KARL JASPERS FORUM

TA63 (Leslie / Rees)

Commentary 32 (to C28, Müller)

( EVOLUTION, NIETZSCHE, AND THE BIBLE )
by Glenn C Wood
24 January 2004, posted 7 February 2004

<1>
Just a quick and loose note here before getting involved in a building project. "Discomfort" is probably not the correct word for describing the relatively minor time and space devoted to "evolution" by KJ. Things should be seen in holistic -- not whole-ism -- perspective. Evolutionism during Nietzsche's time was not analyzed in ways similar to what HM has done in C28. It's my unsubstantial (for the moment) guess that in KJ's judgement the pop-culture popular influence of Nietzsche had done enough damage such as the misuse of his out-of-context views by the Nazi regime. It is more a situation of KJ being responsible as an influential person. Even more though it is KJ's in-depth effort to comprehend the whole Nietzsche in so far as possible and from the psychopathologist's experienced perspective. This comprehension and analysis shows that for Nietzsche "life is not a struggle for existence ... rather a struggle for power ..." That was and is my position regarding evolutionism too, i.e.; it has been and can be used in the struggle for power. Seeing that though is difficult for the strugglers because it would amount to a confession that it's not science but the quest for power.

<2>
Perhaps Kaufmann's objective approach is too narrow in his analysis. Here the biographical sketches of subjects is of utmost importance as KJ has pointed out in his General Psychopathology. For instance if one relates Nietzsche's works with historical events, such as the disease-epidemic of the period, and his personal relationships, plus identify with his normal urges, it is obvious why Nietzsche would exploit a form of evolutionism. Kaufmann has provided some useful translations but interpretations are suspect and don't indicate street-wisdom regarding passion.

<3>
I'm referring to Nietzsche's relationship with Lou Andreas-Salome. She was the female member of Freud's Vienna Circle, but before that, when she first met Nietzsche, she was involved in working on the dynamics of morals. It is not surprising then that a pursuer might preclude with a system of his own such as a work on the genealogy of morals just to break down her own system of resistance (remember that photo of Lou in the cart holding a whip and Nietzsche pulling like a horse?).

<4>
Nietzsche's (N) "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" is the child of this hoped for relationship, I think. One's work can be sublimated creativity and a substitute for unrequited love -- a surrogate child. Several years ago I was considering writing a novel about this relationship for that was the only way it could really be handled, for N cannot be interviewed. In downtown Santa Fe NM while walking with my daughter I caught a glimpse of a book in a book-store window. It bore a title something like "N's love affair with Solome." I said to my daughter: "Look, I don't believe it, someone beat me to it."

<5>
Another passing comment. The comment about monotheism has seemingly ignored the significance of the meaningful side of absurdity, while the fact that absurdity too leaks through naturalism/ evolutionism seems to have been unestimated. It seems to me preferable to have the absurd straining through the fine filiment of the historical records than through results of the education industrie's struggle for power. But that will have to be addressed later. The overall impression of C28 is that it's an effort to justify superimposing evolutionism over the Bible to bury something of historic and imperative value, and to do so by finding one authoritative witness while diminishing the significance of KJ.

----------------------------------

Glenn C Wood