“(The path I am speaking of does not lead to “happiness” but to power, to the most energetic activity, and in a majority of cases to actual unhappiness.) Thus the philosopher abhors marriage and all that would persuade him to marriage, for he sees the married state as an obstacle to fulfillment. What great philosopher has ever been married? Heracleitus, Plato, Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Kant, Schopenhauer – not one of them was married; moreover, it is impossible to imagine any of them married. I maintain that a married philosopher belongs in comedy, and as for that great exception, Socrates got married in a spirit of irony, precisely in order to prove that contention. Every philosopher would speak as Buddha spoke when he was told that a son had been born to him: “Râhula has been born to me; a fetter has been forged for me”” - F. Nietzche
“It is easy to tell a philosopher: he avoids three shiny, loud things – fame, princes, and women…” - F. Nietzche
and yet:
*In 1876, at age 32, Nietzsche made an unsuccessful marriage proposal to a Dutch piano student in Geneva named Mathilde Trampedach.
“aviods”; key word there. he probably should have avoided them but a. these refusals made him stronger and more dedicated to his work in that had he been happily married and had kids, his philosophy could have been very different and b. of all things in life, one Nietzsche seemed to hold higher then most was love (as well as music and the spirit etc). one of my favourite lines of Nietzsche is in Beyond Good and Evil where he claims “that which is done out of love, takes place beyond good and evil” (i.e. you cannot as human beings completely control such a strong emotion like love). he holds it higher then morality and he believed that the notions of love for one another and for all was one of the most prominent messages of Christ while he was preaching (whom Nietzsche seems to have a love/hate relationship with in his work).
women, marriage and a family would have been a great distraction for Nietzsche’s writing/way of Philosophy and therefore his philosophy/way of thinking would be better without it (as would any philosopher in that respect). whether or not he would be happier without them though is another question entirely
Sadly we will always remain human, all too human. It would be better if we didn’t pretend that we could ever be anything else. Maybe for a very small amount of people could rise above their human capacity (Jesus). U only have to look at the sex crimes of the catholic church (i think one of the few major religious organistions to make all their clergy celabte) to see that to eradicate human desire is nigh on impossible. Any way, whats the problem? Desire can be fun.
Why is it that philosophers have to try to be superman. Just because they are looking at questions of fundamental importance to the human race does not necessarily mean that they have to (and frequently do not) live their lives as saint (or whatever). Your list of philosophers that did not marry but i am sure there is an equaly big list of ones that did (probably more modern). Plato in the Philibus on the difference between pleasure and knowledge, whilst placing knowledge on a higher plane, does not renounce pleasure altogether: he recognises the importance of pleasure. Surely it makes your mind more free if your body’s needs are adequatley satisfied. Think of Maslow’s heirarcy of needs or the quote from a famous modern philosopher (whose name seems to have illuded me at the moment) “food first then ethics” (or something to that effect).
You have to be dedicated. For example dedicated to your family or your work. In good situations you can combine them, but in the (possible) end you have to set priorities.
Living a normal life gives a different philosophy (view on life) as a life in solitude.
At times I think the big N is just messing with us. It’s not always necessary to find straight cohesion in nietzsche’s own life.
As for Marriage, I can only quote Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz as an analogy.
"If Aristotle had spent more time in the kitchen, he would have known more about philosophy"
to blow off women and the way we now “familiarize” ,as Nietzsche tries to do, seems damned Limiting
reading this stuff I decided to become a better philosopher, sat down in the kitchen; the result; I got hungry! I ask you this;will this hunger, or sudden disposition for lust I take it, make me a better philosopher?
i completely agree with this. its tough to separate nietzsche’s actual “serious” philosophical thoughts from his embittered musings or opinions! it requires a very careful interpretation.
i do not think that there is a fundamental connection between “being a philosopher” and being married/in love/etc. i do, however, think that “being in love” can have a profound effect on one’s view of life, the universe, and everything. on the other hand, i think that being completely alone (with no prospects of female companionship) can have similarly profound effects, but with completely different results.
i don’t think nietzsche’s bad attitude (to put it lightly) was meant to include ALL women. most of his caustic comments directed towards women were actually meant to describe the stereotypical woman of his time. its the equivalent of one of us philosopher-types (i know i’ve said these kinds of things) saying something like “ahhh why are girls so dumb? why do they only care about make up and tanning and watching reruns of the real world?”
he did not “hate all women” as many people assume. perhaps someone can provide more details to support the following, but nietzsche thought VERY HIGHLY of mathilde trampedach. he thought she was capable of “superman status”, and i don’t believe he ever thought that of anyone else (except maybe wagner but of course he eventually ceased to be a superman-type in nietzche’s mind)!
my opinion is that if nietzsche’s personal life had been different in this way (if he HAD been successful at “scoring chicks”) then his philosophical ramblings would have taken on a different tone in certain places.
Let’s all not forget, though, that Nietzsche made at least one or two (can’t remember the specific details) contradictions in Beyond Good and Evil (I think they were centered around the topic of Women).
nietzsche makes lots of (apparent) contradictions. if you try to read nietzsche in the same way that you would read …plato (for example) then you’ll miss the point a lot of the time. you need to take a more “loose” approach to interpreting his work.
hahha we double-posted. there’s the source of the confusion.
but no, i’m not suggesting that “pleasure is good”… i’m not at all using that kind of idea to support my earlier suggestion. here’s what i’m sayin’:
i think that if he had been married it would have “tempered” his overall attitude a bit, possibly making him a bit more kind-hearted or sensitive or somethin’. its clear (to me anyway) that his lack of success with women had some effect on how he dealt with certain topics.
Have you read “Gorgias”? I´m referring to the position of Callicles ( unfortunatly I do not have it in english ). I think that N took up this view, and tried to develop it - when in fact he was a platonist like the rest of us.
[size=100]Oh yes, here it is ( the distinction between convention and nature ) thanks DarkMagus[/size];
"The
reason, as I conceive, is that the makers of laws are the majority
who are weak; and they, make laws and distribute praises and censures
with a view to themselves and to their own interests; and they: terrify
the stronger sort of men, and those who are able to get the better
of them in order that they may not get the better of them; and they
say, that dishonesty is shameful and unjust; meaning, by the word
injustice, the desire of a man to have more than his neighbours; for
knowing their own inferiority, I suspect that they are too glad of
equality. And therefore the endeavour to have more than the many,
is conventionally said to be shameful and unjust, and is called injustice,
whereas nature herself intimates that it is just for the better to
have more than the worse, the more powerful than the weaker; and in
many ways she shows, among men as well as among animals, and indeed
among whole cities and races, that justice consists in the superior
ruling over and having more than the inferior. For on what principle
of justice did Xerxes invade Hellas, or his father the Scythians?
(not to speak of numberless other examples). Nay, but these are the
men who act according to nature; yes, by Heaven, and according to
the law of nature: not, perhaps, according to that artificial law,
which we invent and impose upon our fellows, of whom we take the best
and strongest from their youth upwards, and tame them like young lions,
-charming them with the sound of the voice, and saying to them, that
with equality they must be content, and that the equal is the honourable
and the just. But if there were a man who had sufficient force, he
would shake off and break through, and escape from all this; he would
trample under foot all our formulas and spells and charms, and all
our laws which are against nature: the slave would rise in rebellion
and be lord over us, and the light of natural justice would shine
So we have an N say like at least 2400 years ago, don´t we? Any comments?
