Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
HOW NIETZSCHE DID IT!
…
6 pages
1 file
Solution for Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and a few other things
2011
An interpretation of the First Part of Zarathustra in relation to Nietzsche's reversal of Platonism.
The Routledge Guidebook to Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
This is the first chapter of a forthcoming book on Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Critical Guide, 2022
This is the excerpted Introduction that is posted on the CUP website page, unfortunately it is missing the last four pages in which the remaining essays are summarized.
Journal of Nietzsche Studies, 2024
Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Z), written in instalments between 1883 and 1885, has had a tremendous impact within and outside of academic philosophy. A text that famously was distributed to German soldiers in World War I by military order, Z has been discussed and praised among philosophers, literary theorists, and artists. Nietzsche himself considered the book to be his crowning achievement, not-so-modestly describing it as "the greatest present that has ever been made to [mankind] so far" (EH P:4). Nevertheless, contemporary Nietzsche scholars disagree about the text's philosophical and aesthetic quality, and about its overall importance in Nietzsche's corpus. On one end of the spectrum, some commentators find Z overblown, laborious to get through, and beyond these perceived aesthetic flaws, lacking in philosophical quality and (perhaps thankfully) inessential to understanding Nietzsche's philosophical aims. In an introduction to a relatively recent edition, for example, Robert Pippin describes Z as "in large part a failure" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006], xiii). On the other end of the spectrum, some commentators take Nietzsche at his word, finding Z to be a literary wonder, marking a new epoch of the use of German language, preceded in the modern period only by Goethe and Luther. But further, and more relevant for philosophers, this faction take Z to be of the upmost importance for unlocking Nietzsche's philosophy proper, and in particular, to reveal the solutions he constructed
We can comprehend only the world that we ourselves have made" (WP 495).
2015
reasons and took a premature retirement in 1879, living the rest of his life on a meager pension. Nietzsche's philosophical publications date from the early The Birth of Tragedy (1872), a work without footnotes that brought censure from colleagues and poor reviews as unscholarly. The final work was the posthumously edited Nachlass fragments published as The Will to Power (1906), perhaps Nietzsche's best known work. Nietzsche's personal life was unhappy and stormy, marked by an early friendship with, but later passionate 3 denunciation, of the composer Richard Wagner. And his productive career was cut short in 1889 with the onset of insanity. Nietzsche lived out his final eleven years cared for by a sister, who is now blamed for encouraging a misinterpretation of Nietzsche as an anti-semite and fascist. In seventeen years in and outside the academy, Nietzsche wrote and published several major philosophical works, and left hundreds of pages of notes and lectures unpublished. This prodigious labor has secured a place for Nietzsche as one of the preeminent intellectual figures of the modern age, influential in areas outside philosophy as w e l l. Nietzsche is often discussed as part of what threatens to become a cliche of historical alliance, along with Karl 3. The Case of Wagner, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage Books, 1967). 7. Werner Jaeger, Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture, Vol. I., trans. Gilbert Highet, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945). 6 Q the existence of both the individual and the community.1 1 Thus, paideia was a public duty, part of the intellectual life of the community, since educating the minds of the young was a means toward attaining the goal of the perfect happiness (eudaimonia) that is the well ordered mind and society. While educators in antiquity were united in their desire to produce a better society by educating the best minds in it, there was sharp disagreement on the content and best methods for achieving this aim. These differences are symbolized by the conflict between the emerging disciplines of philosophy and rhetoric as rivals, and as distinct approaches to unifying wisdom and eloquence. The rivalry between philosophy and rhetoric is personified in antiquity as the competition between the schools of Plato and Isocrates to each attract and then influence the best young minds of the culture. And their differences are summarized by the emphasis each places on rhetoric as central to the cultural ideal of educating and perfecting an ideal human character (ethos). The philosopher places the emphasis on speculative definitions of moral and epistemic