Nanda 3

Nanda 1

Nietzsche: The Psychology of His Philosophy

Were His Writings Misinterpreted?

Jayoti Nanda

Student ID # 5187893

POLI 426/4/AA

Professor Dr. Eleni Panagiotarakou

February 27th

, 2014

Nanda 3

Nanda 2

Introduction

Friedrich Nietzsche is definitely one of the most subtle thinkers known in ancient

philosophical writings. It can be identified that his extremely strange style and claim on what

what's left concealed or unarticulated in his writing can make attaching him to a particular

position risky. So risky in fact that many historical figures have attempted themselves to do this

and in fact, actually misinterpreted his work as a result. On the other hand, one will also realize

that several readings of his ideas have become paradigm-shifting as well as prominent in many

regards. In order to analyze these key new interpretations of Nietzsche’s work, one must outline

the specific theories that have created challenges in many traditional views of Nietzsche. One

must also take into consideration that “taking him at his word when he says that his writing can

best be understood as a kind of psychology.” (Pippin xiv) It will be demonstrated through the

course of this paper that Nietzsche in fact has established several psychological aspects in his

work and that his teachings have been widely misinterpreted to great extents that even he could

not defend, had he been alive today. We will examine the course of his teachings through a

psychological lens and break down specific theories for further examination on whether

Nietzsche did have the intention to break down such fundamental barriers.

Psychology vs. Philosophy

According to Robert Pippin, author of Nietzsche, Psychology, & First Philosophy, “In

paragraph 23 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche encourages us to “clench your teeth! Open

your eyes! And grab hold of the helm!” (Pippin 1) He strongly believes that Nietzsche is making

the claim that ”“psychology” as he understands it will replace philosophy, especially

metaphysics, the former and presumably dead or deposed queen.” (Pippin 1) The distinction he is

attempting to make is that psychology can make certain links which can explain the

Nanda 3

Nanda 3

“fundamental problems” that take place in Nietzsche’s teachings, where philosophy on its own,

cannot do that. What I mean by this is, it seems that the priority brought up of psychology is to

create humanistic value in the knowledge that Nietzsche brings up occasionally. Evidence of this

can be seen as “Zarathusatra says: living is leading or directing a life, end so living essentially is

esteeming or valuing. Psychology, that is, will make manifest what is involved, what we are

committed to, in understanding “living” in this sense. (Pippin 3).

Nietzsche has made claims that philosophy, science and religion have lost connection

with life and to understand what it means to live in modern day culture, one has to actively

pursue solitude. Examples have been shown by Nietzsche in regards to him being clear that he

does not want “power” to serve as a major function or instinct. The reason he believes that power

should not serve as purpose is because power changes constantly and in severe ways so much so

that it leads to conflict (Pippin 6). The psychological implication of this would be that according

to Nietzsche, power should not be simply to acquire it but instead to serve a purpose that could

benefit the whole. This taken out of context would vastly impact human kind detrimentally.

Hitler is one of the people who was greatly influenced by philosophy of Nietzsche but greatly

misinterpreted its psychology and notions.

Hitler’s Misinterpretation of Nietzsche

“The two greatest judicial murders in world history are, not to mince words, disguised

and well disguised suicides. In both cases the victim wanted to die.” (Rempel 45) Nietzche goes

on to draw a parallel between separating himself from all things German and his version of Jesus

from the Hebrews. His explanation in the Anti Christ, coldly insist that “pity on the whole

thwarts of law of evolution, which is the law of selection. It preserves what is ripe for

Nanda 3

Nanda 4

destruction; it defends life’s disinherited and condemned. Nietzsche both alludes to pity’s

mortally dangerous character in general, and comes to speak of the fatal danger of pity in life of

one individual in particular.” (Rempel 35) The author, Morgan Rempel, draws out in chapter The

Psychology of the Redeemer, that what Nietzsche is getting at is that pity has a drowning effect;

one loses life force, suffering increases and pity multiplies and overall is contagious and affect

the collective (Rempel 35). Hitler had greatly misinterpreted Nietzsche’s material to fit his own

ideal.

