Re: Nietzsche group
Steven E. Callihan (callihan@callihan.seanet.com)
Fri, 8 Aug 1997 18:32:33 -0700 (PDT)
John Hartmann wrote:
>
>Steve Callihan wrote:
>> As to comments from other quarters, no commentary or interpretation of
>> Nietzsche's work can be authoritative, just hopefully informative and
>> revealing. There certainly are interpretations that I, personally, don't
>> cared for, principally Danto's and Maud-Marie Clark's, both of which I felt
>> distorted and purposefully misinterpreted Nietzsche's text, for reasons I
>> care not to even speculate on, but that is _my_ opinion. Nobody else has to
>> agree. As far as Herr Heidi is concerned, his interpretation of Nietzsche is
>> also a purposeful misinterpretation on his part, although I trust he has his
>> "philosophical" reasons for it.
>
>I hope that this is not suggesting that I, ever conscious of my
>mentor, am forgetting that perspectivism is central to everything N
>was after, and that any of the interpretations offered (of course,
>including my own) can be anything but a perspective, but an
>interpretation.
>
>But, some metaphors are better than others. Some interpretations
>have more worth than others. And so I offer mine up -- as I said in
>the earlier post regarding all the (French) books that I found
>useful, "take this for what it's worth, and remember that you got
>this post for FREE." ;)
When I read Clark's book, I ended up swearing at just about every page.
Danto's book, on the other hand, just left me incredulous. Both were, I
felt, trying to force Nietzsche into their mold.
Now, I might reread Clark's book and end up agreeing with every word, of
course. Danto's book is, however, to my mind anyway, fundamentally disagreeable.
Reading Heidegger is, of course, exquisitely torturous in its own right.
Of the French contribution to understanding Nietzsche, my favorite, and
perhaps the _fairest_, treatment of Nietzsche's thinking is Sarah Kofman's.
Best,
Steve C.
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---