What do you think?
Rate this book
What Nietzsche Really Said
What Nietzsche Really Said gives us a lucid overview -- both informative and entertaining -- of perhaps the most widely read and least understood philosopher in history.
Friedrich Nietzsche's aggressive independence, flamboyance, sarcasm, and celebration of strength have struck responsive chords in contemporary culture. More people than ever are reading and discussing his writings. But Nietzsche's ideas are often overshadowed by the myths and rumors that surround his sex life, his politics, and his sanity. In this lively and comprehensive analysis, Nietzsche scholars Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins get to the heart of Nietzsche's philosophy, from his ideas on "the will to power" to his attack on religion and morality and his infamous Übermensch (superman).
What Nietzsche Really Said offers both guidelines and insights for reading and understanding this controversial thinker. Written with sophistication and wit, this book provides an excellent summary of the life and work of one of history's most provocative philosophers.
Friedrich Nietzsche's aggressive independence, flamboyance, sarcasm, and celebration of strength have struck responsive chords in contemporary culture. More people than ever are reading and discussing his writings. But Nietzsche's ideas are often overshadowed by the myths and rumors that surround his sex life, his politics, and his sanity. In this lively and comprehensive analysis, Nietzsche scholars Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins get to the heart of Nietzsche's philosophy, from his ideas on "the will to power" to his attack on religion and morality and his infamous Übermensch (superman).
What Nietzsche Really Said offers both guidelines and insights for reading and understanding this controversial thinker. Written with sophistication and wit, this book provides an excellent summary of the life and work of one of history's most provocative philosophers.
263 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
61 people are currently reading
750 people want to read
About the author
Robert C. Solomon
124 books172 followersRobert C. Solomon (September 14, 1942 – January 2, 2007) was a professor of continental philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.
Early life
Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).
He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.
Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"
Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
Early life
Solomon was born in Detroit, Michigan. His father was a lawyer, and his mother an artist. After earning a B.A. (1963) at the University of Pennsylvania, he moved to the University of Michigan to study medicine, switching to philosophy for an M.A. (1965) and Ph.D. (1967).
He held several teaching positions at such schools as Princeton University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and the University of Pittsburgh. From 1972 until his death, except for two years at the University of California at Riverside in the mid-1980s, he taught at University of Texas at Austin, serving as Quincy Lee Centennial Professor of Philosophy and Business. He was a member of the University of Texas Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Solomon was also a member of the inaugural class of Academic Advisors at the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics.
His interests were in 19th-century German philosophy--especially Hegel and Nietzsche--and 20th-century Continental philosophy--especially Sartre and phenomenology, as well as ethics and the philosophy of emotions. Solomon published more than 40 books on philosophy, and was also a published songwriter. He made a cameo appearance in Richard Linklater's film Waking Life (2001), where he discussed the continuing relevance of existentialism in a postmodern world. He developed a cognitivist theory of the emotions, according to which emotions, like beliefs, were susceptible to rational appraisal and revision. Solomon was particularly interested in the idea of "love," arguing against the notion that romantic love is an inherent state of being, and maintaining, instead, that it is instead a construct of Western culture, popularized and propagated in such a way that it has achieved the status of a universal in the eyes of many. Love for Solomon is not a universal, static quality, but an emotion, subject to the same vicissitudes as other emotions like anger or sadness.
Solomon received numerous teaching awards at the University of Texas at Austin, and was a frequent lecturer in the highly regarded Plan II Honors Program. Solomon was known for his lectures on Nietzsche and other Existentialist philosophers. Solomon described in one lecture a very personal experience he had while a medical student at the University of Michigan. He recounted how he stumbled as if by chance into a crowded lecture hall. He was rather unhappy in his medical studies at the time, and was perhaps seeking something different that day. He got precisely that. The professor, Frithjof Bergmann, was lecturing that day on something that Solomon had not yet been acquainted with. The professor spoke of how Nietzsche's idea asks the fundamental question: "If given the opportunity to live your life over and over again ad infinitum, forced to go through all of the pain and the grief of existence, would you be overcome with despair? Or would you fall to your knees in gratitude?"
Solomon died on January 2, 2007 at Zurich airport. His wife, philosopher Kathleen Higgins, with whom he co-authored several of his books, is Professor of Philosophy at University of Texas at Austin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews
August 19, 2015
Solomon and Higgins’ book is a breezy little jaunt, which if you’re like me, may be contrary to the expectations you had when you first picked it up. It’s a breezy, jaunty book on Nietzsche… that philosopher known so well for his famous lightness. It’s okay, the task is performed in a genial, upbeat manner: The debunking of malicious Nietzsche myths! And -- philosophical clarification! -- and -- RELEVANCE TO MODERN TIMES -- which it does in an actually pretty fine manner. It’s good, it’s fine.
