Der Beitrag analysiert den Aphorismus 377 des 5. Buch der Fröblichen Wissenschaft, die eine ausführliche Charakterisierung der Idee eines gutes Europäers enthält. Durch die Betrachtung der komplexen Entstehung des Aphorismus werden die vielschichtigen Bedeutungen dieser Auffassung beleuchtet. Die Evokationskraft, die den gesamten Aphorismus prägt, wird als Symptom eines offenen Systems unde einer dynamischen Ganzheit, in denen die Auffassung des guten Europäers ihre Konturen annimmt, besonders betont. Innerhalb dieser Offenheit stellt sich der gute Europäers ihre Kunturen annimmt, besonders betont. Innerhalb dieser (...) Offenheit stellt sich der gute Europäer als Produkt einer Übergangszeit dar, die mit Situationen jenseits der traditionellen Wertbestimmung experimentieren will. So schwantk der gut Europäer zwischen Modernität und Unzeitgemäßheit; eine solche paradoxe Schwankung erlaubt, auch die möglichen "politischen" Konnotationen der Idee eines guten Europäers besser zu verstehen.This study analyses aphorism 377 of the fifth book of the Gay Science, which contains an exhaustive characterization of the idea of the good European. Consideration of the complex genesis of the aphorism brings to light the many meanings of this concept. The evocative force that characterizes the entire aphorism is particularly highlighted as a indication of the openness of the system and its dynamic totality. Within this openness, the good European is a product of an era of transition that creates situations beyond traditional determinations of value. In this way, the good European oscillates between modernity and timelessnes. This paradoxical oscillation permits a better understanding also of possible "political" connotations of the idea of the good European. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche has emerged as one of the most important and influential modern philosophers. For several decades, the book series Monographien und Texte zur Nietzsche-Forschung (MTNF) has set the agenda in a rapidly growing and changing field of Nietzsche scholarship. The scope of the series is interdisciplinary and international in orientation reflects the entire spectrum of research on Nietzsche, from philosophy to literary studies and political theory. The series publishes monographs and edited volumes that undergo a strict peer-review process. The (...) book series is led by an international team of editors, whose work represents the full range of current Nietzsche scholarship. (shrink)

During the second decade of the 20th century Hans Kleinpeter, an Austrian scholar devoted to the development of the modern science, published some brief papers on Nietzsche’s thought. Kleinpeter has been one of the main upholders of Mach’s epistemology and probably the first who connected his ideas with the philosophy of Nietzsche. In his book on Der Phänomenalismus (1913) he described a new world view that arose in the 19th century, a perspective that ‒ according to him ‒ completely contrasted (...) the mechanistic and metaphysical world view of the old school of scientific inquiry. The main outcome of the scientists whose name was related with this perspective (e.g. Clifford, Maxwell, Kirchoff and, obviously, Mach himself) has been the refusal of the absolute value of any “truth”. Kleinpeter’s statements on this topic are a good example of the rising of a Scientific Philosophy, whose development involved many scientists and thinkers that later set up the Verein Ernst Mach and the Wiener Kreis. On the other hand, his interest on Nietzsche is a relevant case of reception of the latter’s thought, that Kleinpeter puts into the context of the contemporary epistemology. In fact, he considers Nietzsche as one of the main upholders of the phenomenalistic world view, and states that he «took part at the same renewal of philosophical investigation that arose from the latest results of scientific inquiry» during the 19th century. A renewal whose main outcomes has been presented by John Stallo in his book on The Concepts and Theories of Modern Physics (1881), which Kleinpeter translated in German and published in 1901. According to Kleinpeter, in Nietzsche’s writings (mostly unpublished) one can find a theory of knowledge quite close to the one presented by both Mach and the new born Pragmatism, i.e. the complete refusal of an absolute truth and, therefore, the development of an antimetaphysical world view. In my paper I’ll discuss the main statements presented by Kleinpeter on this topic and show which of Nietzsche’s ideas has actually been in compliance with the main outcomes of late 19th century science. Thus, I’ll carry out a reconstruction of an unfamiliar side of the first period of reception of the philosophy of Nietzsche and its relevance to the development of a new (scientific) world view. (shrink)