Thank you for the lecture, it was both interesting and helpful!
I think it's interesting to compare Nietzsche's call for a unified Europe capable of politics on a global scale with the current European Union. Both are, at least nominally, projects aimed at European unification and integration, but Nietzsche's was aimed at grand politics and the EU exists largely as an appendage of America. It might be worthwhile to consider how the EU's project departs from Nietzsche's and if there's any possibility of the EU project moving in a direction Nietzsche might approve of. Ultimately it seems like the foundations of the EU, the European Common Market, are too bound up with the sort of bourgeois liberalism Nietzsche would despise to become a truly Nietzschean enterprise, but I would be curious to hear other people's takes on this question.
First I want to say thankyou for the lecture, it was good to here someone take the time to explain the aphorism's from Nietszsche.
I find it interesting that he doesn't mention Italy, Poland, or Spain in his talk about nations and their characters when arguing for a united Europe. He mentioned the big three(Britain, France, and Germany) but not Italy, Poland, or Spain. Italy perhaps because it's existence was younger than the German nations, Poland because it no longer existed, and Spain because her grandeur had long faded. But all three, certainly men from all three contributed to the entity called 'Europe' so it seems disingenuous to exclude them from the discussion.
Also Nietzsche's vision is in many ways the same as Guillame Faye's from the French New Right. Fitting, because Faye says that his vision for Europe is Nietzschean.
One thing I've noticed is that much of the calls for a united Europe echo the calls for a revival of Christendom, the two being synonymous in the minds of the later and for many medieval Europeans and Muslims.
I would disagree that Nietzsche's vision applies to all residents of Europe, for the elite perhaps but not the commoner. Just because you can transplant a Berliner and Parisian to each their respective cities and them both call themselves European. The same could not be said of a farmer/craftsman from Gascony, Bavaria, or Leon. Perhaps from Bordeaux, Munich and Leon city but not from the towns and countryside.
Thanks for the helpful historical/empirical observations. I really like theory or political philosophy, so I often pay less attention to history than I should!
It makes a great deal of sense to say that Italy, Poland, and Spain all contributed in crucial ways to making Europe what it was and is. And also, I agree that those in the countryside from Gascony (I just read Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac!--an excellent play for thinking about nobility and Gascony), Bavaria, or Leon probably think less about being European than about being from where they are.
It may be, then, that Nietzsche thinks that a current and/or potential elite to shape things than the people. Which is to say, if England, France, and Germany, are somehow more at the heart of the destiny of Europe, just as great statesman, generals, and artists, are more at the heart of a nation's destiny than the people, that may be why N focuses on a few nations and a few people in those nations.
To your point, though, it does seem like OUR leaders ought to focus more on the people from the heartland or country that you point out. Populism seems called for under our circumstances rather than aristocracy. Perhaps in light of new circumstances N could be inclined to your view.
Also, re the French New Right, I remember reading Dominique Venner and being baffled about the Europe should be one idea; N helped me clarify what Venner was getting at.
Thanks for the lecture. You connected some things I wasn't able to, and summarized everything really well. I originally had a much longer comment, but the tyrannical Substack told me to write a shorter comment. So I'll save my extended commentary for our discussion. Here are some of my favourite quotes from Part 7 & 8:
Part 7:
"Moral judgments and condemnations constitute the favourite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited--also a sort of compensation for having been ill-favoured by nature--finally an opportunity for acquiring spirit and becoming refined--malice spiritualized."
This is the danger of 'morality for all'. At another point he says: "It is important that as few people as possible should think about morality". It's difficult to imagine thriving nations where every lower man is emboldened to scold higher men. Unfortunately for us we don't have to imagine. I'll spare everyone the rant about our current state of affairs; I just wanted to connect our current state to Nietzsche's point about moralizing for all.
"Measure is alien to us; let us own it; our thrill is the thrill of the infinite, the unmeasured. Like a rider on a steed that flies forward, we drop the reins before the infinite, we modern men, like semi-barbarians --and reach our bliss only where we are most--in danger."
If I'm understanding this then he is saying the modern man will never experienced the measured, sure, certain experience of the ancients, but the unmeasured chaos of modernity provides an opportunity for spirited men, an opportunity that is only found in embracing the chaos and moving beyond it to forge great men and high culture. The modern man must learn to reject all that is rancid about his milieu, but also dominate it and move beyond the vile state of modern man.
"The discipline of suffering, of great suffering--do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"
This is why we are stale and stalled in a rut. The egalitarians want mass equalization and the complete elimination of suffering. This inevitably leads to a different kind of suffering: the kind that still hurts, but doesn't enhance man. It's a common thing we see in the modern world: we take all of the downsides of something with none of the upsides.
