Aim

Read all 3,156 pages of “The Collected Works of Friedrich Willhem Nietzsche” (published by Pergamon Media for 0.99 cents on iBooks in eBook form) on my iPad.

Write notes weekly based on my thoughts and understanding of the writings.

Why

There are several “whys”.

1. Intellectual stimulation – After graduating from uni a couple of years ago, I found a lot of free time in my day to day life (despite working full time), especially on the weekends. Filling that time with some self-imposed learning (one of my primary hobbies) seems just neurotic enough for me.
2. Re-learning to do hard things – Over the last few years, I feel I have lost the ability to sit in front of a computer or book for prolonged periods of time in my free time. This is especially because I do that for work 5 days a week. However, I want to re-learn the ability. This is how ‘deep work’ is done.
3. Re-learning to COMPLETE hard things – There is no accountability for free time and what I do during it. As a result, I often learn things asymmetrically and without order and leave things halfway. I want to use this project to re-build and re-learn my discipline to complete things in circumstances where the only one holding me accountable is me.
4. Nietzsche is relevant! – Last on this list but should be first in terms of importance. I read “On the Genealogy of Morals” by Nietzsche when I was 18 and I consider it to be a seminal text to my understanding of culture and society. I feel that technological developments in AI/machine learning, genetics, trans-humanism and consciousness will force humanity in the coming future to re-consider ethics and virtues (which have not substantively developed since arguably the Enlightenment period). Given Nietzsche’s emphasis on going beyond the prevailing ethics to create one’s own ethics that affirm life, I fundamentally believe that there will be a resurgence of interest in Nietzsche’s writings.

Week 1

Completed

Prologue and Part 1 of Thus Spoke Zarathustra – 168 pages

Thoughts

Slow start. However, I had to re-read several times several passages and entire passages to really understand what Nietzsche is saying and to sit with the words.

The Prologue contains an interesting query: How was it possible for the Ancient Greek to rear such a vast amount of great people? What was it about the circumstances of the society that produced such an interesting amount of great people. It cannot inherently be to do with the Greeks given that no Greek person for the last two milleniums has been as popular and remembered as Socrates and Plato. Nietzsche’s answer is brief: they arose not because of the goodness of the people but struggles of their evil instincts.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans are especially interesting because they present almost an example of what Nietzsche is talking about in terms of the transvaluation of values. Christianity was a transvaluation of the values propogated by Ancient Greeks and Ancient Romans in the same way that Islam was for pre-Islamic Arabic traditions. From Nietzsche’s perspective, the Christian transvaluation produced something that needs to be surpassed. However it serves to say that the transvaluation of values is a possibility.

How does the transvaluation occur?

On the first, it begins with becoming disillusioned with the current values. Nietzsche makes the argument that the purpose of the current values is to merely to conserve or “maintain” the state, culture and the old. And the State is inherently resistant to the Superman: “But the [State] lieth in all languages of good and evil”. This reminded me of Terrence McKenna’s speech ‘Culture is not your friend’ arguing that the purpose of culture is to perpetuate culture. Combining this with Zizeks work, it’s arguable that any resistance to culture is even incorporated within the culture so as to perpetuate the culture. You cannot escape culture because the escape is amalgamated into the culture. I argue somewhere else that any understanding of the self is similarly limited to the way we are conditioned by our culture, such that we can never understand ourselves fully without reference to culture. I will post that a later stage. Anyways…

Second, there needs to be a “refutation of the moral order of things”. Once disillusionment occurs, the current values must be rejected. An important realisation is that that did not occur in the Western world despite Nietzsche proclaiming that “God is dead”. Despite the loss of connection to a Christian god that existed in the centuries before us, the Western world did not refute Christian values. It is as if the values came to exist on their own, perpetuated by the State and the culture for the reason that they maintain the State and culture. Christian values did not Christ anymore for their moral justification.

Once there is a refutation, it leaves open what is needed for the development of the new values. For Nietzsche, this begins with adopting an intention or aim to transvalue to rear a new Superman. From Nietzsche, humanity has already come up with the best of their values already and to serve us a better we need to manifest into something better. So, Nietzsche says that “Man is something that hath to be surpassed”. For Nietzsche, the core of our new values come from this future orientation. It’s almost speaking like Neville Goddard here: live from the end. What is our end? To surpass ourselves and to give rise to something better. Only the combined will and intention of the people can give rise to the Superman. Zarathustra alone could not do it. Importantly, Zarathustra himself is not the Superman which suggests that Superman requires certain conditions for being reared, eg the will and intention of the people.

