Reading Nietzsche is like breathing in cold mountain air. Some people can handle the cold, others can't. He's not for everyone, as he makes it intentionally clear.
He was a stark individualist that put into question a lot of the building blocks of liberal democracy, such as the notion that all men are equal. I don't agree with all of what he puts forth but he is without a doubt one of the most dynamic and influential thinkers of the 19th century and still relevant to read even today.
If you're interested in reading him, start with Twilight of the Idols and Beyond Good and Evil. If you like those two then you can delve into some of his other work such as the Antichrist, On the Geneaology of Morals, Human, All Too Human, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Nietzsche is by no means an individualist. He had no interest in any current of thought talking of "individualism". Moreover, while he was no doubt interested in certain individuals, he made it clear that the individuals he was interested were the product of entire cultures - the most refined possible people.
Nietzsche also essentially produced a position that was impossible to realize. Indeed, no one can practically agree with Nietzsche on everything. He wanted an elite but wanted that elite to be aesthetic and removed from ugly character of politics as usual. He hated antisemites and militarists yet these were the most common type to take up his name.
Still, I'd certainly agree Nietzsche is interesting and worth reading.
Edit: Also important is the way Nietzsche refuted the certainties of philosophy yet did not consider himself a philosopher. He called himself a "psychologist" early on and his discussion of philosophy was often "what character would cause a person to believe such a thing".
Yes sorry when I say individualist, I didn't mean in the philosophical sense but more referring to a person who is independent and self-reliant (something that he advocates others become as well with the whole self-overcoming)
Nietzsche formed his ideas independently. "Self-reliant" is relative - he spent most of his life disabled, living on a pension in Italy.
Moreover, I don't think Nietzsche advocated that everyone think independently. Following the "order of rank" logic, he might advocate that those of a higher order think for themselves (but even he's concerned with what is healthy for the individual, not what opens the person's mind the most). He'd not want free thinking for those of a lower order of rank (something that indeed doesn't paint ole Fred in the best light).
Nietzsche was extremely interested in the entire cannon of Western philosophy. He analysis of Socrates as a "decadent type" is crucial to his positions. All of Nietzsche's work was a debate around the ongoing questions of the philosophy, art, religion and so-forth of both Western and world civilizations (he was interested Buddhism for example - calling decadent but still appreciating it more than Christianity).
But the tendencies calling themselves "individualist" like Stirner, say, evoked only contempt in him (and basically little mention).
I mean that he was an individualist as a person, not that he had some individualism theory. Actually he said that he hadn't a methodology. He considered methods a lack of honesty (or something like that). Calling himself a psycologist instead of philosopher is part of that.
I don't think he had any preference for political systems, except, like you said, as a way to create interesting individuals.
Nietzsche was (arguably) a strong individual who formulated his positions without being beholden to any previous approach but he certainly form in his positions in the context of previous approaches (and had contempt for those who claimed to create ideas out of thin air - see his comments on British Empiricists).
Indeed, Nietzsche didn't even "believe in thinking for yourself" in the sense that he didn't think that random people should necessarily be encourage to do so.
While I, as I've said, I think no one can really embrace all of Nietzsche, I'm fond enough of some of him to want to point out how he denounced all those types that would love to evoke his name - the precursors of the NAZIs, anarchists and all philosophies glorifying "the individual" and so-forth. Not the Nietzsche would have embrace my own ideas but then again, I don't carry his "banner".
and had contempt for those who claimed to create ideas out of thin air - see his comments on British Empiricists
Do you remember where those comments are? Never heard of them.
While I, as I've said, I think no one can really embrace all of Nietzsche
Indeed. He seems more of a critic than a creator, still he had many original ideas, maybe because he didn't feel the need to create a coherent system, that would have forced him to discard some.
he denounced all those types that would love to evoke his name - the precursors of the NAZIs, anarchists and all philosophies glorifying "the individual" and so-forth
Were they sincerely individualists? First image that comes to mind when mentioning nazis is a bunch of uniformed people marching in perfect formation.
Regarding Nietzsche and the Empiricists, Reddit refreshed my memory of readings from times past:
"They are no philosophical race, these Englishmen: Bacon signifies an attack on the philosophical spirit; Hobbes, Hume, and Locke a debasement and lowering of the value of the concept of “philosophy” for more than a century. It was against Hume that Kant arose, and rose; it was Locke of whom Schelling said, understandably, “je méprise Locke” [I despise Locke]; in their fight against the English-mechanistic doltification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer were of one mind (with Goethe)—these two hostile brother geniuses in philosophy who strove apart toward opposite poles of the German spirit and in the process wronged each other as only brothers wrong each other."
He argues against empiricism in the genealogy of morals, beyond good and evil, and some of what he wrote on history.
He does so because they fail to understand that language is something historical that is fought over and changes over time. Thus his aphorism that 'only that which has no history can be defined.'
'Psychologist' would be correct. There's a revisionist debate as to whether Nietzsche was a naturalist, i.e. whether he thought that the only valid knowledge was knowledge conforming to (weaker) or corroborated by (stronger) the natural scientific method. Many of Nietzsche's arguments are psychological in character, e.g. the role of resentment and guilt in the genealogy of morals. Others think that this is either overstated, or tracks only one (early) period of Nietzsche's writings.
