Beyond Good and Evil
- Downloads：9590
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-05-26 10:55:04
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Friedrich Nietzsche
- ISBN：0141395834
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
1。 The Will to Truth， which is to tempt us to many a hazardous enterprise， the famous Truthfulness of which all philosophers have hitherto spoken with respect， what questions has this Will to Truth not laid before us！ What strange， perplexing， questionable questions！ It is already a long story; yet it seems as if it were hardly commenced。 Is it any wonder if we at last grow distrustful， lose patience， and turn impatiently away？ That this Sphinx teaches us at last to ask questions ourselves？ WHO is it really that puts questions to us here？ WHAT really is this Will to Truth in us？ In fact we made a long halt at the question as to the origin of this Will - until at last we came to an absolute standstill before a yet more fundamental question。 We inquired about the VALUE of this Will。 Granted that we want the truth: WHY NOT RATHER untruth？ And uncertainty？ Even ignorance？ The problem of the value of truth presented itself before us - or was it we who presented ourselves before the problem？ Which of us is the Oedipus here？ Which the Sphinx？ It would seem to be a rendezvous of questions and notes of interrogation。 And could it be believed that it at last seems to us as if the problem had never been propounded before， as if we were the first to discern it， get a sight of it， and RISK RAISING it？ For there is risk in raising it， perhaps there is no greater risk。
Reviews
Jason Friedlander
，
the book isn’t long i just like to savor them for as long as i canas always， an enormous pleasure
Maria
，
A life-changing book。
Rawan
，
يرى نيتشه أن الأخلاق بحاجة إلى إعادة نظر وإلى إعادة تعريف للمنظومة الأخلاقية كاملة ،وبإمكاننا أن نجد عند نيتشه كل الأحكام و نقائضها في نفس الوقت ، وهذا ماأتاح لمعظم الأطراف الاختباء خلف منظومته ، "المؤمنون والملحدون ، المحافظون والثوريون ، متبنو النزعة الفردية والاشتراكيون ، الدوغمائيون وأحرار الفكر "فمن خلال تفنيده لأصول المبادئ الأخلاقية وإرادة القوة الكامنة فيها فهو يرى أن الإنسان حيوان ذكي ؛ والأهم أنه حيوان مريد ، فهو يُريد ، ومن أجل تحقيق ما يُريد يقوم بعقلنة وشرعنة إرادته。وطبقا لأطروحته يرى نيتشه أن الأخلاق بحاجة إلى إعادة نظر وإلى إعادة تعريف للمنظومة الأخلاقية كاملة ،وبإمكاننا أن نجد عند نيتشه كل الأحكام و نقائضها في نفس الوقت ، وهذا ماأتاح لمعظم الأطراف الاختباء خلف منظومته ، "المؤمنون والملحدون ، المحافظون والثوريون ، متبنو النزعة الفردية والاشتراكيون ، الدوغمائيون وأحرار الفكر "فمن خلال تفنيده لأصول المبادئ الأخلاقية وإرادة القوة الكامنة فيها فهو يرى أن الإنسان حيوان ذكي ؛ والأهم أنه حيوان مريد ، فهو يُريد ، ومن أجل تحقيق ما يُريد يقوم بعقلنة وشرعنة إرادته。وطبقا لأطروحته ، فإن الصراع بين البشر هو صراع إرادات قوى。 والأقوياء النبلاء هم مَن يحققون إراداتهم وأما الضعفاء فليس أمامهم سوى اختلاق مذاهب أخلاقية لهزيمة الأقوياء، وهكذا اختلقوا مشاعر سلبية يجب أن يتحلى بها كل أخلاقي؛ كالإيثار والشفقة والإحسان والزهد。。 وهذه حسب نيتشه عوائق تقف في وجه الإنسان القوي والنبيل 。。。more
Rab Heath
，
Hard going， not the medicine you probably want， but the medicine you need。
Kenna Day
，
I could listen to Nietzsche shit on Christianity all day， but， of boy， he didn't think much of women。 I could listen to Nietzsche shit on Christianity all day， but， of boy， he didn't think much of women。 。。。more
Malola
，
Good。。。 albeit pretentious。。。People who read him are as pretentious as he was。。。 or so it seems to me given some of the reviews I've read。 i） Any author who's not a complete idiot knows that the public makes the work "theirs"。 Intentio autoris v。 intentio lectoris。 So dumb interpretations are not necessarily "invalid"。ii） "Only the smart （like me） understand this"。。。 "If you don't agree with me， then you're an a$$hol3"。 （Thank you， Misha， for this。） Almost like when getting offered snake oil。Pre Good。。。 albeit pretentious。。。People who read him are as pretentious as he was。。。 or so it seems to me given some of the reviews I've read。 i） Any author who's not a complete idiot knows that the public makes the work "theirs"。 Intentio autoris v。 intentio lectoris。 So dumb interpretations are not necessarily "invalid"。ii） "Only the smart （like me） understand this"。。。 "If you don't agree with me， then you're an a$$hol3"。 （Thank you， Misha， for this。） Almost like when getting offered snake oil。Pretentious AF。。。 BUT I can't disagree with him。 Plus， in a great deal of irony， turning my back on him kind of reinforces his point。As with many other authors that criticise morality/ethics/moral philosophy， he gives ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATIONS AT ALL FOR HIS VIEW。 N-O-T-H-I-N-G。 With no decent moral ontology nor epistemology， he has NOTHING on his court but aprioristic and vacuous assumptions。 "Believe me， because my complaints make sense。" Yet what he creates is NO BETTER than what he criticises。 （That is， in the foundations。。。 or lack thereof。）So he's imaginative and prolific （I'll hand him that）。。。 but he's writing basically fiction。It's clear that he did understand （at least some of） the metaethical and metaphysical problems/issues， but given his non-existing foundations， he was either too lazy to acknowledgd them OR （my money on this one） he just didn't know how to solved them without having to agree with/concede points to those philosophers he was so critic about。 。。。more
Eric
，
Well worth a re-read alongside a comparative translation
Kennedy Snead
，
Ignoring the extreme sexism found in his writing， I found that his ramblings made it difficult to understand a lot of the points he was trying to lead the writer to。 He writes in such randomness that I feel like I'm jumping from one extreme to the next with each page。 Although I struggled with the last half of Beyond Good & Evil， I found the front half enjoyable and relevant to today。 I found his line "not faith but the freedom from faith" to be relevant to how society is running towards the fre Ignoring the extreme sexism found in his writing， I found that his ramblings made it difficult to understand a lot of the points he was trying to lead the writer to。 He writes in such randomness that I feel like I'm jumping from one extreme to the next with each page。 Although I struggled with the last half of Beyond Good & Evil， I found the front half enjoyable and relevant to today。 I found his line "not faith but the freedom from faith" to be relevant to how society is running towards the freedom from the burden and weight of religion。 His quirky wit and ahead of his time thoughts made it worth the read！ 。。。more
Tyler
，
