It is well-known that Nietzsche hated Socrates—there is a whole chapter in Twilight of the Idols, one of Nietzsche’s books, about this, called “The Problem of Socrates.” In this chapter, Nietzsche calls Socrates, among other things, ugly, and questions whether Socrates was even a real Greek.
I assume you have Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist by Walter Kaufmann. In chapter 13, there's a whole discussion on Nietzsche's attitude toward Socrates that Kaufmann describes as ambiguous. He quotes Oscar Wilde's "All Men Kill the Thing They Love..." as the starting point for thinking about how Nietzsche related to Socrates.
Kaufmann defends his view that Nietzsche admired Socrates all of his life. Even his last book, Ecce Homo, is salutatory toward Socrates.
I'll mention what jumped at me here rather than discussing all the details Kaufmann goes through. I find it odd that Nietzsche despised the dialectical method when so much of his writing is dialectic, i.e., Apollo vs Dionysus. My hunch is that Nietzsche despises how the dialectical method can be used to undermine all kinds of arguments without really getting to the truth. After all, for Nietzsche, there is no truth to discover. Socrates' question-and-answer method, at best, exposes ignorance rather than getting at the truth. All Socrates did was show how those know-it-alls in his time weren't that clever but quite ignorant. Nietzsche sees this as a way of avoiding taking risks yourself. The Socratic method doesn't inspire action; it illuminates how you might be wrong. One could get stuck forever deliberating the finer points, the very approach that Nietzsche abhorred of academic vivisectionists whose lives were completely unhistorical yet pored endlessly over minutia. Nietzsche is a gadfly to the German philosophy and culture of his time, but he profoundly resents being nothing more than just that.
On a personal note, I recall as a seventeen year old how I was a huge fan of Guns n Roses. At that time, I was moderately religious, so I had a hard time seeing Axl Rose perform with a t-shirt that read "Kill Your Idol" with Jesus' face on it. Of course, one might ask what a moderately religious person is doing listening to Guns n Roses. I wanted to rebel and found an outlet to express that rebellion. I was not prepared for the boundaries that rebellion pushes. A compartmentalised life is anathema to Nietzsche. Many religious people secretly love things that are proscribed and somehow live a life of duality. Nietzsche was constantly amazed at the saints who destroyed that duality but at the cost of a life-denying existence. And that's the problem with Socrates, it gives you this detached viewpoint without requiring commitment or risks. I imagine Nietzsche wanted his hero to give the Athenian court the middle finger and say if you want my life you're going to have to take it and then plan an escape and live dangerously. But to take the hemlock as he did, Nietzsche must have thought that to be so lame as to roll over and die. Where was the life-affirming defiance? That, I think, irked Nietzsche more than anything.
Very excellent comment, thank you! You're right that there is so much that is dialectical in Nietzsche--Apollo vs Dionysus right from the start in Birth of Tragedy; and The Gay Science (gaiety/lightness and science/heaviness/wisdom coming together to form a new unity). Those are just two examples. But it's everywhere. Nietzsche said at one point that "Socrates, to confess it frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight a fight against him." He was always struggling with, and against, the dialectic. But Nietzsche always fought most bitterly against those closest to him--Wagner is the best example, but Socrates fits too. I think you're right that Nietzsche ultimately couldn't forgive Socrates for choosing death; the ultimate betrayal against life (this is also why Nietzsche broke with Schopenhauer, because he was too pessimistic, a nay-saying spirit).
You final sentences cleared up Nietzche's philosophy for me. I imagine he thought Jesus too should not have surrended but along with Peter wielded a sword in the garden and smashed Rome. From him I learnt that if you have to persaude you lack power and by the same token I don't have to explain or justify my decisions and actions unless I want to or am compelled to by force (even then I can choose). Converesley, I am less interested in anyone's explanation if they refuse my request or say no. Their explantion eases their mind but does nothing to benefit me.
I assume you have Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist by Walter Kaufmann. In chapter 13, there's a whole discussion on Nietzsche's attitude toward Socrates that Kaufmann describes as ambiguous. He quotes Oscar Wilde's "All Men Kill the Thing They Love..." as the starting point for thinking about how Nietzsche related to Socrates.
Kaufmann defends his view that Nietzsche admired Socrates all of his life. Even his last book, Ecce Homo, is salutatory toward Socrates.
I'll mention what jumped at me here rather than discussing all the details Kaufmann goes through. I find it odd that Nietzsche despised the dialectical method when so much of his writing is dialectic, i.e., Apollo vs Dionysus. My hunch is that Nietzsche despises how the dialectical method can be used to undermine all kinds of arguments without really getting to the truth. After all, for Nietzsche, there is no truth to discover. Socrates' question-and-answer method, at best, exposes ignorance rather than getting at the truth. All Socrates did was show how those know-it-alls in his time weren't that clever but quite ignorant. Nietzsche sees this as a way of avoiding taking risks yourself. The Socratic method doesn't inspire action; it illuminates how you might be wrong. One could get stuck forever deliberating the finer points, the very approach that Nietzsche abhorred of academic vivisectionists whose lives were completely unhistorical yet pored endlessly over minutia. Nietzsche is a gadfly to the German philosophy and culture of his time, but he profoundly resents being nothing more than just that.
On a personal note, I recall as a seventeen year old how I was a huge fan of Guns n Roses. At that time, I was moderately religious, so I had a hard time seeing Axl Rose perform with a t-shirt that read "Kill Your Idol" with Jesus' face on it. Of course, one might ask what a moderately religious person is doing listening to Guns n Roses. I wanted to rebel and found an outlet to express that rebellion. I was not prepared for the boundaries that rebellion pushes. A compartmentalised life is anathema to Nietzsche. Many religious people secretly love things that are proscribed and somehow live a life of duality. Nietzsche was constantly amazed at the saints who destroyed that duality but at the cost of a life-denying existence. And that's the problem with Socrates, it gives you this detached viewpoint without requiring commitment or risks. I imagine Nietzsche wanted his hero to give the Athenian court the middle finger and say if you want my life you're going to have to take it and then plan an escape and live dangerously. But to take the hemlock as he did, Nietzsche must have thought that to be so lame as to roll over and die. Where was the life-affirming defiance? That, I think, irked Nietzsche more than anything.
Very excellent comment, thank you! You're right that there is so much that is dialectical in Nietzsche--Apollo vs Dionysus right from the start in Birth of Tragedy; and The Gay Science (gaiety/lightness and science/heaviness/wisdom coming together to form a new unity). Those are just two examples. But it's everywhere. Nietzsche said at one point that "Socrates, to confess it frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight a fight against him." He was always struggling with, and against, the dialectic. But Nietzsche always fought most bitterly against those closest to him--Wagner is the best example, but Socrates fits too. I think you're right that Nietzsche ultimately couldn't forgive Socrates for choosing death; the ultimate betrayal against life (this is also why Nietzsche broke with Schopenhauer, because he was too pessimistic, a nay-saying spirit).
You final sentences cleared up Nietzche's philosophy for me. I imagine he thought Jesus too should not have surrended but along with Peter wielded a sword in the garden and smashed Rome. From him I learnt that if you have to persaude you lack power and by the same token I don't have to explain or justify my decisions and actions unless I want to or am compelled to by force (even then I can choose). Converesley, I am less interested in anyone's explanation if they refuse my request or say no. Their explantion eases their mind but does nothing to benefit me.