The profound thinker fears being understood more than being misunderstood.

With this aphorism, I can summarize what I thought of the book. There is nothing more to highlight.

"The greatest man is the most solitary, the most hidden, the most isolated, the one who places himself above good and evil."

This statement by the thinker presents a rather unique perspective. It implies that for a truly profound thinker, the fear of being understood in a simplistic or misinterpreted way is greater than the fear of being completely misunderstood. The idea that the greatest man is solitary, hidden, and isolated suggests that true greatness often comes from within, away from the distractions and judgments of the crowd. By placing himself above good and evil, the thinker is able to see beyond the limitations of conventional morality and explore deeper truths.

However, this view also raises some questions. Can a person truly be above good and evil? And if so, what are the implications of such a stance? Does it lead to a sense of detachment or even nihilism? These are some of the issues that the thinker's words seem to touch upon and that deserve further exploration.

Herein, Nietzsche presents a thought-provoking argument. He contends that the very concepts of good and evil are, in essence, ambiguous social constructs. These constructs, he believes, are implemented with the intention of controlling the peasantry and safeguarding and promoting the interests of the ruling class. As is often the case, Nietzsche directs his focus towards religion, specifically Christianity. He makes remarks such as “It is a curious thing that God learned Greek when he wished to turn author and that he did not learn it better.” and “One should not go into churches if one wishes to breathe pure air.”

Most of the time, Nietzsche’s scathing critiques of the reverent and pious resonate with me. However, there are other aspects of Beyond Good and Evil that are less than appealing. I would be remiss if I failed to recognize his shortcomings and hold him accountable. For instance, Nietzsche was a chauvinist. He makes somewhat frequent references to the “uneducatability” of women and is repeatedly dismissive of their motives. He states, “From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth - her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty.”

I suspect, based on this last statement, that the women in his social circle were predominantly bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to simply attribute his views to being a product of his era (1844 - 1900). It’s not because this explanation is inaccurate, but rather because I have grown tired of giving such easy excuses. Like Aristotle, Kant, and Hume, Nietzsche must face the consequences of his ideas. He also warns, “Anyone who fights with monsters should take care that he does not in the process become a monster …if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes back into you.”

It is truly hard to take Nietzsche seriously when he seemingly doesn't have a solid standard to base anything on.

All of his metaphysical, ethical, and epistemological claims often seem to be borrowed or stolen from the Christian Worldview.

This lack of an independent and original foundation makes his ideas somewhat suspect.

Nihilism, which he is often associated with, appears to be a rather foolish stance.

It denies the existence of objective values and meanings, yet fails to offer a convincing alternative.

Without a clear framework or set of principles, Nietzsche's philosophy can easily descend into chaos and incoherence.

Perhaps it is time to reevaluate his ideas and look for more reliable sources of wisdom and understanding.

This was an extremely interesting read.

It was the very first philosophy book that I have ever delved into, so I'm certain that some of its profound concepts went right over my head.

Nevertheless, I discovered a great deal of this book to be truly thought-provoking and captivating.

This book extensively discusses morality. It poses questions such as "What is or isn't moral?" and "What is good and what is bad?"

It also offers a critique of organized religion, specifically Christianity, and examines how it can influence the way its adherents perceive morality.

I essentially skipped over the section that was blatantly misogynistic as I simply didn't want to listen to such views.

However, aside from that, I did find the majority of this book to be rather fascinating.

Some quotes that really stood out to me while reading were: "Happiness and virtue are no arguments. It is willingly forgotten, however, even on the part of thoughtful minds, that to make unhappy and to make bad are just as little counter-arguments."

"One should not go into churches if one wishes to breathe pure air."

"\\"Knowledge for its own sake\\"—that is the last snare laid by morality: we are thereby completely entangled in morals once more."

"Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility."

"Parents involuntarily make something like themselves out of their children—they call that \\"education\\"..."

"Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a lurking place, every word is also a mask."

Overall, I would rate this book 3 out of 5 stars.

*̩̩̥͙　-•̩̩͙-ˏˋ⋆ Beyond Good and Evil: A Criticism of Nietzsche’s Highly Acclaimed “Masterpiece of Philosophy” ⋆ˊˎ-•̩̩͙-　*̩̩̥͙


╰┈➤ 2★


When I learned that Nietzsche was influenced by Fyodor Dostoevsky, my immediate impulse was to hurry to KU to obtain an audiobook version of one of his works. I must say that the narrator was truly AMAZING. Without her, I would have abandoned the book after Chapter 7 for reasons that I will elaborate on below.

Surprisingly, I found myself in agreement with the majority of Nietzsche’s principles. His emphasis on individualism and his perceptive insights into human thought processes, such as the “chaos” within each person and the intense loneliness one experiences when their beliefs conflict with those of others, really resonated with me. However, his foray into the role of women was a misstep.

