The text appears to be a complex and somewhat disjointed exploration of various philosophical, literary, and biological concepts. It begins with a poem about a place where the wind blows strongest and a person's transformation. Then it delves into discussions about a moral relativist, Nietzsche's ideas, and the concept of hormesis. There are also references to cancer cell resistance, a personal concept of "fortress" or "refuge," and various quotes from Nietzsche's works. The text concludes with a rating of ⚡

3.5 stars - I must say that I particularly enjoyed the part where old Freddy got salty about other philosophers. It was truly entertaining to see his take on them. There's something quite satisfying about seeing a well-known figure express his opinions so passionately. And I was always here for the Kant shade. It added an extra layer of interest to the discussion. Freddy's critiques and remarks made me think about the different perspectives within the world of philosophy. It made me realize that there are often many ways to approach and understand complex ideas. Overall, this aspect of the work really stood out to me and made it a memorable read.

Nietzsche, as always, presents a complex and perhaps contradictory set of views on society, morality, and history.

I'm sure he wouldn't mind us selectively choosing from his philosophy - he wouldn't want to be taken dogmatically. Suggesting that we find wonderful truth in his writing along with abhorrent invective would probably please him. He surely wouldn't claim to have a monopoly on truth and wants us to draw our own conclusions.

Similar to his other works I've read, I'm most touched by his passionate affirmation of life. He views the dominant culture of his era as avoiding and condemning life and all its difficulties. In contrast, he not only strives to accept life with all its pain and struggle but also forever cries for more. His concept of "eternal return" emphasizes the point - that we should live as if this life will be repeated infinitely. Nietzsche shows a genuine thirst for life, and its struggles only energize him.

Of course, we must address the disturbing misogyny in the latter part of this book. When one so easily denounces conventional morality and democracy, accepts that some are born superior and some inferior, and that racial and national traits are real and inherited, it's no surprise that he embraces misogyny. Instead of discarding all his works in disgust, I think we can learn from this. There's无疑 truth in much of what he writes, so we must ask ourselves where he went wrong to take such a heinous turn. Where in his philosophy lies the root of these opinions?

Many have seen the basis of these problematic pronouncements in Nietzsche's personal and psychological history. I suspect that if he were alive today, he would have to deal with the body of scientific evidence suggesting his broad opinions are based not on fact but on socially constructed roles. Nietzsche made himself vulnerable to believing in the reality of "national character," "gender identity," "racial memory," and all these distractions, probably always believing he was speaking truth to power (an uncommon and unpopular "truth," his favorite kind).

In the end, we don't have to completely agree or disagree with Nietzsche's philosophy. As with everything, there are valuable bits and bits to discard. By examining what we discard and why, we can learn from Nietzsche's mistakes.

I was not anticipating to have a liking for this, yet I did.

To begin with, I relished his writing in general. He is witty, albeit sometimes he can be offensive (but I simply took everything with a pinch of salt). I also have a penchant for challenges, and although his work is easy to read, I believe this is deceiving and I am not in the least bit confident that I truly understood him.

Secondly, I think his complex relationship with just about everything struck a chord with me. I consider many of the questions he poses to be valid, yet his conclusions (if one contends that he presents conclusions here) are not at all persuasive to me.

I was particularly intrigued by his discussion of “will to power”, for which he is renowned, but I was let down in this regard. He does little more than assert that he believes everyone is impelled by this will to power, yet he provides absolutely no support for it. It is conceivable that he addresses this more comprehensively in another work, but as it stands in this book, there is little to uphold the idea. His discussion of will in general only muddled matters. According to Nietzsche, the will is a complex phenomenon encompassing sensation followed by action, thinking, and emotion. But above all, it is an affect of command and something must obey. So we find within ourselves simultaneously a command and an obeisance. But if there is an element of obedience in the will, how can that be power?

He also states that we should “acknowledge untruth as a condition of life”. I turned to external sources for this one because I could not fathom that as brilliant as he is, he could circumvent the self-evident principle that causes his assertive statement to nullify itself. After reading several explanations, I can only say that I truly endeavored to wrap my mind around it, but was unable to.

Ultimately, his deconstruction is almost entirely an aesthetic one. This is implicit in the title, as a “prelude” is meant to establish the mood for what is to follow. In my view, he was only partially successful. I am, indeed, extremely curious about whether or not he ever achieved success in his attempt to transcend good and evil (I cannot help but be skeptical after reading this), but if he was attempting to turn me against philosophy, or religion, and towards some philosophy that he could proffer, well, I am not at all optimistic.