Here’s how it’s laid out:
Introduction: “How to Philosophize with a Hammer”
1. Rumors: Wine, Women, and Wagner
2. Faced with a Book by Nietzsche
3. Nietzsche said, “God is Dead"
4. Nietzsche’s War on Morality
5. Nietzsche's Ad Hominem (Nietzsche’s “Top Ten”)
6. Nietzsche’s Virtues
7. Nietzsche’s Affirmative Philosophy
Conclusion: Nietzsche’s Opening of the Modern Mind
Nietzsche’s Bestiary: A Glossary of His Favorite Images
1. Presents evidence for and against 30 rumors about Nietzsche, such as (almost at random : Rumor #6: Nietzsche Was a Fascist, or Rumor #1: Nietzsche Was Crazy, or Rumor #26: Nietzsche Argued Fallaciously.) Some are confirmed, such as Rumor #22: Nietzsche Was a Relativist or some are debunked, such as Rumor #18: Nietzsche Condones Cruelty.
2. Is a very useful chapter, as it presents the reader with notes about Nietzsche’s writing style, his tone(s), what experience to expect when approaching reading Nietzsche, and then it gives a chronological summary and analysis in-brief of his entire oeuvre, the beginning and development of his philosophy as it is related through each book. This is reason enough to keep the book around on the shelves after you’re done reading it.
3. (Rhymes nicely) Chats about Nietzsche’s thoughts on God’s death and his antagonistic relationship to Christianity, and concepts of freedom, history, revenge and spirituality in the post-God’s death universe.
4. Moral Relativism and Perspectivism, their concepts and consequences. "Does this mean that if I feel like eating a human face I should just go ahead and eat a human face ‘cause fuck it?" Fortunately, no, it does not mean this.
5. Oh this was a good one. This chapter consists of lists of “Nietzsche’s Top Ten” Best and Worst human beings (or mythological/divine entities) and gives a little analysis of each one.
6. Nietzsche as a moralist. Gives examples of characteristics he finds to be virtuous among human beings, such as (almost randomly), Aestheticism, Solitude, Style, Exuberance, amor fati, Justice, Egoism, etc. there are 23 of these and their relevance and understanding within Nietzsche’s philosophy is explored briefly.
7. Argues that through his ideas of amor fati, Eternal Recurrence, his encouragement of the enjoyment and acceptance of life’s pendulous swings between beauty and terror, his morality, his call to a more creative fulfillment of the individual destiny, Nietzsche is in fact an affirmative, and not a purely (as is often assumed) destructive philosopher.
The Conclusion positions Nietzsche as one of the first and perhaps the definitive example of the emergence of the modern consciousness. It wraps things up nicely, talks about his influence on these troubled modern times (the year 2000 of course) where philosophy seems more and more like that New Horizons probe quickly gettin' its way on out of this solar system, farther and farther off past that last dwarf planet out there shining with its sister moon like some pair of eyes in the dark, still receding, until it won't be a signal anymore and it won't even be something people think about much less talk about as relevant to human experience, it's all the way out there now and still going going... and then there’s this fun glossary at the end that kind of breezily or you might say jauntily goes through some of Nietzsche’s key and recurring imagery and gives a relevant definition/summary of each, a few examples, pretty much at random, wandering, poison, herd, overflow, Blessed Isles, decadence, child, dog, eagle, spider, worm, bread, distance, weight, times of day, ugliness, disinterestedness, dragon…
~~
Here’s how it’s laid out:
Introduction: “How to Philosophize with a Hammer”
1. Rumors: Wine, Women, and Wagner
2. Faced with a Book by Nietzsche
3. Nietzsche said, “God is Dead"
4. Nietzsche’s War on Morality
5. Nietzsche's Ad Hominem (Nietzsche’s “Top Ten”)
6. Nietzsche’s Virtues
7. Nietzsche’s Affirmative Philosophy
Conclusion: Nietzsche’s Opening of the Modern Mind
Nietzsche’s Bestiary: A Glossary of His Favorite Images
1. Presents evidence for and against 30 rumors about Nietzsche, such as (almost at random : Rumor #6: Nietzsche Was a Fascist, or Rumor #1: Nietzsche Was Crazy, or Rumor #26: Nietzsche Argued Fallaciously.) Some are confirmed, such as Rumor #22: Nietzsche Was a Relativist or some are debunked, such as Rumor #18: Nietzsche Condones Cruelty.
2. Is a very useful chapter, as it presents the reader with notes about Nietzsche’s writing style, his tone(s), what experience to expect when approaching reading Nietzsche, and then it gives a chronological summary and analysis in-brief of his entire oeuvre, the beginning and development of his philosophy as it is related through each book. This is reason enough to keep the book around on the shelves after you’re done reading it.
3. (Rhymes nicely) Chats about Nietzsche’s thoughts on God’s death and his antagonistic relationship to Christianity, and concepts of freedom, history, revenge and spirituality in the post-God’s death universe.
4. Moral Relativism and Perspectivism, their concepts and consequences. "Does this mean that if I feel like eating a human face I should just go ahead and eat a human face ‘cause fuck it?" Fortunately, no, it does not mean this.
5. Oh this was a good one. This chapter consists of lists of “Nietzsche’s Top Ten” Best and Worst human beings (or mythological/divine entities) and gives a little analysis of each one.
