Is Nietzsche a Philosopher for Adolescents?

‍

Is Nietzsche a Philosopher for Adolescents?

3.5.24

Natalie Schulte

In her contribution to the series “What does Nietzsche mean to me? “Our main author Natalie Schulte explores the question of whether the thinker can be described as a “philosopher for adolescents” and reports on her own relationship with him.

‍

print out the article

Yes, that's right, I don't deny it anymore, I don't refuse, I admit it, I'm one of those who Nietzsche Zarathustra Read in bed with a flashlight at the age of 15 and felt quite attached to the ideal of superman, shall we say. Belonged among the little precocious atheists who really get on the heels of every enlightened religious teacher, was one of those who felt meant when Nietzsche wrote about the ominous “we.” And then on top of that, I never got away from it. I stuck with Nietzsche or maybe Nietzsche, writing theses about him and my dissertation. It should be noted that there were also others in between, for example Kant or Husserl, but this article is not intended to be about that, but only about the one thing I haven't gotten away from, from whom I probably won't get rid of, because thanks to his memorable quotes, a little Nietzsche sits in my head and gives occasionally — fortunately only occasionally! — add his mustard.

But why, we can ask imprudently, should Nietzsche even be a philosopher of adolescence and what does this accusation imply? For a long time, Nietzsche hoped for an appropriate response to his philosophy, at least to a slightly larger readership, but this was denied to him. In a package to mother and sister, he sent unsold copies of the Zarathustra as a “ball of books” and wrote laconically: “[S] pits him nicely in a corner and makes him mold”¹. In his books, he quarrels with readers, wishes for the right, the chosen ones and imagines himself to millions of readers in Ecce Homo, and then ask: “Did they understand me? ”². Towards the end, there is some intellectual correspondence that goes beyond the personal environment, for example with Georg Brandes, who gives Nietzsche's philosophy the nickname of “aristocratic radicalism,” which Nietzsche certainly likes,³ and who stood up for him in the later discussion of Nietzsche's questionable fame. Nevertheless, Nietzsche is no longer aware of his appreciation, because the wave sets in when he has already fallen prey to the mental transformation. But then the tide is tremendous, among writers and among artists. Gottfried Benn judges on behalf of one — his — entire generation: “He [Nietzsche] is [...] the far-reaching giant of the post-Goethean era”⁴. After all, academic philosophy must also take note of him, but in a self-reflective way, she asks: Should it do that at all? Is Nietzsche not just a “fashion philosopher” (Heinrich Rickert), a decadent, destructive aphorism writer who, instead of arguing, overwhelms readers with memorable images? Is Nietzsche not more among artists and poets, as Alois Riehl tries to show⁵ to calculate, and just a little, somewhat lagging, so to speak, among the thinkers?

Some, such as Ludwig Stein and Ferdinand Tönnies, wish to suppress Nietzsche's influence; they are afraid of the moral and political implications that they see conjured up by Nietzsche's philosophy. An amoralism is breaking ground, an unparalleled desire for intellectual destruction. Anyone who does not recognize that this philosophy must be rejected in the strongest possible terms is blind.

Among all the harsh allegations such as moral depravity, mental illness, lack of reasoning and scarce originality, there is also that of Nietzsche's attraction to young, emotionally and spiritually not yet strongly developed characters, i.e. in short — young people. Because of their fierce desire for their own genius, lack of sanity and immature emotionality, they are particularly suitable to be seduced by such a philosophy. Although the accusation of spiritual seduction of youth towards a philosopher is almost as old as philosophy itself, can we actually ask ourselves whether there isn't something that makes Nietzsche particularly attractive to young people and would possibly justify the fact that colleagues still look at their valuable Nietzsche researchers today with slight amusement?

Anyone who has read something about Nietzsche will not be able to deny that he speaks in the language of forcefulness, that he demands and warns that he follows him on his paths of thought, that he describes personal developments such as those of free spirits, which seem like an adventure. And his vocabulary is also adventurous, it goes downhill and sideways, into thickets, thinking ships on the high seas, searches for new shores and undiscovered countries, flies from peaks into the deepest chasms, is on the hunt and must fear being hunted. This thinking is a fiery existence and requires of the adept nothing less than to change one's own life, or at least to put it to the test, because “How much truth enduresHow much truth dares a ghost? ”⁶ The brave must ask himself. The metaphors remain undetermined; everyone must intervene and interpret for themselves, for example with the appeal to build houses on Vesuvius⁷ could be meant. There is something restless in Nietzsche's philosophy, something that just doesn't want to stand still, a longing for the foreign and one's own discoveries that is so great that love for the previous spiritual home can turn into contempt: “Better to die than here live”⁸. It is a departure into the unknown that only dazzling now and then gives clues as to what it is: Is it the “big politics”⁹ Or is it a life as an artist? Is it about revolutionizing the local cultural landscape or simply shaping yourself? About finding happiness in the moment or in current eternity, or not about your own work?

