“The future, the wonderful unknown of the future, is the only object of the Nietzsche Festival. ”¹

‍

synopsis

Nietzsche is one of the great thinkers of the future. “Prelude to a philosophy of the future” is the subtitle of Beyond good and evil And already in the second Unexpected viewing Nietzsche conceptualizes the future as a primary tense from which past and present can only be adequately understood.

So what could be more obvious than dedicating his own conference to “Nietzsche's Future” — a plural that he also uses himself again and again? I stayed the first day of the meeting Nietzsche's Futures at, organized by the Klassik Stiftung Weimar. It lasted from October 7 to 11 and brought together proven Nietzsche experts from all over the world, who were asked to present their respective perspectives on Nietzsche's future from the context of their home country's experience.

After greetings from Ulrike Lorenz, President of the Foundation, and Helmut Heit, Director of the Friedrich Nietzsche College, who had organized the conference together with his assistants Corinna Schubert and Evelyn Höfer, a panel followed in which Nietzsche researchers David Simonin from France, Hans Ruin from Sweden and Martine Prange from the Netherlands spoke about the two questions asked as representatives of their respective countries of origin. In the next panel, South African researcher Vasti Roodt and Willow Verkerk from Canada spoke. The first day of the conference was concluded by a panel, at which the four editors of the Nietzsche studies, perhaps the most important body of international academic Nietzsche research, Christian Emden, Helmut Heit, Vanessa Lemm and Claus Zittel.

Most speakers largely agreed that Nietzsche's future lay in the continuation of the post-structuralist Nietzsche interpretation and in philological, textual approaches.² One must engage with Nietzsche's texts in order to experience their radical potential, which consists primarily in the destruction of existing truths and certainties. Time and again, the ambiguity, and complexity of Nietzsche's work was emphasized, which could in no way be reduced to specific “doctrines.”

I was only partially convinced by this point of view. Was this really a glimpse of Nietzsche's future or rather a summary of the last 20 years of Nietzsche research? Is Nietzsche really simply an ironist, masquerade player and trapper — or is he not always inspiring with his substantive statements, which, in addition to everything contradictory and ambiguous, also exist — and of which there was certainly talk of again and again during the conference?

‍

I. Nietzsches Futures

Nietzsche is one of the great thinkers of the future. “Prelude to a philosophy of the future” is the subtitle of Beyond good and evil And already in the second Unexpected viewing Nietzsche conceives the future as a primary tense from which past and present can only be adequately understood: We need an idea of what will be in order to understand what was and what is. — An important, not to say: forward-looking, thought that later Heidegger in Being and time would pick up.

Last but not least, the “superman” is an open utopia whose philosophical content could almost be translated as “future at any price.” Nietzsche's insight: Man is essentially an animal that lives in the future, that needs an idea of it as much as the daily bread that fluctuates between fear and hope. But he doesn't want to dictate a specific future to people; he consciously thinks of it as radically open. No wonder that he repeatedly speaks of her in plural form when he writes, for example: “Out, out, my eye! Oh what many seas all around me, what twilight human futures! And above me — what a rose-pink silence! What an obscured silence! ”³

Nietzsche is thus opposed to the entire tradition in philosophy that dates back to Plato, which sees truth essentially as a reminder, as a re—construction of something past. For him, truth is essentially something that must be actively created with courage, something that Not yet is: “Courageous, carefree, mocking, violent — that is what wisdom wants us: she is a woman and only ever loves a man of war”⁴.

Every generation, every individual, urges Nietzsche time and again to create this truth, to make the unheard audible, the unseen visible, the unthinkable imaginable. It is no wonder that he is perhaps the most important philosophical leader of the avant-garde and radical political movements of all kinds. Hegel still wanted to understand the present and this as the result of the entire history of the world: “The owl of Minerva only begins its flight at dusk.” Nietzsche, on the other hand, is the philosopher of dawn and departure — for him, as at the same time for Marx, the actual story has not even begun.

