Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Nietzsche's Task: An Interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil (review)

Nietzsche's Task: An Interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil (review) Nachlass, where, in agreement with Heidegger, Nietzsche's true philosophy is supposed to be found. Therefore, Köster raises the same objection as he did against Heidegger's interpretation: MüllerLauter's interpretation neglects the importance of The Birth of Tragedy and the Dionysian principle. In his reply to Köster, Müller-Lauter admits that he did not pay much attention to the principle of the Dionysian in his work (Müller-Lauter, "Nietzsches Lehre vom Willen zur Macht," Nietzsche Studien 3 (1974): 19), but he nevertheless criticizes Köster's approach, regarding it as an example of a monistic understanding (and therefore a misunderstanding) of the will to power. This argument, however, is hardly convincing, especially when one reads Köster's text carefully. Köster does not argue against a pluralistic understanding of the will to power, but against the logical exclusiveness of that plurality which does not include unity, and he accuses Müller-Lauter of having failed to grasp the radical nature of Nietzsche's critique of logic: "The Zugleich [simultaneity] of a unity of plurality, of torn contradiction and harmony with itself even implicates the abolition of the principle of contradiction and thus transgresses the borders of rational thinking" (107). The general character of the world is chaos, which is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Nietzsche Studies Penn State University Press

Nietzsche's Task: An Interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil (review)

The Journal of Nietzsche Studies , Volume 29 (1) – Sep 5, 2005

Loading next page...
 
/lp/penn-state-university-press/nietzsche-s-task-an-interpretation-of-beyond-good-and-evil-review-n7NMfdPv0k

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Penn State University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 by The Friedrich Nietzsche Society.
ISSN
1538-4594
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Nachlass, where, in agreement with Heidegger, Nietzsche's true philosophy is supposed to be found. Therefore, Köster raises the same objection as he did against Heidegger's interpretation: MüllerLauter's interpretation neglects the importance of The Birth of Tragedy and the Dionysian principle. In his reply to Köster, Müller-Lauter admits that he did not pay much attention to the principle of the Dionysian in his work (Müller-Lauter, "Nietzsches Lehre vom Willen zur Macht," Nietzsche Studien 3 (1974): 19), but he nevertheless criticizes Köster's approach, regarding it as an example of a monistic understanding (and therefore a misunderstanding) of the will to power. This argument, however, is hardly convincing, especially when one reads Köster's text carefully. Köster does not argue against a pluralistic understanding of the will to power, but against the logical exclusiveness of that plurality which does not include unity, and he accuses Müller-Lauter of having failed to grasp the radical nature of Nietzsche's critique of logic: "The Zugleich [simultaneity] of a unity of plurality, of torn contradiction and harmony with itself even implicates the abolition of the principle of contradiction and thus transgresses the borders of rational thinking" (107). The general character of the world is chaos, which is

Journal

The Journal of Nietzsche StudiesPenn State University Press

Published: Sep 5, 2005

There are no references for this article.