The hardest part of this entire process is indeed to declare this book as "read". In fact, I'm far from done with it. I have reread several chapters, constantly flipping back and forth in an attempt to weave a necessary web that links up the scattered pieces and clues. I've repeatedly reread and re-interpreted aphorisms, trying to understand their deeper meanings. How can I claim to be "done" when I'm just beginning to get acquainted with the book?

I truly wish I could have something conclusive and clever to say about this book. However, the only conclusive thing I can come up with is that this book treats you like a beast of burden, an enduring ass. It makes you work hard, patiently trace back, and rework. After "traversing" this book, I'm not the same person anymore. The process of struggling with this book has changed me, and the book itself has also changed for me. Passages that once meant one thing now mean something entirely different. Nevertheless, there are still numerous puzzles waiting to be solved and more work to be done.

Yet, it might not be a wise choice to keep working through this labyrinth. Labyrinths are constructed to detain beasts. Tracing the clues to their ultimate conclusion, to unconceal the truth, led Oedipus to his final and tragic fate.

The book concludes with a poem, and the poem ends with laughter. That's precisely what Oedipus should have done when facing the Sphinx. For now, I'm going to laugh... Maybe I'll come back later... if it turns out that I am a tempter, an attempter.

I think I've read this about 5 times in the past 10 years.

What I truly appreciate about Nietzsche is that his mistakes are not closely related to the errors of his era. In fact, they are only marginally connected to ours. In practice, is there any higher form of praise?

Yes, there is his misogyny, but it is distinct from the literal patriarchal kind that was prevalent in his age. (For example, like Marx, who could be described as a "loving paternal tyrant.") He is more in line with the "blackpilled" perspective rather than the traditional one.

It's interesting to note how Nietzsche's ideas have endured and continue to be relevant in different ways. His unique approach to philosophy and his willingness to challenge the status quo make him a fascinating figure to study.

Perhaps it is precisely because his errors are not of the same nature as those of his time that his work has had such a lasting impact. It forces us to think differently and question our own assumptions.

Overall, Nietzsche's contributions to philosophy are complex and multi-faceted, and there is still much to be learned from his writings.

We had a professor whose specialty was Islamic philosophy and he was a very religious person. The strange and interesting thing was that he was a fan of Nietzsche

As with my review of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the following consists of the notes I jotted down—deciphered as best as possible against the near hieroglyphic confusion of my chicken-scratch handwriting—when this was read some dozen or so years ago.

Since I failed to clearly distinguish Nietzsche's words from my own thoughts on them, the non-italicized portions might represent one huge act of plagiarism. Fortunately for me, the man seldom seemed litigious.

We manipulate our prejudices and desires with language to make our symbols and interpretations be reality—this is our inscribed presumption.

Nietzsche is basically outlining a plan for the new philosophers. They will be solitary men, capable of attaining the esoteric. Looking down from on high, where good and evil, virtue and vice cannot be so easily compartmentalized by yes and no. Above all, their search cannot be for the good of society. Suffering cannot be eliminated, happiness cannot be guaranteed, and the new philosophers must face many painful untruths with great courage. They cannot limit themselves with sentiments like generosity or pity, or things that deplete their spirit.

Modern philosophy, as epistemological skepticism, is anti-Christian but not anti-religious, either overtly or covertly. From a surety in the soul (the \\"I\\"), modern philosophy has come to question if the \\"I\\" is only apparent, that is, if the think may create the \\"I\\".

Nietzsche further emphasizes the authoritarian strain in man. Men have thus ingrained within them an instinct for Thou Shalt! He mocks the Objective Man and the Skeptic, but admires the stronger and more dangerous skepticism introduced by Frederick the Great.

Modern man misunderstands the devotion to things he calls the disinterested action, thinking it selfless. Nietzsche contends that the religion of modern man is Pity, though a sound of self-contempt can be discerned through its preachers.

The demoralization of Europe is flattening and mediocritizing man, creating a new herd society of good workers. However, this will allow select individuals to become stronger and richer than ever before, an involuntary arrangement for the cultivation of tyrants.

Nietzsche holds that all enhancements of man have arisen within an aristocratic society. Master Morality and Slave Morality often coexist in modern man. The noble soul is egoism, has no vanity, and treats thoughtfully with its peers. It has reverence for itself and is drawn to virtues like solitude, courage, insight, and sympathy.