With this philosophy of “not yet”, Nietzsche in particular inspired the unorthodox Marxist Ernst Bloch, who took up and developed this aspect of Nietzsche's thinking more consistently than any other thinker, into an entire system of hope and utopia. Certainly there are also elements in Nietzsche's work — this is no surprise — that contradict this emphasis on the future: the myth of the “eternal return,” which has no real future, since everything has already existed; the peculiar nostalgic fixation on “men's morality” as a backwards “utopia,” which is not a utopia after all. But this Nietzsche simply has no future; it is necessary to defend the radical adventurer who goes out into the “open sea” against him⁵ And all the “shadows”⁶ wanted to leave the dead god behind. You can certainly ask whether he doesn't go 'too far', whether the new doesn't always have to contain elements of the old and abolish them in itself; but it is the pathos of the new that is essential, and that Nietzsche always just for boy draws interest to readers who see his writings as a catalyst for their own will to change.

What is the score of these thoughts in a time that has apparently adopted “No future” as its slogan and which is characterized by sheer promises of salvation, exhaustion and relativism — Nietzsche would say: nihilism? In which the young feel they are the “last generation” and the elderly have more and more power for demographic reasons alone and seem to be blocking real progress? Is there still a future? And if Nietzsche and Heidegger are right, a negative answer would mean: Then there is also no present and no past. And in what way could in such a post-historical world Nietzsches Exist the future?

II. “Nietzsche's Futures” in Weimar

With the expectation that I would receive, if not answers, then clues to these questions, I drove to Weimar on the first day of the conference Nietzsche's Futures hosted under the wing of none other than the Klassik Stiftung Weimar, one of Germany's largest cultural institutions. It went from October 7 to 11 and brought together proven Nietzsche experts from all over the world, who were invited to present their respective perspectives on Nietzsche's future from the context of their home country's experience.

In her welcome address, the President of the Foundation, Ulrike Lorenz, placed the conference in the context of her entire work and emphasized that it was the closing event of the theme year “Departure.” According to her unspoken statement, this was deliberately placed in the year of the Thuringian elections in order to counteract the AfD's victory in the election.

Helmut Heit, Head of the Foundation's Research Department and the Friedrich Nietzsche College, which is also affiliated with it, gave a further welcome address, an institution dedicated specifically to maintaining and continuing the Weimar Nietzsche tradition. He organized the conference together with his assistants Corinna Schubert and Evelyn Höfer. Heit emphasized that Weimar was the starting point of the “Nietzsche event,” even though the philosopher only spent the last three years of his life here, abducted and cared for by his sister. The with the sister and her controversial edition of some fragments of Nietzsche's estate as The will to power He did not conceal the dark side of this heritage, but rightly emphasized that Weimar Nietzsche reception was under progressive auspices until the First World War and was closely linked to the cultural avant-garde of that time, in particular Art Nouveau. He also pointed out that the Klassik Stiftung Weimar is making every effort to have Nietzsche's estate stored here on UNESCO's list of intangible world cultural heritage. However, the request in this regard had not yet been decided.

Heit blamed the following factors for the continued impact of that “event”: that Nietzsche had repeatedly found new multipliers such as the mentioned Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, Georg Brandes, Lou Salomé, the Chinese writer Lu Xun, Heidegger, Foucault or Judith Butler; the stylistic and content-related diversity of Nietzsche's philosophy; the aesthetics of his style, which repeatedly drew the attention of artists in particular to him has; that he repeatedly asks important questions of recurring relevance to stimulating Weise said that, as a radical critic, he repeatedly appeals to young people and inspires innovations. Nietzsche's present is still our time and Nietzsche critically described it.

This was followed by a panel in which Nietzsche researchers David Simonin from France, Hans Ruin from Sweden and Martine Prange from the Netherlands spoke about the two questions asked as representatives of their respective countries of origin. The conference was generally pleasant because, by focusing on these two problems — Nietzsche's impact in the various cultures and his future in them — the common thread of the contributions was always clearly visible and they always clearly related to each other.

