Beyond Good and Evil

Apr 06, 2013 Keely rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, german, reviewed

I can think of few instances where an author's reputation is more different from the reality of who he was, what he believed, and what he wrote--perhaps only Machiavelli has been as profoundly misunderstood by history. Today, Nietzsche tends to be thought of as a depressive nihilist, a man who believed in nothing, and an apologist for cruel tyrants--but nothing could be further from the truth.

There probably are not many men who had more reason than Nietzsche to feel resentful and miserable: he g...more I can think of few instances where an author's reputation is more different from the reality of who he was, what he believed, and what he wrote--perhaps only Machiavelli has been as profoundly misunderstood by history. Today, Nietzsche tends to be thought of as a depressive nihilist, a man who believed in nothing, and an apologist for cruel tyrants--but nothing could be further from the truth.

There probably are not many men who had more reason than Nietzsche to feel resentful and miserable: he grew up a sickly child, prone to severe headaches which often left him blind. then during his brief career in the cavalry, he tore several muscles in his side, and then, while serving as a medical orderly in the Franco-Prussian war, he contracted a number of diseases. These incidents would affect his health for the rest of his life, leaving him bedridden and in pain for hours or days at a time.

It would not have been unreasonable to give in to misery and bitterness under such conditions, but on those days when Nietzsche felt well enough to write, he would emerge from his room with renewed passion and vigor and labor to produce a philosophy not of misery, but of joy. Contrary to his reputation, Nietzsche rejected nihilism outright--if the world does not provide your life with a clear meaning, it is up to you to go out and find one--or make one--not to wallow and whinge.

Likewise, he spent much of his life writing against nationalism and bigotry--indeed, his famed falling out with the composer Wagner was over the increasingly nationalistic style of music the latter was producing. So, that being the case, how did he gain such an unfortunate reputation at all?

The first reason is that, after his death, his sister took over his estate, and as she herself was a German nationalist and anti-semite (as was her prominent husband), she had a number of her brother's papers rewritten to support her positions and then published them. Of course, this couldn't have fooled anyone actually familiar with Nietzsche's works and ideas, as the rewrites were in direct contradiction to his previous writings, but it still fooled many.

The second problem with the interpretation of his work is one that mirrors Machiavelli precisely: the author's observations on the nature of the world are mistaken for suggestions for how the world should be. It's like reading a book about crime scene investigation and, because it admits that murder exists and describes the methods by which is is done, assuming that it is an instruction book for murderers, when in fact it is the opposite: an instruction of how to combat them and stop them.

Both Nietzsche and Machiavelli had a similar approach: to say that the world can be a brutal place, a place where people gain power not by being wise and respected, but by dominating and taking advantage of others--so, what are we going to do about it? For Nietzsche, one of the necessary things we must do to free ourselves from this dominance over body and mind is to recognize that 'good' and 'evil' are just words, words that have been used by the powerful to justify what they do--their 'just wars' against the 'evil foe', while that foe invariably preaches the same story in reverse, making us the villain.

To say that someone is 'evil' is to say that they have no rational motivation for what they do, that we should not attempt to understand them, but should oppose them without thinking about why. It's a powerful tool to maintain denial of reality, and so, as individuals, if we refuse to accept definitions of what is good or evil as they are handed down by those in power, we will have taken the first step to freeing ourselves from mental tyranny.

This was what Nietzsche meant by 'The Superman': that the man of the future, if he wishes to be free, cannot allow anyone else to define his life for him, cannot take authority for granted, but must question the world without and the world within, and discover for himself what is important and what is true. His famous 'Will to Power' is the personal decision to wrest control of your life from those who would seek to dominate you. To be free means being a philosopher.

And this is something I have tried to achieve for myself; but to unwind prejudice and ignorance is a lifelong battle, and I'm certainly grateful to have, in my search, an ally like Nietzsche (and the late Nietzsche scholar Rick Roderick). Many have been the days when I felt run down and exhausted, put upon and disrespected by an impersonal world, and at those times, Nietzsche's joyful and witty deconstruction of that ridiculous, artificial world has proven an invaluable comfort to me.(less)

36 likes · like · see review

May 04, 2013 Chris rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As with my review of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the below comprises the notes I jotted down—deciphered as best could be managed against the near hieroglyphic obfuscation of the chicken riot I call handwriting—when this was read some dozen or so years ago. As I failed to consistently make clear what were Nietzsche's words, as set against my own thoughts on the latter, the non-italicized portions may represent one giant act of plagiarizing. Luckily for me, the man seldom presented himself as possessi...more

22 likes · like · see review

Aug 01, 2008 Trevor rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

290. Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood.

