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

Learn More →

The Irony of Pity: Nietzsche contra Schopenhauer and Rousseau

The Irony of Pity: Nietzsche contra Schopenhauer and Rousseau The Irony of Pity: Nietzsche contra Schopenhauer and Rousseau ICHAEL URE t has almost become an unwritten law among those who defend Nietzschean Iideals of self-cultivation to skirt the issue of his critique of pity, dismissing it as an extraneous diatribe or an embarrassing fulmination. On the other hand, critics who denounce Nietzsche’s ideal of self-cultivation as a dangerous solipsism that all too easily gives license to indifference or outright contempt for others seize on this aspect of his thought as cut-and-dried evidence for the claim that, as Charles Taylor coyly phrases it, “Nietzsche’s influence was not entirely foreign [to fascism].” Rather than dismissing or denouncing the “pitiless” Nietzsche, this essay carefully examines his subtle psychological analysis of pitié/Mitleid. It does so by training a spotlight on his principal object of criticism: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Arthur Schopenhauer ’s ethics of pity. I shall argue that Nietzsche’s psychological analysis presents a compelling case for interpreting Rousseauian and Schopenhauerian pity not as a sign of living for others or as a form of mutu- ality and recognition, as its defenders routinely assume, but as a veiled means of assuaging narcissistic loss at the other’s expense. In this respect, I claim that http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Nietzsche Studies Penn State University Press

The Irony of Pity: Nietzsche contra Schopenhauer and Rousseau

The Journal of Nietzsche Studies , Volume 32 (1) – Nov 6, 2006

Loading next page...
 
/lp/penn-state-university-press/the-irony-of-pity-nietzsche-contra-schopenhauer-and-rousseau-Sum5VjbOS5
Publisher
Penn State University Press
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Pennsylvania State University.
ISSN
1538-4594

Abstract

The Irony of Pity: Nietzsche contra Schopenhauer and Rousseau ICHAEL URE t has almost become an unwritten law among those who defend Nietzschean Iideals of self-cultivation to skirt the issue of his critique of pity, dismissing it as an extraneous diatribe or an embarrassing fulmination. On the other hand, critics who denounce Nietzsche’s ideal of self-cultivation as a dangerous solipsism that all too easily gives license to indifference or outright contempt for others seize on this aspect of his thought as cut-and-dried evidence for the claim that, as Charles Taylor coyly phrases it, “Nietzsche’s influence was not entirely foreign [to fascism].” Rather than dismissing or denouncing the “pitiless” Nietzsche, this essay carefully examines his subtle psychological analysis of pitié/Mitleid. It does so by training a spotlight on his principal object of criticism: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Arthur Schopenhauer ’s ethics of pity. I shall argue that Nietzsche’s psychological analysis presents a compelling case for interpreting Rousseauian and Schopenhauerian pity not as a sign of living for others or as a form of mutu- ality and recognition, as its defenders routinely assume, but as a veiled means of assuaging narcissistic loss at the other’s expense. In this respect, I claim that

Journal

The Journal of Nietzsche StudiesPenn State University Press

Published: Nov 6, 2006

There are no references for this article.