“You
would not enjoy Nietzsche, sir. He is fundamentally unsound.”
―P.G. Wodehouse, Carry on, Jeeves.
―P.G. Wodehouse, Carry on, Jeeves.
Friedrich
Wilhelm Nietzsche (15 October 1844 – 25 August 1900) is probably
the world’s most famous – or should that be infamous –
philosopher. Born in the small, German and humble village of Röcken
with a Lutheran Pastor as a father, no less, he would write a series
of scathing, revolutionary philosophical works: Nietzsche is one of
the most controversial philosophers in human history. On the one
hand, his style is captivating, passionate and aphoristic;
conversely, his detractors allege that he is anti-Semitic and a
misogynist.
It
is my attempt, in around a thousand words, to give you, my delicate
reader, an insight into his opinions in a biased and subjective a way
as is possible – for Nietzsche wouldn’t want me to anything but
true to myself, admitting my prejudices, as ridiculous as they are.
Was
Nietzsche a misogynist?
From
some cherry picked quotes, yes. Nietzsche can certainly appear to
carry a sustained hatred of women in his philosophy. For example,
“One-half of mankind is weak, chronic-ally sick, changeable,
shifty.” One doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce which
half of mankind Nietzsche is referring to; what we must consider,
however, is this: is his contempt genuine? If so, does this diminish
his epiphany inducing aphorisms?
I
want you all to know that I have no pretensions about appearing as a
psychiatric expert, and pop-psychology is very tiring. Nevertheless,
the fact that Nietzsche was raised by women (his father died from a
“brain ailment” when he was five) would have had a profound
impact upon his attitude towards women.
He
moved to Naumberg, where he lived with his maternal grandmother and
her two unmarried sisters. As well as this, he had a younger sister.
The young Nietzsche’s world would have been turned upside down –
not by a piece of paper and a pen, as he would late profess – but
by the death of his father, compounded with a replacement of his
father with multiple female authority figures.
On
another note, Nietzsche never married. There are rumours –but that
is all they are – that Nietzsche contracted syphilis from a
whorehouse. However, Nietzsche’s illness in later life may have
been due to other medical reasons. We can only clutch blindly at
straws to discover evidence of Nietzsche’s misogyny. What isn’t
in doubt, however, is the fact that Nietzsche was an extremely
solitary man, and that he was sexually frustrated as an individual.
Away
from such speculation, one could read Nietzsche’s philosophical
rants as cathartic honesty. Many of us think ridiculous, illogical,
angry and prejudiced thoughts; Nietzsche, a modern genius, would have
recognised his ridiculousness, but embraced it, rather than hiding it
for the sake of social cohesion.
Was
Nietzsche an anti-Semite?
The
very short answer would be “no”. The long answer is “no, but
this, and then no once more.” It is important to note that at the
time of Nietzsche’s adult writing, a certain fashionable hysteria
around what used to be referred to as The Jewish Question (not to
dissimilar from modern Islamophobia) was part of the Germanic
intellectual zeitgeist. His work really could have been much more
damning of the Jewish people, and his criticisms are weighted and
considered.
Amongst
Nietzsche’s work, much praise for the Jews is included, “As a
consequence of this [history], the psychological and spiritual
resources of the Jews today are extraordinary.”
He
also stated in reference to the Jews, “to whom we owe the noblest
human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Spinoza), the mightiest
book, and the most effective moral code in the world.”
However,
it must be noted that these quotes are from his earlier writing. His
later philosophy was much more damning:
“Christianity,
growing from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a product of
this soil, represents a reaction against the morality of breeding, of
race, of privilege-it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence.”
Nietzsche
definitely believed in race, but not in the same sense as Adolph
Hitler: “Every nation, every man has disagreeable, even dangerous
characteristics; it is cruel to demand that the Jew should be an
exception.”
To
summarise, in my opinion, Fredrick Nietzsche criticised everyone,
especially German society -- more than any other ethnic group. He
thought that German society was weak; the moral values which
dominated Germany at the time, that is to say Christian moral values,
were repugnant to Nietzsche, because he thought it rose what is
flabby, common and average as something of value. These values, of
course, were drawn from Jewish background. This comprises some of his
distaste towards the Jewish peoples.
However,
his damning criticism of German society was far greater than his
agitation against the Jews. Should we hold the Jews above everyone
else, and say that hatred towards them is somehow worse than hatred
towards Christianity, or his own people? Why should Christianity be
an easy target? Are we indoctrinated to think that the Jews are
lesser than the Christians, and therefore have to be immune from
criticism? I don’t promote anti-Semitism, but I do advocate an even
hand of criticism.
Nietzsche’s
writings were manipulated by his surviving sister – an admirer of
Hitler and the Nazis – and then, in turn, by the Nazis themselves.
What is important to note is that they were manipulated to fit in
with Nazi ideology. His earlier criticisms of anti-Semitism were
airbrushed out, and his view of humanity, centred on elitism, fitted
in well with Nazi racial superiority.
My
admiration of Nietzsche:
Friedrich
Wilhelm Nietzsche, unfortunately, has been blighted by history and
has been misrepresented, time and time again. Fundamentally, I would
like to have written about his literary style to a greater extent. Of
course, having only around one thousand words to write about the
revolutionary Friedrich Nietzsche is very limiting – but I would
hope that I have allayed your fears and prejudices, and thus you are
ready for a broader appreciation of his writing.
Samuel
Mack-Poole
