Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Dover Thrift Editions)
Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc $5 Albums Explore Premium Audio Fire TV Stick Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3 AnnedroidsS3  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis UniOrlando Segway miniPro

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on February 1, 2000
While Beyond Good and Evil is probably the quintessial Nitzschean piece, I would have to say Zimmern's translation lags behind Kaufmann's. Although her use of quaint Elizabethan English is charming, and her edition has a beautifully personal touch to it (Zimmern was Nietzsche's dinner companion and erstwhile friend), the mistakes in her translation, while subtle, detract from it, especially when precision of language is so important for reading this book. Go with Kaufmann.
33 comments|57 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 2, 2006
This book was good and very helpful to me. If you are looking to free your mind especially from organized religion it is very helpful. Nietzche to me was a prophet; he told the truth as it is with no fear. Dont beleive what they say about him; he is a good man; and seeks to help you empower yourself. He has long passed away now, but his works still apply to today; and his works are truely artistic. Be very patient reading this book, the truth of it sort of comes not the way you want it to. The truths in this book are scattered, so read it all the way through. I highly recommend this book for free spirited individuals.
0Comment|34 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 25, 2011
A lot of the additions are from extremely outdated translations...Nietzsche scholarship has come a long way since then and there are much better translations to read. Companies like to take public domain translations (no fees) and dress them up with pretty covers and make some money off of them. If you really don't care what kind of quality of translation you get, that is fine, but don't pay these weasals, just read it online...for free.tran
11 comment|41 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on July 18, 2011
By Samuel T Goldberg, MD, psychiatrist/psychoanalyst Columbia Maryland sglmn61@aol.com

In the early chapters of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche in effect wipes the slate clean, showing how previous philosophers and moralities were in their grasp inadequate. There is a "definite fundamental sch...eme of possible philosophies"(Aphorism 20), as there is of possible moralities (260), and particular philosphers and moralists merely fill in their respective places on these spectrums. Nietzsche offers a comprehensive critique of all such systems. The philosophers are unable to perceive even what in themselves wishes for truth, and they do not see that truth and virtue may in fact derive from deceptiveness and wickedness, which may be necessary functions for life itself. (Aph. 2-4) The will to truth may be merely a refinement of the will to ignorance. (24) Certain falsehoods may be nourishing and necessary physiologically. Deceptive appearance is necessary for life itself. (34) In a voice of irony, he acknowledges that we might need mathematical science, despite its falsehood. Philosophers and scientists wish to impose their morality, their ideal, their concepts on nature out of their pride, wishing to appropriate nature. Less the truthfulness of their concepts than this underlying will to power motivates the self-deceptively put "will to truth".

It is but an old moral prejudice that truth is worth more than appearance, or even that there is in reality any opposition between "truth" and "falsehood" at all. They may be merely shades of the same thing, "degrees of appearance".(34) The very existence of "stuff" or matter that underlies the "real world" is highly doubtful. Likewise, even the basic assumptions of a unitary "self" that thinks, of an "I", is also but an old falsifying superstition to which we cling for comfort and vanity. Again, " free will" being an illusion shows the importance of intentionality to be illusory. "The decisive value of an intention lies precisely in what is unintentional in it." (32) In this, he anticipates psychoanalysis.

Thinking about and questioning morality is itself immoral. (228) We have, after all, pluripotential access within to every barbarism(223). Morals, we've discovered, are a mere phenomenon of nature, not absolute nor above nature; there are no universal goods or values (194).Our modern "scientific", historic, scholarly observations and evaluations of all moralities and cultures, then, puts us in the position at best of being parodists of all moralities, undermining every one.(223) Our "transcendent" position is empty. Thus, our intrinsic, physiological aggression (will to power), manifested as "scientific skepticism", has relentlessly critiqued all that we loved or worshipped, utterly destroying each in turn. Having diagnosed our new condition, that we have assassinated not only the "old soul concept", ie, the "subject", showing that it is a questionable mere appearance as much as the "object", Nietzsche then sketches out the grim consequences . We have sacrificed ourselves, reality, finally even God himself, leaving us with only the Nothing to worship, "the final cruelty."(55) Recognizing that there is no objective foundation for morality in the world, that there is no universal moral law (186) , that the inner essence of nature and man is no more than raw will to power, instills profound pessimism. The truth that there is no truth may be deadly, as Leo Strauss put it. It is better that only few people realize that there is no truth; the general propogation of this insight could be calamitous; Thus, it is good that the study of morality is boring. (228) Can there nevertheless somehow be life-affirmation from this insight? Finding or asserting this seems a principle goal of Nietche's.

