Who Is Friedrich Nietzsche?
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (15 October 1844 – 25 August 1900) was a German philosopher, cultural critic, composer, poet, philologist, and Latin and Greek scholar whose work has exerted a profound influence on modern intellectual history. He began his career as a classical philologist before turning to philosophy. He became the youngest ever to hold the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel in 1869 at the age of 24. Nietzsche resigned in 1879 due to health problems that plagued him most of his life; he completed much of his core writing in the following decade. In 1889 at age 44, he suffered a collapse and afterward, a complete loss of his mental faculties. He lived his remaining years in the care of his mother until her death in 1897 and then with his sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche. Nietzsche died in 1900.
Nietzsche’s body of work touched a wide range of topics, including art, philology, history, religion, tragedy, culture, and science. His writing spans philosophical polemics, poetry, cultural criticism, and fiction while displaying a fondness for aphorism and irony. His early inspiration was drawn from figures such as Arthur Schopenhauer, Richard Wagner, and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Prominent elements of his philosophy include his radical critique of truth in favor of perspectivism; his genealogical critique of religion and Christian morality and his related theory of master–slave morality; his aesthetic affirmation of existence in response to the “death of God” and the profound crisis of nihilism; his notion of the Apollonian and Dionysian; and his characterization of the human subject as the expression of competing wills, collectively understood as the will to power. He also developed influential concepts such as the Übermensch and the doctrine of eternal return. In his later work, he became increasingly preoccupied with the creative powers of the individual to overcome social, cultural and moral contexts in pursuit of new values and aesthetic health.
After his death, his sister Elisabeth became the curator and editor of Nietzsche’s manuscripts, reworking his unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche’s stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche’s work became associated with fascism and Nazism; 20th century scholars contested this interpretation of his work and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available. Nietzsche’s thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th and early-21st century thinkers across philosophy—especially in schools of continental philosophy such as existentialism, postmodernism and post-structuralism—as well as art, literature, psychology, politics and popular culture.
Born on 15 October 1844, Nietzsche grew up in the small town of Röcken (now part of Lützen), near Leipzig, in the Prussian Province of Saxony. He was named after King Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia, who turned 49 on the day of Nietzsche’s birth (Nietzsche later dropped his middle name Wilhelm). Nietzsche’s parents, Carl Ludwig Nietzsche (1813–1849), a Lutheran pastor and former teacher; and Franziska Nietzsche(née Oehler) (1826–1897), married in 1843, the year before their son’s birth. They had two other children: a daughter, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, born in 1846; and a second son, Ludwig Joseph, born in 1848. Nietzsche’s father died from a brain ailment in 1849; Ludwig Joseph died six months later at age two. The family then moved to Naumburg, where they lived with Nietzsche’s maternal grandmother and his father’s two unmarried sisters. After the death of Nietzsche’s grandmother in 1856, the family moved into their own house, now Nietzsche-Haus, a museum and Nietzsche study centre.
In 1854, he began to attend Domgymnasium in Naumburg. Because his father had worked for the state (as a pastor) the now-fatherless Nietzsche was offered a scholarship to study at the internationally recognized Schulpforta (the claim that Nietzsche was admitted on the strength of his academic competence has been debunked: his grades were nowhere near the top of the class). He transferred and studied there from 1858 to 1864, becoming friends with Paul Deussen and Carl von Gersdorff. He also found time to work on poems and musical compositions. Nietzsche led “Germania”, a music and literature club, during his summers in Naumburg. At Schulpforta, Nietzsche received an important grounding in languages—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and French—so as to be able to read important primary sources; he also experienced for the first time being away from his family life in a small-town conservative environment. His end-of-semester exams in March 1864 showed a 1in Religion and German; a 2a in Greek and Latin; a 2b in French, History, and Physics; and a “lackluster” 3in Hebrew and Mathematics.
While at Pforta, Nietzsche had a penchant for pursuing subjects that were considered unbecoming. He became acquainted with the work of the then almost-unknown poet Friedrich Hölderlin, calling him “my favorite poet” and composing an essay in which he said that the mad poet raised consciousness to “the most sublime ideality.” The teacher who corrected the essay gave it a good mark but commented that Nietzsche should concern himself in the future with healthier, more lucid, and more “German” writers. Additionally, he became acquainted with Ernst Ortlepp, an eccentric, blasphemous, and often drunken poet who was found dead in a ditch weeks after meeting the young Nietzsche but who may have introduced Nietzsche to the music and writing of Richard Wagner. Perhaps under Ortlepp’s influence, he and a student named Richter returned to school drunk and encountered a teacher, resulting in Nietzsche’s demotion from first in his class and the end of his status as a prefect.
Hence the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire…
In 1865, Nietzsche thoroughly studied the works of Arthur Schopenhauer. He owed the awakening of his philosophical interest to reading Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Representation and later admitted that Schopenhauer was one of the few thinkers whom he respected, dedicating the essay “Schopenhauer as Educator” in the Untimely Meditations to him.
In 1866, he read Friedrich Albert Lange’s History of Materialism. Lange’s descriptions of Kant’s anti-materialistic philosophy, the rise of European Materialism, Europe’s increased concern with science, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution, and the general rebellion against tradition and authority intrigued Nietzsche greatly. Nietzsche would ultimately argue the impossibility of an evolutionary explanation of the human aesthetic sense.
In 1867, Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. He was regarded as one of the finest riders among his fellow recruits, and his officers predicted that he would soon reach the rank of captain. However, in March 1868, while jumping into the saddle of his horse, Nietzsche struck his chest against the pommel and tore two muscles in his left side, leaving him exhausted and unable to walk for months. Consequently, Nietzsche turned his attention to his studies again, completing them in 1868 and meeting with Richard Wagner for the first time later that year.
Professor at Basel (1869–1878)
Despite the fact that the offer came at a time when he was considering giving up philology for science, he accepted. To this day, Nietzsche is still among the youngest of the tenured Classics professors on record.
Nietzsche’s 1870 projected doctoral thesis, Contribution toward the Study and the Critique of the Sources of Diogenes Laertius (Beiträge zur Quellenkunde und Kritik des Laertius Diogenes), examined the origins of the ideas of Diogenes Laërtius. Though never submitted, it was later published as a Gratulationsschrift (congratulatory publication) at Basel.
Before moving to Basel, Nietzsche renounced his Prussian citizenship: for the rest of his life he remained officially stateless.
Nevertheless, Nietzsche served in the Prussian forces during the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871) as a medical orderly. In his short time in the military, he experienced much and witnessed the traumatic effects of battle. He also contracted diphtheria and dysentery. Walter Kaufmann speculates that he might also have contracted syphilis at a brothel along with his other infections at this time. On returning to Basel in 1870, Nietzsche observed the establishment of the German Empire and Otto von Bismarck’s subsequent policies as an outsider and with a degree of skepticism regarding their genuineness. His inaugural lecture at the university was “Homer and Classical Philology”. Nietzsche also met Franz Overbeck, a professor of theology who remained his friend throughout his life. Afrikan Spir, a little-known Russian philosopher responsible for the 1873 Thought and Reality, and Nietzsche’s colleague the famed historian Jacob Burckhardt, whose lectures Nietzsche frequently attended, began to exercise significant influence on him during this time.
Nietzsche had already met Richard Wagner in Leipzig in 1868 and later Wagner’s wife, Cosima. Nietzsche admired both greatly and during his time at Basel frequently visited Wagner’s house in Tribschen in Lucerne. The Wagners brought Nietzsche into their most intimate circle—including Franz Liszt, of whom Nietzsche colloquially described: “Liszt or the art of running after women!”. Nietzsche enjoyed the attention he gave to the beginning of the Bayreuth Festival. In 1870, he gave Cosima Wagner the manuscript of “The Genesis of the Tragic Idea” as a birthday gift. In 1872, Nietzsche published his first book, The Birth of Tragedy. However, his colleagues within his field, including Ritschl, expressed little enthusiasm for the work in which Nietzsche eschewed the classical philologic method in favor of a more speculative approach. In his polemic Philology of the Future, Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff damped the book’s reception and increased its notoriety. In response, Rohde (then a professor in Kiel) and Wagner came to Nietzsche’s defense. Nietzsche remarked freely about the isolation he felt within the philological community and attempted unsuccessfully to transfer to a position in philosophy at Basel instead.
With the publication in 1878 of Human, All Too Human (a book of aphorisms ranging from metaphysics to morality to religion), a new style of Nietzsche’s work became clear, highly influenced by Afrikan Spir’s Thought and Reality and reacting against the pessimistic philosophy of Wagner and Schopenhauer. Nietzsche’s friendship with Deussen and Rohde cooled as well. In 1879, after a significant decline in health, Nietzsche had to resign his position at Basel. Since his childhood, various disruptive illnesses had plagued him, including moments of shortsightedness that left him nearly blind, migraine headaches, and violent indigestion. The 1868 riding accident and diseases in 1870 may have aggravated these persistent conditions, which continued to affect him through his years at Basel, forcing him to take longer and longer holidays until regular work became impractical.
Independent philosopher (1879–1888)
While in Genoa, Nietzsche’s failing eyesight prompted him to explore the use of typewriters as a means of continuing to write. He is known to have tried using the Hansen Writing Ball, a contemporary typewriter device. In the end, a past student of his, Heinrich Köselitz or Peter Gast, became a sort of private secretary to Nietzsche. In 1876, Gast transcribed the crabbed, nearly illegible handwriting of Nietzsche for the first time with Richard Wagner in Bayreuth. He subsequently transcribed and proofread the galleys for almost all of Nietzsche’s work from then on. On at least one occasion on 23 February 1880, the usually poor Gast received 200 marks from their mutual friend, Paul Rée. Gast was one of the very few friends Nietzsche allowed to criticize him. In responding most enthusiastically to Also sprach Zarathustra (Thus Spoke Zarathustra), Gast did feel it necessary to point out that what were described as “superfluous” people were in fact quite necessary. He went on to list the number of people Epicurus, for example, had to rely on even to supply his simple diet of goat cheese.
To the end of his life, Gast and Overbeck remained consistently faithful friends. Malwida von Meysenbug remained like a motherly patron even outside the Wagner circle. Soon Nietzsche made contact with the music-critic Carl Fuchs. Nietzsche stood at the beginning of his most productive period. Beginning with Human, All Too Human in 1878, Nietzsche published one book or major section of a book each year until 1888, his last year of writing; that year, he completed five.
In 1882, Nietzsche published the first part of The Gay Science. That year he also met Lou Andreas-Salomé, through Malwida von Meysenbug and Paul Rée.
Salomé’s mother took her to Rome when Salomé was 21. At a literary salon in the city, Salomé became acquainted with Paul Rée. Rée proposed marriage to her, but she instead proposed that they should live and study together as “brother and sister”, along with another man for company, where they would establish an academic commune. Rée accepted the idea, and suggested that they be joined by his friend Nietzsche. The two met Nietzsche in Rome in April 1882, and Nietzsche is believed to have instantly fallen in love with Salome, as Rée had done. Nietzsche asked Rée to propose marriage to Salome, which she rejected. She had been interested in Nietzsche as a friend, but not as a husband. Nietzsche nonetheless was content to join together with Rée and Salome touring through Switzerland and Italy together, planning their commune. The three traveled with Salomé’s mother through Italy and considered where they would set up their “Winterplan” commune. This commune was intended to be set up in an abandoned monastery, but no suitable location was found. On 13 May, in Lucerne, when Nietzsche was alone with Salome, he earnestly proposed marriage to her again, which she rejected. He nonetheless was happy to continue with the plans for an academic commune. After discovering the situation, Nietzsche’s sister Elizabeth became determined to get Nietzsche away from the “immoral woman”. Nietzsche and Salomé spent the summer together in Tautenburg in Thuringia, often with Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth as a chaperone. Salomé reports that he asked her to marry him on three separate occasions and that she refused, though the reliability of her reports of events has come into question. Arriving in Leipzig, (Germany) in October, Salomé and Rée separated from Nietzsche after a falling-out between Nietzsche and Salomé, in which Salomé believed that Nietzsche was desperately in love with her.
While the three spent a number of weeks together in Leipzig in October 1882, the following month Rée and Salome ditched Nietzsche, leaving for Stibbe (today Zdbowo in Poland) without any plans to meet again. Nietzsche soon fell into a period of mental anguish, although he continued to write to Rée, stating “We shall see one another from time to time, won’t we?” In later recriminations, Nietzsche would blame on separate occasions the failure in his attempts to woo Salome both on Salome, Rée, and on the intrigues of his sister (who had written letters to the family of Salome and Rée to disrupt the plans for the commune). Nietzsche wrote of the affair in 1883, that he now felt “genuine hatred for my sister.”
