The main purpose of this article is to explore the complex and multifarious condition of Nietzsche as a reader. Thus, in the first place the text clarifies the various character of informations about reading, not always reliable, expressed in his very work, in the notebooks, in the letters, by testimony of third parties, in his preserved library and in the not preserved library, in purchases and in borrowing from libraries. At a second moment, the article put forward reading phases since (...) the very young Nietzsche, reading strategies, his freeing process and his self-stilization as a reader. In the scope of reading spheres, the article adresses Nietzsche as a philology reader so much as a reader of scientific texts, and a reader of the world, of culture. Lastly, on questioning how Nietzsche became a reader of himself, the text nods to the question of how his attitude towards reading devolves into a way of thinking and reading his very work, in this manner asserting the initial claim, namely, to understand Nietzsche the philosopher we must bear in mind whom is he talking to. (shrink)

Based on a review of the literature and historical evidence, I argue that the use of the methodological principle known as the priority principle in Anglo-American Nietzsche scholarship is inconsistent and irreconcilable with historical evidence. It attempts to demarcate between the published works and the Nachlass. However, there are no agreed upon necessary and sufficient conditions of a particular textual object being considered “Nachlass.” This absence leads to implicit and often tacit value demarcation criteria that can be broadly grouped into (...) four types of consideration: publication, authorization, publicness, and audience. Each of these criteria pick out a different set of texts as “Nachlass.” Thus, despite the veneer of agreement, the most broadly accepted methodological approach in the Anglo-American tradition of Nietzsche scholarship is applied inconsistently. I argue that we must either offer necessary and sufficient conditions for a piece of text being Nachlass, or we ought to abandon such abstract criteria altogether and embrace a contextual and historical approach. I then argue that the first option is impossible given historical evidence. I conclude this article by explicating several recent German approaches to the Nachlass which I think can offer a new possible approach. (shrink)

Resumo A partir da concepção de que filosofia, para Nietzsche, é a arte da transfiguração, o texto analisa como Nietzsche incorpora e transfigura Os deuses no exílio, de Heinrich Heine. Nietzsche teria invertido a perspectiva do problema posto por Heine, bem como o seu procedimento expositivo: se o poeta traz o que seria uma humanização e aburguesamento dos antigos deuses como ato de degradação cósmica pelo qual a ascensão do cristianismo seria culpada, Nietzsche analisa a equivocada autodivinização do homem por (...) meio da moral como megalomania trágica, cuja consequência seria a invocação do sofrimento da existência terrena e a esperança numa vida melhor, supraterrena.Taking Nietzsche´s comprehension of philosophy as the art of transfiguration, the text analyses how the philosopher incorporates and transfigures The Gods in Exile, from Heinrich Heine. The philosopher would have inverted the perspective of the problem settled by Heine and his expositive procedure: if the poet bring us what would be an humanization and a “gentifrication” of the ancient gods as a cosmic degradation act by which the ascension of Christianity would be blamed, Nietzsche analyses the mistaken autodivinization of man through morals as a tragic megalomania, whose consequence would be the invocation of a suffering at the core of earthly existence and a hope in a better, ethereal life. (shrink)

Quid est veritas? Skeptical Implications of Ueber Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne. This paper aims to examine the reach of the question “Was ist also Wahrheit?” – which introduces the definition of truth given by Nietzsche in Ueber Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne (1873). The question has undoubtedly an analogy in the question with which Pilate responds to Jesus in the Gospel of John. Starting with an analysis of the direct and recognized sources of Nietzsche’s text, this contribution (...) shows how the Gospel background is, for Nietzsche, indirectly no less than directly, a crucial comparison that makes a decisive contribution to his conception of language. (shrink)

L’analisi dei principali temi della filosofia di Nietzsche conduce all’individuazione della nozione di forza come elemento centrale delle sue riflessioni. Egli la incorpora ed utilizza filosoficamente, in periodi diversi, per la definizione di teorie centrali quali l’eterno ritorno, la volontà di potenza e il prospettivismo conoscitivo. L’assimilazione di questa nozione – come è stato osservato in passato – può essere riportata alla sua lettura nel 1873 della Theoria philosophiae naturalis del matematico Ruggero Boscovich. Attraverso una dettagliata analisi del materiale postumo (...) oltre che del contesto delle discussioni scientifiche dell’epoca, questo studio si propone di chiarire nella maniera più esaustiva fino a che punto il sistema di Boscovich e, più in generale, la visione dinamica del mondo in esso delineata abbiano influito sul pensiero nietzscheano, con la precisa finalità di restituire nella sua complessità il rapporto di Nietzsche con questa figura. (shrink)

This essay pertains to Nietzsche's and Spinoza's philosophical/historical relationship, and the hitherto unnoticed role Kant plays as an intermediary for Spinoza's ideas and legacy. We advance two main assertions: 1) that Nietzsche is historically related to Spinoza via Kant's Antinomies of Pure Reason and their legacy, and 2) that both the striking similarities and tremendous differences between these two thinkers are best described with reference to the Antithesis positions of Kant's Antinomies. Our account rests primarily on the works of two (...) other scholars. The first is Omri Boehm, who argues convincingly that a) Spinoza was both the single greatest influence on and primary target of Kant's Antinomies, and b) that Spinoza's position is remarkably similar to the first three Antithesis positions (and no other relevant thinker comes close). The second is Michael Steven Green, who argues with equal force that c) Nietzsche's mature philosophy is heavily dependent upon Afrikan Spir's concept of the "fundamental antinomy," and d) that Nietzsche's view of empirical reality amounts to an "antithetic" view of reality. We demonstrate that these two scholars were, independently of one other, pointing to a single historical/philosophical connection between Nietzsche and Spinoza, and begin an exploration of the ramifications of this discovery. (shrink)