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.
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