The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche

The Gay Science Reviews

• 
  David

  NOT GAY ENOUGH.
• 
  Zawn V

  If you read Nietzsche while not in the midst of some variety of emo existential crisis, Nietzsche is hilarious and insightful. If, however, you choose to read Nietzsche in high school in order to be counter-culture, odds are good Nietzsche will temporarily turn you into a horrible, pompous ass. Nietzsche is the first philosopher I ever read; I stole The Gay Science from my cousin's book shelf when I was nine because I wanted to read "what smart people read." Ever since then, Nietzsche and I have had a love affair; the problem is that I cannot stand his fans.
  
  I imagine this review will not be useful to most people, but if you've encountered the Nietzsche-bots, you know exactly what I am talking about.
• 
  Ahmad Sharabiani

  Die fröhliche Wissenschaft = The Gay Science = The Joyful Wisdom, Friedrich Nietzsche
  
  Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844, Röcken, Lützen, Germany - August 25, 1900, Weimar, Germany) was a German philosopher. The Gay Science or The Joyful Wisdom is first published in 1882 and followed by a second edition, which was published after the completion of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, in 1887. This substantial expansion includes a fifth book and an appendix of songs. It was noted by Nietzsche to be "the most personal of all [his] books", and contains the greatest number of poems in any of his published works.
  
  تاریخ نخستین خوانش: روز دوم ماه می سال2006میلادی
  
  عنوان: حکمت شادان؛ نویسنده: فردریش (فریدریش) نیچه؛ مترجمها: جمال آل احمد؛ سعید کامران؛ حامد فولادوند؛ تهران، جامی، سال1377؛ شابک9645620414؛ چاپ دوم سال1380؛ چاپ چهارم سال1385؛ چاپ پنجم سال1388؛ شابک978964620414؛ چاپ ششم سال1389؛ چاپ هفتم سال1392؛ موضوع: تاریخ فلسفه از نویسندگان آلمان - سده19م
  
  فهرست: «پیشگفتار مترجم»؛ «پیشگفتار چاپ دوم نویسنده»؛ «مقدمه شاعرانه»، «شوخی»، «حیله»، «انتقام»؛ «کتاب اول»؛ «کتاب دوم»؛ «کتاب سوم»؛ «کتاب چهارم»؛ «کتاب پنجم»؛ «پیوست سرودهای شاهزاده عاصی»؛
  
  فریدریش نیچه: (آنکس که خنده نمیداند بهتر است کتابهای مرا نخواند)؛
  
  زندگی میتواند برای آنهایی که در جستجوی دانستن هستند یک تجربه باشد، و نه یک وظیفه، جبر، یا فریب؛ «حکمت شادان» کتابی‌ از «فریدریش نیچه» است، که در سال1882میلادی منتشر شد؛ این اثر از ویژه ترین نوشتارهای «نیچه» به شمار می‌آید، زیرا آن را پس از بهبودی از بیماری، بنگاشته و به دوشیزه‌ ای به نام «سالومه» هدیه کرده اند؛ گزینش نام کتاب به توجه «نیچه» بر زندگی شاعران، و رامشگران جنوب «فرانسه»، اشاره دارد، که بر اساس عشق، و جوانمردی، و شادی، زندگی می‌کردند
  
  در ماه آوریل سال1882میلادی، در شهر «رم»، «فریدریش نیچه» با دوشیزه «لو سالومه» آشنا می‌شوند، و شخصیت «لو»، ایشان را مجذوب خویش می‌کند، پس از آن رویداد، وضع جسمی «نیچه» به‌ مرور بهتر شده، و شور و نشاطی غریب سراسر وجودش را فرا می‌گیرد؛ گویی همنشینی و هم‌دلی او با «سالومه»، جان تازه‌ ای بر وجودش دمیده، و با اشتیاق تمام، تصحیح نوشتارهای «حکمت شادان» را در نخستین روزهای تابستان همان سال، به پایان می‌رسانند؛
  
  این کتاب نقطه‌ ی عطفی در میان آثار «نیچه» است؛ «نیچه»، «حکمت شادان» را پیش از چهل سالگی خویش، و پیش از نگارش «چنین گفت زرتشت» بنگاشته اند؛ ایشان در این کتاب، برای بسیاری از نظریه‌ هایی که در «چنین گفت زرتشت» بازگو و شرح مینمایند، پیش نگاره ای بیان کرده، و چندی از نوشتارها و مفاهیم بنیادین اندیشه هایشان را، نخستین بار در کتاب «حکمت شادان» طرح نموده اند؛ «بازگشت ازلی»، «اَبَرانسان»، «اراده‌ ی معطوف به قدرت» و تمثیل نامدار «مرگ خداوند» از آن دسته‌ هستند؛ به همین برهان از نظر بسیاری کارشناسان، کتاب حاضر، نقطه‌ ی عطفی در دیگر شدن اندیشه‌ ی «نیچه» بوده، و می‌توان آن را گرانیگاه آثار ایشان دانست
  
  نام «مجلس حکمت شادان»، اشاره‌ ای به شاعران، و رامشگران جنوب «فرانسه» است، که از سده ها پیش، حرکتی را در ستایش عشق، جوانمردی و «شاد زیستن» آغاز کرده بودند؛ در دهه‌ ی چهارده میلادی، در شهر «تولوز فرانسه» مکتبی به نام «مجلس حکمت شادان» بنا نهاده شد؛ در آن مکتب، دل وابستگان به شعر و موسیقی، جلساتی داشتند، و در زمینه‌ ی آداب زبان، گفت و شنید می‌کردند، و گاهی نیز به سرایش شعر می‌پرداختند؛ حاضران در آن نشستها، اشعاری را که میسرودند، «حکمت شادان» نام مینهادند؛ چرا که ابیات آن شعرها، از شور و شعفی عاشقانه لبریز بود، که شاعر به دلدارخود ابراز می‌کرد؛ با این همه، «نیچه» در این اثر، به هنرمند نیز توجهی ویژه داشته و جایگاه هنرمند را ارج می‌نهند
  
  دانش سکرآور: «فریدریش نیچه» در «حکمت شادان»، از نشاطی پشتیبانی میکنند، که از علم، دانش، و بینشمندی فرد، سرچشمه می‌گیرد؛ از سوی دیگر، دانشی که به‌ سان شعر و موسیقی، سرمستی و شادی آورد نیز، نزد «نیچه» از جایگاهی والا؛ جایگاهی فراتر از شناخت عقلی و برهانی، برخوردار بوده است؛ «نیچه» در «حکمت شادان» هواخواهیِ دانشمندی را دارند، که همانگونه که خواهان علم و خرد است، هنر و شادمانی را نیز خواهان باشد، و محترم بشمارد؛
  
  تاریخ بهنگام رسانی 18/03/1400هجری خورشیدی؛ 19/01/1401هجری خورشیدی؛ ا. شربیانی
• 
  Roy Lotz

  The more mistrust, the more philosophy.