And isn't all of this the perfect philosophy for young people? All that urging and longing? The desire to be chosen, to have an “actual” task, and always the eloquent contempt for the comfort of setting yourself up in a homely community, i.e. the everyday adult world, where you have come to terms with yourself, is pragmatic and may have gained a realistic, but we can also say: ideless, self-assessment. And all of this is presented to you not in a long, dry treatise, but in small, linguistically brilliant bites. You can open the book anywhere and incorporate an elegant saying, nothing builds on each other, it doesn't aim in the direction of a conclusion anywhere. And there is also a lack of strict terminology that makes the philosophical books so boring, no countless definitions, no bland syllogisms. Technical terms incorrect display and the few incomprehensible passages, for example Latin, can be safely skipped. These are — even at the risk of snubbing some Nietzsche experts who claim that you could not understand him without extensive knowledge of Greek or Schopenhauer, or does the vulture know which philosophy — books that really anyone can read and anyone can interpret. They also do not require any previous knowledge of philosophy, but from time to time provide a brief overview of a previous prominent thinker, so that the young reader is immediately given the right prejudices for further studies.

Perhaps, we can graciously admit, it is quite nice when someone finds their way to rocky philosophy through Nietzsche, but what if they stick with it? Shouldn't you find your way to serious philosophizing at some point and leave the pathos-laden ballast behind, deal with the issues more soberly and calmly, and even make a productive contribution in a humanitarian society that Nietzsche — excuse me please — would have spit on?

However, admiring Nietzsche is not that easy and it wasn't even as a teenager. There were too many theses that were not only easy and mocking, there were also passages of dripping contempt for the weak, the compassionate, there were the vicious comments about women and the conjuring of leaders like the Earth has not yet seen them¹⁰. “Are you a Nietzsche fan? “I was asked when I Beyond good and evil read. No, because it's impossible to be a Nietzsche fan. On the one hand, it is impossible because there are so many contradictory theses that uncritical approval only entangles you into indissoluble contradictions that are difficult to ignore. On the other hand, it is impossible because Nietzsche has made every effort not to be found likeable, even though he himself claims otherwise. And he succeeded. Only those who are not uncomfortable with the excessive self-exaltation of Ecce Homo feels no reluctance to talk about the “misdeeds”¹¹, no aversion to the gayst of one of pigeons and lions Zarathustra¹² can be elevated to the rank of Nietzsche fan. And that must also be a rare species among Nietzscheans. Yes, you are attracted to something that appeals to your own taste, that requires “more of life” — and the one that repels you is a mystery. Which Nietzsche statement is true? The one I support or the one I reject? What did he “actually” mean? Do you think Nietzsche is the philosopher of passion? Far from it... How much does he warn in Human all too human before the Romantic period, in Zarathustra in front of the ridiculously self-deceitful projection power of poets and philosophers, how often he tries to unmask how our wishes and passions deform and — make us sick. Remember: Voltaire, not Rousseau is Human all too human dedicated.

Behind every statement about what Nietzsche actually meant, a question mark must first be placed. And your own philosophizing begins with the question. What is the evidence that Nietzsche means it that way and what against it? What do you wish for yourself when you interpret Nietzsche like that? What would you say for and against?

Nietzsche doesn't get clearer over time, it doesn't get more transparent. On the contrary, it is becoming ever more diverse, ever more varied, more and more varied. What is to be said of a pastor's son who in antichrist In the midst of a tirade against the weak, the “misguided,” Christian writes that everyone who “has theologian blood in his body [...] crooked and dishonest about all things from the outset.”¹³ stand? Is that a self-refutation, is the blood to be understood spiritually, is that crazy? Or is someone playing with the reader? Is someone who sometimes calls themselves “buffoon sausage” ironized¹⁴ describes?

Who is Nietzsche? What is his philosophy?

It doesn't leave you alone, it leads you into a maze that is less about the result of a thought than about the various directions of movement and finally also about the dead ends, the mistakes, the angles.

You can't help but notice that something you would have liked to believe in is lost. It can happen that what others find moving or uplifting makes you laugh, it can also be that skepticism is occasionally directed at yourself due to the warming feelings of sympathy and compassion. You don't get out of dealing with Nietzsche's philosophy unscathed, but perhaps with more perspectives, a wider horizon and a questionability that makes your life shimmer more exciting than any answer that would have satisfied.