Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:18:41.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nietzsche For and Against the Enlightenment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2008

Graeme Garrard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay explores Nietzsche's attitude to the Enlightenment, which the author argues underwent a major reversal between his so-called middle works and his later writings. The author examines the nature of this change and considers some of the reasons behind it. In the process, some of Nietzsche's “postmodern” admirers are taken to task for appropriating his criticisms of the Enlightenment without acknowledging his ambivalence toward it. Furthermore, the radical change in Nietzsche's view of the Enlightenment is taken as evidence of the periodization of his thought, which some prominent Nietzsche scholars (e.g. Walter Kaufmann) have disputed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , Fall 2008 , pp. 595 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Lyotard, Jean-François famously defined postmodern as “incredulity toward metanarratives” (The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, trans. Bennington, G. and Massumi, B. [Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997], xxiv)Google Scholar. Among the “two great legitimizing ‘myths’ or narrative archetypes” of modernity which have lost their credibility Lyotard includes “the tradition of the French eighteenth century and the French Revolution” (ix).

2 Robinson, Dave, Nietzsche and Postmodernism (Cambridge: Icon Books, 1999), 35Google Scholar. Among writers commonly associated with “postmodernism,” Nietzsche's influence is most apparent in the works of Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Paul de Mann and Richard Rorty. For a very good overview of the arguments for and against the postmodern appropriation of Nietzsche, see Nietzsche as Postmodernist: Essays Pro and Contra, ed. C. Koelb (Albany, New York: SUNY Press, 1990). Also, see Thiele, Leslie Paul, “The Agony of Politics: The Nietzschean Roots of Foucault's Thoughts,” American Political Science Review, 84, no. 3 (1990): 907–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Holub, Robert, “Nietzsche as Postmodernist,” Postmodern Culture, 2, no. 2 (January 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sadler, Ted, “The Postmodern Politicization of Nietzsche,” in Nietzsche, Feminism and Political Theory, ed. Patton, P. (St. Leonards, NSW: Allen and Unwin, 1993)Google Scholar; Schrift, Alan, “Nietzsche's French Legacy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche, ed. Magnus, B. and Higgins, K. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 323–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gemes, Ken, “Post-Modernism's Use and Abuse of Nietzsche,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62, no. 2 (March 2001): 337–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See Schmidt, James, “Inventing the Enlightenment: British Hegelians, Anti-Jacobins, and the Oxford English Dictionary,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 64, no. 3 (2003): 421–43Google Scholar, and Schmidt, James, ed., What Is Enlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Questions and Twentieth-Century Answers (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996)Google Scholar.

4 For an examination of Nietzsche and the general concept of enlightenment, as opposed to the Enlightenment, see Sedgwick, Peter, “The Nietzsche Legend: A Genealogy of Myth and Enlightenment,” in Ecce Opus: Nietzsche-Revisionen im 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Görner, R. and Large, Duncan (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003), 181–92Google Scholar, and Sedgwick, Peter, “Nietzsche, Normativity and Will to Power,” Nietzsche-Studien, 36 (2007), 201–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Ruth Abbey traces the classification of Nietzsche's works into three periods—early, middle and late—back to Lou Salomé's Friedrich Nietzsche in Seinen Werke, published in 1894 (Nietzsche's Middle Period [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000], xii).

6 Kaufmann, Walter, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist, 4th ed. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1974), 400Google Scholar. Kaufmann also writes: “The notion, however, that Nietzsche sympathized with the Enlightenment, admired Socrates, despised nationalism, and advocated race mixture only in his middle period, while he later broke with this tradition, became a racist, espoused a ‘psychologism’ and became close to Nazism, is entirely unwarranted” (295).

7 Abbey, Nietzsche's Middle Period, xiii.

8 Nietzsche, , The Wanderer and His Shadow, in Human, All Too Human, trans. Hollingdale, R.J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, section 221, 376.

9 Editor's introduction to Nietzsche's, Ecce Homo, trans. Kaufmann, W. and Hollingdale, R.J. (New York: Vintage Books, 1969), 206Google Scholar.

10 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, part 1, section 6, 19.

11 “He [Nietzsche] originally dedicated the first part of Human, All Too Human to Voltaire, and on the reverse of the title-page appeared a graceful acknowledgment of his debt to the Frenchman and his desire to signalize the centenary of his death (30 May 1778), but this was cut out of later editions. . . . The dedication of the first book to Voltaire is coupled with a compliment to him inserted in brackets at the end of section 407 (originally the last section) of Vermischte Meinungen und Sprüche during its printing. But while correcting the proofs Nietzsche erased these words and substituted the famous ‘Hadesfahrt’ section (IX, 174 f) which makes no mention of Voltaire” (Williams, W.D., Nietzsche and the French: A Study of the Influence of Nietzsche's French Reading on his Thought and Writing [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952], 42, 51–52Google Scholar).

12 Nietzsche uses Voltaire's famous anti-Christian exhortation “Écrasez l'infâme [crush the infamous thing]” in Ecce Homo, 335.

13 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 110, 61–62.

14 Nietzsche, , Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, ed. Clark, M. and Leiter, B., trans. Hollingdale, R.J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)Google Scholar, section 535, 212.

15 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 110, 61–62.

