Lascaux cave art

Lascaux cave art

Sunday, July 02, 2006

Nietzsche contra Evola







I realise that this subject has been touched upon before but I wish to explore this using primarily the writings and thoughts of Julius Evola and Friedrich Nietzsche, although hopefully not exclusively.
It is common knowledge that Nietzsche held in disdain the idea of "god" and sought the deification of a certain type of man into a new being, the Superman.
"Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest hath not yet heard of it, that God is dead![Zarathustras Prologue, part 2, Thus Spake Zarathustra]
Nietzsches conclusion that God is dead inevitably leads to the conclusion that man and man alone is the pinnacle of earthly existence. However within the species of man it is necessary to differentiate by both race to race and man to man. In short a hierarchy is called for.
"God hath died: now we do desire-the superman to live."[Chapter 73, Thus Spake Zarathustra].
Nietzsche saw the Superman as the meaning of the earth and everything accordingly must be subordinated to his awakening and arrival.
In essence he is the function of the Will to Power and domination.
Evola criticises this approach. "One can see from this that Nietzsches nihilism stops halfway. It sets up a new table of values, including a good and an evil."[Ride The Tiger]. There is the dichotomy. In the elimination of "god" and the affirmation of the Superman concept Nietzsche far from going "beyond good and evil" creates a new Weltanschauung with its own set of values, in essence a form of "good and evil".
Evola added "A true nihilism does not spare even the doctrine of the Superman."[Ride The Tiger].
Yet Evola in his way was proposing his own form of "Superman" through his "Doctrine of Awakening". Yet Evola did not reject the concept of "god" at all but through his Awakened One sought a synthesis between the human and the divine.
Are both doctrines of the Superman irreconcilable?
Is the concept of the Superman something to be desired, rejected or something that we should dread?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Evola pointed out something fairly obvious about how his "beyond good and evil" just sets up another set of values. Freddie was trying to "transvaluate" European culture as he saw it into something better-- his own notion of good.

You can't really get around the notion of good and evil, it's a duality which is coded into the language and into the nature of reality itself. As much as electrons spin left, or spin right, there is a good and bad where creatures' individual and collective existences are concerned.

Thanks for the great blog anyhow Warrior.

---Antiochus Epiphanes

Runa said...

Very good article.

Ash said...

I think two points are worth bearing in mind:
(1) Nietzsche is either hinting at or unconsciously propounding the deep racial destiny involved in the death of Odin, resurrection/awakening of Baldur, and the new race of the Volsungs, who are God-Men. He is working towards that: The synthesis. Alain de Benoist illuminates this point well in his chapter of "On Being Pagan" called "Immanence and Transcendence".

(2) Evola rightly held onto traditional structures which were oriented towards, supported and were justified in their creation of the God-man, the King, the Supreme, Olympian Man. His insights were very important for their recognition and distinction between Promethean/Titanic man, a chaotic usurpation and tyranny, and the true, solar Sacrum Imperium and Aryan type.

Bringing these two together we could say that Nietzsche, despite his prophetic and thunderous nature, still required the 'consecration' and illumination (perhaps, purification, balance and ordering) that only a rigorous understanding and practise of Initiatic and Traditional Science (and culture) could procure, something Evola most certainly did have. Evola was not against values (and certainly beyond dialectical speculation and absurdities in language-games) so much as certain kinds of values. Pure Spiritual Values were firmly established in Tradition, and all his books are rigorously and 'righteously' exposited in this spirit. He did not create 'his own version', as this would be impossible, and go against the very thing he was working for, and using to discern and redeem what he could of Nietzsche.

Death Trip said...

Nietzche made clear his opinions on various religions, For example he respected muslims for sticking to their guns, jews for beign masterful and hindus for their caste system (he was a snob at heart) i think from this, despite his being an atheist, we can conclude that his was not a war against religion, rather against any ideology that seeks to dilute the achievements of the greatest of men. to him the worst culprits were christianity and socialism

Sauwelios said...

Nietzsche did not set up a new good and evil. The only values he recognises are good and bad. See the first treatise of his Genealogy, titled "Good and Evil", "Good and Bad".