But the Superman must be birthed with certain values which humanity must adopt. Otherwise, the new values are not the values of the Superman. To create the Superman, Nietzsche suggests, humanity will need to embrace new values, central to which is new freedom. Humanity will need to become a creator of new freedom, which only comes through by abandonment of old values. I think what he is suggesting is a real look at what serves without the burden of context and history and in that freedom, finding new values. This is why the highest spirit for Nietzsche is that of a child whose innocence is so free in creativity and play. This also explains why there is such an emphasis on a childlike love and optimism in creating the new values. This further also explains why there is an emphasis on the Earth – the child is naturally acting, acting its bodily desires on Earth. It is unconcerned with the meaning of heaven to guide its actions. The love, a childlike love, will guide the values. Some interesting quotes I found that go to this love and optimism and affirmation and meaning of Earth:

• Saying yes to life: “to choose that path which man hath followed blindly, and to approve of it – and no longer to slink aside from it, like the sick and perishing”
• Love and earth (true to earth, meaning of the earth), optimism
  • The Superman speaks the meaning of Earth uprightly, strongly and purely.
  • “Let your love to life be love to your highest hope; and let your highest hope be the highest thought of life”.
  • “Ye constrain all things to flow towards you and into you, so that they shall flow back again out of your fountain as the gifts of your love”
  • “When your heart overfloweth borad and full like the river, a blessing and a danger to the lowlanders, there is the origin of your virtue. When ye are exalted above praise and blame, and your will would command all thing, as a loving one’s will; there is the origin of your virtue
  • The vlaue of everythign is to be determined anew through devoting the spirit and sense to the aim.
  • “Awaken and hearken, ye lonesome one. From the future come winds with stealthy pinions, and to fine ears good tidings are proclaimed”. Verily a place of healing shall the Earth become. And already is a new odour diffused around it, a salvation bringing odour…and a new hope.”
  • philosphy flowing from overflowing heart
  • need to create a new freedom “create itself freedom for new creating”. The game of creating.
  • Creating through the spirit. The spirit say yes to life and creates, through its will, a new freedom
  • Assume the right to new values
  • These new values need not be named, they can be felt in the body: “Let thy virutyes be too high for the familiarity of names”
  • The new values will clear your evil: “Nothing evil groweth in thee any longer, unless it be the evil that groweth out of hte conflict of thy virtues.
  • Be a first movement. Be an own judge for thyself. Murder your old values.

Week 2

Completed

90 pages – Part 2 of “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (TSZ)

Thoughts

One idea I have been thinking about is: to what extent can self-trust and authenticity produce a set of virtues for individuals and society.

For example, Nietzsche says “That YOUR very Self be in your action, as the mother is in the child: let that be YOUR formula of virtue”. He also says “Dare only to believe in yourselves – in yourselves and in your inward parts! He who doth not believe in himself always lieth”. So, for Nietzsche, the Self (or our understanding of ourself) can be trusted.

This makes sense since society creates notions of good and bad – so these notions are an externality (Nietzsche says “No greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than good and bad”). Once you take away the externality, your left with the internal.

And so the pursuit of the internal, it seems to me for Nietzsche, becomes the guide to the virtue. In line with that, Nietzsche says “It is your dearest Self, your virtue. The rings thirst in you: to reach itself again struggleth every ring, and turnetth itself”.

This goes together with the need to create “earthly” virtues discussed last week but also brings up the concern with “creating” values (for example, Nietzsche says “Creating – that is the great salvation from suffering”). If the Self already exists, then what needs to be created? Is creativity required in creating new values, in creating the Superman that lives beyond good and bad, or in expressing new values?

Regardless, I find this notion that virtues appear from inside us very interesting. Could a system of morals and virtues be created, the foundation of which is self-trust and individual authenticity (and perhaps the pursuit of that authenticity).

The first concern for many though would be that if people were left to their selves, then society would be chaotic and crimes like murder, rape and theft would be rampant.

