Heidegger goes beyond Nietzsche in some ways, but not necessarily in terms of ethics.

Thank you for your message ! But truly, I am looking more specifically for philosophers who have surpassed him in terms of his ethic and his transvaluation of values. Sorry, my message was not precise enough.

I am interested in Nietzsche but I don't think he is very popular on this site. I started a thread on his idea of eternal recurrence a couple of days ago and no one responded. Someone also started one on an aspect of Nietzsche's thought since mine but that died abruptly too. So we all lost on different threads which is existentialist in itself.

I am not that well versed in his philosophy applied to ethics but I think the best translation of his thought is into ethics is the philosophy of egoism. There is an article on the site about the philosophy of egoism by Gus Lamarch. I logged onto about 10 days ago to make a comment about so it should not be too far back.

I hope you find this because I think it could provide you with some groundwork, or maybe someone else will be able to offer you some practical or ethical attempt at the idea of the transvaluation of values.

Hitler went beyond Nietzsche's philosophy, so it's said. Hitler's work was not well thought of for many years after his death, but there seems to be a resurgence in interest.

transvaluation of values — Coryanthe

I'm not intimately familiar with his writings though one of my favorite cousins is. Boy did it mess him up lol. For the rest of us this means.. things like how virtue is actually selfish and selfishness is really the most virtuous or truthful path one can take in life, etc? Nihilism, meaning there is no meaning, is pretty hard to surpass to be honest.

If so I can point you toward a few dictators and their quotes. One even has a book.

Edit: Ha, Banno beat me to it.

Obviously Hitler was a crude example of a going beyond. But of course he had many influences, one of them was theosophy, which was about about the whole idea of a master race.

I am personally inclined to think that Nietzsche's ideas work better if seen as a basis for the suffering and a poetics for finding meaning individually. Nihilism can be a pathway to despair if taken too concretely. I find his ideas helpful but I read many writers rather than just sticking to one system.

I come from more of an interest in psychology and the arts. I do think about the future and do not consider myself as having expertise in politics. But I do believe that translating any system of philosophy into political ethics is complicated and poses problems. But getting back to Nietzsche I do wonder if another possible way his ideas could be translated into practice would be as anarchism, but this is yet another complex area.

Doubtless you've seen this:


Nietzsche is existentialism for children. Or, more commonly, the more pretentious adolescent males.

Well, what can I say other than Jim Morrison was into him.

I am inclined to think that going by the name the person who wrote the thread is female. Perhaps she will be the one who will lead the way in the most creative transvaluation, free from the will to power of testosterone.

pretentious adolescent males — Banno

Jim Morrison — Jack Cummins

Case in point.

going by the name the person who wrote the thread is female. — Jack Cummins

Well, the first answer to her question is Kierkegaard. Then skip to Sartre.

Isn't all postmodernism about a transvaluation of values?

Maybe Ayn Rand goes beyond Nietzsche in transvaluation. However, I also think she's dumbing now what Nietzsche is saying, and adapting it to a much more shallow world view.


That's true. In terms of ethics, Heidegger, when talking about the authenticity of dasein, does seem to be talking in almost ethical terms.

Thanks a lot for your answers !

I misspoke, maybe it's due to a translation problem; but even in French, "ethic" was not the most appropriate term. I should have used the word "morality." I am sorry for that.
I am not talking about politics. I think it is quite dangerous to transpose Nietzsche's ideas to the level of a State, and that it is even making a misunderstanding about his work.

Does the word "overrun" sound appropriate to you? I used it on purpose, because I think it is commonplace to refute, to contradict Nietzsche, quite simply by opposing him with an idealism and a ready-made morality. I think it would be less banal to start from its philosophy, to take it into account, to cross it to try to go beyond.

At the moment, I am reading a French book: "Christian readings of Nietzsche" by Yves Ledure; I am very curious to know how the Christians manage to maintain their belief, while having read Nietzsche seriously. I don't mean that with contempt; I am curious on the contrary, because I think that there are some who succeed. But is it by a negation, a total refutation, autarkic of the thought of Nietzsche or is it by a going beyond, that is to say by taking into account his philosophy?

However, it is not just the Christian point of view that interests me.

