To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Philosophy of Nietzsche.
Journal articles on the topic 'Philosophy of Nietzsche'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Philosophy of Nietzsche.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Steven, Mark. "Nietzsche on Film." Film-Philosophy 21, no. 1 (February 2017): 95–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/film.2017.0033.
Full textAbstract:
This article tracks the many appearances of Friedrich Nietzsche throughout the history of cinema. It asks how cinema can do Nietzschean philosophy in ways that are unique to the medium. It also asks why the cinematic medium might be so pertinent to Nietzschean philosophy. Adhering to the implicit premise that, as Jacques Derrida once put it, ‘there is no totality to Nietzsche's text, not even a fragmentary or aphoristic one,’ the essay's mode of argument avoids reductive totalization and instead comprises a playful sampling of variously Nietzschean manifestations across dissimilar films. It begins with an extended account of Baby Face, a 1933 drama from which the abundant references to Nietzsche were either altered or expunged ahead of theatrical release. It then maps some of the philosophical consistencies across two genres in which characters read Nietzsche with apparent frequency: the comedy and the thriller. While comedies and thrillers both treat Nietzsche and his readers with suspicion, and do so for perceptive historical reasons, the essay then asks what an affirmatively Nietzschean film might look like. It explores this possibility through a discussion of cinematic animation in general and then more specifically via several critically familiar films that self-consciously evolve their aesthetic through Nietzsche's philosophy. The essay concludes by affirming Béla Tarr's final film as one of the medium's greatest realizations of a Nietzschean film-philosophy. The Turin Horse, released in 2011, is exemplary because it takes Nietzsche as a narrative premise only to sublate that premise into a unique visual style.
2
Heinrich, Johannes. "Nietzsche und die Philosophie der Lebenskunst." Nietzsche-Studien 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2018): 442–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2018-0021.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Nietzsche and the philosophy of the art of living. The books under review trace the network of relationships between Nietzsche and the ancient philosophy of the art of living. Further, Nietzsche’s idea of the art and style of living is placed in the context of existentialism and, above all, in close proximity to the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard. It becomes clear that Nietzsche’s concept of the art of living cannot be reduced to the philosophical and historical context of classical concepts of self-care; rather, Nietzsche’s views have to be situated in the context of modern and current philosophical theories. In addition, questions such as the alleged naturalism in Nietzsche’s work, as well as the possible continuity between his early and late writings, are strongly related to the analysis of a Nietzschean art of living.
3
RATNER-ROSENHAGEN, JENNIFER. "“DIONYSIAN ENLIGHTENMENT”: WALTER KAUFMANN'S NIETZSCHE IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE." Modern Intellectual History 3, no. 2 (August 2006): 239–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1479244306000734.
Full textAbstract:
Walter Kaufmann's monumental study of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (1950) dramatically transformed Nietzsche interpretations in the postwar United States and rendered Kaufmann himself a dominant figure in transatlantic Nietzsche studies from 1950 until his death in 1980. While the longevity of Kaufmann's hegemony over postwar American Nietzsche interpretations in particular is remarkable, even more so is the fact that he revitalized the career of such a radical thinker in the conservative intellectual climate of the 1950s. Philosophers and historians typically credit Kaufmann with rescuing Nietzsche from the Nazis, but argue that he did so by denaturing Nietzsche's philosophy of power and narrowly transforming him into an existentialist. By contrast, this essay argues that Kaufmann took a much more dramatic step by extending the scope of Nietzsche's philosophy, demonstrating how his ideas resonated with but also transcended the dominant philosophies of the day. Kaufmann presented Nietzsche as a philosopher uniquely poised to bridge the increasing mid-century rift between continental and analytic philosophies, as well as between the increasingly distinct moral worlds of academic philosophers and general readers. At a time when philosophical discourses within the university and beyond were pulling apart, Kaufmann put Nietzsche to work to bring them back together. By emphasizing Nietzsche's harmony with the range of scholarly and popular philosophical concerns of mid-century, he also established, for the first time in the United States, Nietzsche's role as a canonical thinker in the Western tradition.
4
Holub, Robert C. "Jewish Nietzscheanism." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (August 18, 2021): 396–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-0021.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Jewish Nietzscheans have traditionally shied away from any detailed examination of Nietzsche’s comments on contemporary Jewry or the Jewish religion. Scholars who have examined Jewish Nietzscheans have therefore sought to connect Nietzsche with some dimension of Jewish thought through similarities in views between Nietzsche and the Jewish intellectuals who were purportedly influenced by him. The two books under consideration in this essay strain to find solid connections between Nietzsche’s philosophy and the writings of eminent Jewish writers. Daniel Rynhold and Michael Harris examine how selected Nietzschean concepts can also be found in the work of the noted Jewish thinker Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. David Ohana, by contrast, examines a variety of Jewish writers who at some point exhibited an enthusiasm for Nietzsche, ranging from Hebrew scholars and translators to German-Jewish intellectuals. Both books suffer from many of the shortcomings of general Nietzschean influence studies: there is often no sound philological evidence of influence, or the “connection” is so general that it is difficult to see Nietzsche as the source of influence, or the alleged influence was of short duration, and it is difficult to understand what remains Nietzschean in the individual influenced.
5
Holub, Robert C. "Jewish Nietzscheanism." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (September 8, 2021): 396–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-500123.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Jewish Nietzscheans have traditionally shied away from any detailed examination of Nietzsche’s comments on contemporary Jewry or the Jewish religion. Scholars who have examined Jewish Nietzscheans have therefore sought to connect Nietzsche with some dimension of Jewish thought through similarities in views between Nietzsche and the Jewish intellectuals who were purportedly influenced by him. The two books under consideration in this essay strain to find solid connections between Nietzsche’s philosophy and the writings of eminent Jewish writers. Daniel Rynhold and Michael Harris examine how selected Nietzschean concepts can also be found in the work of the noted Jewish thinker Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik. David Ohana, by contrast, examines a variety of Jewish writers who at some point exhibited an enthusiasm for Nietzsche, ranging from Hebrew scholars and translators to German-Jewish intellectuals. Both books suffer from many of the shortcomings of general Nietzschean influence studies: there is often no sound philological evidence of influence, or the “connection” is so general that it is difficult to see Nietzsche as the source of influence, or the alleged influence was of short duration, and it is difficult to understand what remains Nietzschean in the individual influenced.
6
Giroux, Dalie. "Barrage sur la ligne de fuite. Considérations sur Nietzsche et la prudence philosophique." PhaenEx 2, no. 1 (June 21, 2007): 19. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/p.v2i1.79.