I dont have a complete answer to that issue. However, I do this question requires further enquiry. There must be a reason that Zen teaching and Taoist teaching also are based on a teaching of the natural self. Enlightenment is simply “when hungry, eat. When thirsty, drink”. Some Zen teachings even suggest that enlightenment does not require any forced discipline – enlightenment can be achieved in the here and now without decades of meditation practice (in fact, the decades of meditation practice can itself become an obstacle to enlightenment, hence the emphasis on “beginner mind”).

I would like to add a few points to the debate, as follows.

Nature is violent. Animals in the wild commit violence on their own species and other species in the wild. Animals also commit rape in the wild, if our understanding of consent is applied to animals. The fear that may arise is that the Self is nature and so those base parts that exist in animals also exist in us. So, if we were to rely on our Self without laws and punishment to order us, then the next step would be to act wildly like animals. No one imagines the our cave men ancestors to be a peaceful and content species – in fact, whether we murdered Neanderthals to extinction (or whether they died naturally) remains a contentious.

Our fear of our base parts (our natural parts) is often reflected in the way we attempt to self-discipline ourselves. We do not trust ourselves to stop addictions for example so we invoking feelings of shame and guilt to try act as an external law and punishment to us.

Yet, as anyone who has dealt with any addiction knows, shame and guilt simply perpetuate the addiction – either ultimately causing relapses or causing the addictive tendency to manifest in a different way (eg. from constant nail biting to smoking to becoming workaholic). The true way to deal with addiction that I know from experience is to address and deal with the part within us that causes us to seek an external addiction. What is the pain we are avoiding, and by avoiding it that we are ultimately re-creating? Once the pain is dealt with head-on, the addiction goes away.

So, for me it is not an entire solution to say that we cannot rely on our Self and we need external laws and punishment to discipline ourselves – otherwise we will commit aggression against ourselves and others.

Rather, I think the question ought be: what is the pain we are dealing with that causes us to commit aggression on others, where aggression is a way to avoid the pain but in fact is ultimately re-creating the pain.

I propose two answers: scarcity and conflict of virtues.

• Scarcity vs abudnance: A large part of aggression and “crime” that occurs in nature and in human society arises from (perceived) scarcity of resources. Carnivorous animals evolve to attack other predators and to defend themselves in order to protect their food or their sexual partners. Even in humans, aggression which may not directly be linked to food or scarce resources is connected to scarcity implicitly: a person may not realise that their aggression against a bully or someone who has shamed them is occurring because their cavemen brain+ body has formed the conclusion that this shame is/will affect their (or their group’s) access to resources. All theft arises from perceived scarcity of money (or actually perceived scarcity of ability to make money in legitimate ways). In a person who “feels” abundant (feel is the main part here), I propose aggression will subside. The feeling of abundance has nothing to do with actual markers of abundance – like extreme wealth. There are many people who we would perceive as having an abundant resources but may still commit these crimes. Eg, rich people commit white collar crimes despite having millions in their bank. This is because they don’t “feel” abundant. A person who feels abundant and satisfied has no need for more, in the sense that they feel that they have more than they can ever need. How would predators like lion have evolved differently if they found that more food and sexual partners than they could consume was provided to each lion instantly that the desire for the food or sexual partners arose. With our higher consciousness, humans have the possibility to understand that the world is in fact abundant and not scarce. And that we have the possibility to create a system that arises from a politics of abundance not scarcity. A greater discussion on abundance deserves a whole article on its own. But, I think this is what Nietzsche is talking about when he says that the virtues should be created from a “heart overflowing” and love. The Superman is goodness and love manifested and in that goodness, he is strong. An overflowing heart – not even a satisfied heart but a heart that has more to give than it needs – creates virtues that align with our Self (which is ultimately abundant).
• Conflict of virtues – I take this from Nietzsche’s discussion. One of our forms of pain is that the law and punishment of society is intrinsically in conflict with our natural desire and growth. As in Week 1, society needs the virtues to maintain itself and so it only propagates those virtues that are beneficial to it. This inherently contradicts with the desires of many humans whose inner Self resists against those values (perhaps because the inner Self believes in scarcity). This conflict hearkens back to the discussion on self discipline above – where we have our Self that wants an addiction but we introduce a shame around that addiction, then there is a conflict of virtue. When we have a conflict of virtues (our inner Self virtues vs outer public virtues), it causes a form of pain to us. So, in many people, the addiction is propagated by the shame because the addiction now comes to resolve the pain created by the shame (which only existed in the first place to get rid of the addiction). So, the more we shame ourselves for an addiction, the worse our addiction gets. This pain is real and it may manifest in forms of violence. The solution would be, as above, to build a system that doesnt chastise humans for humanity. A politics of abundance and love, a love that is forgiving and understanding, that removes an inner conflict.

