A Character Against Its Time
What does it mean to judge an age's highest values by instinct rather than by argument? The book reads Nietzsche less as a doctrine than as a temperament that recoiled from guilt, sin, the beyond and the fatherland.
The first part sets the key for the rest: Nietzsche's objections to his age were not conclusions reached by logic but the reactions of a healthy nature, the way an eye turns from a painful colour. Guilt, sin, an afterlife and a moral law placed above life struck him as signs of decline, and asceticism as life turning against itself. Even truth fell under suspicion, as a value that must show it serves life. Steiner writes as an ally, treats these instincts as the right ones, and asks what sort of person could live by them.
- instinct
- morality
- religion
- asceticism
- truth
- reason
- knowledge
- epistemology
- interpretation
- conformity
- suffering
- naturalism
Enter a dialogue
- What do you say to someone who feels guilty for things they cannot honestly regret?
- Nietzsche's fellow free thinkers knew every argument against the old religious ideas, you note, yet their instincts still clung to them. What did he have that they lacked?
- Nietzsche holds that a judgment's falseness is no objection to it if it serves life. Doesn't that undercut his own claims?
- Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms and often contradicted himself. Doesn't reading him as one consistent character impose a unity he refused?
- Someone keeps giving up pleasures because denying themselves feels virtuous. When is that strength, and when is it life turning against itself?