Previous
1. On the Prejudices of Philosophers
Themes
Key
LitCharts assigns a color and icon to each theme in Beyond Good and Evil, which you can use to track the themes throughout the work.
Good and Evil
Knowledge, Truth, and Untruth
The Individual and the Crowd
The Dark Side of Modernity
Women and Men
Summary
Analysis
Nietzsche expresses wonder at the degree of falsehood in which humans live. He argues that our knowledge is based on a much deeper and stronger foundation of ignorance, a simplification of the world around us. Going even further, he suggests that the will to knowledge is not at all the opposite of the will to ignorance but is its “refinement.” Once again, Nietzsche forcefully claims that what are posited as opposites are merely differences of degree, a thought that language itself makes it difficult for humans to grasp. Considering science—and philosophy—as a falsification of the world, Nietzsche then expounds on the irony of sacrificing oneself to the truth, which he sees as a pointless endeavor.
Nietzsche continues to develop his theory of human knowledge, arguing that understanding the world requires distorting and selectively interpreting it, too. This concept is by no means simple, as our very way of speaking—and thinking—prevents us from easily discussing it as such. Nietzsche’s target here is not language, however, whose limits he views as natural and even occasionally useful; instead, he targets moral philosophy, which portrays these limits are moral values in their own right. Nietzsche’s sarcasm directed toward those who would sacrifice themselves for truth indicates how differently he views his own philosophical project.
Themes
Discussing the individual and the crowd, Nietzsche suggests a paradoxical formula: while those who feel at home in the crowd are not destined for knowledge, those who retreat from the world are equally cut off from it. The philosopher, rather, must understand the “average man.” There is, however, a shortcut in the form of cynicism, which Nietzsche considers to be an unphilosophical grasping of the truth about the average man, which the philosopher would do well to learn from. Borrowing terms from Sanskrit, Nietzsche continues to develop the theme of the free spirit who does not fit into the crowd. He also expresses frustration at the impossibility of translating certain qualities from one language to another, finding German particularly lacking.
Nietzsche’s desired role for the philosopher in society presupposes the idea of nobility he will develop later in the book, arguing for a limited degree of distance between the philosopher and the crowd. Nietzsche believes that philosophers should be active in social life but should conceive of themselves as distinct from the mass: as free spirits. Here too Nietzsche plays with language to indicate the ways that perspective distorts knowledge, not only on an individual level but for entire societies as well.
Themes
Independence, Nietzsche argues, is a privilege due only to the strongest, and is moreover a very risky endeavor that forever sets one apart from the crowd. Likewise, the greatest insights strike those who are not ready to hear them as errors or even crimes. Nietzsche privileges the esoteric approach to philosophy over the exoteric, arguing that the philosopher should look down from above on the problems of the world. Nietzsche then cautions the young, whose strict binary thinking and lack of nuance limit their access to truth. However, he also asserts, paradoxically, that love of nuance and excessive criticism of the moral strictness of youth is just as much an expression of youth, not maturity.
Expanding on his idea of the role of the philosopher in society, Nietzsche hints at the ways in which he finds modern society in particular to be hostile to a flourishing philosophy. These ideas will be explained at length later in the book. Here as elsewhere Nietzsche moves seamlessly between the core argument of the book and a more general, aphoristic style, segueing into musings on youth and nuance.
Themes
Nietzsche begins to lay out his theory of morality, claiming that throughout most of history, actions have been judged for their consequences. Under contemporary morality, however, they are judged by their origin, the intention behind them. Nietzsche finds this deeply misguided and asks how one can understand an action through intention, as conscious intentions are merely the expression of deeper, unconscious drives such as the will to power. Contrasting what he calls the “pre-moral” period of history with the moral era, Nietzsche wonders if an “extra-moral” time is close at hand. Morality, as philosophers have understood it, is to Nietzsche yet another prejudice, making the self-overcoming of morality an urgent task for the philosophers of the future.
To Nietzsche, the judgment of one’s morals based upon one’s intentions rather than one’s actions is a consequence of the very concept of “the good” developed by Plato, a position he first establishes in the preface; only with the invention of a universal concept of “good” can one begin to judge actions this way, rather than situating them in their proper context and acknowledging the limited perspective of the person casting judgment. While Nietzsche does not clearly define the historical periods he describes in this section, the “pre-moral” seems to encompass both prehistory and ancient societies before Platonism, while the moral era corresponds to Christian civilization and its successor, Enlightenment modernity.
Themes
Get the entire Beyond Good and Evil LitChart as a printable PDF.
Nietzsche expresses his skepticism of the morality of self-denial. Equally suspicious is the faith in the righteousness of the modern world. Nietzsche contrasts the negative connotations of a suspicious character in modern, bourgeois society with the falseness of that same society’s own morals, and claims that philosophers have both the right and the duty to be suspicious. A true philosopher questions everything. At the same time, Nietzsche is scornful of the search for truth as its own moral idea, mocking Voltaire. He wonders if we can understand any part of reality but our own drives, and reasserts his proposition that the world is determined by the will to power.
Much like his admiration of cynicism earlier, Nietzsche’s praise for suspicion is based not on the value of these characteristics as such, but on the hypocrisy of modern morality, to which they offer a much-needed corrective. The negativity with which common morals respond to these traits, to Nietzsche, indicates that they strike an important nerve. This uncompromising mode of questioning is different, however, from claiming moral righteousness for oneself when criticizing society. Nietzsche believes that philosophers should be both ruthlessly inquisitive toward society and humbled by their own drives, which are often incomprehensible.
Themes
Taking the French Revolution as an example, Nietzsche argues that commentators often interpret a text or event until the original is no longer visible, thereby losing access to the past. He then suggests that while happiness and virtue are unconnected to truth, perhaps unhappiness and evil do have a relationship to it. Nietzsche suggests that the unhappy and the evil may have a privileged access to the truth, as their lack of morals engenders a strong and independent spirit. Nietzsche also argues that the profound is closely connected to masks and disguise. As the profound is precious, one must guard it with disguises; at the same time the profound attracts misinterpretation, which also add to its disguises.
Nietzsche continues to mix aphorisms and more general observations about life into the main thrust of his argument, commenting on the nature of knowledge and interpretation. Regarding the evil’s privileged access to the truth, Nietzsche is not so much suggesting that evil is truly better at grasping the truth, but rather that because the moral prejudices of society are connected to “good,” those who disregard them and embrace “evil” may have a clearer view of things.
Themes
In advocating the life of a free spirit, Nietzsche urges both caution and bravery, arguing that the free spirit must constantly test themselves. Moreover, they must be careful never to get stuck to other people, places, or social positions, or to particular sciences, philosophies, thoughts, or feelings. The true test of independence, rather, is conserving oneself. Nietzsche sees a new kind of philosopher emerging which embodies this ideal, who he refers to as “attempters.” These new philosophers, while advocates of truth, are fundamentally opposed to the dogmatists Nietzsche criticizes, and therefore are opposed to popular morality as well. As free spirits, they will demand their truths for themselves, not the common good; to Nietzsche, the common good is above all common, and profundity is beyond its reach.
While Nietzsche’s pronouncements on the morality of modern society often seem almost apocalyptic, he also is hopeful that it is creating its own undoing, in the form of new free spirits and philosophers of the future. Society’s gradual recognition of the false, limited nature of the “truth” that morality, science, or a nation offers will create new thinkers who are willing to challenge both established categories of knowledge and the limits of their own knowledge. These new thinkers, in rejecting modernity, will naturally avoid the “common” and gravitate toward the noble, according to Nietzsche.
Themes
While Nietzsche believes that the philosophers of the future are certainly free spirits, he also argues that they will transcend that category. Clarifying his thoughts, he harshly criticizes the shallow understanding of free spirits found throughout modern Europe. For Nietzsche the incorrectly designated free spirits, whom he calls “levelers,” are the ideologues of modernity and democracy, finding in traditional forms of the society the root of human suffering. This, to Nietzsche, is an expression of herd mentality and a refusal of greatness. He strongly rejects the desire to abolish suffering, which he sees as the necessary constraint through which humans grow and develop.
Nietzsche is anxious to distinguish his understanding of the free spirit from its general usage in 19th-century Europe. While Nietzsche was far from alone in rejecting his society and its values, he finds in many of its critics the same prejudices and dogmatism, both of which often stem from the same false morality. Rejecting the egalitarian views that most social critics of the time adopted, Nietzsche instead points to nature and humankind’s animal qualities, arguing that perhaps modern society does not have too much violence and suffering, but too little.
Themes
By contrast to the false free spirits of modernity, Nietzsche’s philosophers of the future see suffering, hardness, force, and other “immoral” affects as just as essential to humankind’s development as pleasure, safety, and happiness. These philosophers will live and work in solitude, unlike the free spirits of the crowd, who seek comfort and security above all else. The philosophy of the future, rejecting and transcending the morality developed by dogmatic philosophy, will be one that moves “beyond good and evil.”
The free spirits Nietzsche criticizes, in their attacks on modern life, in fact reproduce the same moral prejudice of “the good.” Truly free thinking, by contrast, will require embracing the entirety of human nature, including the traits and behaviors these free spirits code as “evil.” Here Nietzsche lays out in full the main argument of the book: the philosophy of the future—a philosophy which seeks to develop human capacities to the fullest—must reject the morality of good and evil and embrace all of human nature in order to develop these capacities.
Themes