Amidst renewed bouts of illness, living in near-isolation after a falling out with his mother and sister regarding Salomé, Nietzsche fled to Rapallo, where he wrote the first part of Also sprach Zarathustra in only ten days.
After severing his philosophical ties with Schopenhauer (who was long dead and never met Nietzsche) and his social ties with Wagner, Nietzsche had few remaining friends. Now, with the new style of Zarathustra, his work became even more alienating, and the market received it only to the degree required by politeness. Nietzsche recognized this and maintained his solitude, though he often complained about it. His books remained largely unsold. In 1885, he printed only 40 copies of the fourth part of Zarathustra and distributed only a fraction of these among close friends, including Helene von Druskowitz.
In 1883, he tried and failed to obtain a lecturing post at the University of Leipzig. It was made clear to him that, in view of his attitude towards Christianity and his concept of God, he had become effectively unemployable by any German university. The subsequent “feelings of revenge and resentment” embittered him: “And hence my rage since I have grasped in the broadest possible sense what wretched means (the depreciation of my good name, my character, and my aims) suffice to take from me the trust of, and therewith the possibility of obtaining, pupils.”
In 1886, Nietzsche broke with his publisher Ernst Schmeitzner, disgusted by his antisemitic opinions. Nietzsche saw his own writings as “completely buried and unexhumeable in this anti-Semitic dump” of Schmeitzner—associating the publisher with a movement that should be “utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind”. He then printed Beyond Good and Evil at his own expense. He also acquired the publication rights for his earlier works and over the next year issued second editions of The Birth of Tragedy, Human, All Too Human, Daybreak, and The Gay Science with new prefaces placing the body of his work in a more coherent perspective. Thereafter, he saw his work as completed for a time and hoped that soon a readership would develop. In fact, interest in Nietzsche’s thought did increase at this time, if rather slowly and hardly perceptibly to him. During these years Nietzsche met Meta von Salis, Carl Spitteler, and Gottfried Keller.
In 1886, his sister Elisabeth married the antisemite Bernhard Förster and travelled to Paraguay to found Nueva Germania, a “Germanic” colony—a plan Nietzsche responded to with mocking laughter.[failed verification] Through correspondence, Nietzsche’s relationship with Elisabeth continued through cycles of conflict and reconciliation, but they met again only after his collapse. He continued to have frequent and painful attacks of illness, which made prolonged work impossible.
In 1887, Nietzsche wrote the polemic On the Genealogy of Morality. During the same year, he encountered the work of Fyodor Dostoyevsky, to whom he felt an immediate kinship. He also exchanged letters with Hippolyte Taine and Georg Brandes. Brandes, who had started to teach the philosophy of Søren Kierkegaard in the 1870s, wrote to Nietzsche asking him to read Kierkegaard, to which Nietzsche replied that he would come to Copenhagen and read Kierkegaard with him. However, before fulfilling this promise, he slipped too far into illness. In the beginning of 1888, Brandes delivered in Copenhagen one of the first lectures on Nietzsche’s philosophy.
Although Nietzsche had previously announced at the end of On the Genealogy of Morality a new work with the title The Will to Power: Attempt at a Revaluation of All Values, he eventually seems to have abandoned this idea and instead used some of the draft passages to compose Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist in 1888.
His health seemed to improve and he spent the summer in high spirits. In the fall of 1888, his writings and letters began to reveal a higher estimation of his own status and “fate”. He overestimated the increasing response to his writings, however, especially to the recent polemic, The Case of Wagner. On his 44th birthday, after completing Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist, he decided to write the autobiography Ecce Homo. In its preface—which suggests Nietzsche was well aware of the interpretive difficulties his work would generate—he declares, “Hear me! For I am such and such a person. Above all, do not mistake me for someone else.” In December, Nietzsche began a correspondence with August Strindberg and thought that, short of an international breakthrough, he would attempt to buy back his older writings from the publisher and have them translated into other European languages. Moreover, he planned the publication of the compilation Nietzsche contra Wagner and of the poems that made up his collection Dionysian-Dithyrambs.
Mental illness and death (1889–1900)
In the following few days, Nietzsche sent short writings—known as the Wahnzettel (“Madness Letters”)—to a number of friends including Cosima Wagner and Jacob Burckhardt. Most of them were signed “Dionysus”, though some were also signed “der Gekreuzigte” meaning “the crucified one”. To his former colleague Burckhardt, Nietzsche wrote: “I have had Caiaphas put in fetters. Also, last year I was crucified by the German doctors in a very drawn-out manner. Wilhelm, Bismarck, and all anti-Semites abolished.” Additionally, he commanded the German emperor to go to Rome to be shot and summoned the European powers to take military action against Germany, that the pope should be put in jail and that he, Nietzsche, created the world and was in the process of having all anti-Semites shot dead.
On 6 January 1889, Burckhardt showed the letter he had received from Nietzsche to Overbeck. The following day, Overbeck received a similar letter and decided that Nietzsche’s friends had to bring him back to Basel. Overbeck traveled to Turin and brought Nietzsche to a psychiatric clinic in Basel. By that time Nietzsche appeared fully in the grip of a serious mental illness, and his mother Franziska decided to transfer him to a clinic in Jena under the direction of Otto Binswanger. In January 1889, they proceeded with the planned release of Twilight of the Idols, by that time already printed and bound. From November 1889 to February 1890, the art historian Julius Langbehn attempted to cure Nietzsche, claiming that the methods of the medical doctors were ineffective in treating Nietzsche’s condition. Langbehn assumed progressively greater control of Nietzsche until his secretiveness discredited him. In March 1890, Franziska removed Nietzsche from the clinic and, in May 1890, brought him to her home in Naumburg. During this process Overbeck and Gast contemplated what to do with Nietzsche’s unpublished works. In February, they ordered a fifty-copy private edition of Nietzsche contra Wagner, but the publisher C.G. Naumann secretly printed one hundred. Overbeck and Gast decided to withhold publishing The Antichrist and Ecce Homo because of their more radical content. Nietzsche’s reception and recognition enjoyed their first surge.
In 1893, Nietzsche’s sister Elisabeth returned from Nueva Germania in Paraguay following the suicide of her husband. She read and studied Nietzsche’s works and, piece by piece, took control of them and their publication. Overbeck eventually suffered dismissal and Gast finally co-operated. After the death of Franziska in 1897, Nietzsche lived in Weimar, where Elisabeth cared for him and allowed visitors, including Rudolf Steiner (who in 1895 had written Friedrich Nietzsche: a Fighter Against His Time, one of the first books praising Nietzsche), to meet her uncommunicative brother. Elisabeth at one point went so far as to employ Steiner as a tutor to help her to understand her brother’s philosophy. Steiner abandoned the attempt after only a few months, declaring that it was impossible to teach her anything about philosophy.
In 1898 and 1899, Nietzsche suffered at least two strokes. This partially paralyzed him, leaving him unable to speak or walk. He likely suffered from clinical hemiparesis/hemiplegia on the left side of his body by 1899. After contracting pneumonia in mid-August 1900, he had another stroke during the night of 24–25 August and died at about noon on 25 August. Elisabeth had him buried beside his father at the church in Röcken bei Lützen. His friend and secretary Gast gave his funeral oration, proclaiming: “Holy be your name to all future generations!”
Citizenship, nationality and ethnicity
General commentators and Nietzsche scholars, whether emphasizing his cultural background or his language, overwhelmingly label Nietzsche as a “German philosopher”. Others do not assign him a national category. Germany had not yet been unified into a nation-state, but Nietzsche was born a citizen of Prussia, which was then part of the German Confederation. His birthplace, Röcken, is in the modern German state of Saxony-Anhalt. When he accepted his post at Basel, Nietzsche applied for the annulment of his Prussian citizenship. The official response confirming the revocation of his citizenship came in a document dated 17 April 1869, and for the rest of his life he remained officially stateless.
Nietzsche believed his ancestors were Polish, at least toward the end of his life. He wore a signet ring bearing the Radwan coat of arms, traceable back to Polish nobility of medieval times and the surname “Nicki” of the Polish noble (szlachta) family bearing that coat of arms. Gotard Nietzsche, a member of the Nicki family, left Poland for Prussia. His descendants later settled in the Electorate of Saxony circa the year 1700. Nietzsche wrote in 1888, “My ancestors were Polish noblemen (Nietzky); the type seems to have been well preserved despite three generations of German mothers.” At one point, Nietzsche becomes even more adamant about his Polish identity. “I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.” On yet another occasion, Nietzsche stated, “Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins… I am proud of my Polish descent.” Nietzsche believed his name might have been Germanized, in one letter claiming, “I was taught to ascribe the origin of my blood and name to Polish noblemen who were called Niëtzky and left their home and nobleness about a hundred years ago, finally yielding to unbearable suppression: they were Protestants.”
Most scholars dispute Nietzsche’s account of his family’s origins. Hans von Müller debunked the genealogy put forward by Nietzsche’s sister in favor of a Polish noble heritage. Max Oehler, the curator of the Nietzsche Archive at Weimar, argued that all of Nietzsche’s ancestors bore German names, including the wives’ families. Oehler claims that Nietzsche came from a long line of German Lutheran clergymen on both sides of his family, and modern scholars regard the claim of Nietzsche’s Polish ancestry as a “pure invention”. Colli and Montinari, the editors of Nietzsche’s assembled letters, gloss Nietzsche’s claims as a “mistaken belief” and “without foundation.” The name Nietzsche itself is not a Polish name, but an exceptionally common one throughout central Germany, in this and cognate forms (such as Nitsche and Nitzke). The name derives from the forename Nikolaus, abbreviated to Nick; assimilated with the Slavic Nitz, it first became Nitsche and then Nietzsche.
It is not known why Nietzsche wanted to be thought of as Polish nobility. According to biographer R. J. Hollingdale, Nietzsche’s propagation of the Polish ancestry myth may have been part of his “campaign against Germany”.
Relationships and sexuality
Nietzsche never married. He proposed to Lou Salomé three times, but his proposal was rejected each time. There is a theory that blamed Salomé’s view on sexuality as one of the reasons for her alienation from Nietzsche. As articulated in the 1898 novella Fenitschka, she viewed the idea of sexual intercourse as prohibitive and marriage as a violation, with some suggesting that they indicated sexual repression and neurosis.
Nietzsche scholar Joachim Köhlerhas attempted to explain Nietzsche’s life history and philosophy by claiming that Nietzsche was homosexual. Köhler argues that Nietzsche’s syphilis, which is “… usually considered to be the product of his encounter with a prostitute in a brothel in Cologne or Leipzig, is equally likely, it is now held, to have been contracted in a male brothel in Genoa.” The acquisition of the infection from a homosexual brothel was confirmed by Sigmund Freud, who cited Otto Binswanger as his source. Köhler also suggests Nietzsche may have had a romantic relationship as well as a friendship with Paul Rée. There is the claim that Nietzsche’s homosexuality is widely known in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society, with Nietzsche’s friend Paul Deussen claiming that the philosopher never “touched a woman”.
Köhler’s views have not found wide acceptance among Nietzsche scholars and commentators. Allan Megill argues that, while Köhler’s claim that Nietzsche was in a confrontation with his homosexual desire cannot simply be dismissed, “the evidence is very weak,” and Köhler may be projecting twentieth-century understandings of sexuality on nineteenth-century notions of friendship. It is also known that Nietzsche frequented heterosexual brothels. Some like Nigel Rodgers and Mel Thompson have argued that continuous sickness and headaches hindered Nietzsche from engaging much with women. Yet, they bring other examples in which Nietzsche expressed his affections to other women, including Wagner’s wife Cosima Wagner.
Other scholars have argued that Köhler’s sexuality-based interpretation is not helpful in understanding Nietzsche’s philosophy. However, there are also those who stressed that, if Nietzsche preferred men—with this preference constituting his psycho-sexual make-up—but could not admit his desires to himself, it meant he acted in conflict with his philosophy.
Apollonian and Dionysian
The Apollonian and Dionysian is a two-fold philosophical concept, based on certain features of ancient Greek mythology: Apollo and Dionysus. Even though the concept is famously related to The Birth of Tragedy, the poet Hölderlin had already spoken of it, and Winckelmann had talked of Bacchus. One year before the publication of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche wrote a fragment titled “On Music and Words”. In it, he asserted the Schopenhauerian judgment that music is a primary expression of the essence of everything. Secondarily derivative are lyrical poetry and drama, which represent mere phenomenal appearances of objects. In this way, tragedy is born from music.