Oh， Nietzsche， you brilliant dissector of the human spirit！One has so many pretentions that seem so vivid and justified prior to reading Nietzsche， but after the physicians unravelling of secrets we see what we truly are laid bare: desirous of power and haunted by envy。 Of course， this is if we accept Nietzsche's characterization of man as nothing more than an animal， something that I emphatically reject。 Nevertheless， I must confess that after reading Nietzche I am ever skeptical of my ambition Oh， Nietzsche， you brilliant dissector of the human spirit！One has so many pretentions that seem so vivid and justified prior to reading Nietzsche， but after the physicians unravelling of secrets we see what we truly are laid bare: desirous of power and haunted by envy。 Of course， this is if we accept Nietzsche's characterization of man as nothing more than an animal， something that I emphatically reject。 Nevertheless， I must confess that after reading Nietzche I am ever skeptical of my ambitions， and whether or not they are a mask for a more insidious aspiration。Is it the case that man is merely moved by his desire for power， and that all morality is merely a manifestation of such？ Could we not offer the same question to Nietzsche; is it not the case that his belief in the will to power is merely his lack of such in his own life？ Perhaps he doubts the actions of selfless men， because he himself has projected his own vulnerability。 Nietzsche does after all admit to himself that he is a great enigma which it is impossible to unearth。Well， allow us to say in the end that Nietzche is a great physician--perhaps the Great Physician， but a man that forgot to dissect his own weakness。 I find it difficult to believe， after having read of truly great men， that their actions were limited to 'acts of power'。 Even if they were acts of power in some qualified sense， they aspired for beyond themself， something beyond the perpetual cycle of Becoming towards Eternal Being。Plato's apt criticism of the Sophists seems apt here， he criticizes that the Sophists speak of 'Becoming' without ever giving the object of what they wish to Become。 Is it not the case that Nietzsche， in his vaunting of the Man of Becoming truly sought the Man Who Is？ What was it that Nietzsche sought to become？ Perhaps his disdain rested in the fact that he knew that Being was dead， as he so famously stated， was not his lapse into depression a product of this realization？ God is dead， he cried， and we killed him！ Who is the 'We' who killed him， if not men like Nietzsche who fell into irreparable mental illness？ Is it not you who killed him， Nietzsche？ Perhaps you loved suffering and becoming so much that you never saw the Peace Who Truly Is。 Alas， we may speculate about Nietzsche unendingly， for he is as much an enigma as any man。。。 。。。more
Ilana
，
Some books you read。 Some books you live and if you’re gifted like me， lots of people want to convince you you’re crazy。 Not working。 I’m only just starting to get reorganized。 They wanted to crush me？ Fine。
♡
，
this was a very interesting read。 it was the first philosophy book i’ve ever read so i’m sure some of it went over my head。 however， i found much of this book to be thought-provoking and intriguing。this book talks a lot about morality。 what is or isn’t moral？ and what is good and what is bad？ it is also a critique of organized religion， more specifically christianity， and how it can effect the way its followers view morality。 i basically glossed over the section that was just pure misogyny becau this was a very interesting read。 it was the first philosophy book i’ve ever read so i’m sure some of it went over my head。 however， i found much of this book to be thought-provoking and intriguing。this book talks a lot about morality。 what is or isn’t moral？ and what is good and what is bad？ it is also a critique of organized religion， more specifically christianity， and how it can effect the way its followers view morality。 i basically glossed over the section that was just pure misogyny because i didn’t want to hear it。 but， aside from that， i did find most of this book to be pretty fascinating。 some quotes that stood out to me while reading were: ”Happiness and virtue are no arguments。 It is willingly forgotten， however， even on the part of thoughtful minds， that to make unhappy and to make bad are just as little counter-arguments。””One should not go into churches if one wishes to breathe pure air。””"Knowledge for its own sake"—that is the last snare laid by morality: we are thereby completely entangled in morals once more。””Slave-morality is essentially the morality of utility。””Parents involuntarily make something like themselves out of their children—they call that "education"。。。””Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a lurking place， every word is also a mask。”3/5 stars。 。。。more
Miguel Rodríguez Gómez
，
Nietzsche es una mirada incómoda， hostil y a la vez sarcástica y jovial。 Es una bofetada que te vuelve la mirada hacia adentro y ataca con vehemencia muchas creencias fuertemente arraigadas， como es el concepto del yo， el alma， la voluntad， la unidad de la consciencia y la moral。 A la vez es filosofía de la sospecha y uno de los primeros pasos de la psicología。 ¿Por qué es la verdad más importante que la mentira？ ¿Acaso no mentimos constantemente， nos ocultamos tras máscaras constantemente y con Nietzsche es una mirada incómoda， hostil y a la vez sarcástica y jovial。 Es una bofetada que te vuelve la mirada hacia adentro y ataca con vehemencia muchas creencias fuertemente arraigadas， como es el concepto del yo， el alma， la voluntad， la unidad de la consciencia y la moral。 A la vez es filosofía de la sospecha y uno de los primeros pasos de la psicología。 ¿Por qué es la verdad más importante que la mentira？ ¿Acaso no mentimos constantemente， nos ocultamos tras máscaras constantemente y contamos ficciones que luego acabamos creyendo？ Nietzsche es un martillo con mucha fuerza， con el que critica la modernidad， la tranquilidad， las ideas democráticas y todo lo que “empeñezca” al ser humano。 Esboza el método genealógico que tanto peso tendrá en La genealogía de la moral y que será retomado por muchxs autorxs a partir de él。 Es pionero en situar como problema filosófico a los valores （¿qué son y de dónde salen， cuáles son sus mil maneras de enmascararse？） y busca aquellos que fomenten la vida。 También es， desgraciadamente， un libro cargado de misoginia， y respecto a “la mujer” cae en esencialismos y antítesis que él mismo critica al principio del libro。 En definitiva， leer a Nietzsche es estimulante e incómodo， y es precisamente por ello que le doy valor。 Es una lectura a la que volveré （de nuevo）， y ahora quiero continuar con más textos suyos。 。。。more
Lucio Mellace
，
Beyond Good and Evil has some famous thoughts and notions attributed to Nietzsche such as （paraphrasing:） look out for when you fight with monsters and the famous part looking into the abyss。 There is also the other quote: man fear being understood。I enjoyed this book， it was thought provoking especially his opinions of will to power and suffering towards the end of the book。 This will definitely be re read。
Foster Garcia
，
angee german man
Serg
，
