Always a tough topic to touch upon, especially in a theory class. As you know, it really depends on the agenda and perspective of the professor teaching the course whether or not he will incorporate existential(ist) readings.
From my reading experiences of Neitzsche (not extensive), it seems that although the existential theme is throughout his writings, focus, and possibly tone, is different. Therefore, there are times when his writings appear to be something worthwhile and pseudo-positive, it would be very difficult to be well-read in Neitzsche and only read those few selected texts. Something like "On the Geneology of Morals," would be worthwhile in a Soc class, but it doesn't neglect the fact that it's extremely broad of a reading. In that sense, anything can be seen as a Soc reading. But I definitely agree with you in that there should at least be *some* exposure to this kind of author/thinker. But at least this gives you an idea of what you would like to incorporate in your future courses you teach, no?
Nice post. How about bedtime? :-) Sounds GREAT to me....
Interesting comment . . . at least you recognize that Nietzsche is more positive or optimistic in some aspects of his work (rather than the usual, "he's just all doom and gloom"). I also completely agree with you that it would be extrememly difficult to be well-read in Nietzsche, especially considering that throughout his writings there are certain contradictions that are never resolved.
I have been lucky enough to have taken theory from a professor that is one of a very few in the U.S. who teaches Nietzsche in the modern social theory course for grad students. I didn't consider myself well read in Nietzsche after that course and even though I still read and revisit his works, I still don't consider myself well read. I do think some exposure is important, however, especially considering how much influence he has had on subsequent theorists and philosophers (Weber and Foucault to name a few). I think I may see if there is a way I can incorporate him into my intro. course when I discuss social theorists and the transition from pre-modern to modern society.
From my reading experiences of Neitzsche (not extensive), it seems that although the existential theme is throughout his writings, focus, and possibly tone, is different. Therefore, there are times when his writings appear to be something worthwhile and pseudo-positive, it would be very difficult to be well-read in Neitzsche and only read those few selected texts. Something like "On the Geneology of Morals," would be worthwhile in a Soc class, but it doesn't neglect the fact that it's extremely broad of a reading. In that sense, anything can be seen as a Soc reading. But I definitely agree with you in that there should at least be *some* exposure to this kind of author/thinker. But at least this gives you an idea of what you would like to incorporate in your future courses you teach, no?
Nice post. How about bedtime? :-) Sounds GREAT to me....
Talk to you soon.
M.S.
Reply
I have been lucky enough to have taken theory from a professor that is one of a very few in the U.S. who teaches Nietzsche in the modern social theory course for grad students. I didn't consider myself well read in Nietzsche after that course and even though I still read and revisit his works, I still don't consider myself well read. I do think some exposure is important, however, especially considering how much influence he has had on subsequent theorists and philosophers (Weber and Foucault to name a few). I think I may see if there is a way I can incorporate him into my intro. course when I discuss social theorists and the transition from pre-modern to modern society.
Reply
Leave a comment