The BEST:
Socrates
Zarathustra
Spinoza
Goethe
Wagner
Kant
Schopenhauer
Dostoevsky
Emerson
Homer
Jesus
Shakespeare
Sophocles
The BEST (RUNNER’S-UP)
Apollo
Dionysus
Luther
Heine
Thucydides
Darwin
The WORST
Socrates
Plato
Saint Paul
Wagner
Kant
Schopenhauer
Descartes
Luther
Mill
Carlyle
Euripides
The WORST (RUNNER’S-UP)
Hegel
Darwin
God
6. Nietzsche as a moralist. Gives examples of characteristics he finds to be virtuous among human beings, such as (almost randomly), Aestheticism, Solitude, Style, Exuberance, amor fati, Justice, Egoism, etc. there are 23 of these and their relevance and understanding within Nietzsche’s philosophy is explored briefly.
7. Argues that through his ideas of amor fati, Eternal Recurrence, his encouragement of the enjoyment and acceptance of life’s pendulous swings between beauty and terror, his morality, his call to a more creative fulfillment of the individual destiny, Nietzsche is in fact an affirmative, and not a purely (as is often assumed) destructive philosopher.
The Conclusion positions Nietzsche as one of the first and perhaps the definitive example of the emergence of the modern consciousness. It wraps things up nicely, talks about his influence on these troubled modern times (the year 2000 of course) where philosophy seems more and more like that New Horizons probe quickly gettin' its way on out of this solar system, farther and farther off past that last dwarf planet out there shining with its sister moon like some pair of eyes in the dark, still receding, until it won't be a signal anymore and it won't even be something people think about much less talk about as relevant to human experience, it's all the way out there now and still going going... and then there’s this fun glossary at the end that kind of breezily or you might say jauntily goes through some of Nietzsche’s key and recurring imagery and gives a relevant definition/summary of each, a few examples, pretty much at random, wandering, poison, herd, overflow, Blessed Isles, decadence, child, dog, eagle, spider, worm, bread, distance, weight, times of day, ugliness, disinterestedness, dragon…
~~
September 28, 2011
I listened to modest mouse and a dozen hours of Nietzsche lectures by these two exclusively while driving on southern highways from atl to new orleans, nola to houston. It was sunny and I drove too fast and wore gas station aviators. It was marvelous. The book is good too.
May 11, 2022
Struggle to decide if I wanted to give this 3 or 4 stars. On one hand, it really is a book for beginners, and it's hard to really say it has much independent philosophical value. Some introductory books manage to have serious interpretive insight, but this really does seem to be limited fairly narrowly to clarifying some of Nietzsche's more misunderstood bits. I decided on 4 simply because of the amount of help it offered me. Nietzsche is really not a particularly complicated philosopher, but his manner of writing can be strange to get into. For him, the aesthetic of the presentation is itself an element of his philosophizing, and he wants to bring you into a certain mindset while you're reading him. If and when you click with that mindset, it's an amazing experience whereby you gain intimate knowledge not of "Nietzsche's system" like you might with other philosophers, but a real sense of the way of life being argued for. Before it clicks, however, it's easy for Nietzsche's aesthetic presentation to lock you *out* of his mindset, and it can become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy where being out of his mindset prevents you from getting into his mindset. By simply laying out what Nietzsche is getting at in the most basic terms, although not so basic as to deprive Nietzsche of any unique insight, Solomon and Higgens provide a fantastic service in overcoming that potential barrier. The real key here is that, unlike most introductory books, this really is intended to help you read the philosopher, rather than being a replacement for reading him. That's what makes it hard to give this book a higher rating for its independent philosophical value, but... it's simply not trying to be an independent work of philosophy, so that's hardly a fair standard to hold it to! In truth, I wish more intro books took this approach: God knows someone like Marx (or William James, for that matter) needs it! Highly recommend companion reading for anyone stepping into Nietzsche's world for the first time.
November 8, 2015
Mind you that this book was published fifteen years ago, and Nietzsche scholarship has taken strides even since then, but nevertheless, Solomon and Higgens set out in "What Nietzsche Really Said" to provide a cursory and light-spirited account of Nietzsche's core doctrines, and also set out to dispell longstanding misunderstandings about Nietzsche.
It is hard to fault the authors too much, especially when the publishing company probably contacted them to do a "What so and so Really Said" book on Nietzsche, as there are numerous others on different psychologists/philosophers published by the same company. Nevertheless, while I feel portions of the book were humorous and fun—like the chapter on Nietzsche's ad hominem attacks—most of the book it seemed was simply the authors' reinterpretation of Nietzsche's less than palatable doctrines, especially of his Master/Slave morality, of which our authors assure us that "much of what Nietzsche says is...not to be taken at face value" (28). Elsewhere, Nietzsche's exhortations to the 'philosophers of the future' is qualified by our authors, insisting that "despite what Nietzsche says elsewhere, [should be] the improvers of mankind" (212). As if Nietzsche actually would endorse the goal of philosophy to sacrifice itself for the sake of raising the entirety of mankind upwards equally. The idea is preposterous. Our authors do a good job at weaving through the nuances of Nietzsche's philosophy, only to abandon Nietzsche principles at the end of the book when they discuss Nietzsche's impact today, whence they soften many of his 'hard' doctrines.
In fine, I would say at parts this book was fun to read, albeit I didn't learn anything new about Nietzsche, and in fact feel like I know him better now that I see how others can so easily misrepresent him.
