On Being Nietzschean, I

Becoming What one is.

Beginning to be a Nietzchean

During his student [and therefore formative] years Nietzsche was regularly the instigator of groups and 'societies' [of a cultural Germanic nature as well as Classical and Philological].
During his philosophical wanderings [provoked of course by his need to find a 'cure' for his ill-health] he often expressed a yearning for an elite group of 'Free Spirits',based loosely on a medieval knightly ethos.
This longing is expressed not only in letters to his small inner circle [i.e., to Peter Gast and Overback],but also in his published works like 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

My first 'programed' reading of Nietzsche took the following form;
Read Nietzsche's autobiography,'Ecce Homo';
When you get to the sections in that book dealing with his previous books in order,treat those sections as introductions to the said books.
So,read what he says about 'The Birth of Tragedy',then read the 'Birth' itself.
Then go back to Ecce Homo to see what he says about 'The Unfashionable Observations', then go on to read he 'Observations',and so on.

This will give you a NIETZSCHEAN perspective.

After that you can read the 'Anti-Christ',which post-dates 'Ecce Homo',and then 'The Will to Power'.
If you get that far you will have surpassed the 'common' understanding!

I think collections of Nietzsche's aphorisms are less useful as they belie the tremendous organic connectedness of Nietzsche's work.
Stanford University press are putting out a complete works translation into English,but it is slow in coming out.It would be helpful to have a CONSISTENT complete works in English!

Woman

I think we must distinguish between the 'womanly' ,i.e., that which is the result of gender differentation and its consequence effects over millions of years of evolution-what Nietzsche calls 'woman as such',and individual female associates of Nietzsche.
I believe that the work of Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth in setting up the Nietzsche Archive did much to preserve his work.
We know that he regarded Lou Salome as an intellectual prodigy.
Also Helen Zimmern was friendly with Nietzsche and he expressly requested that she make a translation of his 'Beyond Good & Evil'.

Incidentally, for my part I think that the turn of the [20th] century English translations of Nietzsche are the best.
The translators like Thomas Common and Ludovici are actually Nietzscheans themselves.

As for Hollingdale, as clear as his work is,he displays a certain anti-Nietzscheanism.
There is also something dreadfully prosaic about Hollingdale's translations;
Try reading out loud H's translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra,and compare it to a reading of Kaufmann's; the latter 'sings' far better, but it is still not a patch on Common's.

Another VERY important woman in Nietzsche's life was Cosima Wagner.
Nietzsche's reverence for her remained undimmed.
One of his last letters before he withdrew from phlosophy,said;
"Ariadne,I love you; from Dionysos".
Of course, Cosima was a thorough going 'anti-semite', but this doesn't seem to have diminished his admiration for her.
But then can anything live WITHOUT pre-judging,without dis-criminating,e-valuating or pre-dicating?

Feminist writers like K.Oliver see his views as providing the basis for a radical revaluation of 'woman as such'.

As to 'selectivity'; this, like prejudice, is unavoidable.In fact the ability to select is a sign of nobilty [in some].

Nietzsche is dead in body but lives in Spirit;
God is dead in Spirit-as for his body...

Nietzsche's autobiography 'Ecce Homo' demonstrates amor fati in practice;
He subtitled the book 'How One Becomes What One Is'.

Joyful Wisdom and Language

The phrase 'La Gaya Scienza' refers to the Troubadours of Provence [minstrel poets,that's why Nietzsche's book begins and ends with poems and songs],who were definitely NOT scientists by the English usuage.
Also,this was the SUBTITLE of the 'The Joyful Wisdom'.
The German of the title, 'Wissenschaft,' is obviously linked etymologically to 'wise-dom'.

To Germans,philosophy is a Wissenschaft. 'Science'[Wissenschaft] in German has far wider connotations than 'science' in English.


Just as it would be INACCURATE,and MISLEADING,to translate German 'spirit' [Geist] solely into English 'spirit' [again the German term is of far wider meaning],so it is so to translate 'Wissenschaft' as English 'science'.
This has lead to the confusion of some who thought that Nietzsche was talking about Physics when he was talking about 'wisdom',or 'knowledge'!


The general reason for these discrepancies is that English has formed its vocabulary by importing Greek,Latin,Norman etc., terms which tend to take over differing aspects of an idea; so 'science' and 'physics' are from the classical languages,while 'wisdom' is from the Germanic.

German tends to form its vocabulary from Germanic roots,as did Old English.
The Old English word for the later latinate 'conscience' was 'inwit' [i.e.,'inner-wisdom'], for example [and no doubt the concept of conscience shifted with the replacement of the Germaanic term.]

So English is more precise,but narrower.
This affects things like philosophy;could you imagine Hegel writing in English?
Nietzsche always aspired to a latinate style.


1.Norman-French contained many Scandinavian terms and inflections [i.e.,Germanic] because the Nor[th]mans were second generation Vikings.
An example of a Normanising hybrid is how French 'Guerre' became in the Norman mouth 'War' [cf. French;Guillaume,Norman/English; William/Germanic Wilhelm].

2.During the Norman period the Latinate languages were spoken by the ruling minority;in the royal courts,the law courts and universities.The 'peasants' ,i.e., the majority conquered indigenous population,continued to speak English.

3.The fact that the English tongue survived and came to reconquer the establishment speaks volumes for the will and character of the British people.


Translating 'Wissenschaft' as 'Science',just doesn't capture the nuances,whereas 'Wisdom' does far better [but could never be exact].

'Spirit' in the Nietzschean context means ideas and the sense of purpose engendered by those ideas which continue,not just to exert their influence,but actually GROW [i.e.,'live'],long after their instigator [in this case Nietzsche 1844-1900] has deceased.
Of course words are not 'things';they may in some cases represent material objects,but they also represent ethereal things which cannot be nailed down;like the meaning of a piece of music.You cannot get at this by examining the 'things' of acoustics etc.And yet to speak of the beauty of a piece of music does make 'sense'.
If you restricted your vocabulary to words that only narrowly make sense,then you would have a very impoverished word-store indeed.

Language is not a mere lexicon.
It includes the sum total of a world-outlook,and expresses a particular enviroment,as well as a particular psychology/physiology,a particular mythos,what Jung called a 'Folk Soul'.

You supress my language,then you steal my soul.
If I can get you to speak my language,then I can get you to think like me.

First rule of subjugation;make the conquered lose their own language and speak that of the conquerors.
To rule a people's mind is far more potent than mere temporary wealth.

The English,a small Germanic tribe from north west Europe have virtually colonised the mind of the world with the English language.
Billions of people throughout the world now speak English.

It is true that up to 90% of the 6,800 languages in the world are dying out-English is growing.In the evolutionary sense English is a world success.

Other people's can only 'borrow' your language,they are as adopted sons,auxilleries.They speak of the language as 'interesting' because it is not in their 'blood'-see Nietzsche's Zarathustra;"write with the blood,for blood is Spirit!"

The English speaking world has yet to produce a literary genius to surpass Shakespeare.
You have to be near the source to create.

"That was good Cyning", [Beowulf,c.8th.cent. AD]
Nietszchean Styles

Nietzsche's 'style' is unique to him and his genius.
Only a fool would seek to emulate it.

