|
January 2, 2004
The fifth and last chapter in Part One of Bataille's On Nietzsche is very short. It consists of a paragraph from Daniel Halevy's 1911 biography of Nietzsche. I quote it in full because of its old fashioned conception of Nietzsche.
Halvey says that:
"Nietzsche had always wanted to write a classical work, a history book, a system, a poem, something worthy of the old Hellenes he chose as masters. He never had been able to give form to that ambition. A the end of 1883, he had just completed an almost desperate undertaking; and the abundance and importance of these notes allows is to have some sense about the greatness of a work that remained utterly in vain. He could not provide his moral ideas with any foundation, nor could be write his tragic poem; as the two books were frustrated, his hopes disappeared. What was he? An unfortunate---capable only of short efforts, lyric songs, cries."
What a lot of nonsense!
At the end of 1883 Nietzsche had completed Bk 1 of Thus Spake Zarathustra.
He then went on to complete Bk's 2 & 3 of that text the following year; then wrote Beyond Good and Evil and Bk. 5 of The Gay Science in 1886; wrote The Genealogy of Morals in 1887; wrote The Wagner Case, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, and Ecce Homo in 1888 before he collapsed in 1889.
Contrary to Halvey's claim, Nietzsche's most creative and productive period of writing lay before him in 1883.
Bataille would have to be writing against the Halvery's biographic conception, as he was largely working off The Will to Power in the first section of On Nietzsche. This was first assembled in 1901 from Nietzsche's Notebooks from 1883-1888, translated in 1910 and appropriated by the Nazi's in the 1930s. Bataille discredits their interpretation (ie., that of Alfred Baumler who said it was Nietzsche's final system and crowning achievement) but he does not discredit The Will to Power. He reads specific sectoins of it carefully.
But what text--edition/translation--- was Bataille reading?
I have no idea of what sort of edition of The Will to Power Bataille was working from. He has not mentioned it so far. It certainly is not the one we have now. We are probably reading quite different texts. Not that it matters. There is a tremendous diversity of Nietzsches with every distinct reading provides another Nietzsche. Nietzsche's texts both promote and facilitate such a fecund reception through the literary strategies employed. So what we do is read and position ourselves in relation to Nietzsche.
That ends Part One of On Nietzsche.
start previous
|
The not only the father of the physicists delusion. - Not all physicists are blockheads - Montaigne would be proud - Einstein said as far as mathematics is certain it does not refer to reality, as far as it refers to reality it is not certain - warmish. Niels Bhor didn't believe the 'state vector' of quantum physics to be a substantive reality, warm. Poincaire said that mathematical truths are selected by a kind of 'sublimated self' on the basis of a kind of 'aesthetic appeal', Disco. Penrose the high example of those mesmerised by the mystical allure of axioms, this piffling but profound coincidence (multiply and divide being such mysterious ones - 'Twice two' a note from underground or rather and better in a way the man boat hey Mr. Peter Chadwick British psychologist honourable - 'The Borderline Normal…') is his justification for arguing the concepts and methods he derives from the likes of pie and some geometrical others are indeed the life stuff of the universe, that his merely effective mastication's scribbles govern it! When his like and others decide they have hit the big one, nay when it is intellectual abomination of abominations generally agreed, thus the 'Laws of Nature' - however the reasons general belief in such are usually a lot more stupid, inspite of the frightful - Penrose is a coward he is capable of answers, rather profound refutations - intelligence. To say it again, insofar as 'truth' goes for valuation the only detriment it brings is in the instance of wanton falsity, this really is not life enhancing and certainly not every man is entitled to the degree of 'truth', honesty before oneself that every other is. There are types of men on rungs of broad vertiginous ladders, thus here join me and utter the first principle of understanding man: I hold this truth to be evident that all men are not created equal. It is the philosopher's stone of medicine once other things have been cleared up and pointed out, it is a key to growth and amelioration of power, a facet of the will to power that is life, to deny this is to deny the very heart of life - so profound is this nihilism! The character of existence power, change, greatness, the same greatness expressed in all great people nations and things, you show me one, even the law courts where power and rank in do not rule, if only today in forms of society and not as it ought to be in the hearts of men - conditions exploit men today, yet there are mighty valuations even for a 'nothing' of a man that can suffuse purity and power into man by repetition of sorts to ennoble - if Hitler could do it its possible everyone can but never everyone alike. The simpler the man the simpler the solutions and you would not believe the profound physiological alterations seemingly unassociated valuations stimulate, though man ought to. He certainly knows enough about arousal, intoxication, sportsman 'the zone' and all the variegated feelings that accompany conscious reflections: jealousy, envy, hatred, resentment, valour, empathy, anger and others all take their kicks from valuation. And as we know these things stress the body and it is these variegated stresses as their effects accumulate in variegated types that presses the processing, if you like, of the energies that lead to disorder, disease and death. On the other hand there is what is healthy for men, a fundamentally different pursuit linked only at the point of delivery and the methods of pursuit and knowledge though complementary go in fundamentally different directions, the former long term and of course looks at the unhealthy. The latter is shorter term and looks for the best, the good, which includes an increase in the length of time spent waiting on the goods - thus an imperious ruling will dominating a lifetime permits well there are no limits. The unhealthy picture can be pieced together much faster everyone can see, in one way or another what we are looking for. We are in a curious situation, everything is here that is required to do the job, human resources, technological and some methodologies but! it is a monstrous but, still nobody knows what I am talking about - though it sounds promising does it not?