The Marxist philosopher Domenico Losurdo's massive critique of Nietzsche reveals one of modern philosophy’s most well-known, but least understood, figures
The Losurdo book under scrutiny here is "Class Struggle". Leiter's response is amusing:
"I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has actually read this Losurdo book. He strikes me as a tediously dogmatic Marxist, not very philosophically able, but that is based entirely on my perusing his Nietzsche book."
Interesting. You have pointed out that the Nietzsche book is surprisingly readable. But Leiter calls it "tediously dogmatic". And that "not very philosophically able" is pure Leiter. He damned Michael Tanner's book on Nietzsche as "not philosophically competent". Typical Leiter haughty condescension giving an air of being the gatekeeper of excellence measured according to some mysterious personal standard. But note how even Leiter's invective is boring!
Furthermore, Leiter’s own books on Nietzsche are essays on classification of the philosopher’s views into various approaches that are then denoted with abbreviations e.g. as far as I can recall, “strong” and “weak” naturalism against normative or some such. It was truly tedious pedantic twaddle.
Fascinating article. I was wondering if you'd encountered one Brian Leiter who seems to have set himself up as one of the first to have "truly understood what Nietzsche was saying". Leiter is one hell of a pompous pontificator and, having struggled through some of his writing, I must say he has achieved the impossible. He has succeeded in making Nietzsche boring!
Thank you for reading! I am familiar with Leiter mainly from his rankings of philosophy grad programs, which were influential around 2009 or so; but I would never read any of his actual writing--anyone who spends their time ranking grad school programs must have a small boring mind!
I appreciated this lengthy review and found it so delightful that I bought a copy of Losurdo's Nietzsche: The Aristocratic Rebel. You mention the cottage industry of Nietzsche books, and indeed, it's a labyrinth of some helpful and some not-so-beneficial examinations and ruminations about Nietzsche. I just finished reading Henry Staten's Nietzsche's Voice, which revels more in its innovative approach to explaining inconsistencies in Nietzsche's thought than actually helping you grasp the totality of what Nietzsche was driving at. I enjoyed Chapter 8 on Pity and Love the most, which elaborates on Nietzsche's libidinal energies to enjoy himself, critique, and expel all that threatens that self-enjoyment. Staten's psychoanalysis is an engaging but ultimately unhelpful approach. Experimenting with innovation should come after one has mastered little more than the basics, which is fine for someone like Henry Staten but is virtually meaningless for someone like myself who is first feeling his way around the superstructure of Nietzsche's thought. Hopefully, Losurdo will give me confidence in understanding Nietzsche's agenda, and I'd be in a much better position to appreciate innovative approaches to understanding Nietzsche.
Thank you for reading and for the comment. I’m glad you appreciated the lengthy piece. The Losurdo book is about 1000 pages but highly readable, I think you will enjoy it. It’s funny that you mentioned the Staten book, that was one of the first books on Nietzsche I read (many years ago now). I remember it being written in a more lively and engaging way than most books on Nietzsche, so I have good memories of it, but I agree that ultimately the psychoanalytic approach is deficient. It’s funny, many of the books on nature that I read and enjoyed it the time I look back on as not being very helpful—“Nietzsche: Life as Literature” by Alexander Nehamas is a good example of this. When I first read it, I was very impressed, but looking back on it it seems kind of shallow. One that I think holds up well is “Nietzsche as Philosopher” by Arthur C. Danto. It avoids a lot of the pitfalls that Nietzsche interpreters often fall into, and connects Nietzsche clearly to the actual philosophical problems he dealt with—a seemingly basic thing, but all too rare.
If it was his opinion taht "Nietzche thought of the 2nd Reich as too liberal" in the context that the 2nd Reich was already using trains to transport people to concentration camps in Namibia., Nietzche's opinion hasn't aged well and is very, very reactionary and evil.
Leiter has expressed an opinion on Losurdo:
https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2022/11/history-of-marxism.html
The Losurdo book under scrutiny here is "Class Struggle". Leiter's response is amusing:
"I'd be curious to hear from anyone who has actually read this Losurdo book. He strikes me as a tediously dogmatic Marxist, not very philosophically able, but that is based entirely on my perusing his Nietzsche book."
Interesting. You have pointed out that the Nietzsche book is surprisingly readable. But Leiter calls it "tediously dogmatic". And that "not very philosophically able" is pure Leiter. He damned Michael Tanner's book on Nietzsche as "not philosophically competent". Typical Leiter haughty condescension giving an air of being the gatekeeper of excellence measured according to some mysterious personal standard. But note how even Leiter's invective is boring!
Furthermore, Leiter’s own books on Nietzsche are essays on classification of the philosopher’s views into various approaches that are then denoted with abbreviations e.g. as far as I can recall, “strong” and “weak” naturalism against normative or some such. It was truly tedious pedantic twaddle.
Fascinating article. I was wondering if you'd encountered one Brian Leiter who seems to have set himself up as one of the first to have "truly understood what Nietzsche was saying". Leiter is one hell of a pompous pontificator and, having struggled through some of his writing, I must say he has achieved the impossible. He has succeeded in making Nietzsche boring!
Thank you for reading! I am familiar with Leiter mainly from his rankings of philosophy grad programs, which were influential around 2009 or so; but I would never read any of his actual writing--anyone who spends their time ranking grad school programs must have a small boring mind!
There is a video of him delivering a lecture and he sounds as boring as he writes.
I appreciated this lengthy review and found it so delightful that I bought a copy of Losurdo's Nietzsche: The Aristocratic Rebel. You mention the cottage industry of Nietzsche books, and indeed, it's a labyrinth of some helpful and some not-so-beneficial examinations and ruminations about Nietzsche. I just finished reading Henry Staten's Nietzsche's Voice, which revels more in its innovative approach to explaining inconsistencies in Nietzsche's thought than actually helping you grasp the totality of what Nietzsche was driving at. I enjoyed Chapter 8 on Pity and Love the most, which elaborates on Nietzsche's libidinal energies to enjoy himself, critique, and expel all that threatens that self-enjoyment. Staten's psychoanalysis is an engaging but ultimately unhelpful approach. Experimenting with innovation should come after one has mastered little more than the basics, which is fine for someone like Henry Staten but is virtually meaningless for someone like myself who is first feeling his way around the superstructure of Nietzsche's thought. Hopefully, Losurdo will give me confidence in understanding Nietzsche's agenda, and I'd be in a much better position to appreciate innovative approaches to understanding Nietzsche.
Thank you for reading and for the comment. I’m glad you appreciated the lengthy piece. The Losurdo book is about 1000 pages but highly readable, I think you will enjoy it. It’s funny that you mentioned the Staten book, that was one of the first books on Nietzsche I read (many years ago now). I remember it being written in a more lively and engaging way than most books on Nietzsche, so I have good memories of it, but I agree that ultimately the psychoanalytic approach is deficient. It’s funny, many of the books on nature that I read and enjoyed it the time I look back on as not being very helpful—“Nietzsche: Life as Literature” by Alexander Nehamas is a good example of this. When I first read it, I was very impressed, but looking back on it it seems kind of shallow. One that I think holds up well is “Nietzsche as Philosopher” by Arthur C. Danto. It avoids a lot of the pitfalls that Nietzsche interpreters often fall into, and connects Nietzsche clearly to the actual philosophical problems he dealt with—a seemingly basic thing, but all too rare.
If it was his opinion taht "Nietzche thought of the 2nd Reich as too liberal" in the context that the 2nd Reich was already using trains to transport people to concentration camps in Namibia., Nietzche's opinion hasn't aged well and is very, very reactionary and evil.