  
  How to review Nietzsche? His writing is so rich, so overabundant, so overflowing, that evaluating his works is like trying to drink up a waterfall. I cannot even decide whether Nietzsche was a philosopher, or something else. Perhaps he can be better described as an essayist, a poet, a sage, a neurotic, a raving madman, a prescient visionary? The title hardly matters, I suppose; although without some benchmark of comparison, I am left in the dark for a way to measure Nietzsche and his writings. The only way open I can see is to weigh Nietzsche against himself.
  
  In the context of his full corpus, The Gay Science is easily one of Nietzsche’s strongest works. It dates from his middle period, after his break with Wagner and his renunciation of Schopenhauer, when he was still developing his most characteristic ideas. Indeed, in this book one finds Nietzsche’s first proclamation that “God is dead,” as well as the first mention of the Eternal Recurrence. Many of Nietzsche’s criticisms of science, humanism, liberalism, and above all morality can be found in nascent form in these pages, to be more fully developed in Beyond Good and Evil and The Genealogy of Morals.
  
  Nietzsche’s central project, put briefly, was to set about questioning the fundamental values and assumptions of Western history. Many of these he traces back to Socrates, whom Nietzsche regards with a mix of admiration and horror. In the works of Plato, Socrates is turned into an ideal: he is coldly logical, scorning all sensations and emotions; he holds that our everyday world is less worthy than the world beyond; that art is not a source of knowledge or wisdom, but a mere beguilement of the senses; that contemplation is better than action; that peacefulness is better than passion; that moral behavior leads to happiness. This collection of doctrines, Nietzsche believes, was transformed into Christianity, which added what Nietzsche later referred to as a “slave morality"—the praise of meekness, pity, kindness, gentleness, compassion, common in Christian preaching.
  
  Nietzsche struggled for years to extricate himself from this morass, and in the process developed one of his faculties to the utmost perfection: his suspicion. Nietzsche suspected every received idea, automatic impulse, longstanding tradition, comforting thought, pleasant assumption, common opinion. In this way, he hoped to disentangle himself from the spider’s web and to see the world with a new clarity of vision: “If one would like to see our European morality for once as it looks for a distance, and if one would like to measure it against other moralities, past and future, then one has to proceed like a wanderer who wants to know how high the towers in the town are: he leaves the town.”
  
  But it is no easy thing to leave one’s entire society and culture behind, and to see it from a distance. Perhaps it can’t be done. Nietzsche tried, first, by isolating himself physically, leading a solitary life away from friends and family, living off his pension from his time in the University of Basel. From this vantage point, Nietzsche started to take aim at Western culture, as he perceived it. This project was obviously not one of system building—at least, not at first—but of assault. Nietzsche aimed to think outside of any system, to dance constantly on shifting ground, taking no assumption as a starting point, mistrustful of all impulses towards conventional opinion. This, I think, is why Nietzsche wrote in aphorisms: he needed to retreat quickly from his forays, so as not to get drawn back into the assumptions he was trying to criticize: “For I approach deep problems like cold baths: quickly into them, and quickly out again.”
  
  Nietzsche felt that this job was not only important, but of historical significance. This is because of his famous proclamation that “God is dead”—or, in other words, that the idea of God was no longer taken seriously. Nietzsche meant this not only intellectually, but also aesthetically: “What is not decisive against Christianity is our taste, no longer our reasons.” In other words, the old worldview was not only intellectually bankrupt, but not even pleasing anymore.
  
  But the death of God was not an isolated event; it marked a decisive transition in culture. So many of our basic assumptions, about truth, morality, justice, and life, are based on the Christian worldview. Without the support of this worldview, people would begin to see these assumptions as mere prejudices. Indeed, our dependence on Christian assumptions is one of the things that Nietzsche most delighted in pointing out. For example, the idea that truth is more valuable than appearance is a prejudice that originates in the old belief that all truth came from God. The modern idea that every person is equal and deserves the same rights comes from the idea that everyone is equal in the eyes of God.
  
  As is well known, Nietzsche eventually called himself Anti-Christ, but his opposition to Christianity had nothing in common with Richard Dawkin’s or Bertrand Russell’s, who both opposed Christianity because it didn’t hold up under logical scrutiny. Rather, Nietzsche found Christianity distasteful because he perceived it as being life-denying. Christianity is a religion that considers humankind inherently sinful, and all bodily pleasures disgraceful; a religion that decries this earthly life ugly and miserable, and places its hopes in the afterlife; a religion that celebrates the virtues of weakness: compassion for the sick, gentleness to your fellows, meekness in the face of an almighty God.
  
  All of this, Nietzsche considers to be anti-life—a sick yearning for death. For Nietzsche, Christianity was an attempt by people with weak bodies and unhealthy minds to impose their ailment on the rest of humanity; a system created by feeble and miserable people to drag the rest of humanity down to their level. Against this, Nietzsche proclaims a life-affirming philosophy. What this exactly entails is hard to say, but the fundamental doctrine is amor fati, or love of fate. For Nietzsche, the ideal was to love your life so fully that you could wish to relive it over and over again, endlessly repeating the same actions. This is the famous Eternal Recurrence.
  
  Personally, I find it all but impossible to discuss Nietzsche’s ideas without discussing his life and his personality. First, it is worth noting that Nietzsche was a sickly person, suffering from an acutely painful disease (syphilis?) for his whole adult life. Thus the question of philosophy being anti-life or life-affirming was a personal one for Nietzsche; he wanted to rise above his own pain, to resist the urge to denigrate life because of his own suffering, and instead to cultivate a joyful wisdom.
  
  Thus his philosophy was deeply personal, and we get a large dose of his personality in his writings. Nietzsche was obviously a profoundly introverted man; indeed, he was so introverted that he often mistook himself for the universe. He was constitutionally incapable of being a good scholar; he could not for a moment put his own prejudices aside and attempt neutrality. Instead, Nietzsche treats the world as a kind of backdrop to his thoughts, paying more attention to his opinions about things than to the things themselves. He has such startling and original opinions that, most often, this is an exhilarating experience; but this also leads Nietzsche into many statements that are obviously absurd and empirically false. What is more, Nietzsche’s profound introversion eventually, and perhaps inevitably, turned into a profound narcissism that blackens his later writings.
  
  As I said above, Nietzsche’s strongest and most versatile weapon was his suspicion. Most often, his deep mistrust allowed him to reach striking conclusions. But occasionally his suspicion veers into cynicism, and cynicism is not an attractive quality. The combination of this cynicism and his narcissism sometimes led Nietzsche into stupidity, such as his many idiotic comments about women. These qualities also led Nietzsche to many positions that I, and most others nowadays, consider reactionary in the extreme and elitist beyond measure. He is full of insults for the “herd” of humanity, the rabble, the stupid masses. And his criticisms of conventional morality sometimes led Nietzsche to vicious conclusions:
  

  Who will attain anything great if he does not find in himself the strength and the will to inflict great suffering? Being able to suffer is the least thing; weak women and even slaves often achieve virtuosity in that. But not to perish of internal distress and uncertainty when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of this suffering—that is great, that belongs to greatness.

