Aphorisms on Martin Heidegger’s Nietzsche Encounter



Daniel Fidel Ferrer

Central Michigan University Libraries

Friday, November 21, 2003






Nihilism is not a cultural phenomenon.  Nihilism must be thought historically, it belongs to a “higher history”. Although the origin of nihilism is unknown, it still speaks to modern man, that is, to us.



Incomplete nihilism is an attempt to have new ideals and ideas in the realm of the suprasensuous.  Nietzsche said, “Two thousand years and not a single new god” is nihilism the lack of creative will or a weak will to power, which is part of the weakness of incomplete nihilism.  The need is a loneliness which goes unfulfilled.



Complete nihilism is when the realm of the suprasensuous is gone.  The eternal realm is without life. This is also classical nihilism.



What is the essence of nihilism? Nietzsche’s solution to nihilism is the revaluing of the highest values, but this is not the suprasensuous realm.  Not as eternal values. The earth speaks. Who does the revaluation process? Points toward nature of man.



What is the value of values? The essence of values can not be found within a conceptual system. Are there lower and higher values that are other than the eternal values?  The highest of al values was God, but Nietzsche entered into the fray.



Are we continually caught in the contextual world of values? Answer: judgments.   How can we be judgment free?  Ideals are the principals of all judgments.



Can we have eternal goals and ideals that go beyond this worldly life?  No. Nothing more. Or, is there more here? Where is here? And what could there be “more” of?



Does meaning come from our worldly life or only given from beyond (above, meta-) life –something external? Yes and no. Ok, it is not subjective nor objective. Guess again.





The metaphysical world is divided between sensory and supersensuous (trans-sensory, metasensory) or is it just the sensory and the nonsenory (noeton).  Why would metaphysics live in this distinction?  Of course there is more than the sensory world – how else would you explain paper money (as just an idea). 



The essence of nihilism and the essence of metaphysics can not be found inside philosophy books.  Eternal and absolute values are lost or were they ever on earth? How can you find answers in dusty books?



The purpose of life goes with the “why” of life.  A question without an answer, which is formulated within a non-metaphysical questioning.  Can there be a ‘reason’ given here? A ‘why’ asks for reasons and the ground for those reasons.  So, no ‘whys’ and no ‘reasons’?   What are the grounds?



Who will tell us when Nietzsche no longer prevails in the world? A philosopher?  I think not.



Another metaphysical distinction between the real world and the ideal world. The ideal would be another lost. Worlds are worlding.  This is a real process embedded in our worldly experience.



Nihilism is metaphysics in action. Metaphysics makes nihilism happen and more.



Transvaluation of all values or the revaluation of all values all speak to the valuelessness and the meaninglessness within those living in a real world.



A system of values is still a system and is still a will to valuing.



Nihilism as a countermovement to incomplete nihilism. Active incomplete nihilism is the worst movement.  Are these just theories?



Human pessimism is like Russian fatalism.  Nietzsche said in Ecce Homo, “Against it the invalid has only one great remedy—I call it Russian fatalism, that fatalism without revolt with which the Russian soldier, when a campaign becomes too strenuous, finally lies down in the snow. No longer to accept anything at all, to take anything, to take anything in—to cease reacting altogether.” (Ecce Homo, “Why I Am So Wise” #section 6).




Human civilization “progresses” as concept-mummies, as an empty fiction. There is no “progress” or “improvers” of humanity. Nietzsche even denies humanity.





God as merely a value – even as the highest value (summum ens qua summum bonum).  How low is God as a mere value? Nietzsche’s critique as some kind of radically theology.  Could it be that Nietzsche is a theologian?  The issues are the same, but is Nietzsche trying to purify the relationship between man and God (or gods). Could these be Greek gods? Note the relationship with Dionysus.



Heidegger unfolds the presuppositions of Nietzsche’s nihilism like pealing an onion.  Slowly with human tears.  Heidegger makes Nietzsche alive again. What is living and what is dead in Nietzsche’s thought can be made clear by a living debate – not scholarship and re-reading the text.



Metaphysical Being is alive – otherwise no spirit.  Becoming marks the nature of the world. The world is in flux. All within the One – Henology.



We live in a value-posting rich environment.  It bubbles forth continuingly.



A will that wills less or willinglessness that finds no will to want. Some Indians tried this. A few contra examples makes more than the rule or principal. A will to more…



The metaphysical Being is the “whole” of the objective and subjective world all together.



Will to power means will to value-positing process. The transvaluation of all values or just the revaluation of all values.  No more values – what is the value of that?



Fundamentalness means a system of foundations. Can we have foundations in a non-metaphysical world? Perhaps not.  Perhaps all foundational thought presupposes a metaphysical system.  What does it mean to be fundamental?  A prior or should we say a priornessing?  Foundations make sense in building, but perhaps not in philosophy since there are no top or bottoms in philosophy.



Truth is on one side of the certain agreement between a judgment and the object, but on the other side what is the presuppositions at work in this process. Nature of truth beyond the correspondence theory of truth.



Everywhere is will as the Will willing.



What is Nietzsche intent to raise the question of values? What is the value of the question? Perhaps Nietzsche has lost the value of life.



The horizon within which non-metaphysical thinking can take place must move beyond Nietzsche.



If there are no ideals and norms or values that were once “thought” to be in the realm of the supersensuous, then following Kant must be the moral order must be found within? This is a question mark that must not be proven empirically.  Relative ideals – what would that mean for us?  The whole thought of eternal ideals has a smell of rotten eggs.



Who are those who do not believe in God in Nietzsche’s madman story?  Where are Ludwig Feuerbach (1804- 1872), Karl Marx, and Friedrich Albert Lange (1828-1875, see his work The history of materialism and criticism of its present importance) in Nietzsche’s philosophical thinking? Can you see that Nietzsche fits in with this crowd?



What is the pondering process? What has prepared the questioning of thinking? Only by paying heed to simplified of thinking. No seeking, therefore, no thinking; but the seeking must be without willing, without reasoning (ratio).



Rationalism and irrationalism are both within the spiders’ web of metaphysics. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Von Schelling (1775-1854) warned against us against of thinking of issues as merely –isms. We must either go above or below the whole philosophy-school perspective, we need a meta- or trans- overcoming of all philosophy-school or history of philosophical problems approaches to the true nature of philosophy.  One road was the ‘back to the matter’ approach with Phenomenology, but that only made it for awhile – when that ran out of air.  What is philosophy if it is not –isms or schools?  Start the dialogue on the radical tightening of the screws on what is not philosophy.  Lots of this would be in philology. Take note.



What does power mean in the terms will to “power”?  This is will to Will. The metaphysical concept of power is completely caught in metaphysics.  The sickness within the metaphysical conceptual schematize is growing. What would be the method to conceptualize non-metaphysically? This is on-going process.  Heidegger points us toward the path. Underway. The pathway.



Why would Heidegger think that nihilism is the inner logic of western civilization and western philosophy? What about the rest of the globe, and yes, even Hegel talks about Egypt.  The Greek were great, but the Egyptians were great too. Hegel thinks every culture should have metaphysicians (see Science of Logic).



Hegel is contra Kant’s perpetual peace. Hegel was not that naïve. Hegel thought it more important to bring Germany to a modern civil state.  What were the other choices? Answer: none.



Good or evil is a metaphysics distinction. Heidegger sees good and evil as an ontological possibility. Ontology is a different perspective on all questions.  Heidegger was pointing this out as contra Nietzsche’s beyond good and evil.  Heidegger’s dialogue with Schelling is against the background of his Nietzsche project.



What does it mean that we are without a system?  That means we have no systematic organization. Only parts, no wholeness. What is the structure of the whole?  Can we ask this question without doing some kind of metaphysics?  The structure of the whole has a low point and the highest point.  This system needs a whole value system with it. System and a value-system belong together.  Can we have a system or the system (Hegel), which does not include a value-system built into its essential nature?  If we take the value-system out of our head, then what is running around inside of us?




The system needs a methodology to make sure (certain) ‘the’ system, rather then, just ‘a’ system.  All systems need some method to establish their claim to knowledge.  But conversely, can we have a methodology that does not lead a system or ‘the’ system? This is a post-Hegel question.  A free standing methodology. Or, a free standing methodology? Hegel’s system is historical, but the method stands as the method for ‘the’ system.  Both ‘the’ system and the methodology require each other.



Heidegger versus Nietzsche as greater objection than Hegel, because from Hegel there is very little for the feast and celebration of thinking.  Heidegger is contra Hegel on many issues, but Heidegger and Nietzsche both start from human finitude.  Although there are many differences – nevertheless, there is some agreement as to the beginning.



Philosophical we many say that Heidegger is closer to Nietzsche than Hegel, but in fact, Heidegger is a unique thinker and is not that close any other philosopher.  We seek to see influences on Heidegger – to find hidden sources, but after reading other philosophers – Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936), Franz Clemens Brentano (1838-1917), Emil Lask (1875-1915), Arthur Carl August Schneider (1876-1945), Friedrich Widder, Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911), Edmund Husserl (1859-1938), Carl Braig (1853-1923); none of them come close to Heidegger.



What would Nietzsche think about Heidegger’s interpretation? Certainly, Heidegger’s conservative nationalism would have been a surprised to Nietzsche.  Not that Nietzsche was a great social liberal, but both Hegel and Nietzsche thought Europe was going to merge sooner than our current historical epoch.  Still the question draws an interest.



We are not Heidegger nor are we Nietzsche, so where do we stand between them in a dialogue? Where are “we” in Heidegger’s dialogues with Nietzsche?



Is it neat sheet or Nietzsche that was the philosopher?



We need a radical critique of Sanskrit grammar in order grasp ‘our’ problem with language. This is a deeper issue than anything that Wittgenstein came up with.  Comparisons with Chinese and Japanese philosophy make sense.  What is the connection between Heidegger and Japanese philosophy?  Although at some point Heidegger said, he learned more from Chinese philosophy than Japanese or Indian philosophy.  How is metaphysics embedded in the grammar of western languages via Sanskrit? Nietzsche as a philologist mentions this problem.  God as just grammar.



Reason needs to be un-hinged from philosophical thought.  This is not irrationalism or quietism, but rather, preparatory thinking, contra Hegelian conceptual thinking. Reasonlessness or reasoninglessness, which one is it? Drop reason as the (singular) only way.



What is the essence (Wesen) of nihilism?  Following Schelling why should we be concerned about any –ism? Not ism-logy is the task, but the matters for thinking that is underneath or beyond the –ism. What is the real issue with nihilism?  Is it more then just the principal of value-positing?  Nihilism is knocking at the door.



If Nietzsche is the last possible metaphysician (‘other possibilities of metaphysic can no longer appear’), then what do we have to worry about?  The old metaphysical philosophers still are alive and have force.  Hegel through Marx is one of the primary forces on the planet.  Hegel’s system and thinking has force and influence even without being mentioned.



Is Marx’s version of socialism and communism just another form of Platonism for the people – only without religion?  What are the ideals of socialism and communism?  Is this a form of incomplete nihilism?  Answer: yes!



How can Heidegger not be a countermovement to Nietzsche? Is Heidegger some how caught in the influence of the countermovement to Nietzsche?  So the question is how close we see Heidegger and Nietzsche.  We now know that as early as 1909 Heidegger was already quoting Nietzsche.  Heidegger is not a recap of Hegel or Nietzsche. Heidegger is very distinct and unique, so the direct influence seems less.  How to characterize the influence?  Heidegger said that Nietzsche ‘corrupted” (Kaputt) him (“Er hat mich kaputt gemacht” Nietzsche’s hammer speaks.



Why is the interrogation so important for Heidegger? The fundamental principle in philosophical thinking is the interrogation. Human’s basic nature and comportment in the world is interrogative. Even Chinese grammar has the question mark (ma).



Is it faith in grammar or is just plain faith? Grammar functions as the presumptions without any need for faith.  Thus, can we or even should we get rid of grammar or even any faith we may have in grammar.  Grammar is between the word and language.  Is this a real philosophical problem or is just simply an issue in philology?



When we speak of the innocence of Becoming should we also apply it other concepts as well?

Innocence of Being

Innocence of time

Innocence of ideals

Innocence of essence and existences

Innocence of technology

Innocence of love

Innocence of beingness (thinghood)

Innocence of worlding

Innocence of building, discovering the absolute system (Hegel would say, ‘no’)



What is the feeling of will to power? What is good? Answer: the direct and straight feeling of power itself.  You can skip the ‘will’ all together and go directly to the innocence of power.  Or, are you part of the mob, who wants to bring down the powerful?  Heidegger still breathes this Nietzschian air.



An open sea – an open horizon, this is a sea that has no directions, no objects, no past – a clear and open sea for humanity.  What obstacles could be in the way?  This is not progress but a clearing and opening.  There is nothing in the way, no objects floating in the picture.



What is the nature of valuing?  How does it allow for a revaluing? Disvaluing. Transvaluing. Metavalues. Valueless, Valuelessnessing – the process of valuelessing. We move from one set of values to another set of values.  Who can move from one set to another one?  Who is the one deciding on the values?  The value of values speaks to the nature of values. There are lower values and higher values. Thus, we must place all values on the earth with finite mortals.  No ideal realm, world, or non-living places for us to hypothesis. No non-earthly utopians.  Utopians must be based on human nature, which means no trans-realm or meta-realms or hyper-realms.  The meaning of the earth.



Does Nietzsche have any concept of Modern man that is beyond nations and more just a good European? I do not think so.  Modern man only took place 50 years or so after Nietzsche was writing.  Western culture is only part of the world now, but it is clearly dominates North and South America. Pressure is on in other parts of the world.  This is a planetary character – strangely linked to music.



Nietzsche’s philosophy should not be just thought about – it demands a confrontation and a thinking with – a questioning that strikes at the heart of Nietzsche.  What is living and dead in Nietzsche’s philosophy --- does not actually take up the task of thinking with Nietzsche.  Follow Nietzsche to the depths and then the question.



A question, a thought, a point – perhaps a goal and an aim.




Does Heidegger want any “believers”? Mostly it does not fit with Heidegger’s reflection.  Nietzsche wants no “believers”, no “disciplines”, and no “followers”.   Where would we find “believers” like this? Nietzsche and Heidegger want thinkers to follow them and move even higher on the mountains.



Our earth knows great politics and has known great wars. What is left? Peace or not? What would have to happen for the lost of warfare in general?



What is the concept of earthly reality (Erden-Realität) for Nietzsche?  Is this the meaning (Sinn) of the earth?  Yes, a sister concept for Nietzsche.  These concepts are all in contrast to some other “beyond” world or “true world” (wahre Welt).  This great, eternal other world makes this world sick and nothing (will to nothingness).  This early reality has not value or appearance.  Nietzsche does not argue for this distinct but merely points it out with its hiatus consequence. The sins of the flesh are stronger than the weak.



