The Evolution of Nietzschean Schools of Thought

[Onasander]

At current time- how many major schools of thought are there among Nietzscheans? It happens to every philosophy, Schismatic propositions and interpretations- what are the major ideas floating around out there- and how do they contradict?

A good second question- are there books that Nietzscheans mostly agree they like that are independent of Nietzsche's influence- or are impossibly for him to of read- be it from lack of translations or written after he died?

Also, how is Nietzsche seen differently in Academia focused on him or philosophy in general as opposed to those who engage in self study independent of institutional guidance in their explorations?

Three big questions- I know, and I expect highly divergent answers based on individual perspective and experience of those here (no right answer), and I doubt a reliable synthesis is possible from the answers- but they are questions worth none the less asking if anything.... to open up new avenues approach to questions and possibilities to jump off on in our individual explorations.

[War God]

1. Most important disagreement: the Übermensch is (meant to be) unrealised and unrealisable vs. the Übermensch is (meant to be) realised and realisable (by Nietzsche).

2. For me personally, William Blake (with some important qualifications).

3. Usually more positively in self-study than in Academia. And if positively, then usually as more "decent" (more herd-moral, as he himself called it) in Academia than in self-study. Or at least presented that way.

[Nietzsche]

Vs. schools of Nietzsche, a better question might be where he has had the most influence.

1. Germany
2. France
3. United States and England

1. Since he wrote almost exclusively in German, this is not hard to understand. The different schools/Nietzscheans are almost too many to name. The nazis are probably the ones who are most well known, through their spurious interpretation of the superman/ master race theories. Nietzsche was banned in East Germany until 1989, as, I am sure a result of this. There were various Nietzsche cults before and after WW2, also.

2. Nietzsche inluenced Heidegger, who in turn influenced Sartre, and Existentialism is born. I personally think Nietzsche is the Grandfather of Existentialism, but some might disagree. Dostoevsky would be my 2nd choice for that honor, and, reading them it is alarming how closely their thinking allies. Nietzsche was fond of Dostoevsky's "Notes from the Underground". I digress. The reason the French probably like Nietzsche so much is because he saw their Culture as the most superior in existence. He even says somewhere that he wishes he had written in French.

3. The Us and England. Richard Rorty was probably our best Nietzschean, and he died recently. He was largely concerned with Contingency. Of course there are many professors and authors in the U.S. and England (and the rest of the English speaking world) who teach Nietzsche. England in particular has harbored a grudge against Germany since WW I, but, especially since WWII, and Nietzsche has fallen in disfavor there as a result, as have many other German philosophers. It's part of the Continental vs Analytical (England) debate too. His anti-democratic views haven't helped him here either, I suppose.

[Frey]

1. Every point on the political spectrum - even feminists and presbyterians - has used Nietzsche for its purposes. As to specifically inter-Nietzschean disputes, they're mainly over how seriously certain ideas should be taken (superman, eternal return, war), and the value of the Nachlass.

2. The Worm Ouroboros, by E.R. Eddison, but most Nietzscheans likely haven't read it. I recommend they rectify this asap.

3. In my experience the professors who teach Nietzsche are basically apologists. They are primarily postmodern liberals and existentialists, bourgeois to the soul, as are most of their students. Maybe it is simple timidity with some. But I recall a seminar when I quoted from BGE - "A hard heart has Wotan set in my breast" - the prof interrupted me, saying this side of Nietzsche should not be taken seriously, and he changed the topic.

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Re: The above claim that "Rorty was probably our best Nietzschean" will be a good foil for question #1. Perhaps it was intended as a slight against American academia, but !that a pragmatist could even be mistaken (or mistake himself) for a Nietzschean shows how bizarre the readings have become.

[Onasander]

I'd admit, his readings are quite bizarre initially to a American. and his initial approach is utter confusion to anyone just entering into a bookstore flipping through books trying to decide who's what and what's worthwhile buying (small concerns to some of you, but notn so small when your trying to get someone ignorant in a subject eye to catch and build interest enough to buy)

I've been to about dozen bookstores spying since I've joined this site, and the stores I've even found book on Nietzsche have half abridged copies of his works- heck, I couldn't even find cliffnotes on the guy anywhere. The are either ugly covers dealing with a good designed work inside, or nice covers with horrific font- men won't look over a book like this for more than three seconds, and much of this carries over into thier impression and ability to read. To complicate matters, what people do know about him really hurts his cause in America:

A) Does not like democracy- this kinds of hurts you in a democracy- you end up with not the creme of the population as your basis of support, but rather the disgruntled chipped crust that falls off the pie in support of you by going this route.

B) Hitler liked/likes him- you know, Hitler single handily killed the Charlie Chaplain mustash- no one wears it anymore- not even in the visible white power movement- even they comprehend just how utterly hated of a symbol it is. Yes, I do believe the average American comprehends Nietzsche came first- was dead by the time Hitler took over. But just the fact he found so much to support his cause in his works- that is utterly disturbing. Mnay books have been abused- case in point the Bible and Koran for war- but most men know of many, many good associations to go along with the nasty. Nietzsche has no goon public associations, only one bad one.

