Paul Stephan: Dear Estella, dear Hans-Martin, we met today in virtual space to talk about the “generational question.” A “millennial,” myself, a “zoomer,” and a “boomer.” The discourse about these different “generations” is right now In vogue, on social media, you can hardly avoid corresponding memes and videos; the features section is also full of them. “Zoomer”, “Boomer” —would you call yourself that?

Hans-Martin Schönherr-Mann: I'm probably a bit too old for the baby boomers, I'm more of a pre-baby boomer. On the other hand, I am also too young for the right sixty-eight — I turned 16 in 1968 — more of a post-sixty-eight who was politicized and intellectualized by the experience of the 1968 period. My generation of young teachers, about a decade older than me, was partly influenced by Nietzsche and Hesse. It is not clear to me whether they still belonged to the “apolitical generation” of the early Federal Republic. But with Nietzsche and Hesse, they developed an individual understanding of their situation so that they no longer saw themselves as part of a community, as had been self-evident since the 19th century.

Estella Walter: Dear Paul, dear Hans-Martin, I myself am somewhat baffled by the question of generations, perhaps because my age group is in the middle of it right now and reflection is therefore difficult. However, the (increased) interest in generations as a diagnostic tool is definitely very exciting. Accordingly, I do not see myself as belonging to the generation assigned to my age group. Rather, I see it as a sometimes rather cumbersome template that makes sense in some analyses and not in others. In any case, it seems to me that Nietzsche himself has little influence on Gen Z than thinkers who relate to him, such as Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, or even public figures such as Jordan Peterson.

PS: I myself think that there is definitely such a thing as “generational experiences” and the resulting common characteristics of certain age cohorts. I can find myself in some stereotypes about the “millennials,” less so in others. But of course, from a scientific point of view, it would be necessary to add that other formative factors such as social and local origin, gender, ethnicity, etc. also play a role. And I also believe that individuals are never completely determined by these numerous factors, but that their identity is always the product of individual choice — especially if you know about this generational discourse and can consciously distance yourself from the respective stereotypes; or not.

SM: I can only agree with that. But we are asking ourselves the question of generations here. Other factors are important when they affect this question. My generation, insofar as it was political, was rather hostile to Nietzsche from a Marxist perspective. At the beginning of the seventies, the new edition by Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinari was also not as widespread and well-known — in non-Nietzschean circles —; the first volume in German was published in 1967, the complete critical study edition only in 1980. But there were also more artistically oriented contemporaries in my generation who also referred to Nietzsche. Of course, I can no longer say to what extent the various new questions of interpretation have already been addressed. They were probably more inspired by older Hesse fans.

Those who were artistically oriented probably reflected on his understanding of Dionysian art. In particular, such an element has spread massively through rock music, combined, of course, with drug experiences, which in any case were aimed at expanding consciousness or at least new experiences, which are then also associated with the Zarathustra can connect: invent new values. The politicians in my generation were certainly influenced by Marx and Adorno and followed the widespread rejection of Nietzsche based on the interpretation that Nietzsche's sister had promoted. If you let yourself be influenced by French existentialism, then you came closer to Nietzsche again. But the closeness between the two was not too well known.

PS: As for Nietzsche, I would also say that other thinkers are far more important to my generation. So did Foucault and Butler, but many also read Adorno and Marx in their formative years anyway. I like the “generation education strike” attribute better than “millennial,” even though it doesn't describe my entire age cohort, of course. But I think everyone who studied around 2010 and was halfway interested in politics was somehow influenced by the big educational strike movement. We only came to Nietzsche through detours and always from a political perspective, even though his thoughts about the education system partly corresponded with our demands for real education rather than mere education. In some cases, however, Nietzsche also served as a springboard to break out of the strong politicization of discourse and to consider things from a more existentialist, individual and artistic perspective.