If Nietzsche has one thought, then why the reiterations? Why for Heidegger as well? There is no progress and regression either --- whence is the direction for thinking. Crosswise. What calls Nietzsche’s thinking?



Did Hegel construct his system or did he find it in the world?  You may say the first, Hegel would say the last.  Nietzsche attacks Hegel on the “construction” side, but Hegel would say that he found “it” in the world.   The “it” is a metaphysical system derived from the absolute spirit.  You do not find those every day.



Surlei – what does that name mean to us?



If Nietzsche is for Becomingness and Heidegger is for Beingness, then how can they have a dialogue?  What the answer is too complex for you to express? Or, should I say becomenessing?



What kind of propositions is “truth is a lie”? Where is Wittgenstein when we need him – at the movies? 



Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a visionary philosophical text that is on the edge of the thoughtful-poetic.  Perhaps this is great literature and of course great writing.  This is a singular work even for Nietzsche and it was done very quickly.  Why is there no other work like this one from Nietzsche?



The innocence if Becoming, and the necessity and innocence fit together as a revealing to the whole of Being.  Who is innocent now? Let it happen.




If we accept or reject the thought of the eternal return of the same, why does it matter? – No practical information is given. Can we transform this idea to something useful? No. Ok, if yes, then what?



Greek – when we say this for Nietzsche and Heidegger this should reminds us that this is pre-Christian.  Can we say Greek philosophers without bring in Christian concepts.  What would Paul say about Thucydides?  Religious followers are more common than our rare plants – namely, the philosophers.  Common or rare – do not worry, there is no vote. The thought may push you to become more than you thought.



Heidegger said, “Philosophical somnolence which is nihilism proper”.  But I think he only said this once, he should have developed this more, and some form of quietism is supposedly one of the Hegelian critiques of Heidegger.  Let it happen or make it happen?



What is an eternal or permanent becoming as a finite world?  This becoming is a permanent repeating of real time.  Becoming is inside the One? A question for a Henologist.  Perhaps our answer will come from a theologian or were you thinking an astronomer?



Change versus chaos --- what is the difference? which human has ever seen chaos? Answer: none, our brains will not allow it. We are totally hard wired.



With Nietzsche and Heidegger what is a “statement” and what is then something that is called a “conclusion”? Neither of these expressions is important. There are not sciences or empirical sciences.  After Hegel there is no more the Science, no absolute Science. But Hegel’s writings are not a science, he is pointing toward actual knowledge. For Heidegger there are no top statements (see GA65).



Standpoints or standpointlessness – how does this work?  Heidegger’s standpoint in his interpretation of Nietzsche is just one among many.  There are no standpoints --- only standpointlessness.  Is this practical information that will help us worry about all of the untruthfulless?  No. These issues are philosophical matters.  Is this too painful? I no longer believe in these matters.  You also have doubts – why is that? What can your doubt do for you? No wonder and no distress. Or, just use the word: decision.  A readers question mark and a real page leaper.



Aphorisms lie in waiting ready to spring forth and take the reader by surprise.  Aphorisms spring off the page – once read and the shock is over, and then they should not be forgotten, but then lived. Re-read again, ok, re-read it twice.  Do we dare bring the truth within?



If the time for the system is over, then why is the only methodology the aphorism?  Why the essay? Can you give aphorism as a lecture? Yes. Songs of our earth.  Songs of meaning – the poet may speak.



Meaninglessness – the process of the highest values devaluing themselves.  Should it be meanlessnessing? No matter – the meaning is apparent. Can you see or hear the meaning? The sensory speaks. Can you hear it? Or, only see it?  Why is that?



Is philosophy today through Heidegger just of part of what Nietzsche asked: “what sacred games shall we have to invent?” Philosophy as a sacred game invented to try to bring a purpose to our thinking.  If humanity in general (in its relationship to the: Being of beings as totality) has no purpose, perhaps individuals within the whole can point toward a goal?  No new gods and no goals.



The power to create rests with the Will but does that mean that the will has the power to unbuild.  Sounds like Shiva. Could Shiva die?



Could we have a countermovement that does not get involved in the entanglement? Answer: No.  Contra-ism. Contra-isming.  Ok, say it faster then it will sound like English.



The highest value God – God, has devalued God. God has shown us that there is no moral God.  The “why” finds no answer to why God did this to us?  Don’t count on it.



If nihilism is the inner logic to western history, then what is the course of western history as it is linked to the history of western metaphysics? This is just a complex way of saying there has always been eternal ideas and ideals given the –isms that improvers of mankind have promulgated.  Of course, wrongly.   Humanity is improving, for Nietzsche the highest point has already been reached, so no future goal or ideal for Nietzsche.  What happen to Nietzsche’s overman? Answer: too much honesty at the breaking points.



How is the order of the hierarchy of values ranked? The highest values or the lowest values become flipped.  Some of values are earthly and surely must be transitory.   A value classification system still is a system.  Without a system, then what is left?  Heidegger does not have a ‘system’.  The time of the “system” is gone for him, but then whatever is left can not be “systematic”.  Heidegger has a problem with the project called a ‘book’.  How does this fit in with his philosophical thinking? Nietzsche problem with his major project called “Will to Power”.



How can finitude not be a rock concept? Space by its nature may seem infinite, but finitude is a concept that only belongs to time. At this time we can say only that there is a direction to space and time, but no eternal or unlimited.



Nietzsche said Zarathustra is no longer concerned with happiness, but with his work.  Crabs, fish, -- what is this?  How can Zarathustra going fishing on the tops of mountains? Zarathustra is like a ripen grape. In vino vertas.



Heidegger speaks of the swamp of irrationalism. Interestingly enough there are not many swamps in the black forest.



Heidegger has a special kind of opponent with Hegel, but his critical confrontation (Aus-einander-setzung) with Nietzsche runs in a different light.  Something else shines through during this process, and pathway.  Nietzsche’s life as an “experiment of knowers.”  Heidegger is showing us – his self-education as a thinker. Heidegger does not follow Nietzsche lead to build cities under Vesuvius.  Back to the issue.  Heidegger reading of Nietzsche seems calmer and he knows how Nietzsche fits into history as the last metaphysicians.  Later to be called the last thinker of the western world.  Heidegger mastery of the texts and his writing out of his metahistory of philosophy put his Nietzsche reading in a much wider context for Heidegger – he knows too much by the late 1930s. Why did wait until 1961 to publish his Nietzsche encounter?



Time is still central to Heidegger and the eternal return of the same lets Heidegger into the lecture hall, because Nietzsche on time is not being guided by Aristotle like the rest of the metaphysical tradition, but rather something closer to Heidegger.  Where does Nietzsche conceptions of time from?  Perhaps we can look to Heraclitus and certainly contra Christianity.  No eschatology for Nietzsche contra Hegel.  Do you want to know the story to humanity – look elsewhere for the story and purpose to the whole project?  There is no more eschatology for Nietzsche even the process of teleology has been uprooted and cleansed.



Why did Heidegger leave the whole issue of Dionysus out of his reading of Nietzsche? The sensuous realm of the inverted Platonism.  In the last part of Ecce Homo, Nietzsche says, “Have I been understood? Dionysus versus the crucified.” (See also Will to Power, #1052).  The two types. The Greek life (affirming life) versus the Christian (denial of life). Is Heidegger’s philosophy a life affirming? No, it is not even a question for Heidegger.



Heidegger has a special filter for reading Nietzsche, since Nietzsche’s philosophy is so multi-faceted and is so complex. For example, in Being and Time Heidegger makes a reference to Nietzsche on “conscious”, but what happen to that subject in Heidegger’s lectures on Nietzsche?  It does not appear at all, because there is a different project afoot.



If the time of “system” (“systems”) is over for Nietzsche and Heidegger, then I want to provoke the contradiction (not the Hegelian): what remains to be thought?  Not just a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to the most questionable.  Even the contradiction is contra to the system, and yes, freedom too. Do we attempt the contradiction or is it just there? Some how given to us. The important philosophical questions do not change, but the answers and context are historical.



Let us leave the “eternal” out – just bracket for the time being. What nonsense is this?




Kant is serious; Hegel is the “struggle of the notion”; Nietzsche wants a god that could dance and he needs – play; Heidegger needs releasement or (Gelassenheit).  Heidegger has more? Heidegger is distressed at the lack of distress about the abandonment of Being. Think of the famous quote from Plato’s Sophist at the beginning of Being and Time:


“For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use 
the expression 'Being.'
   We who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed.”



Spinoza equals Hegelian, which equals pantheism, which is fatalism, which is atheism.  A philosopher’s goal is to think like a crab in reverse. Where did these concepts gifts come from? Answer: dusty old book – where did you think. Can we bring this back into life today? Yes – let it breath, let life breath.



Nietzsche thinks that since Plato, philosophy as such has been dominated by morality (Will to Power, #412).  This does not sound like either Heidegger or Nietzsche or even Heidegger’s version of Nietzsche’s Platonism.  Why does Heidegger only view Nietzsche’s Platonism in a metaphysical way?  Heidegger leaves out morality out of Nietzsche’s philosophy – although freedom and justice is important.



“Joy in what is coming and lies in the future” (Will to Power, #417).  This is Nietzsche calls Dionysian wisdom, his first solution.  Joy – is this religious bliss or just some psychological state for this hour.



Following Nietzsche has Heidegger “sought a new center” (Will to Power, #417).  For Heidegger the center is a step back (Schritt zurück).  The step back has a strangely Kantian ring or a Kantian move.  Foundations are not Hegelian or Nietzschean, but when Kant talks about science (Wissenschaft) before metaphysics, and then we are in the realm of a “metaphysics of metaphysics” like Kant’s letter to Letter To Marcus Herz (May 11, 1781).  Nietzsche does not have much a sense of the “a prior”, but Heidegger in the 1930s would still have some of the “a prior” movement in his blood.  Nietzsche would fixed that problem.



If Nietzsche preferred Georg Lichtenberg among German books (see discard draft for Ecce Homo), then how would Heidegger had viewed Lichtenberg?  See they are not even close – Heidegger and Nietzsche in some areas.



Who are Heidegger’s countertypes?  He makes a remark that Doctoral Candidates are refuting Kant and Hegel – as if that were possible, Doctoral Candidates with too much hubris would be Heidegger’s countertypes.  The little minds.  At least we have one counter example for Heidegger, but I think there must be more.



Why is freedom so strong that those split off from the herd can not find a common goal?  Why would Nietzsche want us to have a common or should I say as not so “common” goal.  In Heidegger’s thinking this is not even a question mark.




Zarathustra versus Dionysus. Nietzsche and Heidegger both agree that the image of Zarathustra defines Nietzsche’s thinking, but should the issue of Dionysus be left out? No. I think it is early – Greek way of attacking Christianity.  Nietzsche counter punch to Platonism is the main event for philosophers.  But Nietzsche would still rather be a satyr to a saint, perhaps even to a philosopher.



Philosophy not as the language mechanics of city life, but rather high in the mountains in solitude above the masses.  The muse and physician of our times.  Two times Heidegger was called to Berlin – not even a question for him.  Dwelling is not just another apartment for sleeping.  Philosophy’s homesickness is a returning to dwelling.



Heidegger had pupils, but he pushed them in a very special way (not toward Heidegger or Heideggerianism) toward themselves.  Remember Heidegger as a teacher, but not just to the people in the classroom at that time, but to the rest of his pupils (us too) – all the lectures which we have now, which have been published.  Nietzsche and Heidegger want to lose their pupils.  The meaning of the Being of beings – why do we need pupils for that question? Will we take a vote on the issue? Answer: no.



Does Heidegger’s voice come through Nietzsche’s? No. Heidegger lets us grasp essential parts of Nietzsche, but not a level of Nietzsche.  Heidegger keeps his distance. Have we?



Heidegger gives us some sense of decisionism, but it is in the background and does not come to the foreground.  Perhaps in other so far unpublished writings Heidegger will be more specific.  The call can not be a ‘willing’ it must come of its own accord.  The future of this question still awaits us. Heidegger maybe the only one that got the call – come on let us get serious! Why would he tell us?  Philosophers are a rare plant.



What would be an eschatological decision?  The goal of the last man would be the overman. Perhaps for Heidegger it would be the goal of humanity to leave metaphysics outside and behind us.  This would not be a counter punch or any part of a countermovement, but rather a complete leaving behind.  Is Heidegger really for or against an eschatological decision?  It sounds like re-baked metaphysics as onto-theo-logy.  Can these concepts be re-baked into a non-metaphysical or post-metaphysical thinking?  Or, are we pushing the values into some greater “later”. Not now – maybe later. How much later?  On the way to later – as if we had a choice. For Heidegger we not have an option of some how thinking our way of anything (it is not just thought and grammar, or rhetoric), but rather it is more our historical planetary situation.   This is more than words on paper.



When we say, the “thought of the eternal return of the same” came to Nietzsche (August 1881) are we not already caught in the dilemma of subjective-objective Cartesianism that has long been the metaphysical trap?  The “thought” means not in the real actual sensuous objective world (reality). Some may say it is not in the external world (not in the eternal supersensuous world).  So, what is the location of the “thought of the eternal return of the same”? Is it in the subjective or objective world? Answer: sounds like subjective world (res cogitans); I think, therefore I have thoughts. Heidegger upgrades this to the way that Nietzsche is responding to the planetary forces in this epoch.



If we had the “answer” or got the “answer”, then what we do with it?  Would the truth be enough?  What is the meaning (Sinn) of the Being of beings?  Answer: temporality.  Does this mean that we now have the final “answer”? Answer: yes and no. You do the math.



What does it mean that Heidegger has given us a veil over his thought?  The single thought that a thinker thinks.  Heidegger’s unthought in his thought – that is, where Heidegger shrank back from the forbidden thought.  Heidegger is not a contemporary with himself.  He tried to jump into the Sunlight (Plato’s cave), but he is too modern for any attempt of jumping over his own shadow.



Although Hans Georg Gadamer (1900-2002) and Eugen Fink (1905-1975) were Heidegger’s students and engaged Heidegger in person as friends – can we now say that some of us are more Heideggerian than Gadamer or Fink, since we can now read more than any Heideggerian before us.  Who are “we” now?  Heidegger’s students and friends only good a very small slice of Heidegger, since as we find more texts and can read Heidegger from 1910-1976; the “we” of Heidegger land know more about development in his thinking.  Even the letters often show us his mind as work.



Nietzsche’s thought of the eternal return of the same is the highest yes and affirmation that can ever be achieved.  For Heidegger there is only one supreme thought – the meaning of Being of beings.  Heidegger  calls this the open, the clearing, or just Ereignis.  But at the critical level how can there be any rank (highest) or any values whatsoever with regard to Heidegger’s thinking.  Also there is no worldview or constructing a worldview for Heidegger.  These questions are all tied to Heidegger’s denial of value metaphysics.  Perhaps this denial of value metaphysics is little known, it does in fact have broad implications for philosophy.  What does it mean? No ethics for one.  Can you have ethics without value ranks?  What would that look like?



