Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nietzsche was not a revolutionary

Expand Messages
  • louise
    Wil, My feeling about scholarship borders on the reverential, so, yes, I do trust what you are telling me, in relation to the purposes scholarship fulfils, for
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Wil,

      My feeling about scholarship borders on the reverential, so, yes, I do trust what you are telling me, in relation to the purposes scholarship fulfils, for the interested reader and for society, the wider beneficiary. However, as must be borne in mind, you and I hold different views about political interpretation. My belief in politics involves an awareness that the examined life makes certain claims on the individual which may prove incompatible with the social ambience that prevails in the academy, where scholarship is nurtured. What, in fact, politics really means for me, in relation to scholarship and much else, is currently nothing more than a question mark. Looking, initially, at Kaufmann's introduction, the emphasis would seem to be on arrangement. I wonder what, if any, response you have to make to Heidegger's line of thinking (for instance, the final section of Chapter Four of "Will to Power as Art", in which he lays out a different context for interpreting how to read Nietzsche, and particularly these fragments. Of course, Kaufmann leaves the last word to Nietzsche, and that initial sentence encapsulates, not at all my entire approach to the purpose of philosophy (I am far too classical for that), but almost all the dream of what philosophy might include, if politics ever came to prevail over force:

      THE WILL TO POWER [Fall of 1885]
      A book for thinking*, nothing else: it belongs to those for whom thinking is a delight, nothing else--

      Louise
      >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
      >
      >
      > Louise wrote: "The unpublished notes, however, on the evidence of what I have read over the years, by Nietzsche and about Nietzsche, represent the culmination of his life's endeavour."
      >
      > Response: That is not true even a little. You can trust me on this. I am long time member of the Nietzsche Society. Read Kaufmann's intro. It is all there.
      > ---
      > "... I do see "Will to Power" as a book, even though the author's physical collapse prevented him completing it as he would have wished."
      >
      > Response: Wrong again. Although I love the text, it is a posthumous fabrication of loose notes. It has nothing to do with any project actually by Nietzsche.
      >
      > You have to consult the text with care.
      >
      > Wil
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
      > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 5:35 pm
      > Subject: [existlist] Re: Nietzsche was not a revolutionary
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Is this from the Oscar Levy edition? If so, you have to be wary of it, as it was based on the fallaciously edited edition of Nietzsche's sister, who used that text to coax Hitler to make N the official Nazi philosophy. Walter Kaufmann's (and RJ Hollingdale's) translation is the standard one to be used, although still with a wary eye, as these were just unpublished notes, many of which Nietzsche had completely changed his mind about. Another good source, albeit with e same caveat, is the recent Cambridge edition of Nietzsche's Last Notebooks, which is better arranged.
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Wil
      >
      >
      >
      > No, it's from the Kaufmann translation. The unpublished notes, however, on the evidence of what I have read over the years, by Nietzsche and about Nietzsche, represent the culmination of his life's endeavour. He was not trying to overturn society, but he was seeking a revaluation of all values. I do see "Will to Power" as a book, even though the author's physical collapse prevented him completing it as he would have wished.
      >
      >
      >
      > In effect, the passage I have quoted describes the unfolding discoveries of his life. Nietzsche in this sense was experimenting on himself. As though he summarised thousands of generations inside himself. The body becoming conscious of its own implicit evolutionary history, from a philosophical point of view. What is the Superman, an impossible fantasy? A dicing with death?
      >
      >
      >
      > Louise
      >
      >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > -----Original Message-----
      >
      > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
      >
      > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > > Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 3:59 pm
      >
      > > Subject: [existlist] Nietzsche was not a revolutionary
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Here is an extract from "Will to Power" [676]:
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > ~ We are in the phase of modesty of consciousness. Ultimately, we understand the conscious ego itself only as a tool in the service of a higher, comprehensive intellect; and then we are able to ask whether all conscious willing, all conscious purposes, all evaluations are not perhaps only means through which something essentially different from what appears in consciousness is to be achieved. We think: it is a question of our pleasure and displeasure -- but pleasure and displeasure could be means through which we have to achieve something that lies outside our consciousness. -- It must be shown to what extent everything conscious remains on the surface; how an action and the image of an action differ, how little one knows of what precedes an action; how fantastic are our feelings of "freedom of will", "cause and effect"; how thoughts and images are, like words, only signs of thoughts; the inexplicability of every action; the superficiality of all praise and blame; how essential fiction and conceits are in which we dwell consciously; how all our words refer to fictions (our affects, too), and how the bond between man and man depends on the transmission and elaboration of these fictions; while fundamentally the real bond (through procreation) goes its unknown way. Does this belief in common fictions really change* men? Or is the entire realm of ideas and evaluations itself only an expression of unknown changes? Are* there really will, purposes, thoughts, values? Is the whole of conscious life perhaps only a reflected image? And even when evaluation seems to determine the nature of a man, fundamentally something quite different is happening! In short: supposing that purposiveness in the work of nature could be explained without the assumption of an ego that posits purposes: could our* positing of purposes, our willing, etc., not perhaps be also only a language of signs for something altogether different, namely something that does not will and is unconscious? Only the faintest ref
      > lecti
      >
      > > on of that natural expediency in the organic but not different from it?
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Put briefly: perhaps the entire evolution of the spirit is a question of the body; it is the history of the development of a higher body that emerges into our sensibility. The organic is rising to yet higher levels. Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body; consciousness and evaluations in the body, all kinds of pleasure and displeasure, are signs of these changes and experiments. In the long run, it is not a question of man at all: he is to be overcome. ~
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > This passage throws into stark relief, at least, how far as a philosopher Nietzsche is from the usual discourses of politics or science, even though these disciplines might try to hijack what he is describing, for the advantage of a less noble vision than the one which his subjective passion depicts. It is the setting for thinking the Superman. Far out, man. My Saxon blood and my English empiricism vie to pay ironic tribute. Or something of the sort.
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > Louise
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > >
      >
      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • eupraxis@aol.com
      Louise, ... However, as must be borne in mind, you and I hold different views about political interpretation. Response: One can interpret a text in a number
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Louise,