16 Nietzsche, Daybreak, section 197, 198.

17 Nietzsche, Daybreak, section 197, 198.

18 Nietzsche, , The Gay Science, trans. Nauchkhoff, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, section 122, 117.

19 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 150, 81.

20 Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 122, 118.

21 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 55, 41.

22 Nietzsche singled out the revolutionary Comte de Mirabeau as a rare exception for his transcendence of ressentiment. (See The Gay Science, section 95, p. 92 and On the Genealogy of Morality, ed. K. Ansell-Pearson, trans. C. Diethe [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994], essay 1, section 10, 24).

23 See Marti, Urs, “Nietzsches Kritik der Franzosischen Revolution,” Nietzsche Studien, 19 (1990): 312–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Nietzsche, , Beyond Good and Evil, section 46, trans. Hollingsdale, R.J. (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973), 57–58Google Scholar.

25 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, 2nd ed., section 184 (1888), trans. Hollingdale, R.J. and Kaufmann, W. (New York: Vintage Books, 1968), 111Google Scholar.

26 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 463, 169.

27 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 463, 169.

28 Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, section 221, 367.

29 Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morality, essay 1, section 16, 36. Also, see Glenn, Paul, “Nietzsche's Napoleon: The Higher Man as Political Actor,” Review of Politics 63, no. 1 (2001): 129–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Nietzsche, Daybreak, section 3, 2–3.

31 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 101 (1887), 64Google Scholar.

32 Hill, R. Kevin, Nietzsche's Critiques: The Kantian Foundations of His Thought (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

33 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 943 (1885), 498Google Scholar.

34 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 104 (1888), 65–66Google Scholar.

35 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Preface, 14.

36 The French revolutionary government decreed that a statue of Rousseau be erected in the National Assembly with the inscription “La Nation Française Libre à J.-J. Rousseau.” At the Festival of Triumph on 14 July 1790, a bust of Rousseau, carved from Bastille stone and crowned with laurels, was borne through the streets of Paris, attended by 600 white-gowned girls and troops of Guardsmen, their firearms wreathed with flowers. The revolutionary cult of Rousseau peaked in 1794, when his remains were ceremoniously transferred to the Pantheon in Paris and laid to rest next to the other great “heroes of the French Revolution” such as Voltaire, despite the fact that they detested each other. See Blum, Carole, Rousseau and the Republic of Virtue (Ithaca, NY, London: Cornell University Press, 1986), 280Google Scholar. On the “pantheonisation” of Voltaire in July, 1791, see Leith, James, “Les trios apotheoses de Voltaire,” Annales historiques de la Révolution française 236 (1979), 161–209Google Scholar.

37 Saine, Thomas, Black Bread—White Bread: German Intellectuals and the French Revolution (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1988), 282Google Scholar.

38 Rousseau, Judge of Jean-Jacques, in The Collected Writings of Rousseau, vol. 1, ed. R.D. Masters and C. Kelly, trans. J. Bush, C. Kelly, and R.D. Masters (Hanover and London: University Press of New England, 1990), 213 (Oeuvres complètes de Jean-Jacques Rousseau, vol. 1, ed. B. Gagnebin and M. Raymond [Paris: Pléiade, 1959–95], 935). As one study of his influence notes, “Jean-Jacques Rousseau as prophet and founder of the French Revolution was thus a creation of the Revolution itself” (McNeil, G.H., “The Anti-Revolutionary Rousseau,” American Historical Review 58 [1953], 808CrossRefGoogle Scholar). Some conservatives even tried to appropriate Rousseau's name when attacking the Revolution—most notably the comte d'Antraigues. See Beik, Paul, “The courts d'Antraigues and the Failure of French Conservatism in 1789,” American Historical Review 56 (1951), 767–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McDonald, Joan, Rousseau and the French Revolution, 1762–1791 (London: Athlone, 1965), 171–77Google Scholar; and Roger Barny, Le Comte d'Antraigues: Un Disciple aristocrate de J.-J. Rousseau, Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century 281 (1991).

39 Epstein, Klaus, The Genesis of German Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 504Google Scholar.

40 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 95 (1887), 59Google Scholar.

41 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 98 (1887), 61–2Google Scholar.

42 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 83 (1887), 52Google Scholar.

43 Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, 283.

44 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, section 224, 134.

45 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 100 (1887), 63Google Scholar.

46 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 123 (1887), 75Google Scholar. A major influence on Nietzsche at this time in his thinking on the problem of civilization and the way he construes it in terms of an opposition between the spirit of Voltaire and that of Rousseau was Ferdinand Brunetiere's Études critiques sur l'histoire de la littérature française (Paris: Hachette, 1887). For a discussion of this, see Kuhn, E., “Cultur, Civilization. Die Zweideutigkeit des ‘Modernen,’” Nietzsche-Studien 18 (1989): 600–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

47 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 99, section 100 (1887), 62–64Google Scholar.

48 Nietzsche, , The Will to Power, section 100 (1887), 62–64Google Scholar.

49 Voltaire to Rousseau, 30 August 1755 (D6451) (Complete Works of Voltaire, vol. 100, ed. T. Besterman [Banbury, Oxfordshire: Voltaire Foundation, 1968–1977], 259).