Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 00:16:40 -0500
From: Dan Dzenkowski <djdzenko-AT-students.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: The Higher man vs Overman


At 07:40 PM 9/24/98 EDT, Tristich wrote:

>Personally, when I started, I started with Birth of Tragedy.  What better
>place to start than from the beginning, right?  But in hindsight I can't
>really recommend "this questionable book" (as Nietzsche called it in his
>"Attempt at Self-Criticism") as a beginning point (even though I still return
>to it as what may be, to me, his most satisfying work and one that really does
>seem to lay the foundation for most of what comes after). 

B of T is a good book, it is an interesting way NIetzsche kissed Wagner's
ass and played the part of a Hegelian.  The way he develops the concept of
Dionysius as he progresses as a writer, and his ideas on Socrates are the
only things that I really liked out of that book.


 It would be a joke
>to say that I understood any of that when I first read it or that it helped me
>to grasp anything that comes after in the Nietzsche bibliography.  But, Dan,
>do you really believe that someone who has never read any of Nietzsche's
>books, but wants recommendations for his introduction (as Gill requests),
>should start with Ecce Homo?  

Yes, and unless I am a nitwit, I think that it is the best place (am I
laughing at myself?).   This is where I started reading Nietzsche and then I
read Z under the direction of my friend and mentor Dr. Thomas Steinbuch the
author of A Commentary on Nietzsche's Ecce Homo.
Yes, Yes and Yes again.  Nietzsche tells himself his story, you think Ecce
is fragmented and hard to understand, what about Gay Science?  What can you
draw from that initially.  In a sophomore philosophy class, we read a little
out of that book and they tried to tell us what the eternal return and will
to power were based on that book. You can't understand any of that from the
gay Science, and it is difficult to pull it out of BG&E, but easy to find it
in Ecce Homo.


Granted, it is among his most fascinating, but
>it is also clearly written by a man verging on the insane and must be placed
>on the "questionable book" list, even though Nietzsche's detractors be damned.

I don't think it is questionable. Let me know what is questionable and I
will  explain it for you.

>You wish, nevertheless, for that book to be the one that takes Gill's hat and
>coat and bids him make himself at home in the front parlor?


Yes!
>
>Now, don't get me wrong, Dan.  I think Ecce Homo is great and I agree with you
>that we should all reread it.  And you must know that, my own recommendation
>of Beyond Good and Evil notwithstanding, I would be the last person on this
>list to agree with Engineer-man that we should not only start with BGE but end
>there as well.  I just want to be sensitive to Gill's need to get a clear-as-
>possible overview of Nietzsche's philosophy from where he can dive in with
>some assurance.  

Why are you looking out for his needs?  Let him swin with the sharks and
become strong or get ripped apart, are you a soft Nietzschean?  Let's do
justice to NIetzsche, who cares about other people.

>Now then, about secondary sources . . . When you say that you can't recommend
>ANY, when you say that you fundamentally disagree with MOST, then you raise my
>suspicions. 


Fine, I will say that Deleuze is the best.  Kauffman is  a fFeudain obsessed
Nietzsche interpreter.  Nehemas doesn't get the point.  Ivan Soll, gets a
few things right, and really has an edge on the Schoppenhaurian and Hegelian
connection, Tom Steinbuch is really good at getting into the meaning behind
Ecce.  Sarah Koffman is good as well, though not all that thought provoking,
or even clear (relying on Truth and Lie in an extramoral sense gets you into
a bit of trouble), Schrift has a good, solid understanding, but tries to
relate Nietzsche to the postmodern movement, and I am not sure if this is
totally correct.  Luc Ferry and Alian Renault are rediculous, and should not
even be read (use Nietzsche against Nietzsche?). Bataille is interesting,
though he is kinda crazy.  Heidegger is not all that insightful into
NIetzsche, more into Heidegger, at least that is what Ivan Soll tells me
since I dont' know much Heidegger.  Haven't read Danto, or Derrida, or much
Foucalut.  Here are a few things I have read, so I guess for a 20 year old
Junior, that puts me at sophomore level.  Thanks for reminding me in what a
pitiful intellectual state I am in.  I will return to reading about Diogenes
of Sinope, here is a real character, the dog men are indeed very interesting.

Best
Dan






	--- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---