        "... However, as must be borne in mind, you and I hold different views about political interpretation."

        Response: One can interpret a text in a number of ways. Over my life I have read 'many' Nietzsches, because I have come to each reading from another vantage, at another point in my life, etc. But I wasn't criticizing your interpretation; I was warning against using The WTP as if it were N's ultimate statement.
        ---
        "Looking, initially, at Kaufmann's introduction, the emphasis would seem to be on arrangement."

        Response: Keep reading. Assuming that we have complementary texts, see section 3 on page xvii. If you can restore the link below on your end, this film is enlightening on the subject. I do not agree with everything in it, but it is well done. At least you get to see and hear the late RJ Hollingdale:

        http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-184240591461103528&ei=fWPTSc2TMJKurgLZ4KSjBA&q=Nietzsche&dur=3

        (You will no doubt get a broken link when posted. You have to copy the whole link in a text application, backspace any gaps, and paste into your browser. The music is great too. Enjoy.)
        ---
        "I wonder what, if any, response you have to make to Heidegger's line of thinking (for instance, the final section of Chapter Four of "Will to Power as Art", in which he lays out a different context for interpreting how to read Nietzsche, and particularly these fragments."

        Response: I think I may have already opined on H's "Nietzsche", which I studied in Grad school years ago. I have real problems with it, including his reliance on the WTP text. Ultimately, I find it humorous that H calls Nietzsche the last metaphysician, leaving for himself the suggestion of having overcome the same.


        Now, as I have already said, I love the WTP. I read it all of the time, and it usually one of my travel companions. I particularly like it BECAUSE of its being that underside of the writer. If you were to look at my own journals over the years, much less drafts of unfinished essays and novels, you would cluck your tongue until the second coming. I know how fragile a position is, how artificial a final text is in many ways. Even this construction here whom we both call "Wil" is, in a way, a fabrication wrought of our own collective dialectic. Writing and thinking are feral matters.

        Wil









        -----Original Message-----
        From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 3:10 am
        Subject: [existlist] Re: Nietzsche was not a revolutionary


























        Wil,



        My feeling about scholarship borders on the reverential, so, yes, I do trust what you are telling me, in relation to the purposes scholarship fulfils, for the interested reader and for society, the wider beneficiary. However, as must be borne in mind, you and I hold different views about political interpretation. My belief in politics involves an awareness that the examined life makes certain claims on the individual which may prove incompatible with the social ambience that prevails in the academy, where scholarship is nurtured. What, in fact, politics really means for me, in relation to scholarship and much else, is currently nothing more than a question mark. Looking, initially, at Kaufmann's introduction, the emphasis would seem to be on arrangement. I wonder what, if any, response you have to make to Heidegger's line of thinking (for instance, the final section of Chapter Four of "Will to Power as Art", in which he lays out a different context for interpreting how to read Nietzsche, and particularly these fragments. Of course, Kaufmann leaves the last word to Nietzsche, and that initial sentence encapsulates, not at all my entire approach to the purpose of philosophy (I am far too classical for that), but almost all the dream of what philosophy might include, if politics ever came to prevail over force:



        THE WILL TO POWER [Fall of 1885]

        A book for thinking*, nothing else: it belongs to those for whom thinking is a delight, nothing else--



        Louise

        >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

        >

        >

        > Louise wrote: "The unpublished notes, however, on the evidence of what I have read over the years, by Nietzsche and about Nietzsche, represent the culmination of his life's endeavour."

