Walking on a monster.

2009, you were quite a year. I loved you, you frightened me. And no matter how many times you hit me with some new surprise, some new fear, some new reason to stay inside and avoid people, I kept coming back. It was an unhealthy relationship. But this post is not for you. Nothing personal, I’ve just moved on. Knowing you, the pain will pass quickly and you will move on. That seemed to be your M.O. anyway.

2010, I have some questions for you and some demands. I know it’s a little early for demands, we’ve only just met. I feel tentative but full of promise, not unlike the vibe I get from you. But I have real concerns. You know this Internet thing? Yeah, still here in spite of everyone wanting to turn it into a one-way medium like TV. That’s my biggest concern for you, really. You see, I know that a lot of the people who own your very backbones also own a big chunk of old media. And while they spout about bandwidth being limited and people being “hogs”, we all know the real truth. You just want to wring back some of that old, dusty control you used to have. And I can understand that to a point. But you will lose. Not you, 2010, I mean old media. But we’ll all need your help, 2010. We need to you be brave, bold and risky. We need to you be willing to risk real things, take real chances and put your neck out. Yes, your pink, pliable freshly born and supple neck. While the impending economic fears will have you grasping at every viable penny, we’ll be needing you to put integrity above all else. We’ll need you to be brave against instinct, giving in the face of self-preservation and unpredictable in spite of expectations. You have to see past “lost revenue” and realize it’s a lie. The only thing lost to avoiding sharing is exposure. The only thing gained from protectionism is obscurity. You must learn that the appropriate response to a crowded market is to build a larger market. I know you’ve been responding to a crowded market by turning people away and scolding them for trying to to attend. And I guess that’s to be expected. Well, perhaps that’s not really you. Maybe that’s more of a 2001 to 2009 problem. We hope. It’s been very chaotic with all these people at your fingertips, begging for you to give them some distractions and veering toward alternatives while you slowly make up your mind about whether or not to capitalize on our boredom. I guess it’s understandable that you would feel some stress knowing that everything you built upon, everything you believed in, all those broken models and their respective parts strewn at your feet like the ruins of a lost city just seeming like they are in your way… will all be gone soon.  Instead of cursing the sky as the camera cranes to the heavens, take a moment to look back at what you lost. So many opportunities. So many missed chances. With radio alone, you made the Romans look like they saw it coming and were well prepared.

But be warned. If you continue to respond to opportunity with threats and ignore rather than capitalize on the millions of open hands and minds, we will face you down finally. And we will win. But only if you, 2010(and by 2010, I mean you reader)are brave, bold and willing to take some real risks. We need preparatory men and women to build our new future, willing to give a bit of themselves (or risk some small part) in order to set examples for the next generation so that they do not grow up in a world that forgets just how much freedom they can have.

(From Nietzsche’s 1882 “Joyful Wisdom”)

“Preparatory Men. I welcome all signs that a more manly, a warlike, age is about to begin. And age which, above all, will give honor to valor once again. For this age shall prepare the way for one yet higher, and it shall gather the strength which this higher age will need one day-this age which is to carry heroism into the pursuit of knowledge and wage wars for the sake of thoughts and their consequences. To this end we now need many preparatory, valorous men who cannot leap into being out of nothing–any more than out of the sand and slime of our present civilization and metropolitanism; men who are bent on seeking for that aspect in all things which must be overcome; men characterized by cheerfulness, patience,unpretentiousness, and contempt for all great vanities, as well as by magnanimity in victory and forbearance regarding the small vanities of the vanquished; men possessed of free and keen judgment concerning all victors and the share of chance in every victory and every fame; men who have their own festivals, their own weekdays, their own periods of mourning, who are accustomed to command with assurance and are no less ready to obey when necessary, in both cases equally proud and serving their own cause; men who are in greater danger, more fruitful and happier! For, believe  me, the secret of the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to LIVE DANGEROUSLY. Build your cities under Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors, as long as you cannot be rulers and owners, you lovers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be satisfied to live like shy deer, hidden in the woods. At long last the pursuit of knowledge will reach out for it’s due: it will want to rule and own, and you with it.”