His masterpiece but also an anomaly。 Never was Nietzsche so hateful， so pessimistic， so destructive as here。 His three prior major works， Human All-too Human， The Dawn， and The Gay Science， still had their light， still had some sense of good-naturedness （especially The Dawn， no book more perfectly titled）。 Beyond Good and Evil is pure darkness。 Even The Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist despite their rancor and menace， have glimmers of good cheer。 There is none of that in this。So this is His masterpiece but also an anomaly。 Never was Nietzsche so hateful， so pessimistic， so destructive as here。 His three prior major works， Human All-too Human， The Dawn， and The Gay Science， still had their light， still had some sense of good-naturedness （especially The Dawn， no book more perfectly titled）。 Beyond Good and Evil is pure darkness。 Even The Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist despite their rancor and menace， have glimmers of good cheer。 There is none of that in this。So this is a significant anomaly。 For his most renowned masterpiece to be so devoid of one of his highest values （cheerfulness）， really distorts the public's image of Nietzsche。 Having erected the Dionysian ideal in Zarathustra， Nietzsche then felt free to take a hammer to everything and anything that the Western tradition rested on。 Hence the danger of the book， and hence Nietzsche's warnings about being misunderstood， about failing to take his philosophy as a whole。 Many people conclude that Nietzsche's deconstruction give them a license to go ahead and live out their nihilism。 And perhaps Nietzsche is a greater destroyer of idols than he is an erector （though really he did not live his project through）。 But opposed to many interpreters （for example Jordan Peterson）， Nietzsche does not leave us with nothing。 Just read Sections 7 and 9: Our Virtues and What is Noble。Indeed Section 9 is the key to the book: without it we really are left with nothing。 After having all your faiths and beliefs completely dismantled you're gonna need something to hold onto， lest you go jump off a bridge。 To sum: Nietzsche notes that modernity's value system is messed up。 We want to level the hierarchies， to bring the valleys up and the hills down， as the Bible says。 Nietzsche traces this drive to Christianity， which then birthed modern egalitarianism and democracy。 The result of this is upside down world: similar to where we are now。 We individuals don't need to do anything about it。 In fact we can't。 The world will eventually right itself back up by itself。 It'll just—hurt。 A bit。 。。。more
Bacon Sandwich
，
Nietzsche disparages humanity as that which celebrates the mediocre; the rabble， democracy， and love of your fellow man is a race to the bottom; he sees women as a person whose only cure is pregnancy （she， good or bad， he argues， relies on “the stick”）。 Despite this elitism and misogyny， many of his arguments， points， and insights into humanity are incredibly clear and ring true。 The man of the religious disposition does not want to know; he looks away from “what is。” If “love for your fellow ma Nietzsche disparages humanity as that which celebrates the mediocre; the rabble， democracy， and love of your fellow man is a race to the bottom; he sees women as a person whose only cure is pregnancy （she， good or bad， he argues， relies on “the stick”）。 Despite this elitism and misogyny， many of his arguments， points， and insights into humanity are incredibly clear and ring true。 The man of the religious disposition does not want to know; he looks away from “what is。” If “love for your fellow man” within Christianity was actually stronger， there would be a lot more violence， out of anger towards those enemies of happiness who do not coalesce with the mass’s vision of what is great and what life is for。 Man’s strivings and hierarchy are， he argues， a will to live。 He sees all philosophy as essentially a value judgment， “…physiological demands for the preservation of a particular kind of life。 That a certainty is worth more than an uncertainty， for example， or that appearance is worth less than ‘truth’”; thus Nietzsche’s own philosophy contains a value judgment that life ought to be for living and daring， and not for just watching Netflix。 （From introduction） “[Religion] has helped humankind to endure an otherwise intolerable existence and has assisted us in constructing a viable social order by demanding that we love each other。” But these “logical fictions” and “continual falsification[s] mean that philosophies that really acknowledge what is go beyond being labeled “good” or “evil”， as “Admitting untruth as a condition of life: that means to resist familiar values in a dangerous way; and a philosophy that dares this has already placed itself beyond good and evil。” Resisting the herd morality is dangerous for the herd for it is nothing without it; so it sticks the non-conformist as “evil。” Philosophers of the past paint their actions as what is moral， a sort of self-justification。 “For anyone who scrutinizes the basis human instincts to determine how influential they have been as inspiring spirits （or demons and goblins） will find that all the instincts have practiced philosophy， and that each one of them would like only too well to represent itself as the ultimate aim of existence and as the legitimate master of all other instincts。 For every instinct is tyrannical; and as such seeks to philosophize。” Thus， if your instinct is to procreate， it becomes a philosophy that says the goal of existence is to procreate， and all who deviate are sinners。 The philosopher， thus， proves via， “his morality which proves decidedly and decisively who he is –that is， in what hierarchy the innermost drives of his nature are arranged。” So， which of his instincts rule him， and in what order。 Recalling Dostoevsky in Crime & Punishment and how the typical “progressive” makes a grandstanding production of every “Good” thing they do and believe， “They are all actions， there is nothing genuine about them… [Epicurus] was annoyed at the mannered grandiosity， the theatricality that Plato and his pupils deployed so well， and that Epicurus did not！ Epicurus… sat tucked away… and wrote three hundred books—out of fury and ambition against Plato… It took one hundred years for Greece to realize who this garden-god Epicurus had been。” People think that they can know their exact impact and when， and measure it; Tolstoy debunks this in War & Peace。 Kafka never knew what his impact would be; he died before any of his books were published or reached fame。 “We do not know what is best about ourselves—we cannot know it。” On discrimination， in the literal sense of the word， “Doesn’t life mean weighing， preferring， being unjust， having limits， wanting to be Different？” And， he continues， why bother stating as philosophy something which you could not do otherwise… “Why make a principle out of something that you already are and needs must be？” Philosophy “creates the world according to its own image。” Philosophers who want “a certain Nothing” instead of an “uncertain Something” are the actual nihilists， the “sign of a despairing， mortally weary soul。” Someone who is a stronger thinker， “still thirsty for life” will “take sides against appearance。” Again on the progressive type vs the conservative type， “two completely opposite standpoints… one group will not hear of relinquishing their ‘responsibility，’ their belief in themselves， their person right to take their credit… the other group wants to be responsible for nothing， guilty of nothing， and out of their inner self-contempt they yearn to cast off their own selves… they tend to take up the cause of criminals… it is surprising how much prettier the