        >

        > Response: That is not true even a little. You can trust me on this. I am long time member of the Nietzsche Society. Read Kaufmann's intro. It is all there.

        > ---

        > "... I do see "Will to Power" as a book, even though the author's physical collapse prevented him completing it as he would have wished."

        >

        > Response: Wrong again. Although I love the text, it is a posthumous fabrication of loose notes. It has nothing to do with any project actually by Nietzsche.

        >

        > You have to consult the text with care.

        >

        > Wil

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        > -----Original Message-----

        > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>

        > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

        > Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 5:35 pm

        > Subject: [existlist] Re: Nietzsche was not a revolutionary

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > Is this from the Oscar Levy edition? If so, you have to be wary of it, as it was based on the fallaciously edited edition of Nietzsche's sister, who used that text to coax Hitler to make N the official Nazi philosophy. Walter Kaufmann's (and RJ Hollingdale's) translation is the standard one to be used, although still with a wary eye, as these were just unpublished notes, many of which Nietzsche had completely changed his mind about. Another good source, albeit with e same caveat, is the recent Cambridge edition of Nietzsche's Last Notebooks, which is better arranged.

        >

        > >

        >

        > > Wil

        >

        >

        >

        > No, it's from the Kaufmann translation. The unpublished notes, however, on the evidence of what I have read over the years, by Nietzsche and about Nietzsche, represent the culmination of his life's endeavour. He was not trying to overturn society, but he was seeking a revaluation of all values. I do see "Will to Power" as a book, even though the author's physical collapse prevented him completing it as he would have wished.

        >

        >

        >

        > In effect, the passage I have quoted describes the unfolding discoveries of his life. Nietzsche in this sense was experimenting on himself. As though he summarised thousands of generations inside himself. The body becoming conscious of its own implicit evolutionary history, from a philosophical point of view. What is the Superman, an impossible fantasy? A dicing with death?

        >

        >

        >

        > Louise

        >

        >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > -----Original Message-----

        >

        > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>

        >

        > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

        >

        > > Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 3:59 pm

        >

        > > Subject: [existlist] Nietzsche was not a revolutionary

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > Here is an extract from "Will to Power" [676]:

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > ~ We are in the phase of modesty of consciousness. Ultimately, we understand the conscious ego itself only as a tool in the service of a higher, comprehensive intellect; and then we are able to ask whether all conscious willing, all conscious purposes, all evaluations are not perhaps only means through which something essentially different from what appears in consciousness is to be achieved. We think: it is a question of our pleasure and displeasure -- but pleasure and displeasure could be means through which we have to achieve something that lies outside our consciousness. -- It must be shown to what extent everything conscious remains on the surface; how an action and the image of an action differ, how little one knows of what precedes an action; how fantastic are our feelings of "freedom of will", "cause and effect"; how thoughts and images are, like words, only signs of thoughts; the inexplicability of every action; the superficiality of all praise and blame; how essential fiction and conceits are in which we dwell consciously; how all our words refer to fictions (our affects, too), and how the bond between man and man depends on the transmission and elaboration of these fictions; while fundamentally the real bond (through procreation) goes its unknown way. Does this belief in common fictions really change* men? Or is the entire realm of ideas and evaluations itself only an expression of unknown changes? Are* there really will, purposes, thoughts, values? Is the whole of conscious life perhaps only a reflected image? And even when evaluation seems to determine the nature of a man, fundamentally something quite different is happening! In short: supposing that purposiveness in the work of nature could be explained without the assumption of an ego that posits purposes: could our* positing of purposes, our willing, etc., not perhaps be also only a language of signs for something altogether different, namely something that does not will and is unconscious? Only the faintes
        t ref

        > lecti

        >

        > > on of that natural expediency in the organic but not different from it?