Nietzsche was able to deal with weighty matters in a 'light' style.

Those that copy his style do not even TOUCH his content.


Nietzsche carried on publishing books at his own expense even though hardly anyone bought them or read them.He knew that the important thing is to get the material OUT THERE.

"Great words and great attitudes are so becoming to decadents".[Nietzsche,Twi./Ancients,3]

I am an inveterate elitist politically incorrect snob.

I respect myself first,and then my equals.

"The higher we soar,the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly".
[Nietzsche,'Daybreak',574]

The fact you cannot see poetry as rage shows that you are no poet.

The fact you need a professor to think for you shows that you are no thinker.

Ah,all the politically-correct cliches surge out like puke!
All the victim psychology so beloved of liberals.

The Anti-Nietzsche: Christian-God loving,politically correct, pedantic female.

The exercise of war keeps one fit;one must cast around for enemies.

They have no culture.

Reading something is not the same as understanding it.

Understanding something in itself is an ongoing thing.

Wherever you are in your life will affect your understanding.

There are some books that you have to be 19 years old to understand,there are others you will never understand at that age,and so on.

'Understanding' is not, like all else, a static thing.

We are in the process of Becoming.

Those with rich souls allow the world to see the growth of their understanding.

The problem with trying to juggle various personas [literally speak/sound (sona) through (per),i.e.,a mask],is that you tend to splinter yourself.

Each mask [unless you are a master of disguise, a la Kierkegaard] becomes a thin one-sided caricature.

Therefore it is extremely difficult to do philosphy in masks [poetry is easier,in drama it is a necessity].

So you are giving yourself an enormous handicap,which when combined with your lack of philosophical knowledge itself,is disasterous.


Language is pure invention.
Writers like Shakespeare actually invented new words.

Primitive humans [hominids] needed to develop the necessary vocal apparatus before they could speak [no doubt they had a vocabulary of grunts and gestures that they had invented already].
Once that was in place,then man HAD to invent language.
Just because something is invented does not mean it cannot be subject to the laws of evolution.
Culture [and language is part of culture] is the product of continual change AND invention.

I glory in the evil of my ancestors;it is their lapses into kindness that shames me.

"Stupidity in a woman is unfeminine".
[Nietzsche,'WS',273]

Thank you for calling my work ugly - that was a beautiful compliment.

Nietzsche tells us that philosophy is not a genteel pursuit carried out in an ivory tower,but a visceral,bodily expression of our complete lives.

One cannot read the books 'Ecce Homo', and 'The Anti-Christian' without appreciating this revaluation.

Nietzsche's career began with controversy;
His first book became a bitter battle-field for polemics;- so much so that his career didn't really recover.
His first 'Unfashionable Observation' was a spirited 'attack' on the author David Strauss.
Nietzsche's polemics in the Anti-Christian were at times hysterical,so much so,that his sister tried to surpress the book.

The rant is an art-form.

War was Nietzsche's basic coign of vantage.

Dead wood and foul air must be cleared out.


Purgation.


Until the next campaign,
My face 'badged with blood'.

The task of philosphy is self definition!

What philosophy 'IS' is a philosophical question.

Derrida took a note in Nietzsche's copybook which said "I have forgotten my umbrella" as the starting point for a book of philosophy - Jaques knew his place!
Can I take your coat, Herr Nietzsche?

Nietzsche is for the few'

Free Will

I propose to deal here with a concept that sorely vexes 'modern' man [and woman-is not 'modern man' just another type of woman?], and that is 'freewill'.

No other religious lie or pious fraud has become so ingrained in recent times as this one;to the extent that freewill seen as a 'fact of life'.

Of course we know that it is rather a symptom of sickness.
'Free will' is a misnomer for what is really the excess of a feeling [affect] of power.
As one's power increases one imagines that one is 'free'.
Accordingly,those of declining power [decadents,nihilists etc.,],feel 'unfree','oppressed' and so on.
The doctrine of 'free will' is a slave revaluation.
This is obvious from the etymology of the word 'free',which meant among pagan Anglo-Saxons [i.e., before their 'conversion' to Christianity];'dear, beloved {of the chieftain}'.
So a 'free' person was one nearest to the centre of power.Servants and slaves were furthest from the centre of power and so were least free.
In fact a freed slave or servant took the name 'freeman' which survives as an English surname.
To a Christian the man who is free in the pagan sense is 'willful','unruly'.He must be forced to believe the fiction that this 'freedom' of his was a gift from God.
Therefore as it does not belong to him,it must be exercised with modesty according to the priests command.It must be curtailed,lest he act with pride and 'God forbid',arrogance.
The Christian says that all of man's errors and catastrophes are the result of his abuse of this gift of free-will.
So the blond beast is weakened because;
1.Free will is a loan from a God who is all powerful [and man is his servant].
2.Free-will separates one from necessity;it atomises the individual;it performs 'divide et impera' [divide and rule] on the soul of the great man.
Of course one overcomes [i.e., exceeds oneself] by increasing one's proximity to the centre of power with absolute affirmation.


Blake understood this when he wrote;
"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom".


Nietzsche said that it was NOT a case of 'free will',but a case of "Strong and Weak Will".

Very few people DESERVE 'freedom';very few people are able to handle the THOUGHT of 'freedom'.

It drives them into further servitude.

The many are born into servitude.

The higher man may want to place himself under restrictions,to sharpen his will;such a man is CAPABLE of freedom.

Freedom is strong will;let the weak serve in their religions.

The ancient Greek philosopher Xenophanes took the position that religions were human convention,it is hardly a revelation.

More important is your RIGHT to godless will to power.

Nietzsche opens his discussion on free-will in 'Beyond Good and Evil' with a suitably paradoxical aphorism.He begins;
"It is certainly not the least charm ['Reiz'] of a theory that it is refutable".[BGE,18]

'Reiz' in German can mean 'charm',but also 'irritation' and 'allurement'.

In 'Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks',Nietzsche discusses the now firmly refuted theories of the Ionian Natural Scientists,and takes the position that such theories have an aesthetic value in themselves,despite their being refuted,i.e.,-their not being 'true'.

It is in 'untruth' that a theory can be alluring,exciting,a stimulant to life.
a theory so blatantly false as 'freewill',according to Nietzsche,
"Owes its persistance to this charm ['Reiz'] alone".[ib.]

One is reminded here of Tertullian's 'I believe it because it is absurd'.
Hollingdale's note [Penguin tranlation of BGE] on aphorism 18 is rather oblique.
He brings in K.Popper's 'conjecture/refutation' model,saying that the criterion for a scientific [as against a metaphysical] theory is its falsifiability.
To Popper we should try to eliminate the false,rather than try to establish the true.

Of course,you cannot 'test' free-will, so it is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical one.

Popper is then faced with the dilemma of whether it is possible to dismiss the non-falsifiable,and this is at the root of Nietzsche's paradox.

Before we go on, we must establish some perspectives.

'Free';[Anglo-Saxon 'freo' ;noble,illustrious;free;'dear (akin) to the chief'. Hence,'not enslaved'.