David Simonin emphasized how early, as early as the 1870s, Nietzsche was discovered in France, even though it was only from the 1960s as part of post-structuralism — usually referred to as “French Theory” during the conference⁷ — has been incorporated into academic research. He distinguished between three perspectives on Nietzsche in today's French discussion: polemical, which criticize Nietzsche and especially his left-wing performers, in some cases vehemently; dialogical ones, which interpret and appropriate Nietzsche in light of current cultural problems; and philological — he referred in particular to the project nietzschesource.org —, which approach Nietzsche from a more historicizing, contextualizing and immanent point of view. From his point of view, the future of Nietzsche would lie in the latter approach, which he also professed himself. He spoke of the fact that it might soon be possible to solve Nietzsche's life with the help of virtual reality-Experience technologies directly and in 3D and accompany him on a train journey through the Swiss Alps, for example.

Hans Ruin presented the Scandinavian reception of Nietzsche. This was very fruitful and important for Scandinavian culture well into the 20th century, with Nietzsche being appropriated primarily as a pioneer of progressive and avant-garde — so-called “cultural radical” — positions. However, there had been no discussion about Nietzsche in Sweden until the 1980s; he even compared the situation at that time with censorship in the GDR. The Swedish translations of Nietzsche's works are, apart from that of Zarathustra was out of stock. Nietzsche's influence on Scandinavian culture was suppressed, Ruin spoke of a “hidden heritage” that had only been rediscovered from the 1990s by researchers such as himself and Thomas H. Brobjer, who had also brought about a new translation of Nietzsche's works into Swedish. In the noughties, this led to an upsurge in Swedish Nietzsche research. Ruin described it as a sign of a culture's health if it was able to read, digest and talk to Nietzsche's texts.

Martine Prange finally explained that Nietzsche had only played a minor role in the culture and, above all, the philosophy of her country. In addition to the generally hostile, very “croaky” mentality of the country, she attributed this in particular to the “Americanization” of Dutch culture and philosophy beginning after the Second World War, which has now gone so far that Dutch as a language of science has almost completely been supplanted by English. The Dutch research system has also been structured in an extremely competitive and market-like manner in recent years, so that hardly any funding has been awarded for research on intellectual history topics; there is only applied ethics everywhere. The new right-wing government has now cut back on already scarce research funding and is now mistreating “long-term students” with fines, so that Prange was very pessimistic, at least when it comes to academic Nietzsche research in the Netherlands. She emphasized the close connection between research and politics and expressed the hope that Trump would not be re-elected. With this clear accusation of poor political conditions for intellectual history research, Prange struck a nerve and received much encouragement. During the discussion, Ruin even spoke of the Americanization of Europe as a cultural “decadence.”

In the next panel, South African researcher Vasti Roodt and Willow Verkerk from Canada spoke. Roodt was of the opinion that Nietzsche was not a political thinker in the sense that his philosophy made no contribution to building a just democratic society. He is a thinker who talks primarily about personal problems by repeatedly pointing out the implicit background value underlying our explicit evaluations and calling for the endless project of critiquing these prejudices. She took up Nietzsche's distinction between mere scholarship, which could not set its own purposes, and genuine purposeful philosophy and warned against the dominance of the former. Even today, Nietzsche is calling for a “rendezvous at questions and question marks.”

Her presentation, in turn, provoked several critical questions. In particular, it remained unclear why Nietzsche's critique of our unconscious values could not also be applied to political values. Roodt also put her assessment into perspective a bit during the discussion and emphasized that she was speaking from the perspective of an unstable democracy that is still in its infancy.

Willow Verkerk's presentation was particularly exciting because she has broad international experience and has conducted research in Belgium, Canada, Great Britain and Japan, among others. She differentiated between a more European approach to Nietzsche, which roughly corresponds to what Simonin had called a “philological” interpretation, and a more English-language approach, which she described as “toolboxing Nietzsche,” i.e. a rather superficial selection of individual passages of the philosopher's text in order to use them to support her own considerations. She identified herself as a feminist researcher whose main aim was to import this European method to Canada.