        >

        > >

        >

        > > Put briefly: perhaps the entire evolution of the spirit is a question of the body; it is the history of the development of a higher body that emerges into our sensibility. The organic is rising to yet higher levels. Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body; consciousness and evaluations in the body, all kinds of pleasure and displeasure, are signs of these changes and experiments. In the long run, it is not a question of man at all: he is to be overcome. ~

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > This passage throws into stark relief, at least, how far as a philosopher Nietzsche is from the usual discourses of politics or science, even though these disciplines might try to hijack what he is describing, for the advantage of a less noble vision than the one which his subjective passion depicts. It is the setting for thinking the Superman. Far out, man. My Saxon blood and my English empiricism vie to pay ironic tribute. Or something of the sort.

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > Louise

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > >

        >

        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        >

        > >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        >

        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

        >


























        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • louise
        Wil, If writing and thinking are feral matters, we have nothing further to discuss, I should have thought. You are far too masculine to be a sphinx, of
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Wil,

          If writing and thinking are feral matters, we have nothing further to discuss, I should have thought. You are far too masculine to be a sphinx, of course.

          Louise [Wil's construction]

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
          >
          >
          > Louise,
          >
          > "... However, as must be borne in mind, you and I hold different views about political interpretation."
          >
          > Response: One can interpret a text in a number of ways. Over my life I have read 'many' Nietzsches, because I have come to each reading from another vantage, at another point in my life, etc. But I wasn't criticizing your interpretation; I was warning against using The WTP as if it were N's ultimate statement.
          > ---
          > "Looking, initially, at Kaufmann's introduction, the emphasis would seem to be on arrangement."
          >
          > Response: Keep reading. Assuming that we have complementary texts, see section 3 on page xvii. If you can restore the link below on your end, this film is enlightening on the subject. I do not agree with everything in it, but it is well done. At least you get to see and hear the late RJ Hollingdale:
          >
          > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-184240591461103528&ei=fWPTSc2TMJKurgLZ4KSjBA&q=Nietzsche&dur=3
          >
          > (You will no doubt get a broken link when posted. You have to copy the whole link in a text application, backspace any gaps, and paste into your browser. The music is great too. Enjoy.)
          > ---
          > "I wonder what, if any, response you have to make to Heidegger's line of thinking (for instance, the final section of Chapter Four of "Will to Power as Art", in which he lays out a different context for interpreting how to read Nietzsche, and particularly these fragments."
          >
          > Response: I think I may have already opined on H's "Nietzsche", which I studied in Grad school years ago. I have real problems with it, including his reliance on the WTP text. Ultimately, I find it humorous that H calls Nietzsche the last metaphysician, leaving for himself the suggestion of having overcome the same.
          >
          >
          > Now, as I have already said, I love the WTP. I read it all of the time, and it usually one of my travel companions. I particularly like it BECAUSE of its being that underside of the writer. If you were to look at my own journals over the years, much less drafts of unfinished essays and novels, you would cluck your tongue until the second coming. I know how fragile a position is, how artificial a final text is in many ways. Even this construction here whom we both call "Wil" is, in a way, a fabrication wrought of our own collective dialectic. Writing and thinking are feral matters.
          >
          > Wil
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
          > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 3:10 am
          > Subject: [existlist] Re: Nietzsche was not a revolutionary
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > Wil,
          >
          >
          >
          > My feeling about scholarship borders on the reverential, so, yes, I do trust what you are telling me, in relation to the purposes scholarship fulfils, for the interested reader and for society, the wider beneficiary. However, as must be borne in mind, you and I hold different views about political interpretation. My belief in politics involves an awareness that the examined life makes certain claims on the individual which may prove incompatible with the social ambience that prevails in the academy, where scholarship is nurtured. What, in fact, politics really means for me, in relation to scholarship and much else, is currently nothing more than a question mark. Looking, initially, at Kaufmann's introduction, the emphasis would seem to be on arrangement. I wonder what, if any, response you have to make to Heidegger's line of thinking (for instance, the final section of Chapter Four of "Will to Power as Art", in which he lays out a different context for interpreting how to read Nietzsche, and particularly these fragments. Of course, Kaufmann leaves the last word to Nietzsche, and that initial sentence encapsulates, not at all my entire approach to the purpose of philosophy (I am far too classical for that), but almost all the dream of what philosophy might include, if politics ever came to prevail over force:
          >
          >
          >
          > THE WILL TO POWER [Fall of 1885]
          >
          > A book for thinking*, nothing else: it belongs to those for whom thinking is a delight, nothing else--
          >
          >
          >
          > Louise
          >
          > >--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Louise wrote: "The unpublished notes, however, on the evidence of what I have read over the years, by Nietzsche and about Nietzsche, represent the culmination of his life's endeavour."