While Nietzsche both inspires and repels me most of the time, I believe these words ring as true today as they did back then, having been taken only partly to heart in their own time. And so we should build our cities under Vesuvius. Damn the risks. If they wish to call us robbers, let them and smile with a pridefulness.  Even arrogance. Sooner than later they will run out of energy to keep the future at bay. And our prize will come.  If they take everything, they run the biggest risk of all. Everyone being left with nothing whatsoever to LOSE. So listen up, 2010. We’re coming to get you, you mad beautiful, promising year. Do not let us down, or it will not be easy for 2011.

Image Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilk/3041379171/

From The Gay Science, aphorism 343:

The meaning of our cheerfulness.— The greatest recent event—that “God is dead,” that the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least, whose eyes, the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some suns seem to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt: to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, “older.” But in the main one may say: the event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude’s capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet; much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it: for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending: who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth? . . . Indeed, we philosophers and “free spirits” feel, when we hear the news that the “old god is dead,” as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation,—at long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an “open sea.”

The free spirit that relishes the death of God is what Nietzsche calls elsewhere (in Thus Spoke Zarathustra) the “Ubermensch.” But I especially like this part of his above quote:

[T]he event [of God's death] itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude’s capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet; much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means . . .

One should not become an atheist without real trembling for the human future and for the real psychic obliteration that a godless, non-heroic, and ultimately purposeless universe represents for humankind. I think that Dostoevsky, Camus, Sartre, and Nietzsche absorbed—or at least tried to absorb—this. But many contemporary neo-atheists—aping Nietzsche’s glib, comfy, and ultimately nihilistic “last men“—have not.

“God is dead.”  The most quoted, controversial, and misunderstood line Nietzsche ever wrote first appeared in his book The Gay Science and then again in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.  Nietzsche does not declare that he believes in a god, nor that God has physically died.  God, to Nietzsche, is a result of the imagination of man.  “God is dead” refers to the death of God’s control and influence in the modern world.  God, and for that fact religion and spiritualities, no longer are valuable sources of morality.  It is for fear that man refuses to acknowledge this death, Nietzsche also fears.  He fears that the world, once acknowledging the death of God, would fall into nihilism.  This is  his duty in life, to be a prophet preparing man for the future realization that God is dead, but instead of looking towards the heavens for a reason in life, one must look towards the earth and into one’s self.  It is only after this realization that man can overcome all that binds him into becoming an Ubermensch (superman/overman.)

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” Friedrich realized that accepted interpretations were based on the people in power. To him, other interpretations seemed just as valid. Due to connotations, denotations, and implied meanings, the meaning of passages changes which is used by people in order to sway other’s opinions.

All writing contains words. For a word to be understood, it needs a definition. These volatile definitions shift whenever the reader changes. As time passes, the concept of ’soul’ had many different definitions. Just check out the Wikipedia article on it.1 If the definition of a word changes, writing with that word would be interpreted differently. Take the book The Gay Science. To us, it probably means something different than what Friedrich Nietzsche thought it represented. He thought the title meant ‘the witty science’. Due to the recent definitions now associated with ‘gay’ we probably thought it meant something different. Connotation also varies with readers. A stand up comic that cusses frequently probably has a different connotation of the word ‘fuck’ than a baptist pastor. Connotation and denotation are just two factors that cause people to perceive writing differently.

Implied meanings enable interpretations to bend like crowbars. The split between early Christians and Jews arose from a dispute of vague passages of text, “For mark well this stone which I place before Joshua, a single stone with seven eyes. I will execute its engraving – declares the lord of hosts – and I will remove the country’s guilt in a single day.” (Zechariah 3:9). The end of the quote referenced briefly guilt removal which was thought by most to be an act by the messiah. Because Jews’ and Christians’ interpreted mysterious references to the messiah like the one above differently, the groups evolved into separate religions. Jews thought when the messiah came all the righteous would rise from the dead while Christians thought it was only the messiah would come alive. A similar problem caused a split within the Muslim religion. Though both groups (Shia and Sunni) had the same religious book (Koran), they thought god’s ideal society should be run differently. The Shia thought that only a decedent of Mohammad could rule, but the Sunnis thought that a ruler’s main requirement should be righteousness.

