File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1998/nietzsche.9809, message 73

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 09:07:47 EDT
Subject: Re: The Higher man vs Overman

Dan Djenkowsky writes:

> 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.

That's most of it, I suppose.

>  [Ecce Homo] 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.  

That's ok.  But Gill doesn't have a Dr. Steinbuch.

>  Nietzsche tells himself his story, you think Ecce
>  is fragmented and hard to understand, 

No, that's what you said.  I said it should be put on the "questionable book"
list.  But then I didn't have a Dr. Steinbuch either.

>  what about Gay Science?  What can you
>  draw from that initially.  In a sophomore philosophy class, we read a
>  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
>  in Ecce Homo.

Well, I havn't found any of them to be really easy. 

>  Fine, I will say that Deleuze is the best.  Kauffman is  a fFeudain
>  Nietzsche interpreter.  Nehemas doesn't get the point.  Ivan Soll, gets a
>  few things right, and really has an edge on the Schoppenhaurian and
>  connection, Tom Steinbuch is really good at getting into the meaning behind
>  Ecce.  Sarah Koffman is good as well, though not all that thought
>  or even clear (relying on Truth and Lie in an extramoral sense gets you
>  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
>  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
>  of Sinope, here is a real character, the dog men are indeed very

Much better.


	--- from list ---


Driftline Main Page


Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005