I picked my title for this review before I located the best reason for thinking so on page 131, which mentions the history of the link between philosophy and the politics of those who demystify "only in order to mystify better. Although this programme was initially tied to the exercise of power, it here becomes a rule of thought, a metaphysical conception . . . It is not simply a matter of destroying the notions of the true and the false; it also concerns the entrance of obscure forces on to the stage through the moral ruin of the intellect." I read this book as a way of approaching an understanding of the politics of a superpower which is dedicated to keeping its strategic thinking truly nukers, but I appreciated the book more for the frank realization of the pain involved in facing such a dismal philosophy realistically. Nietzsche admitted this most clearly in a letter which he wrote to Gast on 5 October 1879, "I have reasons for fidelity here, for 'behind thought stands the devil' of a tormenting attack of pain." (p. 18) The letters printed from pages 16 to 22 in the chapter on "The Origin of a Semiotic Impulse" are outstanding. On a lighter note, I could play games with the index, where "Jokes" would appear, but it wouldn't be nice for those involved if I pointed out that there aren't any entries between . . . (this would have been funnier if there was an entry for the Joint Chiefs of Staff). There are a lot of entries for "monstrosity," though. Using the index entry for absurdity leads to the assurance that there are some limits which really ought to be observed, because "formations of sovereignty cannot claim to exercise the absurd as violence--if they do not assign themselves a meaning--a meaning in which servitude, the subjected forces, would participate-- and this meaning can never be that of pure absurdity." (p. 119) In short, it is possible to read this book, but it is hardly likely to be edifying unless the reader is deeply vexed and willing to surrender a lot of the sense that a simple circle could pretty much sum up everything, or put things in their respective places and keep them there.

For a long time this was the most important book on Nietzsche in French that had NOT been transalted into English. So this transaltion is doubly welcome for its tardiness in arriving. This is not an introduction to Nietzsche that makes his thought accessible or understandable by putting Nietzsche's writings into some explanatory context of other philosophical movements . Rather, it attempts to show just how strange, unique, and disorienting Nietzsche's thought can be. Read this book and you'll appreciate the degree to which attempts to "make sense" of Nietzsche invariably tend to simplify, and thereby distort, his thought - they fail to grapple with Nietzche's virulence and indigestibility.

I've read so much of Nietzsche and books in re Nietzsche that much of this book was a rehashing of things I'd already thought through. Higgins does offer original insights, though, and untangles snarls in Nietzsche's thought in ways that hadn't occurred to me.-The most important of these clarifications is her explanation of eternal recurrence by analogy with how we appreciate music. It's somewhat amusing to me that the book she uses to demonstrate this striking similarity, Victor Zuckerkandl's Sound and Symbol: Music and the External World, was required reading in a Music Appreciation class I was required to take as an undergraduate.-Alas, I was too interested in drinking beer then to make any sort of connection, though perhaps Nietzsche himself would have found this more "life affirming" for me at the time!-Higgins, if I read her aright, regards "eternal recurrence" more as a state of mind than as a scientific theory, though it may be both. As she puts it, "Music resists any attempts to deny its immediacy and to wed it to the past....The past and future are both connected with the awareness of the present tone, but not as specific past and future events." And, as Zuckerkandl nails it down, "Let anyone capable of it call to mind the immediately preceding tone of a melody he is hearing. The instant he does so, he will have lost the thread of the melody." Life lived at its highest level, then, is a sort of music where one lives intensely in the moment, full of what Higgins calls "the wild magic of living" while themes recur over and over again without our memory having to intrude, so to speak.-This is the best explanation of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence I have read. Previously, it was always the big sticking point for me in the book, and I dismissively (like many others) assumed this was the point where he started to go mad.-Strangely, I was reminded by Higgins' comparison of music and eternal recurrence of nothing so much as the acccount of the beginning of the world in Tolkien's The Silmarillion where life begins as different strains of music. They both lend considerable spiritual and creative heft to melody.- I only gave the book four stars because so much of the early part of the book was old hat to me. But the book as a whole is the best comprehensive introduction to Nietzsche's Zarathustra that I've read. The Menippean satire comparison she presents to explain Part IV seemed redundant to me because I've never had a problem with Part IV, though obviously many others have. This is probably due in great part due to the fact that I approach much of Nietzsche through one of his greatest disciples, the poet Yeats. And when, in Part IV, Nietzsche exhorts the higher men, "What does it matter that you are failures?...learn to laugh away over yourselves!", lines from Yeats' "To A Friend Whose Work Has Come To Nothing" cross my mind, "Be secret and exult. Because of all things known, that is most difficult."

In this book, Higgins does not act as your tour guide, as Alderman and Lampert do in their books, but rather is the one who has written the well thought out, beautifully illustrated catalog--the one that either makes you want to take the journey in the first place, or the one that shows you all the nice sites you might have missed along the way.

But enough metaphors... This book is a wonderfully written study of Nietzsche's ultimate literary masterpiece (which is still, to this day, my favorite book, and one that I read from almost everyday). Intelligent and penetrating, its main focus is to bring to light the all-too-often missed if not completely disregarded story-line.

The only flaw I can think of, is that the author, while her intent is good, focuses a little too much on Nietzsche's earlier works for the interpretation of a book, which Nietzsche himself said, stood by itself among his writings. It wasn't totally necessary, as their main ideas can be gleaned from the main focus of the work.

But the very strong points outweigh that single flaw. It will change your view of this book in a big way--but it will always be a good one.

I have searched far and wide to find a book that examines Henry James in such vivid detail. I especially enjoyed Donadio's examination of James' vivid Tie collection. Donadio's own illustrious break dancing career makes him the perfect man to document Nietzsche's own prolific moves. While Donadio's style is dry at times, he quickly remounts his literary horse, drawing the reader into a trance-like state of literary ectasy. If that isn't the artistic will, I don't know what is!

Any true student of American literature would love hiding away with Donadio and a six pack, ready to appreciate approach life with renewed vigor.

How do I condense pure genius into written form? Look, I'm not saying you should read the work of Stephen Donadio, and I'm not saying you shouldn't read the work of Stephen Donadio. All I'm saying is that if you do read this unqiue encounter with American literary genius, you should do so with an open mind and a vast hunger for knowledge.

What the novel lacks in physical beauty is made up for with equisite dressing of large themes. Donadio accentuates the boring side of life with skillful ear hair. One might compare Donadio to literay great William Faulkner, who so avidly described hunting for a bear without a compass.

Stephen Donadio, we live in your shadow.

If you want to gain insight into Nietzsche's thinking outside of his usual philosophical writings, or follow his chain of thought throughtout his life, this collection of letters is somewhat helpful, but he does not seem to engage in the manner in which he does in his formal philosophical works. One of the features I found surprising in his letters is the courtesy he showed to his recipients. It is evident that Nietzsche treasured the friendships he had, and this is very apparent in his letters. And interestingly, I did not find any hostility in any of the letters addressed to Richard Wagner, considering the history of their relationship.

The book is well-edited, and there is an index of recipients near the end of the book. The editor also includes a general index with subentries that allow the reader to scan an entire topic. This is a helpful aid for amateur readers of Nietzsche, such as myself, but could also be helpful I think to dedicated scholors of Nietzsche.

I was only disappointed that more letters did not address more of Nietzsche's thinking on Dionysus and Apollo. It would have been interesting to read what he had to say about them via the "freestyle" of letter writing. Nietzsche's philosophical writings are actually the most frank and unrestrained of all in nineteenth-century philosophy. He is very honest with himself, and because of this he might be viewed as somewhat narcisstic by some readers. This may be true to some degree, but Nietzsche is refreshing in his style of writing, and actually it is quite entertaining to randomly move through his books and read his maxims and opinions.

The most interesting letter is the one addressed to Carl von Gersdorff on April 6, 1867. He is writing about what he has called "the scholarly forms of disease", and tells of a story about a talented young man who enters the university to obtain a doctorate. He puts together a thesis he has been working on for years, submits it to the philosophical faculty. One rejects the work on the grounds that it advances views that are not taught there. The other states that the work is contrary to common sense and is paradoxical. His thesis is therefore rejected, and he does not therefore earn his doctorate. Nietzsche describes the "not humble enough to hear the voice of wisdom" in their negative judgment of his results. Further, the young man is "reckless enough", in Nietzsche's view, to believe that the faculty "lacks the faculty for philosophy. Nietzsche uses this story to emphasize the virtue of independence: "one cannot go one's own way independently enough. Truth seldom dwells where people have built temples for it and have ordained priests. We ourselves have to suffer for good or foolish things we do, nor those who give us the good or the foolish advice. Let us at least be allowed the pleasure of committing follies on our own initiative. There is no general recipe for how one man is to be helped. One must be one's own physician but at the same gather the medical experience at one's own cost. We really think too little about our own well-being; our egoism is not clever enough, our intellect not egoistic enough."

He's right.

This book is real fun to have, and shows a side of Nietzsche that is hard to come across in his formal works and the countless biographies. You can read first-hand the conflicts with his sister's anti-semitic husband, read his own giddyness about finishing a new book, and follow his decline into a state of insanity (during which he wrote the strangest letters of all). His wierd sense of humor is much more visible in his letters, which helps one to recognize when he is humoring himself at the expense of the suprised reader in his other works.

"Dear Professor: Actually I would much rather be a basel professor than God; but I have not yet ventured to cary my private egoism so far as to omit creating the world on his account. You see, one must make sacrifices, however and wherever one may be living..." (Jan. 6 1889, To Jacob Burkhart, from Turin).

Also, the index in the back of this book is very thorough, making it easy to find any person or concept that he deals with.

Note: If you are looking for other writers that write as intangible and beautiful as Nietzsche's works but less harsh on the world, try reading some Emmanuel Levinas, a briliant French Jewish Philospher who died in 1995, (Good book: Dificult Freedom)

I read this book about two years ago in high school. It caught my eye because it was a completely black hardcover book with the title "Young Nietzsche" on the back (of course). Afterwards I had to skip a few classes to read the Hollingdale biography - so great was the inspiration this book provided. This was the first Nietzsche commentary/biography I read. I had struggled with the birth of tragedy and carried it around in an attempt to make myself look smart a few times but I was too lazy to do anything real, and only succeeded in impressing teachers, and I slowly realized that there was really no one to impress. Anyway, I remember the book as being fairly inspiring and very interesting from a purely biographical point of view (can I be more vague or ridiculous?). If you are perhaps a lowly high schooler living in the total darkness of American public education and would like to shine a little light onto you and your fellow prisoners, check this book out. I'm not sure I'd like it as much now that I have become less pretentious... but anyway it is worth reading and its not too long. I think the editorial above gives a good summary but is a bit harsh. The book develops what has become typical as far as hypotheses go, but it offers some sagacity for anyone who wants to learn or find out what it means to learn in that it provides the means - a step up from this is Monk's biography of Wittgenstein. The absolute worst thing about the book is that it leaves you hanging and so you had better buy the Hollingdale biography too (I don't work for amazon, BTW) and then read the real stuff. Well I hope you like the book if you buy it. I hadn't even thought of Harold Bloom until I read that editorial... You won't get a lot out of the book, but you might get a LITTLE, if you catch my meaning. It's the style the gets you out of the cave. The more scholarly person will turn a cold shoulder and avoid second hand ambition.

If there is a problem with this book, it is that its conclusion, "Redefining Genius" is still too vague to make any particular genius of much significance. Due to media influences, social thought now is largely a matter of public opinion, and I may have few companions in the belief that, of course, it was quite proper for Nietzsche to rise to an attack upon his own age, its public opinions, and all the ways in which people prefer to fool themselves. I am grateful to this book for its outlook; merely mentioning its title is often enough to convince others that I don't have to agree with them. The index doesn't have a listing for jokes, and the author seems to associate them quite closely with the scandalous life of the composer, Wagner. On page 120, we are told, "If that was not enough, there were Wagner's coarse jokes, which frequently involved Cosima." My own interest in developing the idea of a fetish involving Nietzsche's relationship with the Wagner family has relied on the information in this book, on that very page, that Isolde was born in April 1865, so she was four when Nietzsche first stepped into that family circle. Other sources indicate that Nietzsche stopped visiting the Wagners before Isolde turned twelve, when the composer began trying to teach Nietzsche something about religion. Things which may have been left out of this biography might not be helpful for understanding the nature of genius. Or maybe the worst idea of a genius would be someone who knew what all these people were thinking and wrote it down.

When we read this book some things come to our minds: 1-Nietzsche was the most courageous philosopher ever,just because he had courage of saying what was the truth, but most of people was not prepared to the impact. 2-The existence of god it is only based on the ignorance of primitive men in explain things which they was not capable of understand. 3-Jesus was as smart as most of priests of nowadays. 4-The winners have not lived in accordance to the principles of christianism,cause if they had, they would not have been winners.

I have red some reviews,and noticed people that are neither philosophers,experts nor intelligent ,daring to write things about a genius like NIETZSCHE,WITHOUT HAVE NEVER RED ANY WORK OF HIM . People do not know the context of this work. Nietzsche was a human lover ,he was the most concerned about the future of the mankind philosopher ever.Ignorant and dumb people judge him a misanthrope,it made me laugh. Please go to study more,and get smarter , before trying to read a superb work like that. Dumb people is low in getting rid of their dogmas.

Whether you agree with him or not, you gotta admit that Nietzsche had some very strong arguments about the validity of Christianity, and how he views it as a form of weakness posing as a strong institution. There is a section where he takes verses from the Bible itself and explains in a way on how it is evangelical and dictatorial. Nietzsche was a deep thinker, perhaps too deep because he got really sick shortly after this book, and he didn't seem like the type of guy to just ramble about a topic without knowing about it. Him quoting the Bible and many other religious texts porves that he well-researched Christianity and made enough valid points to defend his position on Christianity. I am not an antichrist myself, thoguh I more or less shun organized religion, but Nietzsche has some very thought-provoking concepts. Sure it is offensive to one devout to Christianity, and I'd probably be offended if I was a practicing Christian, but this is recommended for those who study religions and philosophy, or just a powerful book in general.

Before I begin, I would like to note that this review isn't meant to be something that focuses the wandering eye on the thoughts of many and many a philosophy class and its deductions. Instead, this is meant as a briefly conceived, introspective look into a work that I've had the pleasure of reading and am recommending to others in addition to earlier works that Nietzsche wrote. To me, it seems that people lose sight of the work itself in the dissection of the author and all the hidden connotations that are perhaps manifest within his works, and I hope that my commentary is received as something quickened by a different train-of-thought.

Frederick Nietzsche the philosopher and his little known cohort, Frederick Nietzsche the comedian, seem to work hand in hand very well in most of his works and especially in his earlier editions, providing ideas that seem stunning in many rights because of the timeframe they were written within and because of the subject matters they wished to assail. Biting with dry snippets of wit and underlying humor, not to mention a perspective that was especially unique at the turn of the 20th century, Nietzsche managed to find himself ignored by many theologians in his own time only to be deservedly uplifted in later decades because of his keen insights into matters that people would rather have ignored. This fact is evident each and every time one reads how he wantonly flaunted his beliefs in front of an audience, pointing out the inherent flaws in the belief system that he perceived as a waste of time and in the ideological principles that find themselves within his philosophical crosshairs.

Nietzsche the comedian took a backseat in this work, however, as he found himself focused upon something that filled his words with a seething, almost venomous, revile; that of a religious system he saw as corruptly based in both principle and in prophecy, unworthy of redemption in the thinking man's world. Still, as is oftentimes overlooked in many this work, it is the delivery system that the church itself adopted to further these trains of thought that is actually the vessel under assault here and not simply the philosophy itself, a fact denoted in a most scathing manner that takes ideas he presented in earlier volumes and furthering them. His commentary on men of the garb and on the ideals of "sin" and "forgiveness" support that assumption well, as do many other items covered herein, building a basis for the stones he casts with utter contempt again and again.

It is also mistakenly understood by many a person that Nietzsche himself was against the teachings of the Christ figure when, in fact, he seemed to fill certain points of the book with reverence for Christ, citing him as someone that would have been a challenge to debate with because only Christ would have been able to defend his words. It was the term Christian that he seemed to deplore and the church that was built upon its shoreline, attacking Paul and the foundations of the monolith beast as well as its hypocritical understanding of the unknown and the fear used to further it.

This is not to say that the book is without its flaws, because it is. There are statements that generalize and there are phrases that defame, but these are only portions of the piece and not the overall effect itself. This is also an angrier edition that is more straightforward and less of a work of prose, choosing to instead embrace the approach of a hammer and not as a dance of syllables. Personally I find that interesting, seeing the things that he had thought groundbreaking in their own right because they shed the fear of the metaphysical and the hatred harbored for anyone that spoke out against these things, holding up little tidbits of his life and his personal perceptions within them before a nation of naysayers. For this reason, I recommend this book as something to look into and enjoy, reading it only after other books have been first checked out.