EW: It is not so easy to find a common denominator between students (outside of university I rarely come across someone who has points of reference to Nietzsche). I think that similar to you, Paul, you are more likely to come across his works through detours or coincidences. Of course, there are the (left-wing) politically oriented people who come from post-structuralism, but then there are also the armchair philosophy students who are strictly interested in him professionally and regard those, mostly from analytical philosophy, who Nietzsche, if at all, as a literary pastime, not as an object of philosophical discussion. Of course, there are also those here and there who let Nietzsche degenerate into a self-help guru. This may be due, among other things, to the fact that Nietzsche offers such a wide projection screen; rhetorically, there is a suitable slogan for everyone. His ambiguity is what makes him so interesting.

For the events concerning Gen Z, which are witnesses of our contradictory times (climate change, reactionary division of societies, identity politics, colonial hangover, global exploitation relations, etc.), Nietzsche's own contradiction is undeniable topicality, it is like a mirror, a confrontation with ourselves. However, he plays a minor role in the political discussion of all these events and how to deal with them. Unlike Marx or Adorno, he usually stays in seminars and textbooks, rarely making it onto the streets.

SM: First about education: My generation and those of 68 were diligently calling for reforms — think of the slogan: “Under gowns, the muff of 1,000 years.” But they ultimately received a remuneration, which they later implemented themselves. This has little to do with Nietzsche, at most the associated claim to self-development, which seemed to obscure these generations by the old university — what a mistake, the old university still offered more opportunities for this than the later Reformed universities. The politicians among us had no problem even with a division of society. It always seemed divided and today's talk about it is a strange romanticization following the integration of the left and the Greens into politics. My generation of the seventies was ecologically oriented — at most a certain romantic nature suited Nietzsche. I then read Nietzsche ecologically as a science critic in the eighties — a reading that no one likes to this day. But there was also a political direction that turned away from dogmatic Marxism, which I might like to call “spontaneist,” and which came to Nietzsche via the post-structuralists. How quickly Foucault's genealogical turn of the seventies spread after that is questionable. However, it is likely to have been leaked by the end of the seventies. Nevertheless, Nietzsche and Foucault's moral criticism has probably spread rather little. After all, ethics boomed in those decades. Hardly anyone wanted to hear a critique of ethics, which I still lean towards today following Nietzsche and Foucault.

EW: I'm familiar with the post-structuralist way of reading, but how exactly can Nietzsche's scientific criticism be read ecologically?

SM: According to Nietzsche, you don't understand nature as it really is. Then you have to be all the more careful with her. Ecological technology would then not be the answer, at least not in the sense that the sciences really tell us what is happening there.

EW: I see. However, the argument now seems widespread to me. Or at least skepticism about a technological solution in view of limited knowledge about nature.

SM: But then the last generation would not be able to claim that they were the last that could still do anything about climate change — with Nietzsche, climate change cannot be more than a prophecy. The Greens have long been scientistic and technicistic.

PS: “skepticism” is a good keyword. The “millennials” seem to be a very skeptical and hesitant generation. Whether in private, political, philosophical: You don't want to commit yourself and keep all options open. Sometimes we push it to the point of excess. The previous and subsequent generations often seem to me to have more courage and determination.

In my opinion, this is reflected in Foucault's dominance in my generation. At least the humanities and columnistic discourse are completely under the spell of shallow post-modernism. A bit of hedonism, a bit of relativism, a lot of skepticism, but no outright skepticism either. A bit like South Park or Vice. Nietzsche actually fits in with this, but only a specific Nietzsche, always read from the perspective of postmodernism. I think that in order to free ourselves from our generational paralysis, we must leave this way of thinking behind us. A rediscovery of Nietzsche — but certainly also of the real Foucault, for example, who from his common sense-Distorted image is of course very different — could help with that.

EW: This way of thinking that you're talking about runs through the generations. The feeling of powerlessness and paralysis, of insignificance in the face of the desperate situation, is no less evident in subsequent generations. It is precisely the nihilism of the “last person” that Nietzsche is talking about. The politicization of Gen Z, for example, may contradict this; after all, it requires change and new beginnings. But the paths and methods must also be looked at there. Activism takes place on social media, but it sounds more like moral cries that don't touch on the material basis of the problems. The same applies to activism that takes place on the streets: demonstrations on the scale as we know them are primarily symbolic. Subversive disruptions and interruptions in some small groups may provoke an outcry, but change little in the long term unless collective organization develops from them.

