Customer Reviews

On Nietzsche

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

No disrespect intended, but the above review's take on this text was just so radically different than how I read it that I felt compelled to make a few comments. Bataille is in some sense writing "on Nietzsche", but more/instead of that he is using Nietzsche's work to explore the dynamics of communication and the limits of language, to question at a very fundamental level whether communication is even possible and if so how it takes place. In this exploration, of course, pain, suffering, loss, lack, desire, etc. all come into play, as they must since this is a work of Bataille's. But to speak of this pain as "sadistic" might be misleading... for (to essentialize perhaps too much) Bataille's "argument" centers more on what the individual must do to itself, its own subjectivity, in order to even approach community. When one inflicts pain on onesself, is that sadism? Masichism? The intense introspectivity of this work, much in tune with Nietzsche's, opens the door for the destruction of these very types of subject/object relationships, perhaps even to the point of obliterating the categories altogether. So despite the biographical and stylistic quirks of the author, which some might find troubling, others amusing, others entirely inconsequential, and yet others absolutely essential to the questions at hand (a la F.N.), ON NIETZSCHE is quite a provoking work if any of the issues mentioned are of concern.

*On Nietzsche* really isn't a book explaining the philosophy of Nietzsche, but a personal meditation on Nietzsche's influence on Georges Bataille's own manner of thinking and living. For Bataille, it must be understood, thinking and living are inextricable; philosophy must be tested against life, and life--inner and outer--provides the raw material for philosophy. Bataille is no armchair theorist. So it is that a good portion of *On Nietzsche* consists of fragmentary entries from Bataille's own 1944 diaries which illustrated, more or less, his struggle to embody the thrust of Nietzsche's thought--the thrust of it, because Nietzsche, in Bataille's view, is a thinker who points the way beyond himself and into mankind's future. Bataille attempts to take up the torch and carry it further forward into the darkness of the not-yet-and-never-to-be-known. His method, if you want to call it that, is to leave himself open to "chance."

Well, it's something like that.

Bataille takes Nietzsche's work as a template rather than doctrine, a method for a never-ending and open-ended inquiry into what it is to be human, which in itself is a concept that is forever developing.

Bataille is often difficult reading and *On Nietzsche* is no exception. His thinking tends to turn repeatedly in on itself until you feel as if your brain is tied up into some sort of neural Gordian knot. He is also prone to verbal flights of fancy that seem a vestige of his surrealist days--he's a philosopher always straining for the inexpressible. It's all part of the appeal of Bataille, if you find that appealing. Some, most notably Jean-Paul Sartre, did not. And called Bataille a mystic, not a philosopher at all. This, coming from Sartre, was not a compliment. It strikes me that Bataille, like Jung, considered subjective states of mind as objective facts inasmuch as they are every bit as influential over us as any other objective phenomenon. So the concept "God," for instance, has a "truth" regardless of whether an actual God exists or not.

I found the first part of *On Nietzsche* to be the most coherent and most compelling part of the book. Here Bataille presents his radical theory that communication depends on an act of violence--the infliction of a sacrificial wound that breaks our own autonomy and the autonomy of another. The crucifixion of Christ being the highest example of this principle--facilitating the communication of God and Man. This transgression, which serves to make us human, thus illustrates the necessity--indeed the good--of evil.

The rest of *On Nietzsche*--the diary entries--I found much less compelling, often incomprehensibly fragmented, and of interest primarily for the copious excerpts Bataille reproduces from Nietzsche's *Gay Science* and *The Will to Power.* Bataille makes some enlightening observations in this section regarding his take on Nietzsche and, as always, provokes with the occasional stunning and illuminating aphorism, but, on the whole, I didn't feel *On Nietzsche* was one of Bataille's best works. Certainly it isn't the book I'd recommend for first time Bataille readers. *Erotism* would make a better--and more readable--choice of his nonfiction work, or, maybe, something like *The Impossible.*

But for those already familiar with Bataille, his general train of thought, and his idiosyncratic way of philosophizing, *On Nietzsche* provides a light into some of the deeper, though not the deepest, workings of Bataille's subversive oeuvre

So for those who aren't overly concerned with Bataille, with proto-Deconstruction, or French literary theory in general, I would bump this rating down to four stars. As other reviewers have indicated, this text relies less on a point by point textual exegesis of Nietzsche's oeuvre, and more on a particular reading of Nietzsche which may or may not be obfuscated by the appropriation of Nietzsche by the National socialism. Bataille's Acephale group had for one of its task the safeguarding of Nietzsche from a explicitly fascist interpretation. Thus Bataille's presentation of what appear to be simply journal reflections written during the tumultuous wartime years at the end of the occupation of Paris seem indicate a way of reading Nietzsche that moves past rigid political conepts the of mid-20th century Europe. This is a childlike Nietzsche of play, rather than the strictly lion-like Nietzsche of Heidegger who offers only the will to power as the last epoch closing possibility of Western metaphysics. Derrida indeed takes up the thread of this reading, and, in my opinion, deconstruction distinctly emerges from out of an attempt to approach Nietzsche in this manner.