It is hard to fault the authors too much, especially when the publishing company probably contacted them to do a "What so and so Really Said" book on Nietzsche, as there are numerous others on different psychologists/philosophers published by the same company. Nevertheless, while I feel portions of the book were humorous and fun—like the chapter on Nietzsche's ad hominem attacks—most of the book it seemed was simply the authors' reinterpretation of Nietzsche's less than palatable doctrines, especially of his Master/Slave morality, of which our authors assure us that "much of what Nietzsche says is...not to be taken at face value" (28). Elsewhere, Nietzsche's exhortations to the 'philosophers of the future' is qualified by our authors, insisting that "despite what Nietzsche says elsewhere, [should be] the improvers of mankind" (212). As if Nietzsche actually would endorse the goal of philosophy to sacrifice itself for the sake of raising the entirety of mankind upwards equally. The idea is preposterous. Our authors do a good job at weaving through the nuances of Nietzsche's philosophy, only to abandon Nietzsche principles at the end of the book when they discuss Nietzsche's impact today, whence they soften many of his 'hard' doctrines.
In fine, I would say at parts this book was fun to read, albeit I didn't learn anything new about Nietzsche, and in fact feel like I know him better now that I see how others can so easily misrepresent him.
August 24, 2021
A good introduction to Nietzsche, albeit written by clear Nietzsche stans (the entire first chapter is devoted to defending the man against unflattering rumors). The writing is engaging and digestible, and the authors manage to make Nietzsche’s main ideas and styles clear and accessible for plebs like me. The book provides good context and clear presentation for his ideas and unorthodox philosophical style. I do wish they included more extracts from Nietzsche’s actual writings, as opposed to just the occasional quote included in this volume, but his works are public domain by now, so they’ll be easy enough to find online.
As for Nietzsche himself, I find his ideas interesting, though despite their enormous influence they remain subversive. Goes to show how strong the pressure of slave morality is, I guess. I definitely don’t agree with everything Nietzsche believes, for instance I don’t believe that so-called ‘slave morality’ is completely worthless or that ‘master morality’ is entirely better. Still, I definitely find his positivist ideas like amor fati (love of fate) to be refreshing and necessary, as someone who often feels the pull of nihilism. Nietzsche reminds us to love the world, to say yes to life, to live as if you’ll have to do it all the same a hundred thousand times over. I’m glad I had this primer before I try to go further into his work, as it will hopefully clarify my interpretation of his ideas. I especially like Nietzsche’s perspectivism, his view that every perspective has some truth to it, and I appreciate that the authors covered this so I know that when he contradicts himself he’s not just being a confusing idiot.
I’ve seen some criticism that this book tried to water down Nietzsche’s ideas to make them more palatable to a general audience, and that may be true, but I think the authors still did manage to convey how Nietzsche loves to go against the grain. One thing is for sure, though: however sad his personal life was (and it was pretty pathetic), however misogynistic and inegalitarian he was, whatever his legacy –– he was a beautiful writer, a genius, and one of the most influential philosophers of all time. (But seriously, don’t listen to his music.)
As for Nietzsche himself, I find his ideas interesting, though despite their enormous influence they remain subversive. Goes to show how strong the pressure of slave morality is, I guess. I definitely don’t agree with everything Nietzsche believes, for instance I don’t believe that so-called ‘slave morality’ is completely worthless or that ‘master morality’ is entirely better. Still, I definitely find his positivist ideas like amor fati (love of fate) to be refreshing and necessary, as someone who often feels the pull of nihilism. Nietzsche reminds us to love the world, to say yes to life, to live as if you’ll have to do it all the same a hundred thousand times over. I’m glad I had this primer before I try to go further into his work, as it will hopefully clarify my interpretation of his ideas. I especially like Nietzsche’s perspectivism, his view that every perspective has some truth to it, and I appreciate that the authors covered this so I know that when he contradicts himself he’s not just being a confusing idiot.
I’ve seen some criticism that this book tried to water down Nietzsche’s ideas to make them more palatable to a general audience, and that may be true, but I think the authors still did manage to convey how Nietzsche loves to go against the grain. One thing is for sure, though: however sad his personal life was (and it was pretty pathetic), however misogynistic and inegalitarian he was, whatever his legacy –– he was a beautiful writer, a genius, and one of the most influential philosophers of all time. (But seriously, don’t listen to his music.)
November 8, 2015
This book is an attempt to outline the main thrust of Nietzsche's philosophy. I think the authors succeed at certain points in highlighting what the famous philosopher was doing, but they also seemed to portray a much (what's the word?) "lighter" Nietzsche than the one I encounter in my reading of him. Solomon and Higgins attempt to present a FN in the tradition of Aristotelian virtue theory, and I think there are indeed promising discoveries in their attempt. Unlike the title of their book, however, there are many interpretations of what Nietzsche "really" said, and although there are some very important and noteworthy themes they seek to highlight, there are other ways of reading this author - and this accounts for the many varied interpretations of his corpus.