Truth is the process of unconcealing (Unverborgenheit) itself – who is the agent?



What does a metaphysical theory of values have to do with ethical theories?  Values and ranks.  Ethics leads to ranks and order.  Bad, good, evil, God, happiness and values; or, should it be the improvement of humanity or the greatest good for the greatest numbers; re-valuation or trans-valuation of the high and low values, namely, all of the values.   The trans-valuation of all values – is still the metaphysics of values (metaphysics of will).  The revaluation of all values is just re-doing the process of valuation.  Valuation is a process of the will.  We still have the agent doing the valuation.  Man’s nature as valuation. Man’s nature as sympathy (Max Scheler (1874-1928).  How can valuation end up with devaluation?  The highest values are devaluation.  Nietzsche says values devaluate themselves.  What is the value of science or even baseball? How do they rank? Ranking uses values as the background at least. 



Dionysus and Zarathustra are both used by Nietzsche to give us away into his philosophy.  Heidegger insight are linked to Zarathustra – why is that? Zarathustra is advocate and a teacher.



Aphorisms are like war, either you knock out your opponent or you have lost and you go back defeated.  Truth is disclosed or attempts are forgotten.



How much of an essay is structured and hence one can say there is a methodology to philosophy?  Philosophers assumed too much with the essay and paper.  Or, should we push the contra position – therefore, the aphorisms as the only philosophical methodology.



If we have lost the “truth”, then how are going to re-gain it? A philosopher’s problem. Who in the street has this problem?  Answer: not the “one”.



Nietzsche’s philosophy is like a bird – flying over head dipping and weaving.  On a good day, Nietzsche becomes an eagle flying over humanity.



Why do we need a bridge from here to some other place or time?  The abyss is the nothingness that bridges crosses over.  Slipping into the abyss.



Zarathustra teaches the eternal return of the same (most abysmal thought) and the meaning of the earth, namely, the overman. Should we say the meta-man? Not meta-physics, but rather meta-human.  This expression is not a meta- that means some other world. Trans-humanity as our future unfolds.



What is the meaning of all of Nietzsche’s imaginary of animals?  Does this lead in the western tradition to the concept of homo animal rationale or are we something more, something special?  What is the difference between man as animal rationale and man as something more?   Critical difference.



Can we be the Shepard for the earth or is it just a case of the will to dominate the earth?  This is one of the main issues in the Heidegger-Nietzsche dialogue that is an ultra-modern problem.



What does it mean to be human to reach for earthly next step, always a beyond what we have here. Not sufficient with the way things are.



Pan-Europeanism is certainly more Nietzsche than one Heidegger’s pathways.  Heidegger points toward pan-humanity, but it’s not developed in detail.  Why? Heidegger is contra the metaphysical nature of man and humanity.



Heidegger decisionism is a small part of his struggle with Nietzsche.  Freedom shatters Hegel’s Science of Logic (Wissenschaft der Logik) and it touches on Heidegger’s decisionism.  Does decisionism have a connection to the will? Heidegger rejects the grand politics of Nietzsche as well as many others in the 1930s.



Heidegger’s countermovement to Nietzsche’s contra Platonism means Heidegger is a Platonism?  Answer: no, means a non-countermovement or a non-thesis thesis.



Heidegger’s critique of Nietzsche’s biologism is that is part of Nietzsche’s metaphysical concept of life.  For Hegel life is spirit and reason. Nietzsche’s life turns into will.  The will becomes the will to power, will to Will, and then just the one single will.



Eschatological links breakout in Nietzsche and a few time for Heidegger.  This is perhaps one of the last metaphysical concepts to be given up.  The futures, the goals, the aim, unleash the arrow from the bow.   No utopia, no progress, no improvement.



Are we asking Heidegger to solve our Nietzsche dilemma?  Can Nietzsche be resolved for us? Can Heidegger help us to pigeon-hole Nietzsche?  If only we can say Nietzscheanism and be done with Nietzsche.  After Heidegger’s work on Nietzsche, then can we please close the book on Nietzsche’s thinking.  Nietzsche is the last metaphysician, so does that mean it is over and done, we can get on to something else now.  Answer: I do not think so.  We are stuck. Back or forward --- nothing happens.



What is left of Nietzsche after Heidegger?  Dionysus seems to be one point that Heidegger does not touch.  At least Eugen Fink brings this point to Heidegger as something left out – Heidegger shrank back at the issue of Dionysus.  Nietzsche’s radical interpretation of Dionysus did not play well in Todtnauberg (Black Forest).  Where would that lead Heidegger, since the overman is more important for Heidegger?



Polemos – war, Aus-einander-setzung, critical confrontation and debate, and struggle with Nietzsche.  Two thinkers engaged in the matter for thought – how we characterize this dialogue?  What does Heidegger want to accomplish in his dialogue with Nietzsche? Teach his student something different.  He was tired of teaching the Greeks or Kant or Hegel.  No – Heidegger’s deeper understanding of his metahistory of Being pointed the way to the importance of Nietzsche at the end of metaphysics.  We should think of Nietzsche as the last philosophers in western philosophy, as the last thinker of western philosophy (metaphysics).  Heidegger sees Hegel as the summation of metaphysics, but Nietzsche is the final and last one. In the 1920s it was Kant and Nietzsche was taken up in the 1930s, but some how Hegel was not left out, but certainly not central at any point. Why is that?  Heidegger taught a lot of course on Hegel, but even those lectures series resulted in short writings.



In Heidegger’s analysis of Hegel and Schelling makes a point of metaphysics being fundamental onto-theo-logical.  Why is Nietzsche not brought into the issue of onto-theo-logical?  Heidegger said, “Any metaphysical thinking is onto-logy or it is nothing at all” “Jedes metaphysische Denken ist Onto-logie oder es ist überhaupt nichts. “ (The Word of Nietzsche: ‘God is Dead).  What happen to onto-theo-logical issues and Nietzsche’s theology?   Heidegger does not seem to take up the theological issues in Nietzsche. Only the death of God is worked in from a philosophical perspective, the rest of Nietzsche’s remaining theology is not take up – even though it is certainly more a negative theology.  Why not the problem of evil and freedom like Schelling?



Nietzsche’s fundamental metaphysical position, his inner nature, he calls it amor fati.  Love of necessity and fate.  This is a complete and without reservation – a yes to life.  This is a yes and a love of the necessity of fate.  Fate and destiny are a very unchristian and clearly a very Greek view of life.  The fates await us or we call on our own destiny. My principal for Nietzsche is amor fati.   Does this say enough or you need more details?



The unthought in Nietzsche’s thinking is partially expressed by the final fact – amor fati.  The fact we arrive at last – amor fati.  However, this is not a metaphysical principal that Nietzsche is giving us as a gift.



The questioning itself is brought into the process of questioning.  What is the meaning (Sinn) of the Being of beings?  What kind of questioning is that?  The answer can be both metaphysical or another possibility would point us toward a non-metaphysical (non-empirical, non-rational, non-idealism) position and answer.



Why does Heidegger think that Hegel was the first to have a philosophical history of philosophy?  Kant developed a metahistory of philosophy. Perhaps not as elaborate or elegant as Hegel, but nevertheless, Kant did develop his own view on the overall pattern of the history of philosophy.  Nietzsche did too in the Twilight of Idols or How to Philosophize with a Hammer (written August and September, 1888); in the section entitled: HOW THE "TRUE WORLD" FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error.  As Nietzsche said the Wanderer and His Shadow (#267), "There are no educators. As thinker, one should speak only of self-education".  All of this history is not just for scholars, but rather, we need thinkers to plow the fields too.



How can we understand amor fati as a metaphysical position or thought?  How can the love be metaphysical?  Perhaps only Spinoza, the love of God (amor Dei) speaks to metaphysical love. Perhaps Schelling and Feurbach too. The Being of beings as love.



The love of necessity is almost a counter position to the love of freedom.  No free choice only necessity of the eternal return of the same.  No will to will anything either the same or the will to choice.  The will to necessity – what does that mean?



Has Heidegger cleared the path for us to come to grips with Nietzsche? No – it is still about Heidegger. If you want Nietzsche only, well that is fine, then just read Nietzsche, why bother with just reading Heidegger on Nietzsche? It may not be good Nietzsche, but it is rather good “Heidegger”.



 Hegel was the first one to put the importance of the history of philosophy and history of the world.  Plus, Hegel developed a philosophy of history in general. But in a very strange way after Marx it was Nietzsche that completely grasped and just “assumed” the historical.  It was Heidegger’s reading of W. Dilthey that brought much of the historical into focus for Heidegger.  Although we are learning more about Heidegger’s very early reading of Nietzsche from 1909 that have already opened Heidegger up to the importance of history in general.   On the other hand, it is strange that Wittgenstein is not touched by any sense of the historical.  Was this a function of the biographical aspect of Wittgenstein or his philosophy or a sign of the cultural-historical background of philosophy at the time?  Certainly, Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Feuerbach, Marx, Nietzsche, Dilthey, and Heidegger all had some historical sense and context to their philosophizing.  Philosophy without history is philology – perhaps.  Wittgenstein for good or bad (sickness and in health) is a completely ahistorical (historical-lessness) thinker.  What happen and does that explain an interest that is made too simple? Take the historical out of philosophy and it makes it all a little too simple minded.



Heidegger rejected value philosophy during his fight against the neo-Kantians like Wilhelm Windelband and Heidegger’s own teacher Heinrich Rickert during the 1920s.  Since he was already reading Nietzsche from 1909, one wonders if Heidegger had already thought out his critique of values from his critical encounter with Nietzsche and then used that against neo-Kantians.  The rejection of value philosophy seems to hit on two very dissimilar fronts, namely, the neo-Kantians and Nietzsche.  Note: Heidegger’s contra Nietzsche and the neo-Kantians on value-philosophy.  Heidegger used one punch and got two for one.  However, Heidegger’s powerful critique of value philosophy has implications for ethics in general.  Philosophy in general is only ontology for Heidegger – but not for Nietzsche.  Heidegger is contra Nietzsche on the pivotal point of ontology for philosophy.  Nietzsche is an anti-ontologist!




If you accept the eternal return of the same, then you will affirm amor fati as your formula for the greatness in humanity.  Just say it and affirm it – amor fati!



Heidegger pushes the importance of human being thrust into a world of possibilities. This is not just an empty-ontic free choice.  Rather this points toward human’s rich imagination and creativity that used the opening to project into that realm with the “force” of possibility.  Imagination requires possibility a prior.  Art is the expression of imagination. Clearly, Nietzsche has more imagination than any other philosopher heretofore.  Art and music was the highest values for Nietzsche. He even mentions the giving birth to a “dancing” star.   Nietzsche composed music too.  Plus the early influence of Richard Wagner (1813-1883).



Is there a medicine that will cure us of nihilism? Do we want to be cured? Why are we sick? Platonism and neo-Platonism is a decomposing disease.  Socrates needed to give Asclepius a rooster.  He had been sick a long time and then as he was dying, he was being cured of the sickness of life (Twilight of the Idols, section ‘The problem of Socrates’).   Nihilism – we can make it worst.  Let it happen.



The truth.  Do not forget.

Heidegger is against Nietzsche’s:


Will to power

Eternal return of the same


Amor fati


Beyond good and evil

Genealogy of morals






These concepts are to the chagrin of Nietzsche still in the broad light of metaphysics, and is still captured by the smell and sight of metaphysics.  Those dirty dogs.



Note: the question is essential for Heidegger not the “book” Being and Time.  In a sense there is only one question Heidegger. I think I can rephrase it: what is the meaning of the Being for humans who are temporal and historical in a relationship to the opening that makes the Being of beings possible? What are the characteristics of that question?  What is the structure and implication of that question?  Thus, the question stands outside the interpretation from the so called “book”.  Heidegger has always had a problem with what it means to do a “book”.  What is the structure of a “book” project? For Heidegger it is more the question, what is the structure of the question that counts –this is philosophy by philosophizing.



Georg Christoph Lichtenberg used the aphoristic methodology, but why?  Nietzsche critique of reason and the logical lead him to try different forms of his methodology, and his aphoristic works and his notebooks provide a way for Nietzsche to totally express his thought.  We are indeed very close to the actual process of philosophical thinking without the structure of the essay or the form of a “book”.  Why did Heidegger have a problem with a book form?  Perhaps these are methodological problems breaking through into his philosophy and his writing projects.  Heidegger talks about the umastered plan from his writing entitled: Contributions to Philosophy (from Ereignis).  He said in this book, “The outline of these Contributions is designed to prepare for the crossing and is drawn from the still unmastered ground plan of the historicity of the crossing itself” (Der Aufriß dieser »Beitrage« zur Vorbereitung des Übergangs ist dem noch unbewältigten Grundriß der Geschichtlichkeit des Übergangs selbst entnommen, section #1).  We must wait to see if some of his other monographs from this period (“Das Ereignis or Die Anfang) that have yet to be published have a plan like a book.  From what I hear about these volumes -- there is no plan in them. So, we are left with the problem of the “book” format in Heidegger’s philosophy.  The concept of the “werke” is at odds with Heidegger’s concept of philosophy, at least as far as we know from this period. Important question: is this just another way of saying – no methodology?  No method – no truth (Descartes).



In which direction would Nietzsche points us toward – ahistorical powers or the suprahistorical (art, religion, pity, nature, philosophy)?  The answer is in the question.  Sometimes the content seems strangely Hegelian – why is that?



Nietzsche knew about Mikhia Bakunin (1813-1876), the greatest Russian anarchist through his association with Richard Wagner.  But did Nietzsche know that Bakunin attended F.W.J. Schelling’s lectures in Berlin in the 1840s?  Did Nietzsche ever read much by Schelling – I think not.  Other than Wagner and Schopenhauer, Nietzsche was not a great fan of German philosophers (he did briefly read some Kant, etc).



Listen to Nietzsche. During the early 1870s, Nietzsche mentions the group of contemporary German philosophers: Hermann Ulrici, Jakob Frohschammer, Johain Huber, Mortiz Carriere, and Immanuel Fichte.   Who knows these philosophers today? Were they famous at that time?  Perhaps these were professors of philosophy only. Most of the great 19th century philosophers that we think of at this time that are linked with the 19th century were outsiders – Feurbach, Marx, Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855), and Nietzsche.  The whole left-wing Hegelians were on the outside.



One thing to note, metaphysics reached its absolute zenith with the grand Hegelian metaphysical system. Nietzsche for Heidegger was the “last” not the “high” point of metaphysics. The wave was its high point with Hegel. Even Nietzsche was part of the countermovement to Hegel.  Perhaps “we” too are part of the movement against the Hegelian system.  Who is not part of the countermovement to Hegel?  Heidegger at least feels he is part of the countermovement as well.



