Beyond Good And Evil
- Downloads：6252
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-05-01 07:52:35
- Update Date：2025-09-07
- Status：finish
- Author：Friedrich Nietzsche
- ISBN：8175994444
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Reviews
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。
Zac
，
Although some points and topics were very well written， the vast majority of the book was rather dull。 Some of his beliefs are outdated， and arguments about societal issues， philosophy， and religion at the time were certainly novel but now seem pointless。 Might be worth reading for lovers of philosophy， but otherwise not worth the time。
Jason
，
Unlike most philosophers， Nietzsche isn't here to give arguments to convince you of the truth of his conclusions。 But there are some interesting thoughts buried in between the misogyny， racism， self-pity， and self-aggrandizement。 Unlike most philosophers， Nietzsche isn't here to give arguments to convince you of the truth of his conclusions。 But there are some interesting thoughts buried in between the misogyny， racism， self-pity， and self-aggrandizement。 。。。more
Amelia
，
not gonna lie i dont think i understood a word of thisbut what i did understand definitely sounded racist and sexist
Christian Lyman
，
This guy really hated women
Dominyka Mauliūtė
，
Mind-blowing book
Jonat
，
******* MUST READ*****His tone is purposefully authoritative from the very first lines， for how much he calls out the cyclic submissive mindset of the modern European， because for him the Europeans of today are self-dwarfing themselves。With such commanding approach， he wants the reader to wake up from this perpetual obedience（ through Catholic religion， laws， etc）， he wants to inspire someone can think critically and profoundly into things。 He just doesn’t want someone who “eat up” every misshap ******* MUST READ*****His tone is purposefully authoritative from the very first lines， for how much he calls out the cyclic submissive mindset of the modern European， because for him the Europeans of today are self-dwarfing themselves。With such commanding approach， he wants the reader to wake up from this perpetual obedience（ through Catholic religion， laws， etc）， he wants to inspire someone can think critically and profoundly into things。 He just doesn’t want someone who “eat up” every misshapen and beautified versions of the truth。He believes Such COMPLEX man by his own artifice will be able to invent the good conscience in order to finally be able to enjoy his soul as something SIMPLE。He believes life is to be lived beyond the “slave” morality， the “man beyond good and evil” stands out and should have recourse to his own law-giving， his own arts and artifices for self-preservation， self-elevation and self-deliverance。 He， immensely breaks down through our profound， suspicious fear of an incurable pessimism’s which compelled mankind into a religious interpretation of existence。。 （which is true）But he preaches that man should instead of relying to religions and create clones of themselves over and over， he should beautify himself。Such beautifying process is achieved through （SPOILERS GO READ THE BOOK！！！）。But the thing is， such boldness and confidence， only works on your favor when you talk about stuff that you properly grasp 。。。 which unfortunately wasn’t the case when it comes to women’s experiences， emancipation and fulfillment。 His confidence actually makes things worse for how insulting it comes off as。Structurally I think he couldn’t have made it any better。 Each topic tackled previously served a purpose into the next one， hence adds to the reader a deeper layer/approach compared to if he hadn’t explained it before。 Everything blends incredibly well， the pacing couldn’t be more neat His FUCKING LANGUAGE is endlessly lush， puzzling， and beautifully compliments his content it sometimes feels like an ostentatious boldness of taste。 ， When it comes to expressing his ideas， He’s quite literally the most inventive and rich writer I’ve seen in non fiction books！ I just wished he wasn’t misogynistic 😔 -Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche : 4。5 STARS。 。。。more
Socrate
，
Voinţa de adevăr， cea care ne va mai ademeni în tot felul de aventuri periculoase， acea veridicitate faimoasă despre care toţi filosofii de până acum au vorbit cu veneraţie: ce de probleme ne-a pus această voinţă de adevăr！ Ce probleme ciudate， răutăcioase， dubioase！ Povestea e lungă， – şi， totuşi， pare să fi început chiar acum。 Ce-i de mirare dacă devenim în cele din urmă neîncrezători， ne pierdem răbdarea şi ne întoarcem din drum？ Că ne deprindem de la acest sfinx să punem， la rândul nostru， î Voinţa de adevăr， cea care ne va mai ademeni în tot felul de aventuri periculoase， acea veridicitate faimoasă despre care toţi filosofii de până acum au vorbit cu veneraţie: ce de probleme ne-a pus această voinţă de adevăr！ Ce probleme ciudate， răutăcioase， dubioase！ Povestea e lungă， – şi， totuşi， pare să fi început chiar acum。 Ce-i de mirare dacă devenim în cele din urmă neîncrezători， ne pierdem răbdarea şi ne întoarcem din drum？ Că ne deprindem de la acest sfinx să punem， la rândul nostru， întrebări？ Cine e de fapt cel care ne pune aici întrebări？ Ce anume din noi năzuieşte de fapt la „adevăr”？ t— În fond， noi am zăbovit îndelung în faţa problemei originii acestei voinţe， – până când， în cele din urmă， ne-am împotmolit cu totul în faţa unei probleme şi mai profunde。 Am cugetat asupra valorii acestei voinţe。 Presupunând că noi vrem adevărul: de ce nu mai degrabă neadevărul？ Sau incertitudinea？ Sau chiar neştiinţa？ t— Oare problema valorii Adevărului este cea care s-a prezentat în faţa noastră， – sau noi fost-am cei care am păşit în faţa ei？ Care dintre noi e aici Oedip？ Şi care e Sfinxul？ Precum se pare， este vorba de un rendez-vous de probleme şi de întrebări。 t— Şi fi-vom oare crezuţi？ – ni se pare că， la urma urmei， problema nici nu a fost pusă până în prezent， – că noi suntem cei dintâi care am zărit-o， am privit-o în faţă， am înfruntat-o。 Căci ea comportă un risc， şi poate că nici nu există vreun altul mai mare。 。。。more