Still, I really like parts of the "virtue theorist" Nietzsche. On this reading, Nietzsche's main virtues consisted in amor fati (love of fate), eternal recurrence, affirmation of life, suspicion, courage, a gay (happy, playful, experimenting) science, master morality, health, love, solitude, and so much more. I don't care much for Nietzsche "scholarship" and the endless debates that rage on within academia. What interests me is how one ought to live, how to live a good life, a full life, a dangerous life - and this book is helpful in appropriating Nietzsche toward that end. There can be no doubt that Nietzsche cared deeply about how to live. Nietzsche made fun of the pompousness of academia, its stale intellectualism, its dry prose. Nietzsche wrote with his blood. Reading his books, in my opinion, shouldn't be about deciphering his ideas so we can discover the "real" Nietzsche. Nietzsche wanted to have a relationship with his reader. He wanted to challenge the reader, implicate her, expose her - so that she can live better, think better, exist better. This book rightly interprets Nietzsche in that light.
Still, I really like parts of the "virtue theorist" Nietzsche. On this reading, Nietzsche's main virtues consisted in amor fati (love of fate), eternal recurrence, affirmation of life, suspicion, courage, a gay (happy, playful, experimenting) science, master morality, health, love, solitude, and so much more. I don't care much for Nietzsche "scholarship" and the endless debates that rage on within academia. What interests me is how one ought to live, how to live a good life, a full life, a dangerous life - and this book is helpful in appropriating Nietzsche toward that end. There can be no doubt that Nietzsche cared deeply about how to live. Nietzsche made fun of the pompousness of academia, its stale intellectualism, its dry prose. Nietzsche wrote with his blood. Reading his books, in my opinion, shouldn't be about deciphering his ideas so we can discover the "real" Nietzsche. Nietzsche wanted to have a relationship with his reader. He wanted to challenge the reader, implicate her, expose her - so that she can live better, think better, exist better. This book rightly interprets Nietzsche in that light.
March 8, 2009
It means well, but list-like chapter structures and an overeagerness to downplay Nietszche's less palatable ideas make the whole thing pretty drab.
July 4, 2024
Wow. Excellent. Highly recommend. I am finding that, with Nietzsche, the secondary literature really helps me to frame and explore more for myself what exactly Nietzsche is saying.
November 30, 2014
What Nietzsche Really Said was essentially my first philosophy book, one of my first intellectual books period. It's interesting to go back to it after a philosophy course and many years of random reading and thinking. I don't really recall what impression the book had on me as a not-quite sophomore in High School, but it didn't necessarily hold up very well.
Higgins and Solomon come off very strongly as apologists. They are placating and deprecating about Nietzsche, almost embarrassed. They rarely seem enthusiastic and bold about his ideas, but instead are constantly trying to reassure moralists, Christians, objectivists, etc, that his critiques of their worldviews weren't as total, incisive, and convincing as his reputation makes them out to be.
One of their main arguments is that Nietzsche had no use for consistency or logical validity across his works. He opposed clear statements of his meaning and instead wanted to force readers to read between the lines and infer his intent through sarcasm, satire, and obfuscation. So, Higgins and Solomon conclude, pretty much anyone can interpret Nietzsche any way they want. They take the time to denounce certain interpretations because they are black marks on his reputation – his association with Hitler and selfish douchebags – but their reasoning in these cases is peurile, ignoring ways in which Nietzsche's philosophy could justify fascism only because “he would have hated it” or because he didn't say it explicitly.
I guess it's ultimately unclear to me how much the negative impression I got of Nietzsche here was accurate or an artifact of the underwhelming apologism of the authors. I've had such strong positive impressions of him for so long that it's kind of hard to believe this rather conservative perspective undermining his value. But on the other hand, the only way to prove them wrong is to actually read his works, and they're almost sure to be annoying and impenetrable and confusing and have a pretty good chance of proving Higgins and Solomon's intepretations correct (I, mean, they provided plenty of quotes to demonstrate at some of the things that seem stupid about him).
A lot of the things I thought of Nietzsche as pioneering are things he apparently did think – perspectivism (apologist-speak for relativism), the social construction of reality (kinda shaky, but basically he thought the idea of the world-in-itself was irrelevant at best, something we could never even know existed), atheism, the death of morality, etc. A lot of these are premises of what I think of as the post-modern worldview (Higgins and Solomon “debunk” the idea that Nietzsche was a postmodern precursor) but Nietzsche doesn't really seem to have taken these ideas anywhere interesting. A lot of the articles I've read lately criticizing the New Atheists contrast them to Nietzsche, who they imply took a long hard look at the consequences of unmooring morality.
But this doesn't seem to be the case; after explicitly critiquing the idea that morals could be systematized and calibrated to a supernatural foundation, Nietzsche eagerly jumps into his own elaborate “aesthetic” for morality. He had an awful lot of thoughts on the subject, to the extent that it seems to constitute most of his output. In Higgins and Solomon's mouths, it ends up coming across as glorified self-help lit, full of vague self-actualization (“Become who you are”) and attitude adjustments (Eternal Recurrence is nothing more than a thought experiment to assess how much you've accepted your lot). Higgins and Solomon pretend to be baffled at how someone could reasonably use Nietzsche's aesthetic morality (“Master Morality”) to justify selfish douchebaggery, but it seems pretty straightforward. Master Mentality reminds me a lot of “great men” “strong character” stuff I associate with like Teddy Roosevelt. It is a kind of dull, naïve, noble heroism that is undermined by slave morality's clever word games like “laws” and “morals.” He praises aesthetic, narrative outcomes over social well-being, making many explicit digs at English pragmatism (which you'd think shares a lot of his premises).
