Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies
Nietzsche and Objectivism

Unit Four: April 17 - May 14

Discussion by Chris Sciabarra and Kevin Hill
of Eyal Mozes' Review Essay
on the Relationship Between the Philosophies
of Friedrich Nietzsche and Ayn Rand

To: TOC Cyberseminar <cybersem@objectivistcenter.org>

Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2000 9:44 PM

Subject: Cyberseminar: Re: E Mozes Pt. 4 review essay

[From: Chris Matthew Sciabarra ]

Just a note on my initial claims in RUSSIAN RADICAL (that the evidence for
Rand's "Nietzschean phase" is inconclusive)...

I think that the early journal notes show Nietzsche's INFLUENCE much more
than anyone first noticed--even Peikoff now admits that influence was much
deeper than first thought. As to whether or not this adds up to a bona fide
Nietzschean "phase" is anyone's guess. But clearly, the influence of
Nietzsche runs deep right through THE FOUNTAINHEAD, wherein Rand once wanted
to preface each chapter with a quote from Nietzsche. Even her characters
were drawn with Nietzschean imagery in mind.

But much earlier works, especially those showcased in the Journals, exhibit
a profound "Nietzschean" hatred of the masses (note, for instance, her
story, THE SKYSCRAPER where, as I say in my essay on Rand scholarship,
"workers who refuse to labor on a sabotaged, unsafe building site are
ordered to do so by the protagonist at the point of a gun" -- clearly not
something the later Rand would have been comfortable with.)

I think David Kelley has it right when he says that Rand never quite accepts
an aristocratic philosophy, but there are these problematic passages in her
early fiction (see also THE LITTLE STREET) that suggest an almost violent
elitism. (--one of the reasons, I'm sure, that the more damaging passages
were edited out prior to the second edition of WE THE LIVING. This was not
purely stylistic "editorial line-changes," in my view, as Rand claimed.) I
discuss all of these issues in my review essay, "A Renaissance in Rand
Scholarship," from REASON PAPERS, online at:

http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/essays/rprev.htm

In that essay, I also discuss certain points raised by Douglas Den Uyl in
his book, THE FOUNTAINHEAD: AN AMERICAN NOVEL, where he draws some very
provocative parallels between Nietzsche and Rand on the "deconstruction" of
altruism.

Ultimately, I think Rand imbued Nietzschean imagery with her own values that
stressed reason. But to think of Nietzsche as a mere asterisk in her
evolution violates my own intuitive sense of his impact on her life and
thought. Yes, she found her own unique voice -- but some of her
accomplishments still came on the shoulders of those who came before her,
Nietzsche among the most important of these. Seeing how she crafted and
digested the work of her predecessors, in fact, is one of the most
interesting aspects of her intellectual legacy.

Cheers,
Chris
=====================================
Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Visiting Scholar
NYU Department of Politics
715 Broadway
New York, New York 10003-6806
Frequent Updates:
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sciabarra/update.htm
=====================================

*****************************************************
Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies

email: cybersem@objectivistcenter.org

All Cyberseminar posts are working papers with copyright
reserved to the author. They may not be published or adapted
without permission, but may be circulated for purposes of
scholarly discussion.

*****************************************************

To: TOC Cyberseminar <cybersem@objectivistcenter.org>

Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 1:52 PM

Subject: Cyberseminar: Re: E Mozes Pt. 4 review essay

[From: Kevin Hill ]

I wanted to report my essential agreement with Chris on the "Nietzsche
influence" issue, while elaborating on it a bit.

At this late date, there is *still* no scholarly consensus on how Nietzsche
is to be read or understood, though there is a growing awareness of the
tremendous, often subterranean influence he has had on twentieth century
thought. Given Nietzsche's elusiveness and suggestiveness, I think that
trying to understand Nietzsche in terms of a list of core commitments, in
terms of a reconstructed "Nietzscheanism", while of value in making sense of
Nietzsche, is not the best way to gauge whether or not a particular figure
went through a Nietzscheanism phase." I think that a more profitable way of
conceptualizing the matter is: how much *attention* did the thinker devote
to Nietzsche, and in what ways did that attention shape what the thinker
thought, said or wrote on various subjects? Kaufmann mentions the following
people as having Nietzsche preoccupations: Thomas Mann, Rilke, Gottfried
Benn, Malraux, Gide, Sartre, Camus, Shaw, Eugene O'Neill, Freud, Jung,
Spengler, Mencken and many others. Whatever it was that, for example,
Sartre, Freud and Spengler took away from Nietzsche *couldn't* be remotely
the same things--they are so drastically different from each other.

The fact is that until fairly recently, the impact Nietzsche has had on most
people who later develop their own thought is the impact of someone who
presents a general stance of "epater le bourgeois" coupled with occasionally
very romantic moods, and a vast profusion of psychological, cultural and
historical insights, with underlying hints of "system" and a handful of
recurring themes. Nietzsche has occasionally induced something like an
attempt at dogmatic "Nietzscheanism"--this was the stance of the Oscar Levy
group in the UK--the first British Nietzsche circle (and I think that
Objectivists could learn something about Objectivism as a social and
historical phenomenon, past and future, by examining the evolution of
English-speaking interest in Nietzsche from Levy to the present--the Levy
group is *very* reminiscent of those Other Objectivists in style and
sensibility...)

We can only speculate on how much time Rand clocked in reading Nietzsche and
what effect it had on her. But I still feel confident that during a
formative and impressionable period, the time spent was enormous. By
contrast, I see little or no evidence of an extensive reading of Aristotle
or Kant during a formative period. I guess I would summarize what I suspect
by saying that Rand figured out who she was and where she stood by wrestling
primarily with Nietzsche (and claims that one had a certain mature view
"from the very beginning"--or at least that view in ovo--are so common in
intellectual history that I think they can be discounted as nothing more
than "I was on the road that led to *here* from the moment I started
walking" which is trivially true). By contrast, praise and blame attached
to, say, Aristotle and Kant were ways of personifying attitudes towards sets
of ideas that Rand had formed independently (I suspect). If it is true--and
I don't deny it--that Rand never felt herself in full agreement with
Nietzsche, this was a very different kind of intellectual relationship from
that which she had toward most other philosophers with whom she disagreed.
Though the _We the Living_ passage is telling in its own way, I think at
least as significant in this regard is Rand's quoting, then deleting, then
restoring the passage from _Beyond Good and Evil_ "The noble soul has
reverence for itself" as a motto for the _Fountainhead_. I suggest we reread
that preface, and try to imagine what it would be like to write it. In
effect: this quote used to strike me as a perfect expression of what I was
trying to say, but it comes with a bunch of baggage that I must very
strongly reject. But I feel secure enough in my own stance toward things now
(and my originality) that I can now restore it with appropriate provisos...
If I am reading that right, then Rand's relationship with Nietzsche was not
that different from the relationship that many *literary* figures had toward
him--a powerfully seductive, powerfully suggestive source of a wealth of
ideas, from which one must, at some point, get some distance in order to
realize the very Nietzschean command: become who you are! In this sense,
Rand was faithful to the core of Nietzsche's thought: that he wanted there
to be extraordinary people who, in part through an encounter with his
writings, formed themselves into productive and *original* thinkers.

[Kevin Hill]


*****************************************************
Spring 2000 Cyberseminar in Objectivist Studies

email: cybersem@objectivistcenter.org

All Cyberseminar posts are working papers with copyright
reserved to the author. They may not be published or adapted
without permission, but may be circulated for purposes of
scholarly discussion.

*****************************************************