Nietzsche and the Politics of Nihilism

Philosophy & Social Criticism, 2020

While the term 'nihilism' has become increasingly widespread throughout the past two centuries, not only in academic discourses but in popular culture more widely, there is a surprising lack of consensus regarding its specific meaning. This is perhaps owing to the myriad contexts in which the word has appeared since its inception, which range from specialized works of philosophy to an array of mass-cultural products. This article overviews the emergence and development of the term 'nihilism', in order to clarify some of the principal reasons for its prevalence and ambiguity. Having discussed the word's origin, the article scrutinizes its significance in the early work of Friedrich Nietzsche, who was largely responsible for its popularization, and overviews some of its major appearances throughout the 20th century, in order to show that while Nietzsche stands as the iconic founder of discursivity on nihilism, posthumous uses of the word deviate sharply from his own determinations. The term 'nihilism' is of a peculiar nature, to say the least. Since its emergence, in the second half of the 19th century, it has acquired considerable currency-but also notoriety gradually becoming one of those words that appears to be widely understood (or at least familiar to most) but whose deployment seems to suggest quite the opposite. Although the term is prevalent in philosophical and other discourses of the 20th century, there seems to be little agreement as to its precise meaning. Even today, the word is ambiguous, for 'nihilism' is used to denote both a lack of ideology and ideology as such (or even a lack of ideology as ideology). Yet, despite this ambiguity its presence in the

Presentation on Nietzsche's response to the crisis of nihilism, as well as an introduction to the overall structure of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Philosophy in the Contemporary World, 2019

European Review, 2014

In Nietzsche, ‘European nihilism’ has at its core valuelessness, meaninglessness and senselessness. This article argues that Nietzsche is not replacing God with the nothing, but rather that he regards ‘European nihilism’ as an ‘in-between state’ that is necessary for getting beyond Christian morality. An important characteristic of a Nietzschean philosopher is his ‘will to responsibility’. One of his responsibilities consists of the creation of the values and the concepts that are needed in order to overcome the intermediate state of nihilism. For prevailing over nihilism in science, Nietzsche suggests drawing on philosophy for the creation of values and drawing on art in order to create beautiful surfaces that are based on these values. He regards science as a cultural system that rests on contingent grounds. Therefore, his work is concerned with the responsible construction of the narratives of science in such a way that they enhance agency and promote a life-affirming future.

One of the biggest problems that is faced by modern man today is that loss of sense of meaning. Most often, people go on with their lives as planned and along this way of familiar spontaneity is that loss of balance and patience to go on. Hence, they fall into nihilism. This situation has always been decried by people to be the reason why we should turn our backs from Nietzsche. For these people, the doctrines of Nietzsche is primarily grounded upon a nihilist perspective. But, this is both a correct and wrong concept.

The Review of Politics, 1983

Please note: what the editors labeled "page refs." are in fact refs. to sections or aphorism numbers in the text of Nietzsche.

Essay, 2008

Peter Lang, 2015

The first time that Nietzsche crossed the path of Dostoevsky was in the winter of 1886–87. While in Nice, Nietzsche discovered in a bookshop the volume L’esprit souterrain. Two years later, he defined Dostoevsky as the only psychologist from whom he had anything to learn. The second, metaphorical encounter between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky happened on the verge of nihilism. Nietzsche announced the death of God, whereas Dostoevsky warned against the danger of atheism. This book describes the double encounter between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Following the chronological thread offered by Nietzsche’s correspondence, the author provides a detailed analysis of Nietzsche’s engagement with Dostoevsky from the very beginning of his discovery to the last days before his mental breakdown. The second part of this book aims to dismiss the wide-spread and stereotypical reading according to which Dostoevsky foretold and criticized in his major novels some of Nietzsche’s most dangerous and nihilistic theories. In order to reject such reading, the author focuses on the following moral dilemma: If God does not exist, is everything permitted?

Nietzsche-Studien, 2019

The ‘French reading’ of Nietzsche crystallized almost 50 years ago at the 1972 con- ference at Cerisy-la-Salle, Nietzsche aujourd’hui.1 Nietzsche’s fortunes have since undergone some dramatic shifts in France, but there are signs that he is once again on the ascendency, in particular the 2016 edited collection Pourquoi nous sommes Nietzschéens (a direct riposte to the 1991 Pourquoi nous ne sommes pas Nietzschéens). Taking a bearing from the French readings, I want to explore the question of what ‘Nietzsche today’ might mean for us today. At Cerisy in 1972, the meaning of Nietzsche was centred on the twin critiques of humanism and capitalism. While these issues persist, several articles in the 2016 collection indicate that they are now inflected through the vast contemporary significance of technology. One of the key debates here is Nietzsche’s significance for transhumanism. For Bernard Stiegler, transhumanism is the culmination of nihilism, understood as the reign of big data and the total quantification of the self. In this regard, he alludes to a ‘hypernihilism’ of the contem- porary era, characterised by the quantifying effects of information technologies, which work in conjunction with capitalism to produce an ultimate ‘averaging’ force. I will argue that Stiegler gives an essential corrective to the largely critical engagements with neonihilism of the Nietzscheans of the previous generation, but that his emphasis on the value of negen- tropy risks reaffirming the logic of the transhumanism he critiques. Nietzscheanism today, I will argue, requires an appreciation of the dual tendencies of nihilism – identified here as neonihilism and hypernihilism – such that we must draw on contributions from both gener- ations of French Nietzscheans in order to think and respond to the problems of our contem- porary era.

Introductory material on Nietzsche on Style and Nihilism