(A) Grim (assessment) contra Nietzsche

[LostInAShaftOfSunlight]

From an audio lecture series by Patrick Grim, some content from the lecture "A Genealogy of my Morals"

N's Geneology of morals is a deeply flawed book, but useful on at least one account.  On the positive side the Genealogy contains a strategy for evaluation of one’s own moral view.  The history of our ethical concepts may offer reasons to accept or reject them.  They might teach us more than just history, but offer ethical lessons as well about our concepts. 

Now the abrading:

N’s vocabulary and sensibilities incorporated directly into core concepts of Nazi’s.  He was read and re-read by Hitler, and the ideas of GM reverberate throughout Mein Kampf. 
N is a 'despicable racist.' There is a small industry in trying to explain his racism, and trying to explain away his link to the Nazi’s and the death camps.  No one tries to explain away his sexism. 
His Sister is often used a scapegoat, but GM is steeped in anti semitic stereotypes and are essential to the work’s showing the Jewish undercutting of the triumph of the great blonde beast, the aryan ubermensch.

N is not a very good philosopher:

The Core claim of GM is psuedoscientific.  It's central linguistic claim is false: that,

A: The derivation of ethical terms derive from terms applied to itself by a ruling aristocracy, and negative terms for the common or lower class

B: All languages all have this transformation and it stems everywhere from this kind of class distinction

N's evidence is just bits and pieces, a few words.

Grim tried it himself in English.  He looked up good/bad ethical words and traced etymologies.
He came up with a list of 62 words (good, bad, malignant, appropriate, worthy, etc.) with 447 different ethical senses.  The most charitable inclusion still finds that 95 % of the English ethical terms have always been ethical without any ties to social hierarchy


 

[Gareth Southwell]

[Grinding teeth in Ubermenschian indignation but with an admixture of infinite patience and humour]

There are a mixture of criticisms here, some worthy of debate, and some less so. Let's have a look!

1. N's vocabulary and sensibilities incorporated into Nazi concepts. Well, it would be nice to have examples of 'vocabulary', but I guess this is a reference to 'will to power' and 'master' and 'slave' types. Firstly, as I've argued elsewhere, will to power is not a rallying call to all the thugs and would-be despots, but - first and foremost - an EXPLANATION of a fundamental principle of life. As such, the real debate concerning its truth should take place in biology and evolutionary theory, and not (just) in morality. Each thing that lives (N argued) tries its damnedest not to die, and to propagate its type. This is a factual claim, and should be assessed as such. Whilst the Nazis used such theories to back up their own weird brand of pseudo messianic thuggery, they ignored N's other point: that, just because the dominant classes were initially the strongest, this does not mean that 'might is right', but merely that the higher type of man will not turn his back on traditional notions of strength and health. Secondly, 'master' and 'slave' were, for N, mental types, and whilst they did have racial components, they are not 'races' (as the Nazis thought). In fact, N is primarily concerned with self-overcoming of our inherited influences, so racial background is pretty much irrelevant in the long view. As to whether Hitler read N, or whether these ideas 'reverberate' through Mein Kampf, I don't know (I haven't read a biography of Hitler or Mein Kampf). However, from what I understand of Hitler, his reading was quite eclectic and not particularly subtle, so I would be surprised if N was the only thing he read that he misinterpreted. However, obviously, we can't argue from effect to cause: i.e. Hitler was a Nazi who read N, therefore N was a (proto)Nazi.

2. 'Despicable racist' is really a double insult in today's terms, where 'racist' is usually a bad enough insult! Firstly, being a racist is merely to ascribe certain stereotypical qualities to races, for good or bad. It is therefore really just stereotyping. However, stereotypes can be occasionally useful: 'don't walk around the trainstation after dark or you'll get mugged' suggests certain stereotypical facts about people who hang around trainstations at night, but it may have some truth in it. The problem with racism is that it frequently makes stereotypical statements which cannot be justified (e.g. to do with intelligence or moral character). Now, it seems to me that N is not this type of racist, so whilst he does make racial general statements, they tend to be subtler than this, often not from the view that one race is 'better' than another, and for good and bad. Furthermore, as regards anti-semitism, he makes a number of positive statements about Jewish culture, not a single one of which would ever have passed Hitler's lips. So, racist, possibly; despicable racist, no.

3. 'His link to the Nazi deathcamps'?! Now, even if N were an anti-Semite (which he arguably wasn't), how is he linked to the Final Solution? For a start, N even suggests that the future of Europe lies with interbreeding and integrating with Jewish culture! How does that translate into genocide?