Nietzsche found in classical Athenian tragedy an art form that transcended the pessimism found in the so-called wisdom of Silenus. The Greek spectators, by looking into the abyss of human suffering depicted by characters on stage, passionately and joyously affirmed life, finding it worth living. A main theme in The Birth of Tragedy was that the fusion of Dionysian and Apollonian Kunsttrieben (“artistic impulses”) forms dramatic arts, or tragedies. He goes on to argue that this fusion has not been achieved since the ancient Greek tragedians. Apollo represents harmony, progress, clarity and logic, whereas Dionysus represents disorder, intoxication, emotion and ecstasy. Nietzsche used these two forces because, for him, the world of mind and order on one side, and passion and chaos on the other formed principles that were fundamental to the Greek culture: the Apollonian side being a dreaming state, full of illusions; and Dionysian being the state of intoxication, representing the liberations of instinct and dissolution of boundaries. In this mold, man appears as the satyr. He is the horror of the annihilation of the principle of individuality and at the same time someone who delights in its destruction. Both of these principles are meant to represent cognitive states that appear through art as the power of nature in man.
The relationship between the Apollonian and Dionysian juxtapositions is apparent, in the interplay of tragedy: the tragic hero of the drama, the main protagonist, struggles to make order (in the Apollonian sense) of his unjust and chaotic (Dionysian) fate, though he dies unfulfilled in the end. Elaborating on the conception of Hamlet as an intellectual who cannot make up his mind, and therefore is a living antithesis to the man of action, Nietzsche argues that a Dionysian figure possesses knowledge to realize that his actions cannot change the eternal balance of things, and it disgusts him enough not to be able to make any act at all. Hamlet falls under this category—he has glimpsed the supernatural reality through the Ghost, he has gained true knowledge and knows that no action of his has the power to change this. For the audience of such drama, this tragedy allows them to sense an underlying essence, what Nietzsche called the Primordial Unity, which revives Dionysian nature. He describes this primordial unity as the increase of strength, experience of fullness and plenitude bestowed by frenzy. Frenzy acts as an intoxication, and is crucial for the physiological condition that enables making of any art. Stimulated by this state, a person’s artistic will is enhanced:
In this state one enriches everything out of one’s own fullness: whatever one sees, whatever wills is seen swelled, taut, strong, overloaded with strength. A man in this state transforms things until they mirror his power—until they are reflections of his perfection. This having to transform into perfection is—art.
Nietzsche is adamant that the works of Aeschylus and Sophocles represent the apex of artistic creation, the true realization of tragedy; it is with Euripides, he states, that tragedy begins its Untergang (literally “going under” or “downward-way,” meaning decline, deterioration, downfall, death, etc.). Nietzsche objects to Euripides’ use of Socratic rationalism and morality in his tragedies, claiming that the infusion of ethics and reason robs tragedy of its foundation, namely the fragile balance of the Dionysian and Apollonian. Socrates emphasized reason to such a degree that he diffused the value of myth and suffering to human knowledge. Plato continued with this path in his dialogues, and the modern world eventually inherited reason at the expense of artistic impulses that could be found only in the Apollonian and Dionysus dichotomy. This leads to his conclusion that European culture from the time of Socrates had always been only Apollonian and thus decadent and unhealthy. He notes that whenever Apollonian culture dominates, the Dionysian lacks the structure to make a coherent art, and when Dionysian dominates, the Apollonian lacks the necessary passion. Only the beautiful middle, the interplay of these two forces, brought together as an art, represented real Greek tragedy.
An example of the impact of this idea can be seen in the book Patterns of Culture, where anthropologist Ruth Benedict uses Nietzschean opposites of “Apollonian” and “Dionysian” as the stimulus for her thoughts about Native American cultures. Carl Jung has written extensively on the dichotomy in Psychological Types. Michel Foucault has commented that his own book Madness and Civilization should be read “under the sun of the great Nietzschean inquiry”. Here Foucault references Nietzsche’s description of the birth and death of tragedy and his explanation that the subsequent tragedy of the Western world was the refusal of the tragic and, with that, refusal of the sacred. Painter Mark Rothko was influenced by Nietzsche’s view of tragedy, which were presented in The Birth of Tragedy.
Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth. Nietzsche himself rejected the idea of objective reality, arguing that knowledge is contingent and conditional, relative to various fluid perspectives or interests. This leads to constant reassessment of rules (i.e., those of philosophy, the scientific method, etc.) according to the circumstances of individual perspectives. This view has acquired the name perspectivism.
In Also sprach Zarathustra, Nietzsche proclaims that a table of values hangs above every great person. He points out that what is common among different peoples is the act of esteeming, of creating values, even if the values are different from one people to the next. Nietzsche asserts that what made people great was not the content of their beliefs, but the act of valuing. Thus the values a community strives to articulate are not as important as the collective will to see those values come to pass. The willing is more essential than the intrinsic worth of the goal itself, according to Nietzsche. “A thousand goals have there been so far,” says Zarathustra, “for there are a thousand peoples. Only the yoke for the thousand necks is still lacking: the one goal is lacking. Humanity still has no goal.” Hence, the title of the aphorism, “On The Thousand And One Goals”. The idea that one value-system is no more worthy than the next, although it may not be directly ascribed to Nietzsche, has become a common premise in modern social science. Max Weber and Martin Heidegger absorbed it and made it their own. It shaped their philosophical and cultural endeavor, as well as their political understanding. Weber, for example, relies on Nietzsche’s perspectivism by maintaining that objectivity is still possible—but only after a particular perspective, value, or end has been established.
Among his critique of traditional philosophy of Kant, Descartes and Plato in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche attacked thing in itself and cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) as unfalsifiable beliefs based on naive acceptance of previous notions and fallacies. Philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre puts Nietzsche in a high place in the history of philosophy. While criticizing nihilism and Nietzsche together as a sign of general decay, he still commends him for recognizing psychological motives behind Kant and Hume’s moral philosophy:
For it was Nietzsche’s historic achievement to understand more clearly than any other philosopher… not only that what purported to be appeals of objectivity were in fact expressions of subjective will, but also the nature of the problems that this posed for philosophy.
The “slave revolt” in morals
In Beyond Good and Evil and On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche’s genealogical account of the development of modern moral systems occupies a central place. For Nietzsche, a fundamental shift took place during human history from thinking in terms of good and bad toward good and evil.
The initial form of morality was set by a warrior aristocracy and other ruling castes of ancient civilizations. Aristocratic values of good and bad coincided with and reflected their relationship to lower castes such as slaves. Nietzsche presents this “master morality” as the original system of morality—perhaps best associated with Homeric Greece. To be “good” was to be happy and to have the things related to happiness: wealth, strength, health, power, etc. To be “bad” was to be like the slaves the aristocracy ruled over: poor, weak, sick, pathetic—an object of pity or disgust rather than hatred.
“Slave morality” comes about as a reaction to master-morality. Here, value emerges from the contrast between good and evil: good being associated with other-worldliness, charity, piety, restraint, meekness, and submission; and evil seen as worldly, cruel, selfish, wealthy, and aggressive. Nietzsche sees slave morality as pessimistic and fearful, values for their serving only to ease the existence for those who suffer from the very same thing. He associates slave-morality with the Jewish and Christian traditions, in a way that slave-morality is born out of the ressentiment of slaves. Nietzsche argued that the idea of equality allowed slaves to overcome their own condition without hating themselves. And by denying the inherent inequality of people (such as success, strength, beauty or intelligence), slaves acquired a method of escape, namely by generating new values on the basis of rejecting something that was seen as a perceived source of frustration. It was used to overcome the slave’s own sense of inferiority before the (better-off) masters. It does so by making out slave weakness to be a matter of choice, by, e.g., relabeling it as “meekness”. The “good man” of master morality is precisely the “evil man” of slave morality, while the “bad man” is recast as the “good man”.
Nietzsche sees the slave-morality as a source of the nihilism that has overtaken Europe. Modern Europe and Christianity exist in a hypocritical state due to a tension between master and slave morality, both contradictory values determining, to varying degrees, the values of most Europeans (who are “motley”). Nietzsche calls for exceptional people to no longer be ashamed of their uniqueness in the face of a supposed morality-for-all, which he deems to be harmful to the flourishing of exceptional people. He cautions, however, that morality, per se, is not bad; it is good for the masses, and should be left to them. Exceptional people, on the other hand, should follow their own “inner law”. A favorite motto of Nietzsche, taken from Pindar, reads: “Become what you are.”
A long standing assumption about Nietzsche is that he preferred master over slave morality. However, the Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann rejected this interpretation, writing that Nietzsche’s analyses of these two types of morality were used only in a descriptive and historic sense, they were not meant for any kind of acceptance or glorification. On the other hand, it is clear from his own writings that Nietzsche wanted the victory of master morality. He linked the “salvation and future of the human race with the unconditional dominance” of master morality and called master morality “a higher order of values, the noble ones, those that say Yes to life, those that guarantee the future.” Just as “there is an order of rank between man and man,” there is also an order of rank “between morality and morality.” Indeed, Nietzsche waged a philosophic war against the slave morality of Christianity in his “revaluation of all values” in order to bring about the victory of a new master morality that he called the “philosophy of the future” (Beyond Good and Evil is subtitled Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future).
In Daybreak, Nietzsche begins his “Campaign against Morality”. He calls himself an “immoralist” and harshly criticizes the prominent moral philosophies of his day: Christianity, Kantianism, and utilitarianism. Nietzsche’s concept “God is dead” applies to the doctrines of Christendom, though not to all other faiths: he claimed that Buddhism is a successful religion that he compliments for fostering critical thought. Still, Nietzsche saw his philosophy as a counter-movement to nihilism through appreciation of art:
Art as the single superior counterforce against all will to negation of life, art as the anti-Christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-Nihilist par excellence.”
Nietzsche claimed that the Christian faith as practised was not a proper representation of Jesus’ teachings, as it forced people merely to believe in the way of Jesus but not to act as Jesus did, in particular his example of refusing to judge people, something that Christians had constantly done the opposite of. He condemned institutionalized Christianity for emphasizing a morality of pity (Mitleid), which assumes an inherent illness in society:
Christianity is called the religion of pity. Pity stands opposed to the tonic emotions which heighten our vitality: it has a depressing effect. We are deprived of strength when we feel pity. That loss of strength which suffering as such inflicts on life is still further increased and multiplied by pity. Pity makes suffering contagious.
In Ecce Homo Nietzsche called the establishment of moral systems based on a dichotomy of good and evil a “calamitous error”, and wished to initiate a re-evaluation of the values of the Judeo-Christian world. He indicates his desire to bring about a new, more naturalistic source of value in the vital impulses of life itself.
While Nietzsche attacked the principles of Judaism, he was not antisemitic: in his work On the Genealogy of Morality, he explicitly condemns antisemitism, and points out that his attack on Judaism was not an attack on contemporary Jewish people but specifically an attack upon the ancient Jewish priesthood whom he claims antisemitic Christians paradoxically based their views upon. An Israeli historian who performed a statistical analysis of everything Nietzsche wrote about Jews claims that cross references and context make clear that almost all (85%) negative comments are actually attacks on Christian doctrine or, sarcastically, on Richard Wagner.
Nietzsche felt that modern antisemitism was “despicable” and against European ideals. Its cause, in his opinion, was the growth in European nationalism and the endemic “jealousy and hatred” of Jewish success. He wrote that Jews should be thanked for helping uphold a respect for the philosophies of ancient Greece, and for giving rise to “the noblest human being (Christ), the purest philosopher (Baruch Spinoza), the mightiest book, and the most effective moral code in the world.”
Death of God and nihilism
The statement “God is dead“, occurring in several of Nietzsche’s works (notably in The Gay Science), has become one of his best-known remarks. On the basis of it, most commentators regard Nietzsche as an atheist; others (such as Kaufmann) suggest that this statement reflects a more subtle understanding of divinity. Recent developments in modern science and the increasing secularization of European society had effectively ‘killed’ the Abrahamic God, who had served as the basis for meaning and value in the West for more than a thousand years. The death of God may lead beyond bare perspectivism to outright nihilism, the belief that nothing has any inherent importance and that life lacks purpose. Here he states that the Christian moral doctrine provides people with intrinsic value, belief in God (which justifies the evil in the world) and a basis for objective knowledge. In this sense, in constructing a world where objective knowledge is possible, Christianity is an antidote to a primal form of nihilism—the despair of meaninglessness. As Heidegger put the problem, “If God as the suprasensory ground and goal of all reality is dead, if the suprasensory world of the ideas has suffered the loss of its obligatory and above it its vitalizing and upbuilding power, then nothing more remains to which man can cling and by which he can orient himself.”
