Beyond Good and Evil

"He who has really gazed… down into the most world-denying of all possible modes of thought – beyond good and evil… may have had his eyes opened to the opposite ideal: to the ideal of the most exuberant, most living and most world-affirming man…" (pg. 82)

Philosophy is a discipline that tends to deliver thoughts on the most profound and remarkable questions of human existence with no more energy, flair or brevity than you would find in the U.S. Tax Code. The exception to this unfortunate rule is Friedrich Nietzsche. A genius thinker, a tortured soul, a passionate artist and – perhaps speaking uncharitably – an unhinged ranter, his books are that rarest of all things: a philosophical discussion that does not bore or weary the show more reader, but instead electrifies him.

This is not to say that Beyond Good and Evil is easy to read, only that it rewards those who accept the challenge. I much preferred Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche's artistic masterpiece which delivers his concepts with the lyricism and epic creativity of a Milton or Dante, but Beyond Good and Evil is a good companion piece, discussing his ideas in a more straightforward way – or at least as straight as Nietzsche's crooked wand will allow.

I won't discuss Nietzsche's specific ideas here; the only true way to imbibe them is through Nietzsche's own chaotic brew, and the abstractions and analyses of his commentators too often deny them their stimulating flavour. Nor, with respect to the author, do the specific ideas matter too much: what is compelling about them and about Nietzsche is the sense of depth and abyss, of epic power, of true art and galvanised chaos which reading them conveys. Nietzsche is a bracing air in a discipline plagued by stuffiness, and while his 'overman' concept seems almost quixotic more than a century later, in our world of influencers and company men, he deserves to be read by the regular, aspiring men of tomorrow and the overmorrow. show less

Over the past two days, I read Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. I didn't know what to expect and online reviews of the book were mixed and often lacking content. Hopefully, my amateur reading of this book and accompanying review will do it service.

First, I found Nietzsche very appealing–even if his ideas didn't always mesh well with mine. His directly anti-exceptionalist approach agreed with what I believe to be wrong with much of our discourse (in politics, philosophy, etc.). Additionally, his sarcastic, blunt, and provocative style is useful and aids his attempt to discredit existing trends of thought. However, using this tactic also limits his eventual ability to create the "new generation's" show more philosophy that he describes. When does the sarcasm end and non-cynical pontificating begin?

Nonetheless, the book is worthwhile in the same sense that Dylan's music and Kerouac's writing are. Reading Nietzsche for the first time was like reading Kerouac or listening to Dylan for the first time. It added to my understanding about human thought and revealed some of the underlying assumptions that permeate Western existence. Doors have been opened for me by Nietzsche. show less

This is one I'll probably need to revisit in a decade or so, to fully understand what Freddy is getting at.
What I can say is that Nietzsche is easily the most readable of all philosophers - you may not really grok what he's saying, but oh my, the way he says it! Just let the ideas wash about you like ocean water at the beach and take from it what you can.

Interesting to discover that now, when I've finally read his own words (translated by Kaufmann), it turns out most of the popular opinion or understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy is almost exactly opposite to what the man actually believed. A pro-semite, anti-authoritarian voice, a believer in art and the power of man to create his own meaning in the world without relying on the will show more of others, a virulent anti-nihilist. Yeah, I think I need to give it a few years to simmer and go through this one again. show less

Mostly read this as an sort of counter argument against Brothers Karamazov which I finished just before starting this. Nietzsche is someone I’ve sort of danced around my whole intellectual life - I started and stopped Zarathustra a few times in my late teens, and at some point got around to Birth of Tragedy which had a big impact on me. I find his ideas most cogent when considered as abstractions. I think his writing about art and artists is usually spot on and can be pretty inspiring. I can’t go there with him when it comes to his views on society and politics. Most of Nietzsche’s defenders seem to harp on the fact that he is often speaking metaphorically, symbolically, rhetorically. I think they are often right. But this being show more so doesn’t mean that these rhetorical choices sound regressive to the modern reader, and there are many moments where it does seem that he literally means what he has written. Perhaps Nietzsche would consider me a degenerated modern underling, devoid of nobility, but I can’t square his denunciations of equity and cultural mixing. I also find it strange that for a book about breaking down the dichotomies of morality is written in such a militant tone - he’s doesn’t seem to be much of a relativist.

Interesting that this year I accidentally read three of the most important philosophers of the 19th century, Marx, Dostoyevsky, and now Nietzsche. Certainly lots to learn from all of them, but I find Dostoyevsky to have the most to say about the breadth of human experience as it is lived today. His pragmatic attitude and down to earth realism when it comes to considering human nature is so prescient when you see what the work of the two others helped to inspire in the following century.

All in all, I find Nietzsche and his thought most useful when going to battle with myself. He sets himself up to antagonize the reader by transgressing boundaries that we seldom consider, much less cross over, in western society. Yet his views on how people can and should interact with one another seem simplistic in a modern world where interdependence is no longer a choice but a sociological imperative. To be an “individual” has a much different definition than it did in 1880, and so who could expect the ideas contained herein not to taste a little off to the modern palate? Yet the most “dangerous” idea contained in this book to my mind is that any edge lord can find his vindication in Nietzsche, claiming that they are stepping beyond the bounds of conventional, “slave” morality by abusing, oppressing, or mindlessly hoarding. show less

(Disclaimer: I'm definitely not qualified to write this review.)

When I started secondary school, in our first history classes, every so often it would be mentioned that such and such a historical figure was racist, or sexist, or what have you. For a bunch of 12 year old girls, this was pretty shocking, and I remember my teacher having to silence us and remind us: "it's not fair to judge someone by the standards of our time".

I think there's a lot of sense in that idea, and this is what I tried to do with 'Beyond Good and Evil', but unfortunately, I found it impossible simply because Nietzsche's philosophy is deeply entrenched in 19th century European society -- remove that context and what he's saying won't make sense. And so, because a show more lot of his philosophy is deeply rooted in social hierarchy, misogyny and nationalism (even though I wouldn't say Nietzsche is hugely nationalistic himself by 19th century standards), 'Beyond Good and Evil' can be tasteless to someone with more contemporary values.

I don't doubt that Nietzsche was a genius, however. His deconstruction of Western philosophy is very impressive and he makes many valid criticisms of the likes of Descartes and Kant. I also can see that his work is incredibly influential, and (though I'm not well versed in philosophy) I gather that it's Nietzsche's influence that led to the more post-moral slant of modern philosophy.

Nietzsche brings forward a lot of excellent ideas, and is admirable in not shying away from controversy. He takes a more cynical view of human nature than (probably) was typical until that point, and this is seen in ideas such as the will to power and the notions of master and slave morality. However much or little we agree with these notions, they're daringly subversive, and I think that they've made their mark on contemporary thinking, on an everyday level as much as on a philosophical one.

Master and slave morality is itself one of the ideas that seems particularly tasteless to us, in spite of it having penetrated people's thinking -- we (hopefully!) don't see the world in terms of masters and slaves, or leaders and followers, or higher and lower anymore, at least not in the same way that Europe did in the 19th century. It's very unappealing to us to see the world in terms of noble versus downtrodden and victimised. At the same time, though, some of the ideas of master morality -- self-respect, self-righteousness, etc -- are widely accepted these days as positive ways of living.

I don't want to go on for too much longer, but I'll finish by saying that Nietzsche was a highly intelligent philosopher, and an astute observer of the world around him. I may be slightly unfair in criticising the tastelessness of his views, but I do think that his philosophy is inextricably linked with the attitudes of 19th century Europe. I did enjoy it on the whole, though, and in spite of the three-and-a-half stars, I think 'Beyond Good and Evil' is definitely a book worth reading and forming an opinion on!

And I'm sorry for this mess of a review. show less

The master of all the books!

Freud described Nietzsche as the only man who knew his mind. Although both were quite mad there is no doubt about the veracity of the statement and this book just proves it. Written by an old, less passionate Nietzsche it dissects the human understanding and life with incredible precision. Mostly assorted in metaphysical aphorisms, it’s a summary of his pitiless quasi-objective observations. The question simply is.. Are you up to it..?
Daring in attack and assertive in defense this book’s only misgiving lies in the demand to be acquainted with the ideology of his earlier works. Although that makes it a lot skewed it’s nevertheless a charming read.
The following excerpts must define what laconism is.

From show more apophthegms and interludes:
*The belly is the reason why man does not so readily take himself for a god.
* Dreadful experiences raise the question whether he who also experiences them is not something dreadful also.
*A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men.-yes, and then to get round them.(Hegel in one line)
*We are most dishonourable towards our god he is not permitted to sin.
From what is noble:
Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood .The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but the former wounds his heart, his sympathy, which always says: Ah why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have?

As I type this, I’m filled with memories where friends at college debated these passages all through night. For the treasure of insight it beholds it’s definitely worth it, that, if you look- beyond the Nazi interpretation and a few later passages on feminism with comical indignation. If you have lived your prides, prejudices, convictions, defeats, victories, sit and read Beyond good and evil in one piece. show less

With a philosopher nothing at all is impersonal.

As an armchair Platonist, I had a personal aversion to Nietzsche, whose whole purpose in life seemed to be to overthrow Platonism. After reading "Beyond Good and Evil", however, my attitude changed from aversion to pity, that is, pity in the Nietzschean sense.

To illustrate what I think of Nietzsche and his relation to Plato, let me introduce a Chinese fictional/mythical character, Sun Wukong (孙悟空), also known as the Monkey King. The Monkey King challenged the authority of the gods, stormed their dwelling, The Heavenly Palace, and proclaimed himself an equal of the gods. They appealed to the Buddha for help, after repeatedly failing to subdue the Monkey King. The Buddha made a wager show more with the Monkey King, who could travel 108,000 miles with one somersault, that the latter could not jump out of the former's palm. In order to prove his power, the Monkey King traveled as far as he could, and reached what he thought were the Five Pillars of Heaven. When he returned to confront the Buddha, he learned, to his chagrin, that those pillars were actually the Buddha's fingers. He lost and was imprisoned by the Buddha under a mountain for 500 years.

An attentive reader would have no difficulty guessing at my meaning: Nietzsche was the Monkey King, Plato the Buddha.

Firstly, Plato derived the notion of an eternal cyclic nature of the universe long before Nietzsche stumbled upon it and gave it a different name, "eternal recurrence". Apparently, like the Monkey King, Nietzsche was not immune to self-deception and illusions of grandeur, when he claimed that his philosophy was new and free of metaphysical presumptions.

Secondly, there is nothing new to the idea of "order of rank" either. Plato made a division of classes in his Republic. Nietzsche seems to share Plato's contempt for democracy, which is based on the assumption of equality among man. Both would assert that some men are fit to rule and others to be ruled.

Thirdly, Christianity has long inculcated the notion that suffering is necessary for the character development of human beings. Nietzsche borrowed the idea again, without acknowledging the source.

Fourthly, Nietzsche's philosophy is not grounded in biological facts, but rather, it is another subjective interpretation with assumptions and leaps. To use his own simile, the text may have disappeared under the interpretation, but it is still there, and each interpretation shall be evaluated according to its relation to the original. The philosopher can no more place himself above the standard of good and evil, than a translator can place himself above the original.

Fifthly, the ancient Greek philosophers believed that the ultimate purpose of philosophy is the attainment of the Good and the True. Nietzsche rejected the notion as utilitarian and ignoble. What noble value did he create by will to power that would set him above those philosophers he satirized? None. show less