I can't read Ted.
The 1844 MS is good stuff, but it was unpublished MS,a
also pretty standard and somewhat limited German
Romanticism -- you can get pretty much the same story
from Schiller's Aesthetic Education of Man --, and
while Marx never really retracted it, still apart from
his work in ideologiekritik, he never advanced beyond
it. There is nothing in Marx that is like N's subtle
linking of social class to individual psychology and
physiology. Marx is more on the level of saying things
(true but limited) that, capitalism makes for stupid
work that cripples people's minds and bodies. He
almost never tries to explain how this sort of thing
produces values that themselves have psychological,
physiological, and sociological effects that have
their own dynamic. Don't mistake me, I like Marx's
psychology. there just isn't very much of it.
^^^^^^
CB:
How about mentioning some of N.'s specific psychological insight, and arguing why it is insightful ? I guess when I read N. on psychology linked to the social and physiological , he seems , uhh, "wrong" , for lack of a better word. Is Dionysian and _____ one of them ? They seem not "correct" , as far as general psychology; Hellenocentric errors, mythological versions of "history". His discussion doesn't fit any real world stuff I know about. Seems like he writes fiction, material for comic books. N. seems rapped up in a bunch of fantasies. What little Marx writes has to do with reality at least, and by that it's better.