If Nietzsche had started here – rather than nearly ending with this thought – he might have been more comprehensible. His readers might have said – ‘oh, right, so that is how it is going to be, is it? We’re dealing with some smart-arse that is going to play games with us – well, play away…’

But, he doesn’t start here – he starts here:

“SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman--what then?”

Now, my lecturer at university go...more

52 likes · like · see review

Dec 19, 2012 Emma rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, translated

*sighs* This is a difficult book.It's taking me a while to read and nietzsche's egocentric bizarre poetic prose is twisting my melon man.

Nietzsche, Nietzsche, Nietzsche, your alternative position on morality, your 'will to power', your fucking sexism is giving me a headache. I used to think that Nietzsche's 'good means bad and bad means good' was really cool. It was my type of philosophy, I thought. Yes Nietzsche, Art SHOULD make you think and who is to say what is right anyway? I'm down with be...more

22 likes · like · see review

Sep 19, 2007 Christopher Robin rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

so... God is dead,
any questions?

no, he never existed, he's another chain or anchor that man put on himself to limit potential, and yet another means of putting a limit on personal freedom. Now that the Judeo-Christian moral code, and other moral codes like it have been laid to rest, we can finally make something of ourselves.
Nietzsche makes the claim that he is here to clear the way for the coming Ubermensch much in the same way that John the Baptist claimed to clear the way for Christ.
I guess t...more

11 likes · like · see review

Mar 16, 2008 Keith rated it 2 of 5 stars

For those of you who are unfamiliar with him, Friedrich Nietzsche was an angry little man who protected himself from the Mean Old World by swaddling himself in an exaggerated ego (and an even more exaggerated moustache).

Rather than suggest that you read any or all of his works, I've taken the liberty of creating a "Nietzsche Book Generator" that you can use to construct your very own philosophical tomes, in the comfort of your own home!

Just follow these simple steps:

1) Make one or more completel...more

46 likes · like · see review

Sep 29, 2012 John Martindale rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, classics, audiobook

Nietzsche is for the atheist what Charles Spurgeon was for Christian preachers. He has a creative way of saying things and this book is filled with one liners. He makes me think of a preacher, in that he says extreme things with absolute confidence, but does not back anything up or go into much depth. This book seemed to me not so much about going beyond good and evil, but rather a justification of evil. Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Mao in their rejecting the "slave" morality and embr...more

9 likes · like · see review

Jan 24, 2013 Moad rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: existentialism, german-literature, philosophy, brain-orgasm

I recall that I had struggled with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but this here, Beyond Good and Evil is something different, something beyond. I always wanted to read from the Author to not be misguided by what is said about the author especially key thinkers like Nietzsche who is frequently quoted and judged about his work and influence on the modern world. I always had a dark, strident, and gloomy view of his philosophy. Experiencing it myself now, I was met with surprising outcomes.

The major theme...more

4 likes · like · see review

May 25, 2010 Ryan rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As always, Nietzsche presents a difficult, possibly contradictory array of views on the subjects of society, morality and history. I am certain that he wouldn't take offense to our picking-and-choosing among his philosophy- he wouldn't want to be taken dogmatically. To suggest that we find splendid truth in his writing alongside heinous invective would probably please him. He certainly wouldn't claim to have a monopoly on truth and wants us to come to our own conclusions.

In keeping with his othe...more As always, Nietzsche presents a difficult, possibly contradictory array of views on the subjects of society, morality and history. I am certain that he wouldn't take offense to our picking-and-choosing among his philosophy- he wouldn't want to be taken dogmatically. To suggest that we find splendid truth in his writing alongside heinous invective would probably please him. He certainly wouldn't claim to have a monopoly on truth and wants us to come to our own conclusions.

In keeping with his other works that I've read, I am most moved by his vehement affirmation of life. He sees the dominant culture of his time as shying away from and condemning life and all its difficulties. In contrast, he strives to not only accept life in all its pain and struggle, but to forever cry for more. His idea of "eternal return" emphasizes the point- that we should live as though this life will be repeated ad infinitum. Nietzsche displays a veritable thirst for life, and its struggles only invigorate him.

Of course, we must address the troubling case of the misogyny displayed in the latter quarter of this book. It should be expected that when one so readily denounces conventional morality and democracy, and accepts that some will be born superior and some inferior, and that racial and national traits are real and inherited, well, it should come as no surprise that he embraces misogyny. Rather than discard all his works in disgust, I think we can learn something from this case. No doubt there is truth in much of what he writes, so we must ask ourselves where he went wrong in order 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 & psychological history. I suspect that were he alive today, he would have to grapple with the body of scientific evidence that suggests his broad opinions are based not in fact but in socially constructed roles. Nietzsche made himself vulnerable to believing in the reality of "national character" and "gender identity" and "racial memory" and all of these distractions, probably believing all along that he was speaking truth to power (an uncommon and unpopular "truth", his favorite sort.)