One should be aware that Nietzsche's beliefs do not reflect those of Hitler and Hitler's

views do not represent those of Nietzsche, despite what one might think. According to M-P

Nicolas, author of From Nietzsche Down to Hitler, Hitler completely missed the point of

Nietzsche’s views. At the time, Adolf Hitler had built the image of a man’s superiority to be built

upon “not in the richness of his intellectual possibilities, but in his power of putting all his

capacities at the service of his community. In other words, what makes for greatness is the herd

instinct. For Nietzsche that instinct is the clearest sign of weakness.” (Nicolas 49) Nietzsche

believed in solitude but Hitler took this theory completely out of context. Nietzsche believed in

ideas such as the worth of one man of the masses is dependent on his worth to his master. He

goes on to explain that “time belongs to individuals, He wants the direction of the world to be in

the hands of the powerful in knowledge, of those who are “masters” through will and greatness

of mind.” (Nicolas 50) For Nietzsche, the distinction between a true slave and a true master are

very clear. This was not an invention through Zarasthustra. Instead what he wanted to create was

the awareness that the “real masters” would be the rulers of the world and “should be the most

perfect examples of the human race.” (Nicolas 51) This is considered the social Darwinistic

Nanda 3

Nanda 5

approach as Nietzsche claims as evidence of it: “The best shall rule.” “He does not say “the most

numerous,” but “the best.””The many are supreme.”(Nicolas 51)

One must understand contrast between what Nietzsche was trying to convey and what

was being conceived by Hitler as a result. Nietzsche for one, dreamed of strong and powerful

masters who pertain to every virtue and best quality, and “above all, goodness is demanded”

(Nicolas 56) According the Zarasthustra, “Thou who art powerful, let thy goodness bear witness

to thy last self-conquest.” (Nicolas 56) This is a clear explanation of what Nietzsche described of

the Superman theory. However Hitler’s rendition was that much different from that of his own.

“It is revealed in the these words from Mein Kampf: “Nothing will better prove the vital strength

of a nation and its right to life, than its one day producing by the kindness of fate, a man

endowed with the gifts necessary to gratify, at last, its wishes.” (Nicolas 56) When I read this and

if I were to give Nietzsche’s theory my own definition, I would reflect that power was meant to

be possessed by the few “masters” who deserved to have it based on their virtuous personalities

and it was meant to be used for the overall “goodness” of the masses. What I understand from

Hitler’s interpretation is that he believed in the “man endowed with necessary gifts” (Nicolas 56)

so that he could rule the masses for the benefit of his own power but does not actually

correspond to the Superman theory as the overall power and benefit is to the one in power, that

in itself being a destructive force. Hitler took Nietzsche’s philosophical views out of context to

benefit his own diabolical needs for power. In terms of psychology, Hitler’s perception through

his own falsehood shaped his reality to misinterpret the value in Nietzsche’s teaching. He took

Nanda 3

Nanda 6

what he deemed to use a few key points to establish his obsession with power, to control the

masses but did not take into account what was “good” for the masses as he was driven by the

need for power (in his mind) and did not take the idea that the population should also benefit

from the overall scheme of things. Perception is skewed when we twist ideas for our own benefit

and take ideas out of context. Such is the case with Hitler, in terms of interpreting Nietzsche.

Klossowki’s Interpretation of Nietzsche

Another interesting idea to look at when considering Nietzsche is that is very widespread

that those who interpret him do so by selecting a specific idea from all of his works and give

their ideas as to what he means by it. Personally, my perception is that Nietzsche may have been

vague on purpose so that those who followed after him could apply their theories on his views. I

will defend this argument by taking into account the argument of the interpretation Nietzsche’s

the eternal return. Pierre Klossowki (1905-2001) was one of the prominent figures in terms of the

“Nietzsche revival” in France though out the 1960s and 70s. (Woodward 81) Klossowki took the

time to translate Nietzsche’s Gay Science at the time and is well known for his interpretation of

Nietzsche’s works. Although Klossowski interpreted Nietzsche in many different ways, I will

take one specific theme that he explored, the eternal return in this case, and explore the

psychological ramifications of it. So let’s break down Nietszche’s theory of eternal return, shall

we?

According to Klossowski, Nietzsche’s doctrine The Eternal Return can be interpreted as a

Vicious Circle because of three major paradoxes involved. The first being how reality is

interpreted directly weakens the idea of a “stable and coherent reality.” (Woodward 87) The

second acknowledges that this is a doctrine which weakens its own position as being considered

Nanda 3

Nanda 7

logical and transmissible information. (Woodward 87) The third stance being that the lived

experience influences the identity of the person experiencing it therefore weakening the

consistency of the experience to begin with. (Woodward 87) In terms of psychology, one will

come to see that Klossowski has tried to prove that the concept of eternal return as described by

Nietzsche, as being incredibly vicious within the three themes described as above, in terms of

daily experience broken down into reality, knowledge as well as self.