In Nihilism Before Nietzsche, Michael Allen Gillespie argues that Nietzsche ripped off his entire philosophy from Schopenhauer, Kant, and Fichte. His "Will to Power" concept, says Gillespie, that Nietzsche says it is in all things, is proof that Nietzsche believes in the absolute. That Nietzsche even developed the Will to Power is due to his early influence and later rejection of Schopenhauer's "Will to Life." That Kant and Fichte worked with concerns for the noemena or "Beyond" is where Nietzsche becomes able to have his phenomenal world boundaries, says Gillespie. Nietzsche's concept of Nihilism comes not from the great analytic tradition where the absolute nothing of the Beyond is deified, but rather from active Russian Nihilism, he says. His Dionysus concept that sprung Nietzsche's Overman comes from Wagner and indicates "the radically free will not bound by past actions, [where] change is the result not of determinate negation but of absolute negation" (252). This capricious transrational will was common to the nominalist notion of God, he says. Therefore, Nietzsche is not novel, but has simply reinvented Christianity under a new guise.

Gillespie's point against the novelty or originality of Nietzsche's working conditions is flatly outside of the realm of philosophy. He clearly has not taken into consideration Nietzsche's meaning, which is Nietzsche's epistemological work-ethic in action. Rather, the case for Gillespie is to see who came up with what first. What consolation this ultimatum of novelty has one can only guess. Certainly, the boundaries and concepts Nietzsche works with come from his exposure to his milieu. What is the point of that? Certainly he would not quarrel over such trifles in action, although he certainly thought himself to be novel. That he was novel does not fall, however, simply because of the claims Gillespie raises. The man discovered things against his backdrop; we are being-there-with-others. How does the coincidental discovery of working concepts by someone after another say anything for the meaning of their philosophy? And as far as the claim of the "Will to Power" as evidence of Nietzsche's absolute is concerned, clearly no acknowledgment of Nietzsche's meaning has been made whatsoever here. What the Will to Power is resides in the human, but is encroached by the structures wielding the herd instinct. That is where Nietzsche is working, as we have seen, and that has nothing to do with a Beyond or any absolute. Rather, it is dealing within the now. There is no "omnipotent will" in Nietzsche, particularly because his prime motivation was the fear that Christianity and its universalist bastard offshoots would write the individual out of existence all together. Nietzsche's refusal to throw out any human system, contrary to the cultural philistine and, really, contemporary self-professed post-modern "radicals," clearly shows that his last resort, "The Last Man" no less, is one that maintains the system of Christianity as such before doing away with it. This is out of respect, the most profound respect in this writer's opinion, for the human being, the individual, self-with-other, known because there is the other. To get rid of that is indeed to extirpate willing altogether - a very real Angst residing in the eminent probability that nothing is absolute. Nietzsche, therefore, remains in a continuously willed positivistic phenomenology. The popular willing the belief in a rational ghost of will that is behind all things Nietzsche saw as leading to the creation of conditions allowing the end of the individual's willing. Christianity as a system to Nietzsche was a willing nothing, but not an absense of willing. That absense of any willing at all is Nietzsche's understanding of Nihilism, be it semantically different from apologists of idealism like Gillespie or not. And that the Christian's detriment to the individual's willing logically brings the prospect of no willing whatsoever, this cancels out any and all absolutes. This Nihilism is possible, and Nietzsche continues to hail as the most Anti-Nihilist philosopher thus far. Gillespie is sorely off the mark; too much time in the hollows of academia. Should one want anything to do with Nietzshe's philosophy, this book is a waste of time and could even be called a bag of utterly pompous namedroppings from the rotting epochs of the obfuscation of truth we can only respect insofar as our reaction to them has plunged us on. Whether that "on" is progress, however, is up to the individual to decide. Quibbling about semantics and what self-acclaimed, anachronistic "philosophers" INTENDED universally, rather than what their actions indicate, is all this book ammounts to. And thereto, it is very close to not willing anything but a bullet in the foot, that is, if any philosophy was to be done. Rather, read some R.J. Hollingdale on Nietzsche. Or, perhaps, read me on my geocities website.