In the end, we do not have to agree or disagree wholesale with Niezsche's philosophy. As with all things, there are bits of value and bits to discard. In examining what we discard and why, we can learn from Nietzsche's mistakes.(less)

5 likes · like · see review

May 18, 2012 pearl rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, favorites

You know it's a keeper when, after reading it, perhaps you did not learn anything true (must there be truths?) or even useful (why be useful?), perhaps you even misunderstood everything completely (why understand?), and 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 (about it, about you) and shaken your head, stood up and gone on with your life.

"Der Freunde harr' ich, Tag und Nacht bereit,
Der neuen Fre...more

5 likes · like · see review

Sep 07, 2008 Brad rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Although not what I expected, Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil was a more than satisfying meditation on morality. It wasn't what I expected because most of Nietzsche's words were spent prophesying about and discussing the "herd" mentality of democracy's slave culture, which prepares us for his final, magnificent essay, "What is Noble," but the overthrowing of my expectations was never a problem.

Too many pass over Nietzsche because they are pre-offended, missing what is powerful and vital in his...more

11 likes · like · see review

Jan 23, 2008 Ethan rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

One scholar (I can't remember who) noted Nietzsche's overwhelming excess of style and that he has. This makes him fun to read - to a point. Other times, forgive my heresy, Nietzsche seems to be the bad teenage poet of philosophy - so far over the top, so dramatic, that you lose whatever point he had. And he does have some points worth considering, especially his challenges to traditional notions of morality, as much more down to Earth scholars such as Philippa Foot have noted. Foot is also right...more

2 likes · like · see review

Oct 01, 2007 Alisha rated it 2 of 5 stars

Nietzsche is German, and considered an existentialist- two of my favorite characteristics of a writer- so I thought that he would be interesting by default. But I was wrong. This book is overly verbose and quite hard to get through; most of his sentences are a paragraph long and by the time you've gotten to the point you've forgotten what he was talking about. I gave up several chapters in because I had no idea what he was talking about and what the general feel of the book was... all I knew was...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 06, 2013 A.J. rated it 1 of 5 stars

The passage which really summed up this book for me was "Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood." Yep, right there. It's what annoys me about a lot of philosophy - I just want people to be able to write clearly and honestly about what they actually mean. Nietzsche's language is so dense and impenetrable (and clearly deliberately so) that it is frustrating to read. There's definitely a whiff of the emperor's new clothes about this book.

And don't get me s...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jan 03, 2013 Scott Forward rated it 4 of 5 stars

16. "There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve...more 16. "There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is _I_ who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."--In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception, like the person who says, "I think, and know that this, at least, is true, actual, and certain"--will encounter a smile and two notes of interrogation in a philosopher nowadays. "Sir," the philosopher will perhaps give him to understand, "it is improbable that you are not mistaken, but why should it be the truth?"

Some of the ideas haven't aged well with me, but it still has some amazing commentary and analysis on past philosophy. I think I loved it because it forces reflection, though there are earlier works that do the same, onto some of the most popular phrases in philosophy ("I think therefore I am" comes to mind readily). (less)

like · see review

Aug 08, 2012 Federico Trejos rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: pathos, vitalis

pues si hasta ahora me gusta bastante, el cinico moderno, aunque bueno me he leido asi hablo Zaratustra 2 veces y esta arriba en mi panteon, pero sus viñetas de pensamientos aleatorios y modo de filosofia me encanta, pero no comparto muchas cosas tipo antisemitismo, pureza de raza, anticristianismo y asi, pero si comparto el espiritu libre, la fuerza, la salud, el vigor, el anti fatalismo (pese a ser una especie de fatalista yo mismo), pero en general si lleva a las alturas aunque produzcan mare...more

like · see review

Jun 06, 2012 Keith rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is Nietzsche's first work after having written Thus Spoke Zarathustra and it is by far one of his strongest. It easily ranks among the best of his works done in the aphoristic essay style, giving him free reign to unload his thoughts and societal observations in a borderline stream-of-consciousness style, which suits him. Some of Nietzsche's especially trenchant analyses sling arrows at the philosophers who came before him, such as Kant and others, who he accuses of doing little more than e...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 23, 2012 Bniep rated it 5 of 5 stars