Philosophical positions on freewill and determinism revolve around the question of whether freewill and universal causation are 'compatible' or not,or whether they are mutually exclusive;

1.Fatalism -holds that the future is fixed irrespective of our attempts to affect it.
The example of the Oedipus legend,often alluded to by Nietzsche,where dramatic tension is created by the knowledge that human will cannot alter what 'fate' has decreed.

2.Logical Determinism -argues that a given future event must either occur or not occur. Which ever happens,the prediction that it would happen will turn out to be correct,and therefore was correct all along whether or not we knew it.
Therefore,since one statement about the apparent future alternatives is already true,nothing we can do will alter matters.

3.Hard Determinism -says that our actions are caused in a way that makes us not as free as we might have thought,so that responsibility,if it implies freewill,is an illusion.

4.Soft Determinism -that our actions are indeed caused,but we are not therefore any less free than we might be,because the causation is not a constraint or compulsion on us.

5.Indeterminism -insists that determinism can give no sense to the sentence,'he could have done otherwise',where this means something more than simply 'he MIGHT have done otherwise (had his nature or cirstances been different)'.

-But then if our actions are,as indeterminists claim,no more than random intrusions into the causal scheme of things,how can we be any more responsible for them than if they were caused?

6.Libertarians-are indeterminists who postulate a special entity,the 'self',which uses the body to intervene from outside,as it were,in the chain of events,but is itself immune to causal influence.

-But such a self must at least be open to pressure from things in the world-or why would it ever make a wrong or weak-minded choice?-and to define its actual relations to the world seems difficult.
[The above adapted freely from Lacy's Dictionary of Philosophy].

Clearly,Nietzsche's position is towards the hard determinism/fatalism end of the spectrum,but as we shall see,he goes far 'beyond' those positions.

"The father in God is thoroughly refuted;likewise,'the judge','the rewarder'. Likewise his 'free will'".[Nietzsche,BGE,53]

The religious concept is 'compatibilist' as it combines the strict universal determinism of 'God's plan',with his 'gift' of freewill to man [this allows the theodical explanation of 'evil'].

Despite the factitious nature of this theological freewill,the theory continues to thrive,even though,or perhaps because;
"again and again there comes along someone who feels that he is strong enough to refute it".[BGE,18]

All of these philosphical or theological viewpoints assume a standard cause/effect model.This is radically questioned by Nietzsche;
"People throughout the ages have believed they know what a cause is...we believed that we ourselves,in the act of willing,were causes;we thought that we ourselves,in the act of willing,were causes;we thought that we were at least catching causality there IN THE ACT". [Nietzsche,'Twilight',VI,3]

A metaphysical extension of the belief in freewill is the 'causa sui',or 'cause in itself'.This in scholastic philosophy is God himself.
Who created the Creator?-'causa sui'.

This is to Nietzsche a 'self contradiction',a 'kind of logical ' and 'unnaturalness';
"For the desire for 'freedom of will' in that metaphysical superlative sense which is unfortunately still dominant in the minds of the half-educated,the desire to bear the whole and sole responsibility for one's actions and to absolve God,world,ancestors,chance,society from responsibility for them,is nothing less than the desire to be precisely that 'causa sui'". [ib.21]
This is not a 'free-will' project: It is the hammer of necessity.
The Future-Present

Once globalisation has taken hold in totality,then a higher species WILL evolve,MUST evolve.

Nietzsche is the prophet and propounder of the higher species whose work will become 'the Bible' to the future Master Race,just as the Scriptures were/are to the Slave Races.

And yes,Cathedrals will be built on earth and throughout the solar system as places to worship the Master Race,and as 'monastries' for the contemplation of that Race.

All expressions of Modernity [and this includes both inorganic as well as organic matter] only reflect the despised substrata,on top of which will build the Artist-Tyrants of the Future.

You are speaking to that preparation,which is Necessity itself.
Yes,I imagine a scene somewhat like de Sade's 120 days of Sodom, where I humiliate such masked clowns.

That would be justice!

A Feast of Feasts!

Let burn the Pyre!

Flames!

The smell of burning flesh.

I am sated...for now.
Seen from the shallows it could look like I am playing both sides.

But that would need a belief in antithetical values as well as a perspective from the lowest valleys.

Up here,from the heights,where opposites dissolve-all that remains is a soul broad and rich in contradictions,a Nietzschean soul.

Antithetical values are not just a ruse,they are a means of survival.
The many cannot relinquish being on 'one side' or the other.

I am ALWAYS offended by the 'inoffensive';it is such tepidity that make me spit blood.
Death to the inoffensive;let me hang them all like the common curs they are.

I leave 'rationalising' to those who place reason as the highest value and to those who need to 'explain away' things.
It is all down to perspective AND height.
If YOU see opposites then you have a slavish perspective-from a subterranean depth.


To grapple with a philosophical question takes TIME,it takes SPACE.

Nietzsche shows us that philosophy is a combatative activity.

It is a sign of strength to offer generalisations,especially when they are 'unfashionable observations'.

The noble ego REVERES itself.

Any one who is up to it can dare to fly alongside me.

Let the timorous stay where they are,a-feared of generalising in case they actually make a BIG statement.
Beyond Good & Evil

A close, protracted, study of Nietzsche's ' Beyond Good and Evil'[BGE].
We take it virtually section by section,responding to the ravishing ideas within.

"Truth is HARD!"
This is how we read.
Nietzsche describes 'dogmatic philosophy' [i.e., the philosophy of the Enlightenment'], Platonism and Christianity ['Platonism for the people'] and Astrology as monstrous falsehoods making 'promises across millennia'.
Adherents of all the above systems still abound in the world and are sure to describe their own system as exclusively true and the others all as false.
So, for example, the Xtian will heap abuse on the Astrologer and the rational philsopher will deride the 'superstitious', and so on.
But Nietzsche thinks that all these systems are false in their own way;
The dogmatic philosopher is no better [or worse] at truth than the Astrologer, nor is the Xtian or the Platonist.
This is where Nietzsche puts truth into perspective;
Does it matter that a great piece of intellectual architecture is not 'true'?
Should we rather not look at the efficacy of those systems and ask;
'Do they enhance life?', do they enrich the Spirit?'.
Not only that; we should look at the amount of creativity, wisdom and knowledge that has been poured into the mold of these systems.
To make the matter clearer we might look at the most superstitious of the systems mentioned, Astrology.
Taking on board Nietzsche's remark;
"Why do we want truth, why not rather untruth?", we can understand the position of the psychologist C.G. Jung [himself a firm Nietzschean];
"Astrology represents the summation of all the psychological knowledge of antiquity" [Jung,'Psychology and Alchemy'].

To Jung the "gods of the planets" were the "astrological components of Destiny",which preserved the "bridge" between consciousness and its "natural roots in the unconscious psyche".
"Astrology led consciousness back again and again to the knowledge of the dependence of character and destiny on certain moments in time" [Jung,ib.]
Nietzsche's doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence must be seen in this context. As he wrote in the second 'Unfashionable Observation';
"That which was ONCE POSSIBLE could present itself as a possibility for a second time only if the Pythagoreans were right in believing that when the constellation of the Heavenly bodies is repeated,the same things,down to the smallest event,must also be repeated on earth ... but that will no doubt happen only when the astronomers have again become astrologers". [Nietzsche,ib.]