fatalism of the weak-willed can look when it presents itself as ‘la religion de la souffrance humaine。’” Regarding language and its ability to mask the real issues and prevent critical thinking， “For even if language， in this case as in others， cannot get past its own unwieldiness and continues to speak of oppositions where there are really only degrees and many fine differences of grade; even if we the knowing also find the words in our mouths twisted by the ingrained moral hypocrisy that is now part of our insuperable 'flesh and blood'， now and then we understand what has happened， and laugh at how even the very best science would keep us trapped in this simplified， thoroughly artificial， neatly concocted， neatly falsified world， how the best science loves error whether it will or not， because science， being alive， - loves life！” On being proved right or not， “In the end you know very well that it does not matter whether you are proved right， and likewise that no philosopher to date has been proved right， and that there is probably more value for truth in every little question mark that you place at the end of your mottoes and favourite doctrines （and occasionally after your own selves） than in all your dignified gestures and your playing the trump before plaintiffs and lawcourts！ Take the side exit instead！ Flee to hidden spaces！ And wear your mask and your subtlety so that people will not be able to tell you apart！” Capital-T Truth should not need angry defenders。 “Every deep spirit needs a mask; not only that， around every deep spirit a mask is continually growing， thanks to the constantly false， that is to say， shallow interpretations of his every word， his every step， every sign of life that he gives。” The independent thinker needs a mask so that he is not burned at the steak like witch。 People ought to say they aren’t sure， but instead， the insist they are right; it is better to be a kindly inquisitor， to carefully ask questions， and carry yourself otherwise along like any other member of the herd， escaping unnecessary judgment。 “…whenever， in short， someone speaks ‘badly’ about human beings （and not even wickedly）， then the lover of knowledge must pay close attention and careful attention—he must keep his ears open in general， whenever people speak without indignation。 For the indignant man and whoever else uses his own teeth to mutilate and dismember himself （or God or society in place of himself） may stand higher than the laughing and self-satisfied satyr in moral terms， but in every other sense he represents the more common more inconsequential， more uninstructive case。 And only the indignant tell so many lies。---” Thus， if you seek the genuine truth， you carefully consider， you dismiss the possibility of containing capital-T truth， and you listen to people who are not indignant， who are not emotionally vested in proving their “morality” or are attached via some other emotional dependency to not being able to see what is。 On these passages， Keith Ansell-Pearson， “The new lovers of knowledge （the gay scientists）， therefore， will not become martyrs for the cause of truth; they will not parade themselves as sublime self-torturers who suffer for the sake of it。 This is because what guides their love of truth and knowledge is the love of life， especially the superior life， and this life exists， of necessity， outside the social order and the public gaze。” What is a human being？ “Only a very few people can be independent; it is a prerogative of the strong… this man is… bold to the point of recklessness。 He ventures into a labyrinth， he multiplies life’s inevitable dangers a thousandfold， and not the least among these is the absence of any person to see how and where he is going stray， becoming isolated， being rent apart piece by piece in the cave of some Minotaur of the conscience。 Assuming that such a person perishes， he perishes so far away from the understanding of human beings that they do not feel it or feel for him—and he cannot go back again！ Not even to the pity of humans！” Thus， to be independent in values， truly independent， is to embrace the fact that one is forsaking society， forsaking “the rabble”， in a sense， and they cast him out， and do not care if he dies alone; this does not bother the strong-of-mind。 “What serves to nourish or refresh the higher type of person must be almost poison to a very diverse and inferior type。” Thus， the terrible truth about the nature of existence may be enlightening to one， terrifying to another。 On being young， dichotomous thinking， and the process of （actual） maturation， “When we are young， we revere and revile without benefit of the art of the nuance， life’s greatest prize; and it is only fair that we must later repent bitterly for having pounced upon people and things with a Yes or a No。 Everything is designed so that the worst of all possible tastes， out taste for the unconditional， is terribly and foolishly abused， until we learn to put some art into our feelings and even take a chance with artifice—as do the real artists of life。 Young people， with their characteristic anger and awe， seem to find no peace until they have neatly falsified people and things， so that they can vent their feelings on them; youth by its very nature is something falsifying and deceptive。 Later， after our young soul has been tormented by unrelieved disappointments and finally turns suspiciously back upon itself， still hot and wild even in its suspicion and pangs of conscience， then how angry we are， how impatiently we tear ourselves apart， taking vengeance for having deluded ourselves for so long， as if our delusion had been voluntary！ When we make this transition， we punish ourselves by distrusting our feelings; we torture our enthusiasm with doubt， indeed we even experience our good conscience as a danger， as if it were veiling us or wearing down our finer honesty; and above all else we take sides， on principle， take sides against ‘youth’。 A decade later， and we understand that this whole process too， was—youth！” He says we must question ideologies of sacrifice and doing things for our neighbor; this echoes many others， including Rogers， question if our “devotion” is really such， or if it is just another form of vanity。 “’For the aske of others’， ‘not for me’: these are feelings containing so much sorcery and sugar that we must be doubly distrustful of them and ask: ‘Are these not perhaps—seductions？’” People like being sacrificers， so he says we must be cautious towards these feelings， question things which make people feel good， lest it turn into another stick。 People are also social creatures; thus， they do what they must， so is “doing something for others” really doing it for others？ “Take what has happened recently… with the French Revolution， that gruesome and （judged from close up） superfluous farce: its noble and inspired spectators throughout Europe have been projecting their own rebellious and enthusiastic feelings onto it from afar for so long and with such passion that the text has disappeared underneath the interpretation。 A noble posterity might one day misunderstand all of past history in a similar way， and only in so doing make the sight of it bearable。 