(Continental European Philosophy)
200620: having just read deleuze on nietzsche and philosophy [book:Nietzsche and Philosophy|83271] i feel need to note how my appreciation of nz has changed, how there is more i agree with, how i can better understand his ethics and truer sense of concepts which seemed particularly anti-democratic and fascist, but this is only misappropriation of his thoughts. but then this is about ten years of other philosophy read [book:Beyond Good and Evil|12321], [book:Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits|584564], [book:Thus Spoke Zarathustra|380285] so no surprise my sense has matured...
260317 first review, in recollection 120710: yes i did read this over six years ago... hard to believe, but this was one of the first philosophy texts read, certainly of this mcgill-queens series. mostly i decide to go by memory of its effect and how it comes to me now, the influence, the power, nz has had over all subsequent 'continental' philosophy...
when i read this i remember pausing at the midpoint, after being deeply impressed, completely convinced, by nz's depiction of the necessary architecture of the human mind- of how everything must be challenged, how emotion must be harnessed to rationality, how the world is more than logic, how desire, moods, inclinations, must all be originally in each mind, not determined by hypocritical or unthought social conventions- how the mind must 'overcome' itself... all of this seemed accurate and inspiring and i could see how existentialism could build from his insights...
then it stops.
when i returned to read nz it is his ethical/social/political assertions that are brought forth in this text. and i was so confused. how could a mind so individual, so committed, so certain, so embedded in the worlds of fact and becoming- how could he decide to create an entire metaphysical structure scarcely less fantastic than that common to germany and europe of his time? in his revaluation, in his rejection, of all christian 'slave' morality, he goes to the opposite extreme and creates his idea of 'masters' and for me this is too much, this is as ideal, impossible, illusory as what christian ideals he critiques... in this, i believe strongly there is always a 'person', tall, short, fast, loving etc., before there is either 'slave' or 'master'... are there no ‘friends’ or ‘lovers’...
so, in responding to this conceptual change i rated him a three. this i do not alter, though still i am confused, at least until reading a book on nz and buddhism- an ethics, an approach to living i can admire- see: [book:Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy|22619704], and better see that it is the superstructure, architecture, process, of the individual consciousness in the world, in the person, i can agree with, i can see, but it is when this is exploded to the whole of others and some are deemed only slaves rather than fellows- this is where i must part from nz. of all the further reading of nz and those inspired by him, this original departure remains...