The Comprehensible Nietzsche
As per a request, here is something of a short guide on how to 'read' Nietzsche.
There are entire books on approaching him for the first time. Really there's no single best way, but there are some guidelines that might help. The first is to assume that everything is metaphorical. Nietzsche likes to make obscure references and odd allusions, and I think a lot of people misunderstand him when he's just making a metaphor. For instance, his position that "the good war hallows every cause" is not just referring to a bunch of barbarians going out and murdering people for no reason. The Nietzschean concept of war is far more complicated than that. Somewhat related is the ability to separate his metaphysical/philosophical assertions, his psychology, and his just screwing around. He will do things like say that the will to power is everything, then deny anything called 'will' exists three sentences later. It's not a contradiction; he's just talking about different circumstances. Nietzsche was good at coining phrases, quite often making a good phrase but never bothering to explain it so that you have to read a lot of other stuff before you can imagine you get it.
Now in terms of a "reading list," Zarathustra is actually a comprehensive way to start, but as you see it's difficult to understand if you're unfamiliar with Nietzsche. The Birth of Tragedy, though it has some assertions that Nietzsche later found ridiculous, does give a good start in defining Nietzsche's relationship with Greek culture, a vital part of his thought. A lot of American philosophers seem to think that The Genealogy of Morals is his most important work, but forget that. At least, don't start with it. The Gay Science gives a wide range of ideas in the aphoristic form he made famous, including the death of God and the eternal recurrence, two of his biggest. Twilight of the Idols is like a summary and well-written as well. As for Zarathustra in particular, keep in mind something Nietzsche said about Jesus (keeping in mind his statement that the only real Christian was Jesus himself): "Christians are not characterized by their 'faith': Christians act, they are characterized by a different way of acting." Nietzsche doesn't want to make well constructed syllogisms, he wants to change the way you think.
The way I read Nietzsche was by reading Zarathustra first, then going through pretty much his whole body of work, then coming back to Zarathustra. The first time you read it hopefully you get an idea of the tone and unusual method Nietzsche tries to use. Then as you start reading his less literary-style works you start to understand the chains of thought he has. Nietzsche actually has very clear, very consistent messages and major ideas, but he likes to approach them from every direction possible in order to gain effect. Then, when you read Zarathustra again, you suddenly understand so much more that was there but hidden. For me, the fourth reading of Z was finally the time when a lot of it clicked.
Re-reading is also important because if Nietzsche has what he thinks to be a good idea he'll never just say it once. The same concepts usually show up again and again in different ways. He is very interested in perspective, and it helps greatly to see his different views on one subject when thinking about it. His first statement of the death of God (Gay Science 125) is explained a bit in Zarathustra ("On the Pitying") and then explained in detail in The Antichrist with sections of Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals adding to the subject and linking it to the concepts of nihilism and the potential of higher men.
There is a passage in Zarathustra:
It may be strange when you first read it, that Zarathustra rejects his believers. But at the same time we can see something of a lesson in it. "One repays a teacher badly if one remains always only a student." As you read his other works, you come to understand the man who creates values. To create, one must destroy; even what one held most dear must be discarded at a moment's notice if it stops one's ascension. As noted above, perspective is also very important to Nietzsche; he remarks several times in his work that these are "my truths," not necessarily those of anyone else. When you've read all the books, and you come back to Zarathustra, you can see what he is trying to do. The übermensch is a creator of values: thus he cannot be defined by anyone else, even his teacher. If the disciples of Zarathustra are to realize their abilities, they must be willing to reject him in favor of what they themselves seek. Following is not the virtue of a creator; it is the virtue of sheep. Some people do best as sheep, but not the übermensch.
The reason Zarathustra in particular is such an important work (Nietzsche said it was "the greatest gift ever given to mankind," and of course as you know sid it is the one mentioned most often) is because, for one, the whole book is like this. It is a summary of Nietzsche's entire mission. Not only that, but, recalling the passage about Jesus, it is Nietzsche's vision the way Nietzsche imagined it: as a practice, a way of life, not just words. Words are secondary: "You ask why? I am not one of those who may be questioned about their why. Is my experience only from yesterday? It was long ago that I experienced the reasons for my opinions." (Zarathustra, "On Poets") Some could see that passage as a cop-out. I think it's Nietzsche's attempt to put overly academic, "static" philosophies behind him and to instead embrace a way of living, one that is admittedly whimsical but for him represents the point where "the real seriousness begins." And from that I could keep going, but I'll leave the rest for you to discover.
Hopefully that helps. Nietzsche is admittedly complex, and there's no doubt that it is much of the time completely intentional. He was said to be relieved when his friends all read Zarathustra and said they couldn't understand a word of it.
There are entire books on approaching him for the first time. Really there's no single best way, but there are some guidelines that might help. The first is to assume that everything is metaphorical. Nietzsche likes to make obscure references and odd allusions, and I think a lot of people misunderstand him when he's just making a metaphor. For instance, his position that "the good war hallows every cause" is not just referring to a bunch of barbarians going out and murdering people for no reason. The Nietzschean concept of war is far more complicated than that. Somewhat related is the ability to separate his metaphysical/philosophical assertions, his psychology, and his just screwing around. He will do things like say that the will to power is everything, then deny anything called 'will' exists three sentences later. It's not a contradiction; he's just talking about different circumstances. Nietzsche was good at coining phrases, quite often making a good phrase but never bothering to explain it so that you have to read a lot of other stuff before you can imagine you get it.