Full textAbstract:
Ce texte présente une tentative de trouver une notion de «prudence philosophique» chez Nietzsche. Il procède de la critique d’une contribution de Daniel Tanguay dans laquelle l’auteur s’oppose au diagnostic posé par certains exégètes de l’œuvre de Leo Strauss d’une certaine proximité entre la pensée du maître américain et celle de Nietzsche. L’argument principal de Tanguay tient en cette idée que la prudence, qui est le propre de la sagesse philosophique et qui est au cœur de la pensée de Strauss, est absente chez Nietzsche. La démonstration proposée est sous-tendue par une thèse sur la figure du philosophe et sur la nature de la vie philosophique. Développant une argumentation contre cette conclusion, je veux préciser les conditions de possibilité et le sens d’une prudence philosophique nietzschéenne. En particulier, la recherche d’une notion de prudence chez Nietzsche demande d’explorer d’une part une possible distinction entre eros et volonté de puissance, et d’autre part une possible distinction entre nature et volonté de puissance. Cette double distinction permet de définir une conception nietzschéenne du philosophe et de la philosophie qui n’est pas dogmatique, et dans laquelle on trouve une autre forme de la prudence, celle du don.
[This paper finds its starting point in a critique of Daniel Tanguay’s opposition to the idea of a kind of proximity between the thought of Leo Strauss and Nietzsche. Tanguay’s argument is to the effect that Strauss provides us with a notion of prudence philosophique, while Nietzsche, a dogmatic thinker, doesn’t. Underlying this diagnosis is a thesis regarding the nature of the philosopher and of the philosophical life. To counter this interpretation, this paper attempts to flesh a notion of prudence out of Nietzsche’s published works. More specifically, it explores the distinction between Eros and Will-to-Power on the one hand, and the distinction between Nature and Will-to-Power on the other. This twofold distinction allows for a non-dogmatic Nietzschean notion of philosophy in which can be found another brand of prudence that takes the form of a gift.]
7
Esmez, Laurent. "Éternel retour et principe dʼéconomie dans la pensée de Nietzsche." Nietzsche-Studien 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2018): 195–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2018-0008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Eternal recurrence and the principle of economy in Nietzscheʼs thought. This paper explores the place that the principle of parsimony occupies in Nietzscheʼs thought. I argue that the principle of parsimony is one of the criteria that allow Nietzsche to organize the many different interpretations available to us into a hierarchy. The question is whether Nietzsche can justify the use of this principle without making it a petitio principii. Oddly enough, it seems that eternal recurrence has a role to play in this context. The most important problem Nietzsche has to confront is the problem of circularity. Bringing together Nietzsche’s specific conception of truth with the problem of eternal recurrence allows us to recognize that circularity provides for access to a higher density of the real.
8
Anđelković, Bojan. "Deleuze, Nietzsche, philosophy, life." Maska 35, no. 200 (June 1, 2020): 164–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/maska_00021_1.
Full textAbstract:
Deleuze’s monograph Nietzsche and Philosophy dating from 1962 was the first study on Nietzsche in France that offered a systematically coherent overview of his philosophy, while opening questions that became central in subsequent Nietzschean studies and in post-structuralism in general. The most important part of the book, referred to by Deleuze to formulate influential interpretations of the will to power and the eternal recurrence as well as his infamous concept of difference, is undoubtedly an explanation of active and reactive forces, on which Nietzsche constructed his concept of the body (without organs). From today’s perspective, the book can be seen as the true beginning of Deleuze’s philosophy.
9
Rowthorn, David. "Nietzsche’s cultural elitism." Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47, no. 1 (2017): 97–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00455091.2016.1233381.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractElitist readers, such as John Rawls, see Nietzsche as concerned only with the flourishing of a few great contributors to culture; egalitarian readers, such as Stanley Cavell, see Nietzschean culture as a universal affair involving every individual’s self-cultivation. This paper offers a compromise, reading Nietzsche as a ‘cultural elitist’ for whom culture demands that a few great individuals be supported in a voluntary, rather than state-mandated way. Rawls, it claims, is therefore misguided in worrying that Nietzsche’s elitism is a threat to justice. The paper focuses on Nietzsche’s Schopenhauer as Educator, the key text in the elitist-egalitarian debate.
10
Fuchs, Wolfgang W. "Philosophy ? Nietzsche ? Philosophy." Man and World 21, no. 2 (March 1988): 127–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01248679.
Full text
11
REMHOF, JUSTIN. "Nietzsche: Metaphysician." Journal of the American Philosophical Association 7, no. 1 (2021): 117–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/apa.2019.42.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractPerhaps the most fundamental disagreement concerning Nietzsche's view of metaphysics is that some commentators believe Nietzsche has a positive, systematic metaphysical project, and others deny this. Those who deny it hold that Nietzsche believes metaphysics has a special problem, that is, a distinctively problematic feature that distinguishes metaphysics from other areas of philosophy. In this paper, I investigate important features of Nietzsche's metametaphysics in order to argue that Nietzsche does not, in fact, think metaphysics has a special problem. The result is that, against a long-standing view held in the literature, we should be reading Nietzsche as a metaphysician.
12
Yelle, Robert. "THE REBIRTH OF MYTH?: NIETZSCHE'S ETERNAL RECURRENCE AND ITS ROMANTIC ANTECEDENTS." Numen 47, no. 2 (2000): 175–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156852700511496.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThere is increasing evidence of the influence of various Romantic thinkers on Nietzsche's early philosophy, especially on The Birth of Tragedy, with its announcement or prediction of a rebirth of myth. The prophetic Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which Nietzsche introduced with the words "tragedy begins," expresses his later philosophy, particularly his central doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence, in symbols, parables, and riddles, suggesting an attempt at mythopoeia. However, the critical, ironic, and parodying elements in Nietzsche's later philosophy have led to its characterization as "antimyth." This essay demonstrates that Nietzsche's idea and symbolism of the Eternal Recurrence as a temporal cycle of opposites represented by various forms of the circle, especially the ouroborus or serpent biting its own tail, and associated with Zoroaster, Heraclitus, and Dionysus, was influenced by the tradition of Romantic mythology. Before the publication of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche encountered the writings of Johann Jakob Bachofen and Friedrich Creuzer, where the cycle of opposites is identified as a specifically mythic idea, which developed later into a philosophy, as metonymically represented in the relationship between the myth-maker Zoroaster and the philosopher Heraclitus. In The Birth of Tragedy, the cycle of opposites became for Nietzsche a symbol of the unity of myth and philosophy, and the rebirth of the former from the self-overcoming of the latter. This symbol continued to serve Nietzsche throughout his career as a model for his own development as a philosopher. The Eternal Recurrence appears to have been his own attempt to unite myth and philosophy, through the transformation of an originally Romantic mythological idea into its opposite, and the adoption of a symbolic and "mythic" style of expression.
13
Ercole, Venessa. "Nietzsche and Music." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (August 18, 2021): 329–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-0017.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract As the relationship between music and philosophy in Nietzsche’s thought and life continues to fascinate, new approaches to the treatment of music in Nietzsche studies have emerged which take seriously the importance of music, not only in Nietzsche’s life, but for his philosophical project as a whole. While Nietzsche’s often-quoted claim that life without music would be a mistake was once treated as a quip, the quality and breadth of the works reviewed here demonstrate that this invaluable area of Nietzsche’s thought is finally receiving the rigorous treatment it deserves. The works below each offer new and valuable insights on this exciting and growing area of Nietzsche studies which aid us in understanding where to place Nietzsche’s most loved art form in the framework of his philosophy.
14
Ercole, Venessa. "Nietzsche and Music." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (September 8, 2021): 329–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-500119.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract As the relationship between music and philosophy in Nietzsche’s thought and life continues to fascinate, new approaches to the treatment of music in Nietzsche studies have emerged which take seriously the importance of music, not only in Nietzsche’s life, but for his philosophical project as a whole. While Nietzsche’s often-quoted claim that life without music would be a mistake was once treated as a quip, the quality and breadth of the works reviewed here demonstrate that this invaluable area of Nietzsche’s thought is finally receiving the rigorous treatment it deserves. The works below each offer new and valuable insights on this exciting and growing area of Nietzsche studies which aid us in understanding where to place Nietzsche’s most loved art form in the framework of his philosophy.
15
MELLAMPHY, NANDITA BISWAS. "Affective Aporetics: Complementary Contradictions in the Interpretation of Friedrich Nietzsche." PhaenEx 6, no. 1 (May 27, 2011): 121. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/p.v6i1.3154.
Full textAbstract:
In 1971, Wolfgang Müller-Lauter introduced his study of Nietzsche as an investigation into the history of modern nihilism in which “contradiction” forms the central thread of the argument. For Müller-Lauter, the interpretive task is not to demonstrate the overall coherence or incoherence of Nietzsche’s philosophy, but to examine Nietzsche’s “philosophy of contradiction.” Against those such as Karl Jaspers, Karl Löwith and Martin Heidegger, Müller-Lauter argued that contradiction is the foundation of Nietzsche’s thought, and not a problem to be corrected or cast aside for exegetical or political purposes. For Müller-Lauter, contradiction qua incompatibility (not just mere opposition) holds a key to Nietzsche’s affective vision of philosophy. Beginning with the relationship between will to power and eternal recurrence, in this paper I examine aspects of Müller-Lauter’s account of Nietzsche’s philosophy of contradiction specifically in relation to the counter-interpretations offered by two other German commentators of Nietzsche, Leo Strauss and Karl Löwith, in order to confirm Müller-Lauter’s suggestion that contradiction is indeed an operative engine of Nietzsche’s thought. Indeed contradiction is a key Nietzschean theme and an important dynamic of becoming which enables the subject to be revealed as a “multiplicity” (BGE §12) and as a “fiction” (KSA 12:9[91]). Following Müller-Lauter’s assertion that for Nietzsche the problem of nihilism is fundamentally synonymous with the struggle of contradiction experienced by will to power, this paper interprets Nietzsche’s philosophy of contradiction in terms of subjective, bodily life (rather than in terms of logical incoherences or ontological inconsistencies). Against the backdrop of nihilism, the “self” (and its related place holder the “subject”), I will argue, becomes the psycho-physiological battlespace for the struggle and articulation of “contradiction” in Nietzsche’s thought.
16
Fink, Eugen, Catherine Homan, and Zachary Hamm. "Nietzsche’s Metaphysics of Play (1946)." Philosophy Today 63, no. 1 (2019): 21–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philtoday201967254.
Full textAbstract:
This lecture from 1946 presents Eugen Fink’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s metaphysics. Fink’s aim here is twofold: to work against the trend of psychologistic interpretations of Nietzsche’s work and to perform the philosophical interpretation of Nietzsche he finds lacking in his predecessors. Fink contends that play is the central intuition of Nietzsche’s philosophy, specifically in his rejection of Western metaphysics’ insistence on being and presence. Drawing instead from Heraclitus, Nietzsche argues for an ontology of becoming characterized by the Dionysian as the temporalization of time and the Apollonian as temporalized in time. The play of becoming is thus the cosmic coming to be and passing away of appearance. Playing, as the creative projection of such a play-world of appearing and concealing, is central to understanding the Nietzschean theme of the will to power as the revaluation of values.
17
Stegmaier, Werner. "Wahrheit und Wahrheiten. Nietzsche – Heidegger – Luhmann – Nietzsche." Nietzsche-Studien 48, no. 1 (November 1, 2019): 68–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2019-0005.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The question of truth is one of the oldest philosophical topics, but perhaps it concerns the world today more than ever.<fnote> Der Beitrag geht auf einen Vortrag zurück, der 2018 in verschiedenen Fassungen beim Nietzsche-Forum München e.V., beim Nietzsche-Forum der Tongji-Universität Shanghai und beim Nietzsche-Kolloquium der Stiftung Nietzsche-Haus in Sils-Maria und 2019 in Machatschkala, Dagestan, gehalten wurde.</fnote> Nietzsche was a realist about truth and he sought to criticize and reject the idealizations and moralizations that continue to dominate philosophical thinking: he wanted to see how truth really stands. Following Nietzsche we can recognize more clearly that we need illusions in order to live, but that these illusions also endanger the very lives they support. We demand a final truth on which we can rely at all times, and which allows us to live together, such as the truth of God, the truth of reason, or the truth of being. But searching for such a final truth, we face “nothing,” or what Nietzsche described as “nihilism.” At the same time, however, we keep on speaking about truth and truths. How to speak—after Nietzsche—about truth without succumbing to illusion? Starting from Nietzsche’s critique of truth and Heidegger’s metaphysical account of Nietzsche’s position, this article examines how Nietzsche, in contrast to Heidegger’s ontological commitments, allows us to decide about truth on the grounds of perspectivism. While Nietzsche’s position thus seems compatible with that of Niklas Luhmann’s constructivism, Nietzsche still holds on to his truth as the truth of “an evangelist the like of which there has never been” (EH, Destiny 1).
18
Burgess, Steven. "Nietzsche on Language and Logic." Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 24, no. 1 (2019): 155–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/epoche20191113149.
Full textAbstract:
Recent commentators on Nietzsche’s philosophy have paid careful attention to his reflections on truth. While this issue has generated significant dispute, one prominent school of thought is in tacit agreement about the view of language that underlies Nietzschean truth. This view holds that certain linguistic entities can capture precise, distinct units of propositional content and static, rigidly designated conceptual meanings. A closer look at Nietzsche’s various analyses of language and logic reveals not only that he does not subscribe to such a position, but that he offers a sustained critique against the possibility of any form of atomism of language. It was only in the 1880s, after Nietzsche overcame his dualistic commitments to Kant and Schopenhauer and embraced a philosophy of becoming, that the full power of his critique is made manifest.
19
Zittel, Claus. "„Gespräche mit Dionysos“. Nietzsches Rätselspiele." Nietzsche-Studien 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2018): 70–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2018-0004.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract “Conversations with Dionysus”. Nietzsche’s Playful Riddles. Nietzsche has written several short dialogues that are rarely studied. Based on the mysterious ‘conversations with Dionysus’, which also include the Dionysian Dithyramb „Ariadneʼs Lament“, the paper outlines their enigmatic structure and, on this basis, proposes an interpretive model for Nietzscheʼs labyrinthine texts.
20
Brown, Alexander. "In Defence of Reason? Friedrich Nietzsche in Thomas Mann’s Nietzsches Philosophie im Lichte unserer Erfahrung and Georg Lukács’ Die Zerstörung der Vernunft." Nietzsche-Studien 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2018): 379–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2018-0017.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, Thomas Mann and Georg Lukács both sought to come to terms with the multifaceted role of philosophy in the catastrophe of fascism. The figure of Nietzsche is (re-)examined in Mann’s Nietzsches Philosophie im Lichte unserer Erfahrung (1947) and Lukács’ Die Zerstörung der Vernunft (1954). It is generally recognised that Mann’s lecture helped to shape the post-war Nietzsche reception in the West as much as Lukács’ treatise did in the East. In contrast, I argue that Mann’s and Lukács’s contributions have more in common than is generally acknowledged and, given Mann’s esteem in the field of Nietzsche studies, that these similarities call into question the general repudiation of Lukács’ Nietzsche-Bild. After sketching the phenomenon of partisanship in the reception of Nietzsche through the lens of Kant’s notion of a ‘Kampfplatz’, some of the key topoi of Lukács’ work are identified, highlighting the aforementioned similarities in content and methodology as well as the contrasts with Western academic approaches.
21
Ruin, Hans. "Nietzsche and the Aesthetics of Philosophy." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (August 18, 2021): 320–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-0016.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The review discusses four recent books and collections that approach in different ways the role of aesthetics in Nietzsche’s work, both as a question of poetic expression and as the shaping of sensibility. They testify to a deepening interest in the processes through which he forged his unique style. This involves micro-analyses of the composition of Nietzsche’s writings from the raw material of his notebooks. It also involves biographical and material contexts, as in Tobias Brücker’s monograph on the composition of The Wanderer and His Shadow. Instead of accepting the dichotomy between a Dichterphilosoph and a philosopher for whom style was merely an instrument for formulating truths, these books display in different ways how in the case of Nietzsche this dichotomy breaks down and gives way to a widened concept of philosophical writing that includes many different genres. Other works by Nietzsche discussed are Zarathustra and The Gay Science, and also Ecce Homo. Nietzsche seduced with his art, but he also saw through the art of seduction as practiced by the artist, opting for a position beyond the conventional split between poetics and philosophy.
22
Ruin, Hans. "Nietzsche and the Aesthetics of Philosophy." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (September 8, 2021): 320–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-500118.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The review discusses four recent books and collections that approach in different ways the role of aesthetics in Nietzsche’s work, both as a question of poetic expression and as the shaping of sensibility. They testify to a deepening interest in the processes through which he forged his unique style. This involves micro-analyses of the composition of Nietzsche’s writings from the raw material of his notebooks. It also involves biographical and material contexts, as in Tobias Brucker’s monograph on the composition of The Wanderer and His Shadow. Instead of accepting the dichotomy between a Dichterphilosoph and a philosopher for whom style was merely an instrument for formulating truths, these books display in different ways how in the case of Nietzsche this dichotomy breaks down and gives way to a widened concept of philosophical writing that includes many different genres. Other works by Nietzsche discussed are Zarathustra and The Gay Science, and also Ecce Homo. Nietzsche seduced with his art, but he also saw through the art of seduction as practiced by the artist, opting for a position beyond the conventional split between poetics and philosophy.
23
Béland, Martine. "Heidegger en dialogue: par-delà Ernst Jünger, un retour à Nietzsche." Dialogue 45, no. 2 (2006): 285–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0012217300000573.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTThis article investigates Martin Heidegger's intellectual relation to Ernst Jünger. In order to show that Heidegger's appraisal of Jünger is directly related to his understanding of Nietzsche's pre-eminent standing in the history of Western philosophy, I situate Jünger in the Heideggerian reconstruction of the history of metaphysics. It is because Jünger belongs to the Nietzschean paradigm that Heidegger believes he is worth reading—but also worth criticizing. Indeed, Jünger did not overtake the philosophical project that Nietzsche made possible by accomplishing the end of metaphysics. This is the very project adopted by Heidegger, first by thinking beyond metaphysics, and second by hoping Germany would turn towards a spiritual renewal of its civilization. Thus, since Nietzsche is the central figure who stands between Heidegger and Jünger, this article wishes to show that through his critical reading of Jünger, Heidegger in fact fosters a fundamental and uninterrupted dialogue with Nietzsche.
24
Heinrich, Johannes. "Nietzsche als Philosoph des Lebens." Nietzsche-Studien 48, no. 1 (November 1, 2019): 271–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2019-0015.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The books discussed in this article examine Nietzsche’s philosophy of life in different ways. Nietzsche’s theory of art as well as his Dionysian philosophy play a special role, which emphasizes the possible continuity of these terms in Nietzsche’s works. An additional focus of attention are Nietzsche’s philosophy of the body as well as his relationship to the theory of evolution. Nietzsche’s position is distinguished from Darwinism by the former’s focus on an anti-essentialist critique of the concept of nature and of mind-body dualism. Finally, the possibilities of a phenomenological interpretation of Nietzsche are taken into consideration, which situates the concept of the life-world, or Lebenswelt, in the context of Nietzsche’s own conception of life.
25
Baranova, Jūratė. "Friedrich Nietzsche’s Political Philosophy as Political Anthropology." Problemos 98 (October 23, 2020): 94–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.98.8.
Full textAbstract:
The article starts with the question: how is the political philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche even possible? The author discusses with Tracy B. Strong’s presumption that Nietzsche’s political philosophy is not possible as a transcendental deduction. The author supposes that this type of question clashes with the premises of Nietzsche’s thinking and also undermines the interpretation of the other aspects of his philosophy. First of all: the question of nazification and denazification of Nietzsche’s thought. The article comes to the conclusion that in the scope of recent investigation there is not much sense in raising the question whether Nietzsche’s political views are political philosophy in the normative meaning of the term, but it is possible to discuss the question of political anthropology as the psychology of the nations Nietzsche was really interested in.
26
Warren, Mark. "The Politics of Nietzsche's Philosophy: Nihilism, Culture and Power." Political Studies 33, no. 3 (September 1985): 418–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1985.tb01153.x.
Full textAbstract:
This article sketches an approach to what might be called the politics of Nietzsche's philosophy. Taking as its point of departure Nietzsche's diagnosis of nihilism in Western culture, the article aims to show that through his analysis of nihilism Nietzsche raises in an intrinsically political way the philosophical issue of how human agency is possible in an historical world. The methodology Nietzsche follows in constructing the problem provides a second arena of interest for political theory and philosophy. A critical dimension in Nietzsche's thought comparable to Marx's stems from the manner in which he related nihilism—a crisis of power manifest as a failure of self-understanding—to political experiences and reified cultural practices. Finally, the article concludes that Nietzsche could arrive at his overt politics only by combining his critical analysis of nihilism, culture, and power with uncritical assumptions about the modern determinants of nihilism.
27
Santos, Wellington, and João Lucas Santos Ulhoa. "FREUD E A FILOSOFIA: INCIDÊNCIAS DE FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE." Sapere Aude 10, no. 19 (June 2, 2019): 346–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.5752/p.2177-6342.2019v10n19p346-368.
Full textAbstract:
O presente artigo tem como objetivo uma investigação de possíveis atravessamentos da filosofia de Friedrich Nietzsche na psicanálise de Sigmund Freud. Esclarece, em primeiro lugar, a controversa relação de Freud com a filosofia de maneira geral, ressaltando uma postura inicial de entusiasmo por este campo do saber, depois de recusa e afastamento aparentemente intencional. Entende que este distanciamento é um posicionamento político por parte de Freud para evitar demasiadas influências externas na formulação de sua teoria. Depois, destaca as menções a Nietzsche encontradas ao longo da obra freudiana e, por fim, examina as incidências do filósofo que poderiam ser encontradas na psicanálise. Através desta análise percebe-se como Freud, apesar de declarar não conhecer a obra de Nietzsche, demonstra leitura e conhecimento dela. Conclui destacando que o conceito freudiano de inconsciente e o de Além-do-homem nietzschiano, aqui eleitos como conceitos-chave para pensar esses atravessamentos, marcam pontos privilegiados de convergência e divergência para ambos os autores.PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Psicanálise. Filosofia. Consciente. Inconsciente. Além-do-homem. ABSTRACTThe present article aims at an investigation of possible incidence of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy in Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis. It clarifies, firstly, Freud's controversial relationship with philosophy in general, emphasizing an initial posture of enthusiasm for this field of knowledge, and then apparently an intentional refusal and withdrawal from it. It understands that Freud`s detachment is a political position on his part to avoid too many outside influences in the formulation of his theory. It then highlights the references to Nietzsche found throughout the Freudian work and, finally, examines the incidences of the philosopher that could be found in psychoanalysis. It concludes by pointing out that the Freudian concept of the unconscious and that of the Nietzschean Übermensch, here as key concepts for thinking about these intersections, mark privileged points of convergence and divergence for both authors.KEYWORDS: Psychoanalysis, Philosophy. Conscious. Inconscious. Übermensch.
28
ARGY, ANNE-GAËLLE. "On the Uses and Abuses of Nietzsche in Self-Help Literature." PhaenEx 11, no. 2 (December 1, 2016): 49–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.22329/p.v11i2.4781.
Full textAbstract:
This paper investigates the uses that self-help literature makes of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Some specific concepts of his philosophy, as well as his choices in terms of expression, made Nietzsche a topmost reference for self-help authors in the U.S. and in France. As a philosopher and a nearly legendary figure, Nietzsche, in a strange way, fits more easily than other philosophers in the self-help project of leading people, through practical advices, to peace and happiness. Through examples taken from American and French self-help literature, and with comparisons made with other philosophers, this paper shows how self-help functions when it comes to borrowing from other people’s works.
29
Dennis, Matthew J. "Virtue as Empowerment." Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 24, no. 2 (2020): 411–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/epoche202034162.
Full textAbstract:
Virtue ethical interpretations of Nietzsche are increasingly viewed as a promising way to explain his moral philosophy, although current interpretations disagree on which character traits he regards as virtues. Of the first-, second-, and third-wave attempts addressing this question, only the latter can explain why Nietzsche denies that the same character traits are virtues for all individuals. Instead of positing the same set of character traits as Nietzschean virtues, third-wave theorists propose that Nietzsche only endorses criteria determining whether a specific character trait is a virtue or vice for a specific individual. The article examines the criteria-based approaches of third-wave theorists Lester Hunt and Christine Swanton, showing how they urgently need revising to explain Nietzsche’s endorsement of non-acquisitive character traits (such as those involving sensitivity and receptivity). To do this I explore Nietzsche’s unpublished remarks on Spinoza, which I contend better explains why he understands non-acquisitive character traits as virtues.
30
Vihalem, Margus. "KAIP ATSIKRATYTI SUBJEKTO? APIE KELETĄ NIETZSCHE’S SUBJEKTIŠKUMO KRITIKOS ASPEKTŲ." Problemos 80 (January 1, 2011): 158–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2011.0.1301.
Full textAbstract:
Straipsnyje analizuojama subjekto (kartais vadinamo savastimi) samprata Friedricho Nietzsche’s filosofijoje, remiamasi tekstais, susijusiais subjekto samprata, ypač gausybe pomirtinių fragmentų, paskelbtų kaip Nachlass Colli ir Montinari kritiniame leidime. Straipsnyje tvirtinama, jog subjekto reikšmės klausimas užima reikšmingą vietą Nietzsche’s filosofijoje ir yra būtinas jo valios valdyti morfologijos supratimo pamatas. Iškilaus filosofo pateikiama subjekto sąvokos kritika yra dažnai nuvertinama dėl šio klausimo fragmentiškumo jo raštuose. Straipsniu siekiama vėl pristatyti Nietzsche’ę kaip vieną iškiliausių šiuolaikinės antisubjekyvistinės mąstysenos proponentų ir parodyti, kodėl šio mąstytojo pateikiama subjekto sampratos kritika yra integrali dvidešimtojo amžiaus kritinės minties dalis.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: Nietzsche, subjektas, subjektiškumas, savastis.How to Get Rid of the Subject? On Some Aspects of Nietzsche’s Critique of SubjectivityMargus Vihalem SummaryThe article deals with the concept of the subject (also referred to as the self) in Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy and is based on a range of texts relating to the concept of the subject, especially his numerous posthumous fragments gathered as Nachlass in Colli/Montinari’s critical edition. The article argues that the question of the subject’s place and meaning in general carries crucial weight in Nietzsche’s thinking and forms an indispensable basis for understanding his morphology of the will to power. The importance of his critique of the concept of the subject is in fact largely overlooked, due to the fragmented treatment of this topic in his writings. This article is an attempt to re-establish Nietzsche as one of the most eminent proponents of the modern anti-subjectivist thinking and serves to indicate why his critique of the concept of the subject plays an integral role in the 20th century critical thinking.Keywords: Nietzsche, subject, subjectivity, self.
31
Mickevičius, Arūnas. "F. Nietzsche‘s perspektyvizmo samprata." Problemos 66 (September 29, 2014): 42–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.15388/problemos.2004.66.6632.
