Band 45, Heft 1

On the one hand, in CV 3 (Der griechische Staat) Nietzsche affirms physically destructive conflict as a means to cathartically discharging an immutably destructive drive underlying human nature; on the other hand, in CV 5 (Homer’s Wettkampf) and MA (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches), he criticises such conflict and promotes its transformation into productive, agonistic modes of contest. I first argue that, in a manner hitherto unappreciated, the possibility of transformation presupposed by CV 5 and MA, and indeed by agonistic readings of Nietzsche in general, is contradicted by the ontology of destructive conflict presented in CV 3. I continue by arguing that the problematic conception of destructive conflict found in CV 3 is based on the influence of Schopenhauer’s metaphysics, which Nietzsche wholeheartedly rejects by MA. However, I conclude that in the 1880s, when Nietzsche turns to the discharge theory of Robert Mayer, we find an ontology of destructive conflict that is fully compatible with his agonistic project. Zusammenfassung In CV 3 (Der griechische Staat) bejaht Nietzsche den physischen vernichtenden Kampf als ein Mittel zur kathartischen Entladung eines unwandelbaren vernichtenden Triebes, welcher dem Menschen zugrundliegt. Aber in CV 5 (Homer’s Wettkampf) und MA kritisiert er solchen Kampf und fördert seine Umwandlung zur produktiven, agonistischen Formen des Wettkampfes. In diesem Aufsatz zeige ich zuerst, wie die Möglichkeit der von CV 5 und MA vorausgesetzten Umwandlung sowie die agonistischen Interpretationen überhaupt der in CV 3 präsentierten Ontologie des Vernichtungskampfes widersprechen. Es wird weiterhin argumentiert, dass die in CV 3 liegende problematische Auffassung des Vernichtungskampfes von Schopenhauers Metaphysik beeinflusst ist, die Nietzsche in MA völlig ablehnt. Dennoch, so schließe ich, findet sich wahrend der 1880er Jahre, als Nietzsche sich Robert Mayers Theorie der Entladung zuwandte, in Nietzsches Schriften eine Ontologie des Vernichtungskampfs, die mit seinem agonistischen Projekt voll vereinbar ist.

This paper aims at elucidating Nietzsche’s critique of the way that Kant institutes his moral doctrine. Taking as point of departure the analysis of the conceptions of philosophy and the role played by the critical enterprise in both philosophers’ works, first of all it attempts to examine the divergences which are the basis of their philosophical thoughts. Then, it attempts to evaluate to which extent Nietzsche understands the solution of the third antinomy present in the “Transcendental Dialectic” of Critique of Pure Reason. At last, it intends to enlighten the Nietzschean undertaking’s goal. Zusammenfassung Diese Studie will neues Licht auf Nietzsches Kritik an Kants Begründung seiner Morallehre werfen. Ausgehend von der Analyse der Begriffe der Philosophie und der Rolle der Kritik im Werk beider Philosophen untersuchen wir zunächst ihre grundlegenden Divergenzen. Dann beabsichtigen wir zu bewerten, inwieweit Nietzsche die kantische Lösung der dritten Antinomie der „Transzendentalen Dialektik“ der Kritik der reinen Vernunft verstanden hat. Zuletzt hoffen wir das Ziel von Nietzsches Vorgehen deutlich machen zu können.