Profound obscurity – why would you think that would hurt. You have no idea what pain really means, more than just a word or expression.  Perhaps agony as a philosophical starting point should be considered. In a different way, Ernst Jünger (1895-1998), wrote in 1934 Über den Schmerz (On Pain or On Agony – possible English translations).



Nietzsche said, “there is nothing I desire more, for the good of that philosophy, than to be imitated and surpassed” (19 [211] 1872-73).  I think Heidegger would agree with the “surpassed” part, but the later Nietzsche and Heidegger at the end stage would not want to be imitated.  Heidegger would think that imitated is not possible.  How would one think to surpass Heidegger?  At least, I can ask the question. Answers are on the drawing board.  End point.



Hegel developed the supreme correct categorization of the world though the absolute spirit – what just a written project?  He defined then re-valued the signification of the categorized.



Nietzsche used the expression “the teleology of the philosopher” (19 [245]).

What does this mean?

What is the end and goal of the philosopher?
Philosopher becomes an acorn and then someday becomes something new, not just more.




Systems as Anthropomorphisms speaks volumes for Nietzsche against Hegel, and for Schelling and Heidegger.




Metaphorism is essentially a special form of metaphysics.



Is metaphysics really impossibility or just a dream?



Philosophers who want to become thinkers are chased by the drive of scholarship.



What we are talking about for Nietzsche is a system of non-metaphysics without prior foundations.  How would that work?  The call to an absolute system made at the height of German idealism. System=idealism.  Nietzsche does have a touch of the “a prior”. The will to power as the final fact we come down to...Nietzsche is not a realist.



How would one become a superior Kant scholar? Read Kant and Kantians – produce book.  Or, use Kant to make a new great philosophical cake.  How sweet would that be? Scholarship can help a thinker, but it can also drag one down. Kant was chosen to be a philosopher, but not a scholar.  Kant himself was against just reading about philosophical systems. Kant said, “How should it be possible to learn philosophy anyway? Every philosophical thinker builds is own work, so to be speak, on someone's else's ruins, but no work has ever come to be that was to be lasting in all its parts. Hence, one cannot learn philosophy, then, just because it is not yet given. But even granted that there a philosophy actually at hand, no one who learned it would be able to say he was a philosopher, for subjectively his cognitions of it would always be only historical” (Lectures on Logic, et. p. 538).  But note here: Kant is saying when you read a philosopher you are not doing philosophy, because your thoughts would be historical only. Just repeating philosophy does not make a philosopher – thank you very much Kant.  So, philosophy is not that easy as just reading philosophy, now you have to actually think and philosophize, but within the proper philosophical horizon and context (thank you Heidegger for our clarification).  What is the nature of truth? What is the nature of temporality?


Why would you the reader of these aphorisms take a small truth over a larger truth?  Could there be a large truth buried some where in here or in any book. Should we not gather all of the nuts for the long winter?  Even squirrels forget where some of the nuts are buried.  Certainly, Nietzsche found some of the Greek nuts.

I write here about the foothills only you can go into the mountain by yourself.  An experiment and attempting in self-education.  Self-discovery or how much joy can one give oneself.  Crank up the self-discovery.  Know yourself! and soon.


Philosophers are not heard around the world, but this awful American music is heard and promote around the globe.


Can philosophy be worthless?  Only if you conceive of it as knowledge, however, if you know this as self-discovered knowledge then its part of the bricks for your own road. Heidegger went on country pathways, although sometimes Nietzsche made Heidegger step off of the path and look what happen to Heidegger.



Why must a story have an end?  The story of humanity and its history will have a purpose and an end.  Is that possible?


Do we wish the atrophy of life or the final breath of spirit crushed out of humans?
Answer: no overman.  No dancing star for us.


My way of exculpation is not to hide under or over scholarship.


Methodology – self-attempters, self-experimenters, self-education, self-discovery; these signs all point the way too past by scholarship. Let the matter for thought – happen. Happeness – endlessly.  Methodology is how we go about philosophizing… How come there is no classes on “Methodology” in philosophy departments?  Perhaps too many questions, since the “drum beat” is always just given.  You mean there are many different ways to do philosophy?  Well perhaps some where else, since certainly no here! We only do it (philosophizing) one way.



It is interesting that Nietzsche made use of the Latin expression to describe his own most innermost nature, expressions like amor fati, ecce homo, etc – that is, not his beloved Greek.  Why is that?


If these writings are difficult well then read faster or slower as if anything would really help.


The teleological question.  The health of the individual or the health of humanity. For Nietzsche and perhaps for Heidegger it is the indeed the health of individual.


Is Nietzsche’s immoralist position in need of metaphysics of values as a foundation? What is the relationship? Ethics, moralities, values, devaluations, revaluations,  transvaluation, all with Nietzsche’s attempt to lose metaphysics. Transvaluation of transphysics.  All philosophical systems are in ruin (Kant).


Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (original title was the: Science of the experience of consciousness) goes through various shapes (Gestalt?) of self-consciousness toward the final stage of absolute knowledge.  Hegel says, “The series of configurations which consciousness goes through along this road is, in reality, the detailed history of the education of consciousness itself to the standpoint of Science” (Wissenschaft).  (Phenomenology of Spirit, et. p. 50).    (Bewußtseins selbst zur Wissenschaft.  Jener Vorsatz stellt die Bildung in der einfachen Weise des Vorsatzes als unmittelbar abgetan und geschehen vor; dieser Weg aber ist gegen diese Unwahrheit die wirkliche Ausführung.) This upward movement does not lead to anything like the overman.  There is no connection between Hegel and Nietzsche on the general conception of anything like the overman.  These two projects are entirely different. In addition, the place of reason and Absolute Spirit in Hegel and Nietzsche are totally different. Hegel contra Nietzsche on just about everything – perhaps the Greeks in general is a little bit of common ground.  Except for Hegel it is not Plato but Aristotle that is the leading light.   Hegel made Aristotle speak German.


Heidegger and Nietzsche are both “attempters”. Most of the time they do not give static “answers”.  Nietzsche says God is too gross an answer.  Nietzsche and Heidegger both are going under (Untergang).  Nietzsche tried essays, aphorisms, a novel, explications of aphorisms, and poems.  Heidegger had problems in his “unity” to produce a “work”. Heidegger wrote reviews, essays, Being and Time (uncompleted), a few dialogues, and a written project he called, Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)in English: Contributions to Philosophy : (From Enowning); which he later said that it was not in form that he demanded for “a publication as a “work””.  Why did Heidegger have a problem with his writing projects that were “works”? He went so deep into the methodological issues that he came out the other side.  Heidegger’s non-metaphysical position makes the methodology issue much bigger than philosophy.  Are these aphorisms at attempt to avoid the concept of a “book”, since it is too tough?



Are these works or books or monographs – what are these written projects that Heidegger spent so much time on?  Most of what we have are very extensive lecture notes for courses and seminars.  In his second major “non-work” (Contributions to Philosophy : (From Enowning);GA65), Heidegger talks about the “still unmastered ground plan of the historicity of the crossing itself” (GA 65, et p. 5, German pages 5-7).  So what is the plan for thenon-book”?  Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) (1936-1938).  Gesamtausgabe volume 65 (GA65).



This does not point to some final “philosophical positionfor Heidegger.



Heidegger and Nietzsche both think that the time of true systems is over in some kind of finally way for philosophy.   Nietzsche and Heidegger both have a fundamental grasp of history (Geschichte) as philosophical thinking.  This is stronger for the both of them than Hegel.  Marx was overcome with history, he was drowned by history.  Heidegger’s thinking on the historical was pushed by Wilhelm Dilthey (1833-1911).



Nietzsche and Heidegger both wanted a transformation of current “man” (last man) or (animal rationale) into something more, overman or Da-Sein.



Nietzsche wrote music and Heidegger spoke of the “song of Seyn”. Perhaps not the prefect fit.



But clearly Heidegger on the on the other hand has a “the question of all questions” and Nietzsche perhaps has a few key expressions: amor fati, ecce homo, immoralist, eternal return of the same, will to power, revaluation of all values, innocence of becoming, and God is dead.  But Nietzsche did not have any “final” questions or metaphysical concept namely, no “final” state or position.  Heidegger does not have any “final” position, but he does have some “final” questions. Nietzsche clearly rejected teleology and eschatology; can we say the something for Heidegger?  Why not?



Both Heidegger and Nietzsche consider this project for the few and rare people.



Heidegger and Nietzsche both have a very special relationship to the Greeks even more so than Kant or Hegel.  Heidegger is closest.



Nietzsche and Heidegger both are not looking for a philosophical proof.  They are critical philosophers (not Kantian critical or analytical philosophy), but both in their own way.



Heidegger and Nietzsche both are strongly against Platonism and neo-Platonism.  In addition, this is different than Hegel’s history of philosophy.



Nietzsche and Heidegger both do not want disciples.



Does Nietzsche has some kind of all overall worldview and is it important to understand his philosophy?  Heidegger is very critical of worldviews and their connection to philosophy, but he does not bring this up in his dialogue with Nietzsche. Nietzsche worldview is like a bird of prey – where are all of those tasty sheep? Sheep are everywhere.



Heidegger and Nietzsche are both in distress over their condition and the condition of the thought (thinking, philosophical thought). For Hegel it is a nation without metaphysics.  Hegel in the first preface to the Science of Logic says,


If it is remarkable when a nation has become indifferent to its constitutional theory, to its national sentiments, its ethical customs and virtues, it is certainly no less remarkable when a nation loses its metaphysics, when the spirit which contemplates its own pure essence is no longer a present reality in the life of the nation.”


Heidegger has distress or the lack of distress over the lost of the Being question.




Nietzsche and Heidegger are both giving warnings about increasing erudition and scholarship, which is pushing philosophy away.  Philosophy is always being re-thought, and yet, philosophy never changes.  Philosophy does not get further along or makes “progress”.  Contra position to Kant’s What Real Progress has Metaphysics Made in Germany Since the Time of Leibniz and Wolff? (Welches sind die wirklichen Fortschritte, die Metaphysik seit Leibnizens und Wolffs Zeiten in Deutschland gemacht hat?) Kant was not sure that any progress had been made, he said, “But this science is metaphysics, and that completely changes matters. This is a boundless sea in which progress leaves no trace and on whose horizon there is no visible destination that allows one to perceive how near one has come to it”. (et. p. 51).  Did Kant ultimate think that the only progress that had been made in metaphysics was Kant himself?  Kant said at the very end of Critique of Pure Reason, “The critical path alone is still open.” (Der kritische Weg ist allein noch offen.).  The metaphysics of metaphysics becomes the Critique of Pure Reason and allows for metaphysics to make progress.  Perhaps forward, but certainly backwards into the foundations of metaphysics.  The roots of a tall tree (Descartes).  The dark allusion is spreading out among us. 


What is the news from the philosophical war front?  Heidegger, Wittgenstein, and Nietzsche all signed up for the military, they all served, but I think Wittgenstein killed the most people.



Nietzsche said something very interesting about truth, “The world that concerns us is false; that is, it has no factual substance to it, but is rather a poetic filling in and rounding out of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something becoming, as a constantly sliding and shifting fabrication that never approaches the truth: for—there is no "truth." (Will to Power, # 616).  Where do we have to stand to affirm this and only this?  Can you say this is the truth and affirmed with your soul? Boy would Nietzsche be surprised at this thought.


Buddhism for Nietzsche and Heidegger is an interesting notion. Nietzsche said, “to a Buddhism for Europeans? to nihilism?  (Genealogy of Morals, Preface, Section 5).  Heidegger said, “The less a being man is and the less he insists upon the being which he finds himself to be, so much nearer does he come to being (No Buddhism! the opposite)”. (Contributions to Philosophy : (From Enowning) GA 65 p 170-171). In general, both Nietzsche and Heidegger view themselves as counter to Buddhism as they understand that philosophy and religion (some how it is both in a fundamental way).  Nietzsche call Buddhism “weary nihilism” (Will to Power, #23 (Spring-Fall 1887) and he also refers to Buddhism as one of the two “great nihilistic movements” (Will to Power, #220, November 1887 – March 1888).  Does Heidegger pick up on the themes of Buddhism as nihilism? No, why not?  Heidegger is deeply influence by eastern thought and he has open a significant dialogue with eastern thought, but he was always reluctant to put anything in writing about eastern thought, I think because of Heidegger’s relationship to the essence of language, and to spoken and written languages.  He really understood the issues and the impact on philosophizing.



Why should philosophy be concerned with past, since we will all live in the future?  Many of our “loved ones” will be left in the future without us.  So, we must speak to the future of life on the planet.



Nietzsche wrote a letter to Georg Brandes (January 4, 1889), he said, “After you have discovered me, it was no great feat to find me.  The problem now is how to lose me---?”  For Nietzsche and Heidegger, how can we ever lose them?  They both have the defined the “questions”, so that we can not get “pass” them.  Heidegger is attempting to get “pass” Nietzsche, to some how surpass Nietzsche.  Has Heidegger gotten us “pass” Nietzsche?  Have Nietzsche been “purified” by Heidegger?  The purpose of Heidegger’s reading of Nietzsche is the destruction of the history of ontology (Being and Time).  Later he talked about purifying. But Heidegger is no follower of Nietzsche. We think about Heidegger, but Heidegger does not want us to become his followers. We should not get too close to the flame.  It does burn.



How do we determine value? Is this a foundational question that Heidegger would ask Nietzsche?  Yes, but what is the answer? Nietzsche has a ways to go to give an answer to this question.  Please note the “we” in the question.  Perhaps the object determines its own self the value it posses.  Or, is it rather the “we”? We know better.



Nietzsche said, “I know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and the impossible.” (Summer-Fall 1873 29[54] KSA 7, 651; KGW 3:4, 259). This is back to philosophers as attempters. Attempted the great and the impossible – Nietzsche drives the point home.  Live under the volcano – Vesuvius. On August 24, A.D. 79, Vesuvius Volcano suddenly exploded and destroyed the Roman cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum – why not build more cities next to Vesuvius?  Philosophical spirit’s driving forward.



Can scholars lead the way?  Answer: no, only philosophers can become leaders.  Scholars can not lead to the overman.



Philosophers as philalethes.



Oh boy, Nietzsche blew the lid off when he said, “The “laughter-loving gods” is the highest epithet ever conferred on the world.” (Spring-Summer 1875 5[105] KSA 8, KGW 4:1).  Heidegger can only point the way on this one, since Nietzsche’s playfulness does not speak, but rather leaps off of the page into our hearts.  Nietzsche does this after his worldview has been dismantled.



What is the relationship between philosophers and language?  Nietzsche said, “Word are the seducers of the philosophers; they wriggle in the nets of language”. (Summer 1875 6[39] KSA 8, 113 KGW 4:1, 189).  Heidegger wrote, “Language, whether spoken or held in silence, the primary and broadest humanization of beings.” (Contributions to Philosophy : (From Enowning) GA 65, p510).  Heidegger nails this one – man the belanguaged thing. To language is to be humanized.