  
  But as unattractive as Nietzsche’s personality can be, and as unpalatable as some of his conclusions were, I still love his books. Simply as a writer of prose, Nietzsche is in the first class; his prose is fire made articulate. More than that, his books are so full of ideas, so rich, so overabundant, so overflowing; his mind was so nimble, his personality so strange, his conclusions so original, that you cannot help but come away with your brain buzzing with inspiration.
  
• 
  فرشاد

  حکمت شادان، اگر هنوز، یکی از آنان باقی مانده باشد.
• 
  Luís

  One of the essay themes relates to morality: man is preoccupied and attached to a single objective, to serve what contributes to his conservation, that is to say, the instinct to preserve life. And that there are no helpful or harmful men, that each one contributes to this instinct of life: "Is the most harmful man still the most useful, in the perspective of the conservation of the species? ; because it maintains in him, or else, by his action, in others of the impulses without which humanity would have long since weakened or would have rotten".
  Second Nietzschean principle: As everything is futility since God is dead, we can laugh at everything. However, the time of Nietzsche was still the time of the tragedy of religious morality. Only creators, and artists, by their imagination, could upset appearances and receive ideas about existence.
• 
  Prerna

  The translator's note for this book indicates that Nietzsche wrote it as a ridicule of the spirit of gravity. And this ridicule that sometimes transforms into negation and at other times into denial, is persistent throughout the book. And yet...
  
  seeker. I?
  Oh. please be stilI!
  I'm merely heavy--weigh many a pound.
  I fall, and I keep falling till
  At last I reach the ground.
  
  And yet there is affirmation. There is a refusal to accept gravity's pull and there is also a submission to its strength, the sense of weightlessness is countered by an almost jovial acceptance of the greatest weight - the infamous eternal recurrence.
  
  Most of this book is written by and for the underdog, for someone who lurks in the shadows and on the edges while keeping a cautious eye on the centre, lest he be blown away by the imbalance brewing there. He wants a place outside the gates of paradise.
  
  A spiritlike intermediate being: quietly observing, gliding, floating? As the boat that with its white sails moves like an immense butterfly over the dark sea. Yes! To move over existence! That's it! That would be something!
  
  Nietzsche writes that most human beings exert a retroactive force, the antidote to our misery is more misery - or so we have conditioned ourselves to believe. We continually need others and other others to fuel our own distress and so we project the outside inward. Nietzsche however, turns his insides out and desires to paint his happiness on the walls for everyone to see. (Didn't really succeed there as we all know, but A for effort I guess.) His desires are contradictory to say the least. He yearns for weightlessness, for free fall but also for suspension. I would say he aims to find himself at a point of balance between opposing forces, but he honestly does not seem like the type to endorse balance. He wishes not only to stand over morality, but to float above it and play. He even refuses to explain anything in detail since he believes that any attempt at explanation turns everything into an image - an image not of itself but of us. We seem to wish to recraft the universe through an anthropomorphic principle and Nietzsche despises that.
  
  We live like waves, crawling and crashing and for Nietzsche those who carry galaxies within themselves truly know the irregularity of life. And thus it is the outside that must be shaped into an image within us just as we turn our insides out - as we invert out selves.
  
  There is no 'condition of existence', only a descent into decline. We are posthumous people. Especially us. You and me. People of the post-pandemic world. Waiting for the post bit to crawl by us.
  
  I avoided reading Nietzsche all this time because I considered him too mainstream. (He is too mainstream, but it doesn't help that incels quote him on instagram as some sort of false reading flex.) I am occasionally a literary snob, an elitist and I abhor this about just as much as I abhor the mainstream when I am in one of my elitist moods. So am I some kind of eagle in pursuit or just Minerva's favorite hoothoothoot?
• 
  Jonfaith

  For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer!
  
  While this wasn't my point of departure into Theory, though it should've been. Ideas bubbled and grew fecund in my youthful soul. Pints of Carlsburg and shit food from Hardees nourshed my wretched body, but it was Nietzsche's frisson which propelled me forward.
• 
  Irina Constantin

  E o oprimare intelectuala pentru mine să vorbesc despre Nietzsche, nu am mai făcut asta,  am citit ce-a de-a doua carte a lui, după Aforisme, nu e ușor deloc, Nietzsche se citește ca o ecuație,  ca o problemă de matematică dificilă,  simți ca te apropii de soluționarea ei, dar observi iar niște erori de calcul în urmă și te întorci înapoi,  tot contemplând un mijloc de ieșire, te exasperează și te duce pe culmile unei lucidității tăioase ca și cum te-ar biciu un vânt nemilos pe un vârf de munte,  ești singur și împrejurimile sunt aspre, așa e cartea lui Nietzsche...
    A fost greu să o încep, am răscolit-o în ultimii doi ani, pentru că o am din 2020, dar pe vremea aia eram departe cu mintea de ea, mi-am promis că o să încep la un moment dat,  dar nu știm că acel momen va veni mai devreme decât mă așteptam, pe 30 decembrie ieșeam din cea mai frumoasă carte de eseistica citită în ultimii ani Frumusețea va mântui lumea de Ion Vianu și am mers pe simbolistica coperții portocalii, așa că am extras Nietzsche de pe raft, oricum nu erau prea departe una de alta...
  Știința voioasa are tot cam același nuanță de portocaliu la copertă ca și cartea lui Vianu,  nu știu de ce m-am axat pe culoare,  de obicei nu prea îmi pasă de nuanțe pentru că mă atrag conținuturile, vorbim de cărți, bineînțeles....
    Marele ilustru, filosof și filolog al secolului al XIX-a, Friedrich Nietzsche a avut toată viața sa o strânsă prietenie cu Richard Wagner ai căreia personalitate și opera l-a influențat substanțial, lui Schopenhauer îi datorează în schimb influențele de mai târziu în opera sa.
    Nietzsche și-a propus prin Știința voioasa să se afle pe sine,  să se dezvăluie, în primul rând sieși,  dacă m-a citit atât de bine și pe mine,  asta face parte dintr-o altă recenzie la opera lui Nietzsche despre care o sa vorbesc mai târziu...
  Raportat strict la ultima carte citită în ianuarie,  Știința voioasa îmi dezvăluie niște căi necunoscute,  inedite, de care încă nu știam, ar fi trebuit să trec prin "infernul" nietzschean ca să reușesc să mă indentific mai bine cu mine însămi,  cu niște ipostaze total nepotrivite personalității mele pe care altă dată le renegam.
    Știința voioasa e o carte prea complexa, nu știu dacă poți scrie vreodată o recenzie la opera lui Nietzsche, eu doar am încercat mai mult dintr-o perspectiva lirică,  mai mult din contrastul poezie-filosfie ce circula prin mine...
  