Both his emphasis on psychology and his sense of Destiny became more and more acute as Nietzsche philosophy evolved.
To return to Jung;
"Science began with the stars,and mankind discovered in them the dominants of the unconscious,the 'gods', as well as the curious psychological qualities of the Zodiac; a completely projected theory of human character, Astrology is a primordial experience similar to alchemy". [Jung,ib.]
That other Nietzschean, and friend, August Strindberg's obsession with alchemy becomes more explicable in this light.
All in all we see that Astrology, alchemy, AND philosophy are monuments to RADICAL perspectivism.

The many-too-many like to say that Nietzsche 'contradicts himself'.
This is only said by those who believe in 'antithetical values'.
They think that to speak of the base and the precious in the same breath is contradictory,but they do not realise that base metals and precious metals are formed of the same stuff.
The base is a decadent aspect while the precious is an ascendent aspect of the primary material.
Nietzsche is the alchemist of the will to power as he transmutes the degenerate stuff of modernity and gregarious slavish instincts into the gold of the superman.

This is why he asks in section 2 of BGE;
"How could anything originate out of its opposite?For example,truth out of error?or the will to truth out of the will to deception?or the generous deed out of selfishness?or the pure sun-bright vision of the wise man out of covetousness?..."

He then posits the alchemist's response;
"It might even be possible that what constitutes the value of those good and respected things,consists precisely in their being insidiously related,knotted,and crocheted to these evil and apparently opposed things-perhaps even in being essentially identical with them".[BGE,2]

The 'revaluation of all values' is equivalent to the Philosopher's Stone.
Philosophy like alchemy is a solitary enterprise.
Alchemy derives from blacksmithing;Nietzsche,like a Smith,philosophises with a hammer.
He forges the sword whose shadow is the philosopher's happiness.

The philosopher is the physician of the soul.

"In my book 'Antibarbarus' I had discussed the psychology of sulphur".
[Strindberg,'Inferno']


Blake with his 'Infernal method' and the afore-mentioned Strindberg were both alchemical Nietzscheans.
All in all we see that astrology,alchemy and philosophy are monuments to radical perspectivism.


You say that;

"there is no reason for me to analyze this
because we are destined to make prejudgements."

I would disagree; man is very much a curious animal; always looking to understand, to analyse [literally 'take apart'].

Western culture has been typified by the mania to solve problems.

Nietzsche's own project looks at the problem of Nihilism.

It seems to me that to give up and say,'we are all doomed to prejudice-why bother to philosophise?', is in itself a symptom of the disease of Nihilism.

And the cure?; Nietzsche proposed his own philosophy of the Eternal Return.

The difference between east and west is due to a separation of the Indo-Europeans [or Aryans] from their homelands in pre-history.
The Rig Veda belongs as much to the lineage that became Homer in the west as became Buddha in the east.
A bifurcation occured which derived from the same root element [Sanskrit,Greek and Germanic are all closely related to a root tongue].
Nietzsche knew this because the study of Indo-European language was well under way when he was studying philology himself; hence his reference to a 'familiy resemblance' as he puts it between Greek and Indian philosophy.
It is not about an 'influence'--it is because they share the same ancestry!

The Doric invaders of Greece [around 1500 BC] brought their own version of that Vedic culture with them.
Through separate evolution and 'cultural drift' was created the Homeric/Pre-Platonic culture which is revivified in Nietzsche.
Nietzsche affirms where the Buddha denies.
Likewise, modern western science post relativity/quantum affirms all what Nietzsche said about 'Becoming', cause and effect ,etc., via results of repeated experiments. Also the work of Chomsky,Pinker and others points to the existence of a 'language instinct' in man.
The process used is Popperesque conjecture and refutation;truth is always viewed as a fluxion.
However,we Nietzscheans ALWAYS AFFIRM after we destroy; what survives the 'holocaust', serves to illustrate the principle ; 'what does not kill me makes me stronger'. We affirm the will to life, the will to power.
We leave it to our languid cousins in the east to wallow in a squalid nihilism.
Atomism
Atomism was one of those affirming stepping stones.

The foremost presocratic atomist,Democritus [flourished 420 BC],set up a school of philosophy in Abdera;one of his pupils,Nausiphanes,became a teacher himself passing on the atomic doctrine to Epicurus [341 BC-270 BC].
In 306 BC Epicurus set up his school in Athens known as the 'Garden' [Nietzsche refers to Epicurus in the first chapter of BGE and elsewhere].
He expanded atomism into areas of psychology and ethics,creating the famous Hellenistic philosophy of 'Epicureanism' which survived well into Roman times,despite hostility from emergent Christianity.
The greatest Epicurian must have been the Roman Lucretius [98 BC-55 AD],whose philosophical poem 'De Rerum Natura' [50 AD] was the 'time capsual' which preserved the doctrine of atomism into the modern era.

Book III of 'De Rerum' opens with a paen to Epicurus;
"You,who out of black darkness were first to lift up a shining light,revealing the hidden blessings of life-you are my guide,O glory of the Grecian race.In your well-marked footprints now I plant my steps".


Lest we should think of atomism as purely Greco/Roman,it is worth remarking that certain Hindu writings,particularly of the Jain cult,speculated on atomism.This is probably due to the deep 'family resemblance',as Nietzsche puts it,of Indian and Greek culture.

With the fall of the Roman Empire in the west and the northern barbarian invasions,atomism became moribund,preserved only in monastic libraries [i.e., Lucretius's poem,Aristotle's works refering to atomism and various commentaries thereon],and the writings of those in the Arabic and Jewish world.
The Arab alchemist and physician Rhazes [865-924 AD] adopted an atomistic philosophy,as did one Arab school of philosophers.
Such ideas gradually filtered through to Moorish Spain via philosophers like Maimonides [1135-1204].

It wasn't until 1400 that the west rediscovered Lucretius's poem,which was printed in 1473 to much interest.
In 1500,the great Polish astronomer Copernicus [1473-1543] wrote;
"The minimal and indivisible corpuscles,which are called atoms are not perceptible to sense...but can be taken in such large quantity that there will...be enough to form a visible magnitude".

The prominent figures of the emergent science such as Bruno,Galileo,Kepler,all showed an intense interest in atomism.
The ever perceptive Sir Francis Bacon [1561-1626] noted that;
"The theory of Democritus relating to atoms is,if not true,at least applicable with excellent effect to the exposition of nature".

Thus began the rise of the physical atom,the theory being applied also to chemistry and mechanics.
The 'hard atom' was now to be quantified,as Gassendi [1592-1626] and others attempted to describe 'the minimum size for ultimate atoms';and by 1660,the chemist Boyle [1623-91] looked forward to a "universally applicable atomic theory".
Staying on the right side of religion ,in 1700 Newton wrote;
"It seems probable to me that God in the beginning form'd matter in solid,massy,hard,impenetrable movable particles".

Philosophers such as Descartes [1596-1650],Hobbes [1588-1679],and Leibniz [1646-1716],were all influenced in various ways by atomism.
Leibniz developed a non-physical atomistic doctrine he called a 'Monadology' [1714],describing the monads as;
"Metaphysical points:they possess a certain vitality and a kind of perception".