"To go wrong on the fundamental problem of "man and woman," to deny the most abysmal antagonism between them and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligations--that is a typical sign of shallowness, and a thinker who has proved shallow in this dangerous place--shallow in his instinct--may be considered altogether suspicious, even more--betrayed, exposed: probably he will be too "short" for all fundamental problems of life, of the life yet to come, too, and incapable of attaining any depth"
Kaufmann then felt it necessary in the footnotes to say: "Fortunately for Nietzsche, this is surely wrong". Kaufmann is a great translator (from what I can tell), but I'm embarrassed for Kaufmann here.
Nietzsche's sections on women were interesting. It's difficult to imagine what Nietzsche would have to say about our current time.
Part 8:
"While the democratization of Europe leads to the production of a type that is prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense, in single, exceptional cases the strong human being will have to turn out stronger and richer than perhaps ever before--thanks to the absence of prejudice from his training, thanks to the tremendous manifoldness of practice, art, and mask."
This is a very encouraging point, and it's a nice positive light in an otherwise dark observation. "In the shadows a hero emerges", and so on and so on.
"The German soul is above all manifold, of diverse origins"
My knowledge of Germany history is weak, but I know the Germany of the late 19th century was different from the Germany of today (even German nationhood is relatively recent).
I wouldn't say Germany's diversity is a hurdle for nationalism, because I don't think it's something to overcome, but, there are nations within nations (it's nations all the way down). Americans often underestimate the diversity within European nations. Germans, even today, are ethnically mixed. I'm not referring to the mass of Turkish immigrants, or even the recent refugee influx. Germans are ethnically Nords, Celts, Romans, and Slavs. Even after many years of intermixing, those distinctions are still seen in genetic testing. These ethnic differences are then distinct from regional cultural differences (e.g. Bavaria, Westphalia, Saxony, etc.). Northern Germany feels much more similar to Scandinavia, and the Alpine south feels much more similar to Austria or Germanic Switzerland. Are these just cultural/geographic differences? Or are they the result of genetic differences (the austere Nords vs the savage Celts)? Is it a coincidence the Nords embraced Protestantism, whereas the alpine people remained (mostly) catholic? I don't have the historical knowledge, or even the intellect to understand these things fully, let alone have any certainty. I'm just trying to plant the seed of diversity within nations; nations which we sometimes paint with a broad brush. Sometimes we focus so much on the differences between the people of different continents, we overlook the more subtle--but nonetheless interesting--differences between countrymen (sorry, excuse my offensive language, I meant to say country-people (people of non-binary gender classifications, of course)).
"Germans love "openness" and "Biederkeit":how comfortable it is to be open and "bieder""
This seems even more true today, and can be extended to most western nations. I remember reading an article recently that spoke of the benefits of psychedelics, and especially that substances like psilocybin increase trait openness. It was taken for granted that trait openness is a positive trait, that more openness is good, and less openness is bad.
Kaufmann points out that there isn't a great translation of 'Bieder' (he used "foursquare"). My German isn't very good, so in general I defer to others on these matters. But a bit of digging suggests the term encompasses two-three elements (hence the difficulty of a direct one word translation). It means something like: morally dignified AND foursquare AND risk averse. I think this word is important because Nietzsche may be describing a certain contradiction of the German people: they love openness, and treat it as a moral virtue, but also, they are risk averse and stale. True openness is messy, risky, and adventurous, but the Germans of Nietzsche's time, just like the westerners of today, love to promote "openness" but lack the accompanying toughness to deal with the ramifications of embracing "openness".
This point that you make is of great interest to me: If I'm understanding this then he is saying the modern man will never experienced the measured, sure, certain experience of the ancients..."
Something I wonder a lot about, and I suppose the Genealogy of Morals talks about this more, is how Nietzsche thinks that we can recover a disposition that has the ears to hear our instincts more clearly, when we live in a time of over-self awareness or with too much thought about what to do (not that this is usually philosophic self-reflection aimed at self-knowledge, but rather, a kind of neurotic series of rationalization where we cast our eyes around looking for someone to give us permission to do what we would have done anyway). I.e., how do we return from Woody Allen type of neuroticism to listening to our instincts or to a kind of complete self-confidence in a way of life? It seems difficult to reason our way back to listening to our instincts.
I also especially enjoyed the point about current western man's false openness. A lot of toughness would be required to deal with people from a entirely different way of life. Which in a way reminds me of Junger, inasmuch he might suggest that toughness in both the physical and spiritual senses has cross cultural intelligibility.
And yes, we must discuss the passages on women. Both the literal meaning (which Kaufmann wrongfully detests as you say) and also the metaphorical meaning insofar as Nietzsche suggests that nations have a more feminine or masculine character.
Thank you for the lecture, it was both interesting and helpful!
