BOOK REVIEWS | 449 is no counterargument that in his “madness notes” he loses the ability to distinguish between them. Winteler uses Nietzsche’s work as a quarry for Nietzsche’s biography. Yet Nietzsche did not want to attract attention to himself as a person through his unreserved revelations in EH. On the contrary, he meant to compromise his standing with a comical role-play, in order to focus the reader on his work. (I understand the word “comical” here in the classical Greek sense of κώμος [komos], which describes a state or an action in which all limits and constraints are lifted.) Unfortunately, then, the attempt to understand Nietzsche as he wanted to be understood is not really furthered by Winteler’s study. Perhaps we should try a different approach. This would require a critical co mparison of the Zarathustra of Z with the Zarathustra of EH, taking the problem of Dionysus and the enigma of Ariadne seriously and contending with Nietzsche’s failed attempt to find—through a transvaluation of all values—a way out of the nihilistic danger that would become socially influential. Ultimately, Winteler still owes us an explanation of what his ambitious biographical thesis means for the reevaluation of Nietzsche’s philosophy.
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies – Penn State University Press
Published: Nov 22, 2017