Study Questions for Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, pp. 25-49

1. 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?

2. 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”?

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

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

5. 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?

6. 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?

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

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

9. “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)

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

11. 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”?

12. 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?

13. “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”?

14. "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?

15. “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.