DOCSLIB.ORG

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.Pdf Leo Strauss Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil A course offered in 1971–1972 St. John’s College, Annapolis, Maryland Edited and with an introduction by Mark Blitz With the assistance of Jay Michael Hoffpauir and Gayle McKeen With the generous support of Douglas Mayer Mark Blitz is Fletcher Jones Professor of Political Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College. He is author of several books on political philosophy, including Heidegger’s Being and Time and the Possibility of Political Philosophy (Cornell University Press, 1981) and Plato’s Political Philosophy (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010), and many articles, including “Nietzsche and Political Science: The Problem of Politics,” “Heidegger’s Nietzsche (Part I),” “Heidegger’s Nietzsche (Part II),” “Strauss’s Laws, Government Practice and the School of Strauss,” and “Leo Strauss’s Understanding of Modernity.” © 1976 Estate of Leo Strauss © 2014 Estate of Leo Strauss. All Rights Reserved Table of Contents Editor’s Introduction i–viii Note on the Leo Strauss Transcript Project ix–xi Editorial Headnote xi–xii Session 1: Introduction (Use and Abuse of History; Zarathustra) 1–19 Session 2: Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorisms 1–9 20–39 Session 3: BGE, Aphorisms 10–16 40–56 Session 4: BGE, Aphorisms 17–23 57–75 Session 5: BGE, Aphorisms 24–30 76–94 Session 6: BGE, Aphorisms 31–35 95–114 Session 7: BGE, Aphorisms 36–40 115–134 Session 8: BGE, Aphorisms 41–50 135–152 Session 9: BGE, Aphorisms 51–55 153–164 Session 10: BGE, Aphorisms 56–76 (and selections) 165–185 Session 11: BGE, Aphorisms 186–190 186–192 Session 12: BGE, Aphorisms 204–213 193–209 Session 13 (unrecorded) 210 Session 14: BGE, Aphorism 230; Zarathustra 211–222 Nietzsche, 1971–72 i Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil Mark Blitz Leo Strauss offered this seminar on Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil at St John’s College in Annapolis Maryland. It began on October 6, 1971 and concluded on May 24, 1972. Strauss had given a course on Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra in 1959 at the University of Chicago, and a course on Nietzsche in 1967 at the University of Chicago, with three sessions on Zarathustra, nine on Beyond Good and Evil and four on the Genealogy of Morals. The present seminar covers each of the nine books of Beyond Good and Evil, and begins with a short discussion of material from Zarathustra and includes occasional references to the Use and Abuse of History, The Gay Science, and other works. There are no tapes for large portions of the seminar: discussions of some or almost all of Beyond’s chapters 6, 7, 8, and 9 were not recorded. The present transcription, however, does contain a significant amount of newly transcribed material which has been added to the original transcription, which has itself been clarified in several places. This seminar does not depart markedly from the discussions of Beyond Good and Evil in 1967 or from Strauss’ essay Note on the Plan of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, first published in 1973 in Interpretation (Interpretation 3, nos. 2 and 3 [1973]) and reprinted in Studies in Political Philosophy (University of Chicago Press, 1983). The three presentations differ, of course, and some of what we see in this transcript supplements or further clarifies the essay, perhaps especially the important, but compressed, discussions with which it concludes. Some of the present discussions, moreover, are not reprised in the article, at least not directly. Of special concern to students of political science in this regard is Strauss’ analysis of the degree of Nietzsche’s responsibility for Hitler and Mussolini. “Nietzsche produced the climate in which Fascism and Hitlerism could emerge. One must not be squeamish about admitting this dubious paternity. One must emphasize it. Every fool can see and has seen that Nietzsche abhorred the things for which Hitler in particular stood and to which he owed his success.” (session 1) “I made this quite clear at the beginning of the course when I said that there is some connection, tenuous but not negligible, between Nietzsche and the violent, passionate, anti– democratic movement of the 20th century. There is no doubt about that. Nietzsche did not mean it in the way people like Hitler and Mussolini meant it, but through his negations, he prepares it. No doubt about that.” (session 8) The seminar is also marked by lively and probing discussions between Strauss and St John’s tutors and students. At least some sessions were attended by Strauss’ friend Jacob Klein, who was for years St John’s dean. Strauss also makes evident the importance of Martin Heidegger’s Nietzsche, especially its first (German) volume: “[T]here is one absolutely outstanding book on Nietzsche, and that is the first volume of Heidegger’s book entitled Nietzsche, and Heidegger’s unrivaled philosophic passion and thoroughness are eminently helpful if one wants to penetrate more deeply in to Nietzsche’s thought.” (session 2). He also mentions and then criticizes Karl Jaspers (sessions 1, 6). He does not, Nietzsche, 1971–72 ii however, explore in