I recommend, but with a warning. The vast majority of people will not get much out of this book. Filtering through these reviews, I see a lot of people who are clearly not meant for Nietzsche's writing. They tend to fall under a couple of categories
1) Easily Offended: when Nietzsche says something they find offensive, they are turned off reading the book. Nietzsche will offend you. However...
2) People who make a superficial reading and criticize accordingly. This follows from 1. Those who are in...more I recommend, but with a warning. The vast majority of people will not get much out of this book. Filtering through these reviews, I see a lot of people who are clearly not meant for Nietzsche's writing. They tend to fall under a couple of categories
1) Easily Offended: when Nietzsche says something they find offensive, they are turned off reading the book. Nietzsche will offend you. However...
2) People who make a superficial reading and criticize accordingly. This follows from 1. Those who are initially offended always seek more ways to find themselves offended, and read Nietzsche like he was an idiot. Seek and ye shall find. If you want to read Nietzsche as such, he will give you plenty of material.
3) Those who want a clear list of premises and a linear argument. Nietzsche's thought is ordered. Much of this book develops thematically though, and not through premises. Some won't like that style, but there is a reason Nietzsche is renowned for his writing. This leads into...
4) People who don't think like Nietzsche. Because Nietzsche doesn't write straight treatises, you need to understand the lines of thought he proposes. Those who don't see those lines commonly write negative reviews complaining about how Nietzsche doesn't "prove his assertions". This leads to the final....
5) People who don't understand Nietzsche's project. This also has a lot to do with Nietzsche's style. This book is not supposed to give formally structured arguments. If you read Nietzsche according to some rubric you deem appropriate, you miss his point entirely.

Suggestions:
1. Just because something is wrong, it doesn't mean it lacks value. Stop reading Nietzsche like a science textbook filled with facts. Also, stop reading him like he is attempting to make a logically impenetrable argument in defense of a single thesis.
2. Look for the nuances, and appreciate them. Was Nietzsche a misogynist? Yes. He was also a very thoughtful misogynist whose writings on women actually do hold some value. He contextualizes these passage in the introduction to that section, where he explicitly recognizes his own prejudices as a personal stupidity. Read in that light, his comments are actually quite interesting. Secondly, he writes of the condition of "woman" in many passages, not "woman" as a fixed essence. The two are quite distinct. Much of what is offensive at first glance is actually passing judgment upon the character of humanity at large. When he argues, for example, that men had good reason for not allowing women to speak in church, he isn't making an argument that women are inferior to men. Rather, it is an argument based upon the equality of sexes. He doesn't want to give women the chance to prove themselves just as foolish as men. Behind their silence, Nietzsche notes, they are untainted by their "real" nature. Whether or not you take Nietzsche to be making a serious suggestion here, he is obviously not making a offhand misogynistic comment. In the same way we don't dismiss the Greeks on the grounds of their caste based society, it is silly to dismiss Nietzsche for a misogyny he acknowledges as his own weakness.
3. Nietzsche writes to spark a line of thoughts and questions, not to answer all of them. Tons of the complaints start from the presupposition that Nietzsche should write according to a goal they have established for him. If you don't understand Nietzsche's goals, don't fashion your own for him.
4. It is entirely possible that you are not the type of person who can identify with Nietzsche on any sort of personal level. His work isn't meant to be read in a removed way. If you don't understand his criticisms on a personal and emotional level (not just logically), this book may not be for you. Just don't make the leap and call him unintelligent or a loose cannon. Most of the times, it is his readers that are bringing excessive emotion to the book, and their emotional reading that renders it obtuse.(less)

25 likes · like · see review

Feb 26, 2012 Jason Palmer rated it 3 of 5 stars

I haven't read that much philosophy before. Maybe this wasn't the best book to start with. I didn't understand about half of it. Some periods would have helped. This book is one really long sentence. I don't understand why, along with the German, they don't also translate all the Latin and French mixed throughout. I hate it when modern authors flaunt their classic education by plugging little Latin phrases here and there, but I guess this isn't a modern author so that is permissible. The idea th...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 17, 2011 Theresa rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a difficult book to read and I spent my summer 2008 in Philippines deciphering his contents. Sometimes his ideas jump from one thing into another within a sentence. It can be confusing but I grasped his ideas nonetheless.

His emphasis on truth, that there is nothing good and bad but only truth, is an enlightening idea for me. He even extends to the idea of "brutal truth" that people should be able to accept the brutality of truth. Nietzsche offers a moral deed whether be social and politi...more

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 19, 2011 John P rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

First, there are quite a few punctuation errors, whether by the publisher, translator, or author matters not; context helps sort these out for the most part. Second, it is, after all, a translation and all the risks of such an endeavor apply; even more so due to the complex nature of the ideas expressed.

