NOTES
165 NOTES CH A PTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Nietzsche’s name was known in China as early as the beginning of the twentieth century, introduced first by Lian Qi-chao (1902), then by Wang Guo-wei in association with his favorite philosopher Schopenhauer (1904). During and after the May Fourth Movement in 1919, many great Chinese thinkers of the time were influenced by Nietzsche’s philosophy, such as Chen Du-xiu, Li Da-zhao, and especially Lu Xun, who was even described as the “Nietzsche of China.” But Chinese interpretations of Nietzsche concentrated mainly on Nietzsche’s radical critique and extremist language , especially phrases such as “God is dead,” “revaluation of all values,” “will to power,” and “slave morality,” all of which very much echoed the Chinese desire for strength after China had been defeated by the West in one campaign after another since the Opium War in the 1840s. During the 1980s, the same themes, issues, and problems were recreated after the failure of Mao’s experiment with communism. Nietzsche once again captured the consciousness of Chinese intellectuals who could not endure the humiliation of being a weak and undeveloped nation. See also chapter 5. 2. In China, people are less likely to be confused with religion (zongjiao, 宗教) and religiosity (zongjiaoxing, 宗教性, or or or zongjiaogan, 宗教感) because most indigenous Chinese religions, such as Confucianism and Daoism, do not have a definite concept , such as Confucianism and Daoism, do not have a definite concept do not have a definite concept concept concept of God but rather of the sacredness of this life and this world.This cultural background but rather of the sacredness of this life and this world.This cultural background rather of the sacredness of this life and this world.This cultural background the sacredness of this life and this world.This cultural background This cultural background suggests why I prefer the word religiosity to characterize the spirit of these two philosophers . There will be a further discussion of the term in chapter 5. term in chapter 5. in chapter 5. 3. In Fall 1984, a series of lectures was held by the Beijing Seminary of Culture, established in the same year. I was invited as a representative on behalf of The Center of East-West Comparative Cultures (Shanghai) to celebrate the opening of the seminary . Chen Guying’s lecture was one of the first series. His lecture later was published as a part of his book Nietzsche—a Tragic Philosopher, and translated by James Sellman and published as “Zhuangzi and Nietzsche: Plays of Perspectives,” in Parks, ed., Nietzsche and Asian Thought, 115–29. 4. It is difficult to give a general account of these perspectives because each of them is different. I would like to borrow Peter R. Sedgwick’s division of the “traditions ” of Nietzsche interpretation: (1) “The ‘German tradition’: readings which tend to situate Nietzsche within the context of issues in modern philosophy, aesthetics and social theory as delineated by the writings of Kant, Goethe and Marx respectively.” These include Heidegger, Gadamer, Jaspers, and some work of Marxists such as Lukacs and the Frankfurt School. (2) The ‘French tradition’: this includes the readings of Bataille, the existentialists, and the postmodern, poststructuralist, and deconstructive approaches. “Here questions of language, style, rhetoric, and force are often highlighted in relation to Nietzsche’s texts, as well as the constitution of human subjectivity in the context of psychoanalysis or social relations of power.” (3) “The ‘Anglo-American tradition’: epitomized by Arthur Danto, Walter Kaufmann, and R. J. Collingdale, which tends to relate Nietzsche’s work more to classically determined conceptions of truth, politics and subjectivity as they have been addressed within the domain of Anglo-American analytic philosophy. A more recent variant on this model can be found in Richard Rorty’s view of Nietzsche as a Jamesean pragmatist and iconoclastic ‘strong texualist,’ whose thought can be opposed to the practice of analytic philosophy” (Sedgwick, ed., Nietzsche: A Critical Reader, 2). 5. Some did suspect Nietzsche’s message of “God is dead” was in a way “search for God.” Heidegger once suggested that Nietzsche was “the last German philosopher who was passionately in search of God.”The problem seems clear to me that they try to use the traditional and Christian concept of God to explore Nietzsche’s antireligious and anti-Christian religiosity. See also Michel Haar, Nietzsche and Metaphysics, chapter 7,“Metamorphosis of the Divine.” He seemingly noticed Nietzsche’s religiosity and its in...
OR
Buy This Book in Print