No, psychologist. In that we cared for the internal psychological motives to explain people's actions (e.g. guilt, envy, etc), as opposed to some general idealistic principles.
>Can you provide a source to where he references himself as a psychologist?
I can and I will, but why is a source needed?
This is a pretty well studied aspect of Nietzsche (lots of books, papers, critique of later philosophers on the matter etc), and it's evidently true even in parts of his works where he doesn't openly talk about psychology (ie. you don't need to openly name a thing to practice it).
If people have read Nietzsche, they would have witnessed his affinity for psychological examination of philosophy, morality etc. If they haven't, I don't see why would they need a pointer to such a source. What use would that be if they have not read the rest of Nietzsche?
I'm saying this because to me the request sounds like either "I know Nietzsche and don't believe you, where's the proof?", or "I couldn't be bothered to read Nietzsche, but don't believe you anyway, where's the proof", both of which I find problematic (the first because I don't believe someone can read Nietzsche and miss this aspect, and the second because it's a little lazy and insulting).
For me such a request would make sense if it was for a controversial and not well known aspect of someone's philosophy. E.g. "Where does Marx say socialism is possible in a non-industrialized country". But not something well known, like "Where does Marx say he is in favor of workers over capitalists?". If someone doesn't know the latter already, then a reference seems moot. They can just read a 101 on the subject.
In any case, here are some references from "Beyond Good and Evil" and "Ecce Homo":
"Never yet did a PROFOUNDER world of insight reveal itself to daring travelers and adventurers, and the psychologist who thus "makes a sacrifice"—it is not the sacrifizio dell' intelletto, on the contrary!—will at least be entitled to demand in return that psychology shall once more be recognized as the queen of the sciences, for whose service and equipment the other sciences exist. For psychology is once more the path to the fundamental problems".
"In that the NEW psychologist is about to put an end to the superstitions which have hitherto flourished with almost tropical luxuriance around the idea of the soul, he is really, as it were, thrusting himself into a new desert and a new distrust"
"Wherever sympathy (fellow-suffering) is preached nowadays—and, if I gather rightly, no other religion is any longer preached—let the psychologist have his ears open through all the vanity, through all the noise which is natural to these preachers (as to all preachers), he will hear a hoarse, groaning, genuine note of SELF-CONTEMPT."
And in case in these it's not clear that he speaks of what he does and himself, because he frequently does so in the third person, even though the overal book and context makes it evident, here are some more:
"What man, before my time, had descended into the underground caverns from out of which the poisonous fumes of this ideal—of this slandering of the world—burst forth? What man had even dared to suppose that they were underground caverns? Was a single one of the philosophers who preceded me a psychologist at all, and not the very reverse of a psychologist—that is to say, a "superior swindler," an "Idealist"? Before my time there was no psychology. To be the first in this new realm may amount to a curse; at all events, it is a fatality: for one is also the first to despise".
Or how about a boast of being the biggest psychologist:
"The fact that the voice which speaks in my works is that of a psychologist who has not his peer, is perhaps the first conclusion at which a good reader will arrive".
>If you're interested in reading him, start with Twilight of the Idols and Beyond Good and Evil. If you like those two then you can delve into some of his other work such as the Antichrist, On the Geneaology of Morals, Human, All Too Human, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra
What edition should I read? So I stayed true to the early thinkers that interpreted him (to not be fooled by thinkers like Steven Pinker who trash him).
Off topic: for a moment I considered learning German just to really understand this man.
I think Nietzsche is one of the writers where it really makes sense to read the German original side by side with your translation. He's a master with words, which you can appreciate a lot more if you understand his play with words. It's like watching the dubbed German version of a Netflix series, if you saw the original you cannot go back anymore.
The original source is always best. That said, I've read Hollingdale's translations since I don't know German. Amazon has a wide selection of translations so I'd start there to see which is the highest rated one.
> I don't agree with all of what he puts forth but he is without a doubt one of the most dynamic and influential thinkers of the 19th century and still relevant to read even today.
Considering a philosophical model a logically interconnected and consistent system of assumptions, rejecting some of the assumptions/propositions can be an indication that the entire model is to be rejected even if other assumptions seem acceptable.
A philosophical model is not necessarily "a logically interconnected and consistent system of assumptions".
Even math couldn't be that, despite the efforts of Hilbert, Russel, and co.
In the case of Nietzsche in particular, he scoffs at philosophers pretending theirs to be one.
He offers observations, and individual ones, jumping from one to another, and doesn't pretend to offer a model.
But even for those philosophers that do think their work is a "logically interconnected and consistent system", you can still have perfectly good (or, perfectly useful) parts of their overall system, while others might be wrong.
He doesn't propose a philosophical model. He's more of a destroyer than a system builder, and explores a wide range of ideas (My favorite being eternal recurrence, beyond good/evil, overcoming oneself and creating meaning in a world where God is dead)
He was a stark individualist that put into question a lot of the building blocks of liberal democracy, such as the notion that all men are equal. I don't agree with all of what he puts forth but he is without a doubt one of the most dynamic and influential thinkers of the 19th century and still relevant to read even today.
If you're interested in reading him, start with Twilight of the Idols and Beyond Good and Evil. If you like those two then you can delve into some of his other work such as the Antichrist, On the Geneaology of Morals, Human, All Too Human, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra