Paul Van Tongeren

In den Jahren, aud denen WL stammt , legt Nietzsche ein beachtenswertes Interesse für Aristoteles' politische Philosophie an den Tag, und WL kann aus der Perspektive einer Passage der aristotelischen Politik gelesen werden. In beiden Texten geht es um Wahrheit, Moral und Gemeinschaft. Während Aristoteles zufolge der Mensch als Logos-Wesen wesentlich in einer politischen Gesellschaft lebt und somit sich vom Tier und vom Gott unterscheidet, such Nietzsche nach einer Figue, die beide - gegensätzlichen - Positionen in sich vereint. Der Philosoph, den Nietzsche sucht und der er sein will, muss sich einerseits außerhalb Gemeinschaft stellen, von welcher er andererseits Teil sein muss, um sein Aufgabe erfüllen zu können. Er muss sowohl Gott als auch Tier sein. Dass Nietzsche diese Figur jetzt noch nicht findet, macht seinen Text 'unfertig' und erklärt vielleicht, dass er 'geheimgehalten' werden musste.During the years in which Nietzsche write his essay On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense , he seems to have paid a remarkable interest to Aristotle's political philosophy, and TL can be read against the background of a passage from Aristotle's Politics . Both texts concern the relationship between truth, morality, and society. While, according to Aristotle, the human being is, as a logos-being, essentially a political being and therefore to be distinguished from animals as well as from god, Nietzsche seems to be searching for a being which brings both - contradictory - positions together. The philosopher whom he searches for and tries to be, should on the one hand distance himself from society in which he, on the other hand, should participate in order to be able to fulfill his task. He should be god and animal at the same time. Nietzsche does not find this figure yet, which makes his text unfinished and perhaps explains why he had to keep it secret

The paper offers a counter- reading to Derrida's “utopian” reading of Nietzsche, focussing instead on Nietzsche's cynical view of friendship, based on the impossibility of being a friend to oneself. Unlike Aristotle, who sees the basis of human political nature in their shared rationality and mutual friendship, Nietzsche sees not only politics, but human beings themselves as being constituted by a violent act of submission, and characterised by an ongoing struggle for power. The paper further examines two intellectual traditions about friendship and politics, one according to which the two are positively related and no real tension could exist between them. Another tradition holds friendship to be irreconcilable with politics. Elements of both traditions can be recognised in Nietzsche who, finding the radical deceptive nature of friendship unacceptable, moves to a solitude which is equally unbearable. For it is precisely the hermit that knows that his solitude makes him into an other to himself, which turns out to be a motive for real friendship, the third element which prevents the lonely hermit from sinking into the depth of self- interrogation. The paper concludes with the recognition that friendship, for Nietzsche, can only have an intermediary function on the way to full realisation of friendship, which will be a friendship of an inner difference or plurality, i.e. on our way to what is ultimately beyond the human condition, to the “over man”.

Insofar as the notion of forgiveness stems from the Jewish and Christian traditions, it seems to point at something very extraordinary. Although Christianity recommends or even commissions forgiveness to everybody, it nevertheless seems to consist of something which is not humanly possible: how could one remember the evil committed , and at the same time not blame the one who committed it? By ultimately reserving the entitlement and ability to forgive to God, by describing human forgiveness as a theological virtue, and by emphasizing the gratuitous or gracious character of forgiveness, this tradition seems most of all to show that forgiveness is generally speaking impossible. In this paper, this conception of forgiveness is presented with the help of Jacques Derrida. The question how this apparently impossibility nevertheless sometimes happens is first answered with the help of Thomas Aquinas. Against this background, the paper claims that a ‘secular’ interpretation of forgiveness is also possible, which does justice to its being humanly impossible. Such interpretation describes forgiveness as an intersubjective act

When Nietzsche is called a radical philosopher, it is (among other reasons) because he claims to call into question what other thinkers take for granted. In the article I concentrate on the way in which Nietzsche asks his questions, and how his questions (and the vocabulary which he uses to express his questions) develop through his writings. The article points out how Nietzsche gradually discovers his guiding question and how this search reaches its climax around 1886. This guiding question turns out to be a practical or existential one: ‘To what extent can truth endure incorporation?’ (FW/GC 110 KSA 3.471). Key-words: Question, task, Nietzsche’s development

Can theological virtues be integrated in a secular moral philosophy?In the early days of the revival of virtue ethics (in Germany and France since the beginning of the 20th century, in the Anglophone world since the 19-fifties) the ‘theological’ or ‘Christian virtues’ (faith, hope and charity) played an important role. In contemporary virtue ethics they seem to almost be forgotten outside of theology. The question is asked whether (and if: how) these virtues can be integrated in a secular moral philosophy. This seems at first hand to be very problematic, because of their definition, which states among other things that these virtues are God-given and orientated towards God. However: hypothesizing that religious conceptions are related to general human experiences, it may be worth the effort to try and also interpret these theological virtues in a philosophical theory about what makes a human life flourishing. The suggestion is made that these virtues remind us of the importance of a certain passivity or receptivity and of an transcendental openness of our conceptions of happiness.

The article offers an extensive interpretation of Human All Too Human I, 114: “The non-Greek element in Christianity”. The origin of this section goes back to 1875 when Nietzsche was preparing a course on “The Religion of the Greek”. It is pointed out that for Nietzsche the opposition as such and in general is much more important than this specific opposition between Greek and Christian religion or culture. Christianity is in Nietzsche's writings almost always presented in some sort of opposition, but there are many different oppositions in which it appears. The nature of the opposition which is so highly valued by Nietzsche, is described as agon, and is shown to be very different from the metaphysical opposition as criticized by Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil § 2. Nietzsche attempts to put Christianity back into an agonistic relation with Greek culture. But whereas Greek culture recognizes the principle of the agon, it is denied and condemned in Christianity. Greek culture shows the agon to be a principle of measure. Christianity turns out to be a religion of excessiveness

A amizade ainda é possível em condições niilistas? Kant e Nietzsche são fases importantes na história da idealização de amizade, o que inevitavelmente conduz ao problema do niilismo. O próprio Nietzsche afirma que, por um lado, apenas algo como a amizade pode nos salvar em nossa condição niilista mas que, por outro, precisamente a amizade foi desmascarada e se tornou impossível baseada nas mesmas condições. Parece que estamos presos no paradoxo niilista de não nos ser permitido acreditar na possibilidade do que não podemos prescindir. A imaginação literária, desde o século XIX, parece nos tornar ainda mais céticos. Talvez Beckett forneça uma ilustração de uma maneira que se adapta bem à afirmação de Nietzsche de que apenas "os mais moderados, aqueles que não necessitam de quaisquer artigos extremos de fé", serão capazes de lidar com o niilismo. Is friendship still possible under nihilistic conditions? Kant and Nietzsche are important stages in the history of the idealization of friendship, which leads inevitably to the problem of nihilism. Nietzsche himself claims on the one hand that only something like friendship can save us in our nihilistic condition, but on the other hand that precisely friendship has been unmasked and become impossible by these very conditions. It seems we are struck in the nihilistic paradox of not being allowed to believe in the possibility of what we cannot do without. Literary imagination since the 19th century seems to make us even more skeptical. Maybe Beckett provides an illustration of a way out that fits well to Nietzsche's claim that only "the most moderate, those who do not require any extreme articles of faith" will be able to cope with nihilism

The significance of tradition for moral life seems at the same time to be obvious and controversial. Both evaluations refer to the meaning of tradition as the rule that reigns with the force of self-evidence. The first section of the article elaborates a philosophical basis for the significance of tradition. Human life is characterised by logos, which is interpreted as the capacity to understand and communicate meaning. Meaning does not exist outside tradition, taken as the conversation or controversy among different interpretations. The second section of the article concentrates on the ethical meaning of tradition. With the help of Nietzsche, tradition is suggested to be the name for the adequate realization by human beings of their own historicality

Socialism, utilitarianism and democracy are, according to Nietzsche, secularised versions of Christianity. They have continued the monomaniac onesidedness of the Christian idea of what a human being is and should be, and they have even strengthened this monomania through its ‘immanentisation'. The article shows that this ‘immanentisation' is of crucial importance for Nietzsche's critique of democracy. This critique may suggest that Nietzsche's alternative for the disappeared Christian faith is not only a more radical rupture from the religious past, but also a re-interpretation or recreation of the notion of transcendence implied in that faith.. South African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 26 (1) 2007: pp. 5-16

In the general introduction to the first part of his Philosophie de la Volonté, Le volontaire et l’involontaire Paul Ricoeur writes that the phenomenological or ‘pure description […] of the Voluntary and the Involuntary’ is ‘constituted by bracketing’ two things: first the fault, which is essentially a perversion of the pure nature or the essence of human willing; and second ‘Transcendence which hides within it the ultimate origin of subjectivity’. Evil, the condition of brokenness or the reality of the fault, asks for an empirical description of concrete myths and symbols. He will remove this first bracketing in the second part of his Philosophy of the Will and in the long ‘series of detours’ of his hermeneutical writings. The second bracketing, however, will turn out to be much more difficult to remove. It demands a ‘poetics’, which would threaten Ricoeur’s effort to separate his Christian faith from his ‘autonomous’ philosophizing. In this article I argue that Ricoeur eventually did present his poetics, though only in the epilogue to his penultimate book on ‘Difficult Forgiveness’. The article indicates why this epilogue might fulfil the promise of a poetics, explains why this could only be done in an epilogue and gives at least one possible reason why Ricoeur could write at the end of his oeuvre, what he could not at its beginning.