What do you think?
Rate this book
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 24, 1889
اثری کوتاه و در عین حال فوق العاده قوی و غنی
نیچه در این اثر به بررسی دقیق و عمقی مفهوم بت ها و حقیقت می پردازد و مانور اصلی آن بر روی نمایش آسیب های وارد شده به نمای حقیقت، مشکلات مسیحیت و صدماتی که در طول قرن ها بر انسان ها و جوامع وارد کرده است، می باشد. نثر این اثر، همچون سایر آثار نیچه، نغر و زیباست و سرعت پیشروی متن نیز مناسب است.
نیچه با بررسی دوباره ارزش ها شروع می کند، و به دلایل نادرستی اکثر ارزش های مورد قبول جامعه و فرد می پردازد. سپس با نگاه ریزبین و دقیق خود به نابود کردن فلسفه های نادرست، از ابتدای تاریخ تا زمان خود می پردازد و راهکارهای پیشنهادی خود را ارائه می دهد. در این بین همچنان به بررسی مسأله اخلاق و ارزشهای اخلاقی می پردازد و دلایل این ارزش ها و ضدارزش ها را در طول تاریخ بررسی میکند و به نمایش اشتباهات بنیادی آنها می پردازد. او سپس به سراغ انسان های والاتبار و والامنش می رود و به نمایش نحوه زندگی آنها می پردازد. بعد از آن به سراغ مسیحیت رفته و به نمایش آثار مخرب آن در طول تاریخ می پردازد. در نهایت به سرآغاز این اثر بازمیگردد و مفهوم بت ها را بررسی نهایی کرده و به ارزش گذاری دوباره آنها می پردازد.
اثر واقعا خوب و قوی ای بود. سرشار از نقاط قوت و نکته های دقیق و ریزبینانه. تنها مشکلی که در این اثر مشاهده کردم، اشتباه علمی آن درباره اَتم و مفهوم آن بود، و به جز این مورد، هیچ ضعف دیگری نداشت.
ترجمه جناب داریوش آشوری کامل، دقیق و بدون نقص بود.
Whether we immoralists do virtue any harm? As little as anarchists do princes. Only since they have been shot at do they again sit firmly on their thrones.Some of them are thought-provoking, some are funny, some are offensive. Here's one that's at least two out of three.
"Bad men have no songs."- How is it the Russians have songs?Track 3, The Problem of Socrates- finally, a real song. On this track, Nietzsche tells us that Socrates was what he calls a declining type, i.e. decadent, i.e. "a symptom of decay, an agent of the dissolution of Greece", i.e. counter to life and to the kind of Dionysian artist that Nietzsche admires. What's Nietzsche's problem with Socrates? Well, he dislikes Socrates for having been so damn rational all the time, for having made a sort of religion out of rationality, and Nietzsche further suggests that anyone who does that must be repressing things that he doesn't want to acknowledge.
If one needs to make a tyrant of reason, as Socrates did, there must exist no little danger of something else playing the tyrant. The fanaticism with which the whole of Greek thought throws itself at rationality betrays a state of emergency...To have to combat one's instincts, Nietzsche says, is the formula for decadence. I was reminded naturally of Spock on Star Trek, who strictly repressed his own emotions and instincts, . Overall, a solid track with a catchy chorus that could easily be a radio single.
If one has grasped the blasphemousness of such a rebellion against life as has, in Christian morality, become virtually sacrosanct, one has [also grasped] the falsity of such a rebellion. For a condemnation of life by the living is after all no more than the symptom of a certain kind of life...of declining, debilitated, weary, condemned life.Thinking back to all those masses I sat through, the familiar rituals, was I part of nothing but an anti-nature cult of decadence? Were we all really worshipping Thanatos? I can't say the thought has never occurred to me, but- this is one of the tricky things about reading Nietzsche- maybe the reason it has occurred to me, at least in so many words, is due partly to the ubiquity of Nietzsche's thought in the modern world, which I probably absorbed as a kid even before I'd read him.
To vegetate on in cowardly dependence on physicians and medicaments after the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, ought to entail the profound contempt of society. Physicians, in their turn, ought to be the communicators of this contempt- not prescriptions, but every day a fresh dose of disgust with their patients...Does Trump need a new COVID spokesman? It would be good job security for Nietzsche too, because even if Biden and Harris win, they can just retain Nietzsche- they can have him say essentially the same things, just with a nicer tone, throw in some rhetorical bullshit about restoring the soul of America- and Nietzsche can provide ideological cover for why they'll never support universal healthcare.
I have already...characterized modern democracy...as the decaying form of the state. For institutions to exist there must exist the kind of will, instinct, imperative which is anti-liberal to the point of malice: the will to tradition, to authority, to centuries-long responsibility, to solidarity between succeeding generations backwards and forwards in infinitum.Didn't I read once that Nietzsche's Nazi bitch of a sister altered some of his writing years later in order to make it seem like he would have approved of the Nazis? Is it possible I got one of those copies?
The stupidity, fundamentally the instinct of degeneration which is the cause of every stupidity today, lies in the existence of a labor question at all. About certain things one does not ask questions: first imperative of instinct...So here's my question for Nietzsche, and I hope he answers me here on Goodreads. Your book, quite provocative and insightful at times, seems to be about how people worship arbitrary idols without even being conscious of it. But why then do you think your readers should have such reverence for the rule of "instinct"? Why should I have any respect at all for concepts like "tradition, authority and centuries-long responsibility"? And why do you, for that matter?