Nietzsche: Fascist or Freedom Fighter? Part V; Heidegger’s Blunder and the Buddhist Doctrine of Change

This article will assess the issues Heidegger raises regarding Nietzsche’s philosophy. In so doing we will uncover the reason why Heidegger, member of the Nazi party, perverted the philosophy. Although later Nietzsche-influenced existentialists, such as Sartre and Jaspers would have differing views towards the Germans, and Nietzsche, part of the reason for the confusion in misinterpreting Nietzsche’s philosophy stems from Heidegger’s use of Nietzsche and Hitler.
Heidegger misinterprets Nietzsche’s philosophy on two main fronts and they are: 1) Heidegger’s understanding of the will to power as a concept, and 2) Heidegger’s failure to fully understand the refutation of Platonism. But these two are the same. Heidegger, follows an interpretation of Nietzsche based upon a statement of Nietzsche’s only explained in one rare notebook—“The Eternal Recurrence of the Same”. What Heidegger believes this to mean is a constantly reoccurring universe that is exactly the same every time the universe is born again. Based on this philosophy, the universe is an eternal stasis, total eternal nature of being. Its persuasive, but it’s also Platonic. This is of the greatest significance, Nietzsche’s philosophy, as Heidegger himself explains was an “inverted Platonism”.
Heidegger’s faith in an eternal recurrence of the same universe is probably not what Nietzsche intended, otherwise he would have published it that way. In any event, Nietzsche’s critique of Plato forbids this. Plato according to Heidegger, reversed the values of Being and Becoming, placing Becoming (the everyday world of constantly changing nature) below the valued concept of Being (that which is eternal). Heidegger believes this is the error with Plato, thus enabling him to believe that an eternal world was still in some way true. Heidegger, simply switches the placement in the distinction between Being and Becoming. It is this distinction is the point of Heidegger’s error. Before we elaborate on the consequences of this error, let us return to the concepts themselves, they can be confusing. Being and Becoming according to Nietzsche can be classified in this manner: The “real world” and the “apparent world.” The apparent world is what Plato has devalued. This devaluation to Nietzsche means that the world that we see has been relegated in importance below another world, a false world, that Nietzsche sarcastically calls the “real world”. Nietzsche’s goal is to edify his readers against the idea. Nietzsche states on page 20 of the Twilight of the Idols that: “the Real world—an idea with no further use, no longer an obligation—an idea become useless, superfluous—therefore a refuted idea: let us do away with it!” He goes on to state that we will get rid of the “apparent world” as well. This is where Heidegger messed up, he assumed that this inversion was a clear reversal of the apparent and real worlds in importance. But, no, they are both fallacious.
Being and Becoming to Nietzsche were understood differently because of his influence from Buddhism and the doctrine of change. Nietzsche believed that Being was our eternal nature eternally recurring but not the same way. On the contrary, because Becoming, the “apparent world”, is also obliterated by Nietzsche I believe that he meant that Becoming and Being were really two sides of the same coin. For example, if the world of Being and the world of Becoming are to be invalidated, then there can be no “world” of either at all. Since these realms do not actually exist, the concepts return to what they are—concepts. They are two aspects of everything we see and experience and they persist and shape our existence simultaneously. Plato’s separation of the two concepts is a metaphysical dualism in Philosophy. It is easy to see how Heidegger misinterpreted Nietzsche’s inversion of Plato. Heidegger did not consider this to mean a refutation, and an antithetical method as I do, but rather a metaphysical reversal, being and becoming still exist in the sense, that the eternal realm to Heidegger meant the eternal existence of our beings based on the concept that they will never die, forever, they will simply be born, live and die, forever and ever in the same way. This is Heidegger and the Nazi’s hell. The Nazi Swastika is tilted at a 45 degree angle and means reincarnation for the state, or in this case the same state over and over again. This is still then, a bit Platonic, in the sense that the apparent world and real worlds are then still tangible, the apparent world is this one, and the real one, the one before and the one after as they are the same, and thus eternal. I believe that what Nietzsche meant, was that Being the nature that is eternal, is the same as Becoming the nature of change. This can be better phrased as “the nature of change is eternal” and now the strong influence this Buddhist doctrine had on Nietzsche is clear. As this is the meaning behind all suffering, birth, life and death are suffering because they are constantly changing and occurring.