Heidegger said the opposition between subjective and objective history makes no sense at all.  It is hard for the imagination to think Nietzsche is thinking of some objective history, but it is unlikely that Nietzsche escapes this opposition.  Nietzsche is thoroughly trapped in the long standing metaphysical opposition between Becoming and Being (Being and Becoming).  Can we drop this opposition some where on the road?  I think not.




Thinking against reason (Vernunft) or should we say “thinking” neither reason nor not-reason; not caught in the distinction or the opposition between reason and not-reason (non-reason, anti-reason, disreason, or irreason).  Is this aphorism reasonable?  Will you use reason to make this decision?  Answer: the answer is in the question. Are you only rational? Answer: must be more than just that.  We have more links to the world than just reason.  Or, the question reveals the questionableness of the answer.



Neither Nietzsche nor Heidegger is giving us a “report” on some philosophical problem or question.  These are thinkers underway.



Nietzsche has an answer to the question he asked, “Why I am a Destiny?” (Ecce Homo). Did Heidegger ever ask the question?  Heidegger had some sense of his destiny and he lived long enough to see part of his destiny unfolding. 



Nietzsche stated his high point and his low point in one sentence. Nietzsche said, “Apart from the ascetic ideal, man, the human animal, had no meaning so far.”  (Genealogy of Morals, “Third Essay, What is the meaning of the Ascetic Ideals?” Section 28).   Our high point was out ascetic ideals and of course out low point is that we can not get it together enough to “have” any “meaning” and we are only the “human animal”.  The only grain of hope is that perhaps we can give birth to the overman.  Where is the power and the will?  Answer: lacking, you say?



If there has been a decline and no progress, why there is not more chatter on this point?

No improvers for us.



Danger and distress is the unhidden words that will open the opening and allow for the truth of Being (that Being of beings).



Can we become that Unity and oneness – henology is what we need?!



What is pure knowledge?  Nietzsche said, “Pure knowledge has no drive.” (Summer-Fall 1873 29[14] KSA 7, 631, KGW 3:4, 239).  Where could we locate the “drive” as when we have a drive “for belief in truth”?



Necessity is destiny and predestination – moria (to speak Greek).

Amor fati, again and again (thanks again and again).





How do we have a unique humanization process that follows into our essential nature?  Perhaps – not.



On one hand, we have standpoints and worldviews and on the other hand we have standpointlessness and worldviewlessness or no standpoint and no worldview.  Philosophy is not a process of creating a standpoint (or a view) or a worldview. Philosophy does not take facts or truths and build some kind of worldview for a peaceful world without suffering.  Philosophy is not a way of teaching how to live the good life and giving us “practically” knowledge.  It does not tell how to invest in the stock market.  Or, in other words – it has no external purpose.  According to Heidegger philosophy is fruitful and masterful knowing (rare inquiry). For example, do people play music to make music and to listen to it or do they make music to make money?  Some people do philosophy and write books for money, but others do philosophy and write books for their own affirmations.  Many university philosophers make money teaching liberal worldviews – is that still philosophy or just an epiphenomena of philosophy?



Heidegger is against epistemology and Nietzsche says, “the biggest fable of all is the fable of knowledge” (Will to Power, #555, 1885-1886).   This appears to be strange next to the neo-Kantian domination of analytical philosophy.  The drum beat of the apparent perceived limitation of knowledge as falsifiable only – ontic truth (Kant’s project points toward ontological knowledge of the transcendental conditions for the possibility of experience).  Is transcendental knowledge still part of Nietzsche’s fable?  Answer: interestingly yes – just a fable of knowledge, how do we know that? What kind of knowledge is that?).  More questions less answers. “Knowledge” has left the building.



Eternal return of the same – how can this be true? Nothing returns the same.  Shouldn’t Nietzsche’s thought be the eternal return of the totally unique?  There are some experiences that seem to eternally return.  Something or some power we call consciousness, the experience of the moment with a projection toward the future, a remembering of the past, a worlding, a body that does not get lost or misplaced; those all return when we wake up in the morning.  The vast majority of our life is the eternal return of the totally unknown unique happening, which we call life.  Life happens. But of course this is some kind of bad “eternal” since there is nothing “eternal”. This concept of “eternal” was handed down like a bad sock is handed down.  Just the old human imagination at work with our tough old “grammar” doing the rest, both of which we need to keep an eye open for the attempts to confuse us.   We even have a word for “chaos”. We budle up chaos in a conceptual word – we are really good (since we think we have dealt with or can deal with real chaos by having a word – chaos).



Nietzsche said clearly, “there exists neither “spirit” nor reason, nor thinking, nor consciousness, nor soul, nor will, nor truth: all are fictions that are of no use.” (Will to Power, #480, March-June 1888).  Talk about cutting the ground out from underneath philosophers and metaphysicians.  The concept-mummies given to us from on high – dropped from the heavens.  What is the truth status of his propositions? Nietzsche is saying that truth does not exist.  Or, is Nietzsche making a more general claim against all of these metaphysical concepts, plus against all metaphysical concepts in general. Nietzsche is against how these metaphysical concepts are created and derived.  Note: not given to us from the golden past as good solid concepts.



Nietzsche came up with the concept of semitheologians as the intermediaries between science and philosophy.  What is the real connection between science and philosophy?  Today – nothing.  Philosophy is suppose to be some kind of ground and foundation for science, but those days are over and gone.



What is Nietzsche’s hammer (tuning fork)?  We want to use the will to power and do revaluation of all values, a new positing of values again and again (no, not eternally).



Heidegger thinks that nihilism is the inner logic of the history of western metaphysics.  Nietzsche was working on the preface to the Will to Power (November 1887 – March 1888) says, “What I related is the history of the next two centuries.  I describe what is coming, what can not longer come differently: the advent of nihilism.”  Which way are we going?  Heidegger is going in reverse and Nietzsche is looking into the future, he calls it “the history of the next two centuries”. Nietzsche has given us our greatest burden, our greatest choice, and our greatest weapon.



Nietzsche said, “the joy of the circle is itself the goal.” (Will to Power, #1067, 1885).  Teleology is thought of as subjective and not in the objective world (physical).  For Nietzsche teleology is just another bad metaphysical concept (the great expression of the “concept-mummies”) to reject.  He shares his anti-teleological position with Spinoza.  Nietzsche in an interesting letter to Overbeck (Sils Maria, July 30, 1881) compares himself to Spinoza,  in five main points of Spinoza doctrine,  Nietzsche recognize himself, “he (Spinoza) denies freedom of will, teleology, the moral world order, the unegoistic, and evil” (Portable Nietzsche, p. 92). Back to Nietzsche’s circle, it is not a teleological goal, but something to aim for in non-metaphysical sense.  Is there an aim and purpose for humanity?  This is where philosophers and theologian both have been confused.  The inner history of western thought has been attempt to decide on what the goal is for mankind.  Plato’s philosopher-kings?  What grandiose thought that was.



Are these aphorisms loaded for you the reader or me the writer?  The process is the ring and circle.  In the format of an essay is there a before and after in the essay and does that mean there really is a before and after. Where is the Heideggerian leap?



Can we talk about the overman how he/them should be – subjective aspects compared to how a flower should be in the objective world?



Nietzsche rejects Platonism, but he makes a very interesting remark, “Socrates, just to acknowledge it, stands so close to me, that I am almost continuously locked in struggle with him.” (Summer 1875 6[3], KSA 8,97, KGW 4:1, 180).  Walter Kaufmann always thought about this special relationship between Nietzsche and Socrates.  At some times it almost seems like Heidegger would say, he is continuously locked in struggle with Nietzsche, but I think to more accurate would be to say that Heidegger was locked in a struggle with the history of philosophy (has he reads it) and at times with himself. Nietzsche in Ecce Homo is in dialogue with himself and his place in history. Heidegger in the Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) is also in dialogues with himself, but some how it is different; for example, not so self-absorbed.



Where do we put the “goal” inside the state or man? What does individualism mean today? How far have we come?  This is almost unthinkable from the point of view of the team.  The push is toward the “team” since we all have to work together.



Since Nietzsche great philosophers have final found their historical sense.  Heidegger certainly – but perhaps Karl Marx was overwhelmed by a historical sense, but not just understanding and reasoning with history – rather (can I say it? can I write it?) changing history.  Not just Marx but as we are seeing perhaps Heidegger is trying to get us underway with changes (this may have been part of the issue of why he took up with National Socialism).



Metaphysicians have always polished those inherited concepts.  What we say that Hegel did with Aristotle?  Hegel was much close to Aristotle than Nietzsche was in his transformation of Plato.  Can we say it, Philosopher-kings as the Plato’s transformation to Nietzsche’s overman?  Nietzsche’s favorite work in his youth was Plato’s dialogue the Symposium.  Ok, perhaps I pushed it too much.  Great philosophers – Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger are “influenced” by earlier philosopher, but their uniqueness comes out.  Think of the comparison Nietzsche did of himself with Spinoza (Letter to Overbeck, July 30, 1888). Of course, we have philosophers as scholar writings essay on the influenced that Spinoza had on Nietzsche, but in this case we have Nietzsche own understanding and yet, we also know that Nietzsche lied about how much he was reading.  He said he was not reading, but in his letters and notebooks we found out that he was reading a lot during those periods.




Why our great philosophers always concern with the big picture – means with the goals and aims of this civilization?





To Being Nietzsche opposites “it” with the thought of the eternal return of the same.  Being is opposite to Becoming.  Does this mean that the thought of the eternal return of the same is the same (identity) as Becoming?  I think not.



Some days Heidegger was no longer reads German philosophers, it was the Greeks that provided nourishment for Heidegger on those days and there were many of those days in his life.



If I had any philosophical insight, I owe it to myself to work on the elucidation.  But I may not be born posthumously – I may not be born at all. I seek no advantage – because there is none to gain. The process is the only thing to gain.  Philosophy looks deep inside us and changes us in some radical way.



Why would certain civilizations create the ideal of a philosopher – and others never feel the distress, the calling, the conflict and counter dictions.  What is “it” that produces great philosophers?  What kind of soil and earth produces philosophers?



Can reason (as Reason) give us reasons for why reason should be paramount?

Are philosophers the sign and symptom of the excessive decadence?



How many moral philosophers have any morality at all?  You guessed it – no secrets there.



Is faith the opposite of methodology?  If you throw out methodology, then only thing left is faith.



Nietzsche is too wet with life to make any sense of the Kantian thing-in-itself. The bird of prey is in the genes.



Nietzsche said in one of the discarded drafts of the “Case of Wagner” written for Ecce Homo, he said, “I want nothing differently, not backward either – I was not permitted to want anything differently –Amor fati. (Friedrich Nietzsche Werke, Podach, pp. 318f, Ecce Homo, et. p. 343).  Fate means necessity neither forward nor backwards, he did not want nor was he permitted to change the necessity and fate, his destiny was confirmed fixed for good.  Some people were put on this planet for a purpose, it is their destiny to do what they need to do -- Nietzsche and Heidegger how did they understand their own purpose?  For Heidegger who hears the distress, then points to the few and rare, the decision, and then finally the crossing.



Nietzsche’s destiny comes flowing out in his autobiographical work, Ecce Homo, where the last chapter is called, “Why I am Destiny”.  Nietzsche remarked his name will be associated with a “crisis without equal on earth”.



Can we refute Nietzsche and Heidegger? Answer: no, I do not think that refutation is the right direction.  Heidegger wants us to purify the history of philosophy.  For Nietzsche western philosophy is a history of an error (and not just a small error either).  Refutation is not the point.  What is the sharpest point? We have a critical dialogue and debate with the history of philosophy.  The Hegelian point of standing on the shoulders of the great philosophers.  We are still left with the question after Nietzsche and Heidegger: what is philosophy? What is the space to do philosophy? What is the task for philosophers after Nietzsche and Heidegger?



How close are we to ourselves? Since we do not know the essential nature of man, then how can we know who we are? We are somehow unknown to ourselves.  Does this hurt?  No, but it shows us part of our own dilemma.  The ground is not solid.



Are we philosophers for life or against life? Are we weary of life and sick of this earth?  Answer: just moods or philosophy.



Kant said the critical path only is still open. Nietzsche said he was looking for “bold and industrious comrades (I am still looking).” (Genealogy of Morals, Preface #7).  Heidegger spent perhaps too much time on being a teacher, but he never was looking for a disciple like Husserl wanted to control Heidegger as a disciple.



Nietzsche said something very interesting about “values are empirical and conditional.” (Will to Power, #460 (March-June 1888).  What are the highest values is a just a question of empirical evidence.  There are strong words for the question of the ontological status of values that were once eternal or at least true for all times.  Values are ontic, empirical, and just conditional at the time and place.  Is this simple or complex realism? Or, should we be speaking of only empirical realism?



What is the relationship between truth and freedom?  The truth shall set you free – no, not really.



Heidegger apparently thinks that Nietzsche’s Nachlass and published writings are equally importance.  Some have argued that the published writings should be given more emphasis.  It will be interesting in the future when more of Heidegger’s own Nachlass becomes available how much people will use this material and not his published writings. Heidegger in a way can say (at least so far) he had only three writing projects that were not lectures, essays, or seminars.  Note: I am not saying ‘book’ projects.  Those are: Being and Time, Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, and Contributions to Philosophy: (From Enowning). (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis)   I want to thank Alfred Denker for a discussion of these issues.



Nietzsche is in our path and we need to knock him over and go through him, whereas the most dangerous avenue would be to try and go around him.  Only a few American philosophers have tried to come to grips with Nietzsche and are still stuck in some ahistorical space.  Completely in a lost space.



Why does Heidegger want to “elucidate” any of Nietzsche?  Why not just a critical debate and confrontation with Nietzsche?  The real purpose is to struggle with the confrontation and for us to become thinkers in the mist of the dialogue between these two great thinkers.  We are not looking for arguments, refutations or proofs, but rather, a thoughtful dialogue over the matter and issues themselves.  Next step is to do our own dialogue with Nietzsche --- where we win.  Did Heidegger win or lose?  Are we only willing to back the winners?



We write about Heidegger and Nietzsche, but I asked you to do your own reading and thinking about Heidegger and Nietzsche by going directly to their texts and writings.  I am not doing this so that will not have to read Heidegger or Nietzsche.  I hope that my engagement with those two will help you in your own process, namely, to make you think more deeply about Heidegger and Nietzsche.



What is the difference between a new valuation and a revaluation of all values?  Why not just the new valuation of any values we pick out?  Value metaphysics is now a dead game, but it still has an impact today (the news broadcast has not made to every one yet).



Nietzsche has the concept of will in common with Kant and German idealism, plus Schopenhauer.  But it is interesting how little Nietzsche has in common with the rest of German philosophy.  Some critical remarks about Kant and Hegel, but overall Nietzsche is connected with the Greek world and his own world.  Nietzsche understanding and his misunderstanding of German philosophy had come through the bad optics of Schopenhauer.  Hegel used lens ground by Spinoza, so that he could see the God in everything and everywhere.