Through the suggestions of Klossowski, the concept of eternal return can be described as

a notion that “every instant of existence is necessary.” (Woodward 87) According to him, this is

the solution to the issue of ressentiment and allows for the notion to be able to triumph over it.

“For Nietzsche, ressentiment involves a negative judgment against life which poisons the value

of life itself. This negative judgment revolves around the view that things should have happened

otherwise than they are, and that what has happened in the past should have happened otherwise

than it did.” (Woodward 87) The irony of this whole situation is that human nature, according to

Nietzsche, is based on our resentment towards ourselves as we feel unfulfilled about what

occurred in the past and the lack of our ability to change it reminds us of that. This can be

reflected in the following passage by Klossowski, himself.

The will projects its powerlessness on time, and in this way gives time its irreversible

character: the will cannot reverse the flow of time—the non-willed that time establishes as

an accomplished fact. This produces, in the will, the spirit of revenge against the

unchangeable, and a belief in the punitive aspect of existence. (Klossowski, 2005, p.52)

This deeply depressing passage of human nature being interpreted of Nietzsche represents the

response as well, paradoxically the issue with resentment. My interpretation of this passage is

Nanda 3

Nanda 8

that in each instance that we reflect upon our past, and hope or wish that it could have been any

better than it was. We re-affirm that we cannot change it but still assign meaning to it, wishing

we could change what was, even though time is an element of change and we cannot impact it

from our level of consciousness back then from where we are now. This breeds hurt, guilt and

resentment which festers into holding the memory or experience in place, recreating more of the

past in our present and thus creating the problem of the vicious cycle. Hence the notion of eternal

return; your mind always brings you back to the negative memories you hold on to and refuse to

let go of as a result.

What is relatively interesting is that Krossowski builds a further case by aiming to prove

that “the eternal return dissolves subjectivity by disrupting the illusion of a stable self-identity.” (

Woodward 89) What does he mean by that?What Krossowski is implying here is that in order to

progress to a new form of identity of thy self, one must let go of or forget past identities as they

hold us back from achieving our full potential. His psychological analysis of Nietzsche’s eternal

return is that it must be entered into by someone that is willing to return to all of their past selves

and events that occurred to them by leaving their present self behind in the process. This is a

part of universal law. According to Krossowski ,“This experience undermines identity since all

selvesinclding the present one, are revealed as transitory, fortuitous cases: that is, the eternal

return makes one aware that our identity changes over time, and that any particular ‘self’ is

simply a fortuitous instance without any constant and unchanging self underlying them all.”

(Woodward 90) What we have to come to believe as our own identity is revealed to us through

our daily experiences and the basis of our knowledge as well thus our identity is an illusion and

we are in deep denial of it. The idea of a paradox is brought up here as we cannot experience our

‘self’ without the illusion of identity, according to Kant, therefore it is deemed a necessary

Nanda 3

Nanda 9

condition and remains unresolved as the vicious circle known as Nietzsche’s Eternal Return

continues onwards (Woodward 90).

Nietzsche’s Conscience

The next section will be focused on Nietzsche’s Conscience. Would Nietzsche consider

guilt a moving concept? According to Aaron Ridley, author of Nietzsche’s Conscience, this is

the basis of slave mentality and what keeps them trapped within this mentality therefore no, it is

not considered to be transcendental according to any evidence that I’ve seen. This according to

Ridley would be the most vital event in Nietzsche’s renewal of his moral project. I am referring

to the theme of slave morality and its revolt thus creating an epidemic marking the revolution of

human self-understanding (Ridley 15). What Nietzsche is trying to create a better understanding

of here is the revolution of conscience. “Conscience, in ordinary speech, is a mode of self-

relation: one reflects upon oneself (have I done well? Badly?) with a view, potentially, to acting

on oneself (for reinforcement or reform). To have a conscience, then good or bad, is to be not

merely conscious but self-conscious: it is to have the capacity to make oneself the object of one’s

own will.” (Ridley 15) Here is when the pyschological aspects of observing human capacity

comes in. In order to gain an understanding what conscience is, one must focus on the reflexive

consciousness aspect of it (distinct capacity) and self-transformation (unique human prospect),

which would lead to the capacity of how human values can be examined (Ridley 16).

