This is a good introduction if you have some background in philosophy. Otherwise, it is likely to be over your head. Jaspers' look at Nietzsche is philosophically creative and sometimes complex. It is not just a guide to Nietzsche's thinking but a rather detailed reading of his philosophy. If you are looking for a guidebook of sorts, a good one is Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist'.

Consider Karl Jaspers a master of multiplicity, whose understanding of Nietzsche's thought is like the complexity of a physiologist's understanding of the peristaltic activity involved in swallowing anything. For Jaspers, an interest in Nietzsche is mainly meaningful if it is accompanied by a wish for intellectual growth (this may be a valid career goal for those who are lucky enough to pursue this kind of thing professionally). At least, such a view of Jaspers could be supported by what he wrote on the topic, "Ways of Criticizing Nietzsche" in this book. Anyone who does not accept and assume the full multiplicity of the topic being considered falls into the error described on page 420. "He is bound to consider as fixed and final formulae what to Nietzsche were only steps and to pervert these formulae by turning them into jargon, demogogic means of persuasion, or sensationalistic journalese." The world which offered Nietzsche such foolish models for demonstrating the recklessness of typical thinking does not receive due consideration here, this being a book on a lonely thinker. The self of Nietzsche can only emerge for readers who are able "to keep this depth in sight" while overcoming "the rationally onesided formulations of the understanding which he himself recognized in his own thinking but failed to check." Such a view of Nietzsche springs from the desire of those who need to consider themselves fully educated, but sensible. The kind of thought-check which is being suggested by Jaspers is supposed to thwart the kind of racing thoughts which are not productive. Don't forget that Karl Jaspers was also a doctor, an expert on General Psychopathology, a field in which facts are not as important as the emotional experiences of the kind of person who becomes the subject of such studies. In the field of philosophy, where Nietzsche's desire to learn the truth about the limitations which always prevent the full realization of this desire for truth, thereby setting a new standard for intellectual integrity, Jaspers felt that Nietzsche's sense of "knowing full well where to find exactly what I have to learn" (p. 421) when it came to matters fully covered by books "was of little consequence for his truly philosophical thinking." (p. 421) I must be over-simplifying this ~ this is only a review, and Jaspers's sympathy with Nietzsche's awareness of the limitations placed on his knowledge by the fact that "he was forced to content himself with the reading of books" (p. 421) must be true as well for people who are only reading reviews.

This wonderful introduction to Nietsche by Karl Jaspers was written in 1936 after Jaspers had been disgraced by the Nazis and forced out of his professorship. He had taken refuge in Bern. This work is his offering to help us see that Nietsche was critically important to 20th centruy philosophy, and was not the pop-philosopher the Nazis tried to make him out to be. Jasper's work is the first real undertaking to show Nietsche as he was, and to appreciate him for what he was and is.

Nietzsche and Wagner were adept at picking on their contemporaries in a way that is so thoroughly unpopular now that I would not be surprised if this book is never again printed with the Introduction by J.P. Stern which was in the 1983 version reprinted in 1989, and which I purchased in 1990. It is clear from that introduction that David Strauss had read the first portion of this book and furnished his friend Rapp with a clear question about Nietzsche's character in a letter of 19 December 1873. "First they draw and quarter you, then they hang you. The only thing I find interesting about the fellow is the psychological point -- how can one get into such a rage with a person whose path one has never crossed, in brief, the real motive of this passionate hatred." (p. xiv) Those who are familiar with legal procedures, or how the media treats anyone who is suddenly perceived to be a fink, might enjoy this book as something that might be considered an unforgivable outburst today. Who could wish for such a triumph now, over intellectual paths which crossed twice? When Nietzsche was young, he perceived a scholar who displayed the real Straussian genius. Later, Nietzsche could only find a writer who, "if he is not to slip back into the Hegelian mud, is condemned to live out his life on the barren and perilous quicksands of newspaper style." (p. 54) I could have rated this book a bit higher, for being much more truthful than is expected of scholarly work today, but the kind of scholars who read these books might have no idea what I meant, or they know that they are better off not raising questions about those political issues which are most questionable. Nietzsche's real fearlessness began here.