Or rather: hasn’t this already happened？ Haven’t we ourselves been this ‘noble posterity’？ And since we now recognize what we have been doing， can’t we… stop it？” All the meaning from the French revolution， everything it is meant for， is lost in the enthusiasm， in everyone’s desire to burn it all down and feel something because they cannot feel for themselves。 Seeing， now， how ridiculous this was， he asks， can’t we stop behaving this way？ People need untruth， “The strength of a person’s spirit would then be measured by how much ‘truth’ he could tolerate， or more precisely， to what extent he needs to have it diluted， disguised， sweetened， muted， falsified。 But there can be no doubt that wicked and unhappy people are better suited to discover certain parts of the truth and are more likely to be successful; not to mention the wicked people who are happy—a species that the moralists have kept silent about。 Perhaps harshness and cunning furnish conditions more favourable for the development of strong， independent spirits and philosophers than do that gentle， refined， accommodating good nature and skill in taking things lightly which we prize in scholars， and with good reason。” The people who are unhappy may be more likely to see truth because they are not hell-bent on sugarcoating truth to obtain happiness in so doing。 Also， the happy “sinner” can see truth， and he gives similar wisdom to Maslow， being able to take thing lightly， and laugh a little at life。 “I would actually go so far as to rank philosophers according to the level of their laughter—right up to the ones who are capable of golden laughter。 And assuming that gods， too， are able to philosophize， as various of my conclusions force me to believe， then I do not doubt that when they do so， they know how to laugh in a new and superhuman fashion—and at the expense of everything serious！ Gods like to jeer; it seems that even at religious observances they cannot keep from laughing。 Translated from French， “To be a good philosopher， one must be dry， clear， free of illusions。 A banker who has made a fortune has something of the character needed to make philosophical discoveries， that is to say， to see clearly into that which exists。” One cannot fully see what is through a lens of emotional dependence。 When one can think independently， they think for themselves， their philosophy is their own， and they are not dogmatic， “’My judgement is my judgement: no one else has a right to it so easily’ as a philosopher of the future might say。 We have to rid ourselves of the bad taste of wanting to agree with many others。 ‘Good’ is no longer good if our neighbour takes the word into his mouth…” He sees the movement for equality and democracy as a farce， overlooking the perils of authoritarianism， but does have some good insight nonetheless。continued --> https://underconsumed。substack。com/p/。。。 。。。more
Pavel
，
Knygoje “Anapus gėrio ir blogio” Nietzsche kritikiuoja tradicinę krikščionišką （“vergų”） moralę ir priešpriešina jai savo modelį， kuris yra stiprių， gražių， sveikų vyrų-filosofų dominuojanti “galios valia”。 Apie moteris knygoje yra daug savotiškų komentarų， kuriuos gerai iliustruoja ši Nietzsche’s panaudota Sacchetti citata: “Gerai moteriai ir blogai moteriai reikia botago”， o štai ir paties Nietzsche aforizmas apie moteris: “Palyginę vyrą ir moterį galime pasakyti: moteris nesugebėtų taip genia Knygoje “Anapus gėrio ir blogio” Nietzsche kritikiuoja tradicinę krikščionišką （“vergų”） moralę ir priešpriešina jai savo modelį， kuris yra stiprių， gražių， sveikų vyrų-filosofų dominuojanti “galios valia”。 Apie moteris knygoje yra daug savotiškų komentarų， kuriuos gerai iliustruoja ši Nietzsche’s panaudota Sacchetti citata: “Gerai moteriai ir blogai moteriai reikia botago”， o štai ir paties Nietzsche aforizmas apie moteris: “Palyginę vyrą ir moterį galime pasakyti: moteris nesugebėtų taip genialiai puoštis， jei neturėtų antraeilio vaidmens instinkto” （111 psl。）。Taip pat pakankamai aiškiai pasimato， kodėl nacių karių kuprinėje viena iš dviejų knygų buvo “Also sprach Zarathustra”。 Po karo Nietzsche buvo stipriai demonizuojamas dėl įtakos nacizmui， vėliau kažkaip pradėjo jį reabilituoti， bet ištraukus iš konteksto kai kurias citatas （o taip matyt ir darė naciai）， vaizdas susidaro nekoks:“Stipriems， nepriklausomiems， gimusiems įsakinėti ir pasirengusiems tai daryti， įkūnijantiems viešpataujančios rasės protą ir meną， religija tėra papildoma priemonė， padedanti įveikti kliūtis ir įsiviešpatauti” （88 psl。）。“Koks yra abiejų minėtų didžiųjų religijų [krikščionybės ir budizmo] požiūris į nevykusių individų perteklių （…） jei kenčiantiems jos teikdavo paguodą， prispaustiems ir nusivylusiems įkvėpdavo drąsos， nesavarankiškiems duodavo atramą ir paramą， o draskomus vidinių prieštaravimų ir sulaukėjusius išviliodavo iš visuomenės į vienuolynus ir sielos kalėjimus， ką dar jos turėjo padaryti， kad ramia sąžine taip nuodugniai pasidarbuotų siekdamos išsaugoti visus sergančius ir kenčiančius， t。 y。 iš esmės pabloginti europietiškąją rasę？” （92 psl。）。“Gyvenimas iš esmės yra nusavinimas， žeidimas， svetimo ir silpnesniojo įveikimas， priespauda， griežtumas， savo formų primetimas， aneksija arba， kalbant švelniausiai - išnaudojimas” （247 psl。）。Vis dėlto Nietzsche skaityti verta ne dėl jo siūlomos moralės， valdymo santvarkos ir jau tikrai ne dėl požiūrio į moteris。 Jis padarė įtaką daugeliui XX amžiaus mąstytojų savo skrodžiančiu kritiniu požiūriu， nepaliekančiu tradicinėje pasaulėžiūroje akmens and akmens。 Nietzsche minties skvarbumą gerai parodo šie dekartiškojo cogito （“mąstau， vadinasi esu”） narpliojimai: “Analizuodamas procesą， reiškiamą sprendiniu “aš mąstau”， iškeliu daug drąsiu teiginių， kuriuos pagrįsti sunku， o galbūt visai neįmanoma: pavyzdžiui， kad tai - aš， kuris mąsto， kad apskritai turi būti kažkas， kas mąsto， kad mąstymas yra veikla kažkokios būtybės， mąstomos kaip priežastis; kad yra “Aš” ir kad galiausiai jau tvirtai nustatyta， ką reikia vadinti žodžiu “mąstymas”， ir kad aš žinau， kas yra mąstymas（…） “Iš kur aš imu mąstymo sąvoką？ Kodėl aš tikiu priežastimi ir padariniu？ Kas suteikia man teisę kalbėti apie “Aš”， juolab apie “Aš kaip priežastį ir pagaliau apie “Aš” kaip minčių priežastį？” （30-31 psl。）。 。。。more
Samir
，
