Friedrich Nietzsche

1844-1900

Son of a Lutheran minister, background in German Protestant religious culture

A very successful young academic. 
Professor of philology, 1869 (at 24) 


Friendship with Richard Wagner - the great, anti-Semitic composer
	Interest in the world of Germanic myth
A supporter of Wagner, then has a falling out
		 

Turning from being a professor
	A very gifted Greek scholar
to a stranger figure, a kind of prophet
His work is hard to place within philosophy
	Intellectual history: or, anti-history, because it so strange

His first book, Birth of Tragedy (1872) begins with discussion of origin
of Greek tragedy, a reasonable topic for a classicist. But then turns to describe
relation of Wagner to the Greek playwrights. That is not a topic normal
classicists would discuss. 

Health problems
	Retired very early from teaching (1879)

Publishes many books, with only small recognition.

Insanity 1889 (same year, almost the same week as van Gogh) and John Ruskin


Dies, an invalid, 1900

  

Was he crazy before 1889? 
Nietzsche was strange, lacking judgment, making extravagant claims 
	His life was a muddle
But he offers an argument, which is clear and provocative

After 1889. Nothing. 
	the postcard signed, from God, a sign that it was
   

Nietzsche's influence

A culture hero. fascinating around 1900 to writers, artists
Initially treated less like a disciplined philosopher than some popular writer

Some time was needed before he taken seriously as philosopher
He gave art a central role 
	For him, art more important than science
Naturally artists loved that!
He offered an excited response to the sense of crisis which seemed to be in the
air

Easily seen as prophet
	Anticipating World War I, World War II
And the disasters of German history
	He gives the grand sense, especially in the 3rd essay that history coming to
a terrible end

 
 Nietzsche can be overdramatic, melodramatic
	but he is never boring

He asks good questions: 
Can science generate values independently of religion, secular values?
Can modern culture have values when scientific objectivity comes into
question?