Which one is he?
Did Nietzsche make important contributions to the history of philosophy? Does he have anything to offer contemporary philosophy? Or is he just a famous curmudgeon who was simply against everything contemporary without solid argument.
What are your thoughts?
Nietzsche is an important philosopher and while I have reservations about much of his philosophy and would be highly critical of what he appears to be saying in many instances I find he has influenced the direction of much of what has happened intellectually over the past couple of hundred years in a profound manner.
His genealogy I find to be fascinating especially as it has influenced Foucault and postmodern discourse. I find however that much of his philosophy is reactionary to the European context it rose out of at the time rather than being a final word on human nature. This is of course a matter of interpretation and others may interpret him in different ways. For example master-slave morality is clearly a very useful concept for criticising the crusades, imperialism, colonialism and so on but I would not go so far as to say that the dynamics of the whole of human nature is based upon a master-slave morality. Likewise will-to-power is an excellent tool and concept for discussing various power-relations within postmodernity but I am not so radical as to hold that will-to-power is the ultimate driving force behind all human action. This is because I unashamedly buy into a Platonic idea of the Good, not deviously formed by the herd, as a tool to take revenge on the ‘stronger’ members of society, but as an objective target to aim for in becoming transcendental i.e. more perfect.
This is where I find Ubermensch to be truly fascinating. I buy into the idea that current Man is a bridge. For me God is ‘Dead’ in society, God is not part of Western Society, we ‘killed’ him in neo-liberal pursuits of material indvidualism. My Ubermensch is a transcendental post-human. Although I find Nietzsche’s critical direction, in terms of his reactions to 19th century Europe, and its influence on such concepts as Foucault’s discourse, the most useful in practical academic circumstances, it is his mystical Overman and the Eternal Return I really find to be the most powerful.
See here’s one of the problems for me. Does he actually present a convincing argument that the eternal return is a metaphysical truth? If not, can it really be important to western philosophy, as just a merely wild speculation?
I’ve found the eternal return a useful concept, not perfect but certainly revolutionary in its time. Will to power is N’s attempt to grasp the essential act which underlies, grounds and provides structure to every moment of our being alive as a “consciousness”, the act of valuing. Eternal return is an attempt to grasp a feature of the HOW of this valuing act, its imminence and moment of “eternal novelty”, uniqueness. Or what Deleuze clarifies further as the eternal repetition of the same (difference). What Heidegger might call “Being in terms of “time”, the “becoming” (being) of beings”… these can all be seen as attempts to grasp at the same phenomenon.
It is interesting as you say; but still… does he provide a convincing argument of its truth? And if not, can it really be called a philosophical idea? Or is it just a wild speculation?
I find his arguments fairly convincing, yes. Convincing, but incomplete. Nietzsche’s is one perspective, one “piece of the puzzle” which works in conjunction with other pieces to form a more consistent “whole” of philosophical truth/s.
Which particular arguments do you find convincing, just out of curiosity? 
We’re talking about will to power, eternal return? These are arguments for a certain way of looking at life, at the world, at existence. Are you famiilar with these concepts as Nietzsche used them, do I need to give you a summary or how familiar with Nietzsche are you?
The ideas themselves produce either sentiments of agreeability or disagreeability in us. I tend to view these ideas mostly in an agreeable manner, but I think they are only approximations of greater truths. For example, the will to power: the basic principle act of existence, the striving for expansion of the sphere of personal influence-power. With this as a conceptual mediator we can produce understanding of most any other phenomenon by virtue of its being a willing/s to power. Biologically, psychologically, sociologically, religiously, will to power can work in any of these domains. Where I find “fault” is that Nietzsche didn’t push the idea far enough, he stopped too short, and his conception of the idea was an imperfect sort of approach, a rash one, lacking in subtlety. We can’t fault Nietzsche for this, though, since the first approach of the novel is always going to be a rough sort of approximating, not a carefully refined measurement.
I know I said earlier that I found the eternal return to be mystical. I suppose this is as much to do with Nietzsche’s style of writing as it is with the nature of the concept. I don’t think he presents a convincing argument that it is a metaphysical truth for two reasons. Firstly it strikes me he was speaking in the domain of naturalism, secondly I regard it as theory and a concept before an existential scientific truth (which it may or may not be).
What I can be certain of is that it is very important to philosophy as a theory and a concept. In postmodern theory Harold Bloom’s The Anxiety of Influence, critical histiography, posit that history transcends productions of art, it shapes them. It is effectively with a Foucauldian death of the author that we can view the discourses of history shaping the subject of selfhood and representations of self in productions in art.
In effect, in postmodernity at least, the subject is eternally a recurrence of the past which preceded him or her. It is in discussions of genealogy, the eternal return of the same, critical histiography, etc, that such fields of study as discourse analysis and new historicism have been permitted to come to fruition.
So yes the eternal return is a very useful and fruitful theory and concept to philosophy.
It is at the intersections of philosophy, critical theory, literary theory and cultural studies, and has had a large part to play in debates which have led to the formations of whole new methodologies (in literary theory at least).
Nice post, Krypto. I think most people interested in the continental tradition will probably agree that he is an important philosopher. Less certain about people who only appreciate the analytic tradition crossing the party line on this one.
