that which is considered ''inhumane''(female circumsicion in Africa specifically) on the basis of cultural relativism and scientific knowledge being nothing more than a ''rationality of control and power''.

[fkizz]

I would recommend Twilight of the Idols to begin with. A very short work and he is puts forward his general goals of philosophy without any exhaustive discussions on linguistics and the such. Then with this knowledge moving into one of his more literary works might be easier.

This. Having read Twilight of the Idols aswell, I can confirm what he says.

Ecce Homo is also not very hard, but is more auto-biographic than philosophical.

Perspectivism, and a review on relativism of good and evil are present on all of his work.