  Sunt abia la început,  am luat o cunoștința timid cu opera lui Nietzsche, nu pot să fac o critică literară la cartea asta, încă, m-am abandonat cu totul reflecției și celor cinci părți din Știința voioasa
  Cel ce spune că "Dumnezeu a murit" și oferă și contextul acestei afirmații, în cartea Știința voioasa veți
  descoperi de ce Dumnezeu a murit precum și întreaga frază de unde a fost extras enunțul și a indus în eroare atâția oameni, aici este totul de-a întregul și  nu vreau să spun mai mult...
    Nu citi nimic din Nietzsche dacă nu ești pregătit încă, o perioada o absoarbe pe alta, așa mi s-a întâmplat și mie, trebuie acum sa fac o pauză lungă de la citirea filosofie și cred ca Schopenhauer se amână...
  Filosofia lui Nietzsche nu este o oglindă în care îți vezi aproximativ reflecția, ci este o bucată de sticlă găsită la nimereala undeva în care ți-ai analizat prima data chipul minuțios,  la lumina orbitoare a soarelui de amiază și te-ai cutremurat văzându-ti defectele, lipsurile și supliciile interioare, ai înebunit momentan.
  
  
  Cel puțin așa mi-am închipuit eu,  așa a fost pentru mine.
  
  
  
  
  
   
   
• 
  Gilgamesh Nabeel

  هو أول كتاب متكامل أقرأه لنيتشه، فقد قرأت في السابق كتابا عن فلسفته بصورة عامّة وقد رأيت في الكثير من التحامل وقلّة الحياديّة. في هذا الكتاب عشقت أشعار نيتشه وعباراته القصيرة بشكل يفوق ما وجدته في نثره، أراه يبرع في التعبير عن أفكاره بإيجاز وإقتضاب.
  
  يناقش الكتاب الفلسفات المختلفة كهيغل وكانط وأبيقور وغيرها من مدارس الفلسفة اليونانيّة، يتكلّم عن الموسيقى، عن فاغنر وروسّيني وغيرهم، عن اللغة الألمانية وإسم الشعب الألماني، عن الفن في كثير من المواضع، عن الممثّلين والنساء واليهود. يناقش إغتراب المفكّر، وشيوع الأفكار السلبيّة، هو يمجّد القوّة ويحتقر الضعف. يعلن موت الإله أوّل مرّة في هذا الكتاب، يتكلّم عن المسيحيّة والبوذيّة، عن العبوديّة ويكثر من وصف البحر والجبل.
  
  هو كتاب قيّم جدّا ويصعب تلخيصه وإيجازه، لا بدّ ان تقرأه بنفسك. طبعا شخصيّا أتّفق معه في دعوته لنبذ الحقيقة المطلقة، وفي ضرورة إيجاد ذاتك بنفسك من دون أن تقلّد غيرك، ولكنّني لا أتّفق معه فيما يخص نظرته عن المرأة والشفقة والضعف، وتمجيده للقوّة والحروب ألبتّة.
  
  إقتباسات:
  
  دعوة
  تجرّأوا على تذوّق طعامي أيّها الآكلون!
  غدا يصير طعمه أفضل
  وبعد غد سيبدو لكم طيّبا
  وإذا طلبتم المزيد
  فإنّ وصفاتي القديمة ستوحي إليّ بالجديد
  
  أعجبك وأقوالي تجذبك
  تريد أن تتبعني وتسير على خطاي؟
  إتبع بإخلاص ذاتك ذاتها
  هكذا تتبعني رويدا رويدا
  
  عداوة صريحة أجدى من صداقة مفبركة
  
  الربّ يحبّنا لأنّه خلقنا
  الإنسان هو من خلق الرب
  يردّ الفطنون
  وألا يحبّ الإنسان ما خلقه بنفسه؟
  وهل لأنّه خلقه عليه أن ينكره؟
  
  هيرقليطيّة
  كل سعادة على الأرض
  أصلها الصراع، يا أصدقائي
  نعم، لنصير أصدقاء
  يلزم قصف المدافع
  يتّحد الأصدقاء في ثلاثة أشياء
  أخوة أمام البؤس
  متساوون أمام العدو
  أحرار أمام الموت
  
  رجل الأعماق
  باحث – أنا؟
  رجاءا تحاشى هذه الكلمة
  لست إلاّ ثقيلا، جدّ ثقيل!
  فأنا أهبط، أهبط بدون توقّف
  حتّى أصل أخيرا إلى العمق
  
  الحكيم يتكلّم
  غريبٌ، مع إنّي مفيد للشعب
  أمضي في طريقي في الشمس أو في السحاب
  ودائما أعلى من هذا الش��ب
  
  آدمي، مفرط الآدميّة
  مكتئب وشرير
  طالما أنت تنظر إلى الخلف
  واثق من المستقبل ما أن تثق بنفسك
  آه أيّها العصفور
  هل أعدّك بين النسور؟
  هل أنت بوم منيرف المفضّل؟
  
  الرسّام الواقعي
  الطبيعة كلّها، وبأمانة!
  كيف يصل إليها؟
  ومتى أمكن للطبيعة أن تستنفذ في لوحة؟
  لا متناهية هي أقل شذرة في الطبيعة
  وفي الأخير لا يرسم إلاّ ما يحلو له
  وماذا يحلو له؟ ما يعرف أن يرسمه!
  
  ليست الحياة إلاّ موت طويل! أي مجنون كنت حتّى أقصّر حياة هذا العدد الكبير من الناس؟ كان يجدر بي أن أعطيهم حياة الأبديّة. هكذا كان بإمكاني أن أراهم يموتون أبديّا.
  
  المتشكّك يتكلّم
  نصف حياتك قد مضى
  العقرب يتقدّم، وروحك ترتعش منذ زمن طويل
  تبحث دون أن تجد شيئا، تتردّد هنا؟
  نصف حياتك قد مضى
  ليس إلاّ حزن هنا وهناك، ومن ساعة لأخرى
  الخطأ
  عمّا تبحث أيضا؟ ولماذا؟
  بالضبط، أبحث عن سبب لبحثي
  
  هوذا الرجل
  نعم، أعرف أصلي
  نهم كالشعلة
  أفنى متوهّجا
  نور كلّ ما ألمسه
  فحم كلّ ما أتركه
  أنا شعلة حقّا
  
  أغلب البشر ينقصهم الوعي الفكري، وغالبا ما بدا لي أنّ تملّك هذا الوعي يعني أن تعيش وحيدا وسط المدينة الآهلة كما لو كنت في الصحراء.
  