How does one determine what is slave morality as the theory seems so obscure? This is

how Nietzsche coins it. Beginning with the slave revolt which opposes the system of creating

value for nobles; this is where we build paradoxes, “good” vs “evil” or “good” vs “bad.” (Ridley

16) The good/ noble values resonate from the higher self creating actions that spark from that

Nanda 3

Nanda 10

mindset (powerful, high-minded, noble) and the evil / bad (low, commonly, slave-like) which

focuses on resentment and lesser values (Ridley 16).”To have the power to make promises, then,

the power which the “sovereign man”calls his “conscience,” is to have developed, through

repression, the capacity for self-reflection and the potential for self-transformation.” (Ridley 19)

Slave Consciousness/Revolt

After spending quite some time reading about the slave consciousness, I came to discover

several similar patterns that emerged about this kind of thinking. Bad conscience can be

suppressed through the withholding of one’s internal instinct. Here is the passage that backs up

my train of thought: “The point of this, no doubt is to distinguish the nobles from the

“populace”—from the slaves—as sharply as possible; and since the populace is about to have its

instincts repressed (which is what “bad conscience” is in its beginnings) Nietzsche decides to

make his nobles as unrepressed (as un-“bad”) as he can: he turns them into beasts. But the

problem, of course, is that only the custom-governed –that is, the repressed—can become custom

imposers, and that makes it very hard to portray the nobles in the way that Nietzsche wants.”

(Ridley 20) Essentially what bad conscience entails is an epidemic of slavish resentment that is

born through repression of thoughts and feelings as well as operating through reaction,

obliterating opportunities for anything better that may come that slave’s way. There are many

contradictions that come across when observing Nietzsche’s slave values as well.

Nietzsche’s Paradoxes

Nietzsche’s definition as well as his many other projects are wrought with double

meanings. One has to be fully aware that when reading Nietzsche, one must realize that his

material and projects are so intricate that he is not quite clear about what he means, purposefully

Nanda 3

Nanda 11

so. Therefore, one must be prudent in examining his materials and do so with a fine-toothed

comb. When you think you know, you realize that you really in fact don’t.

Take for instance, the word ressentiment.You would think that this word has a simple,

one-worded meaning, as in resentment and that there would only be one form of it; the bad kind

but no, that would be too simple and straightforward for Nietzsche. “I propose, then, to hang on

to Nietzsche’s implicit distinction between noncreative and creative ressentiment , and to take

the former as a condition of the latter—that is, as a condition of the slave revolt in morality.

Noncreative ressentiment signals the predicament of being “denied the true reaction, that of

deeds,” of having the “need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself” of having

the “need to direct one’s view outward instead of back to oneself.” (Ridley 24) Whereas the

creative version is a much more hostile aspect. The noble would act in his own best interest by

listening in a calm and rational manner to the source, withholding judgment whereas the slave

would feel repressed and be guarded about his perspective and be weak thus cowardly in terms

of approach.

While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself (“of noble descent”

underlines the nuance “upright” and probably also “naive”), the man of ressentiment is

neither upright nor naive nor honest and straightforward with himself. His soul squints;

his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors, everything covert entices him

as his world, his security, his refreshment; he understands how to keep silent, how not to

forget, how to wait, how to be provisionally self-deprecating and humble. (Kaufmann

474)

Upon reading this passage, in the Genealogy of Morals, I can see that Nietzsche is

Nanda 3

Nanda 12

painting quite the picture of a noble man and creating an ideal that is nearly impossible to strive

towards being. If you were to read through this passage once again, you would notice that there

is quite a few paradoxes being illustrated here. In order for a man to be noble, there has to be

specific criteria that exists that opposes what he stands for but the noble man also requires

contrast to who he is otherwise one would not be able to distinguish between a noble or a slave’s

conciousness.

