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

Learn More →

Replies to Commentators on "The Biology of Evil"

Replies to Commentators on "The Biology of Evil" <p>Abstract:</p><p>In this article, I reply to commentators Leonard Feldblyum, Robert Holub, and David Owen on my article "The Biology of Evil." While I concede that Nietzsche often invoked standard degenerationist rhetoric about breeding, I argue that Nietzsche, unlike other degenerationists, never offered any concrete plans for such breeding and was not interested in raising the capacities of average citizens, but rather was concerned with the exceptional few. I argue that these "strokes of luck" do not readily lend themselves to planned breeding programs. I concede that Nietzsche did not favor societies that allowed for the integration of foreign elements, but rather some alternation between regimented hierarchical societies and motley societies. However, against Holub&apos;s and Feldblyum&apos;s contention that Nietzsche was interested in the alleged Jewish problem of his day, I expand on my claim that, for Nietzsche, the current <i>malaise</i> is more a product of the workings of the ancient than the modern Jews. And against Owen and Holub, I defend the claim that degeneration theory was fundamentally Manichean and that Nietzsche resisted this Manichean tendency.</p> http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Nietzsche Studies Penn State University Press

Replies to Commentators on "The Biology of Evil"

The Journal of Nietzsche Studies , Volume 52 (1) – Apr 20, 2021

Loading next page...
 
/lp/penn-state-university-press/replies-to-commentators-on-the-biology-of-evil-aqAHE3ZsIP
Publisher
Penn State University Press
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University.
ISSN
1538-4594

Abstract

<p>Abstract:</p><p>In this article, I reply to commentators Leonard Feldblyum, Robert Holub, and David Owen on my article "The Biology of Evil." While I concede that Nietzsche often invoked standard degenerationist rhetoric about breeding, I argue that Nietzsche, unlike other degenerationists, never offered any concrete plans for such breeding and was not interested in raising the capacities of average citizens, but rather was concerned with the exceptional few. I argue that these "strokes of luck" do not readily lend themselves to planned breeding programs. I concede that Nietzsche did not favor societies that allowed for the integration of foreign elements, but rather some alternation between regimented hierarchical societies and motley societies. However, against Holub&apos;s and Feldblyum&apos;s contention that Nietzsche was interested in the alleged Jewish problem of his day, I expand on my claim that, for Nietzsche, the current <i>malaise</i> is more a product of the workings of the ancient than the modern Jews. And against Owen and Holub, I defend the claim that degeneration theory was fundamentally Manichean and that Nietzsche resisted this Manichean tendency.</p>

Journal

The Journal of Nietzsche StudiesPenn State University Press

Published: Apr 20, 2021

There are no references for this article.