![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article argues for an interpretation of David Strauss: the Confessor and the Writer as embodying the key components of the Nietzschean practice of conflict with a ‘worthier’ enemy. These are carefully considered under the headings of ‘agonism’, ‘imitation’, and a propulsion towards ‘escalation’, that is, beckoning a response from other, would-be, ‘worthier’ enemies. Adding to the standard ‘cultural’ explanation for the origins of the Strauss essay, this article explores the polemical ‘assassination’ of Strauss as ultimately ordered towards assuming Strauss’ status as the pre-eminent Post-Christian freethinker of the era. In this way, the Meditation also acts as an intentionally provocative means for Nietzsche to beckon his audience to both ‘escalate’ the struggle further, and to recognise his presence on the intellectual landscape. Nietzsche conceives greatness as facilitated through conflict; his conflict with Strauss, a worthier foe, anticipates the strategy and approach that Nietzsche will utilise in his later and more significant disputes.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 I use the following abbreviations for Nietzsche’s texts: HC = ‘Homer’s Contest’; BT = The Birth of Tragedy; UM = Untimely Meditations; HAH = Human, All Too Human; D = Daybreak; GS = The Gay Science; Z = Thus Spoke Zarathustra; BGE = Beyond Good and Evil; GM = On the Genealogy of Morality; TI = Twilight of the Idols; A = The Antichrist; EH = Ecce Homo; WEN = Writings from the Early Notebooks; WLN = Writings from Late Notebooks. All translations are from the Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy editions of Nietzsche’s published works, with some minor adjustments. Standard chapter title abbreviations are used for sections of EH and TI. All citations are according to paragraph number, except Z, which is by page, and HC which is a short essay.
2 Understanding ‘enmity’ as indicating ‘enemy-relationship’.
3 Here Strauss appraises his first work and charts the subsequent development of his thinking.
4 GM 1:14, along with denying its truth, Nietzsche simultaneously offers a non-rational refutation of Christianity as something ‘disgusting’.
5 In which Nietzsche presents Paul as the mendacious synthesiser of these two worldviews, incorporating ‘subterranean’ eschatological and soteriological concepts from the Hellenic world into the Hebrew prophet Jesus, thus creating Christianity.
6 Milner (Citation2010, 57–60) considers this ‘goal’ as a common quest for ‘truth’; Verkerk (Citation2014, 280), responds, that it is self-overcoming inspired by the desire to realise the ‘overman’, as a post-metaphysical higher human aspiration. This corresponds more consistently with post Human All too Human (HAH) Nietzsche.
7 The discussion of ‘the good Eris’ highlights this.
8 Homer (Citation1987, IX 639–652) Achilles asserts he will fight the Greeks only when Hector has routed much and reached his ships, (XVIII 97–127, XXVIII 314–343) Achilles acknowledges Hector's unequalled might, (XX 75–86) the gods themselves divide in support of the two champions, (XXII 76–99) Hector stands undaunted as a strong tower before the wrathful Achilles, (XXII 208–404) demonstrates a mutually acknowledged greatness in their final confrontation, (XXIV 559–596) Achilles, in obedience to the gods respectfully returns the body of Hector to Priam, (XXIV 55–77) Zeus declares Hector as the greatest of all the Trojans, just as Achilles is of the Greeks.
9 Analysis drawn from Nagy (Citation1999, 55–58).
10 Nehamas (Citation1985) explores further this theme of self-creation.
11 The priest figure in ‘Preface’, 3, ‘Tragedy’, 1, ‘Zarathustra’, 6, ‘Destiny’, 1, 3. Also, arguably, Wagner in ‘Tragedy’, 4, ‘Untimely’, 3 and ‘Wagner’, 1.
12 Van Fossen (Citation2018) and Siemens (Citation2015), both offer a different ‘reconciliation’ by positing a third category of a non-nihilistic desire for destruction of enemies. However, this suggestion downplays the strength of assertion Nietzsche makes in TI of the ‘productive agon’ as his sole treatment of ‘worthier foes’. The ‘polemical’ presentation of ‘destruction’ here defended maintains both texts, while highlighting the necessary ‘allegorical nature’ of ‘destruction’ in the realm of ideas.
13 UM 2: 2–4 In the healthy interaction of the monumental and critical history; The Case of Wagner and TI, ‘Socrates’ demonstrates this, as does GS 108, in a different sense, viewing ‘the shadow of God’ as a continual presence that remains to be defeated even after his ‘death’.
14 Nehamas (Citation1985, 27) interprets Nietzsche's stylistic variety and use of hyperbole as directed towards stimulating a response. Conway (Citation1997, 116–117, 145–146, 222) more controversially, considers this desired ‘reader response’ in political terms through the creation of ‘communities of resistance’.
15 BT 15 shows Nietzsche as aware of the ‘invitational’ nature of his writing; Z 14–15 shows Zarathustra beckoning both an active and oppositional response from his hearers.
16 Yelle (Citation2000, 187–188) explores how Zarathustra both positively valorises contradiction whilst also, more fundamentally, blends all opposites into himself as a new unity through the Eternal Recurrence doctrine.
17 Clark (Citation1990, 10, 206–207) explores this in terms of Heidegger's assertion of the centrality of the ‘will to power’ in Nietzsche's writing, stating that ‘most interpreters’ take this view, even if her book ultimately rejects this interpretation.
18 Writings from the Late Notebooks (WLN), 5[41] Nietzsche briefly but strikingly praises Parsifal, which he, elsewhere, intensely reviles. This passage also suggests an enduring ambivalence towards Christianity.
19 Platt (Citation2009, 372–373) and Fornari (Citation2013, 78) develop Girard's model to include this second fundamental rivalry.
20 This corresponds to Nietzsche's own stated continual ‘nearness’ to Socrates; Writings from the Early Notebooks (WEN), 6[3].
21 Selling 8000 copies within two months. This is plausibly beyond Nietzsche's lifetime sales, as estimated using Young (Citation2010, 402, 459).
22 BGE 201–2; GM 1:12; A 43, 49 show Nietzsche as offering an argument on morality's detrimental social effects, a solid basis for him to aspire to be a destroyer of morality or opposed to morality independent to the existence of a mimetic rivalry with Strauss.
23 A point which connects to his BT 12–13 analysis of ‘Socratism’.