Heidegger and the representatives of French Theory had already done this kind of “toolboxing”, and their students also mostly approached Nietzsche from this lens, being particularly inspired by Gilles Deleuze and Marxist Nietzsche interpretations. She named Nietzsche's genealogical method in particular as relevant core concepts, in particular in its development by Michel Foucault, the radical feminism of Judith Butler and the Critical Race Studies; his diagnosis of nihilism or the “last person,” which in recent times has often been understood as an accusation of environmental or ecological nihilism; his critique of metaphysics and the resulting perspectivism; his critique of the “sovereign individual,” whose autonomy is a result of discipline, in the second treatise of The genealogy of morality; and finally Nietzsche's view of the self as an embodiment of the will to power, which makes Nietzsche a pioneer of phenomenology, especially that of Maurice Merleau-Pontys, and psychoanalysis. Verkerk named Nietzsche's influence on early feminism and anarchism as further problem areas that deserve more attention from future Nietzsche research. She also pointed out that Nietzsche's critique of compassion has recently been approving in the Disability Studies will be picked up.

In the following discussion, various researchers emphasized that intensive immersion in Nietzsche's writings per se, regardless of their content, is a transformative educational experience that is lost when approaching them purely through instruments. Verkerk, for example, reported on the strong emotional reactions that Nietzsche's texts repeatedly evoked among her students⁸ and invite them to question where they actually came from.

At the end of the official part of the first day of the conference, the four prominent Nietzsche researchers Christian Emden from the USA, Helmut Heit, Vanessa Lemm from Great Britain and Claus Zittel from Stuttgart directly discussed the question “Does Nietzsche's philosophy have a future? ”. It was an illustrious round not least because it involved the current editors of the Nietzsche studies, probably the most important international body of Nietzsche academic research, acts.

Vanessa Lemm emphasized that Nietzsche stands for a completely new understanding of philosophy and a new philosophical way of life. He regards philosophy as a fundamentally relational endeavor, is a thinker of relation. Claus Zittel agreed with her that Nietzsche was a critic of any claim to absolute truth. This perspectivistic and relativizing method of thinking and writing by Nietzsche is very topical in a time of rampant 'absolutisms. ' He is a thinker of “difference” (with which Zittel took up one of the main keywords of post-structuralist philosophy), who repeatedly urges us to relativize our own positions to the point of radical consequence, to constantly abolish ourselves. He heightens our awareness that positions can only ever be transitory, and diagnoses different expiration logics in his writings without articulating an opposite position, playing a game with ambiguities, puzzles and masks that you would only understand correctly if you could read Nietzsche in the original.

Christian Emden agreed with Zittel that Nietzsche was not conveying a message or teaching, but that was above all a critic and that was his potential. Similar to Verkerk before, he named the genealogical method and the diagnosis of nihilism — understood as a radical question of the conditions for the possibility of values in general — as central relevant topics of his thinking. She also added the question of the relationship between normativity and nature, how it raised post-humanist thinking and New Materialism, and the question of what philosophy actually was.

All four editors were therefore largely in agreement to favor a more philological, work-immanent reading of Nietzsche — Zittel warned against an “escape from the text,” for example — and to reject interpretations that would like to take positions from Nietzsche's texts. According to Heit, Nietzsche wanted to fail and not create a system; failure was the great constant in Nietzsche's life, according to Emden; Nietzsche had recognized that only “false gods” were possible in modern times and that the lie had lost its innocence, according to Zittel. His notorious late work Ecce homo Zittel continues, for example, as a mere parody. Lemm spoke of the danger of politicizing interpretations of Nietzsche and of the philological approach as the most important antidote to them, as a central advance in Nietzsche research in recent decades, which, as Zittel added, took place around 2000. What is therefore particularly important about Nietzsche is his spelling, not so much what he writes in detail — although the editors of the Nietzsche studies They agreed unanimously that they did not want to print overly experimental texts in their magazine.

