General Philosophy -- Study Questions for Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, pp.3-49

A note about reading Nietzsche: Nietzsche can be infuriating. He says insulting things about Christians, Jews, women, philosophers, the Germans, the English, and other groups. Sometimes his insults seem to have a point; other times they seem gratuitous. At the same time his writing style can also be maddening. He writes mainly in short sections, not always clearly or obviously related to one another (or even consistent with one another). Pretty clearly he is sometimes joking and sometimes exaggerating and sometimes putting forward ideas he will elsewhere criticize and reject. It is not easy to figure out what he is really trying to convey to us. Try to read him with an open mind, not to be too put off by his insults, and to see if you can’t find some sense in what he says.

1. Note the explanation of the book’s title given on p.3-4: the hammer is not a sledgehammer smashing idols; it is more like a piano-tuner’s hammer, tapping the idols to see whether or not they are hollow.

2. (Pp.12-17) What is Nietzsche trying to say about Socrates? Why does he bring up Socrates' appearance? His social class? His last words (as reported by Plato)?

3. On p.14 Nietzsche says "Dialectic . . . is not very convincing." Judging from the samples we've encountered, do you agree with this assessment? What is Nietzsche’s explanation (in section 8) for the attraction of dialectic?

4. Do you agree that Socrates (and Plato) "made a tyrant out of reason?" What do you think of Nietzsche’s explanation of their motives for doing so? (p.16)

5. What exactly is "the error which lay in his belief in 'rationality at all costs'?" (Section 11, p.16-17)

6. In the next two sections (pp.18-24) Nietzsche criticizes philosophers who distrust the senses and talk about a 'true world' behind or beyond illusory appearances. Do you think this applies to any of the philosophers we have read? What do you think of Nietzsche's critique?

7. In section 5 (pp.20-21) Nietzsche develops the idea that it is not our senses that are a source of illusion; it is our language. It is our language which teaches us to believe in an “I” and in “the will.” (I think one way our language is supposed to mislead us is that it encourages us to think that there is a substance or a thing corresponding to every word which is the subject of a sentence.) You might consider whether Descartes made this kind of mistake in connection with his famous “Cogito”: I think. Therefore, I am. Therefore, I am a thing which thinks.

8. What do you think Nietzsche means when he says (p.24), "Along with the true world we have also done away with the apparent!”?

9. Some general questions for the chapter, “Morality as Anti-Nature”: What does Nietzsche mean by calling morality "anti-nature"? What kind of morality is he talking about? Is his characterization of Christian morality fair? (In section 4 he seems to admit that there can be a "healthy morality." How does this fit in?) What sort of "nature” is he talking about?

10. In section 1 of “Morality as Anti-Nature” (pp.25-26) Nietzsche seems to be making use of a distinction between, on the one hand, trying to eradicate or eliminate passions and, on the other hand, “spiritualizing” passions. He says that “the Church fights passion by cutting it out; its practice, its ‘therapy’ is castration.” Is this a fair characterization of the Christian tradition? What do you suppose he means by “spiritualize, beautify, deify a desire”?

11. Section 2: Why is it weak people who try to eradicate their desires (or who preach asceticism)?

12. Section 3: “the value of having enemies” – what might one need enemies for?

13. Section 4 begins “—I put a principle into a formula.” Perhaps this should alert us to the possibility that what follows is a bit oversimplified. Nietzsche distinguishes ‘healthy morality’ from ‘anti-natural morality’, saying that the former serves life’s instincts and the latter condemns them. What would you put on a list of ‘instincts of life’? Is it fair to say that traditional or conventional morality condemns those instincts?

14. Section 5 develops (briefly!) a crucial idea: that values are the products of (and thus can be interpreted as symptoms of) various kinds of life. (We will read more about this later.) What sort of life produces Christian (“anti-natural”) morality?

15. Why does Nietzsche think that it is ridiculous to tell people what they should be? (Pp.28-29)

16. Why does Nietzsche say that conventional morality is "a specific error for which one should have no sympathy"? (P.29)

17. “The Four Great Errors”: The first 'great error' is confusing cause and effect. How is conventional thinking about morality supposed to confuse cause and effect? (Pp.30-31)

18. Try to read section 3 (p.31-2) as a critique of Descartes' concept of mind.

19. The third great error is the “error of imaginary causes.” What are the causes Nietzsche thinks are imaginary? Why does he think people make up causes for things? How is it that “The entire realm of morality and religion belongs under this concept of imaginary causes”?

20. Fourth “the error of free will”: What motive does Nietzsche find behind the doctrine of free will? (pp.35-36) Do you think it is possible to 'get rid of' the concepts of guilt and responsibility? What would it be like to live that way? Does it seem like a good idea?

21. “Those Who ‘Improve’ Humanity”: In section 1 we again meet the idea that we can interpret a morality (a specific sort of value system) as a symptom. Also the bold statement “there are no moral facts at all.” Many people nowadays are inclined to agree with this sort of statement and to think that we need to make a sharp distinction between facts and values. Are you, though, willing to say that every value judgment is “just an interpretation”?

22. "All the means by which humanity was to have been made moral up to now were immoral from the bottom up." (p.42) How so? What are the two methods of “improving humanity” that Nietzsche identifies? (Pp,38-41) How does each involve immorality?

23. “What the Germans Are Missing” is not as important for our purposes, but there are some interesting remarks on higher education on pp.46-49.