the guy was hegelian through and through. his critiques of christian and jewish morality, much like marx's critique of capitalism, was a mixture of respect and disgust (or something like that), all in the context of an understanding that progress is always from something to something, and that there are various steps along the way, and what now looks like progress will eventually have to be got beyond.
we might disagree with his analysis (although, frankly, i think _beyond good and evil_ is one of the most brilliant philosophical pieces in history, even, or maybe especially, when i think he is probably wrong), but i get really tired of the way we like to apply easy labels to him. even when we ourselves might come to the label through years of dedicaation and hard work trying to figure out what's going on, the label already betrays that work, as if it were unnecessary (see hegel's "preface" on formalism. unless you think hegel is a petit bourgeouis rebel ;-).
j
On 6/28/07, BklynMagus <magcomm at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > My position has long been that N. is a sort
> of phony rebel, petit bourgeois rebel, combined
> with a weird representative of ruling classes
> through history, the master classes.
>
> That is an interesting reading. I will keep
> it in my head as I go further. But while I
> understand it in my head, but do not feel it in
> my body (and I am continually amazed at how much
> I feel Nietzsche in my body as well as comprehend
> him in my head).
>
> > Well, I've grappled with him
>
> I know you have. Maybe the interesting thing about
> him is that divergent views of his beliefs can arise.
> I am wondering if Nietzsche, the praiser of non-comformity,
> is validated by the non-conformity of the responses to
> his writings.
>
> > Even his fans seem to concede that he's a political
> reactionary, i.e. promotor of tyranny and subjugation.
>
> I do not get that. I get a sense of agonistic democracy
> (Brian learns a new term). He likes the idea of contestation,
> but not subjugation since subjugation removes the possibility
> of contestation. In fact, subjugation results in the
> conformity he wants to avoid.
>
> > He's not for democratic centralism, sure.
>
> Looked that concept up and if wikipedia is accurate, real
> horrorshow.
>
> > He's not for democracy at all.
>
> I think he is for a democracy where there is constant resistance
> and struggle and democratic procedures function as measures of
> how power is arrayed at any particular moment.
>
> Also, thanks to all who told me where to look in Bataille. I
> am off to the bookstore after work. (I have also begun Deleuze
> on Nietzsche and have Danto waiting in the wings -- though he
> seems terrified of old Fred and desperately wants to tame him).
>
> Brian
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://brainmortgage.blogspot.com/