"A man of genius is unbearable， unless he possess at least two things besides: gratitude and purity。"- Friedrich NietzscheIn the above line， Nietzsche might well be talking about himself。'Beyond Good and Evil' is enjoyable， thought provoking， cringeworthy at times for its misogyny （on the surface）， racist overtones （on the surface） and nihilism， but then you read those passages again and again to see them in a different light refracted from a prism of probable contexts and tones。 There you find "A man of genius is unbearable， unless he possess at least two things besides: gratitude and purity。"- Friedrich NietzscheIn the above line， Nietzsche might well be talking about himself。'Beyond Good and Evil' is enjoyable， thought provoking， cringeworthy at times for its misogyny （on the surface）， racist overtones （on the surface） and nihilism， but then you read those passages again and again to see them in a different light refracted from a prism of probable contexts and tones。 There you find a lot of provocation that is rooted in genuine concern for the gender or racial group being targeted， but hidden beneath layers of coldness。 This may have exposed Nietzsche to a storm of misunderstanding in the reader's mind at various points， especially for the way he writes about women and especially if someone has read Nietzsche just on the surface as a set of instructions to be followed。 Nietzsche's writings demand to be consumed in a different way altogether。 He compels the reader not just to read but also to think and re-think about what is being said。What stays constant throughout in a reader's mind are the varying degrees of agreeing， disagreeing， yet enjoying each page。 In that sense， reading 'Beyond Good and Evil' has been like listening to a friend talk about his deepest philosophical thoughts which challenge your way of seeing things， some of which you are put off with completely， yet when you re-visit them with an open mind， they feel more like a good humoured poke and sometimes a kick to get up and work on things that are being criticized， yet you end up relishing that friend's company。 And then what is a book under the genre of philosophy， if it doesn't challenge you in some way or another？Some gems from this book:"We are most dishonourable towards our God: he is not permitted to sin。""Under peaceful conditions the militant man attacks himself。""A soul which knows that it is loved， but does not itself love， betrays its sediment: its dregs come up。""It is terrible to die of thirst at sea。 Is it necessary that you should so salt your truth that it will no longer–quench thirst？""The same emotions are in man and woman， but in different tempo， on that account man and woman never cease to misunderstand each other。"Well， for the last quote， I would say， "That applies to your back handed compliments and comments on women too， Mr。 Nietzsche。" ;-） 。。。more
G。R
，
He critiques just about everything， is generally harshly realist with a somewhat brutal outlook on life， far from the nihilist social media portrays him to be。 Further has a dash of incel vibes， would nevertheless recommend so long as you can think for yourself。
Hatten Caine
，
I don't know if the translator from German to English was the major cause of my confusion for the greater part of the book。 Most of the sentence structure was convoluted and difficult to follow。I did follow his ideas about women and men。 I also enjoyed this thoughts on the different European cultures。 I don't know if the translator from German to English was the major cause of my confusion for the greater part of the book。 Most of the sentence structure was convoluted and difficult to follow。I did follow his ideas about women and men。 I also enjoyed this thoughts on the different European cultures。 。。。more
Conrad Cardona
，
As with On the Genealogy of Morals， this book was so hard to read for me that I had to read it out loud to prevent me from skipping words and not understanding any of it。 To my surprise， a small section of the book was devoted to the joy and superiority of reading out loud， and the loss that accompanies not vocalising words that were meant to be pronounced in all their splendour （despite this， Nietzsche would most definitely still despise me - I care not）。This book seems to me to be all over the As with On the Genealogy of Morals， this book was so hard to read for me that I had to read it out loud to prevent me from skipping words and not understanding any of it。 To my surprise， a small section of the book was devoted to the joy and superiority of reading out loud， and the loss that accompanies not vocalising words that were meant to be pronounced in all their splendour （despite this， Nietzsche would most definitely still despise me - I care not）。This book seems to me to be all over the place。 He brushes over important concepts that are randomly brought back at a later time， and spends pages on topics that are irrelevant to his argument， in the humble opinion of someone who has to watch youtube lectures to understand what his argument actually is。 In that sense， 'Genealogy' was much more structured， as is often the consensus。I am sure that many have already pointed this out， but I find no problem in applying the same criticism that Nietzsche applies to all other philosophers on himself， which nullifies all of his metaphysics。 The way I see it is that his whole philosophy is more meant as a psychologist that is trying his best for you， or an encouraging friend。 Seen this way， it is ironic that Nietzsche， with his egoistical ideas， did such a selfless act by trying to make us live the fullest according to life （according to him）。 Of c0urse， to him it was just his own Will to Power manifesting power over other people through his intellectual superiority。All in all， I liked this one more than 'Genealogy'。 I think it's the fact that it stayed interesting for the whole run， unlike the latter which is really only interesting to me in its first act。 Of course， 'Beyond Good and Evil' lacked the surprise effect that I felt when first understanding the duality between slave and master morality， but the fact that I could recognize so many of his ideas in 'Beyond Good and Evil' made it all the way more enjoyable。You wanna understand Nietzsche？ Watch a lecture。 You wanna see how crazy and different and peotic and annoying and boring and exciting he was？ Read this book， but do it out loud。 。。。more
Daniel
，
What a prophet hard to believe this was before the atrocities of the 1900s
Peter Akinosho
，
Didn’t get much from this one。 I know Nietzsche is well known and many of his thoughts were quite progressive for the time， but what I read seemed more of an attack than revolutionary thought。 Many of his views on race and gender （ he is quite sexist when it comes to women） are just flat out false。“144 When a woman has scholarly inclinations then something is usually wrong with her sexuality infertility itself tends to encourage a certain masculinity of taste， for man is， if I may say so the inf Didn’t get much from this one。 I know Nietzsche is well known and many of his thoughts were quite progressive for the time， but what I read seemed more of an attack than revolutionary thought。 Many of his views on race and gender （ he is quite sexist when it comes to women） are just flat out false。“144 When a woman has scholarly inclinations then something is usually wrong with her sexuality infertility itself tends to encourage a certain masculinity of taste， for man is， if I may say so the infertile animal。” And this is just one of many。Don’t recommend this book， but this was my introduction to Nietzsche， maybe I was looking at it through the wrong lense。。。 。。。more
Louis Boyle
，