One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche calls passive nihilism, which he recognises in the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer’s doctrine—which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism—advocates separating oneself from will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterises this ascetic attitude as a “will to nothingness”, whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This moving away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears to be inconsistent:
A nihilist is a man who judges that the real world ought not to be, and that the world as it ought to be does not exist. According to this view, our existence (action, suffering, willing, feeling) has no meaning: this ‘in vain’ is the nihilists’ pathos—an inconsistency on the part of the nihilists.— Friedrich Nietzsche, KSA 12:9 , taken from The Will to Power, section 585, translated by Walter Kaufmann
Nietzsche approaches the problem of nihilism as a deeply personal one, stating that this problem of the modern world is a problem that has “become conscious” in him. Furthermore, he emphasizes both the danger of nihilism and the possibilities it offers, as seen in his statement that “I praise, I do not reproach, [nihilism’s] arrival. I believe it is one of the greatest crises, a moment of the deepest self-reflection of humanity. Whether man recovers from it, whether he becomes master of this crisis, is a question of his strength!” According to Nietzsche, it is only when nihilism is overcome that a culture can have a true foundation on which to thrive. He wished to hasten its coming only so that he could also hasten its ultimate departure. Heidegger interprets the death of God with what he explains as the death of metaphysics. He concludes that metaphysics has reached its potential and that the ultimate fate and downfall of metaphysics was proclaimed with the statement “God is dead”.
Will to power
A basic element in Nietzsche’s philosophical outlook is the “will to power” (der Wille zur Macht), which he maintained provides a basis for understanding human behavior—more so than competing explanations, such as the ones based on pressure for adaptation or survival. As such, according to Nietzsche, the drive for conservation appears as the major motivator of human or animal behavior only in exceptions, as the general condition of life is not one of emergency, of ‘struggle for existence’. More often than not, self-conservation is but a consequence of a creature’s will to exert its strength on the outside world.
In presenting his theory of human behavior, Nietzsche also addressed, and attacked, concepts from philosophies popularly embraced in his days, such as Schopenhauer’s notion of an aimless will or that of utilitarianism. Utilitarians claim that what moves people is mainly the desire to be happy, to accumulate pleasure in their lives. But such a conception of happiness Nietzsche rejected as something limited to, and characteristic of, the bourgeois lifestyle of the English society, and instead put forth the idea that happiness is not an aim per se—it is instead a consequence of a successful pursuit of one’s aims, of the overcoming of hurdles to one’s actions—in other words, of the fulfillment of the will.
Related to his theory of the will to power is his speculation, which he did not deem final, regarding the reality of the physical world, including inorganic matter—that, like man’s affections and impulses, the material world is also set by the dynamics of a form of the will to power. At the core of his theory is a rejection of atomism—the idea that matter is composed of stable, indivisible units (atoms). Instead, he seems to have accepted the conclusions of Ruđer Bošković, who explained the qualities of matter as a result of an interplay of forces. One study of Nietzsche defines his fully developed concept of the will to power as “the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relation” revealing the will to power as “the principle of the synthesis of forces.” Of such forces Nietzsche said they could perhaps be viewed as a primitive form of the will. Likewise he rejected as a mere interpretation the view that the movement of bodies is ruled by inexorable laws of nature, positing instead that movement was governed by the power relations between bodies and forces. Other scholars disagree that Nietzsche considered the material world to be a form of the will to power: Nietzsche thoroughly criticized metaphysics, and by including the will to power in the material world, he would simply be setting up a new metaphysics. Other than aphorism 36 in Beyond Good and Evil, where he raised a question regarding will to power as being in the material world, it was only in his notes (unpublished by himself), where he wrote about a metaphysical will to power. Nietzsche directed his landlord to burn those notes in 1888 when he left Sils Maria for the last time.
“Eternal return” (also known as “eternal recurrence”) is a hypothetical concept that posits that the universe has been recurring, and will continue to recur, in a self-similar form for an infinite number of times across infinite time or space. It is a purely physical concept, involving no supernatural reincarnation, but the return of beings in the same bodies. Nietzsche first invokes the idea of eternal return in a parable in Section 341 of The Gay Science, and also in the chapter “Of the Vision and the Riddle” in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, among other places. Nietzsche contemplates the idea as potentially “horrifying and paralyzing,” and says that its burden is the “heaviest weight” imaginable (“das schwerste Gewicht“). The wish for the eternal return of all events would mark the ultimate affirmation of life, a reaction to Schopenhauer’s praise of denying the will‐to‐live. To comprehend eternal recurrence in his thought, and to not merely come to peace with it but to embrace it, requires amor fati, “love of fate”. As Heidegger points out in his lectures on Nietzsche, Nietzsche’s first mention of eternal recurrence presents this concept as a hypothetical question rather than postulating it as a fact. According to Heidegger, it is the burden imposed by the question of eternal recurrence—whether or not such a thing could possibly be true—that is so significant in modern thought: “The way Nietzsche here patterns the first communication of the thought of the ‘greatest burden’ [of eternal recurrence] makes it clear that this ‘thought of thoughts’ is at the same time ‘the most burdensome thought.'”
Nietzsche posits not only that the universe is recurring over infinite time and space, but that the different versions of events that have occurred in the past may at one point or another take place again, hence “all configurations that have previously existed on this earth must yet meet…” And with each version of events is hoping that some knowledge or awareness is gained to better the individual, hence “And thus it will happen one day that a man will be born again, just like me and a woman will be born, just like Mary—only that it is hoped to be that the head of this man may contain a little less foolishness…”
Alexander Nehamas writes in Nietzsche: Life as Literature of three ways of seeing the eternal recurrence: “(A) My life will recur in exactly identical fashion.” This expresses a totally fatalistic approach to the idea. “(B) My life may recur in exactly identical fashion.” This second view conditionally asserts cosmology, but fails to capture what Nietzsche refers to in The Gay Science, 341. Finally, “(C) If my life were to recur, then it could recur only in identical fashion.” Nehamas shows that this interpretation exists totally independently of physics and does not presuppose the truth of cosmology. Nehamas draws the conclusion that if individuals constitute themselves through their actions, then they can only maintain themselves in their current state by living in a recurrence of past actions (Nehamas 153). Nietzsche’s thought is the negation of the idea of a history of salvation.
Another concept important to an understanding of Nietzsche’s thought is the Übermensch. Developing the idea of nihilism, Nietzsche wrote Also sprach Zarathustra, therein introducing the concept of a value-creating Übermensch, not as a project, but as an anti-project, the absence of any project. According to Laurence Lampert, “the death of God must be followed by a long twilight of piety and nihilism (II. 19; III. 8). Zarathustra’s gift of the overman is given to a mankind not aware of the problem to which the overman is the solution.” Zarathustra presents the overman as the creator of new values, and he appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. The overman does not follow morality of common people since that favors mediocrity but instead rises above the notion of good and evil and above the “herd”. In this way Zarathustra proclaims his ultimate goal as the journey towards the state of overman. He wants a kind of spiritual evolution of self-awareness and overcoming of traditional views on morality and justice that stem from the superstition beliefs still deeply rooted or related to the notion of God and Christianity.
While interpretations of Nietzsche’s overman vary wildly, here is one of his quotations from Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Prologue, §§3–4):
I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?… All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughing stock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape… The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth… Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss… what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.
Zarathustra contrasts the overman with the last man of egalitarian modernity (most obvious example being democracy), an alternative goal humanity might set for itself. The last man is possible only by mankind’s having bred an apathetic creature who has no great passion or commitment, who is unable to dream, who merely earns his living and keeps warm. This concept appears only in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and is presented as a condition that would render the creation of the overman impossible.
Some have suggested that the notion of eternal return is related to the overman, since willing the eternal return of the same is a necessary step if the overman is to create new values, untainted by the spirit of gravity or asceticism. Values involve a rank-ordering of things, and so are inseparable from approval and disapproval; yet it was dissatisfaction that prompted men to seek refuge in other-worldliness and embrace other-worldly values. It could seem that the overman, in being devoted to any values at all, would necessarily fail to create values that did not share some bit of asceticism. Willing the eternal recurrence is presented as accepting the existence of the low while still recognizing it as the low, and thus as overcoming the spirit of gravity or asceticism. One must have the strength of the overman in order to will the eternal recurrence; that is, only the overman will have the strength to fully accept all of his past life, including his failures and misdeeds, and to truly will their eternal return. This action nearly kills Zarathustra, for example, and most human beings cannot avoid other-worldliness because they really are sick, not because of any choice they made.
The Nazis tried to incorporate the concept into their ideology. After his death, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche became the curator and editor of her brother’s manuscripts. She reworked Nietzsche’s unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche’s stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche’s work became associated with fascism and Nazism; 20th century scholars contested this interpretation of his work, and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available.
Although Nietzsche has famously been misrepresented as a predecessor to Nazism, he criticized anti-Semitism, pan-Germanism and, to a lesser extent, nationalism. Thus, he broke with his editor in 1886 because of his opposition to his editor’s anti-Semitic stances, and his rupture with Richard Wagner, expressed in The Case of Wagner and Nietzsche contra Wagner, both of which he wrote in 1888, had much to do with Wagner’s endorsement of pan-Germanism and anti-Semitism—and also of his rallying to Christianity. In a 29 March 1887 letter to Theodor Fritsch, Nietzsche mocked anti-Semites, Fritsch, Eugen Dühring, Wagner, Ebrard, Wahrmund, and the leading advocate of pan-Germanism, Paul de Lagarde, who would become, along with Wagner and Houston Chamberlain, the main official influences of Nazism. This 1887 letter to Fritsch ended by: “And finally, how do you think I feel when the name Zarathustra is mouthed by anti-Semites?”
Critique of mass culture
Friedrich Nietzsche held a pessimistic view on modern society and culture. His views stand against the concept of popular culture. He believed the press and mass culture led to conformity and brought about mediocrity. Nietzsche saw a lack of intellectual progress, leading to the decline of the human species. According to Nietzsche, individuals needed to overcome this form of mass culture. He believed some people were able to become superior individuals through the use of will power. By rising above mass culture, society would produce higher, brighter and healthier human beings.
Reading and influence
A trained philologist, Nietzsche had a thorough knowledge of Greek philosophy. He read Kant, Plato, Mill, Schopenhauer and Spir, who became his main opponents in his philosophy, and later Baruch Spinoza, whom he saw as his “precursor” in many respects but as a personification of the “ascetic ideal” in others. However, Nietzsche referred to Kant as a “moral fanatic”, Plato as “boring”, Mill as a “blockhead”, and of Spinoza he said: “How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray?” He likewise expressed contempt for British author George Eliot.
Nietzsche’s philosophy, while innovative and revolutionary, was indebted to many predecessors. While at Basel, Nietzsche offered lecture courses on pre-Platonic philosophers for several years, and the text of this lecture series has been characterized as a “lost link” in the development of his thought. “In it concepts such as the will to power, the eternal return of the same, the overman, gay science, self-overcoming and so on receive rough, unnamed formulations and are linked to specific pre-Platonics, especially Heraclitus, who emerges as a pre-Platonic Nietzsche.” The pre-Socratic thinker Heraclitus was known for the rejection of the concept of being as a constant and eternal principle of universe, and his embrace of “flux” and incessant change. His symbolism of the world as “child play” marked by amoral spontaneity and lack of definite rules was appreciated by Nietzsche. From his Heraclitean sympathy, Nietzsche was also a vociferous detractor of Parmenides, who opposed Heraclitus and believed all world is a single Being with no change at all.
In his Egotism in German Philosophy, Santayana claimed that Nietzsche’s whole philosophy was a reaction to Schopenhauer. Santayana wrote that Nietzsche’s work was “an emendation of that of Schopenhauer. The will to live would become the will to dominate; pessimism founded on reflection would become optimism founded on courage; the suspense of the will in contemplation would yield to a more biological account of intelligence and taste; finally in the place of pity and asceticism (Schopenhauer’s two principles of morals) Nietzsche would set up the duty of asserting the will at all costs and being cruelly but beautifully strong. These points of difference from Schopenhauer cover the whole philosophy of Nietzsche.”