A mathematical theory of atomism was expounded in 1758 by Boscovich [1711-1787] in his 'Theoria',in which the atoms are;
"Not pieces of matter,but persisting physical points".
Boscovich is praised by Nietzsche because;
"He has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that 'stood fast' of the earth-the belief in 'substance',in 'matter',in the earth-residuum,and particle-atom:it is the greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been gained on earth" [BGE,12]

The concept of hard and permanent atoms was favoured by Dalton [1766-1844],who "formulated the principle that each chemical element is composed of identical atoms;Dalton had studied Newton's atomic derivation of Boyles' Law,and thus had inherited the great tradition of atomic ideas in its Newtonian form". [Whyte,'Essay on Atomism']

The 19th century saw atomic ideas abound in all areas of the sciences and mathematics;including the molecular currents of Ampere [1825],the 'Brownian movement' of small particles of the Botanist R.Brown [1827],Faraday's units of electricity [1840],and the first electron theory of Weber [1850].
In 1869 the elements [a theory first mooted by the presocratic Empedocles],were classified in the 'periodic table' by Mendeleyev;
"The discovery of radioactivity [Becquerel,1896] and of the Electron [1897],marked the culmination of a century of dramatic empirical advances in the realm of Atomism".[Whyte,ib.]

However,in the 1870's,after the discovery of the 'periodic table',Kelvin and Spencer emphasised that chemical atoms were not necessarily indivisible or eternal.

With the development of Relativity [Einstein,1905],and Quantum Theory [Planck,1900],all the classical categories became undermined.


The foregoing is meant to show how the attempt to quantify the atom created a procedure which served scientific progress to great effect.
The 'atom' though,did not survive the process,and once 'split',being no longer indivisible and therefore by definition not the atom of Greek philosophy,it passed out of its physical phase,returning to its home of metaphysics.

In 1881,"Stallo protested that the concept of Atoms arose merely from the 're-ification' of the concept cause" [Whyte,ib.].
At about the same time,Nietzsche had written in his notebooks;
"Against the physical Atom:to comprehend the world,we have to be able to calculate it;to be able to calculate it we have to have constant cause;because we find no such constant causes in actuality,we invent them for ourselves-the atoms.This is the origin of Atomism".

Using an analogy,Nietzsche says;
"How much of a piece of music has been understood when that in it which is calculable,and can be reduced to formulas has been reckoned up?"
Nietzsche then goes on to compare the atom theory with;
"The famous old 'ego',our oldest article of faith.The atom is a subjective fiction;precisely this necessary perspectivism by virtue of which every centre of force-and not only man-construes all the rest of the world from its own viewpoint".[Nietzsche,'The Will to Power']

The atom then was part of the "metaphysical falsification of the world",as seen by Nietzsche;
"One must declare war...against the 'atomistic need' which still leads a dangerous after-life in places where no-one suspects it,just like the more celebrated 'metaphysical need';one must also,first of all,give the finishing stroke to that other more calamitous atomism which Christianity has taught best and longest,the 'soul atomism'".[BGE,12]

Before we start to hear the absolute relativism of a Gorgias,we must remember that Nietzsche adhered to the Pythagorean theory of the 'Eternal Recurrence of the Same',and demonstrated a 'metaphysical need' in his first principle of the 'will to power'.
Indeed,to Nietzsche the mistake of "the older atomism" was that it "sought-besides the operating 'power',the material particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates-the atom".[BGE,17]
In other words the theory of power is enough;'atoms' and what-not are superfluous.

Perhaps we should dwell here on the shifting of the 'tectonic plates' of truth in terms of typifying theories;eg.,atomism was long considered atheism par excellence;but to Nietzsche,the 'Anti-Christian',atomism was a disguised 'soul swindle',sneaked into the back-door of science in order to prolong the death-throes of God.

All in all,atomism has shown itself to be the most powerful metaphysic of the Presocratics.
B.Russell summed up as follows;
"By good luck,the Atomists hit on a hypothesis for which,more than 2,000 years later,some evidence would be found,but their belief,in their day was none the less destitute of any solid foundation".

It is precisely here that the controversy rumbles on;to Russell, solid foundation equals scientific foundation, not philosophical.
But is physics any more 'solid' than metaphysics?

There are a few things to be noticed about Nietzsche's attitude to the atom and the soul in section 12 of BGE.

1.Nietzsche objects to the irreducible 'hard' atom,which he calls the 'materialistic' atom.He rejects the finality in the view that we have here reached the ultimate particle of matter.

2.The non-material atomism of Boscovich is praised by Nietzsche,because "it is the greatest triumph over the senses".
Nietzsche studied Boscovich's 'Theoria' very closely in the 1870's,and it should be borne in mind that a philosopher of Power cannot ignore physics.

In the late 1880's,Nietzsche is still thinking in terms of physics;
"If the world may be thought of as a certain definite quantity of force and as a certain definite number of centres of force...it follows that,in the great dice game of existence,it must pass through a calculable number of combinations".[Nietzsche,Wm,1066]

In contemporary physics the atom is described as;
"One of the basic particles of matter [matter is anything that takes up space...anything not a vacuum.Normal matter can exist in any of three main states:gas,liquid or solid.It is believed that matter consists of very small particles].
The atom is the smallest particle of an element that can have the element's properties.In a simple model of matter,atoms consist of a small massive nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded by orbiting electrons.A proton or neutron is nearly 2,000 times more massive than an electron".
"The study of the fundamental particles of matter [particle physics] led to the discovery of the atomic nucleus [1909-11] and the neutron [1932]".

Modern science is still searching for that irreducible particle of matter.

3.Nietzsche therefore rejects the idea that there is a fundamental,irreducible aspect of the living being,traditionally known as the soul.He calls this 'soul atomism',which is;
"The belief which regards the soul as something indestructible,eternal,indivisible,as a monad,as an atomon". [Nietzsche,BGE,12]

Coherently,Nietzsche adopts the position of a soul concept which is complex and elusive;seen as a "subjective multiplicity",a "social structure of the instincts and passions".[ib.]


4.Atomism;The Ancient Theory.

As far as the technicalities of Greek atomism go ,we
have a few direct fragments from Leucippus and Democritus.
The former is represented by only one short fragment,which
alludes to necessity,and while Democritus's collection is
more extensive,the bulk of the fragments are on ethics and
include it must be said some rather trite maxims.

We have Aristotle [not an atomist himself of course] to thank
for a fairly detailed articulation of the theories of the
Atomists,although it is somewhat unfortunate that a monograph
he wrote on Democritus has not come down to us;luckily a
passage from it had been preserved in late antiquity by
Simplcius,who also himself makes references to atomism
elsewhere.

The term 'atom' [Greek 'atomos';the indivisible] means
literally that which cannot be 'cut',and thereby presupposes
the existence of matter,and indicates that this matter has a
point of irreducibility,which is its solid essence.
The nature of this indivisibility is described lucidly by
Aristotle in a passage from his 'On Generation and Corruption'.
There he asks that;if a body is infinitely divisible,then
"what will there be that escapes division?";i.e., what is
left once the 'final' division is made;will it be 'a
magnitude'?;-No,because that too,should,according to this
view,be divisible.
If a body is said to be divisible to the point of
nothingness,this too is wrong,because bodies cannot be
composed of nothing.
Therefore,bodies are not infinitely divisible;there must
logically be remnants of bodies which are indivisible and
have magnitude,and being indivisible they contain no void in
them.

They share with the Parmenidean 'One',an immutability which
makes them eternal,ungenerable and indestructible.
However,the full Eleatic arguments of Parmenides cannot apply
to atoms because they are not 'one',but many;in fact they are
infinite in number and promiscuous in behaviour.
Infinite because being the building blocks of all things;
"They need to account for all properties and substances and
for how and by what cause they come into being.That is why
the atomists say that only those who make the elements
infinite produce a reasonable account of things".[Simplicius]

Another reasoning is based on the given that the void [the
place where the atoms commingle] is infinite;therefore atoms
must also be infinite in number,otherwise there would be "no
good reason" for them to be "here" rather than "there".

Another feature peculiar to atoms is their possessing
shape.They are said to have an infinite repertoire of shapes
among them [the reasoning for this is similar to that stated
above;there is 'no more reason' for them to be one shape
rather than another,ad infinitum].The shapes of atoms are
crucial as it allows them to interlock with one another in a
myriad of configurations.

The theory is meant to explain the difference between
appearance and the underlying metaphysical reality ["truth is
in the depths" said Democritus].
The shapes are necessary to show how that when forming
compounds which make up the objects of the world,they thereby
evoke the different sensory perceptions in animals like
humans for example.
This is because,while atoms themselves are qualityless,the
'conventions' of sight,sound,smell,taste and touch are
brought about by the variations in texture of atomistic
compounds.

Aristotle mentions that the atoms vary in magnitude,but this
variation is not described as infinite,and must presumably be
curtailed by their necessary smallness which makes them
"escape our senses".
The Abderite atomists did not go so far as apportioning
different weights to them,as Aetius records;
"Democritus specified two basic properties of atoms;size,and
shape;and Epicurus added weight as a third".

The 'void' is as important an atomic invention as the atom
itself.
The void was also a logical assumption;movement is not
possible in a plenum,but movement definitely occurs,therefore
there must be empty space or void.
Aristotle says in his 'Metaphysics';
"The full and the void are elements;the former one is
'being',and the latter one 'non-being';and these are the
material causes of the things that exist.The void is the
sheer absence of being".
Because atoms cannot meld ["it is utterly silly to think that
two or more things cuold ever become one"-Aristotle],it is
necessary for void to be between all atoms like a negative
honeycomb,although the void being empty,cannot prevent atoms
from colliding and sometimes entangling with one another .
In fact this dynamism is necessary to explain the compounded
hierarchical congeries of atoms which make up the apparent
world.

Aristotle criticised the Atomists on this point;
"As for motion,and whence and how existing things aquire
it,they negligently omitted to inquire into".
B.Russell viewed this point rather differently,saying that;
"It made the Atomists more scientific than their
critics.Causation must start from something,and wherever it
starts,no cause can be assigned the initial datum".

The sceptic Sextus Empiricus [2nd century AD] informs us that
Democritus favoured the "like recognises like" position as a
motive force,which presumably in bringing things together
[shades of Empedoclean Love vs. Strife by this
interpretation] also causes them to clash and ricochet,in a
never ending perpetuation.
Simplicius quotes Aristotle's [now lost] work on Democritus
thus;
"The atoms struggle and are carried about in the void because
of their dissimilarities;they collide and are bound together
in a binding which does not genuinely produce any other
single nature".

In answer to the criticism that such immutable qualityless
units such as atoms could not conceivably produce the great
variety of things in the world,it was said that;
"There was no difficulty in supposig that a fresh arrangement
of the atoms might transform bread into flesh and blood,just
as a fresh arrangement of letters of the alphabet could
transform a tragedy into a comedy".[Aristotle,paraphrased by
Farrington in his 'Greek Science']

5.
"That school which is most accused of atheism"
[Bacon,'Essays' 1597.Refering to the Atomists of course]

The combination of materialism and chaotic self-ordering in
the atomic theory has long made it a target for charges of
atheism;
"The atoms hold on to one another and remain together up to
the time when some stronger necessity reaches them from their
enviroment and shakes them and scatters them apart".[Aristotle]

The Greek polis was founded on the unifying principle of an
established religion.
Atheism therefore was tantamount to sedition.
In fact the city-state no doubt regarded the philosophical
critique of belief as more subversive than the preaching of
any heresy.
Philosophico-scientific theories such as atomism [just as in
later ages,the heliocentrism of Copernicus,or the
evolutionism of Darwin],have always met with ruthless
opposition from the established theological powers that be.

With the Greek philosophers begin the catalogue of martyrs to
knowledge,the most famous being Socrates.
Pre Socrates we see the Pythagoreans being driven out of
Croton in the 6th century BC,while in the 5th century BC we
hear of Zeno being tortured and Empedocles suffering exile.
Anaxagoras too was prosecuted for impiety in Athens at about
430 BC due to his "assertion that Helios [the sun],like other
heavenly bodies,is a glowing lump of metal,as the fall of a
meteorite in 467 BC had proven to him.Now such doctrines were
[in 438 BC] to be forbidden by the state".[Burkert,'Greek
Religion']

A Christian polemic against atomism,delivered in 200 AD by
St. Dionysius of Alexandria,railed against the theory's
"lack" of "an intelligent artist to put the atoms together".
With the revival of Classical learning in Europe,atomism once
again became an object of study.
By the 17th century a 'crusade' had begun to denounce the
theory as anti-Christian.In 1624 the Paris parliament decreed
that the teaching of atomism was punishable by death.
The attitude shown by J.Glanville in 1670 is typical;
"The Corpuscularian Hypothesis,the opinion of the world's
being made by a fortuitous jumble of atoms is impious and
abominable".

This hysteria actually marked an overwhelming GROWTH in the
study of physical atomism,and it seems likely here as
elsewhere that the imposition of overt censorship on any
theory will impart a certain 'truth value' to it!

While the atomism of the Presocratcs is undoubtedly a
metaphysics,by the age of the European Enlightenment it had
come to be considered as a cornerstone of 'hard' science.

"The degree of similarity between the theory of Democritus
and that of Dalton entitles the ancient speculation to be
described as a wonderful anticipation of the conclusions of
later experimental science".[Farrington,ib.]

Barnes,in his 'Early Greek Philosophy',reinforces this
position;
"It would be absurd to deny the link between ancient and
modern atomism:conceptually,there are narrow
ties;historically an unbroken,if curiously circuitous,line
reaches from Leucippus to Rutherford".


6.
The foremost presocratic atomist,Democritus [flourished 420
BC],set up a school of philosophy in Abdera;one of his
pupils,Nausiphanes,became a teacher himself passing on the
atomic doctrine to Epicurus [341 BC-270 BC].
In 306 BC Epicurus set up his school in Athens known as the
'Garden' [Nietzsche refers to Epicurus in the first chapter
of BGE and elsewhere].
He expanded atomism into areas of psychology and
ethics,creating the famous Hellenistic philosophy of
'Epicureanism' which survived well into Roman times,despite
hostility from emergent Christianity.
The greatest Epicurian must have been the Roman Lucretius [98
BC-55 AD],whose philosophical poem 'De Rerum Natura' [50 AD]
was the 'time capsule' which preserved the doctrine of
atomism into the modern era.

