Sins of the Father: a few thoughts on the subject of Nietzsche

So, a friend of mine suggested I write a little about Friedrich Nietzsche. This was sparked a few weeks ago when I mentioned a story about a new book being published which claims that it will prove that the more problematic of Nietzsche's philosophies were probably later additions and perversions of his writings by his sister, who was a sort of proto-Nazi in her own ideology. This may be wishful thinking on the part of some philosophy students who appreciate parts of Nietzsche while rejecting the gruesome associations the bulk of the world tends to associate with him. Or maybe not. Personally, I'm not entirely convinced we can ever know for sure.
Unfortunately, Nietzsche is another one of those historical figures that one must approach discussing with apologetics and corrections. He has been so deeply appropriated by so many groups and ideologies. Not to mince words, many of the Nazis claimed to build upon and enact Nietzsche's ideas. Of course, they were wrong, deluded or lying (or all three).
To quote Walter Kaufmann, "In any case, no other German writer of equal stature has been so thoroughly opposed to all proto-nazism - which Nietzsche encountered in Wagner's ideological tracts, in his sister's husband, Bernhard Forster, and in various publications of his time. If some Nazi writers cited him nevertheless, it was at the price of incredible misquotation and exegetical acrobatics, which defy comparison with all the similar devices that Nietzsche himself castigated in the name of the philological conscience." I think that Nietzsche himself, were he alive and in his right mind again, would probably have been quite grieved to find some of his ideals appropriated by such an ugly group. Also, it's worth noting that Nietzsche was distinctly non-political.

I just taught a class this past Sunday on The French Revolution. One of the things I noticed and called attention to, possibly because I had this post in the back of my mind, is that so many of the ideas of the very bloody and violent French Revolution can be traced to American founding fathers (Franklin certainly springs to mind and I don't think it's a reach to link him to French thinking at the time) as well as Voltaire. Certainly Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as well as free speech, the separation of church and state (in extremis in this case) and such a strong emphasis on Reason can be traced to those thinkers. However, you don't often hear people linking Benjamin Franklin to the nearly 40,000 people beheaded by Robespierre. Maybe that's because I live in America where Franklin is nearly sainted. I don't see Nietzsche's face on anyone's currency.

Of course, the Nazis aren't the only group to (probably falsely) lay claim to Nietzsche's ideas. I took a course on Existentialism once which spent a lot of time and energy on Nietzsche. I got the strong impression that the professor included so much on Nietzsche in that course for the same reason I started my class on the life of J.S. Bach by talking about Karl Lagerfeld. Which is to say, because I felt like it, and it's my class so I'll do what I darn well want.

Also, Ayn Rand attempted to stake herself a claim in some Nietzsche. I've not yet been able to find the bottom of my dislike for Ayn Rand. In her case I also think her understanding of Nietzsche is twisted and perverted. I almost read an essay by her where she lifted Nietzsche's concept of Apollonians versus Dionysians and tried to apply it to hippie culture versus her philosophy of Greedheadism before I threw the book across the room and spent the next half hour washing my hands and eyes with soap.

But let's back it up many steps. That was an ugly way for me to start this post, but I think it's a fair indication of where history has left the man. Let's back it up to the man himself and his ideas and then maybe we can make some sense out of what happened after he could no longer speak for himself.

Nietzsche, for the most part, was an excellent writer, which is sort of a novelty in philosophers. His books are for the most part highly readable (although I could never make it through Zarathustra.) Some of his major ideas were:

* Immoralism- which is not to say that he was some kind of monstrous Mr. Hyde type. People who knew him say that he was very well behaved. But by calling himself an "immoralist" he meant that he desired a re-examination of morality, why and where we need it, how it would be naturally, where it comes from and why. Which leads to -

* Master and Slave Morality- Nietzsche was extremely enamoured with the ancient Greeks. He saw "Master Morality" as striving for excellence, power, glory, honor, fame, renown, and so forth. But along came Christianity, a school of thought which Nietzsche rejected loudly. Nietzsche would say that Christianity popularized a "Slave Morality" which takes the major concepts of Master Morality (fame, power, wealth) and turns them into vices. In his own words "It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, 'These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?' then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, 'We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.'"

I might add, while we're paddling around in this thought experiment, that those in the Master Morality may have come up with the Slave Morality to keep the lower classes from aspiring to their level, but lately it seems I'm incapable of having a conversation without shifting into Socialism at some point. I should probably have that looked at by a doctor (but I can't afford medical insurance! [rimshot] )

* The Ubermensch- who shows up at the beginning as a character in Zarathustra if memory serves. Also if memory serves, it's Nietzsche's philosophy embodied, a higher version of humanity to which one can aspire. Of course, this was one of the concepts misapplied by the Nazis coupled with a rather extreme misreading of Darwin to condone ethnic cleansing and eugenics. Far to the contrary, the Ubermensch in Nietzsche would be one who creates a new morality based on a love of this world and life (see the eternal return concept below.)

* The death of God- I often find myself explaining the scene Nietzsche wrote where there's a madman in the town square yelling "God is dead! And we killed Him!" The first half of the quote is often quoted, the second not so much. This is not a happy scene and is, in fact, an indictment of human complacency even in their own religion. Although elsewhere Nietzsche, who was almost certainly an atheist (but he is not often "owned" by the atheist community probably because he was not particularly at peace about it, and also because of the bad associations many make with Nietzsche), says that the death of God in our society would lead to either an unfixed morality, a sort of extreme relative world which celebrates diversity and differences OR nihilism (which, if I understood correctly, was the part that made the boy in Little Miss Sunshine stop talking.)

* The eternal return- this is one of my favorite concepts that he played with. He asks, what if you found out that after you die, you then relive this life, exactly as you've lived it, over and over eternally. Would that be Heaven or Hell? Of course, for most of us, it has elements of both and for the sake of the thought experiment it should probably be ignored that Nietzsche ended in extreme psychological turmoil, which is a nicer way of saying tortured madness.
The point is being aware of the weight of life, the weight of the infinite. If one is going to go through something once, one might not care so much, as you can endure anything for a time. But if you learn that you're going to go through something eternally, it adds a weight to everything and behooves one to pay great care and attention to what they are doing, how they are thinking, where their priorities are, and why.

* The Will To Power- sort of an expansion of his Master Morality. The idea is in response to the Darwinian concept of the major driving force in the story of life on Earth as "the will to live." Nietzsche claimed that it is rather "the will to expand one's power" that drives the story of life on Earth.

It probably isn't terribly difficult for you to see how these concepts were twisted by the Nazis (and, if memory serves, I think Leopold and Loeb had some weird Nietzsche kink as well.) Richard Wagner and Nietzsche started as friends on a similar philosophical track, but Nietzsche broke ties rather dramatically with Wagner (no pun intended) mainly over Wagner's anti-semitism which Nietzsche interpreted as coming from Wagner's Christianity, especially as presented in the opera Parsifal. My own two cents: it's a pretty big reach to call Wagner a Christian, but I share Nietzsche's disgust with anti-semitism.

My own reaction to Nietzsche is that I find his ideas fascinating, brilliant, and I disagree with nearly all of it. However, I think part of the great value of reading Nietzsche, which I would recommend to everyone, is to be challenged to figure out why you disagree with him. I certainly appreciate his appreciation of the problem of morality without God. I am a Christian, which immediately disqualifies me from Team Nietzsche. I believe in mercy, compassion, reverence for life, that all people are equal, and that I ought to strive to love everyone as I love myself. I believe in peace and peace-making. Nietzsche would call this slave morality. I find his concept of Eternal Return quite beautiful and compelling. I certainly agree with the call for a realization of the weight of life. I don't believe in the Eternal Return, but I certainly think it's a valuable thought experiment, one that more people might do well to keep in the front of their minds.
Also, no, I do think I am in agreement with the Darwinists and Albert Schweitzer in so much that the course of history has been formed by wills to live, not wills to expand power. I find Master Morality repugnant on many levels, although especially in that it attempts to rob me of striving for excellence and beauty in my own morality.

The whole story of Nietzsche, his life and his philosophy, is a dark and difficult one. There is so much to wrestle with, but I would also say so much to gain from wrestling with it. In the end, I think that I would recommend reading Nietzsche to everyone... And I think I would recommend following him to no one.

Die Meistersinger

Long ago I was given the sage advice "Never meet your heroes."

I did meet a few of my heroes and it went well. Ray Bradbury was one of the nicest and most wonderful people I've ever met in my life. But, I also knew that the few I'd met I had met on good days in controlled environments, and that just because I liked what a person was known for did not mean that I would like the person or that the person would like me (The converse also holds - just because I didn't like what a person was famous for didn't mean I might not get along splendidly with the person.) Some monsters make great art; and some saints create mediocre art. So I stopped seeking them out and I still think that that's wise. With eBay and a little bit of wisdom, I can have autographed copies of books without leaving this chair.

Once again, I had a news story for my Thursday News In Review which I thought I could write a whole blog entry on. But then it morphed inside my brain and turned into something I've wanted to write on for a while now. The story in question is the arrest of Roman Polanski who, as I'm sure you all know by now, drugged and raped a 13 year old girl about 30 years ago. He was convicted and fled the country before sentencing because he claims he was afraid the judge was going to make an example of him. He fled to Europe and spent the bulk of my lifetime living like a prince.

Look, Rosemary's Baby, and Chinatown are classics. There's no question in my mind that he has produced some fine films. The Pianist deserved its Oscars. I even kind of liked The Ninth Gate, although the book was astronomically better and a completely different galaxy of a story than the weird thing Polanski directed. But it's not about any of that. It's about raping a 13 year old girl and fleeing the country to avoid whatever the US Justice system deems an appropriate punishment. I'm sure there are other pedophiles in prison now who are capable of making great art. Some of these hypothetical pedophiles may even have had loved ones brutally murdered in their lives. None of that changes the pedophilia that they committed (which was the eventual actual charge by the way. The rape charge was dropped and he pled guilty to sex with a minor) which we as a people correctly agree is wrong. We also correctly agree as a society that fleeing justice is wrong. It doesn't matter if the now-grown girl forgives him. Doesn't matter if the mother tarted up her daughter and pushed her on him (in fact, doesn't that make it worse?)
I can't take anyone who defends Polanski seriously.

Although admittedly my artistic regard for Polanski is limited to a moderate appreciation of a handful of films which I'd gone years without thinking about even once. That's really all I have to say about him and all it's done has reignited something I've been thinking about for some time now. What this whole story has me thinking of is a book that if I turn my head slightly to the left right now I can see on my shelf taunting me. The book is titled My Life, and it is the autobiography of Richard Wagner. I've not read it yet, but I will, and probably will very soon; but I'm a little afraid to. I hold Wagner in very high artistic esteem, and it's rare that a day goes by that I don't at the very least think about The Ring Cycle, or mention Hans Sachs or Tristan or The Flying Dutchman (or, at the very least, leitmotifs) in conversation. And Parsifal I can only speak of in the hushest of tones and, were I one who wore hats, I would have to remove it whenever the opera is mentioned. I think he was one of the greatest artists in the history of Western Civilization. It would be a high watermark in my life if I ever am able to make a pilgrimage to the Bayreuth Festival. In spite of everything I just said, I probably wouldn't call myself a Wagnerite as I am also definitely and outspokenly a devotee of Johannes Brahms. I have no problem with loving both.

But personally, as I understand Wagner's life, he was a horrible man. He was strongly and outspokenly anti-semitic. He played with sort of proto-themes of the uber-mensch and was strongly nationalistic. Although he had some very close Jewish friends, he published many anti-semitic pamphlets and highly nationalistic pamphlets on what it means to be German. On one level it's fortunate that he kept this aspect of his worldview from being explicit in any of his operas. However, in case you didn't know, and as you can well guess from the direction of the rhetoric of his pamphlets, there is much heated debate over the responsibility of Wagner for the Nazis. I could point out that Parsifal was one of the operas banned by the Nazis. I could also point out that Wagner was not by any means anywhere near the only artist that the Nazis cannibalized. But, when it comes down to it, yes, I have to agree that the question arises as to artists' responsibility over what they incite.

To a large extent, you cannot blame the artist for the actions of the fans any more than you can blame the fans for the actions of the artist. We all have personal responsibility for our actions. Wagner was not a Nazi and it's hard to imagine if he had by some remarkable circumstance survived (he would have been 120 at Hitler's rise to power) if he ever would have been a Nazi. Still, there is no excuse for some of the atrocious things he said in his pamphlets. I tend to think of him as a heinous man who happened to produce some of the most beautiful works in the history of western civilization (a bit like how Salieri saw Mozart in Peter Schaffer's masterpiece Amadeus.)

But, then, on the other hand, the work of art lives outside of the artist in history. We should be able to fully enjoy the work without knowing a single thing about the artist (and, in some cases, we might be happier if that were the case.) If I were to despise every work of art by an artist who I found some flaw in their character, the only art I would enjoy would be by Anonymous (although art does exist which advocates horrible, foul and evil behavior, we're not talking about that right now.)

However, the individual is accountable and responsible for his behavior. If one does something evil, doing something wonderful does not nullify the evil action. One is still accountable for the evil action while the something wonderful floats away from the artist into the world to have a life of its own. All of which I suppose is a very long winded way of saying that I have no problem saying the following two statements with equal enthusiasm:

1) If you've never seen it, do go rent Chinatown. It is one of the greatest films in the history of film. It is a wonderful work of art and a masterpiece in the medium.
2) It would be entirely appropriate and just if Roman Polanski spends the rest of his life in prison.

The Impoverished Snob

Laurie and I are in the habit of hitting the library on Wednesdays. We usually get two movies and very often trade around the books we are borrowing. Of course if you get a clunker, you have paid nothing for it and can simply trade it out for something better (or worse.) Libraries trump bookstores for the adventurous reader.
You may ask why a couple with over 6,000 books in stock in their used book business borrow from the library... But I'm not sure I have a clear answer to that aside from right at the moment we do not own copies of A Wolf At The Table by Augusten Burroughs or The World Without Us by Alan Weisman and I found that I must read those immediately. Something to do with the remnants of our instant gratification culture to a couple which can afford next to nothing.
Which brings me to my second point.
If I had the unending supply of money I would be one of those freaks who travels the world to attend Wagner's Ring Cycles like they were Grateful Dead concerts. I would turn to the people next to me and say "yes, this is my 36th Ring Cycle and we already have tickets for Bayreuth next year."
The Chico Public Library has a collection of operas by Richard Wagner. I don't know why. As far as we can tell, they don't have any other operas. They aren't all the same company or put out by the same label. But I'm not complaining or looking that gift horse in the mouth mind you. We saw Die Meistersinger with Donald MacIntyre as Hans Sachs. He was fantastic. The film production was very good (they pretty much just filmed the opera.) The supporting cast was merely adequate.
We just watched Der fliegende Holländer which was wonderful and we enjoyed (with few misgivings) quite a bit more. I think it's a much stronger work. The entire cast was amazing. It was really quite wonderful except for one thing that almost completely destroyed any enjoyment. The filming was horrid. They kept superimposing waves over the action. They would replay the same close up of a character over and over while they were actually singing onstage (which, call me crazy, might be something the audience might be interested in seeing.) Sometimes they would cut completely from the main action to show reaction shots of other characters, which is fine when done properly. This was not that kind of production. As a side note to long time friends and supporters, this is exactly why I did not allow filming of my one-man show.
And, of course, no one gets to see these productions live anymore so it's kind of like finding a treasure chest in the attic.
They also have the complete works of Shakespeare from the BBC from I'm thinking the 1980s. We saw John Cleese in The Taming of the Shrew. We also watched a strangely extremely homo-erotic production of The Tempest. We are now watching Hamlet with Derek Jacobi and Patrick Stewart. Win.
There is the perrennial problem that the characters from La Boheme would not be able to afford to go and see a production of La Boheme.
Go to your library. These are times when the arts suffer, but there are so many resources out there that one need not go without. There are podcasts. There is a wealth of resources available to anyone.
If I end up having a podcast at some point, I will probably do one along the lines of what I'm talking about here.

Continuing the awkward move into this blog, I posted a Glenn Gould sort of tie-in with this post on the other blog: http://possumbane.livejournal.com/481161.html