Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies
Nietzsche and Objectivism

Unit Three: March 20 - April 16

Eyal Mozes' Comments on
D.J. Glombowski's Review Essay on Nihilism and Connections to Naziism
In Friedrich Nietzsche's
The Will to Power and Beyond Good and Evil
with follow-up discussion.

To: TOC Cyberseminar <cybersem@objectivistcenter.org>

Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2000 9:14 AM

Subject: Cyberseminar: EM Commentary on DJG Review Essay-Part 3

From: Eyal Mozes

I agree with most of D. J. Glombowski's essay. In this commentary, I raise
two questions on the issues he discusses.

I. On the subject of Nietzsche and nihilism, D.J. states that Nietzsche sees
his will-to-power philosophy as an alternative both to Christian absolute
values and to the Nihilistic abandonment of all meaning and value. He "calls
for a new breed of philosophers who will be strong enough to carry his
philosophy of the future into existence".

But just why does Nietzsche want these new philosophers to arise, and what
good does he expect them to do? Specifically, does Nietzsche believe that
these new philosophers are the solution to his culture's malaise, and that
they will help create a new, strong culture?

There are really two related questions here:

a. Will these new philosophers, who recognize the will to power as the
source of the life force, be identifying the nature of life as it really is,
as opposed to the false approaches of both Christianity and nihilism? On
this, I agree with D.J.; Nietzsche's attitude seems to suggest an
affirmative answer, i.e. he does seem to believe that the will-to-power
philosophy identifies life as it really is, while other philosophies deceive
us about life. This is inconsistent with his Perspectivalism, but that does
not seem to disturb him.

b. Even if Nietzsche's new philosophers will identify the true nature of
life, there is still the question: what effect will this have? Why is it
important for philosophers to identify the true nature of life? I have not
seen anywhere in the readings an indication of what Nietzsche's view is on
this.

Do correct or incorrect philosophies lead to a strong or weak culture?
Nietzsche's view that moral types are based on psycho-biological types would
logically lead to a negative answer. To allow a strong culture to rise, what
we need is not a better philosophy, but an improvement in the
psycho-biological makeup of the species. I don't see how this will be helped
by philosophers recognizing the will to power.

So while Nietzsche has a lot of criticisms of Christianity, Kantianism, and
other philosophies that he opposed, it is not clear to me from Nietzsche's
writings that he blames these philosophies for the decline he sees in the
culture of his time. It seems just as consistent with Nietzsche's statements
about the culture - and much more consistent with his discussion of morality
and values - that he sees the causality as working in the other direction,
the decline of the culture being caused by the decline of the species and
the greater prevalence of slave-types, and in turn *leading* to the
dominance of slave-morality philosophies or of nihilism. Conversely,
Nietzsche's call for new philosophers to recognize the will to power does
not mean that he thinks such philosophers will have a positive effect on the
culture; rather, he thinks that a stronger culture can come from an
improvement in the species, and will in turn *lead* to the rise of
philosophers who will accept his will-to-power philosophy.

II. On the subject of Nietzsche and Nazism, I agree with D.J.'s rejection of
the idea that Nietzsche can be blamed for Nazism. But I wonder whether even
the claim D.J. does accept - that Nietzsche is part of the total influence
on Nazism - is justified.

Those ideas that Nietzsche shared with the Nazis - his collectivism, his
denigration of reason, his glorification of conflict, his division of people
into strong and weak - are all ideas that were prevalent among German
intellectuals long before Nietzsche. (I don't include anti-Judaism in the
above list, because Nietzsche's version of anti-Judaism is so different from
Nazi anti-Semitism that it is hard to see anything essential in common
between them.) All aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy that differed from the
ideas dominant among earlier German intellectuals - such as his view of the
precise nature of the difference between the masters and the slaves, or his
attacks on Christianity - are completely different from the ideas held by
the Nazis. This leads me to doubt to what extent Nietzsche can be seen as a
real influence on the Nazis at all.

It is an interesting question of intellectual history, which I guess goes
beyond the scope of this seminar, to investigate to what extent any Nazi
thinkers were actually influenced by reading Nietzsche (rather than just
admiring some of his aphorisms - e.g. about the "blond beast" - which
sounded good to them when quoted out of context). I do not have the
knowledge to answer this question; but given the huge differences between
Nietzsche's and the Nazis' ideas - and given the handy tool that Nazism
provides for smearing by association anything that contemporary
intellectuals dislike - I am reluctant to accept claims about Nietzsche's
influence on the Nazis without some strong documentation.

Eyal Mozes


*****************************************************
Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies
Moderator: William Thomas
Email: cybersem@objectivistcenter.org

All Cyberseminar posts are working papers with copyright
reserved to the author. They may not be published or adapted
without permission, but may be circulated for purposes of
scholarly discussion.

*****************************************************

To: TOC Cyberseminar <cybersem@objectivistcenter.org>

Sent: Friday, March 31, 2000 11:01 AM

Subject: Cyberseminar: Comment on E.M.'s Commentary

From: MICHELLE COHEN

Eyal Mozes wrote:

"Do correct or incorrect philosophies lead to a strong or weak culture?
Nietzsche's view that moral types are based on psycho-biological types
would logically lead to a negative answer. To allow a strong culture to
rise, what we need is not a better philosophy, but an improvement in the
psycho-biological makeup of the species. I don't see how this will be
helped by philosophers recognizing the will to power."

I think that a recognition of the will to power by philosophers can
certainly help a culture to be aware of the potential and significance
of the will to power. Only an awareness that the will to power is the
goal will motivate a culture to do whatever is necessary in order to
improve the psycho-biological makeup of the species.

Nietzsche appears to say that some people are born "improved" and some
are not and that nothing can be done about it. However, why would he
bother to write so much about the will to power if not to spread the
word about it and make the readers aware of it? Apparently, the ones who
are born "improved" have to be made aware of it by a true philosopher
like him. This, perhaps, is the role of the philosophers - to expose the
masters among their readers or pupils, let them know they are masters,
and support them with the true philosophy.


*******************
Michelle F. Cohen
Columbia, Maryland


*****************************************************
Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies
cybersem@objectivistcenter.org

All Cyberseminar posts are working papers with copyright
reserved to the author. They may not be published or adapted
without permission, but may be circulated for purposes of
scholarly discussion.

*****************************************************