Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


PhilPapersPhilPeoplePhilArchivePhilEventsPhilJobs

Replies to Commentators on “The Biology of Evil”

Journal of Nietzsche Studies 52 (1):65-77 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this article, I reply to commentators Leonard Feldblyum, Robert Holub, and David Owen on my article “The Biology of Evil.” While I concede that Nietzsche often invoked standard degenerationist rhetoric about breeding, I argue that Nietzsche, unlike other degenerationists, never offered any concrete plans for such breeding and was not interested in raising the capacities of average citizens, but rather was concerned with the exceptional few. I argue that these “strokes of luck” do not readily lend themselves to planned breeding programs. I concede that Nietzsche did not favor societies that allowed for the integration of foreign elements, but rather some alternation between regimented hierarchical societies and motley societies. However, against Holub's and Feldblyum's contention that Nietzsche was interested in the alleged Jewish problem of his day, I expand on my claim that, for Nietzsche, the current malaise is more a product of the workings of the ancient than the modern Jews. And against Owen and Holub, I defend the claim that degeneration theory was fundamentally Manichean and that Nietzsche resisted this Manichean tendency.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-04-23

Downloads
47 (#521,211)

6 months
5 (#855,890)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Ken Gemes
University of Pittsburgh (PhD)

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp