Volume 49, Issue 1

The 1886/87 prefaces for the new editions of The Birth of Tragedy , the first volume of Human, All Too Human , Daybreak , and The Gay Science , as well the preface for the first edition of the second volume of Human, All Too Human , are Nietzsche’s starting point for elaborating and developing his late conception of illness and health. To arrive at a more detailed interpretation of the health process that Nietzsche describes, it is necessary to establish an intertextual reading of the prefaces and the aphorism GS 370 from the perspective of a psychophysiological analysis. Nietzsche classifies his interpretation of illness under the term “romanticism,” which he sees embodied by the figures of Schopenhauer and Wagner and which he considers to be the most extreme case of illness – while his conception of health is classified under the term “tragic pessimism.” Nietzsche applies the meaning of romanticism and tragic pessimism until the end of his work, transforming both concepts into categories from which he defines the nature of the human being.

Adventurers and discoverers are recurring figures and themes in Nietzsche’s writings. This is especially the case in Morgenröthe and Die fröhliche Wissenschaft , where this conceptual constellation belongs to the context of the “free spirits”. For Nietzsche, it seems, adventurers and discoverers represent the productive as much as destructive potential of any desire for knowledge. In this article, I will thus focus on two connected questions: (1) what are the specific epistemic characteristics of the adventurer and the discoverer, and (2) how are these characteristics performed, and how do they become manifest, in a text like Morgenröthe . The analysis of the function of the “theatre eye” plays a key role here.

Recent discussions have connected Nietzsche’s philosophy of masculinity to the return of authoritarian politics. Neoconservative debates about masculinity, and right-wing extremism, explicitly refer back to Nietzsche’s philosophy and often present democratization, a feminization of society, and political correctness as responsible for a weakening of masculinity. One example for this reception of Nietzsche’s writings is Jordan Peterson’s psychological diagnosis of a presumed crisis of masculinity. This article undertakes a comparison of Nietzsche’s philosophy of masculinities with Peterson’s neo-Jungian psychology of masculinity in the context of recent conceptualizations of patriarchy, misogyny, and gendered forms of ressentiment. This comparison will highlight that Nietzsche’s conception of masculinity is more complex, and has philosophically more to offer, than neoconservative ideas about masculinity that onesidedly foreground male strength. Finally it will be pointed out how a Jungian analysis discloses aspects of the Dionysian that are of relevance to contemporary gender studies of Nietzsche’s philosophy.

The problem of history in Nietzsche’s second Unfashionable Observation is best approached through that which it is supposed to serve: life, more specifically human life. I argue that Nietzsche presents an oblique but nevertheless complete articulation of the nature of the human soul as consisting of two basic parts, of desiring (the unhistorical) and memory (the historical): of a multiplicity of desires that struggle for domination over the others, and which express themselves in more complex ways through memory-based structures such as conscience. I then discuss some implications of this conception. First, I interpret the significance of the useful kinds of history: rather than being different modes of historical science, they are much more basic modes of practical relating to the matters of our world (especially to other humans and their ways of life) that are external to us both temporally and spatially. Second, I discuss the particular kinds of desires which underpin the three useful kinds of history. Third, I interpret the problem of scientific history as arising from a turning of the normal human structures of meaningfulness against themselves, and as resulting in two specific kinds of psychic damage: to our capacity for growth and self-cultivation, and to our will to do so at all. Finally, I show the importance of the erotic-historic soul for the questions of right and wrong methods of self-knowledge and for the meaning of the imperative “sei du selbst!” that we find in Schopenhauer as Educator .

GS 341 is one of the most familiar of Nietzsche’s writings. This article proposes a new reading that stands in contrast with most English-language Nietzsche scholarship. The text presents a communication and its reception. A ‘demon’ makes an announcement, and a hearer responds in one way or another. But there is also another narrative altogether, whose conceptual vocabulary comes from a dynamic world-view. In this an interaction of forces leads to a new situation. If the hearer is not crushed by the ‘greatest weight’, there must be an inner force that counteracts its impact. I argue that what Nietzsche calls amor fati is a state that allows our drives to achieve full expression, and so makes possible a collective strength able to withstand the greatest impact. The final sentence refers to a “confirmation and sealing”. What happens is that the demon’s message makes an impression on the receptive hearer. For Nietzsche this is a working metaphor, not a turn of phrase. In a draft from this period he writes: “Let us stamp the image of eternity on our life!” That sudden and forceful act, embodying an evaluative judgement, is the event that GS 341 is all about.