4. 'No one tries to explain away his sexism'. Well, that's not true. Lesley Chamberlain's "Nietzsche in Turin" is a quite frank portrait of N, warts and all, and there is open admission that the man had 'issues' with women - although, interestingly, he was friends with many women, and they all found him charming! As for the 'industry', well, this is as true of anti-Nietzsche propaganda before WWI and WWII as it is of pro-Nietzsche apologetics afterwards - so, take your pick. I think to label anything an 'industry' is to cheapen the content, which isn't really a form of argument!

5. Anti-Semitic sterotypes in GM. I'm not as familiar with GM as BGAE, to be honest, so you would have to point out examples of these. I'm not saying they're not there, but merely that it's difficult to argue with generalities. My general view of N is that he wasn't an anti-Semite (at least not in the traditional sense). If he was, then it was no more than he was anti-Teutonic, or anti-Anglo Saxon - it all formed part of his critique of culture. However, I'm happy to discuss particular examples if you can highlight them.

6. Blonde beast/Aryan ubermensch. This is a pretty sloppy point. As far as I am aware, N does not make a connection between the Nordic races and the master mentality - aristocracies can spring up in any culture or race (in fact, almost all of them at some point!). The blonde beast referred to is the lion, the king of the jungle, so-called, whom N uses to symbolise the pride and power of the ubermensch (which are qualities, I am presuming, that Nazis do not have a monopoly on!). The notion of the Aryan origins of European culture is actually not a purely Nazi theory, and it was originally a term used to describe the Indo-European culture which sprang up in the area roughly corresponding to what is now Iran/Pakistan (see here). As such, the Aryan people can be seen as a root culture for a wide range of what are now disparate and scattered peoples. Nazi Aryanism springs from the mistaken belief that the Aryan culture originated in Scandinavia, hence the blonde hair. However, the Nordic origins of Aryanism were just another competing theory of the time (one which the Nazis favoured).

7. The last point is a fair one, and it is generally agreed that N does not have (or at least, does not present) sufficient proof for many of his more empirical claims. However, this is not to say that he did not have such evidence, or that he was not in fact on to something - N's style is not to present systematic analysis of ideas in a traditional way, but to use rhetoric, humour, etc. This sometimes gives rise to the criticism that N is 'not a very good philosopher' - which, as a general claim, is weak, for one bad argument does not make a bad philosopher (look at Plato!). We should therefore stick to what facts we have. As with the will to power, the idea that good originates with the aristocracy is an empirical claim, and can be investigated. I will freely admit that I don't have the knowledge or means to assess this claim, but it seems to me that it requires a bit more subtlety than merely checking words in a dictionary! Also, what does '95% percent of these terms have always been ethical' mean?! It seems to assume that 'good' has always meant, 'that which is right' - which, in case you haven't spotted it, is a tautology! What does 'right' mean? Grim seems to be assuming that early cultures are always referring to a non-natural form of 'good' (i.e. like a Platonic ideal) - which, whether N is right or wrong, seems a much harder pill to swallow. It is therefore much more likely that, even if they do not have the meaning that N says they do, moral terms originally had a naturalistic flavour (e.g. 'good' means 'pleasant' or 'what the shaman tells me to do').

Anyway, this is more than enough to keep us going for a while - and maybe should be split into other threads.

By the way, I would not call myself a 'Nietzschean', and my aim isn't to defend him against all attacks. Rather, I simply have sympathy for certain of his ideas, and want to see his philosophy itself discussed seriously (and not subject to sloppy, ignorant, and prejudicial attacks).

[LostInAShaftOfSunlight]

 You say you're not a Nietzschean. Could you expand on this? What would distinguish you from someone calling themselves a Nietzschean?  Where are you most in harmony with N?  Where is there the most discord?

 I remember reading an interview with Lampert awhile back where he says: "I became a Nietzschean..." and "...it was something that I thought of regarding myself. “Who am I? Well, I am someone who has been taken over by Nietzsche.”
http://www.nietzschecircle.com/interview.html

[Gareth Southwell]

Hi Sunny - long time no hear!

Firstly, where I disagree:

I am not an atheist. I think there is an interpretation of Nietzsche which can possibly soften his atheism, and propose how a Nietzschean might develop a sort of religious attitude which is in line with his basic principles (I suggest such a line in my book), but if we are honest, this is at the outer limits of Nietzsche interpretation. So, it seems fairly obvious that N was an atheist - not of the cartoon variety (his views were certainly not the sort of standard materialism that you find these days), but an atheist nonetheless. His main religious targets, it would seem to me, are life negation (which he saw in pretty much all religions), and what Sartre would call "bad faith" (i.e. sacrificing your freewill to an external projection of your own values); I agree with both of these criticisms.