Joe
，
I was determined to read Nietzsche after two encounters: Rorty's account of him in Contingency， Irony， and Solidarity， which paints him as a poetic genius， and Walter Kaufmann's identification of him as part of a lineage connecting Goethe to Freud and Kafka。 Neither gives any brief to Nietzsche's political philosophy， and Kaufmann is straightforward about Nietzsche's adolescent contempt for women， which Kaufmann frames as lamentable and borne out of inexperience。 Kaufmann also argues that Nietzs I was determined to read Nietzsche after two encounters: Rorty's account of him in Contingency， Irony， and Solidarity， which paints him as a poetic genius， and Walter Kaufmann's identification of him as part of a lineage connecting Goethe to Freud and Kafka。 Neither gives any brief to Nietzsche's political philosophy， and Kaufmann is straightforward about Nietzsche's adolescent contempt for women， which Kaufmann frames as lamentable and borne out of inexperience。 Kaufmann also argues that Nietzsche is much more subtle than the arch figure who dominates the popular image of the philosopher。 He points out， for instance， that Nietzsche's master/slave mentality is not a dichotomy， but something that can be expressed in gradations by individuals。The most interesting chapter to me was What is Noble， which I would even describe as "exciting" for both a literary work or a philosophical one。 It is where I see what aligns Nietzsche with Goethe's belief in development， as opposed to a Kantian certainty， or finality of judgment。 I'm probably not stating that quite correctly， but what can you do。From fragment 289: "Every philosophy is a foreground philosophy - that is a hermits judgment: 'There is something arbitrary in his stopping *here* to look back and look around， in his not digging deeper *here* but laying his spade aside; there is also something suspicious about it。" Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a hideout， every word is also a mask。"What Kaufmann dislikes most about Kant， and the reason why he condemns his legacy among German writers， was his determination to arrive at certainty， and his use of obscurantism to hide the fact that he couldn't。 Kaufmann believed this had a disastrous impact on German writing， and was especially conspicuous with Heidegger。 These writers were concealing their own nature from themselves。 With Nietzsche， it appears we have someone who is constantly discovering his own nature and embracing its contradictions。 。。。more
A Young Philosopher
，
Nietzsche is an electrifying but loose cannon: he shoots and shoots， fireworks explode， chaos reigns， and the heros of the past are shown to be rogues 。。。。。 but what remains？ One is left with a Gettysburg after the last day of battle: heaps and heaps of wreckage （playfully destroyed！）， but often one cannot tell where to pick up the ruins。 Faustian man seems to be Nietzsche’s answer， but can Faustian man be supposed by the sheer weight of his will to power？
bepassersby
，
I’m sure there are small treasures scattered in here amongst all the meandering thoughts about his cringe-worthy perceived differences between men and women， between Germans and Jews， etc。， all wrapped in antiquated Shakespearean-style language， but I would instead recommend reading excerpts selected and commented on by an editor， or you’ll be stuck trudging through miles of the following:234。 Stupidity in the kitchen; woman as cook; the terrible thoughtlessness with which the feeding of the fam I’m sure there are small treasures scattered in here amongst all the meandering thoughts about his cringe-worthy perceived differences between men and women， between Germans and Jews， etc。， all wrapped in antiquated Shakespearean-style language， but I would instead recommend reading excerpts selected and commented on by an editor， or you’ll be stuck trudging through miles of the following:234。 Stupidity in the kitchen; woman as cook; the terrible thoughtlessness with which the feeding of the family and the master of the house is managed！ Woman does not understand what food means， and she insists on being cook！ If woman had been a thinking creature， she should certainly， as cook for thousands of years， have discovered the most important physiological facts， and should likewise have got possession of the healing art！ Through bad female cooks--through the entire lack of reason in the kitchen--the development of mankind has been longest retarded and most interfered with: even today matters are very little better。 A word to High School girls。 。。。more
Chris Vaz
，
A brilliant book expanding on the epic Zarathusthra。 It has many deep thoughts on the hypocrisy of philosophers and other moralists。 At times outdated， at others groundbreaking， the foundational nature of the text is apparent throughout and must be read to understand philosophy through the lens of other European cultures when reading from an anglophone perspective。
Xavier Roelens
，
Nietzsche: de standup-comdian onder de filosofen。
Caleb Anderson
，
it was too dense to summarize and too difficult to understand。 I will have to return to this one。
Tom Rowley
，
Half mad， half great。 Excellent use of exclamation marks！
Nicolaas Dekker
，
If you want to change how you view the world， this might be the book for you
Karol Pasierb
，
I completely couldn't understand it。 Made no sense at all :（ I completely couldn't understand it。 Made no sense at all :（ 。。。more
Ellie
，
This is a very good translation， capturing the wry tone of this often flawed， often fascinating， moral philosopher。 Parts are distressingly relevant today; and parts made me gasp。
Quetzal Daniel Beltzasar
，
Extraordinaria la manera de desvelar la motivación de la moral。
Alicia Fox
，
What a d-bag。 The things he says about women （seventh chapter） are not just misogynistic and disgusting， but so darn wrong。 It's difficult to even get to the silliness of his philosophy， given how off the mark he is with everything else （summary: there is no good and evil， there are simply men， like Nietzsche， with the will and fortitude to place themselves among the gods）。Worth reading if you want to get inside of the early sexist， race-based thinking that plagued Europe in the nineteenth centu What a d-bag。 The things he says about women （seventh chapter） are not just misogynistic and disgusting， but so darn wrong。 It's difficult to even get to the silliness of his philosophy， given how off the mark he is with everything else （summary: there is no good and evil， there are simply men， like Nietzsche， with the will and fortitude to place themselves among the gods）。Worth reading if you want to get inside of the early sexist， race-based thinking that plagued Europe in the nineteenth century。Run for the hills if anyone you know lists Nietzsche as a favorite philosopher。 。。。more
Jason Carter
，
Summary: Nietzsche moralizing against moralizers。Nietzsche， at root， despised the democratic， leveling spirit that tears down the noble and beautiful in the name of equality。 He attributed nineteenth century morality to the "slave-morality" that sought， in his mind， to claim for itself moral superiority over the "evil" men who inflicted their suffering。Nietzsche argued that this slave morality was natural to inferior men， and that superior men， with a "master-morality" would create their own val Summary: Nietzsche moralizing against moralizers。Nietzsche， at root， despised the democratic， leveling spirit that tears down the noble and beautiful in the name of equality。 He attributed nineteenth century morality to the "slave-morality" that sought， in his mind， to claim for itself moral superiority over the "evil" men who inflicted their suffering。Nietzsche argued that this slave morality was natural to inferior men， and that superior men， with a "master-morality" would create their own value systems--ie， the will to power。Forty-five years later， an Austrian corporal would take Nietzsche's ideas and run with them to their natural conclusion， seeking to unify Europe under the master Aryan race， the "overmen" who were suited to the rule over the mass herd of inferior men。 If Nietzsche was right and God is indeed dead， it is hard to understand by what standard the atheists condemn Hitler。 。。。more
Andie Samar
，
No soy la mayor fan de como expresa Nietzche sus creencias porque siento que la mayor parte de su filosofía es solo una excusa de su cinismo y sentido de superioridad hacia los demás， especialmente hacia las mujeres。Siento que fue culpa de la traducción el no entender muchas partes y aún me falta leer más de él para formarme una opinión completa。De momento， término medio。
Ștefan Tutuianu
，
I found it superficial/tunnel visioned when discussing depths of a chosen topic。 i。e。: in 40 lines he spins stoic values into painting a sado-maso sociopath， who'd secretly want to control the nature。 He does so without a good argument for it， just appealing to "C'mon" reasoning， which is cheap。 One I liked: "the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts， and forced into definite channels"It maybe an excellent book， but as far is it concerns I found it superficial/tunnel visioned when discussing depths of a chosen topic。 i。e。: in 40 lines he spins stoic values into painting a sado-maso sociopath， who'd secretly want to control the nature。 He does so without a good argument for it， just appealing to "C'mon" reasoning， which is cheap。 One I liked: "the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts， and forced into definite channels"It maybe an excellent book， but as far is it concerns my understanding of philosophy， I prefer substance over the "Fanta sea"。 。。。more
Asadullah Armaan
，
Last time i understood 10% of what this angry man had to say。。 this time i guess i understand 1/3rd？ Maybe next time i will be Übermensch enough to understand 50% 🤔
Aarne
，
Begining is on the point critic to Kant's a priori moral thinking。 The rest is a bit more loose aforisms written in a manic bursts。 Questions the moral as there are no moral events， only personal moral judgements on physical world events。 Interesting idea how the next step in evaluating social morals would be "extra-moral" where we judge the unconcious part of an action rather than the concious one。 All in all Nietzsche just used different axioms than previous philosophers but did not bother to Begining is on the point critic to Kant's a priori moral thinking。 The rest is a bit more loose aforisms written in a manic bursts。 Questions the moral as there are no moral events， only personal moral judgements on physical world events。 Interesting idea how the next step in evaluating social morals would be "extra-moral" where we judge the unconcious part of an action rather than the concious one。 All in all Nietzsche just used different axioms than previous philosophers but did not bother to argument for those。 。。。more
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