Approaches to Nietzsche’s political philosophy abound. In this article, however, we explore the possibility of identifying not only a political philosophy, but also a political-theological reading in Nietzsche’s texts. In fact, such a political-theological reading already has something of a genealogy. In the 1960s, “radical theology” appropriated the Nietzschean topic of the death of God, which engendered a transferred radical political theology consisting in radical democracy. The first part of this article explores twentieth-century political theologies surrounding the death of God. We ask herein if this is the only possible political-theological reading of Nietzsche’s texts. The second part argues that, in fact, we can ascribe to Nietzsche a “theological” intention that is transferable to his political theory in a way that differs from the attempts of radical political theology and other political theologies surrounding the death of God. We conclude that, in any case, Nietzsche’s political theology aims to counterbalance St. Paul’s nihilism more than to constitute a determined political view.

This essay presupposes that Friedrich Nietzsche and Rudolf Carnap champion contrasting reactions to the fact that, throughout history, persons have been engaged in metaphysical disputes. Nietzsche embraces a libertarian reaction that is in agreement with his anti-democratic aristocratic political views, whereas Carnap endorses an egalitarian reaction aligned with his democratic and socialist political views. After characterizing these reactions, the essay argues for two claims. The first claim is that the stated contrasting reactions are to be considered, not only by the few scholars who are interested both in Nietzsche’s and Carnap’s writings, but by a far larger group that includes those who have addressed the continental-analytic gap; those who are concerned with the development of contemporary philosophy; and/or those who are interested in the writings of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, David Lewis and/or Peter van Inwagen. The second claim is that we have to entertain a synthesis of Nietzsche’s libertarian and Carnap’s egalitarian reaction in order to overcome the continental-analytic gap.

Nietzsche characterises some influential individuals – such as Socrates and Wagner – as “decadents” because they promote life-inhibiting values that potentially undermine the flourishing of humanity. A clearly stated but less prominent example of such a decadent is Herbert Spencer. While Nietzsche’s observations concerning Spencer are far fewer than those on Socrates and Wagner, they still have considerably significance for understanding Nietzsche’s philosophy – particularly his views on morality and science – and consequently their role in his conception of decadence. This article argues that Nietzsche considers Spencer to be a decadent not just because of the latter’s advocating of a morality based on altruism, but also the projection of the decadent values of this morality as inevitable, as part of his belief in objective, scientific and sociological truths.

This essay analyzes the first among the three moments of Georges Bataille’s reception of Nietzsche’s thought. During the 1930s, in the context of the review Acéphale , the French writer takes position in the debate about the relationship between Nietzscheism and fascism. He lays claim on the heritage of the German thinker as the source of a “heterogeneous” politics. This group of articles provides the context in which Bataille can start to delineate an original meditation on the relationship between work and society. In this sense, they will mark a turning point in the path toward the post-war developments on the writers’ engagement. A new thematization of the relationship between text and context will emerge from the confrontation with Nietzsche and from the articulation of the fundamental duality of the forms of politics.

Based on a review of the literature and historical evidence, I argue that the use of the methodological principle known as the priority principle in Anglo-American Nietzsche scholarship is inconsistent and irreconcilable with historical evidence. It attempts to demarcate between the published works and the Nachlass . However, there are no agreed upon necessary and sufficient conditions of a particular textual object being considered “ Nachlass .” This absence leads to implicit and often tacit value demarcation criteria that can be broadly grouped into four types of consideration: publication, authorization, publicness, and audience. Each of these criteria pick out a different set of texts as “ Nachlass .” Thus, despite the veneer of agreement, the most broadly accepted methodological approach in the Anglo-American tradition of Nietzsche scholarship is applied inconsistently. I argue that we must either offer necessary and sufficient conditions for a piece of text being Nachlass , or we ought to abandon such abstract criteria altogether and embrace a contextual and historical approach. I then argue that the first option is impossible given historical evidence. I conclude this article by explicating several recent German approaches to the Nachlass which I think can offer a new possible approach.

The detailed interpretation and translation of Nietzsche’s early Latin odes clearly show that Horace’s lyric poetry has an exemplary function for the development of Nietzsche’s own poetic language. Even in his later works, such as Twilight of the Idols and the Dionysos-Dithyrambs , Nietzsche’s poetic style and rhetorical strategies remain indebted to his early attempts to emulate classical Latin poetry when he was a pupil at the Pforta boarding school.