Book III of 'De Rerum' opens with a paen to Epicurus;
"You,who out of black darkness were first to lift up a
shining light,revealing the hidden blessings of life-you are
my guide,O glory of the Grecian race.In your well-marked
footprints now I plant my steps".


Lest we should think of atomism as purely Greco/Roman,it is
worth remarking that certain Hindu writings,particularly of
the Jain cult,speculated on atomism.This is probably due to
the deep 'family resemblance',as Nietzsche puts it,of Indian
and Greek culture.

With the fall of the Roman Empire in the west and the
northern barbarian invasions,atomism became
moribund,preserved only in monastic libraries [i.e.,
Lucretius's poem,Aristotle's works refering to atomism and
various commentaries thereon],and the writings of those in
the Arabic and Jewish world.
The Arab alchemist and physician Rhazes [865-924 AD] adopted
an atomistic philosophy,as did one Arab school of philosophers.
Such ideas gradually filtered through to Moorish Spain via
philosophers like Maimonides [1135-1204].

It wasn't until 1400 that the west rediscovered Lucretius's
poem,which was printed in 1473 to much interest.
In 1500,the great Polish astronomer Copernicus [1473-1543]
wrote;
"The minimal and indivisible corpuscles,which are called
atoms are not perceptible to sense...but can be taken in such
large quantity that there will...be enough to form a visible
magnitude".

The prominent figures of the emergent science such as
Bruno,Galileo,Kepler,all showed an intense interest in atomism.
The ever perceptive Sir Francis Bacon [1561-1626] noted that;
"The theory of Democritus relating to atoms is,if not true,at
least applicable with excellent effect to the exposition of
nature".

Thus began the rise of the physical atom,the theory being
applied also to chemistry and mechanics.
The 'hard atom' was now to be quantified,as Gassendi
[1592-1626] and others attempted to describe 'the minimum
size for ultimate atoms';and by 1660,the chemist Boyle
[1623-91] looked forward to a "universally applicable atomic
theory".
Staying on the right side of religion ,in 1700 Newton wrote;
"It seems probable to me that God in the beginning form'd
matter in solid,massy,hard,impenetrable movable particles".

Philosophers such as Descartes [1596-1650],Hobbes
[1588-1679],and Leibniz [1646-1716],were all influenced in
various ways by atomism.
Leibniz developed a non-physical atomistic doctrine he called
a 'Monadology' [1714],describing the monads as;
"Metaphysical points:they possess a certain vitality and a
kind of perception".

A mathematical theory of atomism was expounded in 1758 by
Boscovich [1711-1787] in his 'Theoria',in which the atoms are;
"Not pieces of matter,but persisting physical points".
Boscovich is praised by Nietzsche because;
"He has taught us to abjure the belief in the last thing that
'stood fast' of the earth-the belief in 'substance',in
'matter',in the earth-residuum,and particle-atom:it is the
greatest triumph over the senses that has hitherto been
gained on earth" [BGE,12]

The concept of hard and permanent atoms was favoured by
Dalton [1766-1844],who "formulated the principle that each
chemical element is composed of identical atoms;Dalton had
studied Newton's atomic derivation of Boyles' Law,and thus
had inherited the great tradition of atomic ideas in its
Newtonian form". [Whyte,'Essay on Atomism']

The 19th century saw atomic ideas abound in all areas of the
sciences and mathematics;including the molecular currents of
Ampere [1825],the 'Brownian movement' of small particles of
the Botanist R.Brown [1827],Faraday's units of electricity
[1840],and the first electron theory of Weber [1850].
In 1869 the elements [a theory first mooted by the
presocratic Empedocles],were classified in the 'periodic
table' by Mendeleyev;
"The discovery of radioactivity [Becquerel,1896] and of the
Electron [1897],marked the culmination of a century of
dramatic empirical advances in the realm of
Atomism".[Whyte,ib.]

However,in the 1870's,after the discovery of the 'periodic
table',Kelvin and Spencer emphasised that chemical atoms were
not necessarily indivisible or eternal.

With the development of Relativity [Einstein,1905],and
Quantum Theory [Planck,1900],all the classical categories
became undermined.


7.
The foregoing is meant to show how the attempt to quantify
the atom created a procedure which served scientific progress
to great effect.
The 'atom' though,did not survive the process,and once
'split',being no longer indivisible and therefore by
definition not the atom of Greek philosophy,it passed out of
its physical phase,returning to its home of metaphysics.

In 1881,"Stallo protested that the concept of Atoms arose
merely from the 're-ification' of the concept cause"
[Whyte,ib.].
At about the same time,Nietzsche had written in his notebooks;
"Against the physical Atom:to comprehend the world,we have to
be able to calculate it;to be able to calculate it we have to
have constant cause;because we find no such constant causes
in actuality,we invent them for ourselves-the atoms.This is
the origin of Atomism".
Using an analogy,Nietzsche says;
"How much of a piece of music has been understood when that
in it which is calculable,and can be reduced to formulas has
been reckoned up?"
Nietzsche then goes on to compare the atom theory with;
"The famous old 'ego',our oldest article of faith.The atom is
a subjective fiction;precisely this necessary perspectivism
by virtue of which every centre of force-and not only
man-construes all the rest of the world from its own
viewpoint".[Nietzsche,'The Will to Power']

The atom then was part of the "metaphysical falsification of
the world",as seen by Nietzsche;
"One must declare war...against the 'atomistic need' which
still leads a dangerous after-life in places where no-one
suspects it,just like the more celebrated 'metaphysical
need';one must also,first of all,give the finishing stroke to
that other more calamitous atomism which Christianity has
taught best and longest,the 'soul atomism'".[BGE,12]

Before we start to hear the absolute relativism of a
Gorgias,we must remember that Nietzsche adhered to the
Pythagorean theory of the 'Eternal Recurrence of the
Same',and demonstrated a 'metaphysical need' in his first
principle of the 'will to power'.
Indeed,to Nietzsche the mistake of "the older atomism" was
that it "sought-besides the operating 'power',the material
particle wherein it resides and out of which it operates-the
atom".[BGE,17]
In other words the theory of power is enough;'atoms' and
what-not are superfluous.

Perhaps we should dwell here on the shifting of the 'tectonic
plates' of truth in terms of typifying theories;eg.,atomism
was long considered atheism par excellence;but to
Nietzsche,the 'Anti-Christian',atomism was a disguised 'soul
swindle',sneaked into the back-door of science in order to
prolong the death-throes of God.

All in all,atomism has shown itself to be the most powerful
metaphysic of the Presocratics.
B.Russell summed up as follows;
"By good luck,the Atomists hit on a hypothesis for which,more
than 2,000 years later,some evidence would be found,but their
belief,in their day was none the less destitute of any solid
foundation".

It is precisely here that the controversy rumbles on;to
Russell,solid foundation equals scientific foundation,not
philosophical.
But is physics any more 'solid' than metaphysics?



In section 13 of BGE Nietzsche affirms;

1.A philosophical method,
2.A philosophical perspective.

