Schopenhauer and Nietzsche

International Nietzsche Studies

by Georg Simmel

SIMMEL, SCHOPENHAUER AND NIETZSCHE [HARDBACK] . AMHERST, MA, 1986, lv 186 p. Encuadernacion original. Nuevo.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

186 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1907

About the author

Georg Simmel was a major German sociologist, philosopher, and critic.

Simmel was one of the first generation of German sociologists: his neo-Kantian approach laid the foundations for sociological antipositivism, asking 'What is society?' in a direct allusion to Kant's question 'What is nature?', presenting pioneering analyses of social individuality and fragmentation. For Simmel, culture referred to "the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history". Simmel discussed social and cultural phenomena in terms of "forms" and "contents" with a transient relationship; form becoming content, and vice versa, dependent on the context. In this sense he was a forerunner to structuralist styles of reasoning in the social sciences. With his work on the metropolis, Simmel was a precursor of urban sociology, symbolic interactionism and social network analysis. An acquaintance of Max Weber, Simmel wrote on the topic of personal character in a manner reminiscent of the sociological 'ideal type'. He broadly rejected academic standards, however, philosophically covering topics such as emotion and romantic love. Both Simmel and Weber's nonpositivist theory would inform the eclectic critical theory of the Frankfurt School.

Simmel's most famous works today are The Problems of the Philosophy of History (1892), The Philosophy of Money (1907), The Metropolis and Mental Life (1903), Soziologie (1908, inc. The Stranger, The Social Boundary, The Sociology of the Senses, The Sociology of Space, and On The Spatial Projections of Social Forms), and Fundamental Questions of Sociology (1917). He also wrote extensively on the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, as well on art, most notably his book Rembrandt: An Essay in the Philosophy of Art (1916).

Reviews

[Fernanda · Rating 2 out of 5]

Estoy entre darle dos o tres estrellas, creo que 2.5. La verdad es que he terminado con la cabeza embotada, no necesariamente porque no sea entendible, pero es total y absolutamente aburrido. En general disfruto mucho de la filosofía, especialmente de la shopenhaueriana y la nietzscheana, pero esta vez fue un completo suplicio leer el libro entero. Además de que me prometía una igualación de dogmas pero parece ser que el autor sólo tenía cosas que decir de Schopenhauer mientras que Nietzsche queda relegado a dos míseros capítulos, 40 hojas en total.

Es un buen libro para entender mejor a estos filósofos eso sí. La verdad es que lo que he leído de Schopenhauer es más de estilo de vida que de sentido de la vida, por eso no estaba muy consciente de sus ideas pesimistas y de su principio sobre la voluntad. Digamos que me abrió los ojos un poco más en lo que refiere a este filósofo, sin embargo creo que repetía mucho lo mismo, le daba mucha vuelta a las ideas y para expresar una idea muy simple hacía uso de párrafos redundantes. En fin, esa era la costumbre de entonces de llenar de flores la escritura, escrita más para la gente que ya sabe de que habla, que para aquellos que puedan estar empezando en estas filosofías. Sin duda es requisito tener una idea general de cada uno y haber leído algo de ellos.

No lo recomiendo para nadie que no sea super fan de Schopenhauer. Nietzsche queda demasiado relegado en este libro como para alguien que lo ame.

[Farshad · Rating 1 out of 5]

در قسمت معرفی نظریات نیچه بشدت ضعیف عملکرده است

[Dylan O'Brien · Rating 5 out of 5]

Simmel's engagement with and criticism of Schophenhauer and Nietzsche here is admirable. Although I have not read much secondary literature on Schopenhauer, I HAVE read piles of secondary literature on Nietzsche and this ranks right up there with Deleuze's classic "Nietzsche and Philosophy." Here, Simmel is primarily interested in how both thinkers' teachings can be applied to the problems of life as life is actually lived (yet without falling into shallow, narcissistic self-helpism). This makes for a refreshing approach, and I wish there was more secondary literature written in this style.

Simmel has some sharp criticism for Schopenhauer's rigid, dogmatic pessimism, yet acknowledges the beauty of Schopenhauer's system, which was built up from a variety of respectable sources of inspiration including but not limited to: the (Hindu) Upanishads, Plato, and Kant. The journey of Schopenhauer's philosophy is fantastic, but the destination is rotten. Schopenhauer makes some wonderful points which seem to imply the sublimity of life and the cosmos, yet ends up renouncing the will-to-live, and making out human life to be a lousy, contemptible thing.

Nietzsche, as Simmel highlights, attempted to affirm life, using Schopenhauer's tools towards a better conclusion. But he quickly got in over his head. Life is too chaotic, too intense, too tragic to affirm in any straightforward way. If Schopenhauer was a dogmatic pessimist, Nietzsche was a dogmatic optimist (see "The Gay Science"). Even if Nietzsche's philosophy takes some disturbing turns, those always occur in the context of his overarching project of affirmation.

I think Simmel's basic assessment of both thinkers is correct. He managed to capture the essence of both by playing their thought off of one another, as if they were in dialogue, arguing over the many problems in life. Ultimately, Simmel may have found a better answer to the problems grappled with by both previous thinkers. That answer is presented in "The View of Life," a deeply revelatory work which deserves far more respect and attention than it has received.

Unrelated: As others have wondered... What the heck is going on with that cover art?

[Saeed Sarraf]

یکی از بدترین ترجمه ها...

[James Henderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a study in contrasts between Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. As Nietzsche is often seen as one of the philosophers whom Schopenhauer influenced profoundly the discussion and contrast of their respective philosophical positions is useful.