The famous saying, “All men are created equal,” written in the Declaration of Independence underwent bountiful changes throughout USA’s history. Is there an implied “white” before men? Did the founders want it to apply to all people and just not men? Does this justify homosexuals right to marriage? Most likely the authors thought that it only included white people (many of them owned African slaves). The Second Great Awakening sparked interpretations that included women and non-whites. One of the causes for the South seceding was a difference of interpretation of whether “All men are created equal” included Negroes. After the war, women’s rights activists thought it also pertained to all people. Even today, a dispute continues based on whether that statement justifies gay marriage.

When given multiple passages to cite, groups tend to choose the one that coincides with their beliefs. In big works of literature that have contradictory statements, many stress passages that support their beliefs. Communities that believe abortion is murder and life starts at conception would mostly refer to this passage in the Jewish Bible (Old Testament), “Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels” (Genesis 25:21-23) God refers to the fetuses as humans and therefore supports the pro-life argument. But the opposing side would use a different quote “bones came together…tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.” (Ezekiel 37:10). This phrase emphasizes that the bones were still dead because they were not breathing which supports that human life begins with breathing. Breathing happens after birth, so fetuses are not living humans. Both sides use quotes in order to advance their own agenda.

Over time and distance, interpretations will change. Nothing can change that. Usually the earlier analyses are more accurate, but still can be riddled with errors. Even trying to deduce the author’s original purpose on old documents is impossible because the writer is died. Due to inaccuracy, we should we be cautious when we are told the meaning of text. There is a verse in the Koran that bans gambling. That essentially would mean Muslims should not go to Las Vegas and waste their retirement. But, what about the stock market? The Koran never mentions that. Some people only buy supreme stocks deemed safe by their Mosque. Do the Imams know more about god’s views on the stock market than the congregates? It seems to me they don’t. So why do people in general blindly follow interpretations set by other people?

1 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Friedrich Nietzsche was likely one of Germany’s greatest enfants terribles but unlike Martin Luther–and later the Nazis–he was no anti-Semite. Today one often hears–mostly from the lips of the pious–that Nietzsche helped inspire the belief in the supremacy of the Aryan race. His name is often mentioned with Hitler and the Nazis in the same breath, even. Nothing could be further from the truth. Slanderous drivel such as this continues to be taught in schools and universities, often as an insidious tactic to discredit his criticisms of Christianity. 

He writes in The Gay Science that “Christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad” (172). It is true, without a doubt, that Nietzsche despised Christianity–but is this enough to spread lies about the man’s ideas? Surely not. Nietzsche fiercely criticized racism and the movement to unite the German people known as pan-Germanism. In this essay I hope to defend Nietzsche against the claim of racism and proto-Nazism with the aid of scholars and of course, with the very words and ideas of Nietzsche himself–first by vindicating Nietzsche of these falsehoods and secondly by showing how the Nazis misused his writings to further their own bigotry and hatred. 

Walter Kaufmann, one of the leading scholars on Nietzsche, has written much on the subject. In Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist he writes that “Anti-Semitic Teutonism–or proto-Nazism–was one of the major issues in Nietzsche’s life, if only because his sister and Wagner, the two most important figures in his development, confronted him with this ideology” (45). Kaufmann goes on to say that “in both cases Nietzsche’s attitude was uncompromising” (45). He would not be persuaded by either his close friend–whom he later broke ties with–nor his beloved sister who married an influential anti-Semite named Bernhard Förster. 

Much of the misunderstanding started with Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra, in which Nietzsche sketches his ideas of the Übermensch, or “Superman” or in Kaufmann’s translations, the “Overman,” as  a sort of superhuman figure. This basic understanding of what Nietzsche was trying to say fit neatly with the Nazis ideas of Aryan supremacy–seeing themselves as creating a new race of Nietzschean Supermen.

In a letter to his sister, he says that “I have somehow something like ‘influence.’ … In the Anti-Semitic Correspondence … my name is mentioned almost in every issue. Zarathustra, ‘the divine man,’ has charmed the anti-Semites” (qtd in Kaufmann 44). Already Nietzsche’s work was being used by anti-Semites. 

In a second letter, sent in December 1887, he makes his views on anti-semitism plain: “Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me ever again with ire or melancholy. . . . It is a matter of honor to me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal regarding anti-Semitism, namely opposed, as I am in my writings” (qtd in Kaufmann 45). 

