Hakluyt
12-30-2005, 04:59 PM
This article first appeared in German in:Germanic Notes and Reviews, vol. 33, n. 2, fall/Herbst 2002, pp. 109-133
Nietzsche's initial crisis
New light on the Stirner/Nietzsche question
by Bernd A. Laska
1. Introduction and abstract
Friedrich Nietzsche terminated his life as a philosopher, as is known to a broad public, with a spectacular collapse at the beginning of January 1889 in Turin. This final crisis, by which Nietzsche drew back himself mentally from the world for good, was examined often and very thoroughly as to its possible causes, however, without coming to a final judgment or a concluding opinion. (2) The commencement of Nietzsche's life as a philosopher is likewise marked by a heavy, albeit less spectacular life crisis. Nietzsche overcame it in October 1865 by means of strictest self-discipline and above all by changing himself to a devoted adherent of Schopenhauer's philosophy. This "initial crisis," in contrast to the final one, has been scarcely considered, let alone scrutinized, even by Nietzsche experts.
The life and work of Nietzsche has been investigated, indeed, with a carefulness second to that of no other philosopher; (3) however, when it came to that crucial phase of his development in which young Nietzsche transformed himself to philosopher, his biographers accepted to a large extent uncritically the story he had given himself. (4) Nietzsche's sudden turn to (Schopenhauer's) philosophy at the end of October 1865 is usually still seen as caused by the "accident" he himself narrated and is not regarded as in need of further investigation. Nevertheless, I started to find out more about this detail in Nietzsche's biography and made a surprising discovery: Eduard Mushacke, to whom Nietzsche in the first half of October 1865 had an obviously very intensive but suddenly interrupted relationship, was years ago a close friend of Max Stirner, the author of »Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum«, 1845 [October. 1844] (engl. »The Ego and Its Own«, 1907).
This discovery renders possible a new, and this time a critical, view on this phase of Nietzsche's development. This view, however, in the beginning is impeded by some sediments in the history of ideas. They obstruct the serious examination of the assumption that the encounter of young Nietzsche with Stirner's »Ego« -- of course a postulation -- was the crucial reason for his initial crisis, from which the philosopher Nietzsche emerged.
The massiest of these sediments consists of the fact that the Stirner/Nietzsche question -- the question whether Nietzsche knew Stirner's book and got impulses for his thinking from it -- was already discussed broadly in the years around 1900, with the result that the answer is finally of no importance, mainly because Stirner was considered as a figure of no importance in the history of ideas. This sediment solidified itself in the course of one century, at whose end Nietzsche stands in high reputation world-wide, and Stirner is hardly known, even in Germany.
Therefore it is necessary to use the retro-chronologically, as it were archaeologically method, to penetrate to the actual topic, to Nietzsche's initial crisis: analyzing first the recent accounts of the Stirner/Nietzsche question, then -- after an indispensably instructive excursus to the clandestine reception of Stirner -- the discussions of 1890ff, and finally the situation of young Nietzsche in October 1865. The emerging question whether this reconstruction of Nietzsche's initial crisis opens a new view on the further development of the philosopher, and whether it can help to explain the causes of his final crisis are not discussed here.
continued: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html
Nietzsche's initial crisis
New light on the Stirner/Nietzsche question
by Bernd A. Laska
1. Introduction and abstract
Friedrich Nietzsche terminated his life as a philosopher, as is known to a broad public, with a spectacular collapse at the beginning of January 1889 in Turin. This final crisis, by which Nietzsche drew back himself mentally from the world for good, was examined often and very thoroughly as to its possible causes, however, without coming to a final judgment or a concluding opinion. (2) The commencement of Nietzsche's life as a philosopher is likewise marked by a heavy, albeit less spectacular life crisis. Nietzsche overcame it in October 1865 by means of strictest self-discipline and above all by changing himself to a devoted adherent of Schopenhauer's philosophy. This "initial crisis," in contrast to the final one, has been scarcely considered, let alone scrutinized, even by Nietzsche experts.
The life and work of Nietzsche has been investigated, indeed, with a carefulness second to that of no other philosopher; (3) however, when it came to that crucial phase of his development in which young Nietzsche transformed himself to philosopher, his biographers accepted to a large extent uncritically the story he had given himself. (4) Nietzsche's sudden turn to (Schopenhauer's) philosophy at the end of October 1865 is usually still seen as caused by the "accident" he himself narrated and is not regarded as in need of further investigation. Nevertheless, I started to find out more about this detail in Nietzsche's biography and made a surprising discovery: Eduard Mushacke, to whom Nietzsche in the first half of October 1865 had an obviously very intensive but suddenly interrupted relationship, was years ago a close friend of Max Stirner, the author of »Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum«, 1845 [October. 1844] (engl. »The Ego and Its Own«, 1907).
This discovery renders possible a new, and this time a critical, view on this phase of Nietzsche's development. This view, however, in the beginning is impeded by some sediments in the history of ideas. They obstruct the serious examination of the assumption that the encounter of young Nietzsche with Stirner's »Ego« -- of course a postulation -- was the crucial reason for his initial crisis, from which the philosopher Nietzsche emerged.
The massiest of these sediments consists of the fact that the Stirner/Nietzsche question -- the question whether Nietzsche knew Stirner's book and got impulses for his thinking from it -- was already discussed broadly in the years around 1900, with the result that the answer is finally of no importance, mainly because Stirner was considered as a figure of no importance in the history of ideas. This sediment solidified itself in the course of one century, at whose end Nietzsche stands in high reputation world-wide, and Stirner is hardly known, even in Germany.
Therefore it is necessary to use the retro-chronologically, as it were archaeologically method, to penetrate to the actual topic, to Nietzsche's initial crisis: analyzing first the recent accounts of the Stirner/Nietzsche question, then -- after an indispensably instructive excursus to the clandestine reception of Stirner -- the discussions of 1890ff, and finally the situation of young Nietzsche in October 1865. The emerging question whether this reconstruction of Nietzsche's initial crisis opens a new view on the further development of the philosopher, and whether it can help to explain the causes of his final crisis are not discussed here.
continued: http://www.lsr-projekt.de/poly/ennietzsche.html