This paper argues that Nietzsche indeed pursues a philosophical project of naturalization. But that neither implies the uncritical adoption of naturalistic doctrines nor that he employs ontological or methodological naturalism in a strict sense of the word. To this end I not only dwell upon the extensive terminological difficulties for any non-empty definition of ‘naturalism’ but also on Nietzsche’s well justified reservations against clear defined doctrines. His naturalizing philosophical experiments cannot be understood without an appreciation of his critical epistemic attitude towards the sciences. A contextual reading of the naturalizing and the critical epistemological aphorisms in the first book of Beyond Good and Evil rather reveals that Nietzsche experimentally adopts naturalizing perspectives for abductive reasons without ascribing a privileged position to the natural sciences above philosophy. Nietzsche’s project of naturalization is perspectival. Zusammenfassung In diesem Text wird argumentiert, dass Nietzsche zwar sehr wohl ein naturalisierendes philosophisches Projekt verfolgt. Das impliziert jedoch weder die unkritische Annahme naturalistischer Doktrinen noch macht es Nietzsche zu einem Vertreter des ontologischen oder methodologischen Naturalismus in einem strikten Sinne. Dafür sprechen die erheblichen terminologischen Schwierigkeiten einer nicht-trivialen Definition von ‚Naturalismus‘ ebenso wie Nietzsches Zurückhal­tung gegenüber klar fixierten Doktrinen. Seine naturalisierenden philosophischen Experimente sind ohne Kenntnis seiner epistemischen Einstellung zu den Wissen­schaften nicht zu verstehen. Eine kontextuelle Lektüre der naturalisierenden und der erkenntniskritischen Aphorismen des ersten Hauptstücks von Jenseits von Gut und Böse zeigt, dass Nietzsche aus abduktiven Gründen experimentell naturalisierende Perspektiven einnimmt, ohne damit den Wissenschaften gegenüber der Philosophie eine privilegierte Rolle zuzuweisen. Nietzsches Projekt der Vernatürlichung ist daher perspektivisch.

The dialogue as a philosophical form in Nietzsche? Among the many literary forms of Nietzsche’s philosophical writings there are surprisingly many dialogues. Up until now, their style and function have not been explored at all. This article gives a first overview of Nietzsche’s application of dialogues, analysing the formal structures and showing possible philosophical implications thereof. Many dialogues reveal themselves as astonishingly modern, in as far as they do not correspond to the traditional expectations of convincing or persuading the dialogue partner. Departing from this perspective the article will describe Nietzsche’s approach to a philosophy of dialogue.

Focusing on the fifth book of The Gay Science, the paper analyzes Nietzsche’s critical discussion of contemporary thought, particularly with regard to the influence of the Christian tradition. Nietzsche’s literary, musical and compositional expertise serves as background and basis for the argument. As Nietzsche challenges the narrow horizon of existing philosophical and epistemological perspectives, his metaphorical style, imbued with Christian and church musical elements as well as with scientific references, deserves special attention: It serves as his privileged means to underline his demand for ultimate freedom for any artistic and scientific work. Résumé Le cinquième livre du Gai savoir s’appuie sur la connaissance et performance de la littérature et de la composition musicale de Nietzsche et livre les analyses aux­quelles il soumet les courants de pensée contemporains traditionnels marqués par le christianisme. Nietzsche étudie de manière critique l’horizon étroit qu’offrent les perspectives philosophiques en vigueur et les possibilités de perception dont dispose l’être humain. Son écriture métaphorique emprunte des formes d’expression à la Bible et à la musique sacrée, et les confronte à des connaissances scientifiques et des représentations dionysiaques, comme l’exige son droit à la liberté absolue en matière de sciences et d’art.

The paper aims at clarifying the meaning of the expression “music of life” presented by Nietzsche in FW 372. It claims that Nietzsche’s linking of music and philosophy in this aphorism is meant not merely metaphorical and that the way modern philosophers deal with music as art has consequences for the modern conception of philosophical thinking. By comparing FW 372 with MA I 217 the paper argues, firstly, that Nietzsche establishes a parallel between what he calls the process of Entsinnlichung that affected both modern philosophers and modern listeners to music; secondly, that Nietzsche considers this process dangerous and a threat to the capacity to think as well as the capacity to feel and listen to music.

This paper is on the question what ‘nihilism’ means according to Nietzsche, how one could live with it, and in what way art could be of help for that task. The answer to these questions is given on the basis of the fifth book of the Gay Science and, because of the role given to the concept of ‘transfiguration’, of parts from the new preface to that book as well as the Birth of Tragedy. First I present a structure of the fifth book of the Gay Science to demonstrate that nihilism is a dead end for the philosopher: the abolishment of one’s ‘reverences’, i. e. the criticism of one’s ideals (GS 346), will inevitably prove to be driven by ideals itself. The task therefore is not to overcome nihilism but to be able to live with it. Nietzsche refers to the ‘art of transfiguration’ (GS, Preface 3); in the Birth of Tragedy he has explained art as transfiguration through an interpretation of Rafael’s painting Trasfigurazione. Painting, though, is an art of viewers and as such an ‘art before witnesses’ (GS 367). Music instead which comes to the fore in the second half of the fifth book of the Gay Science is experienced and felt as life, as ‘music of life’ (GS 372). Lost in music the subject forgets about itself and drops every idealism.

Nietzsche’s posit to think the man in his bodily nature radicalizes the sensualistic (Condillac) and materialistic (Feuerbach) premise that body is the matrix of thinking and existence. Being not especially interested in a general anthropology of the senses, Nietzsche tends to a concrete philosophy of the body’s parts, each of them acting in an individual and very specific way. Tongue, Feet, Hands, Stomach or Ear are independently operating, self-regulating and autopoietic systems that are not even transparent to other body systems like the consciousness. The notorious perpetual self-motion of the body pieces is neither illogical nor proto-semantic, on the contrary it is already in itself semantic. Body parts as Feet, Nose or Tongue possess, in their own sphere, more experience than will and consciousness, which supposedly control them; their activity is thus by far more elaborated and more subtly differentiated. The sensory perception and imagination of the individual body pieces can be trained; every body piece has its own sphere and universe. It is the aim of Nietzsche’s philosophy to improve this body knowledge (refinement) and to cultivate it in a lively way as a form of liveliness.

“Nietzsche and naturalism” has rightly become a topic of great interest and considerable debate in recent years. Christian Emden, a German intellectual historian at Rice University (USA) and author of two previous books on aspects of Nietzsche’s thought, has made a useful contribution to consideration of this topic in his Nietzsche’s Naturalism (henceforth “NN”), by drawing attention to and exploring the intellectual context indicated in his subtitle: Philosophy and the Life Sciences in the Nineteenth Century. This is the context in which Nietzsche was operating as his “naturalizing” thinking was developing; and an awareness of it may well be helpful to the understanding of some of his positions and claims. But how completely is Nietzsche’s thinking embedded in that context? Emden’s accounts of “Nietzsche’s naturalism” as a philosophical position, and of its relation to the various strands within that context he identifies, are both problematic in important respects. Zusammenfassung „Nietzsche und der Naturalismus“ wurde in jüngster Zeit zu Recht ein Thema von großem Interesse und Gegenstand einer umfangreichen Debatte in der Nietzsche-Forschung. Dazu hat nun Christian Emden, ein deutscher Ideenhistoriker von der Rice University (USA) und Autor zweier früherer Bücher zu Aspekten von Nietzsches Denken, mit Nietzsches Naturalismus (im Folgenden „NN“) einen wertvollen Beitrag geleistet. Sein Fokus ist, wie im Untertitel Philosophie und die Lebenswissenschaften im neunzehnten Jahrhundert angezeigt, Nietzsches intel­lektueller Kontext, in dem er sich bewegte und in dem sich sein „naturalisierendes“ Denken entwickelte. Die Berücksichtigung dieses Kontextes ist sicher hilfreich, um einige von Nietzsches Positionen und Thesen zu verstehen. Aber wie stark ist Nietz­sches Denken wirklich in diesen Kontext eingebunden? Emdens Darstellung sowohl von „Nietzsches Naturalismus“ als philosophischer Position und als auch von deren Verhältnis zu den verschiedenen Strömungen, die er in jenem Kontext identifiziert, bleibt in wichtigen Hinsichten fragwürdig.

Critically discussing the two most recently in Nietzsche-Studien published articles on The Other Dance-Song by Werner Stegmaier (2013) and Gabriel Zamosc (2015), the article is developing an alternative reading, that is taking the broader context of the Song at the end of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which circularly leads back to the beginning as starting point and examines the three parts of the song anew, first in relation to The Dance-Song in part two, secondly to the conscience as the paradox knowledge that nobody knows under the perspective of Life, which reminds Zarathustra of his promise to die of a free and self-determined death at the proper time, as well as of his experience of Eternal Return, alluded to in the third part of the song and explicitly mentioned in the following Yea- and Amen-Song. Not only the Soul and Life but also Wisdom, Truth and Eternity are understood in this context as personified women, whom Zarathustra loves despite the tensions between them. Wisdom as well as the “lyre-song” of Zarathustra’s animals is newly considered. Eternity as the only woman to whom he wants to be married to in the nuptial “ring of eternal return” and from whom he wants children in the concluding Yea- and Amen-song, brings a circle whose middle is everywhere to an end and leads as well back to the beginning of the story with its teaching of the overhuman as the ‘child of eternity’ Zarathustra is longing for, as it points forward to the end of Part IV. I conclude with an answer to the question who Nietzsche’s Zarathustra might be.

Gershom Scholem, the most predominant scholar of Jewish Mysticism in our times, is highly known for his contribution to the field of Jewish history. But his intellectual origins lay in his adolescence, and in his heretical-philosophical criticism of the Judeo-Christian morality and the ideology of the German bourgeoisie. These early impressions and thoughts appeared in one of his first Hebrew articles, “Redemption Through Sin”, published in Palestine in 1937. Scholem’s discussion analyzed the “nihilistic revolution” of the Sabbataeans and Frankists in the seventeenth and eighteenth century in Europe, whose main feature was the rejection of the normative ethics of rabbinic Judaism. The hidden core of the young Scholem, his revolutionary thought, was followed by an early encounter with the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. The dream of young Scholem, as revealed by his diary, to write “Zarathustra for the Jews”, eventually came into being in an original adaptation. His great book Sabbatai Sevi (1957), can be read as a Nietzschean re-reading of “Redemption Through Sin”. The biography of Sabbatai Sevi as a Jewish Zarathustra may provide refreshing insights into the development of Scholem’s thought and an opportunity to challenge him through an analogical perspective. Zusammenfassung Gershom Scholem, der maßgebliche Gelehrte unserer Zeit in Sachen jüdischer Mystizismus, ist bestens bekannt auch für seinen Beitrag auf dem Feld der jüdi­schen Geschichte. Aber seine intellektuellen Ursprünge lagen in seiner Jugend und seiner damaligen häretisch-philosophischen Kritik der jüdisch-christlichen Moralität und der Ideologie der deutschen Bourgeoisie. Diese frühen Eindrücke und Gedanken erschienen in einem seiner ersten hebräischen Artikel, Erlösung durch Sünde, veröffentlicht in Palästina 1937. Scholem nahm sich in seiner Analyse die „nihilistische Revolution“ der Sabbatäer und Frankisten im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert in Europa vor, deren Grundhaltung die Ablehnung der normativen Ethik des rabbinischen Judentums war. Das ihm selbst noch verborgene revolu­tionäre Denken des jungen Scholem stieß in der Folge auf die Schriften Friedrich Nietzsches. Der Traum des jungen Scholem, einen „Zarathustra für die Juden“ zu schreiben, kam schließ­lich in einer originellen Adaptation zutage. Sein großes Buch Sabbatai Zwi (1957) kann als neue nietzscheanische Lektüre von Erlösung durch Sünde gelesen werden. Die Biographie von Sabbatai Zwi als jüdischem Zarathustra könnte zu anregend neuen Einsichten in die Entwicklung von Scholems Denken führen und zugleich die Gelegenheit geben, ihn durch eine analoge Perspektive herauszufordern.