Aha! But what gives a pretentious teenager the right to question the credibility of one of the most influential philosophers of the 19th century? Perhaps it is the fact that, unlike Nietzsche, I am a woman, and thus have the right to condemn his tendency to base his “principles” about women on stereotypes and personal biases. I came across some reviews that pointed out Nietzsche’s acknowledgment of his own bias in Chapter 1. While this may be true, it is no excuse for the misogynistic claims he presented as “philosophy.” To illustrate my point, here are some particularly concerning quotes:


»--•--«


p. 148: “Among Men, these are the three comical women as they are— nothing more! — and just the best involuntary counter-arguments against feminine emancipation and autonomy.”


p. 148: “Stupidity in the kitchen… Woman does not understand what food means, and she insists of being cook! If woman had been a thinking creature, she would have certainly… have got possession of the healing art!”


p. 151: “To be mistaken in the fundamental problem of ‘man and woman’… to dream here perhaps of equal rights, equal training, equal claims and obligations; thatis a typical sign of shallow-mindedness…”


p. 151: “On the other hand, a man who has depth of spirit as well as of desires… must conceive of [woman] as a possession, as confinable property, as a being predestined for service and accomplishing her mission therein…”


p. 151: “The weaker sex…”

If it were possible to turn a blind eye to Nietzsche's sexist inclinations, of which he is so openly proud, one could say that one had found here an almost inexhaustible well of philosophical understanding and identification or, in a more restricted sense, of a moral order. Fortunately, it is not – and those who maintain that, in order to read Nietzsche, we must abstract from his assumed misogyny and forgive him all his prejudices are just as or more misogynistic than he is, precisely because they despise a problem that today presents itself with such gravity and relevance.

It is therefore obligatory for me to ask: how is it possible to criticize so vehemently the rigidity of Greek thought in its entirety and then praise their contempt for women, going so far as to associate the progress of culture with female submission? For Nietzsche, woman is a second-class object, a property, a non-thinking being predestined to serve and fear man, to console him with her innocence and incurable superficiality, condemned to an existence with her back turned to knowledge. The emancipation of women is, in the light of his truths, a stupid movement of which every intelligent woman should be ashamed. An aberration of democracy, imagine that! What can this say about a person?

Not wanting to underestimate this unfortunate trait of his personality, which should not, under any pretext, be understood in isolation, as many try to do, one has to recognize Nietzsche's influence on all European thought that followed him. Nietzsche did not limit himself to opposing one or another philosophical authority: he destroyed the entire conception of morality from antiquity to the philosophers of his time, simultaneously revolutionizing the very language of philosophy. Besides being extravagant, he was a visionary who had no qualms about denouncing the hypocrisy that prevailed around him; he said that European rulers protected their bad conscience by pretending to be the executors of older or higher orders, such as "those of ancestors, the Constitution, the law, the laws or even of God". Nothing has changed so much, is it not true? Perhaps today one could include the banks somewhere in there between commas, which so much control the so-called democratic morality in which many still place their confidence.

That said, this book could just as well be classified with two stars as with four or five. It is irrelevant, honestly. Whether one is more or less sensitive to what is repulsive in it, whether one appreciates the style or not, it seems to me that the genius that was in Nietzsche is consensual. Just one precaution, resorting to an aphorism of his own: if you look too long into the abyss, the abyss also looks at you.

As the title 'Beyond Good and Evil' implies, it presents a demand to all philosophers to question their concepts of morality. Nietzsche begins by asking us to consider that if truth is a woman, we should not approach her forcefully. Truth and all ideas come to us at their own will, not when we desire them. He categorically rejects all of our Western thought on truth and morality. It is here that he introduces the ranks of master and slave moralities and how the emergence of morality is merely a product of the sublimation and suppression of our biological instincts - our 'Will to Power'.

With Nietzsche, assuming equality means assuming we are all part of the herd. Democracy and Christianity both smother our individuality. Although it may seem like a frightening and highly elitist message, it is actually a captivating idea. He urges us to be the best version of ourselves and not let the herd prevent us from becoming who we are meant to be. In fact, to conclude what could potentially be a long review, I will leave you with his formula for greatness:

"He shall be the greatest who can be the most solitary, the most concealed, the most divergent, the man beyond good and evil, the master of his virtues and of a super-abundance of will." - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Nietzsche is one of the most infuriating philosophers to read.

Growing up, I played tennis. I'm not great, or even impressively mediocre. I can serviceably play the basics of the game, but the higher points and fine artistry that the likes of Roger Federer can achieve are otherworldly to me. I don't deserve to be on the same court.

And I feel that way at times about Nietzsche. He's so well-versed across a variety of subjects. His faculty for language, from Greek to Latin to German to French, blows me away. His casual references to Balzac, Plato, and Aristotle show a depth of experience that I'm only just beginning to cultivate.

That is to say that sometimes reading Nietzsche feels like playing tennis with Roger Federer. I'm just struggling to keep up. The ideas come faster and faster, and I understand a sentence only to have the next one volleyed right at me. I sprint in every direction, googling references to try and understand the context. Rarely do I encounter books that challenge my vocabulary as much as Nietzsche's.

However, just as hitting a wet tennis ball feels different, reading Nietzsche also has its off moments. There are times when his ideas seem to fall flat or are just plain wrong, like when he talks about race relations or the "common Man." But despite these flaws, Nietzsche's writing is still brilliant and earth-shaking at times.

The profound takeaway I have from this book is not anything that Nietzsche said, but rather that he can be wrong. And yet, life has gotten better since he wrote this. We creep forward, day by day, building on the progress of those who came before us. Maybe it's a relief to know that we can be wrong and it doesn't matter too much.

First reading of Nietzsche.

Within the first couple of pages, I was immediately struck by the fact that his mind is frantic. It's wild and relentless, yet at the same time, his writing has a beautiful, well thought out feel and comprehension. It's almost as if he's writing to inspire with every sentence and is on the brink of discovery with every page. It's seriously unnerving.

His writing is so powerful and hard hitting that I found myself having to will myself to pick apart and understand what was being said, constantly, to the best of my ability as I moved forward. I could feel my mind being hammered in continuously, which had the effect of a slow knock-out to the brain, but with bursts of insights into areas such as the instincts of each sex, the depth of understanding of whole nations, and what it really means to command. Nietzsche also explains the current state of Philosophy (at his time of writing), the futility of searching only for 'truth in practice', and what a man of experience and depth of feeling will encounter in comparison to a man purely driven by intellect or science. The explanation of what it means to have a 'hard-heart' and to be proud of achieving'master-morality' was something that I was particularly interested in.

These are completely radical and stunning observations that will take me months to fully digest.

Beyond Good and Evil / Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Certainly, this is one of the most important philosophical sources. If you want to look into Nietzsche's moral philosophy, you must go through this book, in addition to his work, The Antichrist.

These two books are essential for understanding his philosophy.

What I like about Nietzsche's style - regardless of his ideas - is the poetic way of thinking with which he presents his ideas. It reminds me of the style of Kahlil Gibran. I told this to my teacher, and she informed me that Gibran was indeed influenced by Nietzsche - which I didn't know until I had read about it already. Regarding the evaluation of the ideas, of course, the ideas do not match my religious and moral beliefs. However, I give the book 5 stars because it is an important source for Nietzsche and is indispensable for understanding his philosophy.

Nietzsche is often regarded as one of the most controversial philosophers. Some view him as the worst kind of cuck - the persuasive kind. Due to his cuckold nature, he had misguided ideas about what a real man is. However, through his eloquence, he managed to turn would-be men into cucks who, unfortunately, do not realize they are cucks but firmly believe they are real men.

Upon further investigation, it becomes clear that many others have reached similar conclusions. For example, Martin Buber criticized Nietzsche's concept of "Will to Power." He argued that greatness by nature includes a power, but not a will to power. The great man is powerful involuntarily and composedly, but not avid for power. What he desires is the realization of his ideas and the incarnation of the spirit.

Will Durant also had some harsh words for Nietzsche. He believed that Nietzsche's wild emphasis on power and movement was the echo of a feverish and chaotic age. Durant pointed out that Nietzsche's supposed universal "will to power" did not express the quiescence of the Hindu, the calm of the Chinese, or the satisfied routine of the medieval peasant. Power, according to Durant, is the idol of some, but most people long for security and peace.

G. K. Chesterton went even further, stating that if Nietzsche had not ended in imbecility, Nietzscheism would have ended in imbecility. Chesterton believed that thinking in isolation and with pride leads to idiocy. He argued that every man who will not have a softening of the heart must at last have a softening of the brain.

In conclusion, Nietzsche's worldview can be seen as a projection of his inner workings. His concept of power was a fantasy that he craved but lacked. His persuasive posturing turned others away from actual empowerment and towards his masturbatory master complex. While some may be content with his bogus verbiage, it is important to see him for what he truly was - a philosopher with many flaws.

***4.5 Stars***

Nietzsche's tone is purposefully authoritative from the outset. He forcefully calls out the cyclic submissive mindset of the modern European, believing that the Europeans of "today" are self-dwarfing. With this commanding approach, he aims to rouse the reader from perpetual obedience, whether through Catholic religion or laws. He desires to inspire critical and profound thinking, not wanting people to accept every misshapen and beautified version of the truth.

He argues that the "complex" man, through his own artifice, can invent a good conscience to enjoy his soul as something "simple". Nietzsche contends that life should be lived beyond "slave" morality. The "man beyond good and evil" should have recourse to his own law-giving, arts, and artifices for self-preservation, elevation, and deliverance. He breaks down our profound, suspicious fear of incurable pessimism that compelled mankind into a religious interpretation of existence. However, he preaches that man should beautify himself rather than rely on religions and create clones of himself.

Structurally, the book is excellent. Each topic serves a purpose for the next, adding a deeper layer for the reader. The pacing is neat, and everything blends well. His language is lush, puzzling, and beautifully compliments the content, sometimes seeming ostentatiously bold in taste. When expressing his ideas, he is one of the most inventive and rich non-fiction writers. However, his misogyny is a drawback. Despite its flaws, this book has inspired me to become a better version of myself daily, for which I am grateful. -Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche : 9.5/10