Nietzsche expressed admiration for 17th-century French moralists such as La Rochefoucauld, La Bruyère and Vauvenargues, as well as for Stendhal. The organicism of Paul Bourget influenced Nietzsche, as did that of Rudolf Virchow and Alfred Espinas. Nietzsche wrote in a letter in 1867 that he was trying to improve his German style of writing with the help of Lessing, Lichtenberg and Schopenhauer. It was probably Lichtenberg (along with Paul Rée) whose aphoristic style of writing contributed to Nietzsche’s own use of aphorism instead of an essay. Nietzsche early learned of Darwinism through Friedrich Albert Lange. The essays of Ralph Waldo Emerson had a profound influence on Nietzsche, who “loved Emerson from first to last”, wrote “Never have I felt so much at home in a book”, and called him “[the] author who has been richest in ideas in this century so far.” Hippolyte Taine influenced Nietzsche’s view on Rousseau and Napoleon. Notably, he also read some of the posthumous works of Charles Baudelaire, Tolstoy’s My Religion, Ernest Renan’s Life of Jesus and Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s Demons. Nietzsche called Dostoyevsky “the only psychologist from whom I have anything to learn.” While Nietzsche never mentions Max Stirner, the similarities in their ideas have prompted a minority of interpreters to suggest a relationship between the two. In 1861 Nietzsche wrote an enthusiastic essay on his “favorite poet”, Friedrich Hölderlin, mostly forgotten at that time. He also expressed deep appreciation for Stifter’s Indian Summer, Byron’s Manfred and Twain’s Tom Sawyer.
Reception and legacy
Nietzsche’s works did not reach a wide readership during his active writing career. However, in 1888 the influential Danish critic Georg Brandes aroused considerable excitement about Nietzsche through a series of lectures he gave at the University of Copenhagen. In the years after Nietzsche’s death in 1900, his works became better known, and readers have responded to them in complex and sometimes controversial ways. Many Germans eventually discovered his appeals for greater individualism and personality development in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but responded to them divergently. He had some following among left-wing Germans in the 1890s; in 1894–1895 German conservatives wanted to ban his work as subversive. During the late 19th century Nietzsche’s ideas were commonly associated with anarchist movements and appear to have had influence within them, particularly in France and the United States. H.L. Mencken produced the first book on Nietzsche in English in 1907, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, and in 1910 a book of translated paragraphs from Nietzsche, increasing knowledge of his philosophy in the United States. Nietzsche is known today as a precursor to existentialism, post-structuralism and postmodernism.
W.B. Yeats and Arthur Symons described Nietzsche as the intellectual heir to William Blake. Symons went on to compare the ideas of the two thinkers in The Symbolist Movement in Literature, while Yeats tried to raise awareness of Nietzsche in Ireland. A similar notion was espoused by W.H. Auden who wrote of Nietzsche in his New Year Letter (released in 1941 in The Double Man): “O masterly debunker of our liberal fallacies […] all your life you stormed, like your English forerunner Blake”. Nietzsche made an impact on composers during the 1890s. Writer on music Donald Mitchell notes that Gustav Mahler was “attracted to the poetic fire of Zarathustra, but repelled by the intellectual core of its writings.” He also quotes Mahler himself, and adds that he was influenced by Nietzsche’s conception and affirmative approach to nature, which Mahler presented in his Third Symphony using Zarathustra’s roundelay. Frederick Delius produced a piece of choral music, A Mass of Life, based on a text of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, while Richard Strauss (who also based his Also sprach Zarathustra on the same book), was only interested in finishing “another chapter of symphonic autobiography”. Famous writers and poets influenced by Nietzsche include André Gide, August Strindberg, Robinson Jeffers, Pío Baroja, D.H. Lawrence, Edith Södergran and Yukio Mishima.
Nietzsche was an early influence on the poetry of Rainer Maria Rilke. Knut Hamsun counted Nietzsche, along with Strindberg and Dostoyevsky, as one of his primary influences. Author Jack London wrote that he was more stimulated by Nietzsche than by any other writer. Critics have suggested that the character of David Grief in A Son of the Sun was based on Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s influence on Muhammad Iqbal is most evidenced in Asrar-i-Khudi (The Secrets of the Self). Wallace Stevens was another reader of Nietzsche, and elements of Nietzsche’s philosophy were found throughout Stevens’s poetry collection Harmonium. Olaf Stapledon was influenced by the idea of the Übermensch and it is a central theme in his books Odd John and Sirius. In Russia, Nietzsche has influenced Russian symbolism and figures such as Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Andrei Bely, Vyacheslav Ivanov and Alexander Scriabin have all incorporated or discussed parts of Nietzsche philosophy in their works. Thomas Mann’s novel Death in Venice shows a use of Apollonian and Dionysian, and in Doctor Faustus Nietzsche was a central source for the character of Adrian Leverkühn. Hermann Hesse, similarly, in his Narcissus and Goldmund presents two main characters in the sense of Apollonian and Dionysian as the two opposite yet intertwined spirits. Painter Giovanni Segantini was fascinated by Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and he drew an illustration for the first Italian translation of the book. The Russian painter Lena Hades created the oil painting cycle Also Sprach Zarathustra dedicated to the book Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
By World War I, Nietzsche had acquired a reputation as an inspiration for both right-wing German militarism and leftist politics. German soldiers received copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra as gifts during World War I. The Dreyfus affair provides a contrasting example of his reception: the French antisemitic Right labelled the Jewish and leftist intellectuals who defended Alfred Dreyfus as “Nietzscheans”. Nietzsche had a distinct appeal for many Zionist thinkers around the start of the 20th century, most notable being Ahad Ha’am, Hillel Zeitlin, Micha Josef Berdyczewski, A.D. Gordon and Martin Buber, who went so far as to extoll Nietzsche as a “creator” and “emissary of life”. Chaim Weizmann was a great admirer of Nietzsche; the first president of Israel sent Nietzsche’s books to his wife, adding a comment in a letter that “This was the best and finest thing I can send to you.” Israel Eldad, the ideological chief of the Stern Gang that fought the British in Palestine in the 1940s, wrote about Nietzsche in his underground newspaper and later translated most of Nietzsche’s books into Hebrew. Eugene O’Neill remarked that Zarathustra influenced him more than any other book he ever read. He also shared Nietzsche’s view of tragedy. Plays The Great God Brown and Lazarus Laughed are an example of Nietzsche’s influence on O’Neill. Nietzsche’s influence on the works of Frankfurt School philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno can be seen in the popular Dialectic of Enlightenment. Adorno summed up Nietzsche’s philosophy as expressing the “humane in a world in which humanity has become a sham.”
Nietzsche’s growing prominence suffered a severe setback when his works became closely associated with Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany. Many political leaders of the twentieth century were at least superficially familiar with Nietzsche’s ideas, although it is not always possible to determine whether they actually read his work. It is debated among scholars whether Hitler read Nietzsche, although if he did his reading of him may not have been extensive. He was a frequent visitor to the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and used expressions of Nietzsche’s, such as “lords of the earth” in Mein Kampf. The Nazis made selective use of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Mussolini, Charles de Gaulle and Huey P. Newton read Nietzsche. Richard Nixon read Nietzsche with “curious interest,” and his book Beyond Peace might have taken its title from Nietzsche’s book Beyond Good and Evil which Nixon read beforehand. Bertrand Russell wrote that Nietzsche had exerted great influence on philosophers and on people of literary and artistic culture, but warned that the attempt to put Nietzsche’s philosophy of aristocracy into practice could only be done by an organization similar to the Fascist or the Nazi party.
A decade after World War II, there was a revival of Nietzsche’s philosophical writings thanks to exhaustive translations and analyses by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. Others, well known philosophers in their own right, wrote commentaries on Nietzsche’s philosophy, including Martin Heidegger, who produced a four-volume study, and Lev Shestov, who wrote a book called Dostoyevski, Tolstoy and Nietzsche where he portrays Nietzsche and Dostoyevski as the “thinkers of tragedy”. Georg Simmel compares Nietzsche’s importance to ethics to that of Copernicus for cosmology. Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies read Nietzsche avidly from his early life, and later frequently discussed many of his concepts in his own works. Nietzsche has influenced philosophers such as Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Oswald Spengler, George Grant, Emil Cioran, Albert Camus, Ayn Rand, Jacques Derrida, Leo Strauss, Max Scheler, Michel Foucault and Bernard Williams. Camus described Nietzsche as “the only artist to have derived the extreme consequences of an aesthetics of the absurd”. Paul Ricœur called Nietzsche one of the masters of the “school of suspicion”, alongside Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Carl Jung was also influenced by Nietzsche. In Memories, Dreams, Reflections, a biography transcribed by his secretary, he cites Nietzsche as a large influence. Aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy, especially his ideas of the self and his relation to society, also run through much of late-twentieth and early twenty-first century thought. His deepening of the romantic-heroic tradition of the nineteenth century, for example, as expressed in the ideal of the “grand striver” appears in the work of thinkers from Cornelius Castoriadis to Roberto Mangabeira Unger. For Nietzsche this grand striver overcomes obstacles, engages in epic struggles, pursues new goals, embraces recurrent novelty, and transcends existing structures and contexts.:195
- The Birth of Tragedy (1872)
- On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense (1873)
- Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (1873)
- Untimely Meditations (1876)
- Human, All Too Human (1878)
- The Dawn (1881)
- The Gay Science (1882)
- Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1883)
- Beyond Good and Evil (1886)
- On the Genealogy of Morality (1887)
- The Case of Wagner (1888)
- Twilight of the Idols (1888)
- The Antichrist (1888)
- Ecce Homo(1888; first published in 1908)
- Nietzsche contra Wagner (1888)
- The Will to Power (various unpublished manuscripts edited by his sister Elisabeth; not recognized as a unified work after ca 1960)
- Guyer, Paul; Horstmann, Rolf-Peter (2015). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Prat, Alan. “Nihilism § Friedrich Nietzsche and Nihilism”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- Haar, Michel (April 1985). The New Nietzsche : contemporary styles of interpretation(PDF) (1st MIT Press paperback ed.). MIT Press. p. 6. ISBN9780262510349. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- Dr. Large. “Nietzsche and Moral Nihilism”. www.arasite.org. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- Michael N. Forster. After Herder: Philosophy of Language in the German Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 9.
- Dale Wilkerson. “Friedrich Nietzsche”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN2161-0002. Retrieved 9 April 2018.
- Brobjer, Thomas H. (2008). Nietzsche’s Philosophical Context: An Intellectual Biography. University of Illinois Press. p. 149 n. 42. ISBN978-0-252-03245-5.
- “Der Philosoph Philipp Mainländer entdeckt das Nirwanaprinzip: Die Welt als Gottes Selbstmordprojekt”. Neue Zürcher Zeitung. 15 March 2003.
Immerhin hat kein Geringerer als Friedrich Nietzsche, solange er wie Mainländer Schopenhauer verehrte, den philosophischen Mitjünger gewürdigt (beider Lektüreerlebnis gleicht als Erweckung dem augustinischen “Nimm, lies” bis ins Detail).
- Brobjer, Thomas. Nietzsche’s Philosophical Context: An Intellectual Biography. University of Illinois Press, 2008. pp. 39, 48, 55, 140.
- Jensen, Anthony. Julius Bahnsen’s Influence on Nietzsche’s Wills-Theory. Journal of Nietzsche Studies Vol. 47, No. 1 (Spring 2016). pp. 101–118.
- Wells, John C (1990), “Nietzsche”, Longman Pronunciation Dictionary, Harlow, UK: Longman, p. 478, ISBN978-0-582-05383-0
- “Nietzsche”. Dictionary.com.
- Duden. Das Aussprachewörterbuch. 7. Auflage. Bibliographisches Institut, Berlin 2015, ISBN978-3-411-04067-4, S. 633 (online)
- Krech, Eva-Maria; Stock, Eberhard; Hirschfeld, Ursula; Anders, Lutz Christian (2009). Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch [German Pronunciation Dictionary] (in German). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. pp. 520, 777. ISBN978-3-11-018202-6.
- Wells, John C. (2008), Longman Pronunciation Dictionary (3rd ed.), Longman, ISBN978-1-4058-8118-0
- Magnus, Bernd (26 July 1999). “Friedrich Nietzsche”. Encyclopædia Britannica.
- “Friedrich Nietzsche,” by Dale Wilkerson, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN2161-0002, http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzch/. 14 October 2015.
- Raymond A. Belliotti, Jesus or Nietzsche: How Should We Live Our Lives?(Rodopi, 2013), 195–201
- Russell, Bertrand (1945). A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and Schuster. pp. 766, 770. ISBN978-0-671-20158-6.
- Wicks, R. (Summer 2011) “Friedrich Nietzsche”. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved 6 October 2011.
- Anderson, R. Lanier (17 March 2017). “Friedrich Nietzsche”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Brobjer, Thomas. Nietzsche’s philosophical context: an intellectual biography, p. 42. University of Illinois Press, 2008.
- Magnus 1999.
- Robert Matthews (4 May 2003), “‘Madness’ of Nietzsche was cancer not syphilis”, The Daily Telegraph.
