Book Review: Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future by Friedrich Nietzsche, translated with commentary by Walter Kaufmann

Friedrich Nietzsche is a popular and infamous figure in western philosophy. People generally love or hate him, with a preponderance of hate since he was adopted by the Nazis as a muse. His writings are very opinionated and often contrarian, making them both entertaining and frustrating. It's easy to find stuff to agree with and stuff to be offended by. In this book published later in his life, Nietzsche gives a summation of his philosophy, covering a wide variety of ideas. He discusses other philosophers and artists, freedom, religion, morality, and nationalism. 

The title of the book reveals a guiding principle in Nietzsche's writing. "Beyond Good and Evil" is not a call to disregard morality or consider oneself above such a distinction. Rather, Nietzsche expects the true philosopher to be less simplistic, less "black and white" in their thinking. Most things and situations are more complicated and need more than a cursory investigation. The truth is often hidden deeper inside. 

The text is very lyrical and at times genuinely insightful or evocative. Writing about Wagner's music, Nietzsche give this nugget: "This kind of music expresses best what I think of the Germans: they belong to the day before yesterday and the day after tomorrow--as yet they have no today." [Section 240] The two most famous quotes in the book are together in one section: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." [Section 146] The evocative expressions are a two-edge swords--sometimes they create clarity and insight, at other times they cause confusion and make the text open to misinterpretations. The varied opinions about his philosophy are not at all surprising since the writing can be read in many different ways.

The translator, Walter Kaufmann, is a Nietzsche scholar and a philosopher in his own right. He had tried to revise an earlier English translation. He found so many errors that he decided it would be easier to make his own translation. He provides footnotes to explain complicated or misinterpreted passages.

This book is a lot clearer and easier to read than The Birth of Tragedy which I read last year. It's still not easy reading. It requires a lot of patience and sympathy, which is a bit hard to maintain when you run across unsympathetic parts.

Mildly recommended--it's probably better to find a reliable summary of Nietzsche (probably something by Kaufmann would be best) than to jump right into his works. At least the translator provides some help in this book.

Book Review: The Birth of Tragedy by Friedrich Nietzsche

The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music by Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by Shaun Whiteside, and edited by Michael Tanner

In Nietzsche's first book, he presents the difference between Dionysian and Apolline art (mostly music) as it arose in the ancient Greeks. Dionysiac music is more mythic and visceral, resulting in or inspiring art and plays that grapple with universal themes and the heart of reality. Apolline music is more individual and logical, resulting in more moralistic and rationalist works that stay on the surface of things. Nietzsche clearly favors the first which he claimed gave birth to proper tragedy. Tragedy needs both the Apolline and the Dionysiac elements, but the Apolline became more influential. As Greek culture (and philosophy) developed, its art declined. At the end of the book, Nietzsche discusses German music and tragedy and how it must follow the right route in order to be as great as it can be, i.e. as great as the best of the ancient Greek tradition. The book is dedicated to Richard Wagner, whom Nietzsche saw as emblematic of the ideal blend of the two sorts of music.

The book caused a lot of discussion, often heated, when it was first published. Nietzsche's distinctions were new and unwelcome in academia, as well as his idea that the Greeks struggled with a pessimistic worldview in their best tragedies. Nowadays, we look at everyone in the past as having flaws and challenges, so the controversy is less visceral. The book's arguments are loosely arranged and not very convincing, making it both difficult to read and to appreciate, let alone to agree with it. I found the text interesting but only in a academic sense.

Not recommended, though I will probably try some of Nietzsche's later works to see if they are better (or at least get them off my "shelf of the unread").

Book Review: The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton

The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton

In a combination of philosophy and self-help, Alain de Botton looks at six philosophers and considers how their attitudes can help to deal with problems in life. Here's a quick overview:

