| Discussion of Nietzsche II For our second discussion of the Beyond Good and Evil, I would like us to focus on three themes that are central to understanding the relationship between Nietzsche’s thinking and political theory. Yes, I agree with Abbey and Appel that it would be a distortion of Nietzsche’s writings to regard him as an apolitical thinker. In particular, I want to investigate those recurring themes in the book that could have distinct political implications. I say this, of course, knowing full well that Nietzsche would claim that the contemplation of politics is beneath him. 1. Enlightenment. Is Nietzsche really rejecting the traditions that we associate with Enlightenment thought? The answer to this question depends on how we view his attitudes about truth, morality, and freedom. Nietzsche likes to portray himself as a “debunker” of old faiths and a “master” of a new morality. But, wasn’t the spirit of the Enlightenment era one of debunking and mastering? What might these attitudes mean for political life? 2. Development. I almost used the word “Progress,” but I held back. The connotations of this latter term would seem blasphemous to connoisseurs of Nietzsche’s thought since one of the Master’s most compelling concepts—the “eternal recurrence”—is meant to divest human beings of the illusion that things will change fundamentally and to persuade them instead that only the strong and the noble will have the capacity to love their personal fate (amor fati). Nevertheless, if there is no concept of human “development” (“progress”?!?!) in Nietzsche’s thinking, why does he prophecy the coming of a new generation of hero philosophers? Does he really want us to embrace “the melancholy of everything finished” (sec. 277)? Or is there more to come? How might such developments have political implications? 3. Rulers and ruled. There is clearly a sense of hierarchy that runs throughout Beyond Good and Evil, especially in “What is Noble?” Are there elements of this elitism that remind you of other writers we have considered, such as Hegel and Marx, who are equally persuaded that the fittest should rule? Also, consider a related question: Is there a difference between saying that Nietzsche’s reflections on these matters have political implications and arguing that he is political? See Abbey/Appel’s analysis. As you reflect on these themes, return to the central comparative theme of this seminar: Does Nietzsche cross the line between ordinary philosophy and authoritarianism? A related question might be: Does he tempt a successive generation of philosophers to cross this line? This leads us to our discussion of Carl Schmitt's approach to political theory. |