- McKinnon, A.M. (2012). ‘Metaphors in and for the Sociology of Religion: Towards a Theory after Nietzsche’. Journal of Contemporary Religion, vol 27, no. 2, pp. 203–16 
- See his own words: F. Nietzsche (1888), Twilight of the Idols. “Four Great Errors”, 1, tr. W. Kaufmann & R.J. Hollingdale (online version). A strict example of a cause-and-effect mismatch, with regard to the God-creator as the cause and our concepts as the effects, is perhaps not fully stressed in this fragment, but the more explicit it is stressed in the same book, chapter “”Reason” in philosophy”, 4, as well as in The Antichrist (57, where real and imaginary origins are contrasted, and 62, where he calls Christianity ‘a fatality’—’fatal’ also meaning ‘unavoidable’) and in The Genealogy of Morals, books 1–3, among others. The topic of “falseorigins” of ideas is also suggested in The Four Great Errors, 3, and (precisely about morality) in e.g. The Will to Power, tr. W. Kaufmann, 343 (online text here).
- K. Gemes, J. Richardson, The Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche, Oxford Univ. Press, 2013, pp. 177–78 (“The Duality of Nietzsche’s Theory of the Will to Power: The Psychological and Cosmological Aspects”). Read online here
- 1941–, Lampert, Laurence (1986). Nietzsche’s teaching : an interpretation of Thus spoke Zarathustra. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN978-0-300-04430-0. OCLC13497182.
- Bowman, William (2016). Friedrich Nietzsche: Herald of a New Era. Hazar Press. pp. 39–59. ISBN978-0-9975703-0-4.
- Golomb, Jacob and Robert S. Wistrich (eds.), 2002, Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism?: On the Uses and Abuses of a Philosophy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
- Marianne Constable, “Genealogy and Jurisprudence: Nietzsche, Nihilism, and the Social Scientification of Law,” Law & Social Inquiry 19, no. 3 (1 July 1994): 551–90.
- “100 years after death, Nietzsche’s popularity keeps growing: 6/01”. news.stanford.edu.
- Kaufmann 1974, p. 22.
- Wicks, Robert (2014). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Friedrich Nietzsche (Winter 2014 ed.).
- Brobjer, Thomas H. “Why Did Nietzsche Receive a Scholarship to Study at Schulpforta?”. Nietzsche-Studien. 30: 322–27.
- Krell, David Farrell, and Donald L. Bates. The Good European: Nietzsche’s work sites in word and image. University of Chicago Press, 1997.
- Cate 2005, p. 37.
- Hayman, Ronald. Nietzsche: A Critical Life, p. 42. Oxford University Press, 1980.
- Kohler, Joachim. Nietzsche & Wagner: A Lesson in Subjugation, p. 17. Yale University Press, 1998.
- Hollingdale 1999, p. 21.
- His “valedictorian paper” (Valediktionsarbeit, graduation thesis for Pforta students) was titled “On Theognis of Megara” (“De Theognide Megarensi“); see Anthony K. Jensen, Helmut Heit (eds.), Nietzsche as a Scholar of Antiquity, A&C Black, 2014, p. 4.
- Schaberg, William (1996), The Nietzsche Canon, University of Chicago Press, p. 32
- Salaquarda, Jörg (1996), “Nietzsche and the Judaeo-Christian tradition”, The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 99
- Higgins, Kathleen (2000), What Nietzsche Really Said, Random House, NY, p. 86
- Nietzsche, Letter to His Sister (1865). Archived from the original on 24 November 2012.
- Pence, Charles H. (2011). “Nietzsche’s aesthetic critique of Darwin”. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 33 (2): 165–90. PMID22288334.
- Hayman, Ronald. Nietzsche: A Critical Life, p. 93. Oxford University Press (New York), 1980.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. Letter to Karl Von Gersdorff, June 1868.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich (November 1868), Letter to Rohde
- Anthony K. Jensen, Helmut Heit (eds.), Nietzsche as a Scholar of Antiquity, A&C Black, 2014, p. 129.
- Kaufmann 1974, p. 25.
- Bishop, Paul (2004), Nietzsche and Antiquity, p. 117
- Anthony K. Jensen, Helmut Heit (eds.), Nietzsche as a Scholar of Antiquity, A&C Black, 2014, p. 115.
- George E. McCarthy, Dialectics and Decadence
- Between 1868 and 1870, he published two other studies on Diogenes Laertius: De Fontibus Diogenis Laertii (“On the Sources of Diogenes Laertius”; Part I: 1868, Part II: 1869) and Analecta Laertiana (1870); see Jensen and Heit (eds.), 2014, p. 115.
- Hecker, Hellmuth: “Nietzsches Staatsangehörigkeit als Rechtsfrage”, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, Jg. 40, 1987, nr. 23, pp. 1388–91.
- His, Eduard: “Friedrich Nietzsches Heimatlosigkeit”, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde, vol. 40, 1941, pp. 159–86. Note that some authors (among them Deussen and Montinari) mistakenly claim that Nietzsche became a Swiss citizen.
- Sax, L. (2003). “What was the cause of Nietzsche’s dementia?”. Journal of Medical Biography. 11 (1): 47–54. doi:10.1177/096777200301100113. PMID12522502.
- Schain, Richard (2001), The Legend of Nietzsche’s Syphilis, Westwood: Greenwood Press
- Green, M.S. Nietzsche and the Transcendental Tradition. University of Illinois Press, 2002.
- Rupert Hughes, The Love Affairs of Great Musicians, Volume 2.
- Safranski, Rüdiger (trans. Shelley Frisch). Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography, p. 161. W.W. Norton & Company, 2003. “This work had long been consigned to oblivion, but it had a lasting impact on Nietzsche. Section 18 of Human, All Too Human cited Spir, not by name, but by presenting a ‘proposition by an outstanding logician’ (2,38; HH I §18).”
- Güntzel, Stephan (15 October 2003), “Nietzsche’s Geophilosophy”, Journal of Nietzsche Studies (in English and German), University Park (Penn State), 25: 85, archived from the original on 27 September 2007; republished on HyperNietzsche.
- Cate 2005, p. 221.
- Cate 2005, p. 297.
- Cate 2005, p. 415.
- “Nietzsche and Lou Andreas-Salomé”, F Nietzsche, DE
- Hollingdale 1999, p. 149.
- Hollingdale 1999, p. 151.
- Kaufmann 1974, p. 49.
- Killy, Walther; Vierhaus, Rudolf (30 November 2011). Plett – Schmidseder. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN9783110966305.
- Hollingdale 1999, p. 152.
- Cate 2005, p. 389.
- Cate 2005, p. 453.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. Letter to Peter Gast. August 1883.
- “Correspondences”. Thenietzschechannel.com. 1 February 2000. Retrieved 27 November 2013.
- “Förster-Nietzsche, Elisabeth”. Encyclopædia Britannica (online ed.). 10 October 2008.
- van Eerten, Jurriaan (27 February 2016). “The lost ‘Aryan utopia’ of Nueva Germania”. The Tico Times Costa Rica. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich. Letter to Peter Gast. March 1887.
- Montinari, Mazzino (1974), Friedrich Nietzsche translated as Friedrich Nietzsche. Eine Einführung (in German), Berlin-New York: De Gruyter, 1991; and Friedrich Nietzsche (in French), PUF, 2001
- Nietzsche 1888d, Preface, section 1.
- Magnus, Bernd; Higgins, Kathleen Marie, eds. (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. Cambridge University Press. pp. 79–81. ISBN978-0-521-36767-7.
- Kaufmann 1974, p. 67.
- Anacleto Verrecchia, “Nietzsche’s Breakdown in Turin,” in Nietzsche in Italy, ed. Thomas Harrison (Stanford University: ANMA Libri, 1988) 105–12
- Simon, Gerald (January 1889). “Nietzsches Briefe. Ausgewählte Korrespondenz. Wahnbriefe”. The Nietzsche Channel. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
Ich habe Kaiphas in Ketten legen lassen; auch bin ich voriges Jahr von den deutschen Ärzten auf eine sehr langwierige Weise gekreuzigt worden. Wilhelm, Bismarck und alle Antisemiten abgeschafft.
- Zweig, Stefan (1939), Master Builders [trilogy], The Struggle with the Daimon, Viking Press, p. 524.
- Nietzsches Briefe, Ausgewählte Korrespondenz, Wahnzettel 1889.
- “Nietzsche Chronicle: 1889”. www.dartmouth.edu. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
- Safranski, Rüdiger (2003). Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography. New York, New York: W. W. Norton. p. 371. ISBN0393050084.
- admin (21 February 2018). “Langbehn, Julius”. Stern, Fritz. “Julius Langbehn and Germanic Irrationalism,” in The Politics of Cultural Despair. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974, pp. 97-204; Sheehan, James J. Museums in the German Art World: From the End of the Old Regime to the Rise of Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 142-43; Kultermann, Udo. The History of Art History. New York: Abaris, 1993, pp. 131-2. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- Safranski, Rüdiger (2003). Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography. W. W. Norton. pp. 317–350. ISBN0393050084.
- Steiner, Rudolf (1895), Friedrich Nietzsche, ein Kämpfer gegen seine Zeit, Weimar
- Bailey, Andrew (2002), First Philosophy: Fundamental Problems and Readings in Philosophy, Broadview Press, p. 704
- Bataille, Georges; Michelson, Annette (Spring 1986). “Nietzsche’s Madness”. October. 36: 42–45. doi:10.2307/778548. JSTOR778548.
- René Girard, “Superman in the Underground: Strategies of Madness—Nietzsche, Wagner, and Dostoevsky”, MLN, Vol. 91, No. 6, Comparative Literature. (December 1976), pp. 1161–85.
- Cybulska, EM (August 2000). “The madness of Nietzsche: a misdiagnosis of the millennium?”. Hospital Medicine. 61 (8): 571–75. doi:10.12968/hosp.2000.61.8.1403. PMID11045229.
- Schain, Richard (2001). The Legend of Nietzsche’s Syphilis. Westport: Greenwood Press. ISBN978-0-313-31940-2.
- Leonard Sax, “What was the cause of Nietzsche’s dementia?” Journal of Medical Biography 2003; 11: 47–54.
- Orth, M; Trimble, MR (December 2006). “Friedrich Nietzsche’s mental illness—general paralysis of the insane vs. frontotemporal dementia”. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 114 (6): 439–44, discussion 445. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00827.x. PMID17087793.
- Hemelsoet D, Hemelsoet K, Devreese D (March 2008). “The neurological illness of Friedrich Nietzsche”. Acta Neurologica Belgica. 108 (1): 9–16. PMID18575181.
- Dayan, L; Ooi, C (October 2005). “Syphilis treatment: old and new”. Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy. 6 (13): 2271–80. doi:10.1517/146565126.96.36.1991. PMID16218887.
- Hammond, David (2013). Mercury Poisoning: The Undiagnosed Epidemic. p. 11.
- Concurring reports in Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche’s biography (1904) and a letter by Mathilde Schenk-Nietzsche to Meta von Salis, 30 August 1900, quoted in Janz (1981) p. 221. Cf. Volz (1990), p. 251.
- Schain, Richard, Nietzsche’s Visionary Values – Genius or Dementia?, Philosophos, archived from the original on 13 May 2006
- Montinari, Mazzino. The ‘Will to Power’ Does Not Exist.
- “Nietzsche”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2017
- Tanner, Michael (2000), Nietzsche: A Very Short Introduction, preview, ISBN978-0-19-285414-8
- Magnus, Bernd; Higgins, Kathleen Marie (1996). The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. p. 1. ISBN978-0-521-36767-7.
- Craid, Edward, ed. (2005), The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of philosophy, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 726–41
- Blackburn, Simon (2005), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 252–53
- Rée, Jonathan; Urmson, JO, eds. (2005) . The Concise encyclopedia of western philosophy (3rd ed.). London: Routledge. pp. 267–70. ISBN978-0-415-32924-8.
- Mencken, Henry Louis (2008). The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Wilder Publications. pp. 11–. ISBN978-1-60459-331-0.
- Janz, Curt Paul (1978), Friedrich Nietzsche: Biographie, 1, Munich: Carl Hanser, p. 263,
Er beantragte also bei der preussischen Behörde seine Expatriierung (translation: he accordingly applied to the Prussian authorities for expatrification)
- Colli, Giorgio; Montinari, Mazzino (1993), “Entlassungsurkunde für den Professor Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche aus Naumburg”, Nietzsche Briefwechsel: Kritische Gesamtausgabe (in German), I.4, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 566, ISBN978-3-11-012277-0
- Mencken, Henry Louis (1913). Friedrich Nietzsche. Transaction Publishers. p. 6. ISBN978-1-56000-649-7.