Nietzsche: Fascist or Freedom Fighter? Part IV

Now that we have assessed Nietzsche’s doctrine of power, and have seen that it is neither race restrictive, nor malevolent in intention, it is time to assess the Nietzschean conception of morality. Morality to Nietzsche is beyond good and evil, and only rests in one’s conscience whether guilty or not. In the second section of the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche concludes that guilt is the true result of all bad actions. However, as for the conceptions of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ themselves, they are too hollow and restrictive. This article will explain Nietzschean morality.
In the first article I wrote for theSOP I presented the question; whether or not there exist flexible moral truths in religions? The conclusion that I came to was generated from Buddhism—namely skillful means, the art of bending morals for a greater good. As eloquently stated in the Lotus Sutra, morals must sometimes give way for even higher ideals, such as an instance of lying to save a life or many lives. This is what Nietzsche meant by the term amoral, not some kind of sociopathic moral nihilism, where no actions could bring with them guilt and suffering. But rather an instinctive value system based on human nature.
‘Good’ and ‘evil’ are fictions. According to Nietzsche, there is really only good and bad action, not some kind supernatural presence dictating and judging one’s deeds based on a simple law book. In this manner, mankind must ignore the rigid rules and hypocrisies laden in the ethics of Abrahamic religion, and follow their instincts, their will-to-power and their freedom. Nietzsche knew much more about Christianity than he did about Buddhism. However, it appears he knew enough about Buddhism to generate a sharpened ethical theory—suited for humanity.

Nietzsche: Fascist or Freedom Fighter? Part III

On a another note, it must be regarded as good, what is meant by power in Nietzsche`s philosophy. Although many readers of Nietzsche find a strong Machiavellian influence of cold, ruthless authority, this conception is flawed. I will show how Nietzsche`s arguments are valid and correct as regarding the feelings of power and overcoming.
In Twilight of the Idols there is a reference to Cesare Borgia: "compared with us, a Cesare Borgia is by no means to be represented after my manner as a "higher man,` a kind of overman. "(Twilight of the Idols, p. 63) Here Nietzsche separates himself from cruelty and the suffering of the Borgia family, while playing with the Borgia`s family`s conception of Christ. The Medici were a crime family within the Church that made Nietzsche laugh! Cesare Borgia, a student of Machiavelli`s work, was as cold and ruthless as they come, Nietzsche mainly admired the hypocrisy of such an individual appearing.
Nietzsche`s true intentions with power and enlightenment had to do with overcoming, not overcoming others necessarily, but overcoming oneself and one`s suffering. In order to do this Nietzsche wrote for us, genealogies, guides, and polemics for us to see the true history of religion and especially Abrahamic religion. The failed mission of German Christianity was a huge motivational factor for Nietzsche`s work.
These were the very Germans who would go on to commit unspeakable atrocities at the hands of a thoroughly diabolical politician. Nietzsche`s Overman, was not Protestant or Catholic, but something more Buddhist and less nihilist. The selections regarding Buddhism in Nietzsche`s writings are nearly entirely positive, (save for a criticism similar to the Confucians, that they withdrew from society too much. See my article "Nietzsche`s problem in Buddhism) Nietzsche`s philosophy reflects the Buddhist system of belief in accordance with their shared belief in life affirmation.
Clearly Wagner, Hitler, and the Nazi`s beliefs were in accordance with death and vengeance and not life affirmation. Nietzsche states in Thus Spake Zarathustra For man to be redeemed from revenge "that for me is the bridge to the highest hope, and a rainbow after long storms. Otherwise, however the tarantulas would have it. "( Thus Spake Zarathustra, p. 161) Nietzsche associates the metaphor tarantula " for the typical German Protestant plebeian who was anti-Semitic, wrathful and vengeful even in Nietzsche`s time.

Nietzsche: Fascist or Freedom Fighter? Part II

With the racial theory misconceptions dealt with in Part I of this series, we can now ask the question; what of the ‘philosophy of power’ itself? Could not the pursuit of power have awakened Hitler to a world of manipulation? Unfortunately the answer is yes, but with an objection—namely, that the philosophy of power was meant for every man capable of it, regardless of, race or religion. With that said, this article will delve deeper into the puzzle that is National Socialism when pit against Nietzsche’s life affirming philosophy.

