Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
Attention: Starting December 14, 2019 Yahoo Groups will no longer host user created content on its sites. New content can no longer be uploaded after October 28, 2019. Sending/Receiving email functionality is not going away, you can continue to communicate via any email client with your group members. Learn More

676Re: My review of Rosen's "The Mask of Enlightenment, Nietzsche's Zarathustra"

Expand Messages
  • Thomas
    Feb 26, 2008
      I have written an improved version of this:
      Having just finished reading "The Mask of Enlightenment", I come to
      this conclusion:
      That Stanley Rosen is strongly anti-Nietzschean is made quite clear in
      his Conclusion (p. 249): "Nietzsche's doctrines are at least as
      dangerous politically as those of Marx, and in a post-Marxist epoch,
      obviously even more so. Once the Marxist dream of wakefulness is
      punctured, the temptation intensifies to turn to the Nietzschean
      effort to derive individual significance from chaos."
      Rosen contends that Nietzsche is a nihilist (p. 247) who sees the
      cosmos as only random chaos. This may be an over-generalization since,
      on the human plane, Zarathustra says that Will to Power is the
      foundation - see Lampert's classic commenatary: Nietzsche's Teaching:
      An Interpretation of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"
      Rosen thinks that Nietzsche's "metaphor" of eternal recurrence could
      destroy the myth of linear Progress of the Enlightenment, but that
      this is totally deterministic (amor fati); Rosen then concludes that
      all Zarathustra's calls for a "creative transvaluation of values" (p.
      247) and for the coming of a Superman are impossible and are a "noble
      lie" (p. 183)
      I think that this contradictory vision is by no means inevitable. It
      is possible for example that the two aspects (determinism and
      creation) refer to successive phases in Zarthustra's own evolution in
      the course of the text. Robert Gooding-Williams' commentary
      Zarathustra's Dionysian Modernism (2001) pays closer attention to the
      connections between Zarathustra's beliefs and the dramatic sequences
      of the text.
      Rosen's reading of Book 4 is very stimulating though. He points out
      the very ironic tone used towards the "higher men" who have stopped
      their progression, their self-overcoming, on the way towards the
      Superman, because of fear, or too much prudence. Rosen notes:
      "Zarathustra then warns them to restrict their will to their capacity.
      There should be no doubt here that he is condemning rather than
      praising the higher men." (p. 235)

      Thomas
      France
    • Show all 2 messages in this topic