- Warberg, Ulla-Karin. “Nietzsche’s ring”. auktionsverket.com. Östermalm, Stockholm, SWEDEN: Stockholms Auktionsverk. Archived from the original on 24 June 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
Nietzsche’s ring… it was worn by Friedrich Nietzsche and it represents the ancient Radwan coat of arms, which can be traced back to the Polish nobility of medieval times.
- Niesiecki, Kasper; Bobrowicz, Jan Nepomucen (1841) . “Radwan Herb”[Radwan Coat of Arms] (Online book). Herbarz Polski Kaspra Niesieckiego S.J., powiększony dodatkami z poźniejszych autorów, rękopismów, dowodów urzędowych i wydany przez Jana Nep. Bobrowicza [Polish armorial of Kasper Niesiecki S.J., enlarged by additions from other authors, manuscripts, official proofs and published by Jan Nep. Bobrowicz.] (Noble/szlachta genealogical and heraldic reference). VIII. Leipzig, Germany: Breitkopf & Härtel. p. 28.
Herbowni … Nicki, … (Heraldic Family … Nicki, …)
- Niesiecki, Kasper; Bobrowicz, Jan Nepomucen (1845) . “Kasper Niesiecki, Herbarz Polski, wyd. J.N. Bobrowicz, Lipsk 1839-1845: herb Radwan (t. 8 s. 27-29)”(website). wielcy.pl (Noble/szlachta genealogical and heraldic reference) (in Polish). Kraków, POLAND, EU: Dr Minakowski Publikacje Elektroniczne. Archived from the original on 17 August 2018. Retrieved 17 August 2018.
Herbowni … Nicki, … (Heraldic Family … Nicki, …)
- Warberg, Ulla-Karin. “Nietzsche’s ring”. auktionsverket.com. Östermalm, Stockholm, SWEDEN: Stockholms Auktionsverk. Archived from the original on 24 June 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
In 1905, the Polish writer Bernhard Scharlitt in the spirit of Polish patriotism wrote an article about the Nietzsche family. In Herbarz Polski, a genealogy of Polish nobility, he had come across a note about a family named ‘Nicki’, who could be traced back to Radwan. A member of this family named Gotard Nietzsche had left Poland for Prussia, and his descendants had eventually settled in Saxony around the year 1700.
- Hollingdale 1999, p. 6.
- Fredrick Appel Cornell, Nietzsche Contra Democracy. University Press (1998), p. 114
- Mencken, Henry Louis (2006) , The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, University of Michigan, p. 6
- Letter to Heinrich von Stein, December 1882, KGB III 1, Nr. 342, p. 287; KGW V 2, p. 579; KSA 9 p. 681
- von Müller, “Nietzsches Vorfahren”, reprinted Nietzsche-Studien 31 (2002): 253–75.
- Mencken, Henry Louis (2003), The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, introd. & comm. Charles Q. Bufe, US: See Sharp Press, p. 2
- Letter to Heinrich von Stein, December 1882, KGB III 7.1 p. 313.
- Letter to Georg Brandes, 10. 4. 1888, KGB III 7.3/1 p. 293.
- Leventhal, Robert S. (2001). “Nietzsche and Lou Andreas-Salomé: Chronicle of a Relationship 1882”. rsleve.people.wm.edu.
- Diethe, Carol (1996). Nietzsche’s Women: Beyond the Whip. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. p. 56. ISBN978-3-11-014819-0.
- Köhler, Joachim (2002). Zarathustra’s secret: the interior life of Friedrich Nietzsche. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. xv. ISBN978-0-300-09278-3.
- Golomb, Jacob (2001). Nietzsche and Jewish Culture. London: Routledge. p. 202. ISBN978-0-415-09512-9.
- Allan Megill (1996). “Historicizing Nietzsche? Paradoxes and Lessons of a Hard Case”. The Journal of Modern History. 68 (1): 114–52. doi:10.1086/245288. JSTOR2124335.
- Pletsch, Carl (1992). Young Nietzsche: Becoming a Genius. New York: The Free Press. p. 67. ISBN978-0-02-925042-6.
- Small, Robin (2007). Nietzsche and Rée: A Star Friendship. Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 207. ISBN978-0-19-927807-7.
- Rogers, N., & Thompson, M. (2004). Philosophers Behaving Badly. London: Peter Owen.
- Michael W. Grenke (2003). “How Boring…”. The Review of Politics. 65 (1): 152–54. doi:10.1017/s0034670500036640. JSTOR1408799.
- Mathias Risse (13 January 2003). “Zarathustra’s Secret. The Interior Life of Friedrich Nietzsche”. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
- Clark, Maudemarie (2015). Nietzsche on Ethics and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 154. ISBN978-0-19-937184-6.
- Benjamin Bennett (2001). Goethe As Woman: The Undoing of Literature. Wayne State University Press. p. 184. ISBN978-0-8143-2948-1. Retrieved 3 January 2013.
- Young, Julian (2010). Friedrich Nietzsche: A Philosophical Biography. Cambridge University Press.
- Bowman, William (2016). Friedrich Nietzsche: Herald of a New Era. Hazar Press. ISBN978-0-9975703-0-4.
- “ON MUSIC AND WORDS AND RHETORIC”. nietzsche.holtof.com.
- Nietzsche, Dionysus and Apollo.
- Desmond, Kathleen K (2011). Ideas About Art. ISBN978-1-4443-9600-3.
- “Nietzsche’s Apollonianism and Dionysiansism: Meaning and Interpretation”. www.bachelorandmaster.com.
- Dionysus in Nietzsche and Greek Myth. Archived from the original on 14 August 2012.
- “Hamlet and Nietzsche”. Issuu.
- Nietzsche on Hamlet (Commonplace Book). 2006.
- “Art in Nietzsche’s philosophy”. jorbon.tripod.com.
- “Dionysos versus Apollo”. www.carnaval.com.
- “SparkNotes: Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900): The Birth of Tragedy”. www.sparknotes.com.
- Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture.
- Influence of C.G. Jung on PKD – notes by Frank Bertrand, excerpt Umland. 2011.
- Mahon, Michael (1992). Foucault’s Nietzschean Genealogy. ISBN978-0-7914-1149-0.
- Lampert 1986, pp. 17–18.
- Cox, Christoph (1999). Nietzsche: Naturalism and Interpretation. ISBN978-0-520-92160-3.
- Schacht, Richard (1983). Nietzsche. p. 61.
- Steve, Hoenisch. Max Weber’s View of Objectivity in Social Science.
- Nobre, Renarde Freire (2006). “Culture and perspectivism in Nietzsche’s and Weber’s view”. Teoria & Sociedade. 2 (SE): 0.
- Objective and subjective reality; perspectivism. 2011.
- Solomon, Robert C (1989). From Hegel to Existentialism. ISBN978-0-19-506182-6.
- Murphy, Mark C (2003). Alasdair MacIntyre. ISBN978-0-521-79381-0.
- Lutz, Christopher Stephen (2009). Tradition in the ethics of Alasdair MacIntyre. ISBN978-0-7391-4148-9.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich; Lacewing, Michael. “Nietzsche on master ans slave morality”(PDF). Amazon Online Web Services. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Retrieved 29 September 2019.
- “Nietzsche, “Master and Slave Morality““. philosophy.lander.edu. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
- Look, Brandon. “‘Becoming Who One Is’ in Spinoza and Nietzsche”(PDF). uky.edu. University of Kentucky. Retrieved 28 September 2019.
- Kaufmann, Walter Arnold (1980). From Shakespeare to existentialism. ISBN978-0-691-01367-1.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals. p. First essay, section 16.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich (1908). Ecce Homo. p. Chapter on The Case of Wagner, section 2.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich (1886). Beyond Good and Evil. p. Section 228.
- Bowman, William (2016). Friedrich Nietzsche: Herald of a New Era. Hazar Press. pp. 31–38, 60–106. ISBN978-0-9975703-0-4.
- Kaufmann 1974, p. 187.
- Nietzsche 1888d, M I.
- Sedgwick 2009, p. 26.
- Sedgwick 2009, p. 27.
- The Antichrist, section 7. transl. Walter Kaufmann, in The Portable Nietzsche, 1977, pp. 572–73.
- Nietzsche 1888d, Why I Am a Destiny, §3.
- Nietzsche 1888c, pp. 4, 8, 18, 29, 37, 40, 51, 57, 59.
- Sedgwick 2009, p. 69.
- Golan, Zev (3 June 2007). God, Man and Nietzsche (First ed.). 2021 Pine Lake Road, #100, Lincoln, NE 68512: iUniverse, Inc. ISBN9780595427000.
- Sedgwick 2009, p. 68.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits, Univ. of Nebraska Press (1986) p. 231
- Morgan, George Allen (1941). What Nietzsche Means. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 36. ISBN978-0-8371-7404-4.
- Heidegger, p. 61.
- This “will to nothingness” is still a willing of some sort, because it is exactly as a pessimist that Schopenhauer clings to life. See F. Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, III:7
- F. Nietzsche, KSA 12:7 
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Complete Works Vol. 13.
- Hankey, Wayne J.; Center, Philosophy Documentation (2004). “Why Heidegger’s “History” of Metaphysics is Dead”. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly. 78(3): 425–443. doi:10.5840/acpq200478325. ISSN1051-3558.
- Nietzsche 1886, p. 13.
- Nietzsche 1882, p. 349.
- Nietzsche 1887, p. II:12.
- Nietzsche 1888b, Skirmishes of an untimely man, §14.
- Brian Leiter, Routledge guide to Nietzsche on morality, p. 121
- Nietzsche 1888c, §2.
- Nietzsche 1886, I, §36.
- Nietzsche comments in many notes about matter being a hypothesis drawn from the metaphysics of substance: G. Whitlock, “Roger Boscovich, Benedict de Spinoza and Friedrich Nietzsche: The Untold Story”, Nietzsche-Studien 25, 1996, p. 207.
- Nietzsche 1886, I, §12.
- Deleuze 2006, p. 46.
- Nietzsche 1886, I, §22.
- Leddy, Thomas (14 June 2006). “Project MUSE – Nietzsche’s Mirror: The World as Will to Power (review)”. The Journal of Nietzsche Studies. 31 (1): 66–68. doi:10.1353/nie.2006.0006.
- Nietzsche 1961, pp. 176–80.
- Kundera, Milan (1999), The Unbearable Lightness of Being, p. 5
- Dudley, Will (2002). Hegel, Nietzsche, and Philosophy: Thinking Freedom. p. 201. ISBN978-0-521-81250-4.
- See Heidegger, Nietzsche. Volume II: The Eternal Recurrence of the Sametrans. David Farrell Krell. New York: Harper and Row, 1984. 25.
- Kaufmann, Friedrich Nietzsche. Transl., with comm., by Walter (1974). The Gay Science with a Prelude in Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs ([1st ed.] ed.). New York: Vintage Books. p. 16. ISBN978-0-394-71985-6.
- Paul Van Tongeren (2000). Reinterpreting Modern Culture: An Introduction to Friedrich Nietzsche’s Philosophy. Purdue University Press. p. 295. ISBN978-1-55753-157-5. Retrieved 18 April 2013.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich (1954). The Portable Nietzsche. trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin.
- Nietzsche, Friedrich (2006). Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra. ed. Adrian Del Caro and Robert Pippin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-60261-7.
- Lampert, Laurence (1986). Nietzsche’s Teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Rosen, Stanley (1995). The Mask of Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Lampert 1986, p. 18.
- “Nietzsche, “Master and Slave Morality““. philosophy.lander.edu.
- “Thus Spoke Zarathustra Themes | GradeSaver”. www.gradesaver.com.
- van der Braak, Andre (31 March 2015). “Zen and Zarathustra: Self-Overcoming without a Self”. Journal of Nietzsche Studies. 46: 2–11. doi:10.5325/jnietstud.46.1.0002.
- Nietzsche and Heidegger. Archived from the original on 7 June 2012.
- Keith Ansell-Pearson, An Introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker: The Perfect Nihilist, Cambridge University Press, 1994, pp 33–34.
- March 29, 1887 letter to Theodor Fritsch(in English)
- Kellner, Douglas (1999). “Nietzsche’s Critique of Mass Culture”. International Studies in Philosophy. 31 (3): 77–89. doi:10.5840/intstudphil199931353.
- Brobjer, Thomas. “Nietzsche’s Reading and Private Library, 1885–1889.” Published in Journal of History of Ideas.
- Letter to Franz Overbeck, 30 July 1881
- Russell 2004, pp. 693–97.