1. Socrates and the consolation for unpopularity--Socrates often questioned other people about their lives, especially their fundamental beliefs. He drew out the irrational or contradictory aspects of their ideas, often annoying or befuddling people. He wound up under trial for corrupting youth and denying the gods. He was sentenced to death, an outcome he accepting with surprising equanimity. Socrates always judged things with reason and logic; he was indifferent to popular opinion. Sometimes popular opinion is right and sometimes it is wrong. Reason is a safer guide in life.
2. Epicurus and the consolation for not having enough money--Epicurus has a reputation problem. In modern parlance, "epicurean" means having very refined tastes, basically appreciating the best things in life, which are often the most expensive. Desire for the pleasurable is central to Epicurus's philosophy. But he moves pretty quickly from the delights of food, drink, and sex. For him, the highest pleasures are having friends, having basic needs met, and having time to reflect on the truly highest things. Money can buy pleasures, but it does not guarantee friendships or knowledge of what is truly best in life. A poor person can have these and be content. Happiness is possible; an excess of money is not required.
3. Seneca and the consolation for frustration--Seneca lived in a very turbulent time during the Roman Empire. He wound up having to kill himself during the reign of Nero. Seneca was a Stoic, recognizing that chance or fate is not a moral force that rewards the good and punishes the bad. Fate is blind and capricious, doling out good and evil indiscriminately. Complaining about its unfairness is not helpful; resisting its randomness is futile. The wise person looks at the course of what happens and adjusts expectations and actions accordingly.
4. Montaigne and the consolation for inadequacy--Montaigne discoursed on overrated things by pointing out the salient feature of them--they are overrated. To him, education had fallen into the trap of being about ephemeral details of reality rather than about understanding reality and the human condition. In short, they taught facts rather than wisdom. The worst of all were the philosophical types who wrote inscrutable books--if we can't figure them out, is it because we are dumb or because there is no discernible knowledge there? Wisdom and happiness are easier to achieve when the goals are not falsely set too high in the sky. Maybe the solution to inadequacy is to see the measure itself is inadequate.
5. Schopenhauer and the consolation for a broken heart--Schopenhauer was another down-to-earth philosopher who saw a struggle between the individual and the will-to-life which every person has. The will-to-life seeks the continuation of the species, desiring not only offspring but that offspring be better off than their parents before them. The practical consequence is that adults often seek (subconsciously) a mate who will make up for their defects and produce better children. But for Schopenhauer, that means the mates themselves are not a good match--their non-mutual defects become a burden. So a love life is fraught with peril (which was Schopenhauer's personal experience). The only path to satisfaction is to understand the way the world is and to accept it.
6. Nietzsche and the consolation for difficulties--Nietzsche had a roundabout path to his final theory of happiness. He started in school with the chance discovery of Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation which he immediately adopted as his philosophical bible. Other experiences drew him away from Schopenhauer and onto his own path. Nietzsche's philosophy morphed into the praise of the man who could overcome difficulties and adversities to achieve great things. He often uses the metaphor of climbing a mountain. It would be easy to stay in the valley, in the mundane. The work to ascend a mountain gives great rewards. He disparaged a lot of other things, including alcohol, Christianity, and just about every other philosopher in the history of philosophy, as pandering to the weakness in humans. Overcoming difficulties, not succumbing to them or dodging them, is the path to fulfillment.

The book is entertainingly written and has a smattering of pictures to illustrate points. Each "consolation" gives a brief biography and a summation of the philosopher's thoughts. But the big picture seems to be lost. There's no unified knowledge here. Schopenhauer and Montaigne talk about the value of lowering expectations while Nietzsche despises such an attitude. Socrates tries to change other people's attitudes by showing their sloppy thinking; Seneca just bears up under the sloppy thinking. The book has no summation at the end because the parts don't fit together so easily. The title would be more accurate as "The Consolations of Philosophies." Readers can pick which one is helpful in the moment, though they may have to choose differently under different circumstances.

Mildly recommended--there's a lot of good bits but an overall disconnect.

Book Review: On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life by F. Nietzsche

On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life by Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by Peter Preuss

Friedrich Nietzsche's early work on the value of studying history balances between a pure, theoretical understanding and the then-contemporary understanding of history. When this was published in 1874, Germany was proud of its historical understanding of itself and the thorough education it provided to the general populace. According to Nietzsche, the predominant theory was Hegel's dialectic, where the World Spirit moves humanity through many stages of conflict, gradually improving human welfare to a culmination. Many considered late 1800s Germany to be the pinnacle of human development, an assessment Nietzsche did not share. So he spends the last half of this essay analyzing and debunking the importance of historical education to German society. He has a rather blistering attack on Hegel and people who follow his theories.

The earlier part of the essay is more theoretical, discussing how history can impact the way people live. He develops a tension between living historically and living unhistorically. Those who live purely with a historical understanding can gain benefits by seeing past figures as role models and past situations as successes or failures to be imitated or avoided. The problem is that a purely historical understanding eliminates the possibility of original thinking and creative actions. Many people look back to ancient Greece as a model of rational thought and activity, though clearly the Greeks didn't look for such role models in their history. So living historically is a two-edged sword. Living unhistorically allows one to forget the past and have that originality and creativity that is necessary for life to advance and improve, though such activities require a great deal of personal fortitude. This is also a two-edged sword.

Then he goes into how the current age is all about following the Hegelian dialectic and being satisfied with the status quo that rather than moving forward to greater things. His argument is entertainingly written but has less relevance today than it did in his time. The first half of the essay is more valuable and interesting now though it is less colorfully written.

This book was on my shelf of "books to be read and then kept or gotten rid of." While it does have some merits, I can't see myself rereading it ever nor do I see myself loaning it out to anyone. So it's going in the donation box.