I feel that this question of abundance will arise for humans in an even greater capacity as we move to an AI and robotic future where the economic system does not require us to work daily to satisfy our natural desires, i.e. we have abundance manifested. The question will then be can we evolve to accept in our minds that we are abundant.

I feel I have diverted severely from Nietzsche’s text however my desire was never to analyse the text but to use the t

Week 3

Completed

80 pages – Part 3 of “Thus Spake Zarathustra” (TSZ)

Thoughts

There are aspects of Part 3 that you think that an editor should have just struck out with a red pen. Just pure boring ramblings. BUT, in aspects of Part 3 there are also some clear elucidations of Zarathustra’s philosophy.

What I understand now is as follows.

Zarathustra denies the current values because they are based on cowardice . Zarathustra says: “In their hearts they simply want one thing most of all: that no one hurt them… That however is COWARDICE though it be called “virtue””.

From Cowardice arises mediocrity: “We set our chair in the MIDST…as far from dying gladiators as from satisfied swine” That however is – MEDIOCRITY, though it be called moderation”

Cowardice and mediocrity are enforced by making it holy. Yet, the holiest conduct themselves outside the system by transgressing the values: “Where have they been better robbers and slayers in the world than such holy precepts”.

In effect, the values no longer reflect human conduct or humanity.

In contrast, currently held ‘evil’ notions, such as “Voluptuousness, Passion for Power, and Selfishness”, are actually more useful for humans than the current ‘good’ values. For example, Selfishness is unaccepted by the coward who seek to be selfless, while the powerful just abuse the selfishness. In neither is selfishness truly expressed.

Ultimately for Zarathustra, good and bad is itself an “illusion”. It does not really exist in nature. Rather, the individual has to create its own good and bad. So, Zarathustra says “no one yet knoweth what is good and bad: unless it be the creating one!. It is he, however, who createth man’s goal, and giveth to the earth its meaning and its future: he only effecteth it that aught good or bad”.

For Zarathustra, the creation of the values must again occur from love, naturalness and to self-ness. “One must learn to love oneself – thus do I teach – with a wholesome and healthy love: that one may endure to be with oneself and not go roving about”.

Week 4

Did not read anything unfortunately. Very disappointed.

Week 5

Completed

As punishment for missing Week 4, I read 200 or so pages, completing Part 4 and Appendix of the TSZ. TSZ is done!

Thoughts

Part 4 is the clearest to read (though is filled with references that do not become clear for an average reader until you read the Appendix). The Appendix is also extremely helpful in simply setting out Nietzsche’s theory. Clear and direct to the point.

It is not the point of this blog for me to talk academically on moral relativism and Nietzsche’s theories. I want to just share my thoughts and impressions as they arise in me on a first read.

I became a moral relativist after reading ‘Beyond Good and Evil’. TSZ is not as persuasive as BGE in deconstructing the structures of good and evil, even in the parts where Nietzsche’s theories are most lucid (including about Will to Power and Eternal Recurrence). Though TSZ is useful in ‘waking you’ up that there is a different alternative future which doesnt rely on the current versions of virtues (or that virtues are not static), it doesnt immediately persuade me that the Superman is a reality I should be striving for. To an extent, the Superman will arrive on its own and will be a product of its time. So, the vision of creating a better future by creating the Superman is not enticing – in fact, there is no vision of what the future would look like. If I am currently happy with the society and the progress of society, there is nothing acting as an imperative me to create a Superman. For what reason do I need him? What will he do for my experience of life? Are humans to really sacrifice their own need for the greater good of a future society that they will not experience – if humans were capable of doing that, then our solutions to climate change (a problem that will affect future generations in a greater way than us) would be dealt with much more strenght then they are. But humans are selfish and can only think of themselves and at best their immediate community. If the Superman cannot affect my experience of reality currently, there is just not sufficiently enticing vision for me to pursue him.

One thing I really questioned was the extent to which God has died and been replaced with something else that re-affirms the modern virtues. TSZ supposes that it is nigh time to reject the virtues since God is dead and there is nothing supporting those virtues. Yet, in contemporary society, those virtues persist. How and why? If there is a Will to Power, then how have these values become so entrenched that they can survive without a marker in circumstances. Can it really be said that Christian values have led to the power of low individuals in circumstances where the difference between lower class and upper class expands to a diminishing middle class.