Nietzsche wrote "David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer" in 1873, the first of his Unfashionable Observations, at the behest of Richard Wagner. David Strauss was an eminent theologian, whose The Life of Jesus Critically Examined (1864) had had a tremendous impact due to its demystification of Jesus' life. Strauss had contended that the supernatural claims made about the historical Jesus could be explained in terms of the particular needs of his community. Although Strauss defends Christianity for it's moral ideals, his demythologizing of Jesus appealed to Nietzsche.

Nevertheless, Wagner had been publicly denounced by Strauss in 1865 for having persuaded Ludwig II to fire a musician rival. Not one to forget an assault, Wagner encouraged Nietzsche to read Strauss' recent The Old and the New Faith (1872), which advocated the rejection of the Christian faith in favor of a Darwinian, materialistic and patriotic worldview. Wagner described the book to Nietzsche as extremely superficial, and Nietzsche agreed with Wagner's opinion, despite the similarity of his own views to Strauss' perspective on religion.

This Unfashionable Observation, accordingly, was Nietzsche's attempt to avenge Wagner by attacking Strauss' recent book. In fact, the essay is at least as much an argumentative attack on Strauss as on his book, for Nietzsche identifies Strauss as a cultural "Philistine" and exemplar of pseudoculture. The resulting essay appears extremely intemperate, although erudite, filled with references to many of Nietzsche's scholarly contemporaries. The climax is a literary tour de force, in which Nietzsche cites a litany of malapropisms from Strauss, interspersed with his own barbed comments.

Nietzsche's second Unfashionable Observation, "On the Advantages and Disadvantages of History for Life" (1874) is "unfashionable" because it questions the apparent assumption of nineteenth century German educators that historical knowledge is intrinsically valuable. Nietzsche argues, in contrast, that historical knowledge is valuable only when it has a positive effect on human beings' sense of life. Although he acknowledges that history does provide a number of benefits in this respect, Nietzsche also contends that there are a number of ways in which historical knowledge could prove damaging to those who pursued it and that many of his contemporaries were suffering these ill effects.

Nietzsche contends that history can play three positive roles, which he terms "monumental," "antiquarian," and "critical." Monumental history brings the great achievements of humanity into focus. This genre of history has value for contemporary individuals because it makes them aware of what is possible for human beings to achieve. Antiquarian history, history motivated primarily out of a spirit of reverence for the past, can be valuable to contemporary individuals by helping them appreciate their lives and culture. Critical history, history approached in an effort to pass judgment, provides a counter-balancing effect to that inspired by antiquarian history. By judging the past, those engaged in critical history remain attentive to flaws and failures in the experience of their culture, thereby avoiding slavish blindness in their appreciation of it.

The problem with historical scholarship in his own time, according to Nietzsche, was that historical knowledge was pursued for its own sake. He cited five dangers resulting from such an approach to history: (1) Modern historical knowledge undercuts joy in the present, since it makes the present appear as just another episode. (2) Modern historical knowledge inhibits creative activity by convincing those made aware of the vast sweep of historical currents that their present actions are too feeble to change the past they have inherited. (3) Modern historical knowledge encourages the sense that the inner person is disconnected from the outer world by assaulting the psyche with more information than it can absorb and assimilate. ( 4) Modern historical knowledge encourages a jaded relativism toward reality and present experience, motivated by a sense that because things keep changing present states of affairs do not matter. (5) Modern historical knowledge inspires irony and cynicism about the contemporary individual's role in the world; the historically knowledgeable person comes to feel increasingly like an afterthought in the scheme of things, imbued by a sense of belatedness.

Although Nietzsche was convinced that the current approach to history was psychologically and ethically devastating to his contemporaries, particularly the young, he contends that antidotes could reverse those trends. One antidote is the unhistorical, the ability to forget how overwhelming the deluge of historical information is, and to "enclose oneself within a bounded horizon." A second antidote is the suprahistorical, a shift of focus from the ongoing flux of history to "that which bestows upon existence the character of the eternal and stable, towards art and religion."

Nietzsche's third Unfashionable Observation "Schopenhauer as Educator" (1874), probably provides more information about Nietzsche himself than it does about Schopenhauer or his philosophy.

Schopenhauer, in Nietzsche's idealizing perspective, is exemplary because he was so thoroughly an individual genius. Schopenhauer was one of those rare individuals whose emergence is nature's true goal in producing humanity, Nietzsche suggests. He praises Schopenhauer's indifference to the mediocre academicians of his era, as well as his heroism as a philosophical loner.

Strangely, given Schopenhauer's legendary pessimism, Nietzsche praises his "cheerfulness that really cheers" along with his honesty and steadfastness. But Nietzsche argues that in addition to specific traits that a student might imitate, Schopenhauer offers a more important kind of example. Being himself attuned to the laws of his own character, Schopenhauer directed those students who were incapable of insight to recognize the laws of their own character. By reading and learning from Schopenhauer, one could develop one's own individuality.

"Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" (1876), the fourth and final of Nietzsche's published Unfashionable Observations, was intended as an essay of praise to Wagner, much like "Schopenhauer as Educator." Nietzsche's relationship with Wagner had been strained by the time he wrote the essay, however, and the tension is evident in the text, which emphasizes Wagner's psychology (a theme that would preoccupy Nietzsche in many of his future writings). Nietzsche, himself, may have been concerned about the extent to which the essay might be perceived as unflattering, for he considered not publishing it. Ultimately, Nietzsche published a version of the essay that was considerably less critical of Wagner than were earlier drafts, and Wagner was pleased enough to send a copy of the essay to King Ludwig.

Herein lie the seeds of Nieztsche's notion of Eternal Recurrence, which will germinate in The Gay Science, and bear fruit in Zarathustra.

Neitzsche's treatment of the four "types" of history in "On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life" is facsinating, both in its own right, and as a prelude to the notion of eternal recurrence.

This is really a book that must be read by anyone serioulsly interested in Nietzsche's philosophy.

First and foremost, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. Yovel has a clean and sharp analysis that only rarely seems a bit apologetic for the authors he presents vis-a-vis the subject matter. But this is not to detract from his important contribution to that subject, in fact, I would like to see the writing of another book that he has alluded to in his epilogue; the Jewish take on the two philosophers. I also have to say that Yovel has for the most part redeemed Nietzschean thought for me, I wish he would have speculated some more on the genealogical method devised by the philosopher. My own interest is in East European cultural Zionism and also k'naanite movements in Israel benefiting from the superstructure that both Hegel and Nietzsche created. I can't wait for further exploration of these areas. Lehatzlecha adon Yovel.

After a series of works on the Enlightenment and the Jews, this work by Y. Yovel, author of a work on Kant's philosophy of history, and on Spinoza, is to be welcomed for a more sophisticated, if debatable, view of these matters, which, however, seem to elude simple explication. Due to the legacy of the Holocaust, all parties seem to have jitters on these issues, and more than arguably seek the reasons for that monumental tragedy in the wrong place.
Covering a wide range of topics, and fascinating at each point, this book is highly readable, but I nonetheless felt the 'dark riddle' yield to another series of problems. The account of Hegel's views on the Jews (indeed of Kant's), then those of Nietzsche, gives a misleading impression, does it not, for Nietzsche's advice to the Jews (behind some solid appreciation) would seem the worst they ever got, while the tradition of autonomy emerging in a figure such as Kant would better fulfill the hope of Spinoza for a real Judaic modernism.
Throughout, the ambiguity of the term 'antisemitism' tends to complicate discussion, and some might be left to conclude that atheism, Biblical Criticism, secular culture, were all antisemitic. Yovel leads us past these dangers by and large with a consideration overdue, but still not quite right, perhaps, of these subjects.
The stolid Hegel's views here would seem less than surprising, the more so as he was able to revise his thinking. In any case, there is an irony here, for the rise of the modern and the era of the Prophets, have a deep resemblance to each other, and to the era of the Greek and Indian Enlightenment. We need to look at them all without prejudice, and somehow rescue the modern instance from the plight to which it is now being unfairly subjected. Engaging work, with some fascinating moments.

just got the expensive book 'The Good European' last night at berkeley's Black Oak bookstore, 55$, phew. great idea for a book, kind of book where you envy the writer all the travelling they got to do in the process of writing it. Ressentiment, get thee behind me! this book is the first time i have seen a picture of the famous 'Zarathustra rock' the pyramid rock where N. was struck with the realization of the eternal return. Just wish it was in color and full-page. The photos are a little awkwardly placed sometimes. Lots of photos of doors. Was this an obsession of N. or the photographer? funny that author Krell does not mention Nietzsche's encounter with the flogged horse as the precipitator of his god-realized-madness though, Krell seems to buy in totally to the syphilis hypothesis. Truly, the west is still so naive re the vagaries and risks of metanoia/spiritual transformation. It really amazes me sometimes how these academic Nietzscheans like Krell and Yalom can completely disregard the insights of Bataille into the epic significance of N.'s 'madness' and its implications for our own illusory collective consensual sanity. oh well. not even a picture of the Piazza Carlo-(something) in Turin, as far as I could see, but might be there, havent read it closely. lots of good stuff in the book though. have always wanted to go on a hike along some of N.'s favorite paths, and this book is the next best thing.

Although at first glance this book might appear to be simply a "coffee table" book, it actually presents a totally engaging, very personal view of Nietzsche by Krell and Bates. After I recently read various works by Nietzsche, and was somewhat astonished by the heart-on-the-sleeve baring of the soul that characterizes so much of Nietzsche's writing (e.g. Thus Spoke Zarathustra), I found it very interesting to read Mr. Krell's splendid prose as he shares with us highlights of the many journals, notes, and letters that document the inner life of Nietzsche. In particular, the wonderful way that Krell matches up Nietzsche's physical surroundings with the various images and metaphors of his published work provide a tremendous insight into both the meaning and the poetic beauty of Nietzsche's writings. I especially appreciated learning about the internal tension and ambivalence that Nietzsche experienced regarding whether his work would be interpreted as genuine philosophy or merely poetry. This is an excellent book to read from cover to cover as well as to browse.

I wish that I could start this discussion at the level of people who have already read this book, but the more likely possibility is that I'm about the only person trying to convince anyone that a certain discussion in this book might be considered important. As much as I like Nietzsche, I tend to think about his approach only regarding a few problems that interest me. I'm actually more interested in this book for its treatment of a problem in political philosophy that was considered important enough for Bacon's views to be included in this book, but, as hardly anyone can keep up with everything that is going on, my own curiosity about which views anyone might hold are rather mute in the ominous flow of events in our own time.

People who read Nietzsche might agree that he has arrived at a philosophy which attempts to describe the world as it strikes people in modern times. The introduction of this book talks of partisans, but also of an understanding of them which allows a Hegelian "act of magic which preserves what is good for us in each inheritance while letting the junk fall away. The recovery of Bacon and Descartes reestablishes a radical and sober perspective on our spiritual heritage; in their work our philosophic and religious inheritances come to light as spiritual opponents harboring starkly different dispositions to life, and their efforts, so far from harmonizing opposites, kindle spiritual warfare between them, the warfare Nietzsche advances and brings into the open." (pp. 4-5). This book makes each of the three philosophers seem worthy of their places in the history of philosophy, but in our thoroughly comic society, the only question that those who don't know anything about this are likely to ask, is: Who are these people trying to impress?

Chapter 4 of this book, "Why Incite a Holy War?" contains a discussion as six characters present views on a war like the clash of civilizations between the superpower military complex and the fanatics, except that Bacon was writing about a situation in the 1620s which also had a context of religious warfare between Christians within Europe. Bacon had given a speech in "the prosecution of a young Roman Catholic named Owen indicted on charges of high treason for speeches advocating the lawfulness of killing a king who has been excommunicated." (p. 93). That such an act might be blessed by a particular religion is noted by Lampert in his observation, "France, where Bacon's dialogue is now unfolding, had experienced the new doctrine still more directly in the blessed assassinations of its two previous kings." (p. 93).

An insult is as subversive of this kind of thing, as well as being great for avoiding any discussion today, for those who have been doing fine without an opinion so far. This book credits one such statement to "Baconian Christianity whose charity has turned practical and technological," though it is offer in the discussion as merely an opinion, "`That the Philosopher's Stone, and an Holy War, were but the rendez-vous of cracked brains, that wore their feather in their head instead of their hat.'" (p. 87). I don't have that kind of a hat, anymore, but it seems to me that modern education, which this book might represent, is teaching students to pay more attention to what hat they are wearing in a particular situation, as the discussion of a Holy War does, than to attend to anything which might be innate in their brains, which may be pretty unlikely in a society whose relentless messages are supposedly based on endless flexibility.

My big disagreement about these things goes back to the postmoral stance proclaimed on page 5, which is "heir to ten thousand years in the development of conscience." Dividing the 2,000,000 people in prison in the United States today by those 10,000 years might mean that, compared to what most of us have learned each year, there have always been another 200 people who didn't quite get it yet, and, if they were easy enough to catch, had to be added to the number of people in prison each year. As embarrassing as it is to think about anything, expecting such precision in our thinking about how things really go has now become as unlikely as expecting any results from philosophy. I shouldn't pick on a great book like this, but these are hard times.

Bacon and Descartes appear in this book not as mere proto-scientists but as the great philosophers and rhetoricians that they truly were. Lampert writes beautifully and brilliantly and his close reading of Nietzsche and his precursors makes for an exceptional book.

although i certainly appreciate the above reader's take on bataille's work, there really aren't that many parallels between georges bataille and friedrich nietzsche. they have a distinctly different writing style, very different ideas, and almost diametrically opposed visions of the future. (i would also say, although this would be nothing more than a personal opinion, that in terms of the quality of his prose work, bataille is nowhere near nietzsche's league, however much we may debate the legitimacy or merit of nietzsche's controversial ideas.) while bataille is more about apocalypse and exploring the possibilities of extreme decadence, nietzsche was about nothing of the sort. indeed, he would have in all likelihood abhorred bataille's work, and more than likely written him off as a "decadent" of the worst kind, although i would certainly not agree. the similarities are small, if any indeed exist at all. while nietzsche will certainly have a place in history as one of the greatest philosophers to ever live, it would not surprise me if bataille faded into obscurity, as shock value lessens as sensibilities become more hardened.

bataille's "on nietzsche" is at times incomprehensible and far too much like the author talking to himself than the reader, but it is nonetheless a must-read by any standards. like heidegger, at times we find ourselves lost and simply not knowing what the hell he is talking about, but every once in awhile we achieve a moment of understanding that made all the mental confusion and frustration worth it and then some. bataille takes the death of transcendence to the ultimate conclusion, absolute meaninglessness and hedonism, reaching far different conclusions than nietzsche did about how the individual should live in the absence of any underlying metaphysical meaning. indeed, bataille, while many see him as a kind of modern nietzsche, might be called an anti-nietzschean in that he not only rejected the idea of 'the superman' but, through his novels and philosophical works, created characters for whom the ideas of discipline and so called 'becoming' flew out the window along with any sense of morality or sanctity. bataille says, 'ah, to hell with some future! the future no longer exists, anyway', and the frightening thing is that for a moment we are tempted to say it with him. as with all of bataille's work the intensity of his aggressive amorality is chilling, but it is perhaps among the best literature ever written if we want to gain insight into the nature of the intelligent rebel and the sadean libertine. to make a long story short, read it.

No disrespect intended, but the above review's take on this text was just so radically different than how I read it that I felt compelled to make a few comments. Bataille is in some sense writing "on Nietzsche", but more/instead of that he is using Nietzsche's work to explore the dynamics of communication and the limits of language, to question at a very fundamental level whether communication is even possible and if so how it takes place. In this exploration, of course, pain, suffering, loss, lack, desire, etc. all come into play, as they must since this is a work of Bataille's. But to speak of this pain as "sadistic" might be misleading... for (to essentialize perhaps too much) Bataille's "argument" centers more on what the individual must do to itself, its own subjectivity, in order to even approach community. When one inflicts pain on onesself, is that sadism? Masichism? The intense introspectivity of this work, much in tune with Nietzsche's, opens the door for the destruction of these very types of subject/object relationships, perhaps even to the point of obliterating the categories altogether. So despite the biographical and stylistic quirks of the author, which some might find troubling, others amusing, others entirely inconsequential, and yet others absolutely essential to the questions at hand (a la F.N.), ON NIETZSCHE is quite a provoking work if any of the issues mentioned are of concern.

he leido 6 capítulos. Es un tema interesante para abordar el estudio de la historia. Para Nietzcshe la historia es indispensable pero hay que saber tener el punto de equilibrio para que sea util para la vida: demasiada historia anquilosa. La tradición tiener un limite de utilidad; el exceso mata la vida y la dinamica de la vida; pero la absoluta carencia imposibilita entender el mundo en el que se vive.

This book is different than Nietzsche's well-known major works. It does not explicitly examine the nature of morality, the master/slave relationship, or related questions. Instead, it questions the relationship of historical knowledge to life in the present. By "present", Nietzsche does not mean some specific century or decade, but rather the present we perpetually find ourselves in as human beings.

Nietzsche asks: given that we always live in such a present, why do we want or need historical knowledge? Animals live without a historical sense: they do not reflect on the past or contemplate their future -- they simply live from moment to moment in the eternal present that humans perpetually avoid. And generally, Nietzsche notes, animals seem happier than human beings: more spontaneous, more cheerful, less given to morbid and resentful states of mind.

Given these differences, should humans abandon the study of history and try to live in the present like animals? No, says Nietzsche, this relation to history is the true source of human uniqueness and achievement. The question is not "Should we study history?" but rather, "What history should we study, and in what amount?" The answer, says Nietzsche, is history that gives us a proper appreciation of life's difficulties and the struggles that have preceded us, but which nonetheless spurs us to creative action in the present. We should never study history for history's sake; rather, we should study it with a view to understanding and surpassing our present.

This is a short, powerful volume, dense with ideas but astoundingly clear.

A great primer on the problems of history and a great introduction to a brilliant mind.

Nietzsche's unfinished manuscript is an interesting, and frequently very moving, complement to his other works on the Greek philosophers. Nietzsche steps us through what he considers to be the most significant ideas of Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras (among others) and he is most determined to pull the reader into the sense of intellectual adventure that drove these great thinkers. He goes to great pains to make sure that we do not simply dismiss (or worse, patronize) these early philosophers and that we consider the implications of their cosmologies seriously.

Unfortunately, this is not really a scholarly edition of this work, which deserves much more thorough editing than it gets, as well as a more detailed explanation of the various translation choices that were made. Marianne Cowan's introduction is very superficial, and she informs us that "it is not difficult for the lay reader to check for himself the carefully translated and annotated texts of the philosopher in question, though he will do well to compare several such sources". Oh well, it's an inexpensive edition, but there is still no excuse for some very unsubstantiated and nasty comments which Cowan makes regarding Nietzsche supposedly attempting to "glorify" Wagner and Schopenhauer and provide "propaganda" for them. Since Wagner doesn't even make an appearance in this book, it's quite inappropriate, and she provides no detail whatsoever for this judgment which reeks of received academic opinion rather than good scholarship. Any serious student of Nietzsche cannot overlook the significant role that Schopenhauer played in stimulating his intellectual progress, and the implication that Schopenhauer is not worthy of being taken seriously is ridiculous in the absence of any additional analysis.

I give this work by Nietzsche, minus the "Introduction" by the translator, five stars. This book is proof that a work can be translated without the translator understanding the concepts contained within the original work. It is clear from her introduction that the translator does not have a profound knowledge of Nietzsche and his work as a whole, for this work is best understood in the context of Nietzsche's thought throughout the course of his life, with special emphasis on his work concerning metaphysics. I won't write a long review, however, I recommend this work for anyone with a serious knowledge of Nietzsche, metaphysics, and the Presocratic philosophers.

One of Nietzsche's most revealing and neglected works. It should be read by everyone intersested in Nietzsche. He reveals to us that every great philosopher has one true undelying thought that is deeply intertwined with their personality. He then proceeds to explore each of the great Greek philosophers with this theme in mind. Not only do we learn about the Greeks but we learn a great deal about Nietzsche in some of his most lucid and straight forward prose.

_Friedrich Nietzsche_ by noted early 20th century American journalist H. L. Mencken is a both a brief biography of Nietzsche as well as a basic outline of his philosophy. Nietzshe's biggest influence is easlily recognized as his predescessor in German pessimism, Schopenhauer, along with the ancient Greeks before Socrates. Nietzsche is criticized as being only a destructive force in his philosophy, merely tearing down the decadent Christian morality that reigned in the West during the 1800s. However, Nietzsche's ultimate goal was the "superman," men who were above morality, sentimentality, religion and the "mindless grazing herd of cows" that constituted most of humanity. Much of this book attacks Christianity, which Nietzsche abbhorred above all other things, and considered it a "slave-morality" derived from the Jews as opposed to the "master-morality" of the European aristocrats. The origin of morality, according to Nietzsche and derived from Schopenhauer, comes from a race's will to live, and this manifests itself in a the law codes, usually of divine origin, of any given tribe, ethnicity, social group, civilization, race or nation. Nietzsche differed from Schopenhauer in that he felt that a heroic life was the best life to lead, instead of giving up the will to live as Schopenhauer taught. Both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer rejected trying to live a "happy" life, realizing that true happiness is unnatainable. In some respects, Nietzsche is reminiscent of the religious prophets he hated so much--he does not believe in free will, that people are more or less determined in their ways by forces that are beyond individual control, but he still exhorts them to dust themselves off and better themselves anyway. As far as his views of marraige and women are concerned, they are very pessimistic yet grounded in reality. "Love" comes from physical desire, and marriage is the official sanctioning of it. The ultimate purpose of marraige should be to breed a better race of humans to attain the "superman" in the future. There are some areas where Nietzsche's thoughts went a little fantastic. One theory he propounded was that Christianity was created by the Jews to make the rest of the ancient world a "slave morality". This is ridiculous, as Mencken notes, however some Jewish scholars today like to credit their own people with Christianity's rise at the same time voicing their disgust towards Christianity itself. But Nietzsche predicted that in the future Jews would be the ones that would virtually rule the world and have the greatest amount of influence in the intellectual fields. Another of Nietzsche's offbeat ideas is the doctrine of "eternal reccurance," that time repeats itself in cycles from eternity to eternity and gives the heroic "superman" the same struggle (in which the superman glories in) forever. As far as Nietzsche's influece goes today in 21st century America: I would only conclude that it is partial. It is readily apparent from reading Menckens exgesis where Nietzsche influenced Nazism, libertarians, nihilists, right-wing anarchists, "Ayn Rand style" objectivism and Satanism. Nothing exists for racial improvement, eugenics or euthanasia that is propelling humanity upward. The racial policies and ideals in ascendancy today are extremely dysgenic instead. Some of Nietzsche's ideas which are more readily observabable are the rule by an elite that is above the law--an "Illuminati" of sorts--but it is not bringing the human race upward--it is sending it crashing down to hell. I do not personally agree with many of Nietzsche's ideas, especially his attack on Christianity, but this is a thought provoking book of the "mad prophet of Nihilism."

This is the most lucid and entertaining explanation of Nietzche's thought and life that I have ever encountered. Philosophical goobledygook is virtually absent and the essence of Nietzche's philosophy is accurately expounded in a no-nonsense style.

First published in 1907, this book is an extraordinary work by one of the great early 20th century American wordsmiths. The subject matter, the philosophical perspective outlined by the life's work of 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, strikes me as one of the most important that modern man can hope to tackle. Mencken never talks down to the reader, yet this work is accessible to all. I highly recommend it to all men and women, but especially to students of philosophy and the social sciences

Let me start out by saying that this text is a welcome addition to the serious attempts made to bring Nietzsche's notebooks into publication. Not only, for those of us who are serious Nietzsche schorlars, does The Will To Power have many faults (see my review for it) but we also do not have much if any serious work being done in attempting to translate these 16,000 pages or so of notebook material.

One will see in this text Nietzsche's extraordinary knowledge of the greeks. Most of us know that Nietzsche started his academic life as a philologist, and found in the Greek culture something which pointed him towards the philosophical inquiry he would come to make in his life. I encourage all to partake in Nietzsche's discussion with the Greeks, for it will provide critical insight into the devlopment of his philosophy.

This text is the lecutre course that he gave at Basel in 1868. It provides an account of the most important thinkers before the time of Plato, in accordance to Nietzsche's own struggle with their (the thinkers) fragments. If one finds this text interesting, I would recommend looking into the Birth of Tragedy, Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, and just to get some background info on the lives and fragments obtained from these thinkers, Kirk, Raven, and Schofield's The Pre-Socratic Philosophers.

With that said, this text does have its limitiations. At some moments the translation is very good, and at other moments rather poor. There are sections, for example, in the Chapter on Empedocles that are very important that do not make it into the English translation. Moreover, the translation seems to make use of common English expressions when the actual German dictates a more dramatic expression. Like I say in all my reviews of Nietzsche's notebooks, his texts makes one want to learn German, so do that if you can. If one cannot, read it alongside an expert in German and you will be able to see the rather superficial areas of translation.

So, an important text with some mechanical problems in the translation. Still worth the investment though, and it provides a good intro in NIetzsche's insight into the Greek world.

Amor fati

As always, Nietzsche demonstrates an incredible grasp of theology, and it is merely our own stupidity that someone who is so much smarter than his teachers in this way is in so much trouble in the field of public opinion, which demands a much more comfortable stupidity than any reader of this book is likely to sympathize with. In the midst of this book, the judgment which Nietzsche pursues about very early Greek thinkers is "These religious insights originated from a need to eliminate anthropomorphism, but they still show the primordial Hellenic sensitivity toward the gods." (p. 78) The fragment of Xenophanes, given in Greek in footnote 15 on that page, which preceded his observation, was: "Always he remains in the same place, not moving at all; Nor is it fitting for him to go to different places at different times." As Nietzsche thought Plato and Aristotle understood this, "the entire dichotomy between spirit and matter, deity and world, is absent here. He resolves the identification of God and man in order to equate God and nature." (pp. 78-79). In humor, a high spot is a poem by Planudes about Seven Wise Men, with a line, "But Bias of Priene declared, The majority are the worse." (p. 22). Nietzsche makes the effort to sort them all out. On Anaximander, he said, "Thus he made two great advances over Thales, to wit, a principle of water's warmth and coldness and a principle of the Unlimited, the final unity, the matrix of continuous arising." (p. 33). People who are new to philosophy might think that there is too much which is new here, but it's really very old.

This book is remarkable on several levels. As a work of scholarship, it is an awesome achievement, considering that Greg Whitlock was able to produce a coherent text of Nietzche's lecture notes, and performed the most helpful task of looking up every citation, confirming its source, and providing extensive notes to clarify the details of the lectures.

But even more surprising and satisfying is the section that Whitlock modestly calls a "Translator's Commentary", which is actually a challenging and profound engagement with Nietzsche, the various Greek philosophers under discussion, Nietzsche's near contemporaries in German science, philosophy, and philology, and later thinkers as well. In fact, one of the more exciting parts of the text is where Whitlock challenges various statements by Heidegger and, I think, comes out on top. This is not mere history of philosophy, but a genuine encounter with some very provocative ideas.

At the end of this book, the reader must be absolutely conviced that the Pre-Platonic philosophers are not just interesting historically, but that each of them was a brilliant thinker with a highly developed intuitive gift for charging ahead into new intellectual territory. Nietzsche's deep passion for these thinkers is irresistible, and the reader cannot help but marvel at his ability to synthesize the Greeks with the science of his day and then use that to begin his own extraordinary philosophical journey.