  لا تجد غالبيّة البشر من المعيب أن تؤمن بهذا الشيء أو ذاك، وبأن تتصرّف تبعا له، من دون أن تكون قد وزنت ما له وما عليه، من دون أن تعي بحقّ الأسباب الأخيرة لتصرّفها، من دون أن تجهد في تقصّي هذه الأسباب فيما بعد، ولا يزال أمهر الرجال وأنبل النساء ينتمون إلى فئة الغالبيّة ��ذه.
  
  في كل حال، يبقى الجديد هو الشرّ، كونه يريد أن يستولي وأن يدوس بقدميه أطرف التخوم القديمة وأن يجندل التقى القديمة، ذلك أنّ القديم وحده هو الخير.
  
  أحبّ إعتبار الرجال النادرين في مرحلة ما بوصفهم الذريّة المتأخّرة التي تنبثق فجأة من حضارة قديمة وقوى بائدة. أرى فيهم نوعا من الوراثة لشعب ولعاداته. وعلى هذا الأساس، ثمّة شيء في حالة هؤلاء الرجال يجدر فهمه! فهم اليوم يبدون غريبين، ونادرين وغير مألوفين! وكلّ من يشعر بوجود مثل هذه القوى في ذاته عليه أن ينمّيها ويدافع عنها ضد العالم المعادي والمتمرّد. فإمّا أن يصير رجلا كبيراا وإمّا أن يصير فردا غريبا ومجنونا، ذلك إن لم يهلك في الطريق.
  
  إنّ تبدّل الذوق العام أهمّ بكثير من تبدّل الآراء! فالآراء بكلّ براهينها أو تهافتها وكلّ الرياء الفكري الذي يصاحبها ليس إلاّ مجرّد أعراض للذوق الذي يتبدّل.
  
  كلكامش نبيل
  
  
• 
  Prickle

  Perhaps one of the greatest passages I encountered here has the unconventional form of a short parable, or "psychologist's tale" that almost does more in two paragraphs than an entire novella, and reminds me much of Johann Peter Hebel:
  
  "In dealings with people who are ashamed of their feelings, one must be able to disguise one's own; for such people take a sudden antipathy to anyone who catches them in a moment of tenderness, or enthusiasm, or intemperate rage, as if their deepest secrets had been discovered. If one wants to do them a kindness in such moments one should make them laugh, and utter some cold, cruel witticism - then their heart turns to ice, and they regain self-possession. But I am giving you the moral before the story.
  
  There was a time in our lives when we had grown so close to one another in friendship and brotherhood that nothing seemed to stand between us except this little footbridge. Just as you were about to step upon it, I asked you: 'Do you want to cross this bridge to me?' But then you no longer wanted to, and when I asked you again, you fell silent. Since then mountains and torrents and all that divides and estranges have come between us, and even if we wanted to be reconciled with one another, it was no longer possible. However, when you think back to that little footbridge, you are at a loss for words - but filled with tears and wonder."
  
  Much of Nietzsche's aphorisms (or rather passages that implicitly make up a whole) here take on a poetic form that are rhythmic and conversational without completely jumping the ship of non-fiction like Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and in this style The Joyous Science appear wholly unique and vivifying to a modern weary and logical mind in what is otherwise an ocean of grays and blues in writing. Take it from the author himself, however:
  
  "It is noteworthy that the great masters of prose have almost always been poets, either openly, or secretly for their own private enjoyment; and truly, good prose is written only in light of poetry! For prose is the result of an uninterrupted, polite war with poetry; all its charm consists in the fact that poetry is constantly avoided and contradicted; every abstraction wishes to be presented as a piece of roguishness against poetry and with mocking voice; all dryness and coolness is supposed to drive the lovely goddess to lovely despair; often there are momentary compromises and reconciliations between the two, and then a sudden rebound into laughter; often the curtain is drawn back and harsh light let in just when the goddess was enjoying her twilights and dull colours; often her words are taken from her mouth and sung to a melody which makes her hold her delicate hands over her delicate ears - and so there are a thousand pleasures to this war, the defeats very much included, of which the unpoetic, the so-called prose writers, know nothing - which is why they write and speak only bad prose!"
  
  Now that I have been so soundly trounced, and seeing that against my better judgement I have unwittingly mentioned Hebel above without sparing him a single thought for almost exactly a year until now, I wonder if I might better occupy my time Walter Benjamin-like with constructing my reviews solely out of quotations from now on.
• 
  Pavle

  Niče i ja se nikad nismo našli u tinejdž godinama sa kojima je on toliko u moderno vreme postao poistovećen - edži adolescenti + Niče jedan su od onih nesnosnih klišea koji su nekako našli put do javnog mnjenja i to se verovatno u dogledno vreme neće promeniti. A ja nit sam bio posebno edži, nit sam se nešto interesovao da čitam filozofiju (što me nije sprečavalo da filozofiram; zapravo vrlo nalik na Ničea samo nisam hteo da budem pod “uticajem nečijih ideja” – da, kao najnepodnošljiviji lik ikad), pa me je tako gospodin Fridrih zaobišao.
  
  Njegova Radosna nauka i ja smo se naposletku sreli pomalo slučajno. Trenutno sam na studijama napolju, na jednom univerzitetu gde se sprovodi praksa tzv izbornih predmeta u širem smislu te reči – studentu je dozvoljeno da uzme koji god predmet hoće sa koje god katedre, ma koliko nepovezana sa njegovom matičnom (a ja sam baš baš baš daleko od Ničea po predmetu studija), sve dok se uklapa u raspored. I ako to nije najbolja akademska praksa na svetu, ja evo ne znam šta je (iako 90% studenata po ovome što čujem na kraju ipak izabere nešto usko vezano za njihovu struku, ALI NE I JA VIDITE KAKO IMAM ŠIROKE VIDIKE). I tako ja uzeh predmet Nietzsche’s Gay Science kod jednog engleskog profesora koji izgleda kao kada bi Hari Poter doktorirao na filozofiji i sve to vreme jeo samo i isključivo instant nudle.
  
  I bi mi super! Dosta toga zanimljivog se zapravo krije u ovoj knjižici, dosta autobiografskog, dosta introspektivnog i socijalnog, sa puno kontradikcija, komešanja, zabuna i zabava. Bilo je interesantno spajati kockice Ničea i njegovog (ne)razumevanja od strane levice i desnice podjednako. Neću ovde o Ničeovim idejama, jer bi bilo potpuno suludo da ja sad tu mrsomudim, ali svakako mogu reći da je knjiga kosmos u malom i sa te strane osciluje izmedju degutantnog i veličanstvenog sa nekom posebno pitkom učestalošću.
  