Master/Slave morality is expressed in his famous Ubermensch/Last Man contrast in Zarathustra. Zarathustra mocks his public for aspiring to happiness, comfort, and personal well-being over the aspiration to “greatness.” Nietzsche has essentially replaced Christian morality with a narrative and aesthetic morality, the morality of the propaganda video and the culture hero. As a relativist, I of course can't say a pragmatic morality has any more claim to validity than Nietzsche's, but his system is debunked by the sheer irony and self-consciousness and narrative awareness of true post-modernism, and it seems incredibly quaint and irrelevant now. And if that's most of what he has to offer, despite his formidable intelligence, prescience, and ground-breaking thought, I'm not sure there's much for me to gain in reading his works.
Higgins and Solomon come off very strongly as apologists. They are placating and deprecating about Nietzsche, almost embarrassed. They rarely seem enthusiastic and bold about his ideas, but instead are constantly trying to reassure moralists, Christians, objectivists, etc, that his critiques of their worldviews weren't as total, incisive, and convincing as his reputation makes them out to be.
One of their main arguments is that Nietzsche had no use for consistency or logical validity across his works. He opposed clear statements of his meaning and instead wanted to force readers to read between the lines and infer his intent through sarcasm, satire, and obfuscation. So, Higgins and Solomon conclude, pretty much anyone can interpret Nietzsche any way they want. They take the time to denounce certain interpretations because they are black marks on his reputation – his association with Hitler and selfish douchebags – but their reasoning in these cases is peurile, ignoring ways in which Nietzsche's philosophy could justify fascism only because “he would have hated it” or because he didn't say it explicitly.
I guess it's ultimately unclear to me how much the negative impression I got of Nietzsche here was accurate or an artifact of the underwhelming apologism of the authors. I've had such strong positive impressions of him for so long that it's kind of hard to believe this rather conservative perspective undermining his value. But on the other hand, the only way to prove them wrong is to actually read his works, and they're almost sure to be annoying and impenetrable and confusing and have a pretty good chance of proving Higgins and Solomon's intepretations correct (I, mean, they provided plenty of quotes to demonstrate at some of the things that seem stupid about him).
A lot of the things I thought of Nietzsche as pioneering are things he apparently did think – perspectivism (apologist-speak for relativism), the social construction of reality (kinda shaky, but basically he thought the idea of the world-in-itself was irrelevant at best, something we could never even know existed), atheism, the death of morality, etc. A lot of these are premises of what I think of as the post-modern worldview (Higgins and Solomon “debunk” the idea that Nietzsche was a postmodern precursor) but Nietzsche doesn't really seem to have taken these ideas anywhere interesting. A lot of the articles I've read lately criticizing the New Atheists contrast them to Nietzsche, who they imply took a long hard look at the consequences of unmooring morality.
But this doesn't seem to be the case; after explicitly critiquing the idea that morals could be systematized and calibrated to a supernatural foundation, Nietzsche eagerly jumps into his own elaborate “aesthetic” for morality. He had an awful lot of thoughts on the subject, to the extent that it seems to constitute most of his output. In Higgins and Solomon's mouths, it ends up coming across as glorified self-help lit, full of vague self-actualization (“Become who you are”) and attitude adjustments (Eternal Recurrence is nothing more than a thought experiment to assess how much you've accepted your lot). Higgins and Solomon pretend to be baffled at how someone could reasonably use Nietzsche's aesthetic morality (“Master Morality”) to justify selfish douchebaggery, but it seems pretty straightforward. Master Mentality reminds me a lot of “great men” “strong character” stuff I associate with like Teddy Roosevelt. It is a kind of dull, naïve, noble heroism that is undermined by slave morality's clever word games like “laws” and “morals.” He praises aesthetic, narrative outcomes over social well-being, making many explicit digs at English pragmatism (which you'd think shares a lot of his premises).
Master/Slave morality is expressed in his famous Ubermensch/Last Man contrast in Zarathustra. Zarathustra mocks his public for aspiring to happiness, comfort, and personal well-being over the aspiration to “greatness.” Nietzsche has essentially replaced Christian morality with a narrative and aesthetic morality, the morality of the propaganda video and the culture hero. As a relativist, I of course can't say a pragmatic morality has any more claim to validity than Nietzsche's, but his system is debunked by the sheer irony and self-consciousness and narrative awareness of true post-modernism, and it seems incredibly quaint and irrelevant now. And if that's most of what he has to offer, despite his formidable intelligence, prescience, and ground-breaking thought, I'm not sure there's much for me to gain in reading his works.
February 25, 2025
Honestly no clue why I decided to read an introduction to Nietzsche. I now know a bit more about him and his philosophy - what will I do with this information? Fuck knows, probably not much.
