Nietzsche: Untimely Meditations

The timeliness of these essays belies the political radicalism they express. Taken with his later works, especially Beyond Good and Evil and the Genealogy of Morals, one catches the man with his ideological 'pants-down'. --These essays contain in clearest definition, his project of revaluation, and there is no better 'clarification' of what George Brandes named "aristocratic radicalism" than as it appears here, standing against the currents of the timely and 'all-too-human' with a vision of what is to come: in all its danger, banality and glory. This is the aurora before the great battle for Noontide, a Ragnarok for mediocrity and everything socialist.

I consider Nietzsche to be the most honest, profound and relevant thinker available to those who are lost and nauseated in a godless, overly- democratised world. This is not to say that Nietzsche is without faults, and serious ones at that. Nevertheless, at his best he combines an honesty, seriousness and profoundity that are, in my view, unsurpassed. With this in mind I would recommend to anyone who wishes to undertake a serious study of Nietzsche to begin with the Untimely Meditations, and particularly the essays on "History" and "Schopenhauer". These two works especially illustrate Nietzsche's obsessions, his character and his general orientation.

These four "Meditations" deal with, as has been noted in other reviews, a very diverse number of topics. Primarily, however (and apart from the scattered passages of philosophical interest), they are criticisms, or more accurately explanations, of culture. Although they deal with issues such as sholarship, literature, science, art, and of course philosophy, the recurring theme in all four is culture. What it is, what kind of culture is desirable, how culture comes about, etc. These discussions are found in each of the Meditations, some more fragmentary than in others. These are some of Nietzsche's early writings and they reflect that fact. They are similar to "The Birth of Tragedy" to certain degrees in style and in content. They are not fully or even primarily philosophical works. Nietzsche is here still under the influence of Richard Wagner and Arthur Schopenhauer and although it can be seen that he is breaking away from those influences (for instance, the Meditation on Schopenhauer does not focus on Schopenhauer's actual philosophy as a source of education for Nietzsche so much as Schopenhauer the man, and the Meditation on Richard Wagner is not as strong and unified as the other Meditations are and it does not present a wholly flattering picture of Wagner, dwelling as it does on his psychology - it's tenor is not always one entirely of approval) he has not really begun his philosophizing yet. The other way they show how early on in Nietzsche's career they are is in the writing itself. While "The Birth of Tragedy" had technical issues even ignoring the philological and philosophical concerns (as amazing a work in aesthetics and culture as it was), these four works do as well. Don't get me wrong, even in Nietzsche's first book his command of language shows itself and these are beautifully written pieces in their own right, but neither his first book nor the four Meditations can quite measure up, stylistically, to Nietzsche's later works like "Twilight of the Idols". Still, the Meditations are interesting in their own right. "David Straus, the Confessor and the Writer" deals with a number of topics. One of these has to do with faith and doctrines of beliefs. Nietzsche, who used to enjoy reading Strauss's "Life of Jesus", blasts Strauss mercilessly (in a way that really hasn't changed if you happen to watch any TV at all) for putting up his own secular faith in place of religious faith and you can almost hear the unspoken words "Last Man" which Nietzsche would write so contemptuously of in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". The fact that Strauss shared similar views on religion as such with Nietzsche mattered little. Strauss, in Nietzsche's opinion, tried to change the fundamental views of the world (from the supernatural to the material/deterministic) without drawing new conclusions from that. Basically, Strauss was viewed as one of those who saw Darwin and that which he stood for as of great benefit to mankind without realizing the kinds of change su

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 judgmen

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.