Nietzsche thus appears as a pioneer of “Antihumanism” and New Materialism — according to Lemm, who even spoke of the replacement of human intelligence by AI should —; not as an overcomer of nihilism, but as a nihilist himself, according to Zittel and Emden, even though, according to Emden and Heit, he also stresses the need for, though never absolute, values for our human existence.

Recently, the question was raised by the audience where Because Nietzsche's philosophy actually still has a future. At university? In this regard, the editors of the Nietzsche studies rather subdued. Zittel recommended that you not choose a research topic for career reasons that did not suit you, Lemm pleaded for a stronger intra-academic and cultural appreciation of philosophy.

III. And now?

The event was a rendezvous between the mainstream of current Nietzsche academic research, a mutual confirmation of one's own convictions in a family atmosphere, which was reflected, for example, in the fact that people usually called each other by first name. Almost all of the approximately 70 listeners were there for professional reasons, and even students from the surrounding universities were searched in vain. Critically, you could say: left-liberal followers of post-modernism among themselves. From the point of view of the researchers present, the “future” of Nietzsche lies primarily in the unwavering continuation of the present, a textual, philological reading of Nietzsche in connection with the classics of “French Theory” such as Foucault, Deleuze, Jacques Derrida, Butler or, recently, Bruno Latour, the most important advocate of New Materialism.  

For now, there is nothing wrong with that. You don't want to imagine what a Nietzsche conference would look like, organized by ideologues from the strongest party in Thuringia — you would almost think that it was talking about two different philosophers. Nietzsche as a radical critic and relativizer of all, especially right-wing, ideologies and “truths”: Yes! More of that!

The drawings by German-Iranian artist Farzane Vaziritabar, which visually accompanied the conference, illustrated this view of Nietzsche particularly well. In a cartoonish style, they repeatedly question the Nietzsche cult of past decades and its (self) heroization, but without ridiculing it. He appears on them as a masked player and religious critic, as a pioneer of the critical philosophers of the 20th century from Sigmund Freud to Theodor W. Adorno and Jean-Paul Sartre to the “French Theory.” However, in keeping with Lemms's plea, an AI-generated pop Nietzsche was chosen as the cover photo of the conference.

And yet there is room for doubt. Nietzsche repeatedly criticizes skepticism, nihilism and, last but not least, philological research in his texts themselves — even though, as always, Kurt Tucholsky's famous mocking dictum applies in this regard: “Tell me what you need and I will get you a Nietzsche quote in return.” Like Natalie Schulte, taking up Tucholsky's quip, on this blog Recently emphasized, although Nietzsche's texts are ambiguous and often puzzled, they cannot therefore be interpreted at will. He combines his perspectivism with the call to create a”Ranking of values to determine”⁹. He is not simply a masked player and ironist, but also criticizes the masquerade and the arbitrariness of modernity in countless places.¹⁰ He wants Europe, that the world, to create a new, self-determined future for itself¹¹ even if it becomes vague when it comes to their concrete form. An appeal that cannot mean to stick to a general reference to the relativity of every positioning, but which amounts to taking decisive and courageous positions in the face of its relativity. Last but not least, as can be seen from Heidegger, Nietzsche and Bloch alike, the future is not simply given to us as an object, but that we are called upon to actively shape: Wir Are they who give Nietzsche a future or not and it is up to us, as its readers and performers, to design them responsibly without being determined by any past or present. Rather, these only make sense in the light of this draft.