What happen are you afraid of getting into the water?  The water is deep and cold, but friendly.  Go ahead and get in.



What is the ontological status of a “wish”?  Heidegger’s Da-sein analysis shows itself with the simple structure of possibilities. If we were not in the world in terms of possibilities, then we would not be making wishes. Even something like a “wish” can show itself through Heidegger’s analysis.  Does this give us a contextualized notion of “wish” as such?



What would Nietzsche say of Heidegger’s use of the concept of ripeness (German word is “Reife”, GA 65 p410, et p. 288)?  There is a strong connection in the black forest with apples.  There are around Freiberg has lovely apples and grapes.  For Heidegger to use such an earthly expression like ripeness in the mist of his contributions to philosophy, shows us how far we have come from the early metaphysical language of the past.  For Nietzsche this would be the meaning (Sinn) of the earth (Erde) and how us mortals reside within this meaning. 



Heidegger sees himself as building a bridge to a new beginning.  Nietzsche sees his destiny as a choice and breakpoint for humanity.  The beginning (Anfang) is only thought by beyn historical thinking (seyngeschichtliches Denken) and inceptive thinking (anfängliche Denken).  Heidegger’s thinking points beyond the metaphysical thinking of Nietzsche into a new realm.



Where does philosophy begin for Nietzsche and Heidegger?  Western thought supposedly started with astonishment (thaumadzein), Eastern philosophy and Eastern religion started with suffering.  Heidegger started with the meaning of the Being of beings.  Nietzsche started with the Greeks and a reaction to Christianity.  Is there more to their beginnings?  Answer: yes, it is more complex, perhaps too complex for aphorism.  There “it” is:  I finally said it (were you waiting long?).  After all there are limitations to the methodology of aphorisms. Know ourselves!



Heidegger has many different projects but one of his main projects is the overcoming of metaphysics – this point of Nietzsche at the end of metaphysics is a point that Heidegger draws many insight from.  Nietzsche as the last metaphysician and the last thinker of western philosophy, allows Heidegger to work on the new beginning (Anfang).



The relationship between time and Being is on Heidegger’s mind when he is working on Nietzsche.  Keep an eye out for these issues.



Heidegger in his writings about Nietzsche’s eternal return of the same, he says, “a thought that pertains to life itself it must also be a historical decision – a crisis.” (Nietzsche II, et p. 154).   On one hand, Heidegger is talking about Nietzsche, but on the other hand, he is talking about “life itself”.  Heidegger sees himself part of that “crisis”.  This is the summer semester of 1937.  When do we know that “we” are in a “crisis”? Note: this especially odd for us being-in-the-middle at this historical time.




The thought of the eternal return of the same is the hammer, “the danger of dangers”, the “thought of thoughts” – all this is to confront Europe with the final choice.  This will lead to “a crisis without equal on earth.” (Ecce Homo, ‘Why I am Destiny”, #1).  Is the death of God and for Heidegger the end of metaphysics; are these the crisis without equal on earth?  Look what happen to Russia and China under the influence of Marx.



Can we think of either the will to power or the thought of the eternal return of the same as the countermovement to nihilism?  Does the overman live only after the end of nihilism? Nietzsche is telling us what to think, but not how to think.  Nietzsche has a strand in his writings where he is developing a metaphysics where he is telling us what to think.  But he also has very distinction parts to his philosophy where he is telling us to think for ourselves.  Are you waiting for the answers?  Good luck – you will need lots of time (Unendlichkeit and Ewigkeit).



If Nietzsche’s thought is a countermovement, whom is it a countermovement to? Is it Wagner, Kant, Hegel, or Socrates?  Heidegger thinks Nietzsche is primarily against Platonism (note: not against Plato as such).   On the other hand, who is Heidegger a countermovement to?  Answer: at least my answer would be Hegel.   But perhaps one can make a case for other philosophers.  Heidegger in the 1930s seems to be in dialogue with Hölderlin, Nietzsche, Schelling, and Jünger.  But his relationship with these thinkers is a lot more complex than just a simple countermovement.  Heidegger says at one point that Schelling was a countermovement against Spinoza.  Of course, many people would say that much of German Idealism was a countermovement to Kant.  Hegel became the countermovement to many philosophers that came after him – Marx and clearly many others, including the young Nietzsche.



In Nietzsche’s thought of eternal return of the same (die ewige Wiederkehr des Gleichen) what can the “same” mean?  Could the “same” be pointing toward the Being of beings?  Being is the same (always) and it returning to us continuously.  Schelling’s metaphysical expressions are Being is eternal, unconditioned, independent of time, self-affirming, and will.  In other words, we can say the “constant presencing.” Just Being as only beingness.



Nietzsche wanted to countermove and to invert Platonism in the same way Marx wanted to countermove and invert Hegel.  Both were following a similarly process.  Nietzsche stayed within metaphysics, whereas Marx went off the deep end and slide out of philosophy all together.  Why did Nietzsche reach all of the way back to Plato and Platonism?  How did he see so much in the fall out from Plato?



Why would we want to share any of these thoughts?  Why not?  Thinking is way cool.  We must become creators to begin the path to thinking.  Thinking is not for every one, there are only a few that must take on the task. Some times the task looks deep into the philosopher. 



Why a single guiding question? Are there a top or foundational question?  Heidegger is ranking (values) questions.  Some questions have a higher rank and are more valuable, then less valuable questions. There is more value to ontological question.  Why is that?

How do we get into ranking “questions”? Value metaphysics should



If we are interrogating the Being of beings, then can we leave the question undetermined?  How can the answer be determined, bounded, conditioned, mediated, and be ontic knowledge?  Can this be represent as something objective to be reported?  How do we have ears for this “question”?  Back to the interrogative as the primary thought.  Nietzsche said, “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” (Twilight of the Idols, “Reason in Philosophy” section #5).  Our use of the interrogative is tied to our “faith in grammar”.  Wittgenstein apparently tried to get out of this dilemma in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.



With Nietzsche’s inversion (inner-version) of Platonism means we are just rattling around inside Platonism, we have not put Platonism behind us.  Is there something in Nietzsche’s philosophy that helps us toward leaving Platonism at the door?  It is amor fati? 



Being is that self-clearing open that lets beings unconceals themselves in the light of truth. This is not some abstract or formal Becoming, but it goes on continuously.



For Nietzsche it is an either/or for God and the world.  In Twilight of the Idols one of his great works, he said, “We deny God, we deny the responsibility in God: only thereby do we redeem the world.”  (“The Four Great Errors”, section #8).   For Nietzsche this is a very strong opposition and Nietzsche is clearly on only one side – the world (Erde).  Is there room for both?  Heidegger seems to allow the possibility for being on the side of both, but without the eternal realm.



Faith is ruled out for Nietzsche, not a new faith is question here, but a new way of life (note: this is not a worldview).  Perhaps we might say that Nietzsche is pushing a worldview.  On the other hand, Heidegger this is not a new faith, not a new way of life, or a new worldview?    Heidegger does want to prepare us for a crossing to a new beginning.  Is it time yet for this crossing?   Heidegger wrote almost about this in the late 1930s, so what about our time, epoch, period, and historical time –now?



Aphorisms are contra to the essay and the book.  An essay has a beginning, body, conclusion as an end.  The essay tells a story.  The essay has some kind of structure (at least most essays in theory).  Whereas a good aphorism is loaded and sprung on the innocent.  Who are you? or is it just “me’?



On one side we have object and the other side in the brain we have electrical activity, which we call a representation of the object.  The correspondent between the object and representation if it is correct, then it is called the truth.  Heidegger attacks this “theory” in many of his writings.  Nietzsche seems to have some problems with truth, but I think Heidegger has destroyed and purified the truth issue in a clear way.  For Heidegger the correspondence theory of truth is one of his central issues, whereas with Nietzsche it is very much of a side issue.



Aphorisms are the golden nugget of thought.  We need to gather these golden nuts for the long winter to come…



How much of the time do Heidegger and Nietzsche talk “about” the need for the transformation, and then, how much of the time are they in fact actually “doing” what they are pointing towards?  Do we just want to “point” or do we want to “do”. Nietzsche talks about the meaning of the earth (Erde), but how much does he elucidate the actual and real meaning of the earth.  If Nietzsche really is an atheist, then why is the God issue brought up again and again?  Heidegger uses the expression thinking underway (Gedanken-gang) and also inceptual thinking (anfängliche Denken) and beyn historical thinking (seynsgeschichtliche Denken).   Heidegger allows for the possibility of Da-Sein, Da-sein, Da-sein, Dasein, Da sein, --- all of these are “about” “Da-sein”.  We are still waiting from more of Heidegger’s own remarks about Being and Time that he wrote in the late 1930s.



Heidegger did not “finish” with Nietzsche in the 1930s.  Heidegger was in dialogue with Nietzsche all of the time. Even in a lecture series from the 1951 and 1952, What is called Thinking, the first part of this lecture series is a dialogue with Nietzsche.  Heidegger on the attack.



The will to power and the will of life is a “will that wills-to-go-beyond-itself” (Heidegger in Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) GA 65 364-365, etc. 255).  This will to Will (as a noun) becomes a will to more and a will to power.  Nietzsche said, “this world is the will to power – and nothing besides.” (Will to Power, #1067, 1885).  Nietzsche also said, “because it is living and because life simply is will to power”. (Beyond Good and Evil, “What is Noble”, #259).  All life is a willing to power (growing and becoming predominant). Can we will in reverse? Answer: no.  Again we have Nietzsche seemly giving us a choice and then giving us an ontological statement of the necessity of the world, which ends up being that there is no real choice.  He gives it and then he takes it away.  Of course, in the middle it does not really matter because we have to sort out the truth.  We have access to the world to see for ourselves what the truth is for us, so when Nietzsche gives it and then takes it away – this leads us to our own thought.  The richness of the unthought comes through and makes us think.  With the will to power, Nietzsche is trying to think through this conceptualization and this makes us think.  Nietzsche’s notebooks (Nachlass) give us a glimpse into his workshop and the experimentation of his thought.  Nietzsche is not giving us a report on something called “will to power”.   Since we have so much from Nietzsche’s workshop we are over awed with so much forward and backward, so many paths and trails in the woods.  This makes us so much closer to the process that we have too much to sort out.  We do not have some final “position” for Nietzsche given to us.  This makes the problem better and worst.  It is better because it makes us think, it is worst because there is no easy way and perhaps no final “right” answer or solution to figuring out Nietzsche’s philosophy.  This is certainly the case with Nietzsche and his use of the expression “will to xxx”.  Yes, our thought is DENIAL of the will to Will.



Both Nietzsche and Heidegger have created an intimate work.  Nietzsche’s Ecce Homo is a very intimate autobiography. Heidegger’s Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) is also an intimated work, but in a different direction.  Heidegger is in some kind of dialogue with himself in this work, about his thinking and his own use of language.  He footnotes himself throughout the text more than he mentioned specific text of other philosophers or poets.  But his writings in this volume is not like anything else published so far – there has been a radical break with his language in this text.



Heidegger said he wants “to dare to come to grips with Nietzsche as the one who is the nearest but to recognize that he is farthest removed from the question of Being.” (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) 176-177, et p 124, Section 88).  This is selected out of a section that Heidegger calls “88. The “Historical” Lectures Belong to the Sphere of this Task”.  What does this mean?  Heidegger recognized in so many ways Nietzsche is close to Heidegger, especially on the issue of finitude which is a central starting point for both of them (of course, contra Hegel).  On the other hand, Nietzsche has a great contempt for the matter of the Being of beings.  Nietzsche said, “Being is an empty fiction” (Twilight of the Idols, “Reason in Philosophy”, section #2).  Heidegger’s main point against Nietzsche is that he never saw the importance of the guiding question of the meaning of Being of beings.  Nietzsche was greatly influenced by the Greeks, but some how he did not take up this question and when he makes reference to the Being of beings, then he is off the cuff critical of the nature of the Being of beings, for Nietzsche is just another way for philosophers to avoid the world.



When we have Nietzsche’s image of man as a rope between beast and the overman; then we have Heidegger #89 “Crossing to the Other Beginning” (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) 176-177, et p 124).  Heidegger says that this “crossing” has nothing in common with all of the –isms of philosopher, nor with anything like worldviews.  Heidegger further makes a bold statement, “what is separated is so decidedly separated that no common area of differentiation can prevail at all.” (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) 176-177, et p. 124).   Can Heidegger by a very general analogy consider “the Other Beginning” as something like Nietzsche’s overman?  Heidegger does not come up with will to power or the thought of the eternal return of the same, but rather the truth of Seyn (Beyn of beings) as a question mark.



We are not refuting, rejecting, overcoming, nor proving Nietzsche or Heidegger wrong.  Heidegger is not overcoming Nietzsche. No, our questioning and thinking move in a different direction.  Watch your steps as this unfolds.



Heidegger recognized the importance of Platonism for the course of western philosophy through Nietzsche.  Nietzsche sees the bigger picture of “Christianity as Platonism for the people”.  Heidegger understands the overcoming of metaphysics (as Platonism) in general as having the widest historical dimensions. We are still thinking it through.

This is pure, raw -- Heidegger.



Both Heidegger and Nietzsche have not use for epistemology. Why is that?



Heidegger thinks the most general approach to the standard viewpoints of philosophy is realism, idealism, skepticism, causalism, empiricism, and positivism.  This can all be thrown out.  Nietzsche’s writings are full of his attacks of all sorts of –isms and his attacks on people with their associated –ism.   Heidegger comes up with a much more generalized critique of the use of viewpoints in philosophy in general. Some of this I think follows Schelling’s critiques of –isms.






Is distress a psychological feeling or a part of our human condition? Heidegger says, “this distress is that which drives man round among beings and brings him first of all in front of beings in the whole and into the mid-point of beings, thus brings man to himself – and thus in each case letting history begin or founder.” (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) 45-46, et. p. 32).   Not only is distress part of the human condition, but it is important for “letting history begin”.  Heidegger says the distress is driving man. Heidegger also strangely says, “the utmost distress: the distress of lack of distress”. (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) 107, et p. 75).  Heidegger is pointing toward that this “distress” can go missing (not really part of the human condition) and this really worries Heidegger.  Distress brings us in front of beings as a whole, this sounds like the Being of beings.  So, why does distress drive us in front of Being?  Does the lack of distress mean the same thing as Being has been forgotten? If we get to the mid-point and man comes to himself, then we will be letting history begin and this is only when man is driven by distress to the relationship of Being.  Man is the opening and clearing (eventing) that allows beings to come into the clearing of Being.  Our distress is from not realizing the importance of this question and process.