One point of possible dissent - his influence in extra-philosophical disciplines may indicate that he is a great literary theorist, cultural theorist, etc. - but not necessarily a great philosopher. This isn’t my position though.
HI guys,
I am very new to this site and am very interested in this debate. My interest lies more in Nietzsche’s concept of the ubermensch. This concept appears to have little or no value to western philosophy. Is this moral attitude even reachable by humanity?Was it all a joke arising from Nietzsche’ s disgust of humanity…Is the Ubermensch even a serious philosophy, and if so why?
Man is like a rope. . . . u know the rest!
Was the notion of the ubermensch a joke?!
Welcome, Jay!
I think the point of the ubermensch is that it is an ideal not reachable by the very vast majority of humanity, no?
Certainly the idea of becoming an ubermench is questionable. The vast majority means it was attributed to some men in history. Certainly Nietzsche had a high regard for Napolean, Alexander the great and even Jesus Christ. Argueably these were considered by Nietzsche as Higher men. Basically my main question is, where does one start understanding the ubermensch. What is it’s value in Western philosophy? Was it a serious philosophy or an outbusrt from Nietzsche to express his disgust at humanity? Yes the ubermensch was for the very selected… but did it still contribute to philosophy?
Jay, with which of Nietzsche’s works are you familiar? These questions you raise might best be addressed by you individually through reading Nietzsche and thinking on him. If you want secondary lit. recommendations, unfortunately I can’t help you there. I’m sure there’s good books out there, but I tend to stay away from sec. lit. so I’m not very familiar with them.
Like i said im new to this topic…Certainly Thus Spake Zarathustra, which mentions Ubermensch very briefly. Beyond good and evil and ecco homo are other primary sources. Wot is your opinions on this topic? Secondary lit. ive been reading is helpful, but there is not alot written on Nietzsch’e obscure ubermensch. Im not looking for answers as such, more of a discussion…
Cheers:)
In strong agreement with Laurence Lampert and Leo Strauss, I define the Übermensch as der Mensch der die ewige Wiederkunft der Welt als Willen zur Macht will, “the man that wills or wants the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power”. Thus Zarathustra, in Thus Spake Zarathustra, himself becomes the Übermensch in the course of the book. In Beyond Good and Evil, the term is not used; instead, we find the concepts “philosopher of the future” and “complementary man”. Thus Strauss writes:
“Man reaches his peak through and in the philosopher of the future as the truly complementary man in whom not only man but the rest of existence is justified (aph. 207). He is the first man who consciously creates values on the basis of the understanding of the will to power as the fundamental phenomenon. His action [i.e., his willing the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power] constitutes the highest form of the most spiritual will to power and therewith the highest form of the will to power.” (Strauss, “Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil”.)
Explanation: According to Nietzsche, the most spiritual will to power, philosophy, “consists in prescribing to nature what or how it ought to be (aph. 9)” (ibid.). But the philosopher of the future that is Nietzsche, and whose mask is called Zarathustra, describes nature as will to power, i.e., as prescription, and nothing besides. But if that description is accurate, then it must itself be a prescription. But how can one prescribe to something that it ought to be X, if it is X? That would be like killing something that is already dead. But compare Strauss’ precise words, “what or how it ought to be”, with these lines from Heidegger:
“To say that being as a whole ‘is’ will to power means that being as such possesses the constitution of what Nietzsche defines as will to power. And to say that being as a whole ‘is’ eternal recurrence of the same means that being as a whole is, as being, in the manner of eternal recurrence of the same. The determination ‘will to power’ replies to the question of being with respect to the latter’s constitution [in Strauss’ words, its “what”]; the determination ‘eternal recurrence of the same’ replies to the question of being with respect to its way to be [in Strauss’ words, its “how”].” (Heidegger, Nietzsche, Vol. II, Chap. 26, trans. Krell.)
By describing nature as will to power and nothing besides, Nietzsche prescribes to it that it ought to be eternally recurring: he does not just say to it, “Be what you are!”, but, in Lampert’s words, “Be what you are, be eternally what you are!” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 100).
“In the new wisdom of Zarathustra, the wise man, the spirited knower, is a lover who transforms the beloved [the world as will to power] into something still more beautiful than she is [namely, into the world as eternally recurring will to power], and she is beautiful as she is.” (Lampert, Nietzsche’s Teaching, page 120.)
N.B.: From this it follows that proof of the eternal recurrence would make prescribing to nature that it ought to eternally recur impossible…
“‘[N]o one knows that,’ says Life when Zarathustra whispers in her ear his passionate affirmation of her, the affirmation of the eternal return (Z 3.15, ‘The Other Dancing Song’).” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 108.)
Your view makes my Auntie Agnus the Ubermensch. And if you mean “man” literally—then my Uncle Steve, as well.
But neither are the Ubermensch, so your view leads to superficial ridiculousness. Many of us would love another go’round, exactly as it happened before—and conduct our lives that way.
Nietzsche is far more interesting than you make him out to be—as a follower of others…
Only if what you say is true—that your uncle and aunt will or want the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power.
That’s not quite what the eternal recurrence means.
When it boils down to it, people only want another go round because its better than the alternative…death. No one wants to relive the toughest times in their lives over and over again.
Sauwelios, how is this not quite what the eternal recurrance means?