It's a real puzzle: why we are compelled to spend our time in the ways that we do. So rarely, we do not question the reason behind our activities, the "why" surrounding it all. But it is hard to back off from our presuppositions; namely, our penchant for being recognized. And so I begin typing a "re-view" of this book, without quite knowing "why" outside of the fact of being-compelled. And, also, because to come to a work like Bataille's is to be compelled beyond one's knowing why, I think... for it ushers us out of the realm of "utility."

When we write or communicate, we never do so in total abstraction. Sure, I'm not sure who you are. But (bear with me), neither do you! The question surrounding Bataille's work is the question of communication and what it is to be a "me" with regards to it. His answer seems simple on the surface: communication is only achievable when being is put at risk, or surrendered to chance. This is a good thing to emphasize when it comes to reading his work in general: there is no use to it outside the putting-at-risk of being qua communication. Jean-Luc Nancy writes of "learning" Nietzsche as communication in this profound sense, outside language-as-reference, or outside thinking as a system of propositions, or philosophy as a set of truth statements: to learn Nietzsche is to have an experience at heart, to share something of, or touch upon, a certain kind of experience, despite apparent contradictions in its expression. As Bataille shows, such contradictions are inherent to the expression ("I'm overjoyed, ruined finally..."). This is precisely what Bataille "does" here: he puts into practice an intuition similar to Nietzsche's (which Nietzsche formulated variously as the death of God, the devaluing of values, the end of grand narratives, the failure of national, political, or economic end-oriented projects, etc.): this is an experience of the absence of community.

Now, there's no getting around it, this is a difficult book, especially the theoretical section "Summit and Decline" which is a paper Bataille gave in front of the likes of Sartre, Hippolyte, Marcel, etc. But intellectional/cognitive cogency is decidedly not the point here, and this book is "sublime" to the extent that it causes these faculties pause and reorganization. To read this work is, in my opinion, to put the very "I" of "your" self at risk (i.e. it is sheer trauma or sacrifice, where both executioner and victim are sacrificed at once); to read this work is to read it as if you yourself were writing it, to be with it like a moment of your own journal. To gloss over a sentence Bataille wrote about anguish, or impalement (Zen), etc., looking for his argument or the logic behind it is totally "worthless"-- unless all of your experience and all of your being can, in a sense, "inhabit" the experience he tries to put to words-- which, make no mistake, would be an exhibition, your exhibition. Anyways, no one could convince you of that, especially not me; but if it's you, I think you'll find that it holds true. The ultimate word for Bataille seems to be "friendship," and I don't hesitate to say that he is a friend of mine, in the same way that Nietzsche was a friend to Bataille (I'm trying to be friendly in the same way... and also: it's urgent). But this criteria of friendship is also the basis for a real heterogeneity; the difference in tone between Bataille and Nietzsche does nothing to diminish their kinship, but establishes it. These works proceed from a crisis that oscillates around joyful freedom (in Bataille's lingo, an anguish that circulates around an ecstasy, where the two transform into one another, etc.); and I don't think that it's being unfair to say that those who have experienced similar crises will find a greater companionship than those who approach this book as a work of philosophy. Or, these works might induce crises-- who knows?-- in whoever is ready, or vulnerable. I think of these works as "direct addresses" whereby I address myself, redress myself, and readdress myself. If I'm not at stake, it's worth nothing; or rather, if I try to make this work "worth something," I've missed the whole point, and it won't reach me the way it could've. It's a real challenge to risk it all (it's not just me that I'd be putting at risk if I did); but for me to say "me" after reading such a work is to have opened a new potential for saying "we." Not incidentally, this is the justification for the plethora of Nietzsche quotes in this book: it's a shared expression, totally, just as it's the traces of something "inexpressible," which is not to say it's without translatability. To open this book randomly, to instantly refer the sentence you stumble upon to an event in your life seemingly removed from it, to allow the "synchronicity" of these juxtaposed glances to inform each other, and to come out the other end of it changed, yet without direction... I think that is the whirlwind ecstasy of risk/chance and non-knowledge that Bataille is indicating, and it situates us in otherness, as otherness, where what's other is the origin of the world...

