Scan barcode
A review by greden
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche
5.0
This is a remarkable book.
This was a strange experience. I had to put the book down many times, either in boredom or because I could not stifle my excitement.
The book seems to be a result of Nietzsche blowing off steam. The writing was like an explosion of a combination of frustration, rage, and arrogant brilliance. He wrote "A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength," And that's just what he did in this work.
Nietzsche, perhaps the very first depth-psychologist is a profound thinker with a deep understanding of psychology. He's trying to get to the core of our motives.
In my favorite chapter, The Prejudices of Philosophers, Nietzsche points out that philosophers use "knowledge" as an instrument in accordance with their physiological needs. All philosophies are in other words, the unconscious, involuntary auto-biography of the philosopher.
He goes on a rampage, pointing out the real motivations of the stoics, the academics, scientists, physics, Christians, the skeptics, the ascetics, and, uh, everyone.
Nietzsche is harsh against what he calls "The herd" and is a proponent of solitude and isolation. He is a revolutionary thinker, but in regard to women, he seems awfully old-school. To play Nietzsche for a moment: perhaps he holds these opinions this because of his introverted temperament, and dare I assume a lack of social skills and success with dating?
In paragraph 234. He claims that the development of mankind has been slowed down because women can't cook food well enough. Is this satire? I genuinely cannot tell. Sort of funny though... Nietzsche is famously misinterpreted. His work is deliberately ironical and nuanced, and it requires effort and good faith to really grasp what he's up to.
In regards to the claims that he is anti-semitic, a misogynist, and a nihilist, I remain unsure, perhaps he was, but not in the "conventional" sense. Except perhaps for the misogynist, that seemed pretty straight forward.
It seems like he is deliberately obscure, perhaps because his positions are nuanced to the degree that the "ordinary person" would misinterpret them anyway. It quickly became obvious to me that I was not exactly the target audience of the book. A lot of this was Greek to me. And some were literally greek. (And a disagreeable amount of french.)
Some paragraphs vary greatly to what degree they are related to each other. The book is structured like we're witnessing the unapologetic mind-wandering of Nietzsche. In some paragraphs, I sought aid from external resources to interpret, which brought me down rabbit holes for hours... Nietzsche makes an incredibly deep point and casually moves on to another, and another, and another...
I am still on the fence about whether or not Nietzsche is deliberately trying to be hard to read. Maybe the brevity is necessary for the sharpness to pierce the reader. Maybe he was deliberately trying to bombard, in an attempt to crack the skull open? Maybe there is a hidden underlying connection between the paragraphs and chapters, only accessible to grasp within a certain time span of reading?
I understood only a fraction of the book. It was inspiring to get a glimpse of the level at which is possible to think. Sometimes I had no idea what he was up to. This is definitely a book I will keep coming back to, and re-read again and again.
This was a strange experience. I had to put the book down many times, either in boredom or because I could not stifle my excitement.
The book seems to be a result of Nietzsche blowing off steam. The writing was like an explosion of a combination of frustration, rage, and arrogant brilliance. He wrote "A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength," And that's just what he did in this work.
Nietzsche, perhaps the very first depth-psychologist is a profound thinker with a deep understanding of psychology. He's trying to get to the core of our motives.
In my favorite chapter, The Prejudices of Philosophers, Nietzsche points out that philosophers use "knowledge" as an instrument in accordance with their physiological needs. All philosophies are in other words, the unconscious, involuntary auto-biography of the philosopher.
He goes on a rampage, pointing out the real motivations of the stoics, the academics, scientists, physics, Christians, the skeptics, the ascetics, and, uh, everyone.
Nietzsche is harsh against what he calls "The herd" and is a proponent of solitude and isolation. He is a revolutionary thinker, but in regard to women, he seems awfully old-school. To play Nietzsche for a moment: perhaps he holds these opinions this because of his introverted temperament, and dare I assume a lack of social skills and success with dating?
In paragraph 234. He claims that the development of mankind has been slowed down because women can't cook food well enough. Is this satire? I genuinely cannot tell. Sort of funny though... Nietzsche is famously misinterpreted. His work is deliberately ironical and nuanced, and it requires effort and good faith to really grasp what he's up to.
In regards to the claims that he is anti-semitic, a misogynist, and a nihilist, I remain unsure, perhaps he was, but not in the "conventional" sense. Except perhaps for the misogynist, that seemed pretty straight forward.
It seems like he is deliberately obscure, perhaps because his positions are nuanced to the degree that the "ordinary person" would misinterpret them anyway. It quickly became obvious to me that I was not exactly the target audience of the book. A lot of this was Greek to me. And some were literally greek. (And a disagreeable amount of french.)
Some paragraphs vary greatly to what degree they are related to each other. The book is structured like we're witnessing the unapologetic mind-wandering of Nietzsche. In some paragraphs, I sought aid from external resources to interpret, which brought me down rabbit holes for hours... Nietzsche makes an incredibly deep point and casually moves on to another, and another, and another...
I am still on the fence about whether or not Nietzsche is deliberately trying to be hard to read. Maybe the brevity is necessary for the sharpness to pierce the reader. Maybe he was deliberately trying to bombard, in an attempt to crack the skull open? Maybe there is a hidden underlying connection between the paragraphs and chapters, only accessible to grasp within a certain time span of reading?
I understood only a fraction of the book. It was inspiring to get a glimpse of the level at which is possible to think. Sometimes I had no idea what he was up to. This is definitely a book I will keep coming back to, and re-read again and again.