The strength of drives per se, of the will to power, which includes the capacity to sublimate, train and cultivate that raw will to higher forms of "spirituality", may be a way out. But, without any absolute nor objective standard from any source other than the one who wills, the ultimate value of what is willed can derive only from the source of will itself; it is self-posited. The one who wills most strongly creates values, creates the orientation of better and worse, and need not refer nor resort to any standard independently of his own nobility. Nietszche seems to celebrate this, but he recognizes the dangers, describing even proto-Nazism (208). The "philosopher of the future" , with these insights in hand, creates truth and value, rules and legislates, becoming himself the telos of mankind .(211) Man is both creature and Creator(225), in the image of God most literally; man created God in his own image. The"philosopher of the future" extends the sphere of his responsibility to include the all; he might undertake "audacious and painful experiments" that "the softhearted and the effeminate tastes of democracy could not approve... They will be harder (and perhaps not always only against themselves) than humane people might wish." (210) He raises the question: Is cruelty itself a good, merely a necessity, or merely to be recognized as a primary reality of nature, or of life?

Men and values are not equal, and according to the self-posited valuation of the great men, since they are themselves the Whither and Wherefore of mankind, what is right for one is hardly fair for all. Exploitation of others might be necessary; As opposed to Kant's moral imperative, by which each human consciousness must be only regarded always as an end in itself, never a means, this new morality, truer to the nature of things, unhinged from any absolute, has all lower men as only means to the ends of the men with the strongest wills. We can see how this is a "dangerous" book, which, if misinterpreted or misrepresented, as in fact it was for political ends by some Germans in the 1930's, might be used to pervert Nietcszche, making him seem to promote the worst outrages, when in fact he was merely the sad herald.
11 comment|7 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on December 24, 2008
If you have not read this I must ask why. Then I must ask you to ask yourself why. Anything by Nietzche is not just interesting and a learning experience, it is hillarious as well. despite the label of being a nihlist, given by people who never read him or disagree with him, Nietzche has a profound insight to life that is actually quite joyous-not just in this work but in general. I suggest every book he has, mind you I am biased as I was a philosophy major and had to read him anyway, bvut I had read him befor that too. It's worth it to buy this alone or better yet buy a collected works that includes his other work as well.
0Comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on February 16, 1999
Nietzsche never advocated any sort of morality as "good morality", nor did he encourage the creation of a "best possible society" by use of a certain morality. Nor is that what this book is about. (Nor did he propose the creation of a new moral standard: his good/evil versus good/bad antithesis is an analysis; Nietzsche was a philosopher, not an ideologue, moralist, or politician). Moreover, he did not find moral complacency to be the greatest fault of his time: rather, the mental complacency and lack of intellectual integrity displayed by many academics and "philosophers." Nietzsche here tries to analyze a range of issues and exposes in the most surprising ways numerous relationships, psychological insights, and types of morality, personality, and so forth. The aphoristic style is not a reflection of discontinuity: it is an embodiment of Nietzsche's ideal of constant questioning. These are thought experiments which develop ideas in unexpected ways, ideas which are retraced through the entire work. It has structure and continuity for those who know how to find it. The book has some faults and a few remarks which strike the reader as unnecessary drivel: but what great work doesn't? Whether we agree with it or not, like it or dislike it, until we are great critics or philosophers, we have no excuse for giving less than 5 stars to one of the greatest books of all time.
0Comment|10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 27, 2003
Beyond Good and Evil from the start is a book concerning moral philosophy. The title leads the prospective reader to believe that Nietzsche is dealing essentially with ethical issues, but the scope of the text is much broader, encompassing reflections on religion, and current affairs.
Beyond Good and Evil opens with a section on the `Prejudices of Philosophers', in this he under takes a critique of the philosophical traditions. Unlike previous philosophers, Nietzsche does not select an issue or notion and analyze it, in the process distinguishing his views from those of the previous writers and erecting a body of concepts that form a system of thought. Instead he calls into question the very basis of philosophizing. His targets are philosophers themselves. He claims that philosophers merely pose as persons seeking the truth.
Nietzsche considers religion as `neurosis', it involves an unnatural self-denial and sacrifice. He is not unaware of the advantages that religion brought to human society, even as it has debases human nature. He believes it has helped create a variable social order. By demanding we love each other. However his attitude towards religion is that it represents a stage in human development that must be over come.
Beyond Good and Evil is not an easy task to read. I admit that there are parts of this I I had trouble understanding and often it was a frustrating read.
11 comment|9 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 18, 2008
I have come to this book late in life after seeing it quoted and referenced more than a hundred times, and at first reading, I was quite under whelmed, almost disappointed. I still personally do not care for the style. However, after taking into account the context of the times in which it was written, and the fact the Nietzsche was a student of Schopenhauser, a friend of Richard Wagner and received his Phd at 25, I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. He appeared on the scene during really heady times.

With all of this, this book along with three of his others (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, The Genealogy of Morals, and The Will to Power (published after his death)), almost single-handed erected the fundamental pillars of modern existentialism and propelled us into the post-modern world. BGE probably still remains one of the most penetrating and passionate (if not a somewhat scattered) forays into the meaning and structure of mainstream existentialism. While certainly not as organized and refined as a Sartre, or as artistic as a Camus, Nietzsche nevertheless makes his points with deep emotions and with deep passion, with a great deal of subtly and some much needed humor. In today's world where philosophy (with a few notable exceptions, like Cornel West) is sterile and philosophers are just barely "undead," this in itself is worth a lot.

I broke one of my cardinal rules of not reading reviews before I read or review a book, and unfortunately for me I did it at a time when there are some very good reviews on this book. I am finding it difficult to add anything to the discussion.

So I will simply point out to other prospective readers to be aware that this is a most spirited attack on the conventional philosophy of Nietzsche's day (around the turn of the 19th century), especially on the notion that philosophy like mathematics, is a synthetic, wholly logical and rational discipline. It also does not spare religion, and rightly so. Nietzsche chops feet right from under these somewhat pretentious and pseudo-rational and pseudo-moral areas, exposing them both as being hollow and mostly subjective and consensus-based.

In doing so he tried, as did his mentor Arthur Schopenhauser, to get to the core of what makes man tick. It was Schopenhauser who put forth the notion of man's "will to live" as being central to his existence. Nietzsche tried to improve on this, giving it what he thought was a more optimistic interpretation with his "will to power." But that formulation presented, and still presents problems. Despite this, it is worth mentioning if only in passing that contemporary formulations (in psychology mostly) have not improved much on Nietzsche's version, and here I refer to Alfred Adler's "will to achieve," or Ernest Becker's "self-esteem machine," or his "man's prosperity project," etc.

Here in one collection of aphorisms is the grand summation of Nietzsche's work.

Five Stars
11 comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 29, 1996
Nietzsche's philosophy is a testament to unflinching human endeavour in the face of adversity. 'Beyond Good and Evil' is a superb exposition of some of the central themes of his philosophy.

The book as a whole is extremely hard to understand, due in
part to Nietzche's view that the greatest products of human
art and literature will necessarily be understandable only
by the greatest of men (the superman perhaps, or one who
strives to be such). However, it is at least as accessible as
any other piece he produced. The book is amusing throughout,
with many passages of great humour. Yet the counter-point of
Nietzsche's own personal hates, and the inner-anger that rests
beneath the surface of the meaning he conveys, create a wonderful
insight into the psychology of a prophet who was not only
unrecognised in his own land, but also throughout the
civilised world.

In summary, if you read one book by Nietzsche it should be this.
0Comment|8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 14, 2014
Readers, please be advised - this is NOT an PROPER edition. It's just a HOMEMADE version of Nietzsche's book. The cover is blurry, there is no copyright info and it just looks and feel cheap. I hope the text is complete and correct, but there is no way to tell. I'm sure it's a great book and I'll enjoy it, but the format is just horrible.
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.