This book "brings to completion" Bataille's Summa Atheologic: the trilogy of "Inner Experience," "Guilty," and "On Nietzsche." It is helpful to think of them as one struggle, which was for Bataille precisely the struggle to communicate an experience (is it so different from what I am doing here?). This struggle brings him to the limits of language and likewise to the limits of communicating an experience "through words," as well as all the challenges that come with having a "project" as ambitious as communicating ones whole being. What endears me to Bataille is his honesty and his willingness to share (in a surprisingly literary way) all of his failures along the way. The twists and turns are truly human-- humanity at the extremity of being-human. I write with encouragement for this volume and his work in general because of it's honesty and its potential to be a kind of "companion"-- driving you mad as well as easing your madness, often in the same stroke/strike.

Jean-Luc Nancy has coined a term for philosophy: "Excription." It is what 'cannot be read' in a writing, what can't be inscribed, what lies entirely outside the realm of signification (i.e. in bodies, "only"). The word comes from his deep engagement with Bataille's work. The reference of the text is never in the text; when Bataille says "me," or when I read "me," he says nothing but being, that is to say, he says "me." He is "speaking me," not "speaking to me." In a way, that's utterly stupid: in fact, impossible. But that, precisely, would be the point. Nothing is rendered when reading this work other than yourself; it rends you, and your reaction to it says more about you than it says about anything else (there is nothing to say anything about other than you, which is what makes this communication so difficult...).

Alas, as Bataille writes: "The greatest, most certain love doesn't prevent you from being the butt of infinite laughter. Such love can be likened to an utterly demented music, an ecstatic lucidity" (p 61).

bataille's "on nietzsche" is at times incomprehensible and far too much like the author talking to himself than the reader, but it is nonetheless a must-read by any standards. like heidegger, at times we find ourselves lost and simply not knowing what the hell he is talking about, but every once in awhile we achieve a moment of understanding that made all the mental confusion and frustration worth it and then some. bataille takes the death of transcendence to the ultimate conclusion, absolute meaninglessness and hedonism, reaching far different conclusions than nietzsche did about how the individual should live in the absence of any underlying metaphysical meaning. indeed, bataille, while many see him as a kind of modern nietzsche, might be called an anti-nietzschean in that he not only rejected the idea of 'the superman' but, through his novels and philosophical works, created characters for whom the ideas of discipline and so called 'becoming' flew out the window along with any sense of morality or sanctity. bataille says, 'ah, to hell with some future! the future no longer exists, anyway', and the frightening thing is that for a moment we are tempted to say it with him. as with all of bataille's work the intensity of his aggressive amorality is chilling, but it is perhaps among the best literature ever written if we want to gain insight into the nature of the intelligent rebel and the sadean libertine. to make a long story short, read it.

bataille's "on nietzsche" is at times incomprehensible and far too much like the author talking to himself than the reader, but it is nonetheless a must-read by any standards. like heidegger, at times we find ourselves lost and simply not knowing what the hell he is talking about, but every once in awhile we achieve a moment of understanding that made all the mental confusion and frustration worth it and then some. bataille takes the death of transcendence to the ultimate conclusion, absolute meaninglessness and hedonism, reaching far different conclusions than nietzsche did about how the individual should live in the absence of any underlying metaphysical meaning. indeed, bataille, while many see him as a kind of modern nietzsche, might be called an anti-nietzschean in that he not only rejected the idea of 'the superman' but, through his novels and philosophical works, created characters for whom the ideas of discipline and so called 'becoming' flew out the window along with any sense of morality or sanctity. bataille says, 'ah, to hell with some future! the future no longer exists, anyway', and the frightening thing is that for a moment we are tempted to say it with him. as with all of bataille's work the intensity of his aggressive amorality is chilling, but it is perhaps among the best literature ever written if we want to gain insight into the nature of the intelligent rebel and the sadean libertine. to make a long story short, read it.

although i certainly appreciate the above reader's take on bataille's work, there really aren't that many parallels between georges bataille and friedrich nietzsche. they have a distinctly different writing style, very different ideas, and almost diametrically opposed visions of the future. (i would also say, although this would be nothing more than a personal opinion, that in terms of the quality of his prose work, bataille is nowhere near nietzsche's league, however much we may debate the legitimacy or merit of nietzsche's controversial ideas.) while bataille is more about apocalypse and exploring the possibilities of extreme decadence, nietzsche was about nothing of the sort. indeed, he would have in all likelihood abhorred bataille's work, and more than likely written him off as a "decadent" of the worst kind, although i would certainly not agree. the similarities are small, if any indeed exist at all. while nietzsche will certainly have a place in history as one of the greatest philosophers to ever live, it would not surprise me if bataille faded into obscurity, as shock value lessens as sensibilities become more hardened.