C) The fervent claims that Nietzsche was NOT, I repeat NOT Anti-Semitic, Anti-Feminine and so on have backfired- this often times- if not the point from number 2, the first thing they learn about Nietzsche. (I personally think he was a Anti-Semitic- shoot, I'm Anti-Swedish) It being the first thing they learn about him, it becomes their first association- and no one hears this once, they hear it a few times from teachers who in turn heard that from someone else. His ideas as a result are not discussed- just his unfair designation of being Anti-Semitic. He becomes a martyr at best for the flaky crust crowd- but more often than not, just remains associated with antisemitism.

On the reverse side- Jack London has transcended this issue- he too was a racist who was able to surpass the confines of his racism at times to make what in one instance in his books a lowly stereotype into the noble hero of his next. He had the same views as many on the intelligence of other races of his era- and isn't attacked for it today- cause the first thing people learn about him isn't is political views (most Americans don't know he was a Marxist) but rather his ideas in his writings of a positive nature that he promoted- alturism and the endeavor of man. This should be the way any philosopher is sold to a people- not by his contradictions or his nuisances to that particular society, but rather, with the points the society in point can easily agree with- then later looking into why they differ issue by issue, tying them up only afterwards coherently into the historical-political ramifications and the current geo-political stratification- I could make people in San Fransisco wanna read Mein Kampf using this approach- but the important thing to note is- the fast majority of people are not going to be their for the tying up process (university level philosophy class)- they will say goodbye in highschool or brush up against him in a mandatory elective class- and maintain good feeling about him to pass along to others.

Look for the positives to the people, and teach that first to reel them in- the duty most heavily falls on the professor of philosophy teaching future grade school teachers- they are the ones they need to influence most- cause the catch line he says is what they will remember when confronted by s student or situation that requires them to say something.

3. The Us and England. Richard Rorty was probably our best Nietzschean, and he died recently. He was largely concerned with Contingency. Of course there are many professors and authors in the U.S. and England (and the rest of the English speaking world) who teach Nietzsche. England in particular has harbored a grudge against Germany since WW I, but, especially since WWII, and Nietzsche has fallen in disfavor there as a result, as have many other German philosophers. It's part of the Continental vs Analytical (England) debate too. His anti-democratic views haven't helped him here either, I suppose.

Contingency? You've peaked my interest, a separate thread would be nice. I don't know why I know his name.

[War God]

This Group departs from the following premises:

1. The Overman is a type of man — not a different species:

"The problem I thus pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings (— man is an end —): but what TYPE of man shall be bred, shall be willed, for being higher in value, worthier of life, more certain of a future."
[The Antichrist(ian), section 3, with added emphasis.]

The original translation reads: "- man in ONE end"

Wrong, as it reads 'ein', not 'Ein'.

No wonder you got taken as seriously on German-language fora as on English-language ones: your German is (almost) as bad as your English.

By the way, in the Description of my Yahoo Group (where you got the above passage from), "end" is emphasised, as are the first "type", "bred", and "willed".

if there is one end there are two ends and more!

That's right, the Bonobo, for instance, is also an end.

That is why he puts end cursive - cursive means relative, or "so to say" and not an absolute.

Wrong: he italicises it ("puts it cursive") in order to emphasise the contrast with the opposite notion: man is an end, not a means! The problem is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings!

Thus: "The problem I thus pose" means the problem of this particular book and nothing else.

No, it is the problem of Nietzsche's whole philosophy.

In this book he is not discussing the Overman!

Yes he is: note that in the next section, he calls this type "a kind of overman ['Übermensch']". And he does not, as at least one person thinks or thought, mean "ONE kind of overman (among many)", but "kind of an 'overman'", "kinda superhuman". This is the first time he uses the coinage 'Übermensch' in the book, and therefore he cannot just use it without explanation (even though his readers ought to be the ones who have understood his Zarathustra). He therefore introduces the term: "here we really do find a higher type: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman."---You see how he first introduces the concept of "mankind as a whole", which is then immediately used as the standard by which this "higher type" is kind of "superhuman": it is not superhuman in an absolute sense (e.g., a god), but absolutely human (homo sapiens sapiens) and relatively superhuman.

2. The Overman is relatively superhuman:

"In another sense, success in individual cases is constantly encountered in the most widely different places and cultures; here we really do find a higher type: which is, in RELATION to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman. Such fortunate accidents of great success have always been possible and will perhaps always be possible. And even whole families, tribes, or peoples may occasionally represent such a bull's-eye."
[ibid., section 4, idem.]

3. The Overman is superhuman in relation to man in general ("mankind as a whole") and the "good" man in particular:

"Zarathustra leaves no doubt at this point: he says that it was his insight precisely into the good, the "best," that made him shudder at man in general; that it was from this aversion that he grew wings "to soar off into distant futures," — he does not conceal the fact that his type of man, a relatively superhuman type, is superhuman precisely in its relation to the good — that the good and the just would call his overman devil..."
[Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny, section 5.]