This uniqueness To recognize Nietzsche, which in addition to all “difference” also exists in many respects, would rather be the future of Nietzsche research that would also appear to be relevant beyond its own haze. But this recognition is perhaps more difficult and painful than the same perpetual lyre of ambiguity, ambiguity, relativity, etc., as it refers not least to Nietzsche's problematic political legacy, which Heit referred to at the outset and later in particular, albeit rather subtly, Roodt. The sad truth, not said by Roodt, but clearly hinted at: Nietzsche himself might have been more of a supporter of political projects such as the South African apartheid regime than her critic.

After decades of philologizing and relativizing Nietzsche, it would therefore probably take another “content” — to take up a term Andreas Urs Sommers, who also spoke at the conference¹² — A turning point in Nietzsche research, which goes hand in hand with an unequivocal political positioning in line with the political ideals of modernity pointed out by Roodt. It should mercilessly uncover and criticize Nietzsche's positions that are incompatible with these ideals, but at the same time also point out the important and promising aspects of his thinking, which contradict these positions and which were rightly mentioned again and again at the conference. Because if you leave it with pure skepticism, you undermine all positions, including emancipatory ones; you only do half the work of criticism in the sense of emancipation.

This is particularly supported by the fact that during the conference, despite all affirmation of Nietzsche's ambiguity, mysteriousness, etc., there was always the contents of his writings — such as his insights into psychology — which were also brought to the forefront by the researchers themselves. So “textism” — according to Sommer's expression — obviously cannot completely eradicate this moment if it wants to save even a grain of relevance in the world. Hic Rhodus, hic salta! — The rose of renewed Nietzscheanism blossoms here, you researchers dance!

This rethink is all the more necessary because otherwise the future of Nietzsche will inevitably be written by forces other than the participants of the conference would like in unison. Only in passing was the danger of renewed legal Nietzscheanism pointed out.¹³

None of this is intended to diminish the merits of the philological interpretation of Nietzsche. Rather, it should be pointed out that, in the sense of a Hegelian three-step, it is probably time to find a new path in the sense of Nietzsche's countless ambiguities that took place up to the 1970s and the successive ambiguities of his philosophy in the sense of informed ambiguity, which does not ignore the results of philological research, but takes them up in order to engage again with contents to pave the way for Nietzsche's thinking. The growing interest of her students in Marxist Nietzsche interpretations mentioned by Verkerk — as well as in feminist, racism-critical or those within the Disability Studies — gives hope that this development, in response to the renewed legal Nietzscheanism, whose renaissance beyond Nietzsche university research has already been taking place a long time ago, will just as inevitably take place. And the seemingly still undecided mainstream of Nietzsche academic research will be just as necessary in this regard position must. A renewed enlightened humanism, as Bloch advocated in his specific synthesis of Marx and Nietzsche, could be the fruit of these efforts, perhaps even a collective cultural departure like the one that took place around 1900 in Weimar and throughout Europe, inspired not least by Nietzsche's ideas — which were understood quite “naively” at the time.

IV. Anecdotal sequel

During breaks, I spent time and again in front of the conference venue, the Mon Ami Cultural Center in the heart of Weimar. Passers-by came and went and looked curiously at what was going on there today. Some simply asked for the toilet, no one stayed. One person quoted from his head one of the countless misogynous passages from Beyond good and evil¹⁴ And said Feist: “That's misogynistic — so what? “Did he choose Höcke a few weeks earlier? Would participation in the conference have convinced him otherwise in terms of the hoped-for “departure” or would at least have brought him to relativize his position?

On the way home, I met a local man who identified himself as the poet of quite original puzzle verses. Some of them reminded me a bit of Nietzsche's aphorisms. He proudly showed me a television report from one of his readings on his smartphone and told me that he had already sold several thousand copies of his books. I preferred to keep silent about mine sales figures and he probably outperformed just about all of the researchers who had spoken today in terms of sales success. And not even Weimar local television has appeared in Nietzsche's Futures strayed.

How to popularize the insights of philosophy without popularizing them? That was perhaps the actual background question of the conference and the dwindling research funding is only an expression of this problem. What future does it have philosophy? Does philosophy have as an academic discipline?

