In the lecture Nietzsche: l’homme devant la mort de dieu, Gabriel Marcel highlights the extraordinary topicality of Nietzsche’s thought and figure. The French philosopher seems to say to his hearers: Nietzsche is here, among us, he does not belong to the past, but, on the contrary, he is the most contemporary of contemporaries. Nietzsche’s philosophy of the death of God is a mine of ideas and insights that need to be enhanced. There is still much about him to be discovered. (...) Nietzsche, then – and nihilism as such – is by no means outdated, precisely because, Marcel exclaims, before claiming to have left him behind, it is better to make sure we have reached him. (shrink)

In the hermeneutics’ maze of Nietzsche’s thought, a chapter dedicated to the reconstruction of his reflection about modern press is still missing. But scanning his works, it can be noted how the passionate diatribe against newspapers accompanies him through all his life stages. Journalism never leaves his polemical sights since it represents a real social-cultural issue to him. He proves to be an accurate observer of their influence in culture and society of his time: his eye swings between theoretical considerations (...) about the culture-journalism relationship and more concrete phenomenological observations about the influence of media on the daily lives of his contemporaries. A lifetime battle which has regrettably settled in a limited amount of material, filled with personal grudge: everything Nietzsche has left us about the newspapers’ world, is scattered in short passages, whose tone is almost always excessive. This fragmentation and this pathos become, however, the only path to follow to reconstruct Nietzsche’s polemic towards printed press. Fleeting brushworks they are, from which it seems to appear an image of Nietzsche as very aware of the frequent matching between the experience of modernity and the experience of newspapers. His untimeliness shows a vibrant “phenomenological cross section” of a fundamental aspect of modernity, so far still extremely relevant and problematic. (shrink)

Gabriel Marcel’s writings stand in a complex relationship to Nietzsche’s thought. Paying homage to Nietzsche’s influence as one of the most eminent representatives of the existential thought, Marcel is aware that he deals with a thinker who is as distant from him as he is very close. Marcel’s references to Nietzsche’s thought are tied to Nietzsche’s expression “God is dead”, and the end of the divine is the theme that simultaneously highlights the greatness and the tragedy of Nietzsche. Marcel accepts (...) the contradictions of Nietzsche’s philosophical thought as both dangerous and fruitful. (shrink)

Ridare vita alle ombre esangui del passato”, che torna a vivere nel presente facendosinuovamente “carne e sangue”. Le citazioni di Dilthey e von Wartenburg delimitano ilcampo in cui, per l’Heidegger di Sein und Zeit, si gioca la partita decisiva della storicità delDasein. Per affondare il colpo, egli trova la stoccata vincente nelle frecciate che Nietzschescaglia contro lo storicismo nella seconda delle Considerazioni inattuali – Vom Nutzen undNachtheil der Historie für das Leben –. In lui, Heidegger intravede un autorevole alleato perinstaurare (...) un rapporto autentico con la storia. Essa non dovrà più essere confinata in unpassato museale, tanto grazioso quanto improduttivo per la vita: uscire dalla paralisi dellatradizione vuol dire scrollarsi di dosso il peso del passato e sbloccare il presente e ilfuturo. Solo così l’uomo sarà libero e la storicità recupererà il suo senso più elevato, alservizio della vita. Al di là delle differenze d’intento e di registro ermeneutico-stilistico, laricostruzione di un dialogo a distanza tra i passi di Sein und Zeit e le considerazioninietzscheane offrirà spunti interessanti per pensare alla storia e al suo rapporto, semprein bilico tra il vitale e il patologico, con l’esistenza umana. (shrink)