detail these or other secondary or contemporary works. He shares with Heidegger the view that will to power and eternal return are central in Nietzsche’s understanding, although he barely touches on Heidegger’s claim that will to power is Nietzsche’s understanding of the constitution, character, essence, or whatness of beings, and the eternal return of their how, their that, their existence, or their way to be. The seminar is not a direct confrontation with Heidegger, of course, but is Strauss’ attempt to understand Nietzsche directly. Unlike Heidegger, who concentrates on particular sections of Zarathustra and on material that Nietzsche left unpublished which his sister gathered topically in a volume she called The Will to Power (notes that have been redistributed chronologically in the current German edition edited by Colli and Montinari), Strauss works through and comments on one book, here, Beyond Good and Evil. Also unlike Heidegger, whose understanding of Nietzsche ultimately is oriented within, although it perhaps expands, Heidegger’s own standpoint, Strauss is concerned primarily to understand Nietzsche as he understands himself. He characteristically attempts to find Nietzsche’s full coherence, or to make him as thoughtful as he can, or to put him on high ground. Nietzsche, after all, “is the most comprehensive and the most profound questioner at least in the last six generations. He reminds us of Socrates even if and precisely if he questions Socrates.” (session 1) This effort requires or permits Strauss to glance at Plato, Spinoza, Locke, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Freud. Strauss’ Nietzsche belongs to and is, indeed, a culminating point in the philosophic emphasis on production that we see beginning in Locke or even Machiavelli, and that we recognize clearly in Kant, and in the emphasis on history, following Hegel. Nonetheless, Strauss, unlike Heidegger, does not stress how Nietzsche’s discussion of will to power is the final step in uncovering the being or possibilities of will that Kant first brings forward. Rather, Strauss is especially concerned with the difficulties involved in Nietzsche’s assertion that will to power is true, or that it is the fundamental fact, while also suggesting that all such assertions are (merely) interpretations, and with his view that the truth that no species are fixed and that all is becoming is deadly, while also indicating that this deadly truth, summarized as “God is dead,” need not be deadly for those who are genuinely creative. “What then shall be done? Suppression of the deadly truth is impossible. One can state Nietzsche’s answer in a more general way and better provisionally as follows. One must transform these deadly truths into life–giving truths, into truths which make possible the highest life that ever was and ever will be.” (session 1) But, “if he is to be taken seriously,” Nietzsche also “must show . the courage or bravery of conscience which admits openly the problematic nature of his own assertions.” This is why his reasoning is hypothetical, but perhaps not “undogmatic in spite of its hypothetical character.” (session 6) Strauss’ own concern with the problem of nature, or nature and history, also allows him to highlight how nature is another of Nietzsche’s central although often overlooked themes. Strauss’ more natural Nietzsche, moreover, also differs notably from the kinder, gentler Nietzsche that some academics have recently purported to discover. Strauss does not shy from Nietzsche’s discussions of cruelty. Nietzsche believes that understanding his Nietzsche, 1971–72 iii deadly truth can be edifying, but only for a few, who are not prone to idealizing. (Cf. the concluding sentence of Thoughts on Machiavelli). Beyond Good and Evil strikes Strauss as Nietzsche’s most beautiful book, something he also says in 1967, and in the essay. He does not discuss precisely what he means, although he does contrast this beauty with the polemical Genealogy of Morals, and connects its attraction for him to its distance from what is ugly. Perhaps we find the book’s beauty in its reflection of the high and free standpoint from which it is written. Strauss suggests that everything in it is considered from the standpoint of philosophy: the clue to this is Beyond’s subtitle – prelude to a philosophy of the future. Nietzsche presents it as preparatory to Zarathustra; we may say that it is the most visibly comprehensive of Nietzsche’s mature books. Strauss recounts in the seminar the familiar division of Nietzsche’s works into three periods but he describes or explains the division as others do not. Nietzsche was trained as a classicist but precisely as a classical educator opposed the spirit of his times, an opposition also “inspired” by his admiration for Schopenhauer and Wagner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Selections)
    Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (selections) This is an excerpt from Beyond Good and Evil, a book written by Nietzsche in 1886, consisting of about three hundred aphorisms on various subjects. The central theme of this book is the problem of morality—how we should act. The startling conclusion Nietzsche draws in the book is that we ought to jettison the altruistic morality that society and religion has imposed on us, the morality in which we demonstrate care and concern for the welfare and well-being of others, and instead institute a new morality centered around the self, a new self unfettered by social norms and the “slave morality” of what Nietzsche calls the “herd.” The final culmination of this new morality which lies “beyond good and evil” can be found in the final chapter titled “What Is Noble?” According to Nietzsche, to be noble means to see oneself as the center and origin of all value. In fact, the terms “good” and “bad” originally designated simply what the aristocracy did and did not value. For Nietzsche, “life is precisely the will to power,” and historically members of the aristocracy exercised their will to power by exploiting common people and using them as they saw fit. Nietzsche calls the morality of the ruling aristocracy a “master morality. ” He contrasts this kind of morality with “slave morality,” which arose when common people tried to make their inferior and despicable lives more bearable by exalting as virtues such qualities as kindness, sympathy, selflessness, patience, and humility (the cornerstones of Christian morality). Slave morality gave rise to the pair of terms “good” and “evil,” which Nietzsche contrasts with the “good” and “bad” of master morality.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond Good and Evil—1
    Nietzsche & Asian Philosophy Beyond Good and Evil—1 Beyond good and Evil Preface supposing truth is a woman philosophers like love-sick suitors who don’t understand the woman-truth central problem of philosophy is Plato’s error: denying perspective, the basic condition of all life On the Prejudices of Philosophers 1) questioning the will to truth who is it that really wants truth? What in us wants truth? Why not untruth? 2) origin of the will to truth out of the will to untruth, deception can anything arise out of its opposite? A dangerous questioning? Nietzsche sees new philosophers coming up who have the strength for the dangerous “maybe.” Note in general Nietzsche’s preference for the conditional tense, his penchant for beginning his questioning with “perhaps” or “suppose” or “maybe.” In many of the passages throughout this book Nietzsche takes up a perspective which perhaps none had dared take up before, a perspective to question what had seemed previously to be unquestionable. He seems to constantly be tempting the reader with a dangerous thought experiment. This begins with the questioning of the will to truth and the supposition that, perhaps, the will to truth may have arisen out of its opposite, the will to untruth, ignorance, deception. 3) the supposition that the greater part of conscious thinking must be included among instinctive activities Nietzsche emphasizes that consciousness is a surface phenomenon conscious thinking is directed by what goes on beneath the surface contrary to Plato’s notion of pure reason, the conscious
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions
    University of South Florida Scholar Commons Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2011 The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions Edward Matusek University of South Florida, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd Part of the American Studies Commons, and the Philosophy Commons Scholar Commons Citation Matusek, Edward, "The rP oblem of Evil in Augustine's Confessions" (2011). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/etd/3733 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Problem of Evil in Augustine’s Confessions by Edward A. Matusek A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Thomas Williams, Ph.D. Roger Ariew, Ph.D. Joanne Waugh, Ph.D. Charles B. Guignon, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 14, 2011 Keywords: theodicy, privation, metaphysical evil, Manichaeism, Neo-Platonism Copyright © 2011, Edward A. Matusek i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract iii Chapter One: Introduction to Augustine’s Confessions and the Present Study 1 Purpose and Background of the Study 2 Literary and Historical Considerations of Confessions 4 Relevance of the Study for Various
    [Show full text]
  • God and the Problem of Evil Notes
    Theodicy: God and the Problem of Evil Introduction Theodicy: From the Greek words for God (theos) and justice (dikē) - It is an attempt to vindicate divine goodness and providence in view of the existence of evil. Three facts that seem to be in tension: 1. God is all-good 2. God is all-powerful 3. Evil exists “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” – David Hume Summary: How do we defend the facts that God is good and God is powerful if he allows the holocaust, child-molestation, infanticide, wars, terrorism, cancer, rape, etc. Attempts to solve this tension 1. Simply deny that God is good. Problems 1 John 1:5 - This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Psalm 106:1 - Praise the Lord! Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever! Psalm 119:68 - You are good and do good; teach me your statutes. Nahum 1:7 - The Lord is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; he knows those who take refuge in him. James 1:13 - Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.