The perception that true life is a great and endless suffering causes nausea. The non-noble soul will choke on this nausea and loathe itself and life, while the noble soul will spit it out and continue to revere life.

Man invented the good conscience to enjoy his soul as simple. In this way, his entire morality is an enduringly opaque veil allowing him to enjoy the sight of the soul.

Beyond Good and Evil was my initial encounter with Friedrich Nietzsche, and I was immediately struck by its complexity. The Nietzschean philosophy presented within its pages seemed almost unfathomable to me. I have read numerous philosophical works by other authors, yet none compared to the intricacy of Beyond Good and Evil. Although it is an undeniably thought-provoking piece, I cannot claim to have fully grasped its complex content.

Nietzsche proposed a theory that went beyond the traditional notions of good and evil. He was opposed to a society that was rigidly defined by these two concepts, as he believed them to be subjective. In his view, good and evil were constructs that varied according to different cultures and religions. They were merely a set of laws designed to maintain social order within specific cultural and religious contexts. Instead, Nietzsche was a proponent of the theory of the 'ubermensch', or supermen, which had a profound influence on Modern and Postmodern thinking.

Nietzsche was highly critical of existing philosophies, religious practices (as distinct from religion itself), and government policies. He believed that they all demanded submission, which he argued was antithetical to the creation of supermen. According to him, the virtues of submission, humility, equality, and the common good that were preached in Christianity served to weaken the strong members of society who possessed the 'will to power'. For this reason, he was also against socialist policies that were influenced by Marxism. Nietzsche referred to this meek submission to the existing moral order as'slave morality' and contended that it needed to be replaced with'master morality', where individuals were the masters of their own destinies. This, he believed, was the only way to create supermen.

However, Nietzsche's theory/philosophy is not without its flaws. While it is admirable to strive beyond good and evil to create strong individuals who can shape their own destinies, there is a legitimate concern that those who are strong, whom he called supermen, could potentially become dictators. Nietzsche did not live to witness the atrocities committed by the Hitler-led Nazi regime, but his concept of master morality could be seen as lending some validity to the creation of such individuals. Of course, it is important to note that Nietzsche was himself against nationalism and antisemitism. Nevertheless, the theory of master morality did, perhaps inadvertently, contribute to the promotion of Nazi ideology.

Despite these criticisms, Nietzsche's attempt was genuine. He sought to encourage people to break free from the constraints of the traditional moral order of good and evil and to progress in life in order to realize their fullest potential. He envisioned a society that would move forward without being held back by the limitations of the traditional moral order and would instead create a new moral order 'beyond good and evil'.

More of my reviews can be found at http://piyangiejay.com/

**"Good and Evil in Beyond Good and Evil"**

Beyond Good and Evil had a good impact. It is written that Zarathustra said after this book that it must be read before reading this work because there are several, albeit small, references in the text. The main message Nietzsche in this work is also to find and show the truth. He doubts all the beliefs before him, questions them, challenges them, and finally reveals their weaknesses and defeats them. He even questions the great philosophers before him and their thoughts and does not venerate anyone. He deals with political issues, the way of life, governments, the people of different nations, morality, etc., shows the existing weaknesses of the current system and offers appropriate solutions to deal with them.

**Strengths**:
- Comprehensive examination of issues.
- Questioning everything and everyone.
- Avoidance of veneration.
- Exceptionally strong literature.
- Long and yet powerful sentences.
- Correct vision of the future, such that some of his predictions have come true in today's world.
- Beautiful poetry.

**Weaknesses**:
- These weaknesses are personal opinions that I have not been able to solve my problems with so far.
- The problem of morality: The examination of practical moral systems in society and not all the mentioned moral systems is somewhat distant from reality, such that the presented moral system, with all its flaws, is in motion and responsive, and the image of this system, even in dystopia, is distant from the examination done by the author in this work. Another issue is the way the author behaves after declaring himself immoral. The behavioral system presented by the author includes very serious fundamental moral weaknesses. For example, one of these weaknesses can be pointed out regarding the responsibility according to Jean-Paul Sartre's view.
- The problem of women: Throughout this work, after the author declares his opposition to individuals or systems, he completely mentions his reasons in the continuation. The only part where the author deals with expressing opposition and destruction without presenting a reason is the part related to women. The accusatory point of this part is that the author's predictions regarding the feminist movement have come true in our time, but still, this is not a reason to oppose women.

**Regarding the translation**:
The translation of this work, which was done by Mr. Ashouri, is complete, beautiful, understandable, and without the slightest error or defect, and to the extent that the Persian language allows, a smooth and original translation has been made. Update: Considering the clarification that Nietzsche makes about the title of this book in the book "Genealogy of Morals", Mr. Dariush Ashouri mentions in the margin of that work (Genealogy of Morals, translation by Dariush Ashouri, published by Agha, page 67) that it was correct to name this work "Beyond Good and Evil".

I came across a plethora of negative reviews for this particular work. The majority of them seemed to echo sentiments such as "Nietzche is stupid" or "Sexist pig!" or, unfortunately, even "This was too overwhelming and thus it sucks." Witnessing this incredibly one-sided and immediate hardening of attitudes towards the subject, I felt an urgent need to comment.

To begin with, if the sole reaction after perusing a philosophical treatise is to simply label it as "entirely stupid," then it becomes evident that the individual is not truly suited for the realm of philosophy, at least not at this stage of their life. They should refrain from any further exploration of philosophical matters until they acquire the ability to think critically, synthesize substantial amounts of information, and connect seemingly disparate thoughts into a coherent chain in order to properly evaluate the presented argument. Philosophical treatises are not designed for eighth graders; hence, if one cannot fathom a collegiate-level work, it is advisable to wait until they possess the requisite skills to read and understand it before offering criticism.

Secondly, when critiquing a philosophical work, one should have the courtesy and intelligence to appreciate the argument put forth by the author, regardless of whether they agree with it or not. This is the essence of being a philosopher: the capacity to understand, grasp, manipulate, and refute arguments in a way that both engages with the proposed argument and provides novel insights into the subject matter. Philosophy is not about seeing who can come up with the best off-the-cuff arguments; rather, it is about attaining a deeper understanding. And how can we achieve that understanding if we are unable to appreciate what someone is saying when it conflicts with our own beliefs? Therefore, if one cannot handle someone simply disagreeing with their thoughts and then explaining why, they are, above all else, the least capable of rational thinking among human beings.

Finally, considering the age of Nietzsche's work, one must also take into account the time period and the factors that could have influenced him. Clearly, his thinking deviates significantly from the norm; most people do not question everything they have ever been taught (although it is a healthy and liberating practice). Before condemning Nietzsche and, by extension, his work as being those of a "sexist pig" or a "haughty fool," one needs to consider the prevailing beliefs of the time period. Additionally, one must recognize that when Nietzsche presents his "questionable" paragraphs, he is actually critiquing society as a whole.

Now that I have concluded my defense and clarification of philosophy and what it means to critique philosophical works, I shall offer a brief review of the actual work itself. I found the work to be extremely thought-provoking. Nietzsche has several memorable "one-liners" throughout the treatise, showcasing both his literary prowess and his敏锐 insights into human behavior. In fact, I believe his criticisms are so distinct that they could potentially make outstanding novels. It is a pity that Nietzsche did not convert any of his philosophical musings into novels or short stories (like, for example, Sartre). Nietzsche provides a very comprehensive and, at times (much to the chagrin of some), quite lengthy explanation of his ideas. Yes, Nietzsche vehemently attacks some of the most "sacred" beliefs of civilization, but I believe this makes him all the more worthy of respect.

If you have a penchant for reading intriguing and profound philosophical works, then Beyond Good and Evil will无疑 be a classic.

It is undoubtedly a bad sign on my part that I assign a one-star rating to one of Nietzsche's great works. By doing so, I am merely attempting to offer my honest response to the book.

'Beyond Good and Evil' is currently the sole work by this famous philosopher that I have read, and I must admit to being somewhat baffled as to why it enjoys such popularity. Instead of constructing specific philosophical arguments and endeavoring to persuade the reader of their details, Nietzsche appears content simply to contradict everyone who preceded him and state his ideas as if they were established facts. The book is neatly divided into (in my estimation) 269 short philosophical sketches, with almost no connection from one sketch to the next. Even within the sketches themselves, Nietzsche leaps rapidly from one idea to another, briefly asserting that he is correct, that others are incorrect, and then moving on to an entirely different topic. The one bright spot in the book is the middle section, when Nietzsche confines himself to single short quotes, many of which are highly provocative and interesting.

I am certain that I need to give this philosopher another chance. In the meantime, however, all that I can say is that I eagerly picked up this book hoping to understand what Nietzsche was all about... and I finished it having no clue.