How Nietzsche Was Different

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I know that this is another thread on Nietzsche - however, I am pretty sure this is the only thread (looking now, I guess it is the second thread, but the first one hardly counts) I have ever made about Nietzsche, so I hope you won’t think the topic matter is redundant.

How was Nietzsche different from other philosophers?

My reason for posting this is because it seems like most of the people who dislike Nietzsche only dislike him because they don’t understand his style, and how it differed from other philosophers. Or perhaps they do understand his style, but simply don’t like it and don’t think it has any place in philosophy. Tell me, all of you who dislike Nietzsche, are you sure you grasp Nietzsche’s style? Or are you sure you aren’t just “poisoning the well” by dismissing his entire philosophy as “bad” because of a few of the things he criticized (Christianity comes to mind)? Or maybe you just legitimately don’t like his philosophy. I don’t know, you tell me.

Anyways, I want to sufficiently illustrate how Nietzsche was different from other philosophers.

Nietzsche’s works are definitely what I would consider “philosophy” - but they differ so much from traditional philosophy, that an explanation of these differences seems necessary for those just starting to read Nietzsche, for those who are having trouble understanding Nietzsche, and for those who are skeptical of Nietzsche.

Most philosophers are very epistemological and pragmatic in their philosophy, and it almost seems like they were trying to eventually create their own dogmatic doctrine out of their conclusions. However, they wanted to converse with the world of sciences, almost to seek verification (or dismissal) for their philosophical doctrine. This seems to be how philosophy differs from religion: Religion tries to be self-asserting - but philosophy wants to be confirmed by its readers. Philosophy is almost like a science that tries too hard to be a religion.

Now, when Nietzsche’s pragmatic and systemized philosophy is present (if it even exists), it is usually just tossed in between paragraphs of his criticism of other philosophers, and the purpose of his pragmatic/systemized philosophy is usually just to loosely connect ideas from one section of his writing to another.

Also, when epistemology is present in Nietzsche’s writings, it is usually done with a hint of defiance towards something else (whether it be from another philosopher, or from commonly held societal beliefs) – and in some cases, even as a mockery of other philosopher’s ideas.

Nietzsche’s style is perhaps the most distinguishing feature of his philosophy. The style was never really definite, and it would transition to whatever style Nietzsche thought would best express an idea; it would constantly fluctuate.
I don’t think that Nietzsche ever planned on having such distinct writing styles - although he was likely aware of them.

Nietzsche’s works almost serve to be more of a piece of literature, and less of a pragmatic science.

For example, when Nietzsche states the concept of there being two types of morality - Master morality and Slave morality- this dichotomic distinction is given very little epistemological foundation by Nietzsche, and instead it is reached merely from the deductions he made while criticizing other ideas (most notably, the Judeo-christian ideals). It is important to note that Nietzsche wouldn’t put forth a whole lot of effort into defending such proclamations as "Master and Slave morality", and in this way, they come across as more of a suggestion to the reader instead of a proclamation.

Nietzsche will also commonly switch tones throughout a particular piece of writing, and this is done for correct emphasis. Whenever the style of Nietzsche’s writings would seem to suggest the emulation of a dogmatic doctrine (as other philosophers do which I mentioned above), it is done in almost a poetic and allegorical tone, that leaves its interpretation up to the reader. However, Nietzsche wouldn’t hesitate to switch to a pragmatic and scientific style, whenever its application was needed. Among other tones, Nietzsche would also use derogatory tones, criticism tones, and mysterious tones.

The aphoristic writing format can hardly be thought of as “desired vehicle” for the writing of pragmatic philosophy, and nearly every philosopher that has used the aphoristic format has almost always taken on a poetic and allegorical tone (it might have been intentional, or it might have been that they were gradually forced into using such a tone simply because the aphoristic layout provokes it). The aphoristic format allows for the writer to capture an idea right when it occurs to him, and the emphasis of that idea is at the exact degree the writer had intended it to be at. The essay-format seems to be too restrictive and it impedes the flow of new ideas - which is perhaps why Nietzsche’s “The Birth of Tragedy” (written in an essay format) lacks the literary flow that his other works have.

While other philosophers usually have a set goal or direction for their books, Nietzsche’s books have only a very vague overall meaning/direction. For example, “On the Genealogy of Morals” contains a broad range of topics, and the overall direction/meaning only loosely strings those topics together.

The writings of other philosophers are usually written with such a tone that the readers are distanced from the author, and feel like they are being introduced to some sort of doctrine (Kant comes to mind). However, Nietzsche’s writings almost give the reader the impression that Nietzsche is having a conversation with the reader, as if the reader were a good friend of Nietzsche, and Nietzsche is sharing all of his thoughts with this friend of his. This style was sort of used by Schopenhauer, and it was perhaps Nietzsche’s reading of Schopenhauer that allowed Nietzsche to feel comfortable with that style when doing his own writings. Nietzsche automatically assumes that his reader is open-minded and at an intellectual level that is similar to Nietzsche. The exception to this is The Birth of Tragedy (written in an essay format - and being his first book, Nietzsche’s writing is perhaps still in its youth, where it is still too insecure of itself to manifest into what Nietzsche wanted it to be) and Thus Spoke Zarathustra (which is written in a narrative style that is rich with symbolism and metaphors, and remains mysterious even to Nietzsche himself).

2

He was looking for motive in thought, not necessarily Truth.

3

Yeah - Nietzsche didn’t do epistemology, morality or politics - the Big Three of Bigtime Philosophy. So he leaves a lot of people cold. Or he leaves them confused - confused enough so that they inject any or all of these into his writing - where it doesn’t belong. His sister brought politics to his writing, every adolescent that reads him brings morality, and the religious can’t help but bring epistemology to him.

Less is more.

4

That’s true, but I would have to say that he did talk about morality in his writings - he just never tried to formulate his own morality in his writings.

When he brought the question upon himself “What do you consider yourself to practice - slave morality or master morality?” he said something like “I dislike master morality, but I dislike slave morality even more.” This is evidence towards his refusal to “create” his own morality, and instead any morality he does present us with is merely the product of his deductions he made while criticizing something else.

His own morality was likely gained through his own personal life experiences - and he knew that any attempt to define his morality in his writings would inevitably constrict it and confine it. So he avoided it altogether.

5

Well, Nietzsche was a moralist in the limited sense that eudaimonia may be achieved through a personal set of rules for living. But that’s not what the word “morality” usually means - and it’s certainly not what was meant by most users in a post-Kant/Hegel Europe.

Since Nietzsche’s time, we may have moved closer to an acceptance of such a code as worthy of the philosopher. But if we have, it’s in part because of Nietzsche.

6

Nietzsche did indeed promote a morality of some description. Beyond Good and Evil is basically a text that tries to hone in on and refine potential artist-philsophers in order to create a new ruling caste for Europe. The noble/slave distinction permeates the whole text. Similar distinctions can be found throughout Nietzsche’s other texts. The essay Schopenhauer as Educator is an early attempt to tune more potential noble natures into ‘creating themselves’ in order for this ‘circle of culture’ to bear upon the entire culture in contradistinction to the decadence of his day. His morality moves beyond ‘self-fashioning’ and toward having an impact on culture at large.

7

I disagree with a few of your assessments. There is indeed a text(s) to be uncovered in Nietzsche’s writings. It isn’t left entirely to the reader to interpret the texts as he pleases, nor are any of the texts directionless or lacking overall meaning, as you say. There is a common theme running throughout all of his texts - philosophical and cultural rejuvination. Apart from The Birth of tragedy which tries to overcome “Socratic optimism”, the vast majority of proceeding texts aim at reevaluating and transcending the decadence in the West. Nietzsche takes aim at (obviously) the Christian influence, the democratic instinct for equality, resentment, the will to nothingness (Schopenhauer, Buddhism, Christians, again), anarchists, socialists, book obssesed scholars, ‘unjoyful’ scientists, English morality - utilitarianism, Darwin, Wagner, and metaphysicans. He will often hold up Goethe and Napoleon as examples of who attempted, and did according to him, rejuvinate culture. Nietzsche wants to breed ‘new philosophers’ who will hopefully end up influencing the direction of culture in to what he describes as ‘noble’. Key themes are used by Nietzsche in this endeavour - self-overcoming, self-shaping, pathos of distance, affirmation, overabundance of will, courage, independence.

8

Well, I completely agree with you actually

9

I definitely buy that - I was loving Nietzsche well before I knew what he was talking about - style and
philosophy are anathema to most philosophers - try reading Habermas or Kant or Hegel - most of them really!

For Nietzsche style, good style was almost, in itself, philosophy.

Mind you you realize there are ideas there - perspectivism, the eternal return as a king of existential test (if you had to do it
all again - would you or could you?) and best of all the affirmation of life as it really is without props or filters!

kp

10

‘Philosophy’ in the traditional formulaic sense is a very refined form of challenging assumptions.

Nietzsche was different because he challenged the challenging of assumptions whilst simultaneously going along with assumptions, whilst not verifying either (in the spirit of the former) and yet still sculpting the form of progression (in the spirit of the latter).

And not only did he communicate all this in a style that challenged the traditional, he was entirely consistent with all the afore-mentioned contradictions and consistencies, at all levels of depth and superficiality.

If that’s not clever, I don’t know what is. It’s like a chess grandmaster feigning 1 plan, confusing with another, and then moving the two together to form a bigger plan that boggles the mind.

Traditional philosophy congealed into the opening mention of refinement over centuries, then Nietzsche suddenly jumped 10 steps in front of this artform. It’s going to take a while to let him soak in, nevermind for him to be surpassed like he hoped the man of the future would one day do.

Most importantly though, his heuristic & involving style actually teaches philosophy, rather than merely dictates it.

11

:laughing: Indeed that is a wonderful analogy!

Yes. Aphorisms and metaphor are more than merely a different form of writing style - they force the reader to create meaning for himself, rather than merely be a passive observer of other’s meanings.

Even when we think about standard text while reading it our mind is not engaged creatively, but rather is performing an automatic tasks of assimilation and comparison, of working pieces together into a whole based on a synthesis of our current picture and the new pieces and perspectives we are being exposed to. But this is not creativity, it is not consciousness, it is merely mechanism, memorization. Genuine understanding can only be self-created - thus aphorisms and metaphors are means to this end, fuel for this method of creative self-engagement.