Utterly meaningless star rating alert! Beyond Good and Evil (BGE) is truly a remarkable book, in my opinion, the ideal starting point for delving into Nietzsche's works. It presents his most crucial ideas in easily digestible portions, unlike Thus Spoke Zarathustra, which is overly elaborate and self-absorbed, making it difficult for me to even flip through. Additionally, it has no pretensions of unity, distinguishing it from On the Genealogy of Morality, which sacrifices transparency for the sake of achieving that unity. Friedrich Nietzsche's writing style shines brightest in paragraphs, and that's precisely what we find here. He is infinitely more enjoyable to read than any other philosopher I've encountered. I've never felt this more strongly than during my reading of BGE.

However, it must be noted that his reasoning is transparently flawed. He fails to approach themes outside of his own with the same rigor as his pet themes. For instance, why is he so eager to discuss the 'history' of Christianity yet so reluctant to explore the history of misogyny? He never acknowledges the blatant absurdities in his positions. If all people construct their reality through interpretation, why assume the existence of any 'natural' givens, as he does with instinct? And if all people create their reality by interpretation, why should we privilege Nietzsche's interpretation over the then-dominant liberal Christianism?

These inconsistencies make it clear that he believes his thought is distinct from previous philosophies, stating that "every great philosophy to date has been the personal confession of its author." It's equally evident that his work, perhaps more than any other (with the possible exception of Rousseau), is driven by his own idiosyncrasies. This desire to be a unique snowflake pervades BGE. Nietzsche begins by distancing himself from other 'free thinkers.' He refuses to martyr himself to the 'truth' of atheism. He transcends both utilitarianism and Kantianism, claims to have overcome all morals, and shifts the burden of proof to those who advocate for doing good to others as a worthy pursuit. He goes beyond the Enlightenment, which assumed a 'good' world, and beyond Christianity, which posits a bad one, instead envisioning a mutable, already interpreted world.

Yet, he is rather slippery on this point. At times, he attempts to penetrate beneath all that interpretation to reach the text itself; at other times, he values the interpretation over the text; and sometimes, he implies that there is no text at all. The true 'free spirits' will be experimenters, ultra-individualistic, and ultra-elitist. While the free-thinkers (borrowing from Berlin) strive for negative freedom, Nietzsche and the future philosophers aim for positive freedom.

Sadly for Nietzsche, who was deeply oppressed by nearly everything, religion was suppressing the free spirits. On the other hand, it did train the great to be great and deceive the weak into submission. I'm intrigued to know what Nietzsche would have thought of the Ayn Rands and neo-Darwinians who employ materialism, atheism, and economics to achieve similar ends.

So far, we've covered act one. Now, let's move on to act two. In section 5, we encounter a shorter, less absurd version of On the Genealogy of Morality, but it still suffers from some of the same reflexivity issues. We're told to conduct a genealogical reading of moral philosophies... but not Nietzsche's. All young sciences make outrageous, unprovable claims due to a lack of skepticism... except Nietzsche's. Christianity is deemed foolish... but Nietzsche's fanatical messianism is considered legitimate.

We learn that true philosophers are just like Nietzsche, while scholars are presumably those who didn't appreciate The Birth of Tragedy. Philosophers create values rather than simply justifying pre-existing ones and are opposed to their own times. The new philosophical virtues will include pluralism, spite, dissection, hierarchy, self-interest, individualism for the elite, absence of pity, laughter, good taste, dutiful immoralism, honest harshness, cruelty, misogyny, and not being English.

As a friend of mine once said about later philosophers with similar ideas, there will always be an audience for this because there will always be self-important teenagers. The final section is perhaps the best, yet it also reveals Nietzsche at his worst: a small, lonely, intelligent man, consumed by rage at his own failures, compelled to invent a mythology that justifies his sense of superiority. He has a different morality from others; he is a master, while we, the common folk, have a slave morality. One can only hope that the masters would truly retire to write bitter pamphlets instead of seizing control of the commanding heights of the world economy, where they create values that Nietzsche would have despised and that might have led him to reevaluate his more adolescent fantasies of self-sufficient genius.