The best book ever written。 I’ll elaborate by saying I find myself in agreement with Neitzsche to a large degree （minus some stuff that perhaps。。。well。。。 I mean。。。） and he writes his book in an albeit very complicated style to the point where it’s very difficult to read to the point we’re you will give up if you’re not familiar with every philosopher to come before him as well as just be well read because this takes some getting used to to adapt yourself to what is essentially new language conce The best book ever written。 I’ll elaborate by saying I find myself in agreement with Neitzsche to a large degree （minus some stuff that perhaps。。。well。。。 I mean。。。） and he writes his book in an albeit very complicated style to the point where it’s very difficult to read to the point we’re you will give up if you’re not familiar with every philosopher to come before him as well as just be well read because this takes some getting used to to adapt yourself to what is essentially new language concepts also。 He also gives his quotes from others in original language so there is a mixture of Ancient Greek， Latin， French， Italian， German and so on， only some of which I picked up。 （PRESQUE RIEN is the best） Nietzsche is very forward thinking for his time and puts great emphasis on the individual and the collapse of traditional morality and herd culture through the church etc。 As science proves the dominant in society and how we must adapt to thinking for ourselves rather than just admire another false collectivist idol。 I can do this anymore justice so really I do recommend reading this。 。。。more
Prince
，
May have been one of the most complicated books i've ever read in my life but one of the most rewarding。 I found myself agreeing with Neitzsche on several points and not so much so on others。 But even in the views I did not agree with I was able to still step out of myself and look at things through different perspectives and not become fixed in any viewpoint， which if i read this correctly i think thats the point。 May have been one of the most complicated books i've ever read in my life but one of the most rewarding。 I found myself agreeing with Neitzsche on several points and not so much so on others。 But even in the views I did not agree with I was able to still step out of myself and look at things through different perspectives and not become fixed in any viewpoint， which if i read this correctly i think thats the point。 。。。more
Maximilien Duclos
，
Dans la même logique que la Généalogie de la Morale， Nietzsche tente de réduire à néant tout moralisme。
joana da matta
，
nao sei se sou burra ou se o livro nao segue uma logica clara， mas algumas ideias soltas sao bem legais
Andrew McWhinney
，
I see why people really like Nietzsche; beautiful writer， strong ironic wit， a knack for incisive commentary and the deconstruction of modernity。 But I also am confused as to how left-Nietzschians in the academy and beyond have simply attempted to pull the "good" stuff out of Nietzsche and refuse to acknowledge his clear aristocratic attitudes， upholding of subjugation as a necessary part of society （hence his anti-socialist rhetoric）， his racism （while he is explicitly against nationalist bigot I see why people really like Nietzsche; beautiful writer， strong ironic wit， a knack for incisive commentary and the deconstruction of modernity。 But I also am confused as to how left-Nietzschians in the academy and beyond have simply attempted to pull the "good" stuff out of Nietzsche and refuse to acknowledge his clear aristocratic attitudes， upholding of subjugation as a necessary part of society （hence his anti-socialist rhetoric）， his racism （while he is explicitly against nationalist bigotry， he still engages in a shitload of racial essentialism）， and his anti-feminism （yes， I've read people who have taken up the argument that Nietzsche's misogyny is ironic at moments and that he makes a good critique of the essentialism behind "women as-such，" but it still comes from a place of the desire to have women "stay in their place" and embody a specific role）。 I am not wholy convinced we can simply remove those things from our assessments of Nietzsche or our deployment of his concepts， and it is odd that so many have done so。Nietzsche is certainly complex; I do not mean to reduce him to the level of "oh he did bad things so he is useless for our thinking。" There are some very useful insights and methods of thinking here， but we should be taking them with HUGE grains of salt; we should engage in those complexities and not so easily handwave them away。 I think a lot of people attempt to square the circles of Nietzsche's thought， to the detriment of their own thinking。 。。。more
Fraser Kinnear
，
By “Beyond Good and Evil”， Nietzsche is arguing for abandoning his culture’s consensus view of morality: In short， we believe that the intention is only a sign or symptom， which first requires an explanation—a sign， moreover， which has too many interpretations， and consequently hardly any meaning in itself alone: that morality， in the sense in which it has been understood hitherto， as intention-morality， has been a prejudice， perhaps a prematureness or preliminariness， probably something of the By “Beyond Good and Evil”， Nietzsche is arguing for abandoning his culture’s consensus view of morality: In short， we believe that the intention is only a sign or symptom， which first requires an explanation—a sign， moreover， which has too many interpretations， and consequently hardly any meaning in itself alone: that morality， in the sense in which it has been understood hitherto， as intention-morality， has been a prejudice， perhaps a prematureness or preliminariness， probably something of the same rank as astrology and alchemy， but in any case something which must be surmounted。 The surmounting of morality， in a certain sense even the self-mounting of morality—let that be the name for the long-secret labour which has been reserved for the most refined， the most upright， and also the most wicked consciences of today， as the living touchstones of the soul。 And this is to unleash what he expects to be in order to be his and others’ “will to power。”Granted， finally， that we succeeded in explaining our entire instinctive life as the development and ramification of one fundamental form of will—namely， the Will to Power， as my thesis puts it; granted that all organic functions could be traced back to this Will to Power， and that the solution of the problem of generation and nutrition—it is one problem—could also be found therein: one would thus have acquired the right to define all active force unequivocally as will to power。 The world seen from within， the world defined and designated according to its "intelligible character"—it would simply be "Will to Power，" and nothing else。 So， what， a return to the state of nature that Hobbes experienced and warns the future about？ It seems like！ At least， having read through this book， I really can’t tell how to interpret Nietzsche’s contribution in any other way。 Nietzsche’s justification for prioritizing this Will to Power seems to be some sort of vague biological argument that he never really expands upon， but goes something like this:Psychologists should bethink themselves before putting down the instinct of self-preservation as the cardinal instinct of an organic being。 A living thing seeks above all to discharge its strength—life itself is will to power; self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results thereof。In short， here， as everywhere else， let us beware of superfluous teleological principles！