NIETZSCHE GRILLED

I had hoped to avoid being dragged into the Strauss/Nietzsche fracas, but then Jonah had to go taunt me by suggesting an affinity between Weber grillers and Nietzsche. Jonah--that's Max Weber you've got in your head next to Nietzsche, not Weber grills! And certainly not me! See if you get invited to my next BBQ!

Three points need to be raised. First, in my opinion no American conservatives today, or ever, have been Nietzscheans (with the possible exception of Bloom and a handful close to him, and they won't admit it). Second, Strauss was not a Nietzschean. However, thirdly, Strauss recognized that Nietzsche expressed the innermost character of modern thought in its most powerful form, namely, moral relavitism or nihilism. Much of this is by now subsciously a part of the furnishing of modern thought, even among people who never read or even heard of Nietzsche. This is what Bloom meant when he said that whenever people use the word "values" (including, alas, conservatives) they are using the language of Nietzsche, and validating him in a sense. (The sensible alternative to "values" is "principles," which point to some grounding in nature or revelation. I know, I know, "values" can too, but the subjectivity of value-language will win out. "I get my values at 'True Value" hardware!!)

Strauss did think that refuting Nietzsche was no easy thing; the alternative to Nietzsche was a return to classical political philosophy (Aristotle being the antithesis of Nietzsche), but Strauss admitted that a return to the classics is problematic. This is why he is often accused, mostly by people on the left (but increasingly by paleocons) who have never read him, of being a Nietzschean. The co-called "West Coast Straussians" (one of whom I am which, to borrow the fractured syntax I heard once on a C-SPAN House broadcast) believe that the American constitutional order represents a synthesis of the classical outlook on political life modulated by modern refinements in classical thought, especially Locke; in other words, America is the solution to the problem of Nietzsche, with Lincoln being the obvious anti-Hitler.

Fortunately, the founders did not have to contend with Nietzsche or Hegel, or they might have botched the job. (In fact, it is Hegel who was the guiding philosopher of Progressive Era intellectuals, but that is another story.) This is one reason why Strauss, though he wrote little about American politics directly, was deeply attached to the American regime. He made numerous patriotic expressions about the U.S. Also, he was a subscriber to National Review, which suggests he had somewhat more affinity with the conservative movement than Irakly Areshidze suggests in his otherwise sensible letter that Jonah posted.

Actually, Nitzsche did not say that God was dead. Rather, he tells a story in which the protagonist searches Europe for any genuine religious belief. He finds none, and discovers that the great cathedrals are nothing but God's sepulchre in a civilization without faith.

Is God dead in modern Europe? You bet!

One must always be careful with Nietzsche's views on religion. He was an implacable foe of theology, but not necessarily of genuine belief. For example, note his his praise for Jesus (the man) and his scorn for Christ (the theological construct) in The Anti-Christ. For him, God was dead in Europe. If Nietzsche walked into an African-American church shaking with some great gospel singing, he would not say that God was dead there.

When you start from there, there's not much room to move.

I (and others) chose Life.

I'll preface this post by saying that I am not a Nietzschean and I'm not defending his beliefs, only explaining them.

Nietzsche claimed to be against nihilism. He said it was a Christian thing.

The commonly understood definition of nihilism is someone who values "nothing," but that's illogical and basically impossible. So-called "nihilists" act in non-random ways; if there are any non-random acts there must be motivation to act and for that there must be some system of valuation. People who claim to be "nihilists," and claim to "believe in nothing" are lying. Something guides their actions.

The defintion of a nihilist that can be accepted by both Christians and Nietzscheans is "someone who doesn't value the essence of life."

Christians value things like human life in the quantifiable sense, ie: murder is bad because people end up dead, 10 murders are 10 times as bad. I don't have to explain what traditional ethical systems like Christianity and libertarianism etc. value, everyone already understands this; we live in a traditional society. But Nietzscheans value things like instinctive emotions and human senses. So to a Christian, someone is a "nihilist" if they don't value human life in the traditional manner. But to a Nietzschean, someone is a nihilist if they want to repress the essence of "life," which is our instincts and emotions, in favor of Christian morality and breast-beating/self-doubt. It sounds good on paper in some places, and Nietzsche is very good at writing convincing arguments, but ultimately, one must come to terms with that fact that what Nietzsche is saying can only lead to something very bad.

To Nietzsche, when our inner nature is repressed, we are denying/strangling our humanity in favor of a Judeo-Christian straightjacket. We should act out our emotions, whatever they are. We should not base our behavior on resentment for others (which he claims is the basis for Judeo-Christian morality).

The main problem with Nietzsche's system is that some peoples' emotions tell them to rape, burn, steal, and murder--and Nietzsche is cool with all that (I can back all of this up with quotes from Towards the Geneaology of Morals). While his criticisms of Christianity can be sharp, he certainly doesn't have a viable alternative.

Nietzsche might also have deliberately over-stated his criticisms of Christianity just because he liked being combative. He wasn't interested in seeking a workable middle ground, he just wanted to poke people in the eye and urinate on their holy texts. And he was darn good at it, too. His writings are some of the most interesting, convincing things I've ever read. Nietzsche was incredibly skilled as an author and at writing convincing prose. Most people still don't agree with it, but only because his ideas were so ugly at their core. If someone with his skill at writing had written the Bible, everyone on Earth would be a Christian.

You just gave the sophomore round up on Nitzche. It's the one you get in college.

You stated: " People who claim to be "nihilists," and claim to "believe in nothing" are lying. Something guides their actions. "

They are not lying. They have no philosophy that works. They have no warrior philosophers. No learned men that have fingered life's finiteness at it's end.

They are abject and adrift. They are alone in a concrete universe.

Nothing (which is evil) guides their actions.

/john

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.