I would like to briefly comment on Hans-Martin's objection: I agree with you on that. However, there are certainly always voices that criticize technological solutions as long as they still follow capitalist laws. I also associate this with the objection that nature is unpredictable and our knowledge of it is necessarily limited. Subjecting them to technology, whose development is particularly linked to profit-maximizing laws, poses risks. Although that is perhaps another aspect...

What kind of ecological approach would you envisage against the background of epistemological problems? You have to start somewhere, even if not under scientific and technical supremacy.

SM: Of course, I see both objections differently from the perspective of my generation. It seems to me that there is more political self-importance and the skepticism among the population is not a philosophical one that really focuses on the sciences in the style of Nietzsche Morgenröthe would doubt. People no longer know where they are heading because a doubt about progress has spread. — On the other hand, many still expect their salvation from the institutions, as a state faith is returning here. I can't classify this generationally. But my generation and the next generation still sit in management positions and they determine public opinion, which of course no longer controls the new media — hence the whining. At the same time, all generations think they have no power or influence. You should check out Foucault for that. Everyone influences what happens. But intellectuals, not least Nietzsche, are constantly complaining that they are so indiscriminate, yet they know it for sure. But even the intellectual is only an individual person and expert rule allows him even less influence than the rule of state and capitalism. Capitalism dealt with the environment better than former socialism. There are no alternatives in sight. I'd rather keep it that way with Nietzsche recipient Heidegger. Man is not the master of being. With supposed drive, at least as many problems arise as this solves. Instead of action, Heidegger demands thinking. Of course, if the sciences asked the question of the meaning of being, they would no longer be as successful. But maybe that would be the right thing to do. — You have to reverse the 11th Feuerbach thesis: If you want to change the world, you must first understand it differently. And that is exactly what Marx did, and so did Nietzsche. Who was more influential? With the idea of the eternal return of the same, perhaps today Nietzsche.

EW: I actually agree with most of the points you raised. That is why I believe that the feeling of powerlessness is a cross-generational phenomenon and gives oneself ever new material for self-affirmation. This is followed by the search for new gods (state, identity, capital, truth, etc.) as a consequence of the propagated, alleged, powerlessness. — In my opinion, thought and action are not mutually exclusive. Anyone who buries themselves inside and only lives in platonic clouds will change just as little as those who allow themselves to be driven by thoughtless pressure to act. (However, “action” should not be understood in the sense of a rational cause-effect chain).

But you still don't give me an answer to the question of what kind of ecological approach you would envisage against the background of epistemological problems.

SM: That is ultimately the question of how important ecological issues are given, which are currently receiving great attention. And a lot has also happened since the seventies. This was the result of left-wing citizens from my generation. Many have opened organic stores. This should be addressed individually rather than by the state. That seems more sustainable to me. Statesmen, including women, cannot do that. Citizens must do it themselves and get the state to support them in doing so. But political problems are not monocausal, but there are many different ones that are just as important. I think that you can learn a lot from Nietzsche. But it is clear that this primarily concerns intellectuals, although Nietzsche is certainly one of the few philosophers who is also received outside the philosopher's guild.

PS: Yes, it seems to me that there is a generational difference again. With my generation, my perception is that for us, at least around 2010, the ecological issue was completely secondary. We didn't care so much about that, but rather about the mentioned question of a good and fair education system, the issue of peace (keyword Iraq war) and the collapse of the financial system that seemed possible to us as a result of the crisis of 2008. A bit funny, in retrospect. Perhaps we also wanted to differentiate ourselves from older people, for whom this issue was so important. And despite all the politicization, we were also very individualistic and would not have dreamt of giving up our cheap flights across Europe and meat — these are all topics that only came up a little later, even though my generation has now “caught up” in this regard, if you like to speak that way.

But I also find the last aspect that you raised, Hans-Martin, important to highlight. I know a great many people who have never studied but have read Nietzsche and know what to do with him. He's a bit like Kafka, Marx too. These are all authors who are “popular.” You can't just write the story of Nietzsche's reception as a story of his academic commentaries, but you have to tell it much more broadly, otherwise you're just looking at the tip of the iceberg.