This work challenges Nietzsche's claim on the term and concept of 'nihilism'.
Hegel's notion of the history of philosophy in relation to a philosophy of history seems as obscure as the core of (his)philosophy itself, yet the history of philosophy is closely cousin to the dynamics of the modern, and we see Hegel's point better than he in the strange way the rise of modernity transforms a complex series of thoughts, streaming in from the medieval, evoked and tuned by Descartes, climaxing in the period of Kant,and his successors, the relation of Fichte to Kant being crucial, yet with an echo of Descartes. It is all too arcane, and proceeds in disguises. Like particles in an atom smasher the breakdown products stream across the nineteenth century and beyond. The point is that anything succeeding the period of early transformation has a poor chance of escaping the comprehensive nature of the 'history' as 'philosophy'.
Nietzsche cries out to be seen as entirely original, progressing beyond this peak,in some ways he is, yet we should wonder at his place in this sequence. Sure enough, as this work shows, the connection is direct. The relation to Schopenhauer is the obvious clue, but in this fascinating and quite compelling account Gillespie digs deeper to find the direct relationship to Fichte, and his response to the achievement of Kant. Fichte is the fall guy, forever excoriated, yet the man who is the key to what comes later. Here the words 'will', 'absolute I', and 'god' are the verbal chimeras of Fichte's entry into the noumenal realm, a venture denounced with his last breath by Kant. From there the explanation is suddenly clear, almost too clear perhaps, and proceeds through the Romantics, Hegel, the Left Hegelians, the Russian nihilists, and finally Nietzsche and his Dionysus.
Nietzscheans should tighten their seatbelts here, but the ride is worth it. Fascinating piece.

Gillespie makes clear his understanding of nihilism the book takes an almost history of Nihilisam approach to create a new idea of the often confused philosophy found in Nihilism. The book is well written and a sweet read.

Chamberlain does a good job of painting a picture of Nietzsche's harrowed yet sublime life. However, the work makes obvious the fact that she is NOT an expert in his philosophy. It is a decent, playful exploration of Nietzsche, but surely not a serious introduction to his thought or its internal evolution.

lesley chamberlain, a traveler, food critic, and philosopher, is admirably equipped to write about a man who was also those things. we see turin almost through nietzsche's eyes, the hotels, bookstores,theaters and grocery stores, the weather and even the predominant colors. we see the overman himself getting lost on trains, smiling at comic operettas, and surviving on sausages mailed to him by mom. we also see the working philosoher in his final productive year, reaching a crescendo of creativity at the same time he struggles to evade syphlitic madness. chamberlain has an eye out for his weak points: are his books mad, was he a proto-nazi and an anti-semite? chamberlain suggests that war and the military, of which nietzsche had personal experience, were frequent metaphors for him, and can lead to misunderstanding when nietzsche's style turned as heated and shrill as at last it did. a book full of color, thought, ompassion, and not a little criticism, too.

Nietzsche's writings have been interpreted, misinterpreted, translated, mistranslated and mutated to serve many individual interests - from the evils of the Third Reich to the man's only sister, 'editing' his work to suit her personal, social and political gains. Like Freud, Nietzsche has been used and abused as a platform in the creation of 'new' philosophies, some citing his work as inspiration, while others, in a fit of intellectual dishonesty, claim his ideas as their own. It has been said many times that he is the most misunderstood philosopher of the modern age. From my readings and experience, this claim is not far from the truth. This brilliant book, however, in a single brush of elegance and heart, re-examines Fredric Nietzsche and his work in a gentle, unpretentious though concise way, and attempts to introduce or re-introduce readers to this intriguing, inspiring and highly complex mind.

Chamberlain writes with passion and intuitive insight about the last sane year of Nietzsche's life while he lived and worked in the beautiful city of Turin. This was more than any other a happy and productive time in the professor's life. This is much more than a biographical narrative, but a brave exploration by Chamberlain into the sights, sounds, thoughts and relationships of this fragile though contradictory philosopher. This book is not so much a cerebral approach to the man and his thought, but an emotional, visceral appraisal of a unique thinker striving to understand the human condition.

