Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks

Rating:
Summary: Outstanding Book, Bad Introduction
Review: I give this work by Nietzsche, minus the "Introduction" by the translator, five stars. This book is proof that a work can be translated without the translator understanding the concepts contained within the original work. It is clear from her introduction that the translator does not have a profound knowledge of Nietzsche and his work as a whole, for this work is best understood in the context of Nietzsche's thought throughout the course of his life, with special emphasis on his work concerning metaphysics. I won't write a long review, however, I recommend this work for anyone with a serious knowledge of Nietzsche, metaphysics, and the Presocratic philosophers.

Rating:
Summary: Deserves a more scholarly treatment
Review: Nietzsche's unfinished manuscript is an interesting, and frequently very moving, complement to his other works on the Greek philosophers. Nietzsche steps us through what he considers to be the most significant ideas of Thales, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Anaxagoras (among others) and he is most determined to pull the reader into the sense of intellectual adventure that drove these great thinkers. He goes to great pains to make sure that we do not simply dismiss (or worse, patronize) these early philosophers and that we consider the implications of their cosmologies seriously.

Unfortunately, this is not really a scholarly edition of this work, which deserves much more thorough editing than it gets, as well as a more detailed explanation of the various translation choices that were made. Marianne Cowan's introduction is very superficial, and she informs us that "it is not difficult for the lay reader to check for himself the carefully translated and annotated texts of the philosopher in question, though he will do well to compare several such sources". Oh well, it's an inexpensive edition, but there is still no excuse for some very unsubstantiated and nasty comments which Cowan makes regarding Nietzsche supposedly attempting to "glorify" Wagner and Schopenhauer and provide "propaganda" for them. Since Wagner doesn't even make an appearance in this book, it's quite inappropriate, and she provides no detail whatsoever for this judgment which reeks of received academic opinion rather than good scholarship. Any serious student of Nietzsche cannot overlook the significant role that Schopenhauer played in stimulating his intellectual progress, and the implication that Schopenhauer is not worthy of being taken seriously is ridiculous in the absence of any additional analysis.

Rating:
Summary: for everyone intersted in nietzsche
Review: One of Nietzsche's most revealing and neglected works. It should be read by everyone intersested in Nietzsche. He reveals to us that every great philosopher has one true undelying thought that is deeply intertwined with their personality. He then proceeds to explore each of the great Greek philosophers with this theme in mind. Not only do we learn about the Greeks but we learn a great deal about Nietzsche in some of his most lucid and straight forward prose.

Rating:
Summary: The young Nietzsche on the impotence of Philosophy...
Review: This book has much of interest to say about various Greek philosophers but precious little to say of Nietzsche's method of proceeding. Of that Nietzsche says, in the preface that "philosophical systems are wholly true for their founders only. For all subsequent philosophers they usually represent one great mistake, for lesser minds a sum of errors and truths. Taken as ultimate ends, in any event, they represent an error..." In this book Nietzsche focuses on one point - "a slice of personality" - in several philosophers in order to reveal ...what? - Personal mood, color, personality, as he says in the first preface? But in a second preface he refers to the incompleteness of this approach. Still, he says, "the only thing of interest in a refuted system is the personal element. It alone is forever irrefutable." By the time he writes Beyond Good & Evil this `personal' element (a singularity) is revealed as philosophical purpose; which is itself the revealing (or concoction) of ultimate ends.

But of that I am going to say nothing. What I have always found most remarkable in this early work by Nietzsche is the discussion of culture; I mean the relation between philosophy and culture. The healthy culture can exist with even a little philosophy, we are told. And we wonder at the contrast he then [implicitly, perhaps unconsciously] offers between the Greeks and the Romans; "the Romans during their best period lived without philosophy." - But what of non-healthy cultures? "The sick it [philosophy] made even sicker. Wherever a culture was disintegrating, wherever the tension between it and its individual components was slack, philosophy could never re-integrate the individual back into the group." Nietzsche says the Greeks did not stop philosophizing when they should have, and that it was this philosophy (of old age) that made our common philosophical tradition. ...Sigh, nothing dies at the right time, but that is another story.

But the Greeks began (to philosophize) at the right time. And they made use of the cultures around them. "Nothing would be sillier then to claim an autochthonous development for the Greeks. On the contrary, they invariably absorbed other living cultures. The very reason they got so far is that they knew how to pick up the spear and throw it onward from the point where others had left it." The Greek achievement is this throwing the spear further. The fashionable and unfashionable insistence on cultural purity is always a sign of stupidity, laziness and cowardice. "The quest for philosophy's beginnings is idle, for everywhere in all beginnings we find only the crude, the unformed, the empty and the ugly. What matters in all things is the higher levels."

But what if one lives in a sick (by that I mean the individual apart from the group) culture? Can we not go back to the beginning, ala Heidegger, retrace our steps, see what went wrong, correct it and start over? "Everywhere the way to the beginning leads to barbarism. Whoever concerns himself with the Greeks should be ever mindful that the unrestrained thirst for knowledge for its own sake barbarizes men just as much as a hatred of knowledge." Nietzsche weaves a cautionary tale about the value of philosophy and knowledge for culture in the opening pages of this essay that is often overlooked in the haste to get to what Nietzsche has to say about this or that Greek philosopher.

Haste is a dreadful thing; the ruin of so many promising beginnings. But can a poor beginning ever be made good again?