4 ms·

To offer a counter-example: Nietzsche was a mostly friendless philosopher whose writing is also full of megalomania -- this is not to make the case that Alan or

To offer a counter-example: Nietzsche was a mostly friendless philosopher whose writing is also full of megalomania -- this is not to make the case that Alan or your typical graphomaniac has anything in common with Nietzsche - but the whole argument of this piece seems to hinge on the importance of social adequacy being enjoined with literary merit - not to mention the mildly unpleasant tinge of smug self-satisfaction as the author enumerates and quotes his many 'adequate' literary friends. Will anyone be reading Jeff Sharlet 50 years from now? I highly doubt it.

vinceguidry 11y ago
Nietzche was by no means friendless. The gentry of the mid-1800s, particularly the intelligentsia of which he was a part, could not have survived, much less thrived, without a rich network of friends and professional acquaintances, whose houses they would crash when traveling, exchanging ideas and emotional support. He even fell in love, in a famed torrential affair with the celebrated seductress Lou Salome. Nietzche's philosophies grew not from the pain of loneliness, but from the bitterness of being denied the things he wanted, mostly by events out of his control. He had a promising career in the army, until an accident forced him to return to academia. Salome did not believe in marriage and turned Nietzche's proposals down three times. His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia. He did break off with many of his friends at this point, mostly for philosophical reasons, he kept a few around and even made new ones. He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period.
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  > His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia. Did you mean atheism? Contrary to popular belief Nietzsche was not an antisemite nor would that have made someone unemployable in the 19th century. > He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period. Given the inaccuracy of your previous statement I'd be interested in a source to support this. Below is from beginning of Ecce Homo (I selected a work at random -- it's really been a while since I've read any of his works, but I'm sure all the prefaces begin in a similar fashion -- save probably A Birth of Tragedy, since he was at that point still an academic and not actively hostile to the entire world for ignoring his writing). >> Seeing that shortly I must confront mankind with the heaviest demand ever put on it, it seems to me indispensable to say who I am...But the disparity between the greatness of my task and the smallness of my contemporaries has found expression in the fact that one has neither heard nor even seen me.

vinceguidry 11y ago

Nietzche was by no means friendless. The gentry of the mid-1800s, particularly the intelligentsia of which he was a part, could not have survived, much less thrived, without a rich network of friends and professional acquaintances, whose houses they would crash when traveling, exchanging ideas and emotional support. He even fell in love, in a famed torrential affair with the celebrated seductress Lou Salome. Nietzche's philosophies grew not from the pain of loneliness, but from the bitterness of being denied the things he wanted, mostly by events out of his control. He had a promising career in the army, until an accident forced him to return to academia. Salome did not believe in marriage and turned Nietzche's proposals down three times. His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia. He did break off with many of his friends at this point, mostly for philosophical reasons, he kept a few around and even made new ones. He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago
> His anti-Semitism eventually made him unemployable by academia. Did you mean atheism? Contrary to popular belief Nietzsche was not an antisemite nor would that have made someone unemployable in the 19th century. > He was never a true recluse, at least, not any more than anyone else of the time period. Given the inaccuracy of your previous statement I'd be interested in a source to support this. Below is from beginning of Ecce Homo (I selected a work at random -- it's really been a while since I've read any of his works, but I'm sure all the prefaces begin in a similar fashion -- save probably A Birth of Tragedy, since he was at that point still an academic and not actively hostile to the entire world for ignoring his writing). >> Seeing that shortly I must confront mankind with the heaviest demand ever put on it, it seems to me indispensable to say who I am...But the disparity between the greatness of my task and the smallness of my contemporaries has found expression in the fact that one has neither heard nor even seen me.