1.The method he affirms is scientific;he calls it,
"The method of the economy of principles".[BGE,13]
This should not be confused with "the principle of least effort,proposed by Galileo and Newton as a law of mechanics,which was also used by Avenarius and Mach as a basis for the formulation of adequacy for theories:of two conflicting theories,the one which requires least effort for its formulation and verification is the correct one".[Penguin Dict.Philos.]
Nietzsche's method is more akin to Ockham's razor.Nietzsche elaborates;
"Not to assume several kinds" of principles,"so long as the experiment of getting along with one has not been taken to its ultimate limits (-to the point of nonsense,if I may say so-)..." [BGE,36]
The word 'experiment' [German 'Versuch';attempt,try,trial,experiment] should be thought of in the sense of an 'attempt',or a 'trial';Indeed,in older usuage-for example "in Hume,the word experiment is used for any empirical observation"[Penguin,ib.]

2.The philosophical perspective is called a perspective,rather than a philosphical 'position',for reasons that should be clear to Nietzscheans;
"Perspectivism is the name that has been given to the view that there is no escaping the partial or perspectival restrictions of experience and knowledge.
What is denied in this claim is the possibility of a 'god's-eye view of the world,which would incorporate every possible perspective and not be perspectival itself.
The truth of certain scientific theories is NOT denied.
What IS denied is the view that science is the only perspective.
Science serves certain purposes but does not serve every purpose.
Nietzsche encouraged the trying of a variety of perspectives.
Nietzsche's perspectivism has been taken to absurd extremes,for instance by those who claim that Nietzsche rejected the very idea that any one perspective or 'interpretation' is better than any other,which he surely did NOT believe [witness his privileging of noble perspectives over slavish ones,attitudes to Classic art and culture etc.,].
If one sees perspectivism as a statement of LIMITS rather than a metaphysical claim as such,then it does not fall foul of the charges of inconsistency and the liar's paradox.Nietzsche's only response to those charges is:'So you want to insist that this too is interpretation-well so much the better!'".[Penguin,ib.-with some alterations by myself]
So Nietzsche's philosophical perspective is;
"Life as such is will to power".[BGE,13]
This is accompanied by a theory of the drives;
"A living thing desires above all to VENT its strength".[ib.]


Now,in section 13,Nietzsche clearly criticises the philosophical position known as 'teleology',where all things are viewed as aiming toward an end [from the Greek 'telos',purpose:the word was coined by the German rationalist philosopher Wolff,1679-1754].
Nietzsche says that this position has resulted the faulty theory of seeing life as having the sole 'purpose' of 'self-preservation'.

In his notes for his translation of 'Beyond Good and Evil',Hollingdale claims that Nietzsche is 'confused' here.He thinks that Nietzsche's perspective is actually a 'position',and that 'the will to power' is 'teleological through and through'.
So he charges Nietzsche not only with confusion,but also with inconsistency.

This seems based upon Hollingdale's distaste for Nietzsche's adopting of a scientific method [although we should be aware that "there are many passages where the word 'science' is derived from 'scientia',the Latin equivalent of the Greek 'episteme',and reserved for knowledge of what is necessarily the case.Such knowledge is acquired by rational intuition or by demonstration.This usuage goes back to Plato and Aristotle"(Penguin Dict.Philos.)].

The translator claims that one can only view the world from the position of 'cause' [mechanics],or 'purpose' [teleology] in science,and Nietzsche is ambivalent about both positions,at one point deriding them,and at other times utilising them for his own theory.
It seems that Hollingdale is suggesting an 'either/or' typical of 'antithetical values'.But even by a standard interpretation this is untenable;
"Aristotle distinguished four kinds of 'cause';
1)the material cause-the stuff out of which something is made,
2)the formal cause-that in vitue of which something is what it is,
3)the efficient cause-that which brings about a change,
4)the final cause-the purpose [telos] for the sake of which an action,a change or a thing comes about".[Penguin,ib.]
The final point illustrates that the difference between cause and purpose is not so clear cut.

Still,Hollingdale's is a serious objection,or at least it is until he makes the remark that Nietzsche's mistake is due to his applying his theories to the Universe,and according to Hollingdale,mechanics and teleology cannot be used in that context.
Clearly our translator has missed something!
And it doesn't take much searching to find what it is.

After his critique of teleology in section 13,sure enough,in section 21 we find Nietzsche attacking "the mechanistic stupidity".
To Hollingdale the philosopher has nowhere to go now;but read on further.
Nietzsche says that such theories [whether causal or teleological] ought only to be employed,"as pure CONCEPTS,that is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation,mutual understanding,NOT explanation".[BGE,21]
How could Hollingdale ignore that!

Just to show that Nietzsche has not adopted a perverse position,let's consult our dictionary again;
"Re:'Concept';it is important to note that 'true' and 'false' do not apply to concepts or terms.It is sentences,statements,propositions,beliefs,theories and doctrines that can be said to be true or false".[Penguin,ib.]

Nietzsche makes the matter clear when he goes on to tell us what the world is NOT;
"There is nothing of 'causal connection',of 'necessity',of 'psychological unfreedom',there 'the effect' DOES NOT 'follow the cause',there no 'law' rules".[BGE,21]

One can only speak of the non-human universe negatively because the universe is not here to be understood by us;as Einstein said,it is astounding that we know as much as we do about the universe,but even what we know is pitifully little.
Without our concepts we cannot even talk about what we don't know,let alone put forward what we think may be the case.
We must either be silent, and that includes nihilists who say NOTHING,or else attempt [Versuch] to say what WE think the world IS;
"It is WE alone who have fabricated causes,succession,relativity,compulsion,number,law,freedom,motive,purpose;and when we falsely introduce this world of symbols into things and mingle it with them as though this symbol-world were an 'in-itself',we once more behave as we have always behaved,namely MYTHOLOGICALLY".[BGE,21]

Mythology though,has much to tell us about our lives and cultures as Jung and Eliade have shown.We must not allow an all too human pessimism to poison our ability to conceptualise.

So Nietzsche posits 'the will to power',and calls it "MY theory",as applied to the world's "intelligible character" [BGE,36].
The world though,is for the MOST PART unintelligible;but to give up THERE is Nihilism.
To say what you think the world IS,that is perspectivism,that is affirmation;
"These are,after all,only MY truths".[BGE,231]

As one of Nietzsche's successors put it;
"I asked myself,what is the myth YOU are living?;and I found that I did not know.So,in the most natural way,I took it upon myself to get to know MY myth,and I regarded this as the task of tasks".[Jung]

Find your own myth and call that your truth.

SUPERMAN
Provisionally,it might be helpful to recall that Nietzsche claimed that Supermen [Overmen,Beyondmen,Surpassingmen] HAD appeared somewhat infrequently in the past,throughout history.

He said that they were 'nature's happy strokes',they had often appeared against the run of culture;they had often perished,squandring their gifts.

Nietzsche's idea was,how do we achieve the cultivation of such supermen,not by CHANCE,but by conscious endeavour?

If this could be done,a race of such men would so differentiate itself from homo sapiens,that it would become a separate species.

Just as apes are separated by evolution from man,and therefore unable to interbreed,so would the superman be to man.

This is an incredible project,where the once rare types would become,as he put it,'The Masters of the Earth'.