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Response: That is not true even a little. You can trust me on this. I am long time member of the Nietzsche Society. Read Kaufmann's intro. It is all there.
          >
          > > ---
          >
          > > "... I do see "Will to Power" as a book, even though the author's physical collapse prevented him completing it as he would have wished."
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Response: Wrong again. Although I love the text, it is a posthumous fabrication of loose notes. It has nothing to do with any project actually by Nietzsche.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > You have to consult the text with care.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Wil
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > -----Original Message-----
          >
          > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
          >
          > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > > Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 5:35 pm
          >
          > > Subject: [existlist] Re: Nietzsche was not a revolutionary
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Is this from the Oscar Levy edition? If so, you have to be wary of it, as it was based on the fallaciously edited edition of Nietzsche's sister, who used that text to coax Hitler to make N the official Nazi philosophy. Walter Kaufmann's (and RJ Hollingdale's) translation is the standard one to be used, although still with a wary eye, as these were just unpublished notes, many of which Nietzsche had completely changed his mind about. Another good source, albeit with e same caveat, is the recent Cambridge edition of Nietzsche's Last Notebooks, which is better arranged.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Wil
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > No, it's from the Kaufmann translation. The unpublished notes, however, on the evidence of what I have read over the years, by Nietzsche and about Nietzsche, represent the culmination of his life's endeavour. He was not trying to overturn society, but he was seeking a revaluation of all values. I do see "Will to Power" as a book, even though the author's physical collapse prevented him completing it as he would have wished.
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > In effect, the passage I have quoted describes the unfolding discoveries of his life. Nietzsche in this sense was experimenting on himself. As though he summarised thousands of generations inside himself. The body becoming conscious of its own implicit evolutionary history, from a philosophical point of view. What is the Superman, an impossible fantasy? A dicing with death?
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > Louise
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > -----Original Message-----
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > From: louise <hecubatoher@>
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Sent: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 3:59 pm
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Subject: [existlist] Nietzsche was not a revolutionary
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Here is an extract from "Will to Power" [676]:
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > ~ We are in the phase of modesty of consciousness. Ultimately, we understand the conscious ego itself only as a tool in the service of a higher, comprehensive intellect; and then we are able to ask whether all conscious willing, all conscious purposes, all evaluations are not perhaps only means through which something essentially different from what appears in consciousness is to be achieved. We think: it is a question of our pleasure and displeasure -- but pleasure and displeasure could be means through which we have to achieve something that lies outside our consciousness. -- It must be shown to what extent everything conscious remains on the surface; how an action and the image of an action differ, how little one knows of what precedes an action; how fantastic are our feelings of "freedom of will", "cause and effect"; how thoughts and images are, like words, only signs of thoughts; the inexplicability of every action; the superficiality of all praise and blame; how essential fiction and conceits are in which we dwell consciously; how all our words refer to fictions (our affects, too), and how the bond between man and man depends on the transmission and elaboration of these fictions; while fundamentally the real bond (through procreation) goes its unknown way. Does this belief in common fictions really change* men? Or is the entire realm of ideas and evaluations itself only an expression of unknown changes? Are* there really will, purposes, thoughts, values? Is the whole of conscious life perhaps only a reflected image? And even when evaluation seems to determine the nature of a man, fundamentally something quite different is happening! In short: supposing that purposiveness in the work of nature could be explained without the assumption of an ego that posits purposes: could our* positing of purposes, our willing, etc., not perhaps be also only a language of signs for something altogether different, namely something that does not will and is unconscious? Only the faintes
          > t ref
          >
          > > lecti
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > on of that natural expediency in the organic but not different from it?
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Put briefly: perhaps the entire evolution of the spirit is a question of the body; it is the history of the development of a higher body that emerges into our sensibility. The organic is rising to yet higher levels. Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body; consciousness and evaluations in the body, all kinds of pleasure and displeasure, are signs of these changes and experiments. In the long run, it is not a question of man at all: he is to be overcome. ~
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > This passage throws into stark relief, at least, how far as a philosopher Nietzsche is from the usual discourses of politics or science, even though these disciplines might try to hijack what he is describing, for the advantage of a less noble vision than the one which his subjective passion depicts. It is the setting for thinking the Superman. Far out, man. My Saxon blood and my English empiricism vie to pay ironic tribute. Or something of the sort.
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > Louise
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          > >
          >
          > > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > >
          >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.