Nietzsche also argues against nationalism and pan-Germanism. In Beyond Good and Evil he writes of the “insanity of nationalism” (386) and in Ecce Homo he criticizes the “German nation” for its ability to “feed on opposites, gobbling down without any digestive troubles ‘faith’ as well as scientific manner, ‘Christian love’ as well as anti-Semitism, the will to power (to the Reich) as well as the evangile des humbles” (774). 

He later remarks that “‘German’ has become an argument, Deutschland, Deutschland uber alles a principle; the Teutons represent the ‘moral world order’ in history–the carriers of freedom versus the eighteenth century.–There is now a historiography that is reichsdeutsch; there is even, I fear, an anti-Semitic one” (775).

With a basic understanding of Nietzsche’s views on the subject, it is easy to see how his ideas were misused by the Nazis and others to further their own anti-Semitic agendas.  

In 1935 the German army officer and archivist of Nietzsche’s works, Richard Oehler, published a book called Friedrich Nietzsche und die Deutsche Zukunft, which attempted to, according to Oehler, “give proof regarding Nietzsche’s thoughts, to establish that they agree with the race views and striving of the National Socialist movement” (qtd in Kaufmann 290). In this work, Oehler quotes Nietzsche extensively–nearly always out of context–in the attempt to make of him a puppet for Nazi ideology.

Oehler quotes Nietzsche as saying that “perhaps the young stock-exchange Jew is the most disgusting invention of mankind” (qtd in Kaufmann 290).

Notice how this quote reads differently when taken in context from Human, All Too Human:

Unpleasant, even dangerous, qualities can be found in every nation and every individual: it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an exception. These qualities may even be more dangerous and revolting in him to an unusual degree; and perhaps the young stock-exchange Jew is the most disgusting invention of mankind. In spite of that, I should like to know how much one must forgive a people in a total accounting, when they have had the most painful history of all peoples, not without the fault of all of us, and when one owes to them the noblest man (Christ), the purest sage (Spinoza), the most powerful book, and the most effective moral law of the world. Moreover, in the darkest times of the Middle Ages, . . . Jewish free-thinkers, scholars, and physicians . . . clung to the banner of the enlightenment and spiritual independence. . . . We owe it to their exertions, not least of all, . . . that the bond of culture which now links us with the enlightenment of Greco-Roman antiquity remained unbroken. (qtd in Kaufmann 290). 

Another author that attempted to link Nietzsche to Nazism was Heinrich Härtle, who wrote the book Nietzsche und der National-sozialismus in 1937. Here again, is a work that clips out of context phrases for Nazi propaganda. These works were often cited by later scholars–many of them unaware of the intentional misinterpretations of Nietzsche by the authors–further complicating matters.

Nietzsche’s sister, Elizabeth, is also partly to blame. After his death in 1900, she promoted Nietzsche’s ideas as best she could. However, she was more intent on advancing her own personal ideology over that of her brothers. By the time she took over the family estate her husband had committed suicide and she took up the mantle of anti-Semitism. Her late husband had founded an Aryan settlement in Paraguay, calling it Nueva Germania. After the failure of the colony and the death of her husband, Elizabeth returned to Germany. One example of her misuse of Nietzsche is this: Nietzsche briefly considered using the title Zucht und Züchtung, which according to Kaufmann “cannot be translated with complete accuracy: they suggest discipline and breeding” (304), for the fourth part of what would later become his unfinished Will to Power, which his sister later used in her edits when publishing Nietzsche’s notes and unpublished material in her edition of The Will to Power. Though Nietzsche had rejected the title, Elizabeth used it because “Zucht und Züchtung seemed to her a natural meeting ground for Förster and Nietzsche” (Kaufmann 304). 

According to Kaufmann “if one wanted a symbol of his sister’s unfitness for her later role as apostle, one might find it in the name which she assumed in this capacity: Förster-Nietzsche. The irony of this name suggests almost everything that could be said against her: the gospel she spread was indeed Förster first and Nietzsche second” (46). 

Elizabeth’s misrepresentations of her brother’s life and work laid the foundations for the Nazi writers after her. Elizabeth became a supporter of the German National Socialists in 1930 and when the Nazis came to power in 1933, the Nietzsche Archive, which she helped found, received financial support from the Nazi party in return for which she would continue to use her brother’s ideas as support for anti-Semitism and nationalism. 