    [Show full text]
  • Theodicy: an Overview
    1 Theodicy: An Overview Introduction All of us struggle at one time or another in life with why evil happens to someone, either ourselves, our family, our friends, our nation, or perhaps some particularly disturbing instance in the news—a child raped, a school shooting, genocide in another country, a terrorist bombing. The following material is meant to give an overview of the discussion of this issue as it takes place in several circles, especially that of the Christian church. I. The Problem of Evil Defined Three terms, "the problem of evil," "theodicy," and "defense" are important to our discussion. The first two are often used as synonyms, but strictly speaking the problem of evil is the larger issue of which theodicy is a subset because one can have a secular problem of evil. Evil is understood as a problem when we seek to explain why it exists (Unde malum?) and what its relationship is to the world as a whole. Indeed, something might be considered evil when it calls into question our basic trust in the order and structure of our world. Peter Berger in particular has argued that explanations of evil are necessary for social structures to stay themselves against chaotic forces. It follows, then, that such an explanation has an impact on the whole person. As David Blumenthal observes, a good theodicy is one that has three characteristics: 1. "[I]t should leave one with one’s sense of reality intact." (It tells the truth about reality.) 2. "[I]t should leave one empowered within the intellectual-moral system in which one lives." (Namely, it should not deny God’s basic power or goodness.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Catholic Christian Christian
    Religious Scientists (From the Vatican Observatory Website) https://www.vofoundation.org/faith-and-science/religious-scientists/ Many scientists are religious people—men and women of faith—believers in God. This section features some of the religious scientists who appear in different entries on these Faith and Science pages. Some of these scientists are well-known, others less so. Many are Catholic, many are not. Most are Christian, but some are not. Some of these scientists of faith have lived saintly lives. Many scientists who are faith-full tend to describe science as an effort to understand the works of God and thus to grow closer to God. Quite a few describe their work in science almost as a duty they have to seek to improve the lives of their fellow human beings through greater understanding of the world around them. But the people featured here are featured because they are scientists, not because they are saints (even when they are, in fact, saints). Scientists tend to be creative, independent-minded and confident of their ideas. We also maintain a longer listing of scientists of faith who may or may not be discussed on these Faith and Science pages—click here for that listing. Agnesi, Maria Gaetana (1718-1799) Catholic Christian A child prodigy who obtained education and acclaim for her abilities in math and physics, as well as support from Pope Benedict XIV, Agnesi would write an early calculus textbook. She later abandoned her work in mathematics and physics and chose a life of service to those in need. Click here for Vatican Observatory Faith and Science entries about Maria Gaetana Agnesi.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Constitutional Bad Faith
    VOLUME 129 FEBRUARY 2016 NUMBER 4 © 2016 by The Harvard Law Review Association ARTICLE CONSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH David E. Pozen CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 886 I. BAD FAITH BASICS ............................................................................................................... 890 II. JUDICIAL TOLERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH ..................................... 896 A. Doctrinal Responses ......................................................................................................... 897 1. Explicit Enforcement Zones ....................................................................................... 898 2. Implicit Enforcement Zones ....................................................................................... 902 3. Nonenforcement Zones ................................................................................................ 905 B. Explanations ...................................................................................................................... 909 III. VARIETIES OF CONSTITUTIONAL BAD FAITH ............................................................. 918 A. Subjective Bad Faith ....................................................................................................... 920 1. Dishonesty .................................................................................................................... 920 2. Disloyalty .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Three Point Five
    Religious Neutrality Chapter Three Draft: Feb. 14, 2011 Please do not cite or quote Chapter Three The American Specification of Neutrality Secularism in the United States has never been a secularism of governmental religion-blindness.1 Rather, it is secularism of a religion-friendly kind, which aims at broad, nondenominational support for religion while remaining neutral among religious factions. Neutrality’s fluidity means that it can vary in both its conceptual scope and its field of application. Religious neutrality, for example, could mean neutrality among varieties of Protestantism, or varieties of Christianity, or varieties of monotheism, or something even broader and vaguer. Whatever conceptual scope is attributed to it, the obligation of neutrality could be held to apply only to judges, or to both judges and legislators, or to citizens when voting. In this chapter, I will examine the specific variety of neutrality that has been followed in American law. It has never stopped treating religion as a distinctive human good. That neutrality, however, has shifted over time, becoming vaguer and more inclusive. Modes of secularism Which specification of neutrality we actually adopt will depend on our substantive reasons for adopting neutrality in the first place. Bruce Ackerman (who capitalizes “Neutrality” because it is the master concept of his political theory) observes that “it would be a category mistake to imagine that there could be a Neutral justification for the practice of Neutral justification – for Neutrality makes no sense except as a part of the practice it constitutes.”2 It is not possible to be blind to an issue with respect to which one has resolved to remain neutral.
    [Show full text]
  • Einstein Conspiracy Was the Start of the 20Th Century’S Attempt to Cover up the UFO Mystery and All Its Related Topics
    Article One Article Two Article Three Article Four References E-mail the Author Home Roger Anderton © 2000 DESIGN: SOLAR-FLAIR.COM WWI was started by Germany because it was being surrounded by countries it perceived as enemies, and thought before its enemies united that ‘attack first was the best kind of defence’. Germany lost WWI in 1919 in the same year as Einstein became a world famous scientist. As is human nature, when failure occurs a scapegoat must be blamed. The ordinary people looked for a scape goat and thought the blame lay with pacifists that it perceived as being unpatriotic i.e. did not contribute their fair share in helping the war effort. This opinion is of course erroneous but due to human emotion, people like to perceive matters in simplistic manners like this. It was unfortunate that a large number of pacifists were Jews. This reawakened latent anti-Semitism, the ordinary German person ignored the fact that the majority of Jews had been patriotic and concentrated its hatred against the few Jews who wanted peace not war. As is human nature, erroneous irrational thinking was applied and all the Jews were blamed for what a few Jews erroneously have been perceived as having done. Einstein was a pacifist, and a Jew. In 1919 he had become famous and had made himself a big target for a hate campaign that was conducted against him. This hate campaign eventually led to the formation of the Nazis, and Hitler used the momentum of this movement to gain power, and start WWII.