What has come to replace God and in doing so re-inforced the values – technology? AI? In a completely futuristic society where humans rely on AI and robots to complete tasks and earn an income, will there be support or a greater desire for a Will to Power.

On the one hand, AI and robots will remove a large part of the suffering experienced in the world which may allow people to sing of the Earth instead of singing of the heavens. This may arise from a greater sense of abundance and lack of scarcity (which I discuss above).

But human, all too human, we invent problems wherever we can so that we strive to solve them. And in every utopia, there is trouble brewing so that people may still suffer despite the circumstances of supposed abundance.

Is the Will to Power really underneath all morals – this is what I have been considering. That the structures of moral support current society but when power shifts, so do the morals.

I mean I get that the values we have now will not be the values that humanity has for the rest of the life. But can it be said that some values have persisted despite God dying because they are utilitarian – good for the many. Like limiting aggression and power displays. Nietzsche’s concerned with giving rise to great few men who will take society further but I guess society’s response – “we’d rather be happy and timid than to be taken further. Why should we bear the difficulties of a ‘great man’ burdening us with his power”.

In this way, I think no Superman can consciously think of devising new values. He must be born without guilt and shame of his sins or must completely shake the chains off them to give power to his instinct. The freedom to be yourself without guilt and shame is i think a very attractive idea and would entice most humans. Yet, for many still, guilt and shame of detracting from the ‘right values’ bind them till they deny the Self and cannot imagine a life where such things do not exist.

It will need to be that the environment changes so much in which the ‘bad’ values come to be treated as good automatically. So that it becomes completely impossible to hold the ‘bad’ values as ‘bad’ given the environment demands them. The question is: will humanity’s future create such an environment? Where it becomes impossible for many to reject the current virtues?

Week 6

Completed

Preface and first chapter of Human, All Too Human (HATH). About 100 pages.

Thoughts

Clearer in understanding Nietzsche’s philosophy that TSZ and much more persuasive.

The reliance on unsupportive (christian) values arises from illogical or defective thinking.

A transvaluation should be supported because it takes care of humanity in the future. This requires humans looking past their self interest – ensuring the betterment of systems from which they reap so that others may enjoy them in the future.

How is it that Christianity as a religion was able to bring into force such a huge transvaluation from the values of the antiquity.

Week 7

Completed

Second section of HATH

Thoughts

For Neitzsche, there is no sin or virtue in a metaphysical sense. Rather, the “whole domain of ethical notions is one of constant variations”. The current versions of virtue are just “false views of life and of the world”, but there are always “higher and deeper conceptions of good and evil”.

He traces the history of morals, beginning from actions that had no motives but impacted community negatively (“utilitarian or prejudicial consequences”), led to them termed being bad. Till the initial decision to term them good or bad was forgotten and imagined instead so that the motive of the action was then deemed good or bad. The action itself is “morally ambiguous” – it is the motive that is deemed good or bad. Eventually, beyond individual motives, the whole person is deemed good or bad since motive grows out of the person. For Neitzsche, a person who is deemed good is someone who is powerful enough to repay (“requite”) good with good and bad with bad. The powerless is someone who cant make such repayments. And so the good are powerful people, in common. While the bad are just powerless people but with no feeling in common to each other since no repayments can be made. Further, no feeling in common because the bad consider other men as preludes to badness – goodness is anxiety causing and humans are all devilish. In contrast, the ruling good man lays the law on which society is based.

In reality, the truth is that man is not responsible for anything, including his motives and so the acts which are guided by these motives. There is no difference between “act as a [man] may” and “act as a [man] must”. Instead, Neitzsche says “But everything is compulsory, everything can be mathematically calculated [with regard to]…human acts”. Neitzsche also says: “No one is responsible for his act, no one for his nature; to judge is tantamount to being unjust. This applies as well when the individual judges himself.” But people ignore this truth “for the fear of consequences”.

I am not exactly sure the “consequences” he means, but I think it is the feelings (like depression or guilt) that arise in us naturally which we think we are responsible for and so can be dealt with. The consequence of realising that we are not in control would be to realise that we cannot change these emotions either no matter what we do. But Neitzsche is also clear that characters are alterable – he says “Could we conceive a man eighty thousand year old, we should have in him an absolutrlay alterable character”.

The consequence is also that we rely on this control to take us above base animals – through our law we impose on ourselves we justify ourselves as higher beings. This makes us feel hatred for these base desires. Once this occurs, we fear becoming base animals by breaching the law.

In all circumstances though, the good is one who has utilitarian value while the bad is one who hurts the community and his neighbour. Neitzsche says “all pleasure is in itself neither good nor bad. Whence comes the conviction that one should not cause pain in others in order to feel pleasure oneself? Simply from the standpoint of utility…”. This idea is built through tradition and custom (the agreeable to society and the useful to society that propagate society) which, over generations, become religion and rely on awe to work. Ultimately this resists newness and innovation – because the custom is seen as the “wellspring of life” and the source of life and utility to man.

Another interesting discussion is the theory of ‘comparative classification of enjoyments’ – i.e. the comparison between lower class enjoyments like sensual pleasure and freedom with higher class enjoyments like health and welfare. The enjoyment by a man of one of these classes decides whether he is ethical or unethical. But such classes change over time as well. So, being deemed ‘unethical’ means that the person is not sensible or refined enough for current civilisation’s “higher, finer impulses”. Choosing lower class enjoyment indicates “backwardness”. So, unethical men serve as reminders/specimens of earlier civilisations.

Generally, there is a great discussion between the treatment of motives and acts and how they relate to morality.

Week 8

Completed

Third section of Vol 1 of HATH – ‘The Religious Life’. 40 pages or so.

Thoughts

This is a clear attack on religion and religious dogma and saints. For Neitzsche, as in earlier section, religion arises from defective reasoning and thinking. And so, pure science can have no correlation or “friendship” with religion. To the extent that philosophical thought aligns with religious views, it is because the authors are thinking from a framework built in religion. Or alternatively, religion amalgamates scientific findings and adopts it to use it as proof of itself and propagate it. But this false and a guise.

Religious practice is a means of humbling nature – which, to the early man, must seem an a mysterious force outside them that cannot be controlled. By religious practice, it became a means of exerting power on nature to bring it down and control it and exercise dominion over it. When things dont work out, god can be blamed. So Neitzsche says “the aim of religious worship is to influence nature to human advantage and so to instil a subjection to law that originally she has not”

Man is dealing with an entirely deterministic and highly complex (‘lawless’) reality and so religion becomes a means to control that.

There are also severe critiques of Christianity. To many to list here. But that it is bad for humanity in that it glooms the man so that Christianity itself may seem better (as a solution). In fact, Neitzsche says that sin only exists because of God. Sin arises because there is a belief that some higher law has been breached because of the conduct but, “if finally men attain to the conviction of the absolute responsibility of all act and of their utter irresponsibility [that they are not the motivators of the act but acting in a causally determined way] and then absorb it into their flesh and blood, every relic of conscience pangs will disappear”. It is the “master stroke of religions and metaphysics that wish to make man out bad and sinful by nature, to render nature suspicious in his eyes and to so make himself evil, for he learns to feel himself evil when he cannot divest himself of nature”. Sin creates the need for god and the supernatural becomes necessary.

Man does not need god to save him – because whatever god offered was in him already and he was offering to himself. “That which he calls grace and the preliminary of salvation is in reality self-grace, self-salvation”.

Weeks 9 and 10

Completed

N/a. I was moving houses, broke up with my girlfriend, on a diet that reduced my dopamine, quit a bunch of other things that were getting in my way etc etc.

Week 11

Completed

300 pages or so – Second Part of HATH (The Wanderer and the Shadow), Homer and Classical Philology, and the introduction to Dawn of Day

Thoughts

I must abandon this project at page 1370. I have realised that this version of the book does not contain several essential texts of Nietzsche like Ecce Homo, Geneology of Morals, Gay Science and several others. It contains a collection of minor works based on his aphorisms.

I will find a different version of his collected works and continue the project differently. But, currently, I find that continuing this project is not consistent with the aims as I am getting a minor view of his ideas through his aphorisms rather than a substantive attack on morality that makes Nietszche Nietzsche.

Week 12

Completed

I did not do any reading. I had to convince myself that I need to complete the project for the simple fact that I have said I would .

Week 13

Completed

100 pages or so – Book 1 of Dawn of Man

Thoughts