Despite the inconsistencies, absurdities, and misogyny, BGE is filled with genuinely fascinating and significant insights. The irony of Nietzsche's career is that he is at his best when undermining others, that is, when he is functioning as a critic rather than a creator of new values and the like. His 'creation' amounts to little more than an inversion of whatever others say (they advocate being good to others; he says be good to oneself), accompanied by some post-positivist babble about nature and evolution. His criticisms, however, are devastating for much of the philosophical tradition. If only he had adhered to that and recognized the main meta-philosophical lesson of Hegel: the owl of Minerva flies at dusk.

I really wanted to like BGAE because Nietzsche is a significant figure - at least to some people. However, my opinion quickly changed. Nope, he's actually an ass. Nietzsche had the audacity to think that every philosopher who preceded him, starting from Plato all the way up to Kant, was an imbecile. According to him, these great minds had the intellectual capacity of mere infants compared to his own. But don't worry, because he was going to come in like a hero and finally set us straight once and for all, and explain the true meaning of life. Just like that, boom, done. (He dusts off his hands as if it were the easiest thing in the world.)

If poetry is the art of expressing the most with the fewest words, then Nietzsche has mastered the complete opposite of poetry. His writing is often convoluted and difficult to understand, making it a challenge for the reader to extract any meaningful insights.

Oh yeah, and let's not forget that he's also a raging misogynist. His views on women are outdated and offensive, and they reflect a deep-seated hatred and contempt for half of the human race. It's truly令人失望 that such a brilliant mind could be so flawed in this regard.

Where's the philosophy? Where's the beef? This piece seems to be more of a random rant rather than a cohesive thought. To be honest, I had much higher expectations. Nietzsche does manage to make a few interesting points. For instance, he mentions that living things discharge strength and there is a plurality of sensation in terms of will. However, more often than not, he simply resorts to calling everyone stupid and offers very little logical thought in return. It makes one wonder if this was written during his opium days. I've never witnessed such melodrama in the realm of philosophy before, yet here it is. He writes, "a satyric play, merely an epilogue farce, merely the continued proof the long, real tragedy IS AT THE END, supposing that every philosophy has been a long tragedy in its origin." Ooouufff... It feels like I'm slipping on soulless banana peels. It's truly a real tragedy.

'What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.'

This collection of statements and aphorisms, written in a resolutely lyrical tone as far as I can tell from the English translation, is truly double-edged. On one hand, it powerfully advocates for the individual's yearning for personal freedom, the determination of their own values, and the affirmation of the self. It eloquently makes the case for the importance of these aspects in a person's life.

On the other hand, the values set here clearly spring from the strong personal prejudices of the writer. Strangely, some remarks casually made about the use of women have a strikingly similar ring to those made by Arthur Schopenhauer in his Studies in Pessimism: The Essays. There are also statements regarding the supposed eternal necessity of slaves in human society to support an elite, and others about the European invention of love.

The quotes within this collection cover a wide range of topics. For example, on truth and the creation and self-determination of values, Nietzsche challenges the common moral prejudice that truth is always more valuable than semblance. He questions whether there could have been life without perspective estimates and semblances and suggests that the world we know might be a fiction.

Regarding the tyranny of the majority trespassing on individuality, Nietzsche criticizes those who advocate for the general welfare without considering the individuality and differences of each person. He argues that the democratizing of Europe may lead to the production of a type of person prepared for slavery in the most subtle sense, while at the same time creating exceptional individuals with dangerous and attractive qualities.

Overall, this collection of statements and aphorisms offers a thought-provoking and often controversial exploration of various philosophical and moral issues.

\\n  Beyond Good and Evil simplified\\n
- by Nietzsche's Ghost (with the borrowed use of an uncouth female GR reviewer's desktop)

i) I truly despise Germans and their ridiculous, jingoistic sense of self-worth. It's as if they are completely deluded about their own importance.

ii) Women, in my opinion, are utterly stupid and lack any real depth. They're not even shallow; they're just empty vessels. 'They're not even shallow.'

\\n  \\"It is with Germans almost as it is with women: one never fathoms their depths; they don't have any, that is all.\\"\\n

iii) Not a single bloody German university or professor seems to spare a thought for my writings. They are all miserable old fools. However, I do approve of the lone, goodly Danish professor who has the sense to see the value of my work.

