Cheerfulness or serenity is one of the most important themes in Nietzsche’s philosophy. Throughout his writings, from first to last, he can be found wrestling with conceptions of cheerfulness and promoting a cheerful mode of philosophizing. Despite the importance and recurrence of the theme of cheerfulness in Nietzsche’s entire œuvre, there have been relatively few studies specifically devoted to it. An important debate on cheerfulness has recently taken place in the literature on Nietzsche between Robert Pippin and Lanier Anderson and (...) Rachel Cristy. Both sides of the debate have explored Nietzsche’s practice of cheerfulness in direct relation to Montaigne. According to Pippin, Nietzsche never succeeds in writing with the kind of cheerfulness of Montaigne. In contrast, Anderson and Cristy have contended that both Nietzsche and Montaigne conceive of cheerfulness as a complex, non-naïve spiritual state or attitude that is to be cultivated through the practice of philosophy as a way of life. According to Anderson and Cristy, this is a deep form of love of life that both Nietzsche and Montaigne practice and perhaps achieve at least in part by and through writing. In this essay, we aim to contribute to this debate by offering a threefold argument. First, we argue that Nietzsche conceives of cheerfulness not only as a psychological ideal, as a desirable state or attitude of the spirit, but also as an aesthetic ideal, as a desirable quality or style of thinking and writing. Second, we argue that, in addition to Montaigne, Ralph Waldo Emerson is an equally important but neglected influence on Nietzsche’s conception and practice of cheerfulness. Third, by reconstructing Nietzsche’s self-presentation as a cheerful thinker and writer in the 1886 prefaces and in Ecce homo, we conclude that it is possible to argue that starting from his middle writings Nietzsche thinks and writes cheerfully in some of his works, including a number of his most significant texts. (shrink)

An American essayist, poet, and popular philosopher, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–82) began his career as a Unitarian minister in Boston, but achieved worldwide fame as a lecturer and the author of such essays as “Self-Reliance,” “History,” “The Over-Soul,” and “Fate.” Drawing on English and German Romanticism, Neoplatonism, Kantianism, and Hinduism, Emerson developed a metaphysics of process, an epistemology of moods, and an “existentialist” ethics of self-improvement. He influenced generations of Americans, from his friend Henry David Thoreau to John Dewey, and (...) in Europe, Friedrich Nietzsche, who takes up such Emersonian themes as power, fate, the uses of poetry and history, and the critique of Christianity. (shrink)

ABSTRACT I argue that Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morality can be productively read as perfectionist in Emerson’s sense. After reconstructing the debate on Nietzsche’s perfectionism, I problematize the literature’s almost exclusive focus on Schopenhauer as Educator at the expense of the Genealogy, which has caused scholars to construe Nietzsche’s perfectionism in merely individualistic terms. By contrast, I show that the Genealogy can be interpreted as a perfectionist endeavor, at the heart of which lies the first-person plural: the “we.” I thereby emphasize (...) the relevance of “we-making” for a novel reading of Nietzsche’s perfectionism—what I call his genealogical perfectionism. I conclude that the analysis of the genealogical dimension of Nietzsche’s perfectionism provides us with much-needed resources to construe it in nonindividualistic terms. (shrink)

This essay examines Nietzsche’s inversion of Terence’s formula “I am the closest to myself” into “Everyone is furthest from himself [Jeder ist sich selbst der Fernste]” (GM, Preface 1). In a contextual reading, I am going to ask how Nietzsche relates this formula to the difficulty of acquiring self-knowledge, as emphasized at the beginning of On the Genealogy of Morality. First, I argue that Nietzsche does not prohibit self-knowledge, but instead invites us to think about it differently; and second, I (...) will show that the formula according to which “everyone is furthest from himself” can also be understood as an injunction to keep the self always at a distance. I will link these two aspects by arguing that Nietzsche replaces self-knowledge in the classical sense by an interpretation of the self, and that this interpretation must never be thought of as an undertaking that seeks to reify their self. Nietzsche urges us to make ourselves into creative projects, even this will entail fiction and illusion. (shrink)

El artículo se aproxima al estatuto de Shakespeare en el pensamiento de Nietzsche a partir de tres calas en su obra. En primer lugar, se ofrecen algunas claves sobre la interpretación dionisíaca de Hamlet en El nacimiento de la tragedia desde su contraste con la recepción previa de Shakespeare y el príncipe danés en el espacio cultural alemán. En segundo lugar, se abordará el tránsito nietzscheano de madurez hacia otras temáticas y motivos del universo shakespeariano, desembocando tanto en la figura (...) de Bruto en Julio César como en la del propio personaje llamado “Shakespeare”. Por último, a modo de epílogo, se problematizará el encuentro final de estos espectros shakespearianos, tal como se escenificará en Ecce homo. (shrink)