As to the ideas, let me say Mr. Nietzsche reminds of Hoffer in that Nietzsche offers blanket statements and unprovable conclusions by the dozens, except that Nietzsche's are unsupported by any de...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 24, 2011 Colin Guy rated it 5 of 5 stars

I re-read this book and did not find it as complex as I did initially. Whilst you may not agree with Nietzche's philosophy, you cannot fault his passion and reasoning in his arguments. Given the age of this book, his outlook at life and the structures of civilisation are still fresh and resound with a truth that is still profound to this day, possibly because he talks about the nature of being human which never changes despite our progressions and evolving technologies.
Nietzche revels in the fla...more

3 likes · like · see review

Dec 01, 2010 Peter Song-Paff (hyphenated bc I'm marrying the one wear rated it 5 of 5 stars

Nietzche was and is still right- straight from the grave. Yes, dare I say a rabid, well, we'll refer to me as an enthusiast... The 'malo' reviews, as I would say, or the opposition pure and simply do not get FN, OR are dogmatists, as it were... Yes, I'm stealing FN's words- perhaps not verbatim, nevertheless one gets the point, i'd hope.

I can't believe some of the reviews that state surface negative critiques on FN's (F Nietzsche for short) mind based on not being able 'to read him as his senten...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 08, 2010 Mike rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

Beyond Good and Evil: A Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future is probably the book where Nietzsche's characteristic philosophy is best and most thoroughly developed. That said, it is far from a clear book. It is unsystematic—no Kantian systematics or even numbered system of premises as in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. This is the philosophical equivalent of Schoenberg in a Phil Spector mix: a wall of seemingly cacophonous sound that, when listened to closely, makes frightening sense. It is a mix of...more Beyond Good and Evil: A Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future is probably the book where Nietzsche's characteristic philosophy is best and most thoroughly developed. That said, it is far from a clear book. It is unsystematic—no Kantian systematics or even numbered system of premises as in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. This is the philosophical equivalent of Schoenberg in a Phil Spector mix: a wall of seemingly cacophonous sound that, when listened to closely, makes frightening sense. It is a mix of bitingly humorous arguments, aphorisms, and parables. It is also the prelude to the philosophy of the present.

Nietzsche begins by bitingly sweeping aside the 19th century's characteristic philosophies: British empiricism, French romanticism, and German idealism. It seems that the only person he doesn't have complete contempt for is Hume, but even he, to Nietzsche, is weak because he didn't have the courage of his convictions. He was, after all, a man who figured out in a way what Nietzsche figured out about morals and reality, but when faced with the possibilities of his discovery of absolute freedom and will, turned back to whist and good Scottish common sense. Nietzsche, on the other hand, did not shy away.

Nietzsche thinks that previous philosophers have been far too beholden to Christianity. He makes a genealogical critique of Christian influence, arguing that there was an original belief that stronger and smarter is better, and weaker and dumber is worse. But, he argues, Christianity—especially Matthew 5–7—turns this basic "bigger is better" attitude on its head, and makes humility and weakness virtues. In this way, it is a "slave morality." It is an ideology that seeks to subordinate the strong to the weak through taking over their minds and morals. This is opposed to the "noble" or aristocratic morality of bigger is better.

However, Nietzsche turns about and says that God is dead; it is now impossible (or so he says) for any educated European to believe in God in the same way that medievals and early moderns did. This opens up the freedom of the "bigger is better" party to take over again. Definition of morals, thus, becomes a matter of self-definition, a matter of pure will. In this way, Nietzsche goes further than his intellectual forebear, Hobbes. Hobbes might have been an ethical egoist, but he always assumed that a person would aim at things that were self-evidently good, such as food, clothing, children, and so forth. Nietzsche asserts the right of the noble person to choose what he likes; there is no universal good or evil. He is free to choose; he has moved beyond good and evil.

In the face of this very complex and compelling philosophy, it is difficult to see how secular humanists can get to where they do. The idea of a universal morality is pretty much foreclosed by Nietzsche's arguments. One would think that the modernist project would have died within a few months of Beyond Good and Evil's publication. But it didn't—and the New Atheists, e.g., Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens, among others—continue the project. It's unclear to me why, or why they aren't asked some serious, and ultimately unanswerable, questions.

