Skip to main content

On my reading of "The Gay Science"

Hey diddle diddle,
The cat and the fiddle,
My reading of Nietzsche is done.

He wrote, "God is dead,"
And meant what he said,
Into the pit he'll be thrown.

Well, after six grueling weeks, I have completed my reading of The Gay Science by Nietzsche. The following things linger in my mind after reading this book.

1. "In all religions, the religious man is the exception." Chew on that a while.

2. Nietzsche’s explication of love as a lust for possession, whether it be of property or person. How often do I "love" in this manner? When I first read his treatment of this topic, I was sullen as I reflected on my own selfishness. We could all use a bit of that, I think.

3. Nietzsche seems overly concerned with not being viewed as a jingoistic German, and instead wants to be seen as a European. I bet Freud would have fun with that. Perhaps he did?

4. Boy! Does Nietzsche ever despise Christianity?!

5. Nietzsche observed, wrongly, that Christianity is a religion of "Thou shalt not," whereas Buddhism is a religion that pushes people to do certain "good" things—he, therefore, views Buddhism as much greater than Christianity, but they’re both poppycock to him, so I’m not sure why he felt the need to make the distinction. Nietzsche views virtually all religions, especially pantheism, which he seems to have a fondness for, as superior to Christianity and its notion of sin. How often do I treat Christianity as a call to abstain from sin, rather than a religion whereby I am to positively go about my business of glorifying Christ?

6. Must German authors be so difficult to read? How can I be expected to revere the literature of a people who shun paragraphs? I've read four German authors that I can think of off the top of my head: Hitler's Mein Kampf, Kafka's The Trial and Metamorphisis, Nietzsche's The Gay Science, and Luther's The Bondage of the Will. They're all highly difficult (couldn't finish der Fuhrer, but mainly on account of editing (no good Aryan editors?) and because I didn't need to read the whole thing to get the point). Kafka's imagination makes up for the difficult syntax. Nietzsche was a beat-down at times. Luther---ever the exception. Though, perhaps I'm just a romantic in my view of Luther to be too critical of his writing.

Comments

Reading philosophers is always risky – especially in translation. If it’s bad, it’s hard to be sure whether the guy/gal can’t write – or whether it’s a bad translation.

Some philosophers write only for other philosophers. As far as I’m concerned, they can "buzz off."

I don’t expect every writer to write for a “popular” audience, but if a writer cannot communicate his/her ideas clearly to an educated reader – then the fault does not lie with the reader.

I wrote an “emotional rant” about this that you can see here.

Kudos to you for persevering through “The Gay Science.”
Lee Shelton said…
This is about all the Nietzsche I can handle.
Shane said…
I enjoyed your rant. I go back and forth with what I read. I always have some theology book I'm reading "on the side." I read all the Grisham novels. I used to read Gregory MaGuire, before "Wicked" became super famous. (I'm too contrarian to enjoy him anymore.)

A couple weeks ago, as a break from the dark German, I picked up Pat Buchanan's "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War." I'm two-thirds through the book---it's an easy read, and highly interesting. As the Militant Pacifist, you'd enjoy it. Buchanan writes in a style I'd call scholarly journalism. He has great citations, and chooses quotes well (even if he often uses the same quotes repeatedly). Yet he keeps the book very readable, in spite of the sometimes difficult subject matter. "Liberal Fascism" is good, too, and probably up your alley. However, I must admit that with that book I cherry-picked chapters I wanted to read, and left the others alone.

Now, I need to go pay attention to my wife---it's our anniversary tomorrow. What does it mean to marry on Armistice Day?
Hal Brunson said…
Yes, the Germans must be difficult to read. It is their intellectual weight that demands such dense language. The same holds true for their greatest music. Consider Bach, Beethoven, and Wagner.

The density of German literature derives from their intellectual genius. Consider the comparatively "light" literature and music of the Italians and Spanish, and the almost compelete absence of weighty philosophical works from their respective repertoires.

One of the great ironies of history is that a people so gifted, so brilliant, and so creative are now forever memorialized as the nation of Hitler and Himmler. It's a lesson in humanism.

I recommend another German author to you, Tomas Mann, and his great novel Dr. Faustus, a magnificent literary-philosophical exploration of the fantastic depravity and deterioration of German culture.

As for Luther, I don't find "him "heavy" but rather "violent." His Bondage of the Will brutalized the greatest intellectual of the day, Erasmus, and teaches us that superior passion triumphs over superior intellect, especially when passion is right and intellect is wrong.

Popular posts from this blog

To Atlas: Shrug

Is anyone else who regularly reads this blog troubled by the flippant use of the term “bailout” by our government and media? Perhaps your hackles are raised because of the proposal itself, and the language is of no concern. But politicians and auto-executives carefully chose “bailout” to describe what is being asked of the taxpayer. I don’t mean to pick nits here, but let’s examine this word and see whether it’s applicable. According to the good people at dictionary.com, bailout has the following meanings: – noun 1. the act of parachuting from an aircraft, esp. to escape a crash, fire, etc. 2. an instance of coming to the rescue, esp. financially 3. an alternative, additional choice, or the like, such as, “If the highway is jammed, you have two side roads as bailouts.” – adjective 4. of, pertaining to, or consisting of means for relieving an emergency situation. What strikes me is that the above-listed definitions imply an act of finality. The guy who escapes a plane crash en

God Doesn't Need You

The least understood aspect in the redemptive work of God is also the most important. It is this—the first cause and highest motivation of God’s redemptive work is for His own sake, or more specifically, for the sake of His own holiness. Contrary to the most popular “Christian” mantra of the day— Jesus Loves You and has a wonderful plan for your life , God’s chief concern is not the manifestation of His love towards men; rather, it is His own holiness. But what is holiness? “Holiness is self-affirming purity. In virtue of this attribute of his nature, God eternally wills and maintains his own moral excellence. In this definition are contained three elements: first, purity; secondly, purity willing; thirdly, purity willing itself “ (A.H. Strong). Wholly other is often how holy is described. Dorner writes, “that is holy which, undisturbed from without, is wholly like itself.” Most often we associate “self-affirming purity” to holiness and less often its equally important counterpart

The Modern Way

Rhetoric is a powerful tool. Yea, possibly the strongest, most influential weapon man has in his arsenal. Aristotle defined rhetoric as “The faculty of using all the available means of persuasion in a given message.” Others have offered their definitions as well, ranging from, “The art of communicating effectively,”…”The art of enchanting the soul,”…”Communicative deception,”…and so on. For purposes of this essay, we shall regard rhetoric as being the habitual dilemma of man(sic), in which verbal communication strives for the one goal of persuasion. Let us apply our objective epistemologies and critical wit to the field of rhetoric, more specifically, the rhetoric used by the modern evangelical churches, which I will collectively refer to as “The Modern Way,” out of sheer respect for Martin Luther, and his battles against this sense of “New Thinking,” in Erfurt. The Modern Way uses rhetoric to establish a new look on the Gospel that is neither biblical, nor historical. The s