The presence of Persian sources in Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra has been a topic of debate for decades. This paper summarizes the main results of a comparative study of Nietzsche and the ancient Persian scripture Avestā . In addition to several secondary sources Nietzsche repeatedly encountered, there is strong evidence that he read Johann Friedrich Kleuker’s German translation of the Avestā texts reconstructed by Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron. Analyzing Nietzsche’s diverse sources of Zoroastrianism as well as his knowledge of this religion, this paper shows that many metaphors, references and claims in both Thus Spoke Zarathustra and in Nietzsche’s notebooks can be traced back to Zoroastrianism. Taking these sources into consideration contributes significantly to our understanding of one of Nietzsche’s major works.

An important question in Nietzsche studies is whether Nietzsche has an ethics to offer his readers; whether, that is, he has a concept of the good, or the just, or the virtuous that can serve as some sort of an ethical guide. An additional, methodological question is whether, in search of an answer, one should focus on a specific period in his thinking, study the evolution of his thought, or attempt to extract an over-arching view that draws on texts from different stages of his thinking. The three works reviewed concern themselves with Nietzsche’s ethics by each adopting one of these three approaches, supplying us, accordingly, with different results.

Two recent works will be considered that discuss Heidegger and Nietzsche in the context of the problem of overcoming metaphysics and the onto-theological tradition. A common criticism will be that these works in their attempt to retrieve a conception of religion, politics or faith beyond onto-theology and metaphysics tend to justify or idealize particular historically and culturally conditioned perspectives, which are not immune from further philosophical critique. Simon Oliai’s approach to countering the burgeoning fundamentalisms in our global age is ultimately not very convincing, representing as it does, a Western, liberal, Eurocentric worldview. The author’s use of Nietzsche or Heidegger for this purpose is also not very compelling. The remainder of this review essay appraises the volume edited by Cimino and van der Heiden, which attempts to rethink faith beyond onto-theology in several interesting ways. Although meant to be a comparative study, several contributions subscribe to a general Heideggerian (or Heidegger-inspired phenomenological-hermeneutical) theoretical framework, which itself is not rigorously scrutinized. A problematic implication is that Nietzsche’s own critical and constructive views of philosophy, his critique of religion and history, and his positive appraisal of faith and divinity are not seriously considered on their own terms: they are either mostly ignored, or they are selectively interpreted through a Heideggerian lens, with the result that this volume puts forward a mostly unfavorable view of Nietzsche. Some of the conceptual moves credited to Heidegger in the volume have their equivalents in Nietzsche’s philosophy, which a comparative and evaluative study such as this one must seriously take into account by resisting the uncritical acceptance of Heidegger’s own view of Nietzsche.

Content and formal structures are inextricably linked in Nietzsche’s texts. Formal qualities convey meaning, for example, by indicating whether an expressed thought should be understood as an assertion, or rather subverted and ultimately negated. The following recent publications explore intermediality and performativity in Nietzsche’s language from different perspectives. Federico Celestini and Rüdiger Görner each examine the musicality of Nietzsche’s language against the grain of the common assumption of the language-like character of music. However, the two authors arrive at different conclusions about the correspondence between language and music in Nietzsche’s work. A volume edited by Christian Benne and Dieter Burdorf draws connections between Nietzsche and the philologist Rudolf Borchardt in terms of their concept of language. While Nietzsche and Borchardt exhibit parallels with regard to language skepticism and the self-creative process of writing, they fundamentally disagree in their conception of art. Finally, Diemo Landgraf sees Nietzsche’s work as the culmination of nineteenth-century decadent literature, grounding his critique of Nietzsche’s unique approach, which arises out of a music philosophical perspective, by labelling it as nihilistic.

The books I review are a series of three volumes of the same project, Nietzsche’s Engagements with Kant and the Kantian Legacy , edited in 2017 by Marco Brusotti, Herman Siemens, João Constâncio, Tom Bailey, Maria João Mayer Branco and Katia Hay who seek to situate Nietzsche’s work in relation to Kant and Kantianism and to interpret it from this perspective. This review consists of two parts: the first part reviews and discusses each of the works focusing on a selection of prominent chapters; the second part extends their intuitions.