—one of which is the instinct of self-preservation （we owe it to Spinoza's inconsistency）。 It is thus， in effect， that method ordains， which must be essentially economy of principles。 The irony is that plenty of biological systems have adapted to behave altruistically。 In fact， the more social they are， the more common it is to find self-sacrificing behavior。So， if this idea is bankrupt， as evidenced by history as well as the biology its trying to stand on， why read Nietzsche？ If one can look past all his embarrassing misogyny， he does have some generative ideas。 Take this observation below， which Leo Strauss somehow spun into an entire career！ Every philosophy is a foreground philosophy—this is a recluse's verdict: "There is something arbitrary in the fact that the philosopher came to a stand here， took a retrospect， and looked around; that he here laid his spade aside and did not dig any deeper—there is also something suspicious in it。" Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a lurking place， every word is also a mask。Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood。 The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but the former wounds his heart， his sympathy， which always says: "Ah， why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have？" With comments like this， why do we even call this point of view “Straussian”？I really enjoyed many of his aphorisms。 “One loves ultimately one's desires， not the thing desired。”“The vanity of others is only counter to our taste when it is counter to our vanity。”“It is the music in our conscience， the dance in our spirit， to which Puritan litanies， moral sermons， and goody-goodness won't chime。”Some of these aphorisms were good probably not for the reasons he intended。 This one， for example， seems to betray the insecurities of its speaker: “To vigorous men intimacy is a matter of shame—and something precious。” As does this one: “One does not hate as long as one disesteems， but only when one esteems equal or superior。”But Nietzsche is probably best when he’s criticizing other peoples’ ideas， such as the Stoics:With all your love for truth， you have forced yourselves so long， so persistently， and with such hypnotic rigidity to see Nature falsely， that is to say， Stoically， that you are no longer able to see it otherwise…Stoicism is self-tyranny He also seems to have great contempt for Kant， a mixed opinion of Schopenhauer， and a firm dislike of Plato: How malicious philosophers can be！ I know of nothing more stinging than the joke Epicurus took the liberty of making on Plato and the Platonists; he called them Dionysiokolakes。 In its original sense， and on the face of it， the word signifies "Flatterers of Dionysius"—consequently， tyrants' accessories and lick-spittles; besides this， however， it is as much as to say， "They are all actors， there is nothing genuine about them" （for Dionysiokolax was a popular name for an actor）。 Actually， Plato is probably his most important foil， who Nietzsche seems to blame Christian thought on:But the struggle against Plato， or—to speak plainer， and for the "people"—the struggle against the ecclesiastical oppression of millenniums of Christianity （for Christianity is Platonism for the "people"）， produced in Europe a magnificent tension of soul， such as had not existed anywhere previously; with such a tensely strained bow one can now aim at the furthest goals。 The trouble with Nietzsche is he’ll make claims like this but not connect the dots。 One just needs to know that dialogues like Gorgias are evidence to Nietzsche’s point。I would have most appreciated some historical citations for Nietzsche’s statements about the slave/master morality dynamics of organized religion。 Passages like these just have to be taken at face value:For those who are strong and independent， destined and trained to command， in whom the judgment and skill of a ruling race is incorporated， religion is an additional means for overcoming resistance in the exercise of authority—as a bond which binds rulers and subjects in common， betraying and surrendering to the former the conscience of the latter， their inmost heart， which would fain escape obedience。 And in the case of the unique natures of noble origin， if by virtue of superior spirituality they should incline to a more retired and contemplative life， reserving to themselves only the more refined forms of government （over chosen disciples or members of an order）， religion itself may be used as a means for obtaining peace from the noise and trouble of managing grosser affairs， and for securing immunity from the unavoidable filth of all political agitation。 The Brahmins， for instance， understood this fact。With the help of a religious organization， they secured to themselves the power of nominating kings for the people， while their sentiments prompted them to keep apart and outside， as men with a higher and super-regal mission。 At the same time religion gives inducement and opportunity to some of the subjects to qualify themselves for future ruling and commanding the slowly ascending ranks and classes， in which， through fortunate marriage customs， volitional power and delight in self-control are on the increase。 To them religion offers sufficient incentives and temptations to aspire to higher intellectuality， and to experience the sentiments of authoritative self-control， of silence， and of solitude。 Asceticism and Puritanism are almost indispensable means of educating and ennobling a race which seeks to rise above its hereditary baseness and work itself upwards to future supremacy。And finally， to ordinary men， to the majority of the people， who exist for service and general utility， and are only so far entitled to exist， religion gives invaluable contentedness with their lot and condition， peace of heart， ennoblement of obedience， additional social happiness and sympathy， with something of transfiguration and embellishment， something of justification of all the commonplaceness， all the meanness， all the semi-animal poverty of their souls。 Religion， together with the religious significance of life， sheds sunshine over such perpetually harassed men， and makes even their own aspect endurable to them， it operates upon them as the Epicurean philosophy usually operates upon sufferers of a higher order， in a refreshing and refining manner， almost turning suffering to account， and in the end even hallowing and vindicating it。 There is perhaps nothing so admirable in Christianity and Buddhism as their art of teaching even the lowest to elevate themselves by piety to a seemingly higher order of things， and thereby to retain their satisfaction with the actual world in which they find it difficult enough to live—this very difficulty being necessary。 In the end， worth reading。 But less impressive than I was hoping。 。。。more
Rita J。 Dashwood
，
He loses three stars for being a misogynist。
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Beyond Good and Evil
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Beyond Good and Evil&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft
The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Beyond Good and Evil&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0