Yes, I am a woman. I didn't know that Nietzsche is a philosopher that mostly teenage males read ... but that doesn't surprise me!

(Sorry for my mistakes)

I'm most familiar with Evangelical American churches. I don't see Nietzsche's thought meshing with them at all since, in general, theology essentially boils down to the precepts of:

1. All man kind is doomed to eternal torment.
2. Only faith in Jesus can save one from torment.
3. Salvation is by "faith alone," works are meaningless.
4. Once you are saved you are always saved.

These precepts are then taken to the logical conclusion, which is "go out and convert now! Convert! Convert! Convert! Everyone is doomed who doesn't accept Christ, but once they do they are good to go." You'll find churches where nothing else is preached aside from variations on this. There are, of course, variations in theology. For some, you can lose salvation through doubt, and for others, people who are not exposed to Christ don't go to hell. The latter creates the interesting contradiction where a generation could "take one for the team," and expunge Christianity from the world, thus saving all people from damnation.

However, I can see how elements of Nietzsche's thought could be worked in. If you look at his early work, particularly his Birth of Tragedy, you see the juxtaposition of the Appolonean (Aristotelian) mean and Dionysian ecstasy. The fact that, contrary to Nietzsche's bent, people tend to live happier lives cleaving to Aristotle's ethics of continence, the Appolonean, shows our fallen nature. Yet the ecstatic is the root of the religious experience. Nietzsche gets at something essential when he points this out.

I think our world reflects this simple truth. Hence the explosion of charismatic brands of Christianity, be they Pentecostal, or the new Catholic charismatic trend, big in Latin America today.

The conception of becoming more through overcoming does fit better with the Orthodox idea of salvation. Dostoevsky read and explicitly replies to Nietzsche with his Christian existentialism, and I'm happy I read the Brothers Karamazov soon after going through most of Nietzsche's work and Kaufman's excellent guide and biography. It's an able Christian response, the best I've seen.

Looking further afield, the idea of rejecting the morality of the world and chasing ecstacy and knowledge meshes fine with Gnostic Christianity, although Nietzsche clearly wouldn't agree with the asceticism of the Cathars or early Gnostics, or their Platonism. However, despite being so far off ontologically, they seem to fit together spiritually quite well.

The Gnostic pneumatic is similar to the Overman, stepping over conventional, worldly morals, and seeking truth above all else. They take a similarly dim view of the masses, of the great bulk of Christians and Jews as hylics. Nietzsche is obviously proselytizing for his ideas, so there are similarities there as well.

Nietzsche is writing about main stream Christianity in 19th century Germany and I never got the impression he studied theology let alone mysticism much, so his attacks won't bother all religious people. His description of Jewish morality is just going to seem surface level to the Jew steeped in Merkabah and Kabbalahism.

Yes, I am a woman. I didn't know that Nietzsche is a philosopher that mostly teenage males read ... but that doesn't surprise me! — Coryanthe

He's not, Banno is just talking crap.

One of the main things that Nietzsche talks about, and that he's in agreement with many Christians about, is that when you remove the God element out of theology - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, etc. - is that the whole system collapses. So he's arguing against those who basically try to remove God, but keep the system of ethics and Judeo-Christian worldview intact. The Judeo-Chrstian worldview/ethic is not at all obvious or immediately self-apparent to someone trying to build their system of value.

This point has been echoed by Christian thinkers. Personally I find it pretty convincing. I like that Nietzsche's writing is relevant in that he's primarily dealing with questions of value in a post-Christian age, a process which is ongoing.

But getting back to Nietzsche I do wonder if another possible way his ideas could be translated into practice would be as anarchism, but this is yet another complex area. — Jack Cummins

Possibly. Nietzsche hated nationalism. I've never read any of his writings on anarchism and I'm honestly not sure if he ever wrote about it. I'd love it someone could find out more about his views on the state.

That's true. In terms of ethics, Heidegger, when talking about the authenticity of dasein, does seem to be talking in almost ethical terms. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think this interpretation is justified. Heidegger seems almost Aristotelian in some ways, although he almost never speaks of happiness or the "good" or morals much, so far as I've read. I'd also argue that "authenticity" is related in some way with non-conformity, thinking outside the box, developing a style and identity for oneself, thinking for oneself, and things like that -- things which he mentions without moral judgments but which I and many others would consider "good" and valuable in many respects. It relates to skills and (good) habits that make up much of our lives, in fact. One can become an individual, spontaneous and situation-driven, without always needing to conform to the culture -- yet also not insane and inappropriate. By contrast, "inauthenticity" does seem rather bland, conforming, unthinking, unexamined, etc.

I don't think Heidegger puts it this way, but so far as I can tell it's as good an interpretation as any. What I know most in this case is from Hubert Dreyfus, who I think is a credible authority.

But truly, I am looking more specifically for philosophers who have surpassed him in terms of his ethic and his transvaluation of values. — Coryanthe

I realize I responded without really understanding the question. What would constitute deeming something as "surpassed" or "beyond" Nietzsche's ethical thinking? How would we know it surpassed him, or is simply different -- not necessarily farther, shorter, better, worse, beyond, etc. Those terms don't seem to me to have much meaning when engaged with past thinkers.

I will say that although Heidegger doesn't specifically discuss ethics (at least in my reading), ethics is still very much tied with the thoughts of the thinker in general. In this sense, I do argue that Heidegger was interested in something that is, in some ways, "bigger" than Nietzsche -- namely, being -- but even here it's difficult to say exactly why, other than the topic of being is literally everything since it permeates all beings -- including ethics. (Including music, nature, physics, matter, energy, God, etc., as well.)

Other than that I have no idea what "beyond" means in terms of Ethics. Niezsche's thinking on values, if anything, simply says we need to question the values of the past and create new ones for the future. He favors moralities of strength, courage, nobility, self-overcoming, creativity, pride, etc. There have been plenty who disagree, plenty who agree, plenty who come up with something different...

I didn't know that Nietzsche is a philosopher that mostly teenage males read — Coryanthe

It's an amusing cliché. Seems to me again that Kierkegaard would provide the sort of Christianised Nietzsche you are looking for. Kierkegaard’s Religion

Are there any philosophers who tried to go beyond Nietzsche's philosophy, especially about his transvaluation of values? is it passable? — Coryanthe

What do you mean by "beyond"? Do you mean what later philosophical problematics do Nietzsche's ideas impinge upon? I'll assume you do.

There's a series of lectures from Rick Roderick that are devoted to looking at Nietzsche's ideas and cultural relevance here. Existentialism and post structuralism as movements were both heavily influenced by him, and Rick Roderick also has an introductory lecture series on those here.

A potted and hopelessly confused answer to that "beyond", that I nevertheless believe, is that the two strands broadly run with different aspects of Nietzsche's ideas. Existentialism takes the mythical norm upheaving aspect of the individual (pace Zarathustra in the myth) and turns that doubt on previous systems of meaning into questions regarding freedom and meaningful life. Post structuralism notes the shattered systems of meaning (the death of God as socio-cultural phenomenon) we live in and studies how they behave.

Definitely not a textually motivated history, but yeah. I think it's a reasonable summary of the relationship between the two lecture series. Though partial, as there are other chains involved:

Nietzsche->Freud->post structuralism (Lacan) is one chain of influence that doesn't quite fit that.

Nietzsche->Heidegger is another mediating relationship there, as Heidegger was influential with the post structuralists Foucault, Derrida.

Also doesn't include "structuralism" at all, which is where post structuralism gets its name.

Your question has many angles of view. Nietzsche introduced many ideas of process that are not necessarily dependent upon any system of the world he argued for. But that doesn't mean we can strip him for parts. He is calling for engagement that is difficult to muster.

He often spoke of being in the way. The "trans-valuation" is not only a part of his thinking but those who don't put it that way. Creating models to bring something into view.

One of the main things that Nietzsche talks about, and that he's in agreement with many Christians about, is that when you remove the God element out of theology - whether it be Christianity, Judaism, etc. - is that the whole system collapses. — BitconnectCarlos

Something like this is, I think, the main error underlying pretty much all philosophical error: that the only alternatives are either abject nihilism or religious faith. Cynical relativism or dogmatic transcendentalism, pick your poison... or so they'd have you think.

I agree that if you just take the religious view and remove God from it, it collapses into a nihilistic view, but I think that that serves as a criticism of the religious view, and of the nihilistic view. The religious view is essentially just nihilism, patched over with "because God". The nihilistic view is essentially just religion if you pulled God out of it.

What is needed -- and to the OP , is what I think "goes beyond Nietzsche" -- is an alternative to that dichotomy entirely.

Reject faith as in dogmatism, but keep faith as in freedom of opinion without absolute proof; thus likewise rejecting skepticism as in the greedy cynicism that would lead to nihilism, but keeping skepticism as in critical thinking, a willingness to question anything.

Likewise, reject objectivism as in transcendentalism, the idea that what is actually real or moral are "out there" somewhere beyond and utterly detached from the appearances of things seeming real or moral, but keep objectivism as in universalism, the commitment to an unbiased view of what is real and what is moral; thus also rejecting subjectivism as in relativism, but keeping subjectivism as in phenomenalism, empiricism and hedonism.

Leaving you with a liberal criticism -- open to possibilities but also cautious of errors, both about knowledge and justice -- and a universalist phenomenalism, as in an empirical realism and an altruistic hedonism.

I think Maslow captured some of the spirit to make ourselves better.
The Gay Science part of the story is important. When confronted with so many dour elements, how does one continue the discussion in a way that helps people? Or oneself?

I am very curious to know how the Christians manage to maintain their belief, while having read Nietzsche seriously. — Coryanthe

Nietzsche was arguably a Christian in some unorthodox sense. Consider his seductive portrait of the Nazarene in The Antichrist. Half-remembered quote from somewhere: 'You don't read the gospels, the gospels read you.' That's why you have to read it with gloves on.

Are there any philosophers who tried to go beyond Nietzsche's philosophy, especially about his transvaluation of values? — Coryanthe

Spinoza, first and foremost ...

We can contradict Nietzsche [ ... ] but can we start from his philosophy to go beyond?

According to Nietzsche, like Spinoza, there is no "beyond" ... only after.

Is there a Christianity which clashed with Nietzsche and tried to overtake him?

G.K. Chesterton's essay collection Heretics comes to mind. Also, more philosophical than apologetic or polemical, the phenomenological works of Jean-Luc Marion, which I'm mostly acquainted with through essays and secondary literature, implicitly seems to undermine the 'literalistic' basis of Nietzsche's "death of god" from a somewhat 'christian mystical' perspective. I suppose Emmanuel Levinas does so as well, but from within philosophical Judaism (see also Buber & Heschel).

Are there other metaphysics and other moralities that have also attempted this going beyond?

Spinozism has tempted so many wanderers, like a forbidden tree heavy with generations of low hanging fruit ... but it's still the original bite that's sweetest:

I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies (1) the freedom of the will, (2) teleology, (3) the moral world-order, (4) the unegoistic, and (5) evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange! [ ... ] — With affectionate love, Your friend

~Friedrich Nietzsche, from a postcard to Franz Overbeck in Sils-Maria dated July 30, 1881

(emphasis and enumeration are mine)

Both - Deleuze calls them "philosophers of immanence" - transvaluate (all) value: Nietzsche (1844-1900) transvaluates morality culminating in a naturalistic, amoral aesthetics ("beyond good & evil" ... conscience / resentment / pity-free 'creating & destroying') and Spinoza (1632-1677) transvaluates metaphysics (i.e. deconstructs - deflates - 'transcendent(al) ontologies') thereby constituting a naturalistic, non-transcendent ethics; the difference being the latter consists in "self-overcoming" of 'superstitiously' personal-subjectivity with 'rationally' impersonal-ecstatics (i.e. natura naturans --> scientia intuitiva: understanding that 'infinite necessity is divinity'), whereas the former remains a 'psychologically' personal-subjectivity though 'stylized' by idiosyncratically excising 'the ideal and objectivity' (i.e. "affirming life by negating" the platonic-christian Superego/Big Other). In other words, Spinoza transvaluates 'Nietzschean transvaluation' before Nietzsche; in fact, this "precursor" is already Nietzsche's "philosophy of the future" ...

What reading advice could you give me on this subject? — Coryanthe

I mention a few thinkers above and these:

• Spinoza: Practical Philosophy, Gilles Deleuze

• Spinoza and Other Heretics, Vol. 2: The Adventures in Immanence, Yirmiyahu Yovel

Something like this is, I think, the main error underlying pretty much all philosophical error: that the only alternatives are either abject nihilism or religious faith. Cynical relativism or dogmatic transcendentalism, pick your poison... or so they'd have you think. — Pfhorrest

Personally I think the question of finding meaning or value in the universe is largely a personal/emotional one. Atheists are certainly capable of living subjectively meaningful lives, but I do often find these people, like Carl Sagan, have a connection to the numinous (something that "wows" them, for Sagan is was the wonders of the physical universe.)

I'm a pretty strict agnostic: No firm opinion on God's existence, and I'm fine exploring many different lines of thought whether theistic or atheistic. If one has a healthy mindset and a positive disposition they'll probably be fine as an atheist, but I do think anyone should be concerned with attempts to utterly disassemble the Judeo-Christian philosophical remnants of today's society.

Personally I'd like there to be something out there. It doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Maybe it could be an Earth-spirit of Gaia type deal, or who knows. I have not yet heard a compelling atheistic moral system, though I'm open to it. I'm sure there are reasonable moral systems under atheism but I think they'd be fundamentally different from a theistic model, or how we naturally think about morality today.

Personally I think the question of finding meaning or value in the universe is largely a personal/emotional one. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree that there is a question that is a personal emotional one, but it’s separate from the moral question; yet the possible answers to it follow the same pattern. I actually think that those possible types of answers to questions about reality and morality stem from applications of the analogous answers to the personal emotional question:

You have encountered a challenge. Maybe things are not going to work out as you expected. What do you do?

- Give up?
- Indulge in a happy fantasy about how it must definitely all be okay?
- Acknowledge the difficulty and keep trying anyway?

When the challenge is in figuring out what is real or moral, the last option is exactly the kind of criticism universalism that I advocate on those topics.

I do agree here that the whole question of finding value when confronting a challenge or in the face of adversity. And, yes, does one give up, or fantasise about happier prospects. I think that this is the point from which Nietzsche begins from nihilism and suffering to find personal meaning. This is a way of seeing a transvaluation rather than necessarily a literal creation of a whole system of social ethics.

I actually think that those possible types of answers to questions about reality and morality stem from applications of the analogous answers to the personal emotional question: — Pfhorrest

:100:

You have encountered a challenge. Maybe things are not going to work out as you expected. What do you do?

- Give up?
- Indulge in a happy fantasy about how it must definitely all be okay?
- Acknowledge the difficulty and keep trying anyway?

When the challenge is in figuring out what is real or moral, the last option is exactly the kind of criticism universalism that I advocate on those topics. — Pfhorrest

I get it where you're coming from. I'll add though, and maybe this is me just playing devil's advocate, but I'll add that some problems in life don't really appear to be solvable. In those cases, it might honestly be better to either approach the problem from a different angle or reframe it in some way... or just honestly try to think about something else. We all have limited mental energy and numerous problems that we would like to address so often sacrifices have to be made. Nothing wrong with jsut kicking back and wanting some time off from your problems either.

By all means you're free to philosophize and I would never tell you otherwise. For me, personally, at this point it's less about finding absolute truths or perfect systems than using philosophy as a tool to understand someone else's worldview and maybe kick around some ideas.

In those cases, it might honestly be better to either approach the problem from a different angle or reframe it in some way... or just honestly try to think about something else. We all have limited mental energy and numerous problems that we would like to address so often sacrifices have to be made. Nothing wrong with jsut kicking back and wanting some time off from your problems either. — BitconnectCarlos

I agree completely. :up:

I would go with Emerson (a pastor) who Nietschze mirrored. Also, taking up N.'s focus on seeing the context of an actual moral moment that can't be decided ahead of time by morality or rationality, but must be decided by a human, and the conditions of that, might be best taken up with modern Ordinary Language Philosophy like Stanley Cavell's readings of Nietschze.