As with Thus Spake Zarathustra, I find this book surprisingly difficult to review and sum up my thoughts on the writing. Beyond Good and Evil contains an expansion of Neitzsche's ideal of an Übermensch, explained this time through hard writing and straight explanations, rather than analogies and illustrations as it first appeared in his prior writing.

Nietzsche sets his aim at the common morality of the world around him, the "slave morality" that seeks not to empower or improve humanity, but to hold it captive and stagnant. As man, Nietzsche believes it is our quest to become greater than our society conditions us, to what end this will make us, even he does not say, only that we must try to move forward even if that leads to a fiery downfall. "In man creature and creator are united" ((94)) and as such, we are uniquely in a position to create our world, our morality and our selves.

This book seeks not so much to illustrate a path toward this Übermensch ideal, but to tear down and expose all the structures and weaknesses that have been holding people down from this pinnacle. As this is far more detailed and serious in its writing, I recommend people interested first read Thus Spake Zarathurstra, but from there move onto Beyond Good and Evil. ( )

For me, one of the great essential books. ( )

E-books IV

Classic- Must read ( )

Some of my colleagues are infatuated with Nietzsche, and judging by this book it’s easy to understand why. In places it sounds considerably poststructural (I work in a literature department). It’s about complexity (“our body is, after all, only a society constructed out of many souls”, section 19), determinism and power-relations. Nietzsche considers language a constituating force (20), tightly linked to experience (268). He undertakes a typology of value systems (186), meaning to expose and to undermine them. He subordinates truth to interest and he questions the reality of oppositions: “we can doubt whether opposites even exist” (2).

This was funny and familiar. But gradually I grew irritated, because of what seemed a continuous promotion of arrogance and rudenes. Please stop bullying supposedly “ill” and “degenerated” people, i thought. To make matters worse, he debunked Madame de Stael (233). I’m a fan of hers.

But then my opinion swung again. He deals with the downsides of intellectual distance (chapter 6) in an intriguing way. In chapter 8 he makes broad sweeping statements about european culture, that are, if not really convincing, still interesting. Then, in the concluding chapter, he zooms in on his favorite subject, the “noble” person. Surprisingly this figure now loses its arrogant looks and adopts an almost tragic countenance, prone to self-destruction and loneliness (269-284). The writing here is very serious and passionate, and results in an embrace of Dionysos, “that great ambiguity and tempter god” (295). ( )