Study Questions for Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, pp. 50-92

1. “Raids of an Untimely Man” is the longest section of this book, and, on the surface at least, its least unified. It contains Nietzsche’s comments on many other writers and on various tendencies in modern culture. We will only have time to give close attention to a few of its fifty-one sections.

2. Sections 2 and 5 both allude to the attempt to retain a basically Christian morality without retaining Christian religious beliefs. Why does Nietzsche think that this is impossible? What is his explanation of the fact that ‘the English’ think that it is possible? What do you think about this?

3. Sections 8-11 offer some suggestions about the psychology of artists. Nietzsche stresses the importance of intoxication, but please notice that “the influence of narcotics” is only one of the forms of intoxication he has in mind. How does he distinguish between artists and anti-artists? (Section 9)

4. Section 14: How does Nietzsche distinguish his view from Darwin’s?

5. Sections 19-20: Nietzsche offers an account of the nature of aesthetic judgment (judgments about what is beautiful or ugly). He rejects the Platonic idea of “the beautiful in itself.” What is the source of beauty in his view? In what instincts are aesthetic judgments based?

6. Section 24: Why does Nietzsche reject the idea that art should be pursued for its own sake (art for art’s sake)?

7. In Section 33 (pp.68-69) Nietzsche seems to suggest that individuals who “represent the ascending line” have great value and are permitted to be selfish, whereas individuals who “represent the descending development, decline . . . [etc.]” are worthless parasites who may rightly be deprived of resources so as to give more to the ascending types.

a. What do you think he means by “ascending” and “descending” in this context?

b. What sort of value do you think he is talking about here? If “there are no moral facts at all” (p.38), then what sort of fact is described (or what sort of statement is being made) when Nietzsche says “it is only fair that they [the descending types] should take away as little as possible from those who have turned out well”?

c. What do you think about Nietzsche’s value judgment here?

8. In Section 34 Nietzsche claims to see a similarity between the “socialist worker” or “anarchist” who complains of injustices in society and the Christian moralist who attributes his suffering to his own moral defects (sins). “What is common to both and, let us add, what is unworthy, is that it should be someone’s fault that one is suffering—in short that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge as a cure for his own suffering.” Revenge on whom? For what injury? If you were inclined to try to defend either Christian morality or social criticism (or both) against this charge, what might you say?

9. In Section 36 Nietzsche seems to express several more value judgments: First, that a sick person who wants to live after his or her life has lost its “meaning” deserves our contempt. Second, that “degenerating life” should be “shoved aside with no mercy whatsoever.” Third, that it is sometimes admirable to commit suicide “To die proudly when it is not possible to live proudly anymore.” What do you think of these judgments? (Do you think that Nietzsche should be held responsible for the way his ideas about “parasites” and “degenerating types” were later put into practice by the Nazis?)

10. Section 37: Why according to Nietzsche are “we moderns” tenderer, less cruel, and more committed to equal rights than were the people of the Renaissance? Why does he seem to think that this is a bad thing? What do you think?

11. Section 38: Freedom must be fought for to have value – so, presumably, those of us lucky enough to be borne in a free society have little appreciation of freedom, and thus are not really free. (We are too soft to be really free.) Do you agree?

12. Section 39: “Obviously modern marriage has lost all rationality” – What characteristics does Nietzsche identify as the basis of the ‘rationality’ of traditional marriage? Have we lost them? Do you agree that marriage has lost its ‘rationality’ by losing these features?

13. Section 40: With respect to the working class: “if one wills to have slaves, one is a fool to educate them to be masters.” Here Nietzsche continues his critique of the modern ideal of equality (equal rights). Are you willing to accept the proposition that some people should be educated (as we might now say) to be leaders and others should be educated to be followers? If not, why not?

14. Section 41: “In times like ours, depending on one’s instincts is just another disaster.” Why? So what must we do?

15. Section 42: What ‘truths’ do you think Nietzsche has in mind when he says (of philosophers), “they know what they have to prove . . .”? (Think of Descartes.) Do you agree that this means that they lack integrity?

16. Section 45: “[The criminal’s] virtues are banned by society.” What virtues? Do you think that Nietzsche really thinks that it would be a good idea to let criminal types act out these ‘virtues’? Do you agree that “almost all the forms of existence that we single out for praise today” were once regarded as criminal?

17. Section 47: Why is “Christianity ... the greatest misfortune of humanity up to now”? In what way did the Greeks have the right idea?

18. Section 48: Equality criticized again – What do you think of Nietzsche’s claim that true justice would say “Never make unequals equal”?

19. Section 49: Note the description (first paragraph on p.84) of Goethe’s conception of a free human being. Can we take this as Nietzsche’s own ideal? What do you think of it, as an ideal?

20. “What I Owe to the Ancients”: Nietzsche again expresses his preference for “the bold realism and immoralism” of the older Greeks over “the simpleminded uprightness of the Socratic schools.” What do you think he means by ‘realism’?

21. He also expresses his admiration for “the Dionysian.” How does he explain the Dionysian, and how does he contrast it with Christian attitudes toward sexuality?

22. Note: Nietzsche refers several times to “the eternal recurrence.” This doctrine, expounded at greatest length in his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, holds that since the universe is finite, but time is infinite, everything that is happening now must have happened before and will happen again, endlessly, and exactly as it is now happening. In the face of this “terrible fact,” we must find the strength to say “yes,” and to live in such a way that we can accept that we will live exactly these actions again and again, forever.