Full textAbstract:
Straipsnyje analizuojamas kritinis Nietzsche‘s požiūris į klasikinę tiesos sampratą ir pažinimą, kuriame suponuojama, kad yra vienas vienintelis požiūris į pasaulį, vienas vienintelis atskaitos taškas, iš kurio atsiveria jo vienintelė perspektyva. Klasikinės tiesos sampratos požiūriu šis taškas yra Dievas, o ši perspektyva yra dieviška. Nietzsche's perspektyvizmo koncepcija skelbia, kad nėra jokių faktų savaime, kuriais pažinimo procese būtų galima remtis, jokios pažinimu siektinos vienos, universalios ir vienos vienintelės tiesos, kuri leistų pateikti vienintelį teisingą pasaulio paaiškinimą, bet yra tik interpretacijos. Tačiau perspektyvizmo sampratoje įmanoma įžvelgti atramos tašką ir taip kalbėti apie savitą, negatyviai, per „pėdsaką“ nusakomą tiesos egzistavimo patirtį. Straipsnyje siekiama įrodyti, kad būtent ši nebepasiekiama tiesa bei jos patirtis yra matas ir norma, kuri Nietzsche'i leidžia užimti tam tikrą ekstraperspektyvią poziciją ir viską pavadinti interpretacijomis, kaukėmis. Būtent dėl šio ekstraperspektyvumo drauge su Nietzsche galima kalbėti apie pasaulio ir pažinimo atitikimą vartojant žodelį „ tarsi". Todėl Nietzsche‘s perspektyvizmas, teigiantis tik skirtingas interpretacijas ir radikaliai neigiantis „ tiesą", yra prieštaringas ir dviprasmiškas, nes čia implicistiškai numatoma ir remiamasi pažinimui atopiška (nebepasiekiama) ir achroniška (prarasta) „ tiesa“.
32
Katsafanas, Paul. "Recent Work on Nietzsche’s Moral Psychology and Ethics." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (August 18, 2021): 361–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-0019.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Each of these books presents itself as rescuing Nietzsche from misinterpretation. Thus, Leiter wants to prevent Nietzsche from being “moralized” (i. e., read in a way that makes him sound like a contemporary moral philosopher); Stern wants to prevent Nietzsche from being iron-manned (i. e., read in a way that assumes his arguments must be invulnerable to critique); Alfano wants to correct what he sees as a tendency to misrepresent Nietzsche’s central concerns; and Ridley claims writers have been misled when thinking about Nietzsche on action. Alfano’s book is, to my mind, the most successful at achieving its stated aims; while I point out some potential oversights and some areas that could benefit from further development, Alfano’s book is both novel and important. Leiter’s book is clearly written and presents the arguments in an admirably forthright manner, but some of its conclusions are vitiated by lapses and mischaracterizations. Stern gets Nietzsche’s basic view right, but does not probe it very deeply and is too quick to present Nietzsche as confused; I see the confusions as emanating less from Nietzsche’s texts and more from Stern’s reading of them. Ridley’s book is original and provocative, but I find the central claim – that Nietzsche endorses an expressive account of action – ultimately unconvincing.
33
Katsafanas, Paul. "Recent Work on Nietzsche’s Moral Psychology and Ethics." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (September 8, 2021): 361–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-500121.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Each of these books presents itself as rescuing Nietzsche from misinterpretation. Thus, Leiter wants to prevent Nietzsche from being “moralized” (i. e., read in a way that makes him sound like a contemporary moral philosopher); Stern wants to prevent Nietzsche from being iron-manned (i. e., read in a way that assumes his arguments must be invulnerable to critique); Alfano wants to correct what he sees as a tendency to misrepresent Nietzsche’s central concerns; and Ridley claims writers have been misled when thinking about Nietzsche on action. Alfano’s book is, to my mind, the most successful at achieving its stated aims; while I point out some potential oversights and some areas that could benefit from further development, Alfano’s book is both novel and important. Leiter’s book is clearly written and presents the arguments in an admirably forthright manner, but some of its conclusions are vitiated by lapses and mischaracterizations. Stern gets Nietzsche’s basic view right, but does not probe it very deeply and is too quick to present Nietzsche as confused; I see the confusions as emanating less from Nietzsche’s texts and more from Stern’s reading of them. Ridley’s book is original and provocative, but I find the central claim - that Nietzsche endorses an expressive account of action - ultimately unconvincing.
34
Rauh, Hans-Christoph. "Eugen Dühring: Ein handschriftliches „Nietzsche“-Stichwort von 1896." Nietzsche-Studien 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2018): 367–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2018-0016.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Eugen Dühring - A handwritten note on ‘Nietzsche’ from 1896. This paper contains the first publication of a yet unknown manuscript, which Eugen Dühring wrote in response to his reading of - in part falsified and decontextualized - passages about him in Koegel’s edition of Nietzsche’s late notes. Dühring’s note reveals blatant anti-Semitism and he vituperates Nietzsche as a ‘lawyer’ of Jews. The note is subsequently used in later publications of Dühring and his followers. The paper continues to reconstruct Dühring’s engagement with Nietzsche and discusses some aspects of Nietzsche’s reading of Dühring. Despite Dühring’s significance for Nietzsche’s philosophical development, initial similarities are outweighed by important differences.
35
Löwenstein, Manfred Posani. "Burckhardt’s Silence and Nietzsche." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (August 18, 2021): 25–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-0002.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The first part of this article questions the authenticity of one of the most quoted and allegedly reliable sources in the Burckhardt-Nietzsche debate. After having pointed out who was interested in manipulating this source and why, it will go back to the original issue of Burckhardt’s “silence.” This time, though, the question is going to be tackled from a different angle: not what Burckhardt thought about Nietzsche; rather, what did Nietzsche think about Burckhardt’s silence. The claims I will raise in this respect are two: 1) Nietzsche is the first interpreter of Burckhardt’s silence; 2) Burckhardt’s silence, far from being a mere private issue, became an elaborate theme of Nietzsche’s mature philosophy.
36
Posani Löwenstein, Manfred. "Burckhardt’s Silence and Nietzsche." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (September 8, 2021): 25–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-500104.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The first part of this article questions the authenticity of one of the most quoted and allegedly reliable sources in the Burckhardt-Nietzsche debate. After having pointed out who was interested in manipulating this source and why, it will go back to the original issue of Burckhardt’s “silence.” This time, though, the question is going to be tackled from a different angle: not what Burckhardt thought about Nietzsche; rather, what did Nietzsche think about Burckhardt’s silence. The claims I will raise in this respect are two: 1) Nietzsche is the first interpreter of Burckhardt’s silence; 2) Burckhardt’s silence, far from being a mere private issue, became an elaborate theme of Nietzsche’s mature philosophy.