When presented with the Nietzschean objections (or its blander cousin, existentialism) the New Atheists are stuck asserting something that looks a lot like natural law. At base, they all believe in morality. Especially Hitchens believes in a universal morality applicable to all people. They are not relativists per se. But where does this morality come from? Is it a bald assertion? Is it a universal aspect of reason—a sort of Kantian construct? Dawkins might assert that it comes from evolution. But then he's simply asserting that what is moral is what best fulfills the natural desires of human beings. At that point, he sounds more like Aristotle than anything else. Dennett, on the other hand, is stuck simply asserting "humanist" values, whatever those might be. To the extent they are anything, they seem to be simply asserted, rather than any known quantity.

So, ultimately, Beyond Good and Evil raises a lot more questions than it answers. I think that it acts as a fairly comprehensive demolition of most types of rationalism, and most types of Fundamentalist Christianity—and even punches some good holes in Reformation Christianity, especially Calvinism. But Nietzsche leaves open Patristics and 20th century theories of language as avenues forward in the face of his theories. Only time will tell.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 11, 2010 Tcorey2000 rated it 5 of 5 stars

Some consider this the best distillation of Nietzsche's philosophy in his mature, late period. I would definitely agree, although it is dense reading. However, readers who approach these essays and epigrams with very close attention will discover much that is unexpected, especially if you already think you know everything about the Nietzschean universe. Like a fantastically complex sculpture, one could approach this book from every direction and see a new side of Nietzsche's vision.

One of his m...more

1 like · like · see review

Sep 26, 2009 Matteen rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Recently read "The Birth of Tragedy", "The Geneology of Morals" and "Beyond Good and Evil". The first two were not so enjoyable as the third one. "Beyond Good and Evil" translated by Walter Kaufman is well translated and the footnotes are very helpful especially for a non-student of Nietzsche.
While reading the passage in section 19 on "Will": Nietzsche has presented 'Will' as a physiological phenomenon; as a biologist it suits my taste to think about 'Will' this way. It makes the stochastic natu...more Recently read "The Birth of Tragedy", "The Geneology of Morals" and "Beyond Good and Evil". The first two were not so enjoyable as the third one. "Beyond Good and Evil" translated by Walter Kaufman is well translated and the footnotes are very helpful especially for a non-student of Nietzsche.
While reading the passage in section 19 on "Will": Nietzsche has presented 'Will' as a physiological phenomenon; as a biologist it suits my taste to think about 'Will' this way. It makes the stochastic nature of will(ing) tangible. Also it makes inability to execute ones 'Will' a function of ones weakness and not as a quality of 'Will' itself. This makes sense both physiologically and sociologically. Also because it can be understood as physiological it becomes a continuous process rather than a thought that arises out of the mind in a static pre-will being or form of existence; such an existence is improbable. The stochastic and temporal nature of 'Will' also makes it easy to understand why the idea of 'Free Will' has eluded a concrete understanding and confused many.

Nietzsche appears to be against the 'rule of the majority' or Democracy, just like Aristotle. However, I have to reserve my final judgement on it till I have read his other works for it seems as much a possibly premature assessment as the assertion by some that he was an anti-semite; much to the contradiction Nietzsche seems to be all in praise for them and in a very convincing and constructive way.

On section 21: Self-contradictions are trivial limitations of language rather than true contradictions. Often such contradictions or paradoxes are a limitations of our understanding of the way things are and the way they are symbolized in language. The causa sui is also a contradiction in the same sense. What is excellent about this section is that it argues that causality should be understood as a convention set by ourselves. This is the existentialist Nietzsche.

Throughout my reading of Nietzsche I am reminded of one of our own Iqbal who presumably was influenced by Nietzsche. My reading of Iqbal gives me the impression of a Theosoph-er than a philosopher but I do see where he might have connected the critique of religion by Nietzsche to mean a praise for Islam. I have a few constructive ideas of Muslims reading Nietzsche or any other western philosopher for that matter. We, Muslims must understand and accept our constructive relationship with the rest of the world, rather than the opposing relationship of 'us and them'. There is no way we can isolate ourselves from the rest of the world, meaning mankind or environment. This may appear natural and obvious but not so to the Salafists who propose that 'the way' was already all determined and detailed during the life of the prophet of Islam. There are two objections to this idea. One very broad and one slightly narrower. The broad objection comes from the discussion on progress that I have yet to equip myself to be able to discuss. Meaning, I have a feeling that there is a lack of the idea of progress in the Salafist ideology but I cannot furnish a constructive and elegant counter argument for the reason that it is too obvious to a person of this day and age. The second is that Isolating ourselves from the rest of the world is fatalist. It is impossible in view of the expansion of contact and information exchange. There is a way to become part of the whole without losing faith or even identity. And to the contrary any attempt to isolate or insulate ourselves will be pretentious and fake. Any new innovation is going to affect everyone including us some of us positively some of us negatively. This discussion is incomplete without mention of the idea of universality of Knowledge. Knowledge, progress, Science, Mathematics do not belong to some one nation or religion. It developed over the millennia and crossed boundaries of faith and nationality as frequently as language and culture gains influence from a neighboring peoples. The vertical view of transmission of 'truth' as envisioned by orthodoxy is incomplete and lacks the pragmatic acceptability of influence or heritage of pre-existing faith and culture on any new idea. Cautiously so, but I do believe this applied to Islam as well.(less)