questions, and abstracts from the opinions of the demos to initiate philosophy as a kind of specialized knowing. The rhetorician by contrast attempts 8. Jaeger, vol 1. p. xvii. 7 to mold human character within the concrete historical situation by emphasizing rhetoric as essential to practical political action. Thus, this rivalry engenders a pedagogic distinction that sets the agenda for the rest of history, and it sets the tone as one of acrimonious debate over rival methods aimed at achieving paideia. Richard McKeon writes about this conflict as the origin of the form/content distinction in Socrates: Socrates, who was versed in knowledge and expression, put such emphasis on content that his teaching had the effect of limiting "philosophy" to knowledge of subject matters and of making a false separation of the art of thinking from the art of speaking. The separation of wisdom and eloquence, thinking and speaking, was cultivated by Socrates while their essential unity was advocated by the Sophists, and practiced by the philosopher-statesmen like Cicero and Quintilian. Plato and Aristotle continue in this Socratic tradition of separating form and content, wisdom and eloquence, in their reliance on distinctions between the logos of philosophy, and the arts of rhetoric and poetic. This division in the arts of language and reason and the consequences that follow from it for rhetoric, are sketched by Walter R. Fisher in a 9. Richard McKeon, "The Methods of Rhetoric and Philosophy: Invention and Judgment," in The Classical Traditions, ed. Luitpold Wallach (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1966), p. 366. 8 recent genealogy of the concept of logos through history.10 Fisher sees this rivalry as an "historical hegemonic struggle" for possession of the logos of reason, that results in a division between conflicting narrative paradigms of mvthos and logos. Fisher writes: At issue in the story of logos and mvthos is which form of discourse-philosophy (technical), rhetoric, or poetic-ensures the discovery and validation of truth, knowledge, and reality, and thereby deserves to be the legislator of human decision-making and action. Plato's interest in articulating an abstract philosophical science of reason correlated to the ideal Forms (eidos) of things, relegated rhetoric as probable knowledge to the realm of daily affairs. Philosophy for Plato becomes the technical practice of "experts" in knowledge versed in issues of truth and with access to the reality of the Ideas. The result is that rhetoric and poetic are viewed as less valuable, less serious and certain, and made subject to the watchful eye of the tyrant of reason, the philosopher-king. Aristotle, in tacitly accepting Plato's hierarchy of knowledge, further reinforces the separation of wisdom and 10. Walter R. Fisher, "The Narrative Paradigm: In the Beginning...," Journal of Communication (forthcoming), pp. 1-25. 11. Fisher, p. 3. 9 eloquence by bringing rhetoric back into a systematic philosophy as the counterpart of dialectic. Rhetoric redeems itself only as the handmaiden to the science of apodictic demonstration modeled after the certain proofs of geometry. The Romans reunited the ideal of paideia as wisdom and eloquence in theory and practice. Cicero argues in De Oratore against this artificial separation between thinking and speaking, an "undoubtedly absurd and unprofitable and reprehensible severance between the tongue and the brain." 12 (3.16.60-61) For Cicero viewing rhetoric and philosophy as inseparable counterparts is the goal of fulfilling paideia. and thus creating a better society through wise and prudent action. "Eloquence without knowledge is hollow and empty; but knowledge without eloquence is mute and 13 powerless, incapable of effect in men's lives." Quintilian, that great systematizer of the Roman views of rhetoric, reaffirms this unity of wisdom and eloquence as essential to the rhetorical ideal of the good man speaking well. The rise of the new rational science of philosophy beginning with Bacon, experimental science with Galileo, 12. Cicero, De Oratore. trans. H. Rackham, (Cambridge; Harvard University Press, 1942), p. 49. 13. Michael Mooney, Vico in the Tradition of Rhetoric
2015
Uncorrected proof: “Friedrich Nietzsche.” In: Niall Keane and Chris Lawn, eds., Blackwell Companion to Hermeneutics (Oxford: Wiley, 2015), pp. 366-377. Print copy available for order as part of the companion as a whole: http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1118529634.html
Thus Spoke Zarathustra: the thought of overman and others
e-Spania Revue interdisciplinaire d’études hispaniques médiévales et modernes, 47, 2024
The Lab's Quarterly, 2020
Journal of Advances …, 2011
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 2017
REQUISITOS DE INFRAESTRUTURA DE SOLO PARA A IMPLANTAÇÃO DE SERVIÇOS DE MOBILIDADE AÉREA URBANA COM EVTOLS, 2024
Neurology Genetics, 2019
Clinical Psychological Science, 2017
Journal of The Sedimentological Society of Japan, 1994