March 8, 2019
The authors do a good job demonstrating Nietzsche's enormous influence on modern thinking and the book is a great introduction to Nietzsche's philosophy. For example, I'm pretty sure that when most people talk about fulfilling their potential, they do not realize that they owe this idea to Nietzsche. As another example, most people understand today that it is often animal instincts and the subconscious which motivate people's actions, but how many realize that it is Nietzsche who popularized this notion after centuries of belief in pure human rationalism? And finally, contemporary belief in pluralism, in the validity of multiple value systems also originated with Nietzsche.
Despite his many great ideas, his celebration of life on earth, his deep understanding of human nature (and decrying of the hypocrisy of organized religions), I will never cease to be perplexed and even disgusted by his ideas on the so-called master race versus slave race and his description of goodness and kindness as slave race values. His adulation of the strong master race at the expense of the weaker slave race is just plainly immoral. Nietzsche believed that the strong master race would inevitably act nobly even without moral rules, which he despised. The entirety of human history has proven him wrong. The "Might is Right" philosophy has only brought untold misery and suffering to the world, because when people have too much power, they inevitably end up abusing it, contrary to Nietzsche's naive belief in the "nobility" of the strong and powerful. Power corrupts and there must be moral rules in place to protect the less powerful from abuse by the powerful. Even at the expense of limiting the unbridled expression of power potential by the powerful. Yes. End of story.
Despite his many great ideas, his celebration of life on earth, his deep understanding of human nature (and decrying of the hypocrisy of organized religions), I will never cease to be perplexed and even disgusted by his ideas on the so-called master race versus slave race and his description of goodness and kindness as slave race values. His adulation of the strong master race at the expense of the weaker slave race is just plainly immoral. Nietzsche believed that the strong master race would inevitably act nobly even without moral rules, which he despised. The entirety of human history has proven him wrong. The "Might is Right" philosophy has only brought untold misery and suffering to the world, because when people have too much power, they inevitably end up abusing it, contrary to Nietzsche's naive belief in the "nobility" of the strong and powerful. Power corrupts and there must be moral rules in place to protect the less powerful from abuse by the powerful. Even at the expense of limiting the unbridled expression of power potential by the powerful. Yes. End of story.
Read
November 20, 2022Much of the book is spent addressing common misconceptions surrounding Nietzsche, giving brief explanations of what each of his books is about, and what ideas he is known for--most of this felt unnecessary, but it would be useful for someone just wanting the basics of what kind of thinker Nietzsche was. The chapters on morality, Christianity, and the affirmation of life are good, though, and go more in depth. I've always been a fan of Solomon because he was a great teacher of philosophy--his books and the classes he did for The Great Courses are always super digestible and he was great at making connections between various thinkers and their ideas.
March 28, 2023
I tried reading Nietzsche, was baffled yet understood and gave up. This guy broke everything down simply. He addressed the rumors, summarized every book, explained all his concepts, gave top ten lists, talked about his influence good and bad (he was not a Nazi). He was encyclopediac and I'm glad he was. Now I can go back read and understand what the hell I was reading before. Highly recommend.
May 4, 2024
When they weren't busy talking about how amazing Nietzsche was and how funny and sarcastic and witty he was, the authors actually had some interesting things to say about Nietzsches philosophy, with the sources to back it up.
I just really wish it was they didn't spend half the book gushing over Nietzsche the man and, instead, focused on his work.
I just really wish it was they didn't spend half the book gushing over Nietzsche the man and, instead, focused on his work.
March 25, 2020
This book clarified most of what was said by Nietzsche himself. It also debunked a lot of charges against Nietzsche which continued even to this day of 21st century. People will believe what they want to believe. This book is well written, and mostly well thought out.
July 30, 2018
Good overview
May 12, 2020
Covid-19 reread
June 22, 2023
A little silly and arrogant
June 20, 2013
This was a summary of someone who was ponderous. It was probably much easier to read than the author's original works.
Somewhat early in this book, it is revealed that Nietzsche believed that language has a lot to do with what forms our beliefs about the world. The the fact that we are not allowed to have a sentence that is without "a subject" for its "predicate" -- we are set up to have a God/servant master/slave mentality. I was thinking similarly about languages and the Germans. Then I took a look at Austria via wikimedia and decided that language is irrelevant.
Towards the end of the book, according to the authors, Nietzsche thought that Jesus was one of the good guys and that Jesus is also the only Christian. I found this statement to be difficult to argue with.
I had to look up the words 'aphorism' and 'paradigm'. Aphorism is a logical statement. Paradigm is one of those words I hear but don't spell correctly and that I read and don't pronounce correctly. It is really good that I looked that word up. Neither of them made it into the google word cloud http://books.google.com/books?id=H_XH... .
I also read of a great German word 'sittlichkiet' which is a collection of inherited or even instinctual practices.
The book inspired me to look into reading one of Nietzsche's works. Also, having read the book, I now know where that new millenia Batman quote comes from.
Somewhat early in this book, it is revealed that Nietzsche believed that language has a lot to do with what forms our beliefs about the world. The the fact that we are not allowed to have a sentence that is without "a subject" for its "predicate" -- we are set up to have a God/servant master/slave mentality. I was thinking similarly about languages and the Germans. Then I took a look at Austria via wikimedia and decided that language is irrelevant.
