>> >Steve Callihan wrote:
>> Reading Heidegger is, of course, exquisitely torturous in its own right.
>
>A lot of editing out.
>
>I honestly don't know why anyone would read Heidegger to learn about
>Nietzsche. Yes, he wrote these long books on Nietzsche, also
>various shorter comments, but as interpretations of Nietzsche
>they are next to useless.
>Ah, but if Heidegger is what you are interested in, they are
>very interesting. They are all Heidegger, like everything
>he wrote, breathing his own unique atmosphere. "Nietzsche"
>is just one more excuse for him to write his own strange
>stuff.
I tend to agree that one should read Heidegger on Nietzsche primarily to
uncover Heidegger, every philosophy being an autobiography, and so on.
Nietzsche is still the best guide to Nietzsche. My thinking on Heidegger's
Nietzsche, however, is that he deliberately and very consciously
misrepresented Nietzsche's thinking, knowing better, in other words. One has
to remember, for instance, that Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche date to
when Heidegger was still a aubscriber to and adherent of National Socialism,
was a believer in the "revival" of the German people and culture
(Nietzsche's Wagnerian dream, but from which he at least woke up) under the
aegis of the Fuhrer. Could such a people stand the Nietzschean "deadly
truths"?--of course not. So Heidegger, knowing perfectly well that Nietzsche
was right, lied.
Anyway, just my partially formed opinion (it could change entirely by tomorrow),
Steve C.
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---