“A great potentate might arise, an artful prodigy, who with approval and disapproval could strain and constrain all the past, until it became for him a bridge, a harbinger, a herald, and a cock-crowing.”(Thus Spake Zarathustra 141)

From the quote above, it can be derived that Nietzsche foresaw the coming of National Socialism and a “potentate” like Hitler. Perhaps this is through his early association with Wagner, Hitler’s favorite composer. Whatever the case, Nietzsche offers this premonition as a warning, not as something he inherently supports. Nietzsche’s goal was to free mankind of the valueless basis within Pauline Christianity. He saw the work of Paul, as an attack from the Pharisees and as a sublime vengeance for the Jewish people. Judaism itself is good in many aspects when following Nietzsche’s philosophy. However, Christianity in its German form was a great mistake, a curse from the very Jews that the Germans were fearful. In Beyond Good and Evil and Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche traces the roots of Pauline Christianity to a sublime curse from the oppressed Jews, not as the “crucifiers of Jesus” like the Germans believed. Rather, the Jews to Nietzsche were an incredibly intelligent people who produced Jesus a great deceiver (it should be noted, that Nietzsche recognized these traits of Judaism sixty years prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic and Dead Sea Scrolls which prove them).
Nietzsche points out this hypocrisy in German theology of anti-Semitic behavior as stupid and arrogant. German Protestantism was created by Luther, who by simply wishing to free himself of the Catholic Church attempted to free others through a new theology built on textual exegesis. By arrogantly using the very Catholic bible of the Catholic Church he detested, he created a religion that just fueled the Pauline curse more. For these reasons, German Protestantism became an equally violent and self-destructive religion as the Catholic variety of Pauline Christianity. Thus, Hitler acting more as an Agent of Chaos than as a statesman, was able to rationalize to himself as a politician of a land filled with Pauline Christians who already possessed an anti-Semitic bent. Why was the Holocaust possible? He perverted the power philosophy of Nietzsche, while spreading an active nihilism throughout all of Europe, capitalizing on the spurious race philosophy and pre-existing theological hatred for Judaism.

Nietzsche: Fascist or Freedom Fighter?

There is an oft assumed fallacy in philosophy and historical studies from the last hundred years. This fallacy is the idea that Nietzsche caused fascism in Germany. The reason being is obvious—Hitler’s public speeches involving misquoted Nietzsche text. Scholars today still argue over the issue. This short article will redeem Nietzsche of these charges.
Walter Kaufmann, a leading Jewish Nietzsche scholar of the 20th century was the leading Nietzsche scholar who went against this fascism charge. In his Nietzsche he states that “Hitler knew ten times as much about Wagner as he did about Nietzsche.”(Nietzsche 290-308) Kaufmann explains that Wagner was the true Anti-Semite and this racism is part of the cause of the well-known split between the former friends Wagner and Nietzsche. Nietzsche ended his friendship with Wagner and pursued a path inimical to the Nazi’s. In multiple places in Nietzsche’s writings he explains himself as an anti-anti-Semite, with discussions on Judaism. For example, “The dignity of death and a kind of consecration of passion has perhaps never yet been presented so beautifully…than by certain Jews of the Old Testament: to these even the Greeks could have gone to school!”(Nietzsche notebooks 301) This statement is certainly not that of an anti-Semite’s!
As for Hitler’s speeches and references to Nietzsche, it was all an attempt to scapegoat his crimes on someone prior. Nietzsche’s works were mostly recognized posthumously. After Nietzsche’s death, Elisabeth Forster (Nietzsche’s sister), likely edited some of the works of anti-Germanic, and pro-Jewish statements. She is regarded as the one who spread Nietzsche’s work, but she also was known to have a right-winged husband in the political party. Even then, Hitler’s references to Nietzsche were taken out of context and bastardized.
I had a professor during my undergraduate philosophy degree who once told the class, that Nietzsche was clearly a racist. The professor’s proof was the statement “Blond Beast” in Genealogy of Morals and other “racial” statements. This professor had no idea what these metaphors mean. In the same passage as “Blond Beast” Nietzsche goes on to explain that he is referring to “Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, Homeric heroes, Scandinavian Vikings…”(Genealogy 41). If my professor had really read this passage carefully enough, he would have realized Nietzsche’s “Blond Beast” was a metaphor for the Lion, and these peoples he has listed are like all like a “Beast of Prey”. The metaphor is not racial, it is cultural. It is unfortunate that my professor considered Nietzsche’s statement racial and not cultural, for this is how these misconceptions get spread in the first place.