  4
  
• 
  Freddie Sykes

  As if science isn't gay enough already.
• 
  Martin

  "What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you:
  "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again—and you with it, speck of dust!"
  Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine!" If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you; the question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more, and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?"
  
  Nietzche is a genius.
• 
  Mojtaba Asghari

  میدانیم که نیچه دو فلسفه مهم دارد که یکی از آن در تقریبا تمامی کتاب هایش مفهومش تکرار میشود که همان "اراده معطوف به قدرت" است
  و دیگری که تا حدی مرموز و مبهم هست موضوع "بازگشت جاودانه همان"
  که به قول هایدگر ، نیچه عمدا این موضوع را مبهم و بسته نگه داشته است و خیلی به تشریح آن در کتاب هایش نپرداخته چراکه همین حس شهودی به این ایده کافیست و نبایست به دنبال دلایل منطقی اثبات آن بود
  همین موضوع باعث ترغیب من جهت گشتن ردپای مفهوم این موضوع شد که تا حدی شباهت به طرح عرفانی گری هم دارد و تنها این کتاب حکمت شادان نیچه بود که در آن میتوان تا حد بیشتری نزدیکی این نویسنده را با این مفاهیم حسی و شهودی "بازگشت جاودانه همان" را پیدا کرد
  این کتاب در اصل دارای 4 بخش بوده که در سال 1882 منتشر شده اما در سال 1886 نیچه پیشگفتاری به آن اضافه میکند و در سال 1887 بخش پنجم را هم به این کتاب اضافه میکند
  بر خلاف مقدمه حامد فولادوند در این کتاب ، نمیتوان گفت نیچه منظورش از عرفانی گری همانچیزی بوده است که برخی در ایران به آن اشاره میکنند
  شاید دلیل پر رنگ تر کردن این بخش از فلسفه نیچه در میان سایر آثارش صرفا تلطیف آثار مربوط به موضوع "اراده معطوف به قدرت" و تاثیر آن در اندیشه نازی ها بود که باعث شد مترجمین فرانسوی نیچه شامل گروه دلوز -فوکو-باتای و کولوسفسکی روی این بخش از فلسفه نیچه تاکید بیشتری بورزند
  اما اشتباه مترجم ایرانی این اثر این است که کلا در یک تلاش یک سویه در سراسر کتاب در تلاش است کلا بحث ابر انسان نیچه را نیز به عرفانی گری از دید ایرانی نزدیک کند که به نظرم از این زاویه به نیچه نگریستن ما را به بیراهه میکشاند
  چنانچه خود نیچه هم در کتاب چنین گفت زرتشت اشاره میکند که هر فراشدی، فروشدی به همراه دارد
  که متاسفانه در ایران عرفانی گری یعنی به خواب زمستانی فرو رفتن و هرگز بیدار نشدن!
  
• 
  Kelsey Hennegen

  Often misread, surely even by me (at least at times), but what I get from this text is such hope for a new health, a new happiness, and a new love. The possibility to love one's fate -- not to endure life, but to affirm and celebrate it, to dance. We must learn to love, we must eschew conclusions and certainty, for "conclusions are consolations," and, rather, engage in perpetual experimentation and play. We can be the artists of our own life, creators.
  
  I don't find an aggressive will to power here, but a subtlety, a sensitivity. These 'fearless ones' shed skin, delve into the depths and reach new heights, weather storms, shed their skin as though we've filed away the callouses and now we're left more receptive to life and its delicate coloration, to the beautiful chaos of existence. There is such gratitude here.
  
  Kaufmann offers some helpful footnotes and context, especially in the 'German rhymes' poetry sections, as well as a compelling introduction that provides insight into the title, the structure, Nietzsche's history, etc.
• 
  مهسا

  جانفرسا
• 
  Maryam

  عنوان کتاب حکمت شادان اشاره ای است به شاعران و رامشگران جنوب فرانسه که در قرن دوازدهم میلادی حرکتی را در ستایش عشق، جوانمردی و شاد زیستن را آغاز می کنند. و مکتبی تاسیس می شود به نام مجلس حکمت شادان. که در آنجا علاقه مندان به شعر و موسیقی جلساتی تشکیل می دهند و در زمینه قواعد زبان و سخنوری بحث و جدل می کنند. ر��م��گران و عیاران این محفل اشعاری را که برای حضرت مریم یا بانوی محبوب خود می سرایند حکمت شادان می نامند.
  
  
   حکمت شادان نوشته ای است که به شاعر و هنرمند ارج می نهد. نیچه در این کتاب از آفرینش، هنر و سرمستی در برابر خردزدگی و علم پرستی دفاع می کند. ستایش نیچه از دیونیسوس (مظهر سرمستی، نشاط، حیات و خلاقیت)، برتر شمردن دل در برابر عقل یا ترجیح دادن کشف و شهود در مقایسه با منطق، مضامینی هستند که ثابت می کند اندیشه نیچه در حکمت شادان از خردگرایی دکارت و علم ناب و دانش بدون سرمستی فاصله بیشتری گرفته است.
  
  حکمت شادان از علم و دانشی دفاع می کند که برای انسان به مانند شعر و موسیقی سرمستی و شادی آورد. چنین علمی معرفت ویژه ای است فراتر از شناخت عقلی و استدلالی. این معرفت شهودی بر دل و الهام استوار است. آیین نهفته در این کتاب بر معرفت قلبیه بنا شده مختص کسی است که اهل معنویت، عشق و سرخوشی باشد.
  
  جملاتی از کتاب
  
  در تربیت زنان سطح بالای جامعه چیزی بهت انگیز و هولناک وجود دارد که شاید عجیب تر از آن وجود نداشته باشد. همه متفق القولند که آنها باید در نهایت بی خبری از مسائل عشقی بزرگ شوند تا شرم و حیای عمیق دروجودشان ریشه دواند و یاد بگیرند که با هر اشاره ساده ای به مسائل جنسی مضطرب و گریزان شوند. شرف و عزت زنان تنها به این موضوع وابسته است آنها باید تا اعماق روحشان نسبت به این مسائل ناآگاه بمانند، در مورد چیزی که باید آن را بد بدانند باید کور و کر و لال باشند حتی شناخت آن هم بد است. اما بعد! همین زنان گویی با یک ضربه صاعقه هولناک به درون واقعیت و آگاهی یعنی ازدواج پرتاب می شوند حالا باید عشق را کشف کنند در حالی که با شرم و حیا دست به گریبانند، باید همزمان با لذت و شیفتگی، با خودسپای و وظیفه،با  انسانیت و حیوانیت آشنا شود!!
  
  
  من برای درد خود نامی انتخاب کرد و آن را سگ می نامم. درد من به اندازه هر سگی، وفادار، مزاحم، بی شرم، سرگرم کنند و باهوش است. من می توانم این درد را صدا کنم و دق دلی های خود را، آنگونه که دیگران روی سگ خود، نوکر خود و همسر خود خالی می کنند، بر سر آن خالی کنم.
  
