A discussion of "Beyond Good and Evil" - Preface

[aneeshm]

I am currently reading through Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil". A lot of the material in the book is very dense, and the writing style is one which requires reading, re-reading, and re-re-reading, along with a great deal of cogitation at each repetition, for me to even begin to understand fully what is being said. If this lack of alacrity in comprehension is something unusual, forgive me - English is not my native language, nor have I grown up in a Western culture, nor do I have any great cultural exposure to the ideas upon which the work is based. (I suspect that "alacrity" and "comprehension" used as they have been in the last sentence may constitute an awkward collocation, and if so, I request I be forgiven for the same reason.) I do have a grasp of the fundamentals of the ideas, however, such as the Platonic separation of the ideal from perspective, or the ideal as existent in itself independent of the perspective of anyone seeing it which Nietzsche references so much.

This is also a book which requires a great deal of previous knowledge, or at least a familiarity with the classical world which is taken for granted. For instance, in a passage on women, Nietzsche uses the exclamation "Holy Aristophanes!". Had I not (fortuitously) known that Aristophanes was the author of Lysistrata, and the nature of that work, I would have not been able to understand or appreciate it.

In this thread, I wish to discuss this book chapter by chapter and section by section. If the mods permit, I shall open a new thread for each chapter, as I believe that the discussion shall get too cluttered otherwise.

Most importantly, I would like a variety of perspectives on the writing, as I fear that my own may be too constrained to appreciate fully the nature of this work. I would also appreciate any commentary on my understanding of the work.

Luckily for me, the translation which I am using (Walter Kaufmann) happens also to be available on the internet. I hope that I am not taking too great a liberty by quoting it here. To begin, I will provide my understanding of each paragraph. I would appreciate it if anyone could point out errors in the same.

Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil
Philosophy from Nietzsche
Preface

Supposing truth is a woman—what then? Are there not grounds for the suspicion that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, have been very inexpert about women? That the gruesome seriousness, the clumsy obtrusiveness with which they have usually approached truth so far have been awkward and very improper methods for winning a woman's heart? What is certain is that she has not allowed herself to be won—and today every kind of dogmatism is left standing dispirited and discouraged. If it is left standing at all! For there are scoffers who claim that it has fallen, that all dogmatism lies on the ground—even more, that all dogmatism is dying.

As far as I can make out, the purpose of this paragraph is two-fold - to force us to change our perspective drastically by making us think of truth as a woman instead of a thing self-existent in some Platonic real of pure forms, and to declare his stand in that he believes dogmatism in philosophy to be either dead or dying.

Speaking seriously, there are good reasons why all philosophical dogmatizing, however solemn and definitive its airs used to be, may nevertheless have been no more than a noble childishness and tyronism. And perhaps the time is at hand when it will be comprehended again and again how little used to be sufficient to furnish the cornerstone for such sublime and unconditional philosophers' edifices as the dogmatists have built so far: any old popular superstition from time immemorial (like the soul superstition which, in the form of the subject and ego superstition, has not even yet ceased to do mischief); some play on words perhaps, a seduction by grammar, or an audacious generalization of very narrow, very personal, very human, all too human facts.

Here, it is pointed out that most dogmatic philosophy was based on the provision of reasons for intuitions or judgements already accepted instinctively, and how something which "appealed" to our senses, whether mental of physical, was used as a basis on which to construct great edifices of dogmatic theories. Another point is that often, the essence of a philosophical debate is the confusing nature of some term as it is used in language. Thirdly, many philosophies are simply generalisations of their authors' own ideas of life - that there is more of the philosopher in their work than there is of philosophy.

The dogmatists' philosophy was, let us hope, only a promise across millennia—as astrology was in still earlier times when perhaps more work, money, acuteness, and patience were lavished in its service than for any real science so far: to astrology and its "supra-terrestrial" claims we owe the grand style of architecture in Asia and Egypt. It seems that all great things first have to bestride the earth in monstrous and frightening masks in order to inscribe themselves in the hearts of humanity with eternal demands: dogmatic philosophy was such a mask; for example, the Vedanta doctrine in Asia and Platonism in Europe.

This paragraph seems self-explanatory enough - that dogmatic philosophy is to real philosophy as alchemy was to chemistry - a futile pursuit driven by basic human instincts, but one which culminates, in spite of itself, in something of real value. It also implies that without this long period of self-delusion, the birth of the latter science would not have been possible, or at least would have been much more difficult.

Let us not be ungrateful to it, although it must certainly be conceded that the worst, most durable, and most dangerous of all errors so far was a dogmatist's error—namely, Plato's invention of the pure spirit and the good as such. But now that it is overcome, now that Europe is breathing freely again after this nightmare and at least can enjoy a healthier—sleep, we, whose task is wakefulness itself, are the heirs of all that strength which has been fostered by the fight against this error. To be sure, it meant standing truth on her head and denying perspective, the basic condition of all life, when one spoke of spirit and the good as Plato did. Indeed, as a physician one might ask: "How could the most beautiful growth of antiquity, Plato, contract such a disease? Did the wicked Socrates corrupt him after all? Could Socrates have been the corrupter of youth after all? And did he deserve his hemlock?

But the fight against Plato or, to speak more clearly and for "the people," the fight against the Christian-ecclesiastical pressure of millennia—for Christianity is Platonism for "the people"—has created in Europe a magnificent tension of the spirit the like of which has never yet existed on earth: with so tense a bow we can now shoot for the most distant goals. To be sure, European man experiences this tension as need and distress; twice already attempts have been made in the grand style to unbend the bow—once by means of Jesuitism, the second time by means of the democratic enlightenment which, with the aid of freedom of the press and newspaper-reading, might indeed bring it about that the spirit would no longer experience itself so easily as a "need." (The Germans have invented gunpowder—all due respect for that!—but then they made up for that: they invented the press.) But we who are neither Jesuits nor democrats, nor even German enough, we good Europeans and free, very free spirits—we still feel it, the whole need of the spirit and the whole tension of the bow. And perhaps also the arrow, the task, and—who knows?—the goal—

This passage is a bit more complicated. I would appreciate someone with a better understanding to help me out here. I believe that I have the gist of it, but the finer details escape me.

 

[GoodGame]

Ever read any Plato, like maybe The Republic? A lot of the the last passage has allusions to the writings of Plato / story of Socrates and also how Platonism influenced Christianity (though it might really be Plato influenced Aristotle which influenced development of Christian theology). Plotinus (the admin) could probably comment better. I'd say overall Nietzshe is saying that the European psyche is (in his day) evolving past the philosophy of theological Christendom to freer thinking.

I think in the first passage he's saying that the title 'philosopher', ironically, doesn't mean someone is wise, at least in reference to the older philosophers, and many are actually dogmatists. Then he's saying his current day, people are becoming more analytical of dogmatists.

If you understand that the Republic posits that a perfect society would have 3 castes, and the top caste would be composed of philosophers (who'd do the ruling and thinking) while the other castes where basically the army and the proletariat, then you could say that Nietzche is saying that free-thinking is liberating his current day people even more than the traditional philosophies, which were actually very limited and dogmatic in their thought. Sort of he's saying that thinking is becoming so democratic that it's no longer elite nor dogmatic. And he's predicting that it will lead to great things.

I think it's important that he's not actually saying "become an atheist, burn the bible, do what you want", but more that free-thinking is tearing down the old ways.