Nietzsche (NZ): second section

NZ methodology (method of writing): NZ is an anti-systematic thinker and he admits to having

this methodology (as he claims in the twilight of the idol).
He is suspicious about systematic thinkers. NZ sees this as a weakness and consciously goes
against this.
How about Pascal? Had he read him?
He sees this as a combination of irony (black humor), critical theory, and prophetic versus. His
methodology is a surgical analytically deconstructing the phenomenon.
In echo homo he claims that he is a dynamite. What does he want to explode? Meaning of life or
nihilism? The answer is nihilism of his time. NZ believes life is a celebration, Dionysian. His
appreciation for the ancient Greek (pre-Socratic) comes from this way of looking at life. He
negates the negativity and pessimism as found in Schopenhauer. His antagonism are those who
negate life. His social context should be taken into account. Europe of late 19
th
century is a
nihilistic context. Nihilism is not a metaphysical but a cultural phenomenon. Turgenevs Fathers
and Sons is a portrait of this nihilism of Europe. This is the same phenomenon that Nietzsche
wants to discuss. He thinks that nihilism is a result of the jewish and chrisian morality.
His answer to this question is that this moral system which has been around for a few thousands
of years, has causes us to distance from our innate desires and wills. His philosophy is not
deconstructism but desctrucism. The morality that NZ promotes is not Platonic (its not ideal),
it not Aristotelian (its not Virtue ethics), its not Kantian, not utilitarian.
His morality is connected to his genealogy. How genealogy can answer to main moral
questions? He believes that genealogy establishes a positive perspectivism through which we
can see the answers to the main questions of morality.
Nietzsche is a naturalist and he wants to bring this view into morality. What is important for him
is deed and the doer (a form of pragmatism). What the nature of will is? Active? Proactice? He
sees the world as an accumulation of our will. We dont just think about the world, we chance
the world (he said that before Marx ????)
He puts a peculiar emphasis on promise. This is an important concept since it has deep roots in
western religions. He says one can only promise to someone when he is responsible. So if there
is this free will, and its different in different people both in degree and form, then why when we
accuse a prey bird to lame saying why it doesnt act like a lame, it sounds absurd? He wants to
go over the dichotomy between good and evil. As long as we are stuck in this dualism, we have
not reached the maturity required by Enlightenment.
He goes against Darwinist positivists. One of the people he is attacking is David Strauss a
historian who wrote a book of the life of Jesus. Another point of view on the question of morality
is certainly a historical view on the question of morality. He wants to trace the origin of moral
biases.
Slave morality, Nobility morality. His discussion is not a political and social position. When he
talks about nobility morality he talks about those whose moral value is self-generated, self-
constituted. Their measure of morality is an affirmative one. Slave morality is an oppositional
one (resentment). It is the result of frustration and herd morality. His view point is not a social
but cultural point of view.
The groups who hold slave morality are priests, Socratic morality, etc. Where does the weakness
of the will of Socrates come from? NZ is a fan of Homerian morality and heroes. Heroic morality
for him is a self-constituting morality. He believes we have gone astray after Socrates. All of
them go against the essence of human nature.
He goes against the intellectualism of Descartes and Kant. NZ disagrees with the Cartesian
dualism.
What we have to think about it is how we can apply his oppositions to the modern moral
problems that we are facing. The question of universality to be pondered upon. Can NZs
morality be universalized?