At first glance, the short little volume of Heinrich Mann appears to provide a brief and very personal introduction to some important person history of thought. Picking a brief biographical stroke, Mann captured in a few lines his inclinations and his antipathy towards these geniuses (they all are, although each in its own way) and try to argue in such a short text of the strengths and weaknesses of them. I think far achieved its purpose, though not entirely share your view in the case of Friedrich Nietzsche. However, the idea behind, and emerge from time to time, all the work of Mann is the defense of a democratic culture in which most, the mass and the group, are considered the engine of society, and the human future. The gregarious primate is, here, understandable, given the time and circumstances and social policies that Mann wrote his essay on Nietzsche (1939).
First it is fair to recognize the merit of the brother of Thomas Mann's critique of the German giant figure, so dear in his day, when Nietzsche was raised to the Olympics one day and another well. His courage to swim against in their appreciation of the work and impact of the latter and we deserve our sympathy, should have the guts to think differently to the intellectual framework of your time, especially if your critical thinking regarding a character so deeply rooted in culture and the action of a country as it was Nietzsche in Germany in mid-century. We can also successful grant as censorship Mann to the particularities of Nietzsche's personality: proud, arrogant, contemptuous, boastful, deified, petulant, etc. All of these shortcomings was the author of "Ecce Homo" and "Aurora", a mere glance at his writings reveals and shows its character and consideration of himself.
Reading Mann's essay reveals a palpable resentment towards Nietzsche. It is a resentment of what he wrote, because his ideals, values \u200b\u200band actions. Except a few attributes of Nietzsche appreciated Mann ("It was genius, contradictory, always truthful"), almost everything, both what was and what drove, that both defended and attacked what is reason for criticism. For the brother of Thomas Mann, for example, Nietzsche's, but responsible, at least it instigator of totalitarian regimes, wars with millions of innocent victims and personal inclinations close to madness, by its nature anti-social and anti-gregarious (do not confuse the terms.)
"Nietzsche has voted for the war, especially war with many casualties," says Mann. It also ensures that peacetime in which he lived influenced his eagerness to fight, tired of so much peace and quiet. Nietzsche called for the dispute, confrontation, the rise of aristocratic culture, a few above the others, the mob, the people, the sacrifice of most of the rise of a small group, creator of new values. His metaphysics, Mann added, "it suited him and nobody else."
are understandable, again, these accusations in the historical context in which he lived Mann, and are criticisms, too repeat, they keep a substantial reflection of an interpretation "fair" that Nietzsche can be done within a conventional context. However, to fully understand this thinker is necessary, we suspect, even looking beyond his time and situation social. Not because their writing or their claims can not be applied in time, but because it is beyond him as we can, perhaps, to guess the direction of his thoughts, and their actual intent.
Nietzsche's texts are themselves complex and contradictory. Sometimes provide conflicting readings, and others do not transmit more than confusion, as Mann himself says. This was, of course, many stakeholders made approaches to his works and his words, justifying their actions (either laudable or barbarians) by the ambiguity of Nietzsche. That has happened, for example, with the hedonistic (Nietzsche always advocated free life, to regain the instincts and reinvest what the priest had described as "bad" [all that, actually, is good in life], and vice versa), who clung to the German to give vent to their long-repressed impulses. However, Nietzsche never saw with good eyes and uncontrolled self-indulgent hedonism, we must demand discipline, sacrifice, and even asceticism, to ensure fidelity to the increased life, a life increasingly outdoing itself. Only those who master their impulses and passions are the great men, the "masters", the true aristocrats, but not by his aristocratic status, as Mann seems to interpret, but by creating new values, for being "beyond good and evil" and they are the vanguard of a new morality.
Warriors also covered by the pen of Nietzsche, are not "warriors" violent ("blood is the worst witness of truth, even poisons pure doctrine," he said on one occasion the philosopher) in the usual sense are not soldiers leaving the battlefield to give his life for one side or another, but subjects that are strong and noble because they have realized the falseness of life and rejects the moral of the slaves, because they see God's great sham, and try to assert their own existence and radiate life, elevating the values \u200b\u200bunder individual self-improvement.
Although Nietzsche speaks and writes about peoples' slaves' and 'gentlemen', does not subjugate such strata "social" to a split rail and desirable, but a mere historical fact, are no less' slaves 'those rich and powerful who use their resources to harass, violate or cause hardship to the poor and homeless, because ultimately they are also subject to slave morality and the scope of traditional values. About being a "driver" of war or racism or in favor of radical nationalism, Nietzsche also said: "The narcissism of the Germanic race consciousness is almost criminal" or "I have a simple rule, not having any dealings with promoters of racism."
Thirst for Nietzsche, in short, is to create a society (but always starting with the individual) states in its values \u200b\u200band merits, a new appreciation of life, lively, replacing the traditional Christian understanding. This requires the emergence of a moral innovative, creative individuals a series of new human traits.
Heinrich Mann, meanwhile, calls for a moral, if I may say so, democracy, a culture that sends the group, trends gregarious, in which even the individual grows by itself, is still subject and anchored to the "herd morality" in terms nietzschanos. Mann argues that the good, positive for society, it is equally good for the individual or, if you will, it is best for all can not be, as in the case of Nietzsche, the triumph of an effective minority, but share a common destiny and improvement within social and democratic.
is, therefore, two different perceptions of the role to be played, and how to play "the individual within the social union. A searching the splendor of an "aristocracy" strong and assertive, creative new values \u200b\u200band ideals persecuting Dionysian; other parks his personal drive, or limited, in pursuit of a collective balance of income and democracy that has as its goal the enrichment of all. Faced with such radically opposing two proposals, the election will never be easy, and may end up deciding more for our own personal biases than by a rational and detached analysis of the benefits and harms both, of course, present.
0 comments:
Post a Comment