\\n  \\"Ten years - and nobody in Germany has felt bound in conscience to defend my name against the absurd silence under which it lies buried: it was a foreigner, a Dane, who first possessed sufficient refinement of instinct and courage for this, who felt outraged by my alleged friends.\\"\\n

iv) Screw the notions of traditional morality. It's all just a bunch of outdated rules that hold people back.

v) Screw the Church. Screw religion. They are both just ways to control people and keep them from thinking for themselves.

\\n  \\"The concept of \\"God\\" invented as a counterconcept of life - everything harmful, poisonous, slanderous, the whole hostility unto death against life synthesized in this concept in a gruesome unity! The concept of \\"beyond\\", the \\"true world\\" invented in order to devaluate the only world there is - in order to retain no goal, no reason, no task for our earthly reality!\\"\\n

vi) Screw Martin Luther for restoring Christianity just when it was on the verge of being annihilated. He set back progress.

vii) Jews are cool. And Zarathustra was also a great figure.

viii) Europe and the world are headed down a path of war and destruction like never before. We are in for some very dark times.

\\n  \\"For when truth enters into a fight with the lies of millennia, we shall have upheavals, a convulsion of earthquakes, a moving of mountains and valleys, the like of which has never been dreamed of. The concept of politics will have merged entirely with a war of spirits; all power structures of the old society will have been exploded - all of them are based on lies: there will be wars the like of which have never yet been seen on earth.\\"\\n

\\n  Disclaimer:-\\n Before I am labeled a philistine and the philosophy majors, Nietzsche enthusiasts, Doctoral students, and venerated college professors come after me with their (metaphorical) pitchforks, I want to make it clear that the format of this review is not meant to be a veiled mockery of the great philosopher or an affront to his ideas. It's just a flippant response to my first reading, to be taken in good humor.

I can see why this book is not for all readers. The author makes heavy use of aphorisms, and each one has multiple meanings behind it. This can make the reading experience quite challenging.

If you're going to read this book, I would highly recommend watching a video on Friedrich Nietzsche first. This will give you a better understanding of his philosophy and the context in which the book was written. Additionally, having a dictionary available is also a good idea. Some of the words and concepts used in the book may be unfamiliar, and a dictionary can help you look up their meanings and gain a deeper understanding of the text.

Overall, while this book may not be for everyone, it can be a rewarding read for those who are willing to put in the effort and do some additional research.

Imbecilic. This word is often used to describe someone or something that is extremely stupid or foolish. It implies a lack of intelligence, common sense, or rational thinking. An imbecilic person may make poor decisions, act in a senseless manner, or fail to understand simple concepts.

For example, imagine someone who constantly makes the same mistakes despite being repeatedly corrected. Their actions could be considered imbecilic. Or perhaps a person who believes in outlandish conspiracy theories without any evidence to support them. This kind of thinking is also imbecilic.

However, it's important to note that using the word "imbecilic" can be quite harsh and offensive. It's always better to be respectful and understanding when dealing with others, even if we think they are making unwise choices. Instead of using derogatory terms, we can try to offer helpful suggestions or engage in a rational discussion to help them see things from a different perspective.

Nietzsche passed away at a relatively young age. However, after perusing this book, I have come to the conclusion that if he were alive today, he might have suffered a stroke much earlier.

I had already delved into "On the Genealogy of Morals," which was published just a year after this one. But I don't recall it being as caustic and sarcastic as this. Here, he is truly on a tirade. It feels more like a rant than a work of critical philosophy.

So, what has him so enraged? Well, he seems to believe that Western culture had become too one-sided when it came to morality, with everything being painted in black and white. Good is simply good, and bad is just bad. Nietzsche contends that morality is not so straightforward. There might be a commonality between those who perform good deeds and those who do evil, which he terms "the will to power." He advocates for a kind of "new philosophy" from a young generation of dangerous and original "free-spirits" who would look beyond the binary and see the shades of gray.