  خود را هیپنوتیزه کردن. یعنی طرف معاشرت خود را به صورت خرده شیشه نگاه کنیم تا آنجا که هر احساس خوشایند با ناخوشایند نسبت به آن از بین برود و بدون اینکه معلوم شود بخواب رویم، خشک و بیروح شویم و آرام و قرار کامل خود را بازیابیم: این روشی آشنا و معمول در ازدواج و دوستی است؛ زیاد هم مورد استفاده قرار می گیرد و آنرا واجب و ضروری می دانند. نام عامیانه آن..صبر است.
• 
  Miguel Cisneros

  For Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity invented an ideal world, non-existent, away from all contact with the real world. He defined Christianity as a vulgar philosophy and morality for weak people and slaves that proposes decadent values that do not let people be free. In this work, he makes clear the death of a horizon, of a computer truth.
• 
  André

  De agora em diante, levarei comigo este livro para onde quer que me desloque para que sempre que se me depare um sabichão, referindo-se a Nietzsche como um «niilista» ou «apregoador do niilismo», lho possa atirar à cara de antemão aberto na página onde ao fundo se lêem, como que a sangue sublinhadas, as seguintes palavras:
  
  

  Eu não quero um dia ser outra coisa senão um daqueles seres que dizem sim à vida!
• 
  Gary Beauregard Bottomley

  Nietzsche’s inner nonsense gets broadcast within this book: Germans become Jews while moralizing, Schopenhauer’s pessimism is European not German, women aren’t worthy of imitation, whatever you do don’t let Nietzsche think your effeminate, and Jews just can’t be trusted. Childish rants in any time period. At least, ‘only the Englishman strives for happiness’ is funny.
  
  Nietzsche is clearly working out some of his themes he will put into Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and his proto-fascist loving Sister will take some of these aphorisms sprinkled in this book and create the book Will to Power, the most clearly of all the proto-fascist books Nietzsche’s name is attached to. (I believe Nietzsche didn’t have a complete set of notes for that book and his sister culled together something that resembled a book, but, overall, almost all of the clearly fascist rants in that book can be pieced together from Nietzsche’s other books especially including this one).
  
  Nietzsche states in this book that a will to power is the will to live, and that we should say yes to the world and follow our feelings as we experience the awe and wonder of the world around us and that we need a re-evaluation of all values since God is dead and we must live as if our meaning comes from ourselves not outside of ourselves; it is not the logos, ethos, mythos that creates us, but rather, it is our pathos.
  
  All these themes he states mostly in aphorisms in this book and moves fast at the reader who at times he clearly holds in contempt because he believes he continues to cast the proper bait to the fish but they don’t seem to bite. Perhaps, he shouldn’t have mixed in his childish rants when he really does have something worthwhile to say despite his obvious proto-fascist childish nonsense.
• 
  Karl Hallbjörnsson

  Best Nietzsche I've read so far. Kaufmann's annotation is extremely informative, insightful and at times quite hilarious. Onwards to Zarathustra, then!
  
  Edit: been reading it again this year. I'm convinced that this is N's singular best work. A real masterpiece.
• 
  muthuvel

  The Gay Science is one of the energetic works from his prime where one could find almost all his philosophy either in several pages profoundly deliberated or as budding proto-ideas in brief aphorisms. Many ideas including his most familiar 'God is Dead' is mentioned for the first time in this work which later continues in a sort of sequel with his Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
  
  Nietzsche asks several important epistemological questions here and compliments with some of his profound observations about our perspectives of art and ethics. With powerful (sometimes funny) articulations, he attacks mainly on notions of God, Christianity, Morality, Humanism, Liberalism, Socialism, Sciences and other forms provides a sense of certainty to people reinforcing herd mentality with normalized morals.
  

  
  "it is still a metaphysical faith upon which our faith in science rests—that even we seekers after knowledge today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take our fire, too, from the flame lit by a faith that is thousands of years old, that Christian faith which was also the faith of Plato, that God is the truth, that truth is divine, — But what if this should become more and more incredible, if nothing should prove to be divine any more unless it were error, blindness, the lie — if God himself should prove to be our most enduring lie?" 

  
  
  Nietzsche is a quintessence of why one could never generalize the separation of art from its creator. One couldn't obviously make sense of what he has written (of course in the way he wanted the readers to make sense) without understanding his own struggles and life. His personality is deeply embedded as a part of his own philosophy. Misogynistic views too.
  
  It's very difficult to read his work without any judgements as much as it was difficult for him to write without the same. If one could do so, it would be funny of people to become the very herd people who were getting showered by the Nietzsche's rhetorical aphorisms.
  
  

  "Have we ever complained because we are misunderstood, misjudged, misidentified, slandered, misheard, and not heard? Precisely this is our fate—oh, for a long time yet!"

  
  
  Despite many complexities in understanding him, Nietzsche was and still have been lauded by people from all walks of political and philosophical spheres yet often misquoting or using him as a mere tool to achieve their own means. He mocks at the gods and morality yet at the same time he mocks the gnostic roots of science, rationality and logic; he mocks the herd yet inspires a few to lead them, a mix of aristocratic anarchism, he mocks both nationalists and otherwise. Nietzsche was profoundly introspective and an intuitive monster that which is obvious of reading his works.
  
  

  "I hate to follow and I hate to lead.
  Obey? Oh no! And govern? No indeed!
  Only who dreads himself inspires dread."

  
  
  If you were to read only one work of Nietzsche, I'd definitely recommend The Gay Science, and also as a starting point to explore his other works and his philosophy comprehensively.
• 
  David

  Rather than laying out a point and following it with arguments and counter arguments, Nietzsche makes declarations about the world and leaves you to argue for or against him. Even though this book is full of intentional contradictions it does cause the reader to think more about the world around them. However it fails to make a point. Normal philosophy desires to find a conclusion, and from this conclusion the reader is left to think about what was said, but this book only says things to think about.
  
  In some ways this is good, if you are just getting into philosophy and you want to read something that is easy to understand. But I would not call this a classic philosophical book. Other than Nietzsche's constant frustration with morality and general detest of organized religion, no argument is present. This is not a book that challenges the reader intellectually, and is only good to make them think about the world around them.
• 
  Jack

  384.
  