At the risk of minimizing his thought, Nietzsche's philosophy concerns itself with the problem of self-transformation. Life for this philosopher is an art; that it is all too easy to accept surface phenomenon, (social mores, religious dogma, modern psychology and political propaganda) to then turn these received notions into 'essences'; hence, shackling our freedom. He proposed that a possible 'counter-move' was to constantly challenge these received notions in the form of artistic creation - he called this, transvaluation. Our universal problem of pain and suffering, he suggests, is part of who we are, and to deny this, is to really deny existence itself. Part of the solution to pain, is to view it as a way out, a kind of vehicle towards a higher transformation of humanness.

Of the many biographical narratives about Nietzsche's descent into madness, Chamberlain is the most sensitive without the sentimentalism or coldness similar to the many other descriptions I've encountered. It strikes at the heart with precision and leaves a lasting impression.

If you are a philosopher or merely interested in a unique approach to telling the story of a thinker who has shaped modern philosophy in the twentieth and twenty-first century, read this text. It will be well worth the time, money and effort.

Even though Nietzsche is my favorite philosopher, I must agree with the other reviewers. Is doesn't take a genius to see that this was indeed a notebook and not nearly ready to be published. The Will To Power does put forth some very strong ideas, but the way they are put together here is just too much for the reader. He is on to another topic before you even know what the hell is going on. It would have been curious to see how this book turned out if Nietzsche did put his touch on it. Instead we are left with a book that remains unclear, and was not meant to leave his writing desk (the idea was shelved in favor for "The Revaluation Of All Values" ,which was supposed to be in four parts, the first part was finished and became "The Antichrist"). It is very good in places, I did enjoy it, but it was way too much to take. Try "The Gay Science," "Beyond Good And Evil," or "The Antichrist". And then you will see why people like me love reading Nietzsche. This is more for people who have everything else by him already and are looking to complete their library. Obviously Nietzsche's sister saw the dollar amount when she had it published posthumously.

This work is only going to appeal to a few people. Some will simply pick it up as entertainment, some will only buy it to complete their collection or perhaps buy it for reference. However there are a select few who will read this, perhaps on accident, or on advice from some of the reviewers here and they will discover a new world. That is one of the things that initially attracted me to philosophy, to feel and understand different ways of seeing the world. As beautiful as Nietzsche's ideas may be, I often find he is the most misunderstood philospher. I am not going to go into the cliched rant about how he was misinterpreted by the Nazis, etc. Personally I think that hit the nail on the head on most his ideas. Yes, he was not antisemitic and the nazis were. However Nietzsche seemed to still advocate mass murder for the weak, by they white, black,jew, etc. What I find most laughable is those people who like to talk about how Nietzsche doesn't have a true interpretation or how he contradicts himself. Contradiction in the sense of logical contradiction will be impossible to find in Nietzsche's works. If he appears to contradict himself on the surface, then you should be guaranteed that you have failed to understand him in the right manner. Nietzsche is not that difficult to understand. If you read his works enough, and don't have certain preconceptions in mind then it shouldnt' be a problem. Nietzsche was an immoralist. He says it is this book and in his published works as well. I find is simply ludicrous that people will constantly try to make his ideas less severe and harsh. He believed morality was much like taste for foods. Morality is determined by the person's biology. Ubermensch would be those persons who had biology that was superior (in his view, obviously since I don't anyone would seriously try to support an objective notion of superiority) while the weak in his view were weak precisely because of their physiology. Since Nietzsche believed that the soul or the mind was really nothing over and above the body, then obviously people's behaviors, traits,etc. would be determined almost exclusively by their physiology. Much like a person may prefer certain breeds of dogs to others, so did Nietzsche prefer certain breeds of humans to others (although the perfect breed for him, the Ubermensch, did not exist yet). A certain breed of dog would only seem to be superior or inferior to another breed (according to a particular's persons view) based on their traits were are predominantly biological determined. Just apply this example to humans. Now many may bicker about how Nietzsche never uses these examples. True,but if you understand someone's ideas well enough you should be able to characterize it in words and examples other than their own. I have found that the greatest difficulty with Nietzsche is connecting his ideas in a logical and coherent framework. Because of the nature of his writings, often aphoristic, poetic, and unconventional for philosophers, he is easily misunderstood. Unfortunately he often uses a word to mean different things in different contexts and he is usually not specific about exactly what many of the terms he uses means. However if you read enough of his work and think long enough, as I did, you begin to connect the ideas and decipher the meanings in their specific contexts. Do not candycoat Nietzsche. In Ecce Homo, one of his last published works, he talks of how he has been misunderstood and interpreted in a very innocent way. He says that most people interpreted his superman (and I think this word should be used instead of overman...Bruce Detwyler gives a good reason why in his book, Nietzsche: the politics of aristocratic radicalism--i suggest you take a look at this work if you have difficulty understanding Nietzsche rather than Kaufman---remember just because someone is an accepted scholar on something doesn't make them right..especially since a great deal of recent Nietzsche scholarship from Detwyler, Schutte, and Gillespie have greatly disputed Kaufman's views)as a half saint, half genius, as the very opposite of what Zarathustra, the annihilator of morality, was supposed to be...