37
Brusotti, Marco. "„Werde, der du bist!“. Selbsterkenntnis, Handeln und Selbstgestaltung bei Nietzsche in einem Ineditum von Georges Canguilhem." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (August 18, 2021): 181–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-0008.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In an unpublished text from the early postwar period, Georges Canguilhem deals with Nietzsche’s maxim “Become who you are!” Is this “apparently contradictory formula of a philosopher full of contradictions” really only seemingly inconsistent? Canguilhem regards it as a norm whose supposed metaphysical or objective content dissolves upon further analysis. So he here discerns a new instance of the same potential confusion he had already addressed in his classical essay on The Normal and the Pathological (1943). According to him, the formula “become who you are!” must not be misunderstood in a naturalistic sense, a tendency from which not even Nietzsche himself, Canguilhem thinks, was entirely free. Besides the French philosophy of his time, his philosophical inquiry into “Become who you are!” critically engages two classic German Nietzsche scholars, Ernst Bertram and Karl Jaspers, as well as the French interpreters of the latter’s philosophy of Existenz, Mikel Dufrenne and Paul Ricœur. Finally, the paper highlights Nietzsche’s specific importance for Canguilhem and the ambivalence in his privileged relationship to the German thinker.
38
Brusotti, Marco. "„Werde, der du bist!“. Selbsterkenntnis, Handeln und Selbstgestaltung bei Nietzsche in einem Ineditum von Georges Canguilhem." Nietzsche-Studien 50, no. 1 (September 8, 2021): 181–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2021-500110.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract In an unpublished text from the early postwar period, Georges Canguilhem deals with Nietzsche’s maxim “Become who you are!” Is this “apparently contradictory formula of a philosopher full of contradictions” really only seemingly inconsistent? Canguilhem regards it as a norm whose supposed metaphysical or objective content dissolves upon further analysis. So he here discerns a new instance of the same potential confusion he had already addressed in his classical essay on The Normal and the Pathological (1943). According to him, the formula “become who you are!” must not be misunderstood in a naturalistic sense, a tendency from which not even Nietzsche himself, Canguilhem thinks, was entirely free. Besides the French philosophy of his time, his philosophical inquiry into “Become who you are!” critically engages two classic German Nietzsche scholars, Ernst Bertram and Karl Jaspers, as well as the French interpreters of the latter’s philosophy of Existenz, Mikel Dufrenne and Paul Ricoeur. Finally, the paper highlights Nietzsche’s specific importance for Canguilhem and the ambivalence in his privileged relationship to the German thinker.
39
Ruin, Hans. "Was heißt: sich in Nietzsche orientieren? A Review of a Selection of Recent Literature." Nietzsche-Studien 47, no. 1 (November 1, 2018): 410–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2018-0019.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This review essay brings together five books on various aspects of Nietzsche’s thinking and writing from the last four years, from different cultural and political contexts, but also spanning a wide methodological range. The general question of how to orient ourselves in Nietzsche-scholarship is inspired by the title of Werner Stegmaier’s book which invites the reader to compare Nietzsche and Niklas Luhmann. It also invites us to contemplate the more general question of how to bring Nietzsche’s thinking into a dialogue with the human and social sciences. A central question concerns the temporality of Nietzsche’s thinking: is Nietzsche’s thinking a thing of the past that primarily necessitates a historical interpretation, or can it still open up ways toward the future. As this review highlights, many contemporary readers of Nietzsche continue to see themselves as working to “save” his texts from fateful misinterpretations. The last part of the review focuses on the new textual, or “poesiological” approach and the importance of seeing Nietzsche not primarily as someone professing a doctrine, but as the creator of uniquely multilayered texts.
40
Böhler, Arno. "Immanenz: Ein Leben … Friedrich Nietzsche." Performance Philosophy 3, no. 2 (December 21, 2017): 324. http://dx.doi.org/10.21476/pp.2017.32176.
Full textAbstract:
Im ersten Teil verhandelt der Text Nietzsches These, dass transzendente Interpretationen des Lebens in einer verborgenen Aggression lebendiger Organismen gegen das Leben als solches basieren. Nietzsche war vermutlich der Erste, der davon ausging, dass „metaphysische Annahmen“ in einem falschen Bild des Denkens gründen, das nicht zufällig, sondern konstitutiv den Blick auf unsere Instinkttätigkeiten verdrängt, die in den Souterrains unserer Leiblichkeit am Werk sind.Um zu begreifen, was für Nietzsche im Problem „Transzendenz versus Immanenz“ auf dem Spiel steht, muss man daher sein neues Konzept des Körpers untersuchen. Körper werden von ihm nicht mehr als massive, an sich seiende Dinge gedacht, sondern als weltweit exponierte Entitäten, die einer Vielheit von Kräften ausgesetzt sind. Einerseits den Kräften, die in den Souterrains der Leiblichkeit mehr oder weniger unbewusst am Werk sind, andererseits den Kräften, die Körper in ihrem In-der-Welt-sein von außen her weltweit affizieren.Im zweiten Teil wird das Forschungsfestival Philosophy On Stage#4. Nietzsche et cetera (Tanzquartier Wien 2015) als Beispiel eines kunst-basierten Philosophierens analysiert, das der Philosophie ihre Leiblichkeit, Materialität und Sinnlichkeit zurückgibt, indem es den Akt des Philosophierens auf der Bühne ausstellt und damit leiblich exponiert. Eine philosophische Denkungsart, die für Nietzsche in Opposition zum klassisch asketischen Bild des Denkens steht und daher einer neuen Gattung von Künstlerphilosoph_innen bedarf, die bereit und willens sind, mit Nietzsches Zarathustra zu fordern: „bleibt der Erde treu“.
41
Kuehne, Tobias. "Nietzsche and the rhetoric of dialectics." Journal of European Studies 48, no. 2 (April 16, 2018): 115–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047244118767814.
Full textAbstract:
Despite Nietzsche’s frequent disavowals of Hegelianism, scholars have repeatedly stressed Nietzsche’s affinities with Hegelian dialectics. Other scholars have responded by denying such affinities. Taking On the Genealogy of Morality as a case study and comparing it to the paradigmatically Hegelian A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right by Marx, this article argues that the question of whether or not Nietzsche is a dialectician unduly narrows the scope that Nietzsche envisioned for philosophy. For Nietzsche, a certain mode of philosophizing (dialectical or otherwise) becomes activated within a rhetorical matrix. Marx sees dialectics as the inexorable logic of history, but has to rely on the rhetorical persuasiveness of the chiasmus to make his claim plausible. Nietzsche, on the other hand, conceives of two incompatible logics: the nobles’ positive affirmation (non-dialectical) and the priests’ negative oppositionality (enabling dialectics). Instead of arguing for one logic over another, Nietzsche foregrounds their rhetoricity by performing the historically contingent invigoration and desiccation of each, leaving it to the reader to assimilate whichever mode of philosophizing they find most plausible.
42
Herrero, Montserrat. "Political Theologies Surrounding the Nietzschean “Death of God” Trope." Nietzsche-Studien 49, no. 1 (October 27, 2020): 125–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/nietzstu-2020-0006.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractApproaches 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.
43
Stegmaier, Werner, and João Paulo Simões Vilas Bôas. "[NO TITLE AVAILABLE]." Trans/Form/Ação 33, no. 2 (2010): 241–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0101-31732010000200014.