  Having finished the book, the reader had no choice but to read himself. It was not a heroic story, nor a moral one - indeed, he scarcely understood the author's intent in various chapters. Its ending was implicit, if unwritten, yet the reader did not wish to imagine exactly what it would be. Oftentimes it was tedious, not worth reading, and he continued partially from spite, for he did not put a book down easily, and partially from a deeper sense he could not ascribe words to; a vibrancy, something musical that would arrive and depart from his consciousness at the behest of an obscure whim. And it made him laugh, suddenly and gaily and with honesty, as he sat alone in his room.
• 
  imane

  
  القانون لا يحمي المغفلين ولا يحمي الضعفاء. كن قويا كن ذكيا كن داهية انت بحاجة لذلك لكي تعيش. ارفع راسك ولا تنحني ابدا وتذكر انها لعبة انها مسرحية يرتدي فيها البشر اقنعة لا نهائية. ولا تشعر كثيرا الكوكب يمزق الحساسين في حين ان الاوغاد يعيشون طويلا ويمزقون الحياة. والضربة التي لا تقتلك تقويك
  
  https://youtu.be/06h-fRQAccI
  
  
  البكاء موضة قديمة قف على قدميك وخذ حقك انتزعه بالدهاء بالمكر بالقوة المهم ان ترده. لا تكن ضعيفا وذليلا ايضا الضعف من اخلاق العبيد وانت لست ��بدا انت انسان حر
  
  الطيبة ليست سوى ضعف في الشخصية والحساسية ليست سوى تمركز حول الذات
• 
  Naele

  ‏این خودخواهی کورکوچک وحقیراست که قضاوت خود رابه عنوان قانونی جهان شمول درنظرگیریم چون نشان می دهد که هنوز برای خود ارمانی شخصی پیدانکرده اید./نیچه عقایدی داره که منطقی و قابل قبول هس عقایدی هم داره که از جنونش بر خاسته نه منطق. او زنان و انسان رو پست می دونه و اینکه از یک طرف خدارو تحسین می کنه از یک طرف اون رو مرده می پنداره از یک طرف انسان رو محکوم می کنه به اینکه خدا رو کشت و در اخر خودش به جنونش اعتراف می کنه در کتاب حکمت شادان زوال عقل نیچه کاملا مشهود هست
• 
  Miquixote

  One of the great philosophical works. Do yourself a favor and realize right off the bat that it's quite unimportant whether you agree with him or not. He will challenge you and he will get you thinking.
  
  Nietzsche can certainly be seen as too individualistic, too violent, too aristocratic, too condescending of democratic principles, too disrespectful of the little people, and only respectful of the individual 's will to power. That is his strength and his weakness.
  
  Should we write him off as so many have done?
  Should we glorify him as at least as many have done?
  
  What of his Marxist and Christian herds?
  
  In Nietzsche’s opinion, the individual must be respected above the group; the distinguishing factor between the herd collective and the collective that respects individuals. Marxist and Christian experiments have been too paternalistic, too authoritarian. Religion and communism fail because of the ‘herd mentality’ and the ‘ressentiment’ weakness’. An authoritarian-led community or collective is not his answer to our individual and collective ‘un-gayness’.
  
  Interestingly, many anarchists have also been foremost critics of the authoritarian tendency. And have been admirable in that they have tried to toe the line between the individual and the collective. Several big-name anarchists have admitted inspiration from Nietzsche (eg. Emma Goldman), even claiming he was an individualist-anarchist (although Nietzsche hated the anarchists of his day, claiming they were ‘the worst kind of ressenters’).
  
  But an individual without community is lost. Perhaps this is even the dilemma of our time.
  
  Community, tribe, or nucleus maintain our sanity, make us less lonely, support us when we're down but shouldn't make us co-dependent as the individual spirit often provides much-needed initiative, the moving forward, the creativity, the walking away from stagnant situations. But the individual without community would snap like dried wood, and burn up everything around it.
  
  Can there be some type of compromise?
  
  A lot of people think that there's a crossroads happening right now and that if there isn't a compromise between individualism and collectivism then it could just be apocalypse time. Trump style, Putin style, religious Extremists' style, nuclear war style, environmental destruction style. What would Nietzsche have to say about that?
  
  Is asking for a type of symbiosis too utopian?
  
  Perhaps there are too many extreme coinciding stresses on Harmony right now for us to manage without some fantastic new attempt at a superior ‘ubermensch’ harmony of harmonies.
  
  But how harmonize when we must realize that our greatest thinkers didn't seem to know how?
  Is our infatuation with apocalyptic scenarios these days simply an unconscious urge for the return of community, or negatively: the herd?
  Can competition and cooperation compete and/or cooperate enough to allow the survival of our planet, of our species?
  Should we be war mongering chimpanzees or should we be peace loving Bonobos?
  Is Mutual Aid necessarily mutually exclusive of respecting individual rights and needs?
  Was Karl Marx right that class war is inevitable and Nietzsche right that we don't deserve power unless we have the will to take it?
  Can the rugged individualist realize he can't do it alone?
  Can we compete nicely?
  Can we cooperate with the necessary fire in our blood to defeat the enemy (which is ourselves)?
  Or must we continue to fight each other to grow?
  Is there not a way that the competitive spirit inside of us can mingle with the cooperative spirit (that is also equally inside of us) to create a situation where both competition and cooperation can thrive?
  Does moral resentment make another world war inevitable?
  Does the competitive spirit make environmental destruction imminent?
  Or more pointedly in reference to the content of this work: is the authentic gay science only the individualistic way or can it involve cooperative competition?
  Why not create a meritocracy where the ones who work harder get rewarded more but we never leave anyone or the earth behind?
  
  Some conclusions concerning the above:
  
  1. Everybody demonstrates some type or types of Will to power, even if not admittedly by adherents. For example: Not wanting any ideology is in itself an ideology. Even Christian or political herd mentality is a type of will to power (ideological).The question remains how to acknowledge the will to power without abusing it? Can it be done? Since you can't reject the will to power outright (impossible, and the worst kind of herd mentality) should you allow a modicum of will to power through ideology (like pacifism) or inversely through violence (self-defense)? The gay science was one of the great attempts at this will to power without corruption. So Nietzsche is correct that the will to power is necessary to change the world. But does individualism really lead to gayness, considering the social side inherent in humanity? The latest studies on psychology would certainly say no and that community is essential.
  
  Is individualism less corrupting than collectivism? Hofstede's studies on collectivist societies show strong bias towards authoritarianism in collectivist societies. The complete failure of authoritarian communism (Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.) has thrown us flailing into the abyss of our extreme individualism.
  
  The only answer must be a dialectic between the collective and the individual. The will to power must simply be a true meritocracy without destruction of the weak. For even the weak have the will to power, if less capably. The weak can be enabled. The will to power must be nurtured through competition AND cooperation. There can't be one without the other anyway. Competition and cooperation are a dialectic, not a dichotomy. But Nietzsche was right, the herd mentality is not the answer, however mutual aid can be (if it balances it with healthy competition).
  
  We must call the bluff that collectivism and individualism are at odds. No more paternalism, loneliness, or pills. Just real democracy respecting the meek, feeding the poor, saving the environment. But yes, rewarding (within reason, the current inequality is shameful) those who put in more effort. Until then the collectives will still be authoritarian and the individuals far too rugged, and they will continue to be at odds.