A countermovement is still linked to the matter or the –ism. Is realism a countermovement to idealism?  Is Nietzscheanism a countermovement to Platonism?  Is Plato a countermovement and counter example to Platonism? With this I said it all. A countermovement is not an aufgehoben (Hegel) or essential transformation or a destruction and purification (Heidegger); no this is not a countermovement.  Is reason paired with the irrationalism?  Is some how the supersensible the opposite of the sensible?  Heidegger is against been involved in countermovement, and yet, Nietzsche is stuck in so many countermovements (many that Heidegger does not notice).



Heidegger’s true magnum opus is not Being and Time, but according to Heidegger’s special friend (almost a collaborator for some of Heidegger’s publications) Otto Pöggeler,  the work “Contributions to Philosophy (Von Ereignis )” is his true major project.  Heidegger calls this project “an attempt” (ein Versuch).  This is the same expression that Nietzsche uses.  This is a common –method for the two of them.  This is a common approach to philosophy.  Certainly, this is contra Kant and Hegel most of all.  Heidegger also calls it thinking underway (Gedanken-gang).  Professor Dr. Friedrich-Wilhelm von Herrmann says that Being and Time is Grundwerk and the Beiträge is Hauptwerk.
Alexander Schwan Beiträge is a
transitional work.  Of course, Heidegger says it no „werke“ at all – that concept does not apply to his writings and his thinking pathways.




Nietzsche is at the end of the first beginning (erster Anfang) of western philosophy, Heidegger stands at the beginning of the second beginning.  Heidegger is the mid-point at high noon. Of course, we are missing lots of the details as of 2003.  There are more writings awaiting publications in the wings that may bring out more details.



In the early 20the century, there was Oswald Spengler (1880-1936) Decline of the West, Husserl’s The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology, and Heidegger speaks of the “loss of the center”.  In all cases something is wrong, something is not right with the world, the world is out of joint; and hence we need philosophy to provide the “fix”, the solution, the way for the fly to escape the bottle. Hegel thought out a detailed description of the world as a metaphysical system.  Hegel has a large scale solution in his system.  What are Nietzsche’s and Heidegger’s solutions or “fix” to our distress and “loss of the center”?  How do we get the fly out of the bottle? What can we push to the fore-front of Heidegger’s philosophy?



What is man’s fate on earth? We can ask the question, but where would be our standpoint in time to answer that question.  I do not think we can decide this at the local mall.



Heidegger points to Nietzsche’s negative view of the multitude of nationalism.  Although in certain sense Heidegger is a German national, but he senses the opening for the “great decisions” that involve and claim taking place as man’s domination over the whole earth.



“The unthought is the greatest gift that thinking can bestow” (What is called thinking, Part 1, Lecture VII) according to Heidegger.  This is because the unthought is what allows a dialogue to happen between two thinkers.  Reading between two lines is that space for thinkers.  Heidegger said the unthought in Kant is full of riches.  We can track the thoughts of Nietzsche and Heidegger, but to actually reach the unthought in a Heideggerian way is much harder. This is not just re-peating what Heidegger said – no, we need to move way beyond that and force the issues of thought. 



Can we conceive of man without time and temporality?  I think not.  This would like Flatlanders – living in two dimensions.



Man is beBeing or enBeing.  Or, we can say, beBeyn or enBeyn.



Nietzsche historically belongs to the period in which Being calls as the Will.  Heidegger traces this history from Leibniz, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, and Schopenhauer to Nietzsche’s will to power (and too many others of Nietzsche’s “will to xxx”).  This connection between Being and Will according to Heidegger is not just a weary opinion of some philosophers about the nature of Being, but rather, the epoch of Being calling to these philosophers.  Certainly more than words on the page.



Why do I use the method of the aphorism?  Nietzsche said, “The most valuable insights are arrived at last; but the most valuable insights are methods. (Will to Power, #469, January-Fall 1888).  Part of the issue of method comes out of the critique of the general notion of the “system”.  If the time for “system” is over and we can not create a metaphysical system, then what method should we use for philosophy?  I think that the essay is partial assuming that the essay is a structured “system”.   Nietzsche had problems with different methodology and he used the aphorism for some of his works.  I think it is clear that Heidegger has a problem with the format of the “book” (or, “werke”), since there is a methodological problem in how a “book” is to be constructed.  Not only is the aphorism a good approach based on methodological issues, but it is rather enjoyable to write aphorisms and the feeling of “power” is on the increase.  I want to say in a single aphorism what Nietzsche and Heidegger ended up saying in a book, what Nietzsche and Heidegger did not say in all of their writings.  Thus, I want to say something originally and then gain an important foothold in the realm of thinking.  Of course, Heidegger and Nietzsche and others have pushed me, but I hope I have climbed new mountains and have been cast upon a new, open sea. At the moment, there is no land in sight.



Nietzsche said, “Now I go alone, my disciples.  You too go now, alone.” (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, “On the Gift-Giving Virtue”, Section 3).  Nietzsche wants to tell us many things and his Zarathustra wants to teach us many things, but at some point we need to go on our own. Nietzsche goes on to say, “Now I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me will I return to you. Verily, my brothers, with different eyes shall I then seek my lost ones; with a different love shall I then love you.”   Heidegger also quoted this passage.  What is this different “love”?  This is the “love” of being your own thinker.  This means not just to call into question what Nietzsche told us, but also to think about how he approached problems, what methodology he used.  Perhaps we will agree with Nietzsche on something, but the point is to come to our conclusion ourselves.  If we agree or disagree, that is not the point; but that whatever we reach, we reach ourselves.  It is our experience and our thinking.  The mountain climbing example also points to this concept.  We can have a guide help us in climbing a mountain, but in the end we have to do the climbing.  The best example would be if we climb the mountain ourselves – solo (like 1980, August 20 - Italy's Reinhold Messner makes first solo ascent of Mt. Everest).  A few more lines and then at the end of the section, Nietzsche writes, “Dead are all gods: now we want the overman to live” – on that great noon, let this by our last will. Thus spoke Zarathustra.”  Therefore, Nietzsche still has things to say, he is still teaching us, he is still guiding us, and he is still showing us the bright light as the end of tunnel.  Messner would not be our guide on the mountain, but he is showing us the way foreword.



Some part of us is in every reading of a text. And we should enjoy this and enjoy a thoughtful dialogue with a text.  Why did Nietzsche and Heidegger write anything at all?  Some of these texts may have been written with a ‘reader’ in mind, but other texts may have been written because philosophers need to work it out.  Sometimes thoughts have their own way with a philosopher.  The thoughts pull a philosopher into them.  I think aphorism may help thinkers, since it is very close to how thoughts happen.  In other words, I do not think that thoughts come along in a structured essay form. Aphorism is where the rubber meets the road, not where the car is going.



If we philosophers no longer have any eternal truths to give the “people” what can we give them?  Skip the gift – maybe the goal is take something away from them!



What I know comes and goes, I think, perhaps I have lost the memory of what it was I was going to say and think.  Memory is the foundation and the condition for our experiences.



How would we know the “rank” of all values?  Is this in some huge spreadsheet, so that we know all of the “ranks”?   I am not sure how this works.  I think perhaps the only thing we use to know was the highest value (God, summum ens qua summum bonum) and one of the lowest values (man next to God).



I hope in these aphorisms I have made your problems more acute.  Remember, I did not write these to make it easier.  If your problems are acute, then perhaps you will know Heidegger’s distress.  Perhaps now the problems are more lucid, but not “solved”.  What kind of standards for thought is lucidity?  I am at least clear on this one issue.



I want to the “will” to become stronger. This sounds good, who would want to will to become weak and not be alive.  Do we want more life or less life?  Roll over and die and become infected with Russian fatalism.  Nietzsche said in Ecce Homo, “Against it the invalid has only one great remedy—I call it Russian fatalism, that fatalism without revolt with which the Russian soldier, when a campaign becomes too strenuous, finally lies down in the snow. No longer to accept anything at all, to take anything, to take anything in—to cease reacting altogether.” (Ecce Homo, “Why I Am So Wise” #section 6).  Yes, can we all feel like and then rise and live again.



Some how we can have the bridge which will lead us to the overman, but the idea of the overman can NOT be an ideal.  This can not be part of the improvers of mankind.  No socialism can be seen.  Mankind needs some aim and goal, but not as the nihilism of posting the new values in an eternal realm.  God is dead, that does not mean that we replace the God with the overman.  The spiritual values are gone.  Nietzsche said, “Art is worth more than truth” (Will to Power, #853, Fall 1886).   Does this mean that God is dead and we can replace him/her with ART?  How simple minded is that!



The leading question (Leitfrage) for Heidegger is the meaning or the truth of the Being of beings.  The leading question for Nietzsche is? Answer: perhaps nihilism, but this is not clear in Nietzsche perhaps some other possibilities -- death of God, the will to power, the thought of the eternal return of the same, the revaluation of all values, amor fati, or Dionysus versus the Crucified (Last sentence of Ecce Homo).  For Heidegger of the late 1930s this is a time in transition (Zeitalter des Übergang).  Heidegger sees himself at the point of transition (Übergang) and Nietzsche thinks of man as something that shall be surpassed (“Der Mensch ist Etwas, das überwunden widen soll.” Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, Prologue, Section 3).  Heidegger speaks of the overcoming (surpassing) of metaphysics; Nietzsche speaks of surpassing man (“wie wird Mensch überwunden?” Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, Section 73).  For Heidegger, “The time of re-building the essential shaping of beings according to the truth of be-ing has not yet arrived.” ”Die Zeit der Erbauung der Wesensgestalt des Seienden aus der Wahrheit des Seyns ist noch nicht gekommen“. Does mean we have to wait a long time?




In the beginning of the preface to Ecce Homo, Nietzsche said, “Overthrowing idols (my word for “ideals”) – that comes closer to be part of my craft.”   Is there a problem when Nietzsche tried to get us make overman the goal of man. Nietzsche said in Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen in the Prologue section 4, “It is time for man to fix his goal” (“Es ist an der Zeit, dass der Mensch sich sein Ziel stecke”).  Why must we want this lightning (Blitz) and frenzy (Wahnsinn) as a goal, why the overman as all?  What is wrong with man and humanity as they are right now?   I can understand that we need a human meaning (einen Menschen-Sinn) on earth, but why not just have man confront that meaning and relationship? So, back to the question why not man, why do we need an overman as distinct from man?  Man remains as man without overman – why is that a problem for you?



Just push man to become man; even if that means to transform man into man’s inner most essential nature as man.  Become who we are! Know yourself!



The context of two of Nietzsche remarks about amor fati is interesting.  In the section in Ecce Homo on ‘Why I Write Such Good Books”, the subsection on “The Case of Wagner”, it is here that Nietzsche writes, “I myself have never suffered from all this; what is necessary does not hurt me; amor fati is my inmost nature.”  In addition, Nietzsche said in one of the discarded drafts of “The Case of Wagner” written for Ecce Homo, he said, “I want nothing differently, not backward either – I was not permitted to want anything differently. –Amor fati. (Friedrich Nietzsche Werke, Podach, pp. 318f, Ecce Homo, et. p. 343).  The third reference is the beginning of the Epilogue to Nietzsche Contra Wagner, where Nietzsche said, “As my inmost nature teaches me, whatever is necessary – as seen from the heights and in the sense of a great economy – is also the useful par excellence: one should not only bare it , one should love it.  Amor fati: that is my inmost nature. And as for my long sickness, do I not owe it indescribably more than I owe to my health?  I owe it a higher health – one which is made stronger by whatever does not kill it. I also owe my philosophy to it.” (Portable Nietzsche, et p. 680).  Why it is always that Nietzsche brings up the notion of amor fati in the context of Wagner?  I think because for Nietzsche Wagner represents the artist.  But Wagner was not the artist like Nietzsche – that is why Nietzsche came up with expression “Amor Fati”.  Life is not a sickness, but rather to affirm a higher health.  One has to love one’s necessity of one’s life as fate.  This is a great “YES” to life.  This is a “YES” to the human meaning of the earth.  Nietzsche is not some underhanded crypto-pessimist.  Pessimism is thousands of feet below Nietzsche.   For Heidegger, he understands Amor as love, and as will.  In other words, Amor (as will) is understood on the subjective side.   We should note: whereas fati or necessity as fati is more on the objective side of nature as having the necessity in the world.  So, the expression amor fati is where the two come together: subjective and objective.   This one way of reading it, but perhaps there are ways to read the amor fati that would drive us nuts.



Are aphorisms just a collection of ideas?  Can we stack one aphorism after another and call it “good”?  Are these aphorisms a Hegelian concept without the inner dialectic and negative to push it forward toward the absolute idea?  Where do we find aphorism on the street?  Hegel was drawn to thinking as a final philosophical system, the absolute system, or the super system.



If we assume the methodology is correct, then we have assumed too much!



When Nietzsche said, “I want to teach men the sense or meaning (Sinn) of their existence” (“Ich will die Menschen den Sinn ihres Seins lehren” Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen, Prologue 7).  He could have explained the meaning of the earth, death of God, the love of life, amor fati, etc.  But he did not do that, because he added another clause to the sentence, “which is the overman”. (“welcher ist der Übermensch”).   Nietzsche can not leave well enough alone, he has to point to a beyond ideal or goal – namely, the overman.  Why not take the overman out of Nietzsche’s philosophy and leave it at that point.  We have enough of Nietzsche without all of his special metaphysical concepts getting in the way.  In other words, there is plenty “living” in Nietzsche’s philosophy, so that we can take away what is “dead” in Nietzsche’s philosophy (namely, all of the high minded metaphysical concepts).  Can we have Nietzsche without the metaphysics (hold the metaphysics on the our rush order please)?  Perhaps he would have wanted it this way – anyway!




On the way to the store we meet Nietzsche on the road.  We laughed at mankind but he could not pull the overman out of his hat.  What does that mean?



Where can we get a foretaste of the overman? Answer: Julies Caesar with Christ’s soul (see Will to Power, #983, 1884) or perhaps Napoleon with no soul at all.  Are we just talking about exceptional men or is there something different?  This is not in the philosophical realm of perfection; -- no we do not need this.



Why does Nietzsche have a longing for the overman or anything?  I think because Nietzsche has become Greek and anything that does not match up to his understanding of the Greek ideas and ideals is then attacked.  Nietzsche sees what is wrong from being Greek.  At the very end of Nietzsche Contra Wagner, Nietzsche said, “Those Greeks were superficial – out of profundity. And is not this precisely what we are again coming back to, we daredevils of the spirit who have climbed the highest and most dangerous peaks of present thought and looked around from up there – we who have looked down from there? Are we not, precisely in this respect, Greeks?” (The Portable Nietzsche, et. p. 682).  Yes, this is Nietzsche! He became Greek and then what did not find wrong with our civilizations.  How far have we come down from the heights of the Greeks?  Must we do this again and again – ask the Greeks to invigorate and strengthen our civilizations?

Back to the Greeks!!  (This idea and ideal of the Greeks would be affirmed by Nietzsche and Heidegger. See also Will to Power, #419, 1885).  Overman is one of those old Greeks come to us in modern times.