Secondly, I am not a nihilist. N's main assertion is that we must devise our own meaning from life, because it does not possess any inherent meaning. Whilst I have great sympathy with this (see below), I am not totally convinced that no such values exist. This is a consequence of my non-atheism, I suppose: if there is some ordering force to the universe, and some possible purpose that human beings have, then that is the basis of our values.

Lastly, I don't think it is healthy to shade under the umbrella of any philosopher or thinker, no matter how great. So, if I am Nietzschean, or Wittgensteinian, or Platonist, then there is a certain orthodoxy that I must abide by - I must toe the party line. Now, this seems silly to me, for it just restricts any possible development that might go against my main allegiance. Furthermore, N himself would laugh at this, for he was less concerned with being Nietzschean than anyone, for we should not guard against getting trapped by our own self-image or sense of who we are.

As for sympathies:

I think the will to power is largely correct. Each organism has a dominant will or force that seeks to express itself in word and deed. Mostly, this is hidden, and its influence is not always discernible, but it constitutes the main impetus of living beings. Because of this, N's "psychoanalysis" of philosophers is quite accurate, I think (or at least, very plausible and interesting). So, I would agree that we need to be aware of WHY we seek knowledge or certainty, and also of the snares of supposed objectivity.

Secondly, in a related point, I think N is right about knowledge. We tailor our perception of reality in line with our deepest psychological and physiological needs. We are not conscious of doing this, but N's greatest contribution (in my eyes) was to highlight this process, and link it to the will to power. So, once again, it is not objectivity that we seek (or at least, not as it is commonly understood), but rather a certain power-enabling perspective. This is perhaps similar to a Darwinian view (we don't perceive objectively, but merely in the way that has helped us survive), and N is quite close to D here, but I would perhaps differ in being open to the possibility that such a process is itself a step in a greater 'unfolding' according to an underlying pattern.

Anyway, those are my main agreements and disagreements. Some of them are not particularly easy to defend, philosophically, but they represent intuitions that I am content to entertain. My main problem with contemporary Nietzscheans is that they are too concerned with being Nietzschean! I admire N greatly, but I am not concerned at all with getting his posthumous approval, whatever that might mean. It is N's spirit and freedom which I find infectious.

I haven't really thought about this before in any explicit way, so thanks for asking - follow-up questions welcome!

[attano]

I can claim a non superficial knowledge of Nietzsche's works from the Gay Science onward, even letters and fragments, but not really on the writings about Wagner.

I can also label myself as Nietzschean, without needing to make distinctions and caveats. I don't mean that I see Nietzsche's philosophy as absolute truth - that would be so anti-nietzschean - but it is my profound opinion that future philosophy either starts from Nietzsche or it does not start at all.
To use a rough comparison, we have had 25 centuries of philosophy as comments on Plato, and I would predict that we are going to have an equivalent span of time of comments on Nietzsche.

Having said that, the GM is the work I like less and partially share the criticism you refer to.

From an audio lecture series by Patrick Grim, some content from the lecture "A Genealogy of my Morals"

N's Geneology of morals is a deeply flawed book, but useful on at least one account.  On the positive side the Genealogy contains a strategy for evaluation of one’s own moral view.  The history of our ethical concepts may offer reasons to accept or reject them.  They might teach us more than just history, but offer ethical lessons as well about our concepts. 

I guess that, as far as N. is concerned, this is not relevant.
Now I haven't done my homework on this and I am not going to argue rigourously using quotes and references, but my view is that his purpose was to prove that the cardinal moral values (of what is generally called Judeo-Christian society) have their origin not from the metaphysical intuition of some otherwordly superior order, but from ressentiment and lower instincts, herd's instincts and slaves' morality that ultimately - through Christianity - managed to topple the (cultural) hegemony of the kaloi kai agathoi (the beautif and good people) that ruled the classical world. These are forces against what rised mankind from mud - while usually the contrary is held as true - that depress the force of life and are against it, ultimately leading men to an unworthy living steered to self-annihilation.
The GM is the attempt to present this thesis in a pseudo-scientific fashion and I agree with the objection that in this respect the book has flaws.