I think it's interesting to compare Nietzsche's call for a unified Europe capable of politics on a global scale with the current European Union. Both are, at least nominally, projects aimed at European unification and integration, but Nietzsche's was aimed at grand politics and the EU exists largely as an appendage of America. It might be worthwhile to consider how the EU's project departs from Nietzsche's and if there's any possibility of the EU project moving in a direction Nietzsche might approve of. Ultimately it seems like the foundations of the EU, the European Common Market, are too bound up with the sort of bourgeois liberalism Nietzsche would despise to become a truly Nietzschean enterprise, but I would be curious to hear other people's takes on this question.
First I want to say thankyou for the lecture, it was good to here someone take the time to explain the aphorism's from Nietszsche.
I find it interesting that he doesn't mention Italy, Poland, or Spain in his talk about nations and their characters when arguing for a united Europe. He mentioned the big three(Britain, France, and Germany) but not Italy, Poland, or Spain. Italy perhaps because it's existence was younger than the German nations, Poland because it no longer existed, and Spain because her grandeur had long faded. But all three, certainly men from all three contributed to the entity called 'Europe' so it seems disingenuous to exclude them from the discussion.
Also Nietzsche's vision is in many ways the same as Guillame Faye's from the French New Right. Fitting, because Faye says that his vision for Europe is Nietzschean.
One thing I've noticed is that much of the calls for a united Europe echo the calls for a revival of Christendom, the two being synonymous in the minds of the later and for many medieval Europeans and Muslims.
I would disagree that Nietzsche's vision applies to all residents of Europe, for the elite perhaps but not the commoner. Just because you can transplant a Berliner and Parisian to each their respective cities and them both call themselves European. The same could not be said of a farmer/craftsman from Gascony, Bavaria, or Leon. Perhaps from Bordeaux, Munich and Leon city but not from the towns and countryside.
Thanks for the helpful historical/empirical observations. I really like theory or political philosophy, so I often pay less attention to history than I should!
It makes a great deal of sense to say that Italy, Poland, and Spain all contributed in crucial ways to making Europe what it was and is. And also, I agree that those in the countryside from Gascony (I just read Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac!--an excellent play for thinking about nobility and Gascony), Bavaria, or Leon probably think less about being European than about being from where they are.
It may be, then, that Nietzsche thinks that a current and/or potential elite to shape things than the people. Which is to say, if England, France, and Germany, are somehow more at the heart of the destiny of Europe, just as great statesman, generals, and artists, are more at the heart of a nation's destiny than the people, that may be why N focuses on a few nations and a few people in those nations.
To your point, though, it does seem like OUR leaders ought to focus more on the people from the heartland or country that you point out. Populism seems called for under our circumstances rather than aristocracy. Perhaps in light of new circumstances N could be inclined to your view.
Also, re the French New Right, I remember reading Dominique Venner and being baffled about the Europe should be one idea; N helped me clarify what Venner was getting at.
Thanks for the lecture. You connected some things I wasn't able to, and summarized everything really well. I originally had a much longer comment, but the tyrannical Substack told me to write a shorter comment. So I'll save my extended commentary for our discussion. Here are some of my favourite quotes from Part 7 & 8:
Part 7:
"Moral judgments and condemnations constitute the favourite revenge of the spiritually limited against those less limited--also a sort of compensation for having been ill-favoured by nature--finally an opportunity for acquiring spirit and becoming refined--malice spiritualized."
This is the danger of 'morality for all'. At another point he says: "It is important that as few people as possible should think about morality". It's difficult to imagine thriving nations where every lower man is emboldened to scold higher men. Unfortunately for us we don't have to imagine. I'll spare everyone the rant about our current state of affairs; I just wanted to connect our current state to Nietzsche's point about moralizing for all.
"Measure is alien to us; let us own it; our thrill is the thrill of the infinite, the unmeasured. Like a rider on a steed that flies forward, we drop the reins before the infinite, we modern men, like semi-barbarians --and reach our bliss only where we are most--in danger."
If I'm understanding this then he is saying the modern man will never experienced the measured, sure, certain experience of the ancients, but the unmeasured chaos of modernity provides an opportunity for spirited men, an opportunity that is only found in embracing the chaos and moving beyond it to forge great men and high culture. The modern man must learn to reject all that is rancid about his milieu, but also dominate it and move beyond the vile state of modern man.
"The discipline of suffering, of great suffering--do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"
This is why we are stale and stalled in a rut. The egalitarians want mass equalization and the complete elimination of suffering. This inevitably leads to a different kind of suffering: the kind that still hurts, but doesn't enhance man. It's a common thing we see in the modern world: we take all of the downsides of something with none of the upsides.
