Otto Dix, Nietzsche, and the Great War (2019)

ssamizdis about 6 hours ago 18 commentsRead Article on historytoday.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

80% Positive

Analyzed from 581 words in the discussion.

Discussion (18 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

jaynetics•about 3 hours ago

While the topic of this text is very interesting, it ultimately remains a bit unconvincing.

Nietzsche is depicted in an oversimplified way as a kind of tortured brute, and Otto Dix' late return to Christianity is rather exaggerated.

Dix remained interested in many topics until late in his life. While he radiates more empathy than Nietzsche, the one constant in Dix' art is that he never spared any feelings or aesthetic sensibilities. This urge to remain true to oneself and shed all masks is something he may have found reflected and elavated in Nietzsche's writing, even if he ultimately discovered that some of Nietzsche's admiration of fierceness was a peacetime naivety.

Dix' painting "Flandern", 1936:

https://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/09/68/b1/9d/157856157-...

mykowebhn•about 6 hours ago

Before I really started studying philosophy, I was still interested in philosophy, but as a novice. During this time, Nietzsche was my favorite philosopher and I read several of his books. I also read a lot of literature, and Nietzsche figured in a lot of the literary texts I enjoyed.

Now that I've read a lot more philosophical texts, I realize that both of the big philosophical camps--Anglo-American Analytic Philosophy and Continental Philosophy--rarely mention Nietzsche. Nietzsche seems to be the philosopher that non-philosophers turn to and often cite.

keiferski•about 6 hours ago

Nietzsche is referenced constantly:

https://philpapers.org/asearch.pl?strict=1&searchStr=Nietzsc...

Also, some pretty substantial continental philosophers wrote about Nietzsche. Heidegger wrote a ton about him. Foucault used his genealogical method. Deleuze, Derrida, etc. all wrote a lot.

Heck, half of the big Continental names wrote books on Nietzsche:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche_and_Philosophy

https://sunypress.edu/Books/O/On-Nietzsche

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo276199...

Analytic philosophy indeed didn't write much about Nietzsche, but I don't know why they would have. Very different subject matter and style.

mikert89•about 5 hours ago

I had a similar experience, but I think a lot of other modern philosophy is really pedantic and builds upon a thousand years of writings. So its very hard to follow without proper academic study or understanding what its in response to.

Nietzsche has paragraphs that could be studied and independently thought about without even reading the rest of the book/chapter. You can crack open beyond good and evil and just start reading a random page.

I still would argue his thought is far more groundbreaking than any contemporaries

pglevy•about 4 hours ago

> paragraphs that could be studied and independently

Yes, but after reading BGE, I felt like I had to read all his other books to really understand what he was saying (and others too, Kant, Spinoza, etc). And then re-read BGE.

Also Walter Kauffman's on him is very good. Working through that now.

mikert89•about 3 hours ago

yeah a lot of uneducated analysis was off, but it was still very thought provoking and jarring to my earlier world view.

it depends on which chapters/sections though, some are more accessible than others.

one book I enjoyed is:

"The Mask of Enlightenment" by stanley rosen. I read that along Zarathustra

chermi•about 5 hours ago

1) not true 2) guilt by association? A lot of non-physicists talk about Einstein. I still take his work very seriously.

junior44660•about 5 hours ago

But Nietzsche has more impact on minds of people. In 100 years I am sure Bronze Age Pervert will be seen as more influential than some random philosophist from random university.

phainopepla2•about 5 hours ago

I think he's probably seen as more influential now, given that it's widely believed that he's been read by nearly all of the young staffers in the Trump admin.

(Hate to have to add this caveat and acquiesce to the Reddit-ification of HN, but: caveat lector, the above statement is not an endorsement)

chermi•about 5 hours ago

I'm not sure I understand your point? Are you trying to equate the two without saying it directly?

junior44660•about 4 hours ago

He will be seen more like Evola than Nietzsche. So not an exact parallel.

cmrdporcupine•about 6 hours ago

I mean, when I studied continental philosophy in the 90s, there was plenty of Nietzsche discussed. But I'd say, perhaps, more in his influence elsewhere than as primary text. E.g. I did a term studying Heidegger and Nietzsche played into that. Same prof had a 4th year class purely about Nietzsche. (What a great prof, too, my daughter is going to the same school starting next week and I really wish he hadn't retired...)

I do think that maybe more recent work in continental schools (perhaps rightly) de-emphasize him as part of a larger turn away from the "postmodern" more broadly vs what was trendy in the 90s.