June 28, 2008
What does Nietzsche mean to philosophers today?
Peter Bergmann, Teodor Münz, Frantisek Novosád, Paul Patton, Richard Rorty, Jan Sokol, and Leslie Paul Thiele discuss (trans. in eurozine):
Kritika&Kontext: What do you take to be the morally and politically most offensive passages in Nietzsche's writings? How do you interpret them? Do you think they are representative of his general attitude toward morality and politics?
Richard Rorty: I am most offended by the passages in which Nietzsche expresses contempt for weakness, and especially by the passages which argue that there is something wrong with Christianity because it originated among slaves. So it did, but those slaves had a good idea: namely, that the ideal human community would be one in which love is the only law. So it would. One can separate this Christian ideal from the ressentiment characteristic of the ascetic priests, but Nietzsche never made that distinction.
Paul Patton: Some of his remarks about women are among the most offensive of Nietzsche's writings. I take these to be indications of the extent to which he was a man of his time who could not see beyond the existing cultural forms of the sexual division of humankind. Like the vast majority of nineteenth century European men, Nietzsche could not divorce female affect, intelligence and corporeal capacities from a supposed "essential' relation to child-bearing. His views on women are representative of his attitude toward morality and politics in the sense that they are in tension with possibilities otherwise opened up by his historical conception of human nature. For example, at times he recognizes that supposedly natural qualities of women or men are really products of particular social arrangements. We can conclude from this, even if he could not, that these qualities are not natural but open to change. In this domain as in other of his social and political views, he was not able to foresee some of the ways in which the very dynamics of human cultural evolution that he identified could lead us into a very different future.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:50 PM | Permalink






















Comments
Whatever he means to philosophers today, rest assured that he means a lot more than he used to. Like all great prophets, he was derided and rejected by the established authorities for many years.
(For modern echoes of this, see the inexplicably popular "Little Miss Sunshine", where a teenaged character is made to look openly ridiculous for taking Nietzsche seriously.)
Only recently has mainstream philosophy begun to seriously consider the challenge his thought poses. He does not conclusively desmonstrate that our moral/political/spiritual ideas are wrong, but rather forces us into a confrontation with some serious difficulties and internal contraditions within these ideas.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 28, 2008 9:12:12 PM
Right you are, Nick.
His philosophy, including re-valuation, has come to pass, and perhaps in a bigger way than he could've imagined.
Posted by: beajerry | Jun 29, 2008 2:48:51 AM
Nick-
Good, right on analysis.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 30, 2008 7:37:18 PM
Post a comment