- Joudrey, Thomas J. (2017). “The Defects of Perfectionism: Nietzsche, Eliot, and the Irrevocability of Wrong”. Philological Quarterly. 96 (1): 77–104.
- Nietzsche 2001, p. xxxvii.
- Roochnik 2004, pp. 37–39.
- Roochnik 2004, p. 48.
- Santayana 1916, p. 114.
- Brendan Donnellan, “Nietzsche and La Rochefoucauld” in The German Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 3 (May 1979), pp. 303–18
- Nietzsche 1888d, “Why I am So Clever”, §3.
- Johan Grzelczyk, “Féré et Nietzsche: au sujet de la décadence”Archived 16 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine, HyperNietzsche, 1 November 2005 (in French). Grzelczyk quotes Jacques Le Rider, Nietzsche en France. De la fin du XIXe siècle au temps présent, Paris, PUF, 1999, pp. 8–9
- Johan Grzelczyk, “Féré et Nietzsche: au sujet de la décadence”Archived 16 November 2006 at the Wayback Machine, HyperNietzsche, 1 November 2005 (in French). Grzelczyk quotes B. Wahrig-Schmidt, “Irgendwie, jedenfalls physiologisch. Friedrich Nietzsche, Alexandre Herzen (fils) und Charles Féré 1888” in Nietzsche Studien, Band 17, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988, p. 439
- Thomas, Brobjer (2010). Nietzsche’s Philosophical Context: An Intellectual Biography. ISBN978-0-252-09062-2.
- Note sur Nietzsche et Lange: “Le retour éternel”, Albert Fouillée, Revue philosophique de la France et de l’étranger. An. 34. Paris 1909. T. 67, S. 519–25 (on French Wikisource)
- Walter Kaufmann, intr. p. 11 of his transl. of ‘The Gay Science’
- Notebooks, cf. The Gay Science, Walter Kaufmann transl, p. 12
- Weaver, Santaniello (1994). Nietzsche, God, and the Jews: His Critique of Judeo-Christianity in Relation to the Nazi Myth. ISBN978-0-7914-2136-9.
- Mazzino Montinari, “La Volonté de puissance” n’existe pas, Éditions de l’Éclat, 1996, §13
- Kaufmann 1974, pp. 306–40.
- Nietzsche 1888b, §45.
- Karl Löwith, From Hegel to Nietzsche, New York, 1964, p. 187.
- S. Taylor, Left Wing Nietzscheans, The Politics of German Expressionism 1910–1920, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1990, p. 144.
- G. Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy (transl. Hugh Tomlinson), 2006, pp. 153–54.
- R.C. Solomon & K.M. Higgins, The Age of German Idealism, Routledge, 1993, p. 300.
- R.A. Samek, The Meta Phenomenon, New York, 1981, p. 70.
- T. Goyens, Beer and Revolution: The German Anarchist Movement in New York City, Illinois, 2007, p. 197.
- Laska, Bernd A. “Nietzsche’s initial crisis”. Germanic Notes and Reviews. 33(2): 109–33.
- Liukkonen, Petri. “Johann Christian Friedrich Hölderlin (1770-1843)”. Books and Writers (kirjasto.sci.fi). Finland: Kuusankoski Public Library. Archived from the original on 26 December 2014.
- Meyer-Sickendiek, Burkhard, “Nietzsche’s Aesthetic Solution to the Problem of Epigonism in the Nineteenth Century”, ed. Paul Bishop, Nietzsche and Antiquity: His Reaction and Response to the Classical Tradition, Woodbridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2004. p. 323
- Rebekah, Peery (2008). Nietzsche, Philosopher of the Perilous Perhaps. ISBN978-0-87586-644-4.
- See 1910 article from the Encyclopædia Britannica
- O. Ewald, “German Philosophy in 1907”, in The Philosophical Review, Vol. 17, No. 4, July 1908, pp. 400–26.
- T.A. Riley, “Anti-Statism in German Literature, as Exemplified by the Work of John Henry Mackay”, in PMLA, Vol. 62, No. 3, September 1947, pp. 828–43.
- C.E. Forth, “Nietzsche, Decadence, and Regeneration in France, 1891–1895”, in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 54, No. 1, January 1993, pp. 97–117.
- Mencken, H.L. (1910). The Gist of Nietzsche. Boston, J.W. Luce & company.
- Postmodernism, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2015
- Coste, Bénédicte (15 December 2016). “The Romantics of 1909: Arthur Symons, Pierre Lasserre and T.E. Hulme”. E-rea. 14 (1). doi:10.4000/erea.5609. ISSN1638-1718.
- Everdell, William (1998). The First Moderns. Chicago: U Chicago Press. p. 508. ISBN978-0-226-22481-7.
- Joyce and Nietzsche. Archived from the original on 12 June 2011.
- Pasley, Malcolm (1978). Nietzsche:Imagery and thoughts. ISBN978-0-520-03577-5.
- Forrester, John (1997). Dispatches from the Freud Wars. ISBN978-0-674-53960-0.
- Argyle, Gisela (2002). Germany as model and monster: Allusions in English fiction. ISBN978-0-7735-2351-7.
- Auden, Wystan Hugh (1 June 1979). The Double Man. Greenwood Press. ISBN9780313210730 – via Google Books.
- Donald, Mitchell (1980). Gustav Mahler: The Early Years. ISBN978-0-520-04141-7.
- James, Wood (26 November 1998). “Addicted to Unpredictability”. London Review of Books. pp. 16–19.
- Reesman, Jeanne Campbell (15 March 2011). Jack London’s Racial Lives. ISBN978-0-8203-3970-2.
- London, Jack (2001). A Sun of the Son. ISBN978-0-8061-3362-1.
- Ray, Jackson (2007). Nietzsche and Islam. ISBN978-1-134-20500-4.
- Poets of Cambridge. Archived from the original on 29 April 2012.
- “Wallace Stevens’ Harmonium – Collaborative Essays and Articles – Geneseo Wiki”. wiki.geneseo.edu.
- Serio, John N (2007). The Cambridge Companion to Wallace Stevens. ISBN978-1-139-82754-6.
- Olaf Stapleton. Archived from the original on 17 July 2009. Retrieved 22 December 2018.
- Brad, Damare. Music and Literature in Silver Age Russia: Mikhail Kuzmin and Alexander Scriabin. ISBN978-0-549-81910-3.
- Bernice, Rosenthal (2010). New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism. ISBN978-0-271-04658-7.
- Bernice, Rosenthal (1994). Nietzsche and Soviet Culture: Ally and Adversary. ISBN978-0-521-45281-6.
- Shookman, Ellis (2004). Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice. ISBN978-0-313-31159-8.
- Nietzsche Circle. Archived from the original on 23 January 2013.
- “Doctor Faustus”. medhum.med.nyu.edu.
- “Book: Ницше Фридрих Вильгельм. Так говорил Заратустра (с репродукциями картин Л. Хейдиз из цикла “Так говорил Заратустра” )”. Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias.
- Aschheim, Steven E. (1992), The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890–1990, Berkeley and Los Angeles, p. 135,
[a]bout 150,000 copies of a specially durable wartime Zarathustra were distributed to the troops
- Kaufmann 1974, p. 8.
- Schrift, A.D. (1995). Nietzsche’s French Legacy: A Genealogy of Poststructuralism. Routledge. ISBN0-415-91147-8.
- Jacob, Golomb (2004). Nietzsche and Zion. Cornell University Press. ISBN978-0-8014-3762-5.
- Jacob, Golomb. Nietzsche and Zion.
- Ohana, David (2012). The Origins of Israeli Mythology: Neither Canaanites nor Crusaders. ISBN978-1-139-50520-8.
- Golomb 1997, pp. 234–35.
- Walter, Kaufmann (2008). Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. ISBN978-1-4008-2016-0.
- Zev Golan, God, Man and Nietzsche, iUniverse, 2007, p. 169: “It would be most useful if our youth climbed, even if only briefly, to Zarathustra’s heights…”
- Press, Cambridge University (1998). The Cambridge Companion to Eugene O’Neill. ISBN978-0-521-55645-3.
- “Postomodern considerations of Nietzschean perspectivism”.
- Diggins, John Patrick (2008). Eugene O’Neill’s America: Desire Under Democracy. ISBN978-0-226-14882-3.
- Törnqvist, Egil (2004). Eugene O’Neill:A Playwright’s theatre. ISBN978-0-7864-1713-1.
- Adorno, Theodor.
- Arthur, Herman (2010). The Idea of Decline in Western History. ISBN978-1-4516-0313-2.
- “We know, from his [Hitler’s] secretary, that he could quote Schopenhauer by the page, and the other German philosopher of willpower, Nietzsche, whose works he afterwards presented to Mussolini, was often on his lips.” Trevor Roper, H.The Mind of Adolf Hitler, p. xxxvii. Introductory essay for Hitler’s Table Talk 1941–1944 Secret Conversations. Enigma Books (2008)
- “‘Landsberg,’ Hitler told Hans Frank, was his ‘university paid for by the state.’ He read, he said, everything he could get hold of: Nietzsche, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Ranke, Treitschke, Marx, Bismarck‘s Thoughts and Memories, and the war memoirs of German and allied generals and statesmen….But Hitler’s reading and reflection were anything but academic, doubtless he did read much. However, as was noted in an earlier chapter, he made clear in My Struggle that reading for him had purely an instrumental purpose. He read not for knowledge or enlightenment, but for confirmation of his own preconceptions.” Kershaw, Ian Hitler: Hubris 1889–1936. W.W. Norton p. 240
- Weaver Santaniello, Nietzsche, God, and the Jews, SUNY Press, 1994, p. 41: “Hitler probably never read a word of Nietzsche.”
- Berel Lang, Post-Holocaust: Interpretation, Misinterpretation, and the Claims of History, Indiana University Press, 2005, p. 162: “Arguably, Hitler himself never read a word of Nietzsche; certainly, if he did read him, it was not extensively.”
- William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany, Touchstone, 1959, pp. 100–01
- Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s Italy, University of California Press, 2000, p. 44: “In 1908 he presented his conception of the superman’s role in modern society in a writing on Nietzsche titled “The Philosophy of Force.”
- Philip Morgan, Fascism in Europe, 1919–1945, Routledge, 2003, p. 21: “We know that Mussolini had read Nietzsche”
- J.L. Gaddis, P.H. Gordon, E.R. May, J. Rosenberg, Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 217: “The son of a history teacher, de Gaulle read voraciously as a boy and young man—Jacques Bainville, Henri Bergson, Friederich [sic] Nietzsche, Maurice Barres—and was steeped in conservative French historical and philosophical traditions.”
- Mumia, Abu-Jamal (2004). We Want Freedom: A Life in the Black Panther Party. ISBN978-0-89608-718-7.
- Crowley, Monica (1998), Nixon in Winter, IB Tauris, p. 351,
He read with curious interest the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche […] Nixon asked to borrow my copy of Beyond Good and Evil, a title that inspired the title of his final book, Beyond Peace.
- Lev, Shestov. Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Nietzsche. ISBN978-0-8214-0053-1.
- Stefan, Sorgner. Nietzsche & Germany.
- Rickman, Hans Peter (1996). Philosophy in Literature. ISBN978-0-8386-3652-7.
- Oswald Spengler. Archived from the original on 20 May 2013.
- “George Grant”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. Retrieved 31 August 2019.
- Tat, Alin; Popenici, Stefan (2008). Romanian Philosophical Culture, Globalization, and Education. ISBN978-1-56518-242-4.
- “Lester Hunt’s Web Page”. sites.google.com.
- Lampert, Laurence (1996). Leo Strauss and Nietzsche. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
- Cornwell, Neil (2006). The Absurd in Literature. ISBN978-0-7190-7410-3.
- Ricœur, Paul (1970). Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. p. 32. ISBN978-0-300-02189-9.
- Jarrett, J.L., ed.: Jung’s Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: (Abridged edition) (paperback). Press.princeton.edu. 23 November 1997. ISBN9780691017389. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
- “Jung’s Reception of Friedrich Nietzsche: A Roadmap for the Uninitiated by Dr. Ritske Rensma”. Depth Insights. Retrieved 22 August 2014.
- Raymond A. Belliotti, Jesus or Nietzsche: How Should We Live Our Lives?(Rodopi, 2013).
- Ronald A. Kuipers, “Turning Memory into Prophecy: Roberto Unger and Paul Ricoeur on the Human Condition Between Past and Future,” The Heythrop Journal(2011): 1–10.
- Richard Rorty, “Unger, Castoriadis, and the Romance of a National Future,” Northwestern University Law Review 82 (1988 1987): 39.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia