Beyond 'Beyond Good and Evil'

Nietzsche is done. He is... difficult to read. To begin with, he's every cynical. His prose would have you believe he's an optimist, that he knows there will be a class of 'new philosophers' - free spirits who are free of the dogma of the old philosophers. Indeed, however, he betrays himself when he writes "Cynicism is the only form in which base souls approach what is called honesty." I think there is some truth to this. The cynic, not necessarily the pessimist, is by nature rational and discerning.

I took a few things from this book, Beyond Good and Evil.

1. That there is no objective truth. Truth varies from person to person, from circumstance to circumstance. It is only recently that morality has been attached to the action, rather than the consequence. Thus, the Nietzschian view is that the ends always justify the means. Oh, and that the ends are good sometimes and bad sometimes. Towards the end of the book, we learn that morality differs according to a person's station in life. The nobility, the aristocracy, must value intolerance and justice. The baser sort must necessarily value sympathy and charity. This is sort of like the Platonic ideal of each person, that justice is defined as doing what you are to do in the best way you can. Though, don't tell Nietzsche that, because....

2. Every old philosophy is wrong. Because there is no objective truth, every philosophy that preceded Nietzsche's is accordingly incorrect. There can be no dichotomy of true/false, of just/unjust or moral/immoral.

3. There wasn't much of a reference to Nietzsche's raison d'etre, 'nihilism'. It didn't much seem like Nietzsche has a belief in nothing, per se. Certainly he has a healthy skepticism. And a distrust for organized religion, dogmatic philosophy, and the general lethargy of intellectual pursuits in most people. But he does believe in a seemingly arbitrary good. The only caveat is that the good must be defined by us, subjectively, and pursued by the individual exclusively.

So, do I agree? It's hard to disagree with much of what he says. That the general population suffers from an uneducated approach to morality, for one. But I'm not sure what Nietzsche has to say does much to advance the discussion. It's easy to point out the lack of education, but does his work help fix that? I think his skepticism is good for the education of other philosophers, for pointing out to other intellectuals the follies of some well-known intellectuals. But philosophy written for the philosopher only is not of much value. Is there a subjective truth? Yes. Is egoism perhaps the most useful morality? Yes, and within its framework I believe most other philosophies can be better understood. Nietzsche was useful in... directing my views on philosophy, but I'm not sure he directly contributed anything to my foundation. 

If my knowledge of philosophy is a mansion, Hobbes and Plato have so far been building materials - wood and stone. Nietzsche has been a book on the proper assembly of framing. Helpful to ensure the structural integrity of my 'house', but regrettably offers little substance. Hopefully some of his better works will be more useful.

Next up is John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism.

The Republic is almost done. The last part of the last book remains.