Why is philosophy so complicated?  What is the truth and meaning of the Being of beings? Answer: temporality.  Ok, there you have a question and the answer, so why is there more to it then that?   It is interesting that many philosophical essays tell a story, but they are so dry and dull that they make lousy stories.  Philosophy is under attack by the rhetoric people because of the way philosophy uses rhetoric devices without being up front about using them.  Nietzsche and Heidegger both use the images of mountains.  Kant often uses the analogy of building houses.  Philosophers have a ways to go before they can use “writings” without getting captured.  Nietzsche said, “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.” (Twilight of the Idols, “Reason in Philosophy” section #5).  The problem of “grammar” is a deep one that affects all philosophical projects.  Nietzsche was a professor of philology at the age of 25, so perhaps he was more aware of this problem before many other philosophers.  But philology has been on the move since 1869.  Philosophers think that only other philosophers read their writings.  Rhetoricians are starting to read their writings too. This attack against philosophy is gaining strength and is growing.  We will see what happens to philosophy after this attack. Can philosophy be a dance or a song?



Nietzsche’s ethic is not rule following.  What does that mean for ethical theories? Nietzsche’s ethical position, “I am the first immoralist: that makes me the annihilator par excellence.” (Ecce Homo, ‘Why I am a Destiny, section 3).  This is an ethical theory that comes with an attack methodology.  Nietzsche goes on in this section, “The self-overcoming of morality, out of truthfulness; the self-overcoming of the moralist, into his opposite—into me—that is what the name of Zarathustra means in my mouth.”  Nietzsche is beyond good and evil.  Nietzsche in general attacks all morality as decadent and negating life.  This is a realm of Nietzsche’s philosophy that Heidegger does not really address.  I think indirectly Heidegger attack on the metaphysics of values has great ramification for any ethical theory.  Attacks the presuppositions – anther non-logical move with a strong philosophical bent.



Nietzsche said, “Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and superhuman.” (Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, section 16).  Think of this: Napoleon and Caesar with Christ’s soul.  Does this sound like Hegel’s theory of the great men in his philosophy of history?  These are similarly topics but with entirely different approaches.  Nietzsche threw off some critical comments about Hegel, but I am not sure there is any reason to think that Nietzsche did any serious reading of Hegel.  Many of these off the cuff remarks come through the old optics of Schopenhauer.   Is Nietzsche’s overman just a different way of talking about Hegel’s great men in history?   Is this is ‘true’ Nietzsche would not be happy.



When Nietzsche complains about being “misunderstood, misjudged, misidentified, slandered, misheard, and not heard” (The Gay Science, Book Five, section 371) would Heidegger say the same thing?  Heidegger knew that mostly likely he would be at least “misunderstood” and the whole structure he tried to put into Being and Time was one attempt to be “clear”.   But very little was attempted by Heidegger in Contributions to Philosophy to make it “clear” for the reader.  Although it is an important point that Heidegger has the first part of the text called “Preview” that are sections 1-49 or some 70 pages in the English translation.   Hegel never like ‘prefaces’ or ‘introductions’ since they were really never part of the actual system or science of philosophy, but Heidegger wants to give us a ‘preview’ before we get going into the six unequal jointures or facets.  Heidegger says, “Each of the six joinings of the jointure stands for itself, but only in order to make the essential onefold more pressing.  In each of the six joinings the attempt is made always to say the same of the same, but in each case from within another essential domain of that which enowning names.” (Contributions to Philosophy (Von Ereignis ) et. p. 57).  In this passage Heidegger points out the ‘essential domain’ is what differs in the attempt.  But the structure itself is still a difficult in the reading and interpretation of this text. 


„Aus einem einfachen Ruck des wesentlichen Denkens muß das Geschehen der Wahrheit des Seyns versetzt werden vom ersten Anfang in den anderen, damit im Zuspiel das ganz andere Lied des Seyns erklinge“.  Martin Heidegger. Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis).   With this remark Heidegger says it all.



Positivism is anti-metaphysics, but positivism is still engaged in metaphysical thinking. Nietzsche had a period of positivism.



For Heidegger, Nietzsche is the nearest and yet the opening of the relationship between Da-sein and the Being of beings is Heidegger and certainly not Nietzsche.



Nietzsche and Heidegger against “logic”. This is part of their critique of Reason in philosophy.



Does Nietzsche know the difference between the Being of beings and beingness? What is beingness for Heidegger and Nietzsche? Wrapped up in metaphysics.



What kind of transformation must our thinking undergo to grasp Heidegger’s Nietzsche interpretation? Radical.



Heidegger sees Nietzsche as closest to tell the nature of truth, and yet part of his thinking is the farthest away from Heidegger, and Nietzsche is completely caught in metaphysics. Nietzsche as the last thinker of to western philosophy is both at the end of Platonism and at the bridge to the new beginning.



Which philosophers describe and tell us something (or give us a worldview) about the world or which ones push into making a “decision”?  Heidegger contra philosophers.



How is Nietzsche engaged in onto-theology?  Nietzsche’s thesis on theology. Why does that sound funny on the surface?



Nietzsche seems to have nothing to do with the transcendental conditions for the possibility of experience (Kant) or fundamental foundations.  Nietzsche had no sense of the transcendental turn as foundations. Nietzsche is against Kant’s faculties, morality, and the things-in-itself. The rest of Kant was not even a question for Nietzsche.



For Nietzsche the essential nature of beings is becoming (see close to Heraclites) and our nature is simply thinking or the subject-object distinction is thinking and becoming.  Can we say thinking and knowing or is that the same thing?



Kant had a few off the cuff remarks about Being; he did not seek questions and Beings. Nietzsche’s remark about “Platonism for the people” shows how much philosophy still has some kind of “power” over the people.



The history of western philosophy (metaphysics) is the emergence of Nihilism.  Platonism is the first beginning of western metaphysics.



Heidegger wants to go through “destruction” of Nietzsche’s metaphysics to ‘purify’ it. How do we purify Nietzsche?  It sounds obscene.



Nietzsche and Heidegger are both against journalists and philistines.



For Nietzsche anything that has being breathes. Catch the breath.



For Heidegger, Hölderlin is in ahead of us. Heidegger does not seem to touch Nietzsche’s poetry. Why is that?




That seems to be four basic positions:

            Plato - dominates




For Nietzsche this is a history of a gross error.




Is Nietzsche critical remarks about different people and –isms; is this his way of creating a Nietzsche worldview? What is the Nietzsche worldview? Does the question lead to our understanding Nietzsche or a simple position to reject?  We see Nietzsche’s worldview and does not agree with ours – hence reject it out of hand.



How can we see both Heidegger and Nietzsche in the same horizon of thinking?



Think about how far removed Nietzsche is from the unity of the categories.




Heidegger’s rejection of “system” does not mean just a simple rejection of systematic thinking, but rather the movement from system and modernity toward Heidegger’s new beginning. This will allow for a more secure interpretation.  Heidegger is more “systematic” than Nietzsche and he does not want to plainly reject the concept of system, Heidegger is purifying not simple destructions. There is more to it than “destructive” relationship.  What is our relationship to Heidegger?



If the unexamined life is not worth living, then Heidegger is pointing us toward the “decision” which is getting close to being Heidegger’s own philosophy (not just questions). Heidegger names this with the expression “truth of be-ing” (Seyn).



Nihilism is when the Being of beings is abandoned.  For Nietzsche, Nihilism is when the goals are gone. Ideals are dead and gone – except some how mankind needs a goal, namely, the overman.  The goalessness is a goal?  Can we use the expression “goalessnessing”?  This is not to be taken psychologically or against having a career. The overman as a goal seems too been the strongest in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, after this work the overman seems to have faded in important somewhat. This is the result of Nietzsche having a deeper sense of goal-positing and nihilism. The overman as a goal is an active nihilism that Nietzsche has to go through.  Perhaps we still have to go through it too.



Beginning of Being and Time Heidegger quotes the Sophist. That we have forgotten Being – now Heidegger is saying this abandonment of Being is directly connected to Nihilism.  David Krell’s dissertation that Nietzsche is on every page of Being and Time seems to become true. Heidegger’s respond to Nihilism is Being and Time.


“For manifestly you have long been aware of what you mean when you use 
the expression “Being”.
 We, however, who used to think we understood it, have now become perplexed.”  Plato, Sophist 244a.  This is quoted by Heidegger in the very beginning of Being and Time.  We say this every morning and let it ring in our ears and listen for the songs of Being.



What would Nietzsche think of Heidegger’s expression Ereignis? Vapor? or life?



Nietzsche was homeless (moved from place to place), but was he rootless?  Was his unrootedness growing? Was Nietzsche uprooting mankind? Did Nietzsche have homesickness?  If Nietzsche had said “homeward bound”, then where would he be going?



Unsystematic is not arbitrary or chaotic.



The forgottenness of Being is opposite of mindfulness.



Heidegger says, “What remains for thinking is only the simplest saying of the simplest image in purest reticence. The future first thinker must be capable of this. (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis) GA 65  pp. 71-73). What does this mean?  Heidegger hit it on the head with this remark.  But are we “capable of this”?  That is a much harder question.  Note: this is not a Kantian faculty.



Heidegger thinks that the nineteenth century is liberalism, industrialization, technicity, and summons positivism (Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis), GA 65, 181-182).  How would Nietzsche think of his own nineteenth century?



Nietzsche says two things in Beyond Good and Bad (“What is Noble” #259) “it will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power.”  Later in the same paragraph, he says, “it belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a   consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will of life”.   I think this means will to power is “life”.  Heidegger has always thought Nietzsche’s concept of “life” as being preempted to Nietzsche.  Does Nietzsche concept of “life” twist its way out metaphysics and anti-metaphysics?  Is there a glimmer to Heidegger’s Da-sein?  Seems a stretch.



I think that there is much Versuchung (temptation) among the Versucher (attempters or experimenters). These are the new and future philosophers that Nietzsche is calling for us. He does not name them overman but Versucher. Can we become these future philosophers?  These extra “very free spirits”. 



What are these rational foundations for morality (Nietzsche) or metaphysics – (Heidegger)?  Nietzsche said, “stiff seriousness” and “inspires laughter”. (Beyond Good and Evil, “National History of Morals”, Part 5, section 186).  What is philosophy without rational foundation? Is that a sobering thought or the affirmation of life as it is?



Do we need an explanation and elucidations (Erläuterungen) of Heidegger on Nietzsche?  Perhaps we should not even desire such a thing?  Even these question marks know too much.  The purpose and explanation is without reasons.




Is the content of Heidegger’s writing alive? What do we know now (2003) of Heidegger’s writings maybe elapsed in the next ten years as more of his writing is published.  Did Heidegger get “drunk with riddles” from Nietzsche?  The intoxication and feast of thinking (Nietzsche), which leads to the “truth of Being” for Heidegger.



Is Heidegger a symptom of ascending or declining? Yes and no.



Philosophers as crypto-priests, Nietzsche says more than he knows.



Can we say unBeing me?  Or, untime me?  How would this work?  Can we request a change in “our” ontological status from Da-Sein to unDa-Sein?



Nietzsche said, “whole of Zarathustra maybe reckoned as music”. (Ecce Homo, section on “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”, section 1).  Heidegger said, “The whole other song of

Be-ing sounds in the playing-forth”. (GA 65, p. 8-10). So what is the location of music and song in this interplay with philosophy?  What do we hear now?  Is this not music to your ears? Heidegger said, “damit im Zuspiel das ganz andere Lied des Seyns erklinge”.



Nietzsche said, “that man was surrounded by fearful void – he did not know how to justify, to account for, to affirm himself; he suffered from the problem of his meaning.” (Genealogy of Morals, Third essay ‘What is the Meaning of Ascetic Ideals”, section #28).

The human animal suffered from this “meaning” problem. There is no meaning to life – where have we heard this before?  Did life one time have meaning (Golden age) and now we have just recently “lost” it?  Or, has life and humanity never had any meaning?  Of course life has meaning, but perhaps no big and final goal or ultimate meaning to life.  For philosophers meaning is in the process.  If you have lost meaning, then you are six feet over the edge and deep in to “it”.



A parable tells us life is merely an error. What you forgot when the quiz was and missed it?



When Nietzsche says, “What is necessary does not hurt me; amor fati is my inmost nature”. (Ecce Homo, “The Case of Wagner”). What is the nature of life’s “necessity”? Necessity is a contra concept to freedom.  Fate takes away choice and freedom.  Fate and destiny is given, to us outside of our choice.  How do the Greeks concept of fate fit with Nietzsche’s?  I am my own fate and destiny.  But where did my fate came from? Some men were put on the planet for a purpose.



Do we need a total war and total polemic against metaphysics?   Or, is there a stronger path that leaves metaphysics done and outside?



Is the aphoristic methodology too isolating, too much alone, too little, too short for real work?  Are aphorisms ready for prime time?  Aphorisms run cold and hot, perhaps over cold and over hot, too cold and too hot, and too much of a punch.  This means a sprint and not a marathon.  Aphorisms on the attacks, too much of attack and not enough on the creative building and thinking.  Problems and issues – the tasks of self-reflective thinking.



You decide to reject my writings; do you want to refute my aphorism?  Be my guest, since “refutation” is 6000 facts beneath mankind.  Do you want proof?  Even Aristotle knew when you needed proof and when you do not need proof (a clue for wisdom).   Study Aristotle for 15 years before reading Nietzsche sounds like a good idea (Heidegger’s idea).  Of course, when you “read” Nietzsche something happens, since “reading” Nietzsche is not like “reading” newspaper.  Reading Nietzsche will take something away from you. 



Hegel and Heidegger have the same matter for thought, Being of beings; but Heidegger is closer to Nietzsche in many ways.  Kant seems to be less and less over time in front of Heidegger’s thinking, but certainly, Kant influenced the final writing of Being and Time in profound ways.  Let Heidegger and Nietzsche speak to us today, let the dry old books bring forth their own song. 



Martin Heidegger (1889-1976) writings in German:
Ausgabe letzter Hand
Wege - nicht Werke


 Nietzsche’s writings in German:


1873 Die Geburt der Tragödie aus dem Geiste der Musik

1873 Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen

1878 Menschliches Allzumenschliches: Ein Buch für freie Geister

1880 Der Wanderer und sein Schatten

1881 Die Morgenröte: Gedanken über die moralischen Vorurtheile

1882 Die fröhliche Wissenschaft: ("la gaya scienza")

1883-1891 Also sprach Zarathustra: Ein Buch für Alle und Keinen

1886 Jenseits von Gut und Böse: Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft

1887 Zur Genealogie der Moral

1888 Der Antichrist: Fluch auf das Christenthum

1888 Der Fall Wagner: Ein Musikanten-Problem

1896 Götzendämmerung: oder Wie man mit dem Hammer philosophirt  

1908 Ecce Homo: Wie man wird, was man ist