Now the abrading:

N’s vocabulary and sensibilities incorporated directly into core concepts of Nazi’s.  He was read and re-read by Hitler, and the ideas of GM reverberate throughout Mein Kampf. 
N is a 'despicable racist.' There is a small industry in trying to explain his racism, and trying to explain away his link to the Nazi’s and the death camps.  No one tries to explain away his sexism. 
His Sister is often used a scapegoat, but GM is steeped in anti semitic stereotypes and are essential to the work’s showing the Jewish undercutting of the triumph of the great blonde beast, the aryan ubermensch.

It is possible that «N's vocabulary and sensibilities incorporated directly into core concepts of Nazi’s».
More broadly, it seems pretty reasonable to believe - and it's more than an hypothesis - that Nazis have used N.'s work as a basis for their claim of racial superiority and violent praxis. And this is not limited to GM, there are many other N.'s quotes quite compatible with and seemingly supporting Nazi's ideology.
I could claim that this can be said also of some excerpts from the Gospels or early Christian scholars (and I rather believe that this is where anti-semitism and much contemporary racism is rooted, as well as a certain sense of what is called nowadays "community" stemming from the Germanic ethos), but that would not unmake the criticism directed to Nietzsche.

Acknowledging all this, I do not think it is worthwhile, philosophically speaking, to counter this objection, because:

- It is a rejection based on morality, not on a philosphical argument. (That's definitely the case of Russel and also of Severino - although the latter distinguishes himself also for his lack of honesty. Btw, it is true that there is much ado about showing that N. was absolutely not a (proto-)nazi, that on the contrary he was the saint that he feared he would have been represented as some day... Well, this is the same flawed of argument, only reversed. Anyway, those engaging in this debate, like those maintaining that N. was a psycho, mysoginous and a sociopath, generally show quite a shallow and utterly indirect knowledge of his works).
- Löwith, writing at the time when the Nazis were ruling Germany, rightly observed that, as N. is not a conventional systematic philosopher, single quotes of him could be easily used  to support about anything as well as its opposite (and this exercise can be easily made for anti-semitism).
- The argument is a fallacy (many actually, but at least the affirming-the-consequent one).

Moreover, there are facts in N.'s life that lead to infer, beyond any reasonable doubt, that he was definitely far from supporting anti-semitism.

But all this is not to deny that N. used the concept of race and even of superior race. And indeed N. had a negative opinion of women, qua women.

I guess that, as much as one may dislike it, the concept of race has also a physiological basis. Please note physiological not biological.
In his last works, starting from 1886 in the foreword to the second edition of la Gaya Scienza, N. maintained that there is a physiological basis to philosophy. It is not clearly expressed, at least to my knowledge, but it is possible to argue that only some organisms (I would use the word kallimachoi, the plural of a Greek name meaning "beautiful fighter" - and Callimachos is also the principal character of a Machiavel's play) can "produce" a philosophy expressing the "supreme biological point of view", a philosophy resulting from the will-to-power affirming, and expanding a flourishing life. For the others, philosophy is the promotion of sick values caused by the misunderstanding of a weak body. (This view can be quite safely supported also making references to Ecce homo).
Based on this and referring to the first chapter of the Twilight of the Idols, it seems that N. believed that these physiologically blessed men - as the Athenians - can indeed breed a superior race. Superior inasmuch they would make a superior (that one should understand as meaning mainly "beautiful") form of living possible - not because they have a fair complexion and are blue-eyed.
I could dwell longer on this, but I guess that what said above, including the references made, makes enough for claiming that biology per se is not what makes a race superior. Belonging to some "races" can actually increase the probability of sharing the "good genes", but that would not be enough if separated from other external factors. One is culture. But also climate must be taken into account (see Ecce homo).
Seemingly, according to Nietzsche,  "superiority" is the outcome of a balance between physiological characters and environment, so that ultimately superiority is not exactly inherited, but it can also be build. (Although it seems equally admissible to believe that N. maintains that some are doomed to sickness and mischievous philosophy).

As for women, I do not see a way to make the man politically correct.
Probably for the same reasons that made for the idea of a superior race, women are deemed to be inherently different and their "essence" conveys a negative will-to-power.
One can find ways to soften these claims and/or to justify them on the basis of N.'s personal life (getting right into the pitfall of a debate that is moral and not philosophical), but at the end of the day it is what it is: women are unlike men and can be harmful to them... and personally I really don't feel like confuting this view.

Finally, when discussing these Nietzschean themes, one should also bear in mind that they are shaped in the context of a philosophy denying free will and affirming the eternal recurrence. So, default assumptions about their meaning and consequences should be scrutinized with some care - but I am not going to go any deeper on this, at least for now.