Full textAbstract:
The following translation is a reduced and revised version of the paper Schicksal Nietzsche? Zu Nietzsches Selbsteinschätzung als Schicksal der Philosophie und der Menschheit (Ecce Homo, Warum ich ein Schicksal bin §1)" - originally published in Nietzsche-Studien 37 (2008) - which was specially prepared to be presented in lecture organized by the Grupo de Pesquisa Spinoza & Nietzsche (Spinoza & Nietzsche research group - SpiN), in the Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (Rio de Janeiro's Federal University), on September 14, 2009. In the text, the autor employs his own philological-hermeneutical methodology, which is called contextual interpretation, in the purpose to clarify the concepts of the first aphorism from "Why I am a destiny", from Ecce Homo, in its own context, in the context of Ecce Homo and in the context of the entire work from Nietzsche.
44
Westfall, Joseph. "Foucault, Nietzsche, and the promise–threat of philology." Philosophy & Social Criticism 44, no. 1 (December 4, 2017): 24–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0191453717723958.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, I examine Foucault’s reading of Nietzsche—and Nietzsche’s influence on Foucault—in light of Foucault’s frequent treatment of Nietzsche as a certain kind of philologist. Running contrary to most contemporary readings of Nietzsche, which depict him as abandoning philology for philosophy relatively early on, I argue that Foucault understands Nietzsche’s distinctive philosophical style as indicative of a persistently philological approach to traditionally philosophical questions—and that this is a productive and valuable reading of Nietzsche, as well as a model for how we might start to think of Foucault, as well. Philology, for both thinkers, both promises and threatens the present with the future, calling for a simultaneously powerful and self-aware response on the part of the reader.
45
Kosorukova, A. A. "TECHNOLOGY ETHICS OF N. FEDOROV AS A successor OF NIETZSCHE’S IDEA OF SELF-OVERCOMING: THE UPBRINGING OF THE SUPERMAN AND THE SCIENCE." RUDN Journal of Philosophy 23, no. 3 (December 15, 2019): 363–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2019-23-3-363-372.
Full textAbstract:
The article is devoted to the consideration of the general principles of understanding of human development by N. F. Fedorov and F. Nietzsche. The article considers Fedorov’s philosophy of the common task to be a partial continuation of the general contours of Nietzsche's thought about the will to power. Nietzsche’s position is viewed through the prism of the concept of the will to power as a vital force overcoming the nihilistic devaluation of values (the ethics of vitalism). The concept of Fedorov is considered, first of all, from the point of view of his understanding of human self-improvement as the elevation of the power of human will over the blind natural elements. In this context, the question of the legitimacy of understanding Fedorov as an advocate of scientific and technological progress is considered. In the article, along with the parallels between Nietzsche and Fedorov, another idea of kinship of their philosophical optics through the understanding of philosophy as ethics is also carried out.
46
Wells, Kristen. "Nietzsche’s Society." Stance: an international undergraduate philosophy journal 6, no. 1 (September 17, 2013): 53–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.33043/s.6.1.53-62.
Full textAbstract:
This essay asserts that Nietzsche proposes an important role for society within his ethics, and that this societal aspect has been greatly overlooked by Nietzsche scholars. By identifying a soul-state analogy and resemblance to virtue ethics, this essay contends that Nietzsche intends for societies and individuals to be seen as complementary parts of the will to power. Like Aristotle, Nietzsche prescribes an ideal society essential to greatness. By recognizing the importance of the role of society in Nietzsche’s philosophy, Nietzsche scholarship is better positioned to consider new applications of his philosophical principles with his goals in mind.
47
Solomon, Robert C. "Nietzsche and Nehamas’s Nietzsche." International Studies in Philosophy 21, no. 2 (1989): 55–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/intstudphil198921268.
Full text
48
Jörg, Kilian. "Nietzsche and Ecological Reason(s) in the Anthropocene." Trumpeter 35, no. 1 (April 3, 2020): 22–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1068482ar.
Full textAbstract:
Ecosophical discourses around the ecological condition that is sometimes referred to as the “Anthropocene” require a fundamental rethinking of key concepts of occidental philosophy, including reason. Nietzsche’s body of work offers manifold tools for the rethinking of reason, and this paper seeks to apply them to achieve a “new ecological image of thought.” It will demonstrate 1) how there is a clear ecological awareness motivating Nietzsche’s affirmative critique of reason, 2) how one can find rudiments of a pluralization of the concept of reason in Nietzsche's body of work, as well as 3) traces of a new, qualitatively different form of ecological reason for the time called the Anthropocene – with all its problems and possibilities. In doing so, this paper will demonstrate how Nietzsche can be very productively applied to contemporary eco-philosophical discussions.
49
KELAM, IVICA, and LUKA RAŠIĆ. "THE INFLUENCE OF SCHOPENHAUER’S AND NIETZSCHE’S PHILOSOPHICAL THOUGHTS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION AND EDUCATIONAL PESSIMISM." Arhe 27, no. 33 (December 5, 2020): 243–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.19090/arhe.2020.33.243-265.
Full textAbstract:
This paper gives a particular overview of reflections on education by two renowned philosophers of West European culture, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche. What links their philosophy of education is the inclination towards the more complete shaping of a man. Nietzsche is a great supporter of Schopenhauer's understanding of philosophy as a philosophy of life. However, while Schopenhauer remained imprisoned in the world of pessimism, Nietzsche overcame the pessimistic view of the world with the image of a creative artist who consistently sets his life in motion, while enjoying his art of living. The thing they have in common is extreme individualism – the understanding of philosophy as the liberation of inner life. Arthur Schopenhauer perceived a man as a being of will that succumbs to laws of nature and the lower levels of humanity – will and passion. Friedrich Nietzsche saw a man as a being of will for power, emphasizing the power of the urgent and irrational one. Schopenhauer gave the pessimistic view of a man who is under the power of an unquenchable lust for life, whereas Nietzsche gave a nihilistic view of the world, in which he advocated demolishing and putting an end to the old values. In Nietzsche's opinion, a nihilist is someone who sees everything as pointless and futile. Arthur Schopenhauer had a significant influence, not only on Friedrich Nietzsche but also on some other great men of his time, who mostly did not support his philosophy in its entirety. Understanding the world in Schopenhauer's way came to life at the end of the 19th century and later, primarily because of Friedrich Nietzsche. This was an era in which social sciences finally began to develop separately, but at the same time complement each other. Due to this interaction, it was possible for Schopenhauer, and through him also for Nietzsche, to have such a significant influence on the European spiritual life.
50
Dobrijevic, Aleksandar. "In praise of autodidactics: Nietzsche as theoretician of rigorous self-education." Theoria, Beograd 52, no. 2 (2009): 115–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/theo0902115d.
Full textAbstract:
Nietzsche's philosophy of education is permeated with panegyrical notes in praise of autodidactic. However, interpreters of his opus were mostly neglected the importance that Nietzsche devoted to the conception of self-education. In the article the author propose the reading of Nietzsche that indicate that autodidactic stays in foreground of his theoretical concerns.