Now in terms of a "reading list," Zarathustra is actually a comprehensive way to start, but as you see it's difficult to understand if you're unfamiliar with Nietzsche. The Birth of Tragedy, though it has some assertions that Nietzsche later found ridiculous, does give a good start in defining Nietzsche's relationship with Greek culture, a vital part of his thought. A lot of American philosophers seem to think that The Genealogy of Morals is his most important work, but forget that. At least, don't start with it. The Gay Science gives a wide range of ideas in the aphoristic form he made famous, including the death of God and the eternal recurrence, two of his biggest. Twilight of the Idols is like a summary and well-written as well. As for Zarathustra in particular, keep in mind something Nietzsche said about Jesus (keeping in mind his statement that the only real Christian was Jesus himself): "Christians are not characterized by their 'faith': Christians act, they are characterized by a different way of acting." Nietzsche doesn't want to make well constructed syllogisms, he wants to change the way you think.
The way I read Nietzsche was by reading Zarathustra first, then going through pretty much his whole body of work, then coming back to Zarathustra. The first time you read it hopefully you get an idea of the tone and unusual method Nietzsche tries to use. Then as you start reading his less literary-style works you start to understand the chains of thought he has. Nietzsche actually has very clear, very consistent messages and major ideas, but he likes to approach them from every direction possible in order to gain effect. Then, when you read Zarathustra again, you suddenly understand so much more that was there but hidden. For me, the fourth reading of Z was finally the time when a lot of it clicked.
Re-reading is also important because if Nietzsche has what he thinks to be a good idea he'll never just say it once. The same concepts usually show up again and again in different ways. He is very interested in perspective, and it helps greatly to see his different views on one subject when thinking about it. His first statement of the death of God (Gay Science 125) is explained a bit in Zarathustra ("On the Pitying") and then explained in detail in The Antichrist with sections of Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals adding to the subject and linking it to the concepts of nihilism and the potential of higher men.
There is a passage in Zarathustra:
Truly, I advise you: go away from me and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he has deceived you...
One repays a teacher badly if one remains always only a student. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath?
You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware that a statue does not slay you!
You say you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra. You are my belivers: but what matter all believers!
You had not yet sought yourselves: then you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all belief comes to so little.
Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you. (Zarathustra, "On the Gift-Giving Virtue")
It may be strange when you first read it, that Zarathustra rejects his believers. But at the same time we can see something of a lesson in it. "One repays a teacher badly if one remains always only a student." As you read his other works, you come to understand the man who creates values. To create, one must destroy; even what one held most dear must be discarded at a moment's notice if it stops one's ascension. As noted above, perspective is also very important to Nietzsche; he remarks several times in his work that these are "my truths," not necessarily those of anyone else. When you've read all the books, and you come back to Zarathustra, you can see what he is trying to do. The übermensch is a creator of values: thus he cannot be defined by anyone else, even his teacher. If the disciples of Zarathustra are to realize their abilities, they must be willing to reject him in favor of what they themselves seek. Following is not the virtue of a creator; it is the virtue of sheep. Some people do best as sheep, but not the übermensch.
The reason Zarathustra in particular is such an important work (Nietzsche said it was "the greatest gift ever given to mankind," and of course as you know sid it is the one mentioned most often) is because, for one, the whole book is like this. It is a summary of Nietzsche's entire mission. Not only that, but, recalling the passage about Jesus, it is Nietzsche's vision the way Nietzsche imagined it: as a practice, a way of life, not just words. Words are secondary: "You ask why? I am not one of those who may be questioned about their why. Is my experience only from yesterday? It was long ago that I experienced the reasons for my opinions." (Zarathustra, "On Poets") Some could see that passage as a cop-out. I think it's Nietzsche's attempt to put overly academic, "static" philosophies behind him and to instead embrace a way of living, one that is admittedly whimsical but for him represents the point where "the real seriousness begins." And from that I could keep going, but I'll leave the rest for you to discover.
Hopefully that helps. Nietzsche is admittedly complex, and there's no doubt that it is much of the time completely intentional. He was said to be relieved when his friends all read Zarathustra and said they couldn't understand a word of it.
posted by Derek at 10:31 AM
4 Comments:
Thanks for the introduction. I can see now why his work has proven so inaccessible to me. First, I'm bad at metaphor, and second, he is sometimes deliberately abstruse. It sounds like the best way for me to learn his thoughts is via a good course or teacher and then reading his works.
It would probably help quite a bit, though one must be careful. Nietzsche is someone who can change wildly on different readings depending on who's describing him. A good instructor should be able to make his passages clearer and unite the ideas he threads throughout his work so that it starts to form a whole, something that in Nietzsche's case is more important than it sounds. I tend to think of Nietzsche's work as a whole, with his books constantly threading through each other, which would mean that reading his works as isolated pieces is incomplete and rather ineffective. He will often bring up a point and not explain it where he mentions it but instead in another book altogether. A bad instructor will simply dismiss him based on past assumptions and a quick, superficial look at his choices of words, a mistake that is easy to make for the unprepared (this was essentially the American view until the 1950s, when Walter Kaufmann corrected that).
If you're interested in reading Nietzsche, I can follow along and try to answer any questions. I'm no professor, but I am someone who reads this stuff way too much, and so could at least try to put his writings into perspective. Hell, invite your friends, we'll have our own Nietzsche Society!
I may take you up on your offer, but, unfortunately, some time in the future. I'm still behind my my intention to learn some Spinoza and I may hit up Hume first.
Plus, I try to balance my time between fiction and non-fiction. 2007 was nothing but non-fiction. That's why I picked up Crytonomicon. 1,000+ pages of fiction should satiate that need for a while.
I know the feeling. I've got Kant, Dostoevsky, Plato, Camus, Paine, Gibbon, and Kierkegaard all staring at me with a look of betrayal right now.
Post a Comment
<< Home