But perhaps this is also the wrong way to ask the question. Philosophy, if it has any value, will always have a future. If she doesn't have him, you don't have to grieve about it with Nietzsche, but realize: “[W] as falls, you should also push that! Everything of today — that falls, that expires: Who wanted to keep it! But I — me wants Still bumping it! ”¹⁵ Nietzsche will always find his readers as long as we live in a culture that is similar to his own. He, Plato, Hegel, Kant, so many others: They have all advanced to something that may even be valid forever as long as there are people. Even if it wasn't so, so must But we, as philosophers who take themselves seriously, believe in it. And it is the same with the future of humanum, with the future of democracy. Hope is a principle, a principle that enables a self-fulfilling future. The thinking that poisons hope and faith may have no future. Or, in the words of early Nietzsche, directed against philology, quoting an important humanist from Weimar:

History, however, which only destroys without an inner building instinct leading it, makes its tools embarrassed and unnatural in the long run: because such people destroy illusions, and “anyone who destroys the illusion in themselves and others is punished by nature as the strictest tyrant. ”¹⁶

The photographs accompanying this article are by Paul Stephan. The product image is a drawing by Farzane Vaziritabar (Link to the artist's homepage with the complete series Ecce Nietzsche).

‍

literature

Battalile, Georges: Nietzsche and the fascists. In: Compensation to Nietzsche. Munich 1999.

Summer, Andreas Urs: What remains of Nietzsche's philosophy? Berlin 2018.

‍

footnotes

1: Georges Bataille, Nietzsche and the fascists, P. 164.

2: At the conference, it was more or less assumed that these two strands of interpretation were ultimately one strand. Or it was assumed that both strands ultimately resulted in the same interpretation. However, I certainly see a certain tension here that should have been discussed in more detail. The term “philology” was also used synonymously with “textual reading,” which could also be doubted given the variety of philological methods.

3: So Zarathustra spoke, The Honey Sacrifice.

4: So Zarathustra spoke, About reading and writing.

5: Cf. The happy science, Aph 343.

6: The happy science, Aph 108.

7: Whereby Simonin emphasized that this current of theory is no longer so “French.”

8: A male student burst into tears while discussing a seemingly misogynous passage and asked desperately, “How can you even think of something like that? “, while a fellow student said enthusiastically that Nietzsche was absolutely right in his critique of feminism.

9: On the genealogy of morality, paragraph I, 17.

10: Just think of the famous section From the land of education in Zarathustra. One of his last sentences is: “I alone still love my children's land, The undiscovered, in the farthest seas: My name is to search for and search for my sails.” Hans Ruin pointed out that Swedish feminist Ellen Key made an almost identical sentence from another section of the book their main work The century of the child preceded.

11: Heit rightly referred to the important body Ecce homo: “My task is to prepare humanity for a moment of supreme self-reflection, a big Midday, where she looks back and looks out, where she emerges from the reign of chance and the priest and the question of why? , of what for? for the first time as a whole Set “(Morgenröthe, paragraph 2). — This is where Nietzsche and Marx touch, here even the late Nietzsche ventures very far into the no man's land of utopia, oriented himself into the blue, which Bloch wrote about a few decades later. It is not a happy science, but a sad science to see such bright spots as a pure “parody.”

12: Cf. summer, What remains of Nietzsche's philosophy?, PP. 28—41.

13: Simonin, for example, only spoke in a subordinate clause of a few French “YouTubers” who would recently promote a right-wing Nietzsche interpretation. However, when he means authors like Julien Rochedy, whose videos about Nietzsche sometimes reach hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of clicks — we will dedicate a separate article to his Nietzsche interpretation on this blog shortly — that seems like a serious understatement; Simonin should be happy to reach even a few hundred readers with one of his undoubtedly more scientifically based articles.

14: It was, if I remember correctly, that 145. aphorism.

15: So Zarathustra spoke, From old and new boards, 20.

16: The benefits and disadvantages of history for life, paragraph 7.

‍