"To go wrong on the fundamental problem of "man and woman," to deny the most abysmal antagonism between them and the necessity of an eternally hostile tension, to dream perhaps of equal rights, equal education, equal claims and obligations--that is a typical sign of shallowness, and a thinker who has proved shallow in this dangerous place--shallow in his instinct--may be considered altogether suspicious, even more--betrayed, exposed: probably he will be too "short" for all fundamental problems of life, of the life yet to come, too, and incapable of attaining any depth"
Kaufmann then felt it necessary in the footnotes to say: "Fortunately for Nietzsche, this is surely wrong". Kaufmann is a great translator (from what I can tell), but I'm embarrassed for Kaufmann here.
Nietzsche's sections on women were interesting. It's difficult to imagine what Nietzsche would have to say about our current time.
Part 8:
"While the democratization of Europe leads to the production of a type that is prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense, in single, exceptional cases the strong human being will have to turn out stronger and richer than perhaps ever before--thanks to the absence of prejudice from his training, thanks to the tremendous manifoldness of practice, art, and mask."
This is a very encouraging point, and it's a nice positive light in an otherwise dark observation. "In the shadows a hero emerges", and so on and so on.
"The German soul is above all manifold, of diverse origins"
My knowledge of Germany history is weak, but I know the Germany of the late 19th century was different from the Germany of today (even German nationhood is relatively recent).
I wouldn't say Germany's diversity is a hurdle for nationalism, because I don't think it's something to overcome, but, there are nations within nations (it's nations all the way down). Americans often underestimate the diversity within European nations. Germans, even today, are ethnically mixed. I'm not referring to the mass of Turkish immigrants, or even the recent refugee influx. Germans are ethnically Nords, Celts, Romans, and Slavs. Even after many years of intermixing, those distinctions are still seen in genetic testing. These ethnic differences are then distinct from regional cultural differences (e.g. Bavaria, Westphalia, Saxony, etc.). Northern Germany feels much more similar to Scandinavia, and the Alpine south feels much more similar to Austria or Germanic Switzerland. Are these just cultural/geographic differences? Or are they the result of genetic differences (the austere Nords vs the savage Celts)? Is it a coincidence the Nords embraced Protestantism, whereas the alpine people remained (mostly) catholic? I don't have the historical knowledge, or even the intellect to understand these things fully, let alone have any certainty. I'm just trying to plant the seed of diversity within nations; nations which we sometimes paint with a broad brush. Sometimes we focus so much on the differences between the people of different continents, we overlook the more subtle--but nonetheless interesting--differences between countrymen (sorry, excuse my offensive language, I meant to say country-people (people of non-binary gender classifications, of course)).
"Germans love "openness" and "Biederkeit":how comfortable it is to be open and "bieder""
This seems even more true today, and can be extended to most western nations. I remember reading an article recently that spoke of the benefits of psychedelics, and especially that substances like psilocybin increase trait openness. It was taken for granted that trait openness is a positive trait, that more openness is good, and less openness is bad.
Kaufmann points out that there isn't a great translation of 'Bieder' (he used "foursquare"). My German isn't very good, so in general I defer to others on these matters. But a bit of digging suggests the term encompasses two-three elements (hence the difficulty of a direct one word translation). It means something like: morally dignified AND foursquare AND risk averse. I think this word is important because Nietzsche may be describing a certain contradiction of the German people: they love openness, and treat it as a moral virtue, but also, they are risk averse and stale. True openness is messy, risky, and adventurous, but the Germans of Nietzsche's time, just like the westerners of today, love to promote "openness" but lack the accompanying toughness to deal with the ramifications of embracing "openness".
Thanks for the helpful observations.
This point that you make is of great interest to me: If I'm understanding this then he is saying the modern man will never experienced the measured, sure, certain experience of the ancients..."
Something I wonder a lot about, and I suppose the Genealogy of Morals talks about this more, is how Nietzsche thinks that we can recover a disposition that has the ears to hear our instincts more clearly, when we live in a time of over-self awareness or with too much thought about what to do (not that this is usually philosophic self-reflection aimed at self-knowledge, but rather, a kind of neurotic series of rationalization where we cast our eyes around looking for someone to give us permission to do what we would have done anyway). I.e., how do we return from Woody Allen type of neuroticism to listening to our instincts or to a kind of complete self-confidence in a way of life? It seems difficult to reason our way back to listening to our instincts.
I also especially enjoyed the point about current western man's false openness. A lot of toughness would be required to deal with people from a entirely different way of life. Which in a way reminds me of Junger, inasmuch he might suggest that toughness in both the physical and spiritual senses has cross cultural intelligibility.
And yes, we must discuss the passages on women. Both the literal meaning (which Kaufmann wrongfully detests as you say) and also the metaphorical meaning insofar as Nietzsche suggests that nations have a more feminine or masculine character.