Nietzsche’s Idols

According to Horst Hutter’s book, Shaping the Future, the author writes in regards to

what he saw attempted in the Zarathustra:

This work is quite singular. Let us leave the poets aside; perhaps nothing has ever been

created out of such a superabundance of strength. My concept of the ‘Dionysian’ has here

become the highest deed, measured by it, the whole rest of human doing appears as poor

and conditioned. If one reckons the spirit and goodness of all great souls in one: all of

them together would be unable to produce a single speech of Zarasthustra. (Hutter 118-

119)

Nietzsche gives an incredibly interesting perspective of how his mindset is developing at

this point. He sounds like he believes that past philosophers of its kind, such as Socrates and

Jesus, will not be recreated in this present or in the upcoming future. He makes us aware that we

are for the mostpart are operating from the slave mentality, following others. He speaks of his

work, Zarathustra, as it will not be comparable to what anyone else produces. He sounds like

humanity is hopeless and the best has already come to pass for him.

Nanda 3

Nanda 13

Positivistic Skepticism

Let us hope there are really are more spiritual beings than men are, so that all the humour

shall not go to waste that lies in the fact that man regards himself as the goal and purpose

of the existence of the whole universe and that mankind will not seriously rest satisfied

with anything less than an accomplisher of a universal mission. (Hutter and Friedland

123)

It almost seems like an ominous message but it would not be anything short of Nietzsche

to choose such paradoxical words to give his words great depth and color. When I read this, I

believe he sounds doubtful of how humanity shall proceed; whether to follow the depths of their

souls and to fulfill their consciousness or to feed their manmade animalistic desires and fuel to

fulfill their carnal needs instead. Although he seems skeptical in these words, he sounds like he

believes there is potential to go for the greater good and utilize man’s power for the many as

opposed to that of the few.

Conclusion

One has seen that Nietzsche is a perplex character, filled with paradoxes in his writing and

Psychology in his Philosophy. Was there a lot of room for misinterpretation in his works? One

could see that Hitler, eminated what he interpreted Nietzsche’s teachings taught. His perspective

on power was skewed and as a result, his power did not serve the whole, as it was intended to but

his own selfish intentions to gain power over the collective. Klossowki’s interpretation of

Nietzsche was much different. He saw the issue of Eternal return as a paradoxical event; that

Nanda 3

Nanda 14

even in solving the past self identities and being present in the now, the cycle was endless as it

would recommence again as it was deemed necessary for growth. The Conscience, as illustrated

by Ridley, evoked the different psychological aspects of slave conciousness and noble

awareness. Within that, we became aware of the various psychological paradoxes of Nietzsche

that he used to create contrast in the issue with ressentiment; making us aware that with the good,

there must be bad as well for us to experience it fully. Finally, we see how Nietzsche was

influenced by Socrates and Jesus, and how he believes that those kind of philosophies will only

come around once to be experienced. Then we end with Nietzsche, paradoxically suggesting that

if the spirits that inhabit the earth are greater than the men that use their animalistic needs to

benefit themselves that there may still be hope. I certainly learned that there is not one specific

way to interpret Nietzsche as his work is quite intricate and simplistic at the same time.It is also

beneficial to see that Psychology, as Nietzsche had said in the past, will become the new

Philosophy but only time will tell as change is imminent.

Nanda 3

Nanda 15

Works Cited

"Amazon Prime Free Trial." Nietzsche, Psychohistory, and the Birth of Christianity: _: Morgan

Rempel: 9780313323225: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.

Hutter, Horst. Shaping the Future: Nietzsche’s New Regime of the Soul and its Ascetic Practices.

Toronto: Lexington Books, 2006.

Hutter, Horst & Eli Friedland. Ed. Nietzsche ‘s Therapeutic Teaching: For Individuals and Culture.

New York: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2013.

"Interpreting Nietzsche: Reception and Influence [Paperback]." Interpreting Nietzsche:

Reception and Influence: Ashley Woodward: 9781441120045: Amazon.com: Books. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 06 Mar. 2014.

Kaufmann, Walter. Ed. Basic Writings of Nietzsche. New York: The Modern Library,

2000.

Nicolas, M-P. From Nietzsche Down to Hitler. New York: Kennikat Press, 1970.

Pippin, Robert B. Nietzsche, Psychology, & First Philosophy. Chicago: The University of

Chicago Press, 2006. Print.

Ridley, Aaron. Nietzsche's Conscience: Six Character Studies from the Genealogy. Ithaca, NY:

Cornell UP, 1998. Print.

Nanda 3

Nanda 16