    [Show full text]
  • Proverbs Chapter 1.Pdf
    Proverbs Chapter 1 The book of proverbs has been known as the book of wisdom from the very beginning. Most of the writing of Proverbs has been credited to the pen of Solomon. God has given Solomon the wisdom to rule his people fairly. Proverbs is actually a book of instructions on how to live a life pleasing to God and how to be more peaceful with all of mankind. It is a wonderful book for people of all ages to study how to live moral, peaceful lives. The purpose of the book is for moral instructions on everyday living. The main topic is the fear of the Lord. In fact, the "Fear of the Lord" is mentioned fourteen times. Solomon's instructions were very good. He would have been better off if he had heeded his own instructions. Solomon, in his later life strayed from his own teaching. A "proverb" is a wise saying. It is similar to a parable in fact it bears a hidden message. Proverbs 1:1 "The proverbs of Solomon the son of David, king of Israel;" We see that these wise sayings are of Solomon, who is the second son of David and Bath-sheba. David and Solomon were each king of Israel for forty years. The basic meaning of the Hebrew word for proverb is “comparison,” but it came to stand for a wide range of wise pronouncements including the byword lament and thought provoking sayings. In the Book of Proverbs, the word is used to refer to an aphorism or concise statement of a principle or to a discourse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sources of Islamic Revolutionary Conduct
    Joint Military Intelligence College LAMBERT Y Y The Sources of Islamic Revolutionary Conduct TEL IN LIG Y E R N A C T E I L C I O M L L T E N G I E O J 1962 Major Stephen P. Lambert U.S. Air Force TEL IN LIG Y E R N A C ISBN 1-932946-02-0 T E PCN 56747 I L C I O M L L T E N G I E O J 1962 The Joint Military Intelligence College supports and encourages research on intelligence issues that distills lessons and improves Intelligence Community capabilities for policy-level and operational consumers Y: The Sources of Islamic Revolutionary Conduct, Major Stephen P. Lambert, U.S. Air Force This product has been reviewed by senior experts from academia and government, and has been approved for unrestricted distribution by the Directorate for Freedom of Information and Security Review, Washington Headquarters Services. It is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service (www.ntis.gov). The author has also arranged for publication of this study through the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. The projected publication date is 2005. The Hoover Institution book includes commentar- ies on Major Lambert’s work by an even greater variety of scholars than included in the present book. [email protected], Editor and Director Center for Strategic Intelligence Research Library of Congress Control Number 2004114330 ISBN 1-932946-02-0 Y The Sources of Islamic Revolutionary Conduct Major Stephen P. Lambert, U.S. Air Force Research Fellow In g ic t e e g ll t ii a g e r n tt c SS c ee rr R R o o e e f f s s e e r r a a e e t r t r n c n Joint Military c e h e h C Intelligence College C WASHINGTON, DC April 2005 With the cooperation and support of the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) USAF Academy, Colorado Springs The views expressed in this book are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of Defense or the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Traces of Friedrich Nietzsche's Philosophy
    Traces of Friedrich Nietzsche’s Philosophy in Scandinavian Literature Crina LEON* Key-words: Scandinavian literature, Nietzschean philosophy, Georg Brandes, August Strindberg, Knut Hamsun 1. Introduction. The Role of the Danish Critic Georg Brandes The age of Friedrich Nietzsche in Scandinavia came after the age of Émile Zola, to whom Scandinavian writers such as Henrik Ibsen and August Strindberg were indebted with a view to naturalistic ideas and attitudes. Friedrich Nietzsche appears to me the most interesting writer in German literature at the present time. Though little known even in his own country, he is a thinker of a high order, who fully deserves to be studied, discussed, contested and mastered (Brandes 1915: 1). This is what the Danish critic Georg Brandes asserted in his long Essay on Aristocratic Radicalism, which was published in August 1889 in the periodical Tilskueren from Copenhagen, and this is the moment when Nietzsche became to be known not only in Scandinavia but also in other European countries. The Essay on Aristocratic Radicalism was the first study of any length to be devoted, in the whole of Europe, to this man, whose name has since flown round the world and is at this moment one of the most famous among our contemporaries (Ibidem: 59), wrote Brandes ten years later. The term Aristocratic Radicalism had been previously used by the Danish critic in a letter he wrote to Nietzsche himself, from Copenhagen on 26 November 1887: …a new and original spirit breathes to me from your books […] I find much that harmonizes with my own ideas and sympathies, the depreciation of the ascetic ideals and the profound disgust with democratic mediocrity, your aristocratic radicalism […] In spite of your universality you are very German in your mode of thinking and writing (Ibidem: 63).
    [Show full text]