'Frightful Doctrines’: Nietzsche, Ireland, and the Great War (original) (raw)
After the outbreak of war in August 1914, Friedrich Nietzsche’s name quickly became prominent in Irish and English newspapers as shorthand for a “philosophy of evil” associated with the German Empire. This essay considers the rhetorical uses made of the philosopher and his ideas by commentators in the popular press, including: Thomas Kettle, University College Dublin economics professor and minor poet turned war correspondent and British recruitment officer, who wrote a series of articles attributing the rise of German militarism to Nietzsche’s influence; a host of Ireland’s Catholic clerics, who negotiated their difficult position between the Irish nationalist cause and the British war effort by arguing in newspapers around the country that both nations must stand together against Nietzsche’s “frightful” doctrines; and W. B. Yeats, who rather mischievously evoked the philosopher’s name in Kettle’s presence at a nationalist celebration in November 1914, drawing rousing applause from his Dublin audience and generating headlines in the Irish press. During the course of the war, the Nietzsche controversy raged on in newspapers across the allied nations, while Yeats remained largely silent about the conflict. But, in January 1919, only weeks after the armistice was signed, he returned to Nietzsche’s philosophy through a series of allusions in “The Second Coming,” a poem that famously responds to the trauma – and the propaganda – of the war years by transforming the imagery of Christian faith into a nightmarish vision of the Anti-Christ.
Related papers
"Fighting a Philosophy": The Figure of Nietzsche in British Propaganda of the First World War
Modern Language Review, 2003
The article analyses how Nietzsche's name became a focus for the expression of anti-German sentiment in writings by British opinion-formers and propagandists during the First World War. Drawing on a wide range of contemporary sources, the article counters the view that Nietzsche’s impact on British public opinion in 1914 was negligible. It is argued that the singular view of Nietzsche which emerged in Britain at this time was due not only to the demands of wartime propaganda but also to the malleability of Nietzsche's texts. The article considers the irony of this exploitation, given Nietzsche’s hostility to nationalism and 'German-ness'.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the ubermensch was interpreted by America and Germany in two notably different ways during the early 20th century, bringing about the question of which understanding is more faithful to Nietzsche’s meaning. The advent of World War I in 1914 presented America with a depiction of Nietzsche as “the apostle of German ruthlessness and barbarism,” which offered a negative view of Nietzsche and the German people as narcissistic warmongers. This outbreak of war led to these warped interpretations of Nietzsche and his philosophy, prompting the world to see only the facade of his aphorisms, not their truer meanings, for many years. Between the world wars, Germany’s reading of Nietzsche focused on the notion that the government knows what the ubermensch is: a selfless person ready to give his life for a “greater good” of the state, which was believed to be endowed with divine mandate. The American interpretation of Nietzsche is similar but believes the philosophy of the ubermensch to be one of atheism and unadulterated power, positing man as the new god, a rugged state-defined individualism that brings out the worst in man. George Santayana argued that Nietzsche’s philosophy failed to acknowledge “immense forces beyond ourselves” which endow man with will and power. This led to the American understanding that Nietzsche wrote of a German people that believed themselves to be ubermenschen and gods among men; my research leads me to believe that this is only one possible interpretation of Nietzsche. Germany’s concept of the ubermensch was remarkably close to that of Nietzsche’s philosophy except that the true ubermensch is not a god among men underneath the omnipotent state, but rather god of his own life. World War II only worsened matters as Nietzsche’s ubermenschen were often associated with the Nazi conception of an Aryan superiority. The Nazi party viewed the ubermenschen as this Aryan race: a perfect race of men who must give their all to the state. However, there were more qualities to their ubermenschen than race, as it also incorporated a loyalty to Germany – total sacrifice of self to the state, though Nietzsche expressed his anti-nationalism in “Why I am So Wise” when he describes himself as “the last anti-political German.” The Americans then saw this Aryan Übermensch and decried Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi, despite his distaste for anti-Semites and nationalism. In this paper, I will analyze the two interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy through his works “The Gay Science” and “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen’s “American Nietzsche,” and writings from German thinkers during the wars, such as Heidegger, to support my argument that the Germans were closer to understanding Nietzsche’s ubermensch than Americans at the time.
Nietzsche sees that the abyss created by God’s death will require us to create new games. This paper asks what the new game of politics might look like once the one truth fiction and the stable identity illusion and their accompanying politics of the despised enemy are driven from the scene. It begins by taking up Nietzsche’s concept of the worthy enemy and notes the ways in which the difference between the enemy and the friend is blurred once evil enemies are no longer necessary for justifying political existence and action. In giving us a politics of worthy enemies, Nietzsche gives us the possibility of a politics that does not degenerate into a legitimation of holocausts, genocides, ethnic cleansings, fatwahs or wars against evil empires.
Nietzsche’s Style: On Language, Knowledge and Power in International Relations
In Cerwyn Moore and Chris Farrands (eds), International Relations Theory and Philosophy: Interpretative Dialogues (London: Routledge), 2010
Style matters. Certainly it mattered to Friedrich Nietzsche, the German philosopher whose style has gone on to influence scholarly and public debates like few others. Leading scholars in all disciplines – such as the historical theorist Michel Foucault, the existentialist writer Albert Camus and feminist scholar Judith Butler – have been influenced by Nietzsche’s work. We highlight that one of the most important lessons to be learnt from Nietzsche lies less in what he said than in how he said it. Expressed in other words, the significance of Nietzsche is not always located within the particular political views he held, but in how he approached more fundamental questions of language, knowledge and power; questions that lie at the heart of politics. We outline how Nietzsche was particularly sceptical of the deeply entrenched modern search for universal forms of truth, whether they be based in Christian morals or scientific foundations. He believed that the search for truth always contained a will to power, a thirst for triumph, a desire to subjugate. This desire is rarely articulated or even recognized, for it is embedded in the very nature of language and knowledge.
Review: Friedrich Nietzsche and the Politics of History By Christian J. Emden
In his later books Nietzsche repeatedly complains that philosophers have no sense of history. On a more modest level and with gentler and more respectful remonstrance, Christian J. Emden makes a similar claim. Surveying recent discussions of Nietzsche's political thought in English, he remarks that they show little awareness of the political context in which Nietzsche lived and to which his views responded. It should not be forgotten that Nietzsche lived through several of the more tumultuous turning points in German history: the Revolution of 1848, the Austro-Prussian War, the Franco-Prussian War, the creation of the new German state, and the subsequent economic boom, which brought in its train panics and a search for scapegoats.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.