According to his "new" philosophy, the will to power underlies and explains all behavior, and thus he rejects a universal morality. Notice that I still have "new" in quotes. That's because, if you have any familiarity with 19th Century German philosophy, the idea of a Will underlying all things is far from novel. Hegel discussed it, and Schopenhauer refined it. In fact, Schopenhauer was one of Nietzsche's greatest idols. Yet, by the time of this book, Nietzsche was showing blatant contempt for Schopenhauer. He makes Schopenhauer's dispute with Hegel seem like two toddlers fighting over a wooden block. But Nietzsche pretty much accuses almost every philosopher since Socrates of being a buffoon.

Nietzsche was likely already in the early stages of frontotemporal dementia, which is characterized by impulsivity, irritability, mania, and depression, before deteriorating to a point where he required total care. This might explain his incredibly productive output during this period, each marked by varying degrees of emotional intensity.

But setting that aside, he felt that philosophers generally had a negative outlook on life. Going back to Plato and his Ideas, which are Things in Themselves, metaphysical philosophy has separated the world we experience from the world as it truly is. From the Platonic Ideal emerged Christianity. This earthly life is not everything; it is merely a shadow, a preparation for eternal union with God, where the real Truth and the ultimate Good lie. As such, philosophers and religious leaders have formed what Nietzsche called "the consensus of the wise" over the centuries, which is not life-affirming but rather focuses on an afterlife that is all good. Well, what kind of all-powerful God is one who is not permitted to sin? And if this earthly life is so unimportant, then we are contradicting ourselves by valuing life. What is the value of life? As a living person, you can't even answer that objectively, and a deceased person can't answer at all. So Nietzsche concludes that the wise have been wrong all along. He believes that ideas like divine justice, free will, and the virtues of humility and poverty were all invented by the weak who felt sorry for themselves. If you don't like your lot in life, then it provides comfort to believe that better things await you after you die simply because you suffer in life. He calls this "slave morality."

And he wants no part of such morality. "Morality in Europe," he states, "at present is herding-animal morality," which refuses to recognize and accept the fact that life is what it is. The weak are devoured by the powerful. You don't like it? Too bad. But if you accept and embrace life as it is, it can make you stronger and less fearful. Because everything is driven by the will to power. "It is the music of our conscience, the dance of our spirit, to which Puritan litanies, moral sermons, and goody-goodness won't conform."

Okay, that's an idea that has some merit. And I can sort of get behind the notion that good and evil have no clear-cut defining characteristics. A person kills a shopkeeper for food. The state executes the murderer. What distinguishes the two actions? Palestinians massacre innocent people at a music festival in Israel, and Israel bombs Gaza. In both situations, there are those who find the actions of one side justifiable, even heroic. There are others who view both actions as equally evil. Nietzsche questions if it is really as black and white as who is right and who is wrong. He is not a proponent of relativism, where one person's good is just as valid as the next person's idea of good. Instead, he is suggesting that even attempting to label things as bad or good based on perspective is a sign of weakness. As Ash says in the Evil Dead movie "Army of Darkness" when he is called a goody two shoes: "Good... Bad... I'm the guy with the gun!"

My issue with this book is that I truly think Nietzsche was experiencing some sort of "episode" when he wrote it. Yes, he was always a smart aleck. And yes, he lived a life where he read and corresponded with other intellectuals who likely had autistic tendencies, so he was probably frustrated with all the one-sided thinking and lack of self-reflection among academics. But in this book, he sounds deranged, like Davros in "Genesis of the Daleks" when the character is defending the good that his genocidal monsters can do. In fact, I would highly recommend that episode of Doctor Who to anyone interested in these kinds of themes.

Nietzsche has only a few moments of lucidity in almost 300 pages of material, and it is for these brief moments, and because of his enduring posthumous fame, that this book has gained recognition. Otherwise, we are left with the chaotic ravings of a mind in turmoil. We have some of the longest run-on sentences I've ever encountered. When you analyze these sentences, you'll see what we refer to in the psychiatric world as tangential and circumstantial thinking. Sometimes he exhibits a flight of ideas that do not support his main premise at all. For example, here are some things he has to say about women. "Woman learns how to hate in proportion as she forgets how to charm." "Where there is neither love nor hate in the game, woman's play is mediocre." "What does woman care for truth? From the very first, nothing is more foreign, more repugnant, or more hostile to woman than truth—her great art is falsehood, her chief concern is appearance and beauty."

I think Nietzsche hung out at the comic shop with jilted geeks who watched too much hentai. Many such quips are part of an entire chapter of infinitely quotable snippets called "Apophthegms and Interludes." It is evident that Nietzsche was very pleased with his own wit. And I suspect that most people who have read this book only remember this chapter. But most of it has nothing to do with the rest of the book. It's as if he had a transient ischemic attack and thought he was Marcus Aurelius for a while. So why did he do it? I have no idea!

I mean, the guy is all over the place! He picks on Schopenhauer for being a pessimist, but then accuses him of not being pessimistic enough. Why? Because Schopenhauer plays the flute after dinner. "Look it up!" shouts Nietzsche. "I'm not kidding--he really does!" Oooooooookaaaaaay, Friedrich... and please step back a few feet when you shout, will you? Your breath smells like liverwurst and sardines.

Speaking of shouting, he does a lot of it. Well, literary shouting anyway. Every other sentence has emphasized words and phrases, either italicized or in bold, depending on which edition you read, because he REALLY wants you to KNOW that SOME things are REALLY IMPORTANT so PAY ATTENTION... DAMN IT!

Yeah, I'm not the biggest fan of this one. I can definitely see why he is remembered. I understand why his ideas could be appealing, especially to young people full of vitality and who question everything they know about the establishment. And I can see how it could appeal to others who may misunderstand or only selectively apply Nietzsche's teachings, like... well, dictators.

I'm glad I have read more of Nietzsche than just this one work, because to understand him is to gain some really good practical advice. Great things only occur when free spirits break free from herd mentality or think critically about what they have been taught in school or told in the media. And unlike Schopenhauer, who admired withdrawal from life via the aesthetic practices of extreme Buddhism and Christianity (but without the hope of a heaven or nirvana), Nietzsche believed we should embrace this world with all its suffering so that we can grow through personal mastery. Through "an enjoyment of the arbitrariness of all these manifestations of power," we rise to challenges rather than despair. In short, Nietzsche teaches us to love life as much as possible.

I say that's a message worth taking to heart. And although he attempts to convey this message here, this is unfortunately not his best work for avoiding misunderstandings of the great philosopher, despite its reputation. Am I saying it's "bad"? No, I'm not that one-sided, Nietzsche, thank you very much. But it leaves a lot to be desired and is rather a famous example of neuroticism than a work of philosophy.

SCORE: 3 Ubermenschen out of 5

Philology or a linguist like Nietzsche is supposed to look back, and an interest in history makes you glorify the past more than the present. But Nietzsche is like a dynamite as in the new biography about him, he expects to break free from the shackles of this past, from the old historical heritage and the present Germany that he lived in.

He tells us that the philosopher is a free spirit and should be against his era, and thus in the core of values, and philosophy engages with the axe. His fragmented writing style itself is a way out onto the paths of philosophical debate. The arguments he presents are with easy words but their interpretation is difficult, and the rich writing causes difficulties in digestion.

For example, read passages about music and feel that it needs another book to fully benefit from his thoughts in it. But Nietzsche's criticism is sharp. I don't know if the word criticism is correct. He says about Descartes, Proudhon, and Kant, and he says about Spinoza's philosophy that it is an excuse surrounded by mathematical puzzles. Are you lazy, Nietzsche? And he accuses many of hypocrisy and superficiality.

The book starts against the previous philosophers whom he liked in a period of his life, such as Kant and Schopenhauer. About Spinoza, it is said that he read him from secondary sources, a short book on the history of philosophy.

But the general idea was one against all of them, that the philosopher should not only reorder the values of his era but also break free from them. For all these, the idea of ethics for them is based on religious or Christian elevation in ethics. Kant's ethics is the ethics of duty and daily work, and Spinoza's mathematics is a proof of his weakness, and Schopenhauer's denial of the world is the peak of goodness for him.

So, what ethics do you want, Nietzsche? Nietzsche answers the ethics of the masters and the slaves, the ethics of strength and weakness. So is this that nature takes its course? Yes, but Nietzsche is also against romanticism by giving it a thoughtful nature as it was like a readiness for the coming of Christianity. Nietzsche's version of good ethics is individual for the sake of the strong.

Because in his view, Christian ethics is the ethics of weakness as it glorifies sin and tends to cowardice and claims superiority and gives false pride with privileges. Perhaps Muhammad Iqbal was first pleased with Nietzsche's criticism of Christianity and then had his own vision in the possibility of developing an Islamic ethics of strength.

Instead of the metaphysics of free will, he has the will to power. Instead of the German spirit, he has the European spirit. Instead of Plato, he has Epicurus. Instead of death, he has the eternal return. This is the revolutionary Nietzsche. However, I don't understand how the Nazis represented him as he is against their ideas and even attacks the German spirit and its racial characteristics and calls for a European race, the other thing. Why, after this liberating elevation, does Nietzsche speak of women in a very regressive and unacceptable way?

What I like in Nietzsche seems like a personal thing, perhaps a desire to shape a different view from the prevailing one. Walk with him when he peels off a layer from the flesh of the history of ideas, but I cannot completely remove the flesh. I am completely against his value model. So what do we do with the beastliness of the world of the ethics of the masters and the slaves? So it is not useful to take Nietzsche completely, and thus we understand Deleuze when he combines Nietzsche and Spinoza.

You know it's a keeper when, after reading it, perhaps you did not learn anything true. After all, must there be truths? Or perhaps it wasn't even useful. Why does it have to be useful? In fact, perhaps you even misunderstood everything completely. But then again, why understand? On occasion, you may have even been mildly offended. How immoral! But you know already what is in your heart and you've laughed about it all. You've laughed about the situation, about yourself. You've shaken your head, stood up and gone on with your life.

"Der Freunde harr' ich, Tag und Nacht bereit, Der neuen Freunde! Kommt! 's ist Zeit! 's ist Zeit!"

My judgment is my judgment. And it is good. It doesn't matter if others don't see it that way. What matters is that I am content with my own assessment. I know that not everything has to be perfect or make complete sense. Sometimes, it's okay to just let go and enjoy the moment. And that's exactly what I plan to do.

The big shock with Nietzsche you will experience once.

All his other books simply help you to crystallize a better image of his ideas.

Besides that, 4 stars because his controversial nature never ceases to be relevant, and today more than ever Nietzsche is a voice that silently opposes the spirit of all of Europe.

Nietzsche's works are like a labyrinth, full of profound thoughts and unique perspectives.

His ideas challenge the traditional values and beliefs, making us think deeply about the meaning of life and the nature of humanity.

Although his writing style can be difficult to understand at times, the effort is well worth it.

Each time you read his works, you will discover something new and gain a deeper understanding of his philosophy.

Nietzsche's influence on modern thought is undeniable, and his ideas continue to inspire and challenge us today.

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.”

This profound statement by Friedrich Nietzsche warns us of the potential consequences of engaging with the dark and the unknown. When we confront the monstrous, we must be vigilant not to lose our own humanity in the process.

"Whatever is done out of love always occurs beyond good and evil." Nietzsche's words here suggest that love has a power that transcends the traditional boundaries of morality.

"The belly is the reason why man does not so readily take himself for a God." This thought-provoking statement highlights the role of our physical desires and needs in shaping our self-perception.

"You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist." Nietzsche challenges the idea of absolute truth and morality, emphasizing the subjectivity of our perspectives.

"In revenge and in love, woman is more barbarous than man." This controversial statement reflects Nietzsche's view on the nature of human emotions and the different ways in which men and women express them.

"Dreadful experiences raise the question whether he who experiences them, is not something dreadful also." Nietzsche forces us to consider the impact of our experiences on our own identities.

"One loves ultimately one's desires, not the thing desired." This statement reveals Nietzsche's understanding of the complex nature of love and desire.

"For all things are baptized at the font of eternity, and beyond good and evil; good and evil themselves, however, are but intervening shadows and damp afflictions and passing clouds." Nietzsche's vision of a world beyond good and evil challenges us to look beyond the limitations of our traditional moral frameworks.

HOW COULD anything originate out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? In "Beyond Good and Evil," Nietzsche explores these and other profound questions about the nature of reality, morality, and the human condition.