When I first got into Nietzsche, the Will to Power was the second book I bought of his works. Although people may criticize it as being something not worth as a book- it is a great hand in understanding Nietzsche's philosophy. With this book you get to follow the development of his thought- understand the reasoning he made to put whatever thoughts into his works. Many, many people don't have the mental capacity to really understand him, thus because they can't understand, they can only criticize him. Their own personal views run themselves over- contradicting his first statement of the book "A book for thinking, nothing else: it belongs to those for whom thinking is a delight, nothing else-". If your not willing to go "hmmmmm....", then stop pretending that you can analyze his works because your 100 miles away from even nudging a thought.

Assigned as a textbook in my 19th century philosophy class, I must admit that this little volume was a pleasure to read - twice. While it may be criticized as a collection of Nietzschean quotable quotes, I was continually fascinated by his insights. It left me wondering if any of the ideas attributed to Freud were actually original, and it confirmed some of my own hard won critiques of contemporary evangelicalism.

Before the class was over I had purchased another half dozen books by this man!

A warning to those considering reading this - you will not receive pages of editorial content. Go elsewhere if you are looking for an interpretation of Nietzsche. Also, you may find this thinker as addictive as I have.

THE way to start Nietzsche. It's good to know the basic philosophical currents of Western thought(at least Plato and Aristotle for the basic schools of philosophy, with Augustine, renaissance thinkers like Erasmus or Bacon, Kant, and the other German philosophers of the time being good addenda for added richness) before you get into this, because so much of this is either a recasting of those old thoughts or a vicious attack upon them. I didn't find the language difficult at all...every once and a while, there would be a convoluted sentence that took several passes to understand, but in general it's quite straightforward. A beautiful body of work condensed into some salient passages. Suggestion: start with this...you'll be able to have a perfectly educated conversation about all of his major ideas after reading this book, and you'll be able to tell how much you agree or disagree with him. Then, if his work agrees with you, pick up the Viking Portable Nietzsche, which has all of Thus Spake Zarathustra, Twilight of the Idols, the Antichrist, and Contra Wagner, and then a section of excerpts similar to this book. By that time, you'll know what other works you want to read in their entirety(I suggest Beyond Good and Evil, to begin with, along with The Birth of Tragedy as a side-endeavour), and you'll also know more Nietzsche than any pseudo-intellectual poseur who wants to sound good at parties could comprehend.

The philosophy itself deserves five stars for being eloquent, fully realised, and the work of an educated genius, not to mention its historical value on the way modern thought works, but I simply must subtract one star for its incompleteness. You get the ideas, but not the full range of its art and magesty.

A great book to start with Nietzshe. It's very short and those who say it's "not the real thing" are correct, but, this is so by design. I would like to say that the translator/editor of this book, RJ Hollingdale, did a magnificent job, and in his introduction to the "Reader" he mentions precisely that: the goal of this book is not to house all Nietzsche's works but to "entice" the reader to continue--and that goal the editor has achieved flawlessly. The selection of excerpts is very intelligent and helpful in both what is presented and how it is presented. The editor is a Nietzsche specialist and yet he holds himself back--the clear and logical intro is but three pages (rather than half the book of academic showing off), it's directed to the reader and gives a lucid overview of the priciples that guided the editor in compiling the book in this and not in some other way, as well as the best way to approach it. I am so impressed by the role of the editor here that I'm purchasing his own monograph on Nietzsche, I really liked Mr Hollingsdale's writing style and scientific demeanor--concise, lapidary, yet accessible and careful. This book, imo, is a better one for a beginner than a similar book by Kaufmann (not that Kaufmann is bad, in fact it contains more Nietasche, but it is, imo, less targeted, not as sharp as Hollingsdale's take on it.)