The apparent consensus among Nietzsche interpreters is that Nietzsche accepts Schopenhauer’s “description of the ubiquity of suffering” (Gemes 2008, p. 463). In this paper, I argue against this consensus. Specifically, Nietzsche holds that life is not as painful as Schopenhauer makes it out to be, for Nietzsche recognizes two kinds of pleasures that Schopenhauer fails to acknowledge. The only kind of pleasure that Schopenhauer acknowledges is the experience of the cessation of pain that occurs upon the satisfaction of a desire. (...) Nietzsche explicitly rejects Schopenhauer’s view of pleasure; instead, he recognizes pleasurable feelings of power that one can experience when one is trying to satisfy desires, and pleasurable feelings of value that one can experience when one satisfies a desire for something one takes to be valuable. (shrink)

The notion of sublimation is essential to Nietzsche and Freud. However, Freud's writings fail to provide a persuasive notion of sublimation. In particular, Freud's writings are confused on the distinction between pathological symptoms and sublimation and on the relation between sublimation and repression. After rehearsing these problems in some detail, it is proposed that a return to Nietzsche allows for a more coherent account of sublimation, its difference from pathological symptoms, and its relation to repression. In summary, on Nietzsche's account, (...) while repression and pathological symptoms involve a disintegration , sublimation involves integration. The article concludes with a brief consideration of some post-Freudian accounts of sublimation that represent a return to a more Nietzschean approach. (shrink)

The notion of sublimation is essential to Nietzsche and Freud. However, Freud's writings fail to provide a persuasive notion of sublimation. In particular, Freud's writings are confused on the distinction between pathological symptoms and sublimation and on the relation between sublimation and repression. After rehearsing these problems in some detail, it is proposed that a return to Nietzsche allows for a more coherent account of sublimation, its difference from pathological symptoms, and its relation to repression. In summary, on Nietzsche's account, (...) while repression and pathological symptoms involve a disintegration (of the self), sublimation involves integration. The article concludes with a brief consideration of some post-Freudian accounts of sublimation that represent a return to a more Nietzschean approach. (shrink)

Despite the criticisms that Levinas addresses to Nietzsche throughout his writing, he also praises Nietzsche’s legacy. In Humanism of the Other, he indicates how the Nietzschean man is “‘reducing’ being, […] undoing by the non-saying of dance and laughter […] the worlds that weave the aphoristic verb that demolishes them; retiring from the time of aging […] by the thought of the eternal recurrence”. Interpreting Nietzsche’s ambiguous thought of the eternal recurrence as a source of youth, Levinas brings to light (...) the fertility of Nietzsche’s concept of temporality. The aim of this paper is first to render Nietzsche’s thought on time more explicit, focusing on his approach to eternal recurrence, and then to study Levinas’ own approach to time. In the end, it will be possible to understand better Levinas’ interpretation of Nietzsche, and to shed light on some important similarities between these two different approaches to time. (shrink)

NDPR review of Kaitlyn Creasy's 'The Problem of Affective Nihilism in Nietzsche'.