like · see review

Sep 23, 2009 Fiver rated it 1 of 5 stars

It is definitely a bad sign on my part that I give a one-star rating to one of the great works of Nietzsche. In doing so, I'm only trying to give my honest reaction to the book.
'Beyond Good and Evil' is currently the only work I've read by the famous philosopher, and I've got to admit to being a little baffled as to why it is so popular. Rather than build up particular arguments of philosophy and attempt to convince his reader of its details, Nietzsche seems content to merely gain-say everybody...more

3 likes · like · see review

Aug 26, 2009 White rated it 5 of 5 stars

I used to be a skeptic about Nietzsche's writing. How can you not be a skeptic about history's greatest skeptic? In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche takes away everthing from not only our ordered consciousness, but our sentient-ness as well. Certainly morality has no foundation either. It is all just man's invention of how to think that has no substance or definition. It is all concocted by our own. By the time he is through, there is nothing left of existence, not even Decartes "I think, therefo...more

like · see review

Sep 28, 2011 Aurochz rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, favorites, existentialism-phenomenology, nietzsche

I read this once before, way back when I first got into philosophy. It is amazing how much my understanding and views have changed and yet, I still think of this as a literary and philosophical masterpiece.

Nietzsche in my eyes is both the king of aphorisms and wit. I don't usually praise prose or style in my reviews, but honestly his insights and views of other philosophers even when I disagree with him, make me laugh. His sentence and aphorism construction are just great, hes the type of autho...more I read this once before, way back when I first got into philosophy. It is amazing how much my understanding and views have changed and yet, I still think of this as a literary and philosophical masterpiece.

Nietzsche in my eyes is both the king of aphorisms and wit. I don't usually praise prose or style in my reviews, but honestly his insights and views of other philosophers even when I disagree with him, make me laugh. His sentence and aphorism construction are just great, hes the type of author that makes me want to learn more just so I can know the full depth of his jokes against others here. His personal introduction to the book is a particular highlight. His humor and turn of phrases in those few pages are just pure genius. Woman is truth and philosophers have always been awkward with women! Socrates made Plato ugly! One can find many great lines in this short section that continuously make me laugh and think.

The books basic points behind the humor, is that are conception of morality no matter what route we have taken in western philosophy has been too much inclined towards preset christian values. He has a basic disdain for ideas that automatically assume their premises without further argumentation. An example would be moralists who always equate being bad with being unhappy or unintelligent. There may be no such connection and people to this day still make similar arguments without justification. He also in many ways lays out his general perspective view of knowledge as set against eternal truths. Both come together for him to attack the basic assumption of a duality between good and evil, which Nietzsche thinks is based on a more primal underlying dichotomy stemming from power and resentment or in his words master and slave. He believes that most moral systems in the past have been tainted by this underlying slave morality inherent in the thoughts of Plato and Christianity. Though in this book he seems to focus his arguments more against Christianity and modern philosophy.

I agree to some extent with his views, but also have some severe reservations. I think perspective can be useful when put in a broader framework, but when consider on its own merits, doesn't seem to adequately fit reality. His criticisms of morality are good, but his conclusions on their genealogy and purpose have always seemed a bit of stretch for me. I think his argument against a center of gravity, which he comments upon here and in other works more thoroughly, comes to destroy too many of his own positive arguments. Most knowingly his pleas for life affirmation through reason, as he has no basis in which to make them. The argument was too big for him to handle in this book, his other works and becomes a persistent problem in later continental philosophy. Philosophers such as Heidegger and especially Derrida taking up the charge of this argument to it's fullest extent.