In conclusion, Nazi anti-Semitism found justification legitimately in many places from many authors going back to early Christianity and even as far back as Plato, but in Nietzsche they were forced to misrepresent his ideas in the attempt at legitimacy. What is tragic about the lies these anti-Semites promoted is that they continue to this day. By continuing the myth that Nietzsche was an anti-Semite, these critics create a Straw Man of Nietzsche to destroy his credibility. They spread ignorance in the attempt to hold off Nietzsche’s fierce criticism of their own beliefs. In the footsteps of Kaufmann, it is essential that we continue to raise awareness–not necessarily to spread Nietzsche’s ideas, but to give his ideas the chance they deserve.

If anything, we should honor the man for his achievements and not shovel falsehoods onto his grave.

Works Cited

Kaufmann, Walter. Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. 4th edition.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Beyond Good and Evil.” Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: The Modern Library, 2000.  386.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Ecce Homo.” Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: The Modern Library, 2000. 774.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “The Gay Science.” Basic Writings of Nietzsche. Ed. Walter Kaufmann. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: The Modern Library, 2000. 172.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. “Human, All Too Human.” Quoted in Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. 4th edition. 290.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1978.

Oehler, Richard. “Friedrich Nietzsche und die Deutsche Zukunft.” Quoted in Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1974. 4th edition. 290.

In The Gay Science, Nietzsche writes of “Unconditional Duties”:

All those who feel they need the strongest words and sounds, the most eloquent gestures and postures, in order to be effective at all…talk of “duties,” and actually always of duties that are supposed to be unconditional. Without that they would lack the justification for their great pathos, and they understand this very well. Thus they reach for moral philosophies that preach some categorical imperative, or they ingest a goodly piece of religion….Because they desire the unconditional confidence of others, they need first of all to develop unconditional self-confidence on the basis of some ultimate and indisputable commandment that is inherently sublime, and they want to feel like, and be accepted as, its servants and instruments.

Two years prior, in 1880, Dostoevsky published The Brothers Karamazov, whose famous chapter “The Grand Inquisitor” ruminates on a very similar theme. In this intensely ironic parable in which the Grand Inquisitor addresses Christ, Dostoevsky writes:

In place of the rigid ancient law, man must hereafter with free heart decide for himself what is good and what is evil, having only Thy image before him as his guide. But didst Thou not know he would at last reject even Thy image and Thy truth, if he is weighed down with the fearful burden of free choice? They will cry aloud at last that the truth is not in Thee, for they could not have been left in greater confusion and suffering than Thou hast caused, laying upon them so many cares and unanswerable problems.

The Grand Inquisitor informs Jesus that the Church has had to perfect his work by adding to it the kind of spiritual bondage that allows people to live untroubled, in service to commandments that are — on the Church’s authority — inherently sublime.

These passages share a subtext, namely this: that religion functions primarily as a means to negate the fundamental freedom that comes with existence, because that freedom is too heavy for most to bare. By its simple imperatives, its categories of good and evil, it lifts from its adherents the burden of being arbiter of their own lives.

I agree that religion so functions, but is that necessarily cause for contempt? The inability of the average human to deal with the complex ambiguities of life is independent of religion; if he had not this mechanism of self-indenture, he would devise another. In light of this, it might be inevitable for there to exist various ways for us to indenture ourselves (indeed there are others besides religion, capitalism for one). But religion goes further. Not only does it enslave, it claims to exalt. It claims to empower as it thrives on subjugation. It demands respect for the ignoble task of making the feeble-minded absolutely certain of truths that do not exist.

I have to side with Nietzsche in contempt of religion; not only does it feed the “will to ignorance,” but it deceitfully claims to do the opposite. If we are going to throw ourselves into bondage out of some profound ennui, we should at least be honest with ourselves about it (cf. Heidegger’s Being & Time). Digging deeper into this honest interpretation of life may lead us to better understand the very condition in which we find ourselves — questions and answers over which religion pretends to have ultimate authority.

The fact that philosopher Frederick Nietzsche went insane in his mid forties may count him as an unreliable source but his definition of freedom from The Gay Science (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, 1882) is one I copied down in 1981 and still rings true:

“What does your conscience say? – You should become him who you are.

Where lie your greatest dangers? – In pity

What do you love in others? – My hopes

Whom do you call bad? – Him who always wants to make me ashamed

What to you is the most humane thing – To spare anyone shame

What is the seal of freedom attained – No longer to feel ashamed of oneself”.