The rest is put out of the context like everything else in their heads because they start everything out of wrong premises. It is cowardice that makes them do the most crucial mistakes.
Especially when saying "mankind as a whole", as if an uniform "good" man exists on Earth!
Who is claiming there is a mankind as a whole? Why is this part of the sentence put under quotatin marks?

Because it is a quote, you idiot---which you might have known even though you obviously don't know The Antichrist, as it was quoted immediately preceding it! I repeat:

[H]ere we really do find a higher type: which is, in relation to mankind as a whole, a kind of overman.
[AC 4.]

So, to answer your other question: it is Nietzsche himself who is claiming there is a mankind as a whole! You moron!

[War God]

Re: The above claim that "Rorty was probably our best Nietzschean" will be a good foil for question #1. Perhaps it was intended as a slight against American academia, but !that a pragmatist could even be mistaken (or mistake himself) for a Nietzschean shows how bizarre the readings have become.

Yes, Rorty is completely despicable (for amoral reasons).

[War God]

Whatever, aren't those all secondary things if you 'depart' with your assumptions from Nietzsche's ideas in direction Heidegger?

No "assumptions", goon, but premises drawn directly from Nietzsche's work (as the Description shows).

What means depart on your page?

It means that if you disagree with those premises, my Group is not for you.

Isn't your Overman something else than Zarathustra's?

I focus on Nietzsche's Overman, not just on Nietzsche's Zarathustra's Overman: according to Daniel Conway, for instance, there is a difference between the two. I can reconcile the two, but still do not limit myself to Thus Spake Zarathustra.

I am not satisfied with your explanation of the use of the italic style. You can not put every second meaning as "contrast"!

"Second meaning"? You don't make any sense to me here. Anyway, let me elaborate.

In Thus Spake Zarathustra, Nietzsche said:

I teach you the Superman. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man?
All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man?
What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame.
Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes.
[Zarathustra's Prologue, 3.]

Many readers have inferred from this that Nietzsche meant the Übermensch as the life-form that was to "succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings". And apparently Nietzsche did have that in mind at some time:

Actually it is easy to understand that there, where a species arrives at its limits and at its transition ['Übergang'] into a higher species, lies the goal of its development ['Entwicklung', also "evolution"], not however in the mass of exemplars and its [or: their] well-being, not to mention those exemplars which come last in time, but much rather in precisely those seemingly scattered and chance existences which under favourable conditions materialise here and there; and it should be just as easy to understand, shouldn't it, that mankind, because it can become conscious of its purpose, has to seek out and establish those favourable conditions under which those great redeeming men can come about.
[Schopenhauer As Educator, chapter 6, my translation.]

Here we see clearly that already in 1874, Nietzsche envisioned the Overman, but still saw him as a transition type, the first step away from homo sapiens in the direction of a higher species. In The Antichrist, then, he specifically warns against that interpretation:

The problem I thus pose is not what shall succeed mankind in the sequence of living beings (---man is an end---): but what type of man shall be bred, shall be willed, for being higher in value, worthier of life, more certain of a future.
[AC 3, with added emphasis.]

[War God]

I will repeate it again: you are working entirelly with the "relative, kind of Overman", but in TSZ there is no "relative, kind"!

Actually, there is:

Ah, I became tired of those highest and best ones: from their "height" did I long to be up, out, and away to the Superman!
[Of Manly Prudence.]

And Nietzsche himself refers to this very speech of Zarathustra's to show that the Overman is relative, is a type of man:

Zarathustra leaves no doubt at this point: he says that it was his insight precisely into the good, the "best," that made him shudder at man in general; that it was from this aversion that he grew wings "to soar off into distant futures,"---he does not conceal the fact that his type of man, a relatively superhuman type, is superhuman precisely in its relation to the good---that the good and the just would call his overman devil...

You highest men whom my eyes have seen, this is my doubt about you and my secret laughter: I guess that you would call my overman---devil!
What is great is so alien to your souls that the overman would be terrifying to you in his goodness...
[TSZ, ibid.]
[Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny, section 5.]

And this allows you to make the second step, I guess, if your standpoint is the "impossibility of the Overman", after Heidegger.

It is not. Does Heidegger say the Overman is impossible, though? If so, where?

Anyway, your group description appeares ambiguous to me, or is it my english?

It is not clear if the concepts in the description are something you are departing from or your departing from someone's elses concepts.

If someone departs from something then there must be another side and I see only one side in the descripton.

Ah, you don't see how I got to that point of departure! Does it matter?

[War God]

You have answered too quickly to the message I have deleted. In my next message (above) the problem is expressed sharper: the question is do you see the Overman as a possibility or impossibility

Possibility.

and how far is your vision from Impious'? I think he desires somewhat like a philosopher-president and democracy, and you seem to be for the philosopher-führer who must die in order to become Overman.

Where did you get that idea??

Perhaps Impious' must have an overdose?

I want clarification on this two essential problems which you two maybe embody.

At this point I am a Nietzsche-scholar (non-academic, though); Impious is apparently a wannabe Nietzsche (a Wietzsche---a Witz). Our visions are not even similar.