The books biggest flaw is his wishy washy view on sexism. I know for sure that he wasn't an anti-Semite, but I cant honestly be sure about anything regarding his view of women. I think anyone who knows anything about his life though knows, his harshest quotes came right after his "break up" with Lou Salome, was someone bitter much? As Walter Kaufmann's introduction says though and how Derrida, Kathleen Higgins and her husband Robert Solomon have also had a more benign interpretation of this aspect of Nietzsche's works. Derrida claiming that women are far more important to Neitzsche's philosophy then men, he does make the them his ideal version of truth at the start of this book. The before mentioned married professors, often also said that his "sexism" is usually turn of phrases or simply due to the times, I'm not so sure about this interpretation. Kaufmann at the start of this book says Nietzsche knew and supported at least one contemporary feminist at the time, how true that is I don't know. I know for certain that barring Derrida's interpretations, nothing has made me think his more sexist aphorisms are anything other than just that and it does hurt my ability to enjoy this and celebrate it fully.

Not my favorite of his works, but with the massive caveat above aside, I still love this book and his writing style. One needs no Nietzsche "faculty" to fully enjoy, but one might need a philosophical "faculty" to enjoy it. I recommend it to those with an intermediate level of knowledge of philosophy and Christianity.

(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 26, 2012 Skyler rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: e-books

I saw many negative reviews for this work, most of which reflected something similar to "Nietzche is stupid" or "Sexists pig!" or, alas, even "This was too much to handle and therefore it sucks." So, seeing this incredibly biased, instantaneous hardening towards the subject, I felt the need the comment.

First of all, if the only thing one can say after reading a philosophical treatise is "That is entirely stupid," then one clearly isn't meant for the realm of philosophy, at least at this point in

...more

I saw many negative reviews for this work, most of which reflected something similar to "Nietzche is stupid" or "Sexists pig!" or, alas, even "This was too much to handle and therefore it sucks." So, seeing this incredibly biased, instantaneous hardening towards the subject, I felt the need the comment.

First of all, if the only thing one can say after reading a philosophical treatise is "That is entirely stupid," then one clearly isn't meant for the realm of philosophy, at least at this point in one's life, and should altogether avoid any further exploration of philosophical matters until one learns how to think critically, synthesize large chunks of information, and incorporate seemingly loosely connected thoughts together in one solid chain to properly assess the argument presented. Philosophical treatises weren't written for eighth graders; therefore, if you can't comprehend a collegiate level work, then wait until you have the skills to read it before you criticize it.

Second of all, in critiquing a philosophical work, one should possess the courtesy and intelligence to appreciate whatever argument the author has proposed, even if one does not agree with it. This is what it means to be a philosopher: to be able to understand, grasp, manipulate, and refute arguments in a manner that both engages the proposed argument as well as offers new insight into the subject of the proposed argument. Philosophy isn't about seeing who can "dish out" the best ad hoc arguments; it's about reaching a deeper understanding. And how can we reach that understanding if we can't even appreciate what someone is saying when it conflicts with our own beliefs? So, if one can't handle someone plainly disagreeing with one's thoughts and then explaining why, then one, above all else, is the worst thinking being to bear the distinction of humanity.

Finally, given the age of Nietzsche's work, one must also consider the time period and what could've happened to influence Nietzsche. Obviously, his thinking is far from the norm; most people don't challenge everything they've ever been told (though it is a healthy and liberating practice). Before one condemns Nietzsche and, by extension, his work to the sordid abyss of "sexist pigs" or "haughty fools," one needs to consider the beliefs reflected of the time period. Also, one must realize that when Nietzsche launches his "questionable" paragraphs, he is actually deriding society as a whole.

Now that my defense and clarification of philosophy and what it means to critique philosophy is finished, I shall provide a brief review of the actual work. I thought the work was very thought-provoking. Nietzsche has several "one-liners" throughout the treatise and displays his literary talents as well as his sharp insights into human workings. In fact, I think his criticisms are so marked that they would make outstanding novels. Too bad Nietzsche didn't transpose any of his philosophical musings to novels or short stories (like, say, Sartre). Nietzsche provides a very thorough and sometimes (though to the dismay of some) quite lengthy explanation of his ideas. Yes, Nietzsche vehemently attacks some of the most "sacred" beliefs of civilization, but I think that makes him all the more respectable.

If you like reading intriguing and profound philosophical works, then Beyond Good and Evil will be a classic.

(less)

1 like · like · see review

title link	preview: Beyond Good and Evil
avg rating	preview: Beyond Good and Evil Goodreads rating: 3.98 (20629 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12321.Beyond_Good_and_Evil?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1309203616l/12321.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12321.Beyond_Good_and_Evil?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche[/url]

Beyond Good and Evil

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (235)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Friedrich Nietzsche

Books by Friedrich Nietzsche

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Beyond Good and Evil

Quotes from Beyond Good and Evil