Towards the end of the book, according to the authors, Nietzsche thought that Jesus was one of the good guys and that Jesus is also the only Christian. I found this statement to be difficult to argue with.
I had to look up the words 'aphorism' and 'paradigm'. Aphorism is a logical statement. Paradigm is one of those words I hear but don't spell correctly and that I read and don't pronounce correctly. It is really good that I looked that word up. Neither of them made it into the google word cloud http://books.google.com/books?id=H_XH... .
I also read of a great German word 'sittlichkiet' which is a collection of inherited or even instinctual practices.
The book inspired me to look into reading one of Nietzsche's works. Also, having read the book, I now know where that new millenia Batman quote comes from.
Read
May 18, 2020Having recommended this book recently, I thought I'd better re-read it. It's a fantastic introduction to Nietzsche's thought. It debunks myths and misconceptions, gives an overview of his works and main theories, and basically provides all that anyone coming to his philosophy for the first time can need - and more. Actually, it's a good read even for those familiar with his work. It also gives a balanced view - Nietzsche's somewhat misogynistic attitudes are not spared, and it provides a good basis for further criticism. Clearly and accessibly written, so ideal for any serious beginner, but especially recommended to anyone studying philosophy.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
Gareth Southwell is a philosopher, writer and illustrator.
July 31, 2012
I've tried to read Nietzsche and found that task a bit too much for me. This book gives a rather sympathetic overview of this very difficult philosopher's writings. The book is well suited for non-specialist readers with chapters organized around themes such as: debunking some of the common Nietzsche myths and rumors; how to read a book by Nietzsche; What Nietzsche meant by "God is dead."; Nietzsche's views on Morality; Nietzsche's top ten heros and targets (and why several people make both lists); and the affirmative, positive aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy. There is even a glossary of common images that Nietzsche employs in his writing. A great introduction.
June 4, 2013
Lots of good stuff in here, including a bestiary of Nietzsche's favorite metaphors and what they often signify. As the title suggests, this book is an attempt to correct misconceptions of Nietzsche's philosophy, often due to ambiguous wording from the philosopher himself. I am reading this after having finished about half of the Nietzsche corpus, and it really helped clarify some of the difficult passages that are best interpreted with some biographical background information.
November 20, 2013
A very friendly, accessible, and 'democratic' overview of Nietzsche.
I felt that, to some extent, he's been rounded off here, leveled and softened, sugar-coated almost; though that doesn't necessarily detract from the book. It's a fine little thing, it's well-written, original, fun, and lucid. What I appreciate most about it is that one can open it anywhere and begin reading. It's a book that manages to touch on all of Nietzsche's thought while being, at the same time, a relaxing read.
I felt that, to some extent, he's been rounded off here, leveled and softened, sugar-coated almost; though that doesn't necessarily detract from the book. It's a fine little thing, it's well-written, original, fun, and lucid. What I appreciate most about it is that one can open it anywhere and begin reading. It's a book that manages to touch on all of Nietzsche's thought while being, at the same time, a relaxing read.
November 4, 2009
I wasn't sure which way to take my interest in Nietzsche and this book helped to flesh out the basics of his ideas/writings. I've only read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Solomon's commentary on that book was extrememly helpful.
An excellent guide for anyone who has read either none or about one Nietzsche books.
An excellent guide for anyone who has read either none or about one Nietzsche books.
December 8, 2010
A pretty basic overview of Nietzsche's work.
Addresses rumors that are almost all misconceptions about him.
There was some interesting stuff about his top 10 people (Dostoevsky, Goethe)
and the people he thought were fools. (Plato, Kant, Paul)
Also it has some well-written summaries of all his books.
Addresses rumors that are almost all misconceptions about him.
There was some interesting stuff about his top 10 people (Dostoevsky, Goethe)
and the people he thought were fools. (Plato, Kant, Paul)
Also it has some well-written summaries of all his books.
January 12, 2013
This is a good book for someone who has not studied Nietzsche or has read only a small amount of his writing. It clarifies the common misunderstandings. For someone who is more versed in Nietzsche it can be a good overview due to the clarity and carefulness with which they present his ideas.
March 22, 2015
More or less a 'Nietzsche Clarification Book'. This is not an introduction, but instead a companion read.
First time readers getting into Nietzsche should look somewhere else -- this book will be more useful after that.
First time readers getting into Nietzsche should look somewhere else -- this book will be more useful after that.
February 11, 2016
My introduction to the gentleman
I found I liked his ideas and related to them far more than I expected to. Perhaps my thinking was formed in part by his writings as they moved forward in time. I thank the author for his help.
I found I liked his ideas and related to them far more than I expected to. Perhaps my thinking was formed in part by his writings as they moved forward in time. I thank the author for his help.
September 30, 2022
not bad. provides good info and citations. generally mainstream interpretations; nietzsche as a virtue ethicist is probably the book’s most unique idea (to me, at least). maybe a good book for a general introduction; not an essential read, by any means, otherwise.
April 24, 2009
Breaks down the man's thoughts pretty nicely, as well as addressing many misconceptions.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 41 reviews