Nietzsche modifies the quintessentially German notion of the forest as an idyll, which our author described in the first part of this two-part series (link). This follow-up aims to precisely understand this modification and its significance for our time.

Nietzsche’s preferred landscape for thought is the high mountains. In this context, the forest becomes important as the tree line—a zone where life is just barely possible before it freezes. For Nietzsche, the timberline becomes the muse of a thinker who lives dangerously and always on the edge. Modernity can thus be described as a cultural high forest that is constantly on the verge of withering; the fading of the idyll of forest solitude is obvious to the Germans. Nietzsche’s stance is long past being an elitist attitude; in post-war modernity, for instance within various subcultures, it has become a mass mentality. In the current movement of social radicalization, however, we are observing a new kind of mass resentment—to escape it, we must relearn the art of shaping our own lives as a heroic idyll on the edge of the abyss.

Is there a connection between place and thought? How might Nietzsche’s philosophy and the forest be linked?

In German culture, the forest often appears as the epitome of the idyllic. In the penultimate part of our series “The Forest as a Living Foundation”, our author Michael Meyer-Albert argues that Nietzsche gave this idyll a completely new form by dynamizing it.

He begins by discussing two forms of the traditional idyll. While the classical idyll in Southern European traditions (such as in Virgil) tended to celebrate the sunny, Arcadian pastoral landscape or the orderly garden, the philosophical idyll is found within the walls of the academy. A refuge from doxa, a tribute to the logos.

Meyer-Albert then analyzes the German forest as a specifically German form of the idyll using the term “Waldeinsamkeit” (forest solitude), coined by the Romantic writer Ludwig Tieck (1773–1853). Here, the forest is understood as a near-religiously charged sanctuary from the demands of modernity. If defended aggressively, this romanticism can quickly turn into reactionary mythology—even in a modern, left-wing guise.

Nietzsche’s modification of the anti-modern German forest idyll into a heroic idyll that affirms modernity serves as a counter-proposal to all these traditional forms of the idyllic—this will be the focus of the second part of this article (link).

In the fourth part of our “The Forest as a Living Foundation” series, the distinguished American Nietzsche scholar Gary Shapiro investigates new angles on Nietzsche’s bonds to the woods: the philosopher’s personal enthusiasm for what is increasingly called “forest bathing,” the science behind how this practice benefits body, mind, and spirit, and the sheer pleasure of breathing fresh air, in woodland and wherever else we can find it. Shapiro’s essay showcases why this particular Lebensraum matters, not just for our individual well-being, but for the health of the entire planet.

Forests are trending. And this is by no means contradictory to another, even larger trend of our time: digitalization. In this article, Mandus Craiss demonstrates that the forest is a network. Digitalization also occurs in a network-like manner; both phenomena are therefore characteristic of postmodernism.  

In the first part of the article, the forest is characterized as a non-centralized and thus typically postmodern natural phenomenon. The second part defines "postmodernity" and discusses the extent to which this epochal concept is still, or once again, relevant – a discourse whose very early roots can be traced back to Nietzsche. Finally, the third part explains how the network aspect of postmodernity manifests itself and how the human-forest relationship has evolved recently.

This article is part of our special series this year "the forest as a livelihood".

With this literary contribution by Giulia Romina Itin, we are launching our main focus topic this year. Throughout the year, we will publish several articles dedicated to the topic of “forest” — the forest in its dual meaning as an almost mythological place of encounter with the, sometimes uncanny, sometimes encouraging, primal forces of life, but also, viewed more pragmatically, as the real basis of existence of our civilization that remains decisive but also threatened. We would like to explore this double face together with you this year in order to determine the contours of the forest as a living space in a new way — with Nietzsche and beyond him. We need to see and appreciate the forest in a different way again.

If you would rather listen to this article, you will also find it read by Caroline Will in German on the Halcyon Association for Radical Philosophy YouTube channel (link) or on Soundcloud (link).

Barbara Straka's newly published book Nietzsche Forever? explores the question of how Nietzsche is received in 20th century art, in particular that after 1945. But the reception of Nietzsche's reception raises the question of whether the philosopher's monumentality is lost sight of. Does this reveal a fundamental problem of our age with monumentality? In any case, starting from Nietzsche, Michael Meyer-Albert argues against Straka for a “post-monumental monumentality” as an alternative to aesthetic postmodernism. In the first part of the two-part series, he dedicated himself to her book, and now he is accentuating his opposite position.