Revisiting Nietzsche: Thomas Mann’s Interpretation Debunked

Introduction

In 1948, German writer Thomas Mann published an insightful essay titled ldquo;Nietzsche in the Light of Modern Experiencerdquo; in the Commentary magazine. The essay, while acclaimed, contains a series of false allegations against the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, which are worth examining. Mann’s criticisms fundamentally misinterpret Nietzsche’s core arguments, particularly in his works such as 'Beyond Good and Evil' and 'Daybreak'. This article will delve into Mann’s misunderstandings and showcase why his criticisms are no longer tenable.

Misinterpretation of Nietzsche’s View on Intuition and Reason

One of Thomas Mann’s central criticisms against Nietzsche centers around the relationship between instinct and intellect. Mann asserts that Nietzsche committed a ldquo;complete and willful misconceptionrdquo; by assuming that intellect is dangerously dominant over instinct. While Mann criticizes Nietzsche for this perceived imbalance, he fundamentally misses the mark. Nietzsche did not argue that intellect was inherently dangerous; rather, he posited that the intellect is largely determined by and subservient to unconscious, instinctual impulses. This is evidenced by Nietzsche’s own words in 'Beyond Good and Evil', where he states:

ldquo;One must still reckon with the greatest part of conscious thinking among the instincts of action, and even in the case of philosophical thinking… the majority of a philosopher’s most conscious thinking is secretly led and forcibly guided by his instincts.rdquo;

Mann’s misinterpretation stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Nietzsche was not advocating a power struggle between intellect and instinct, but rather highlighting the complex interplay and dominance of unconscious forces over conscious thought.

The False Dichotomy between Life and Morality

Mann’s second criticism of Nietzsche is the establishment of a false opposition between life and morality. Mann contends that these two concepts fundamentally support each other; a morally upright person is a real citizen of life, though Mann seems to overlook the nuances of Nietzsche’s critique. Nietzsche actually observed that morality can sometimes detract from life’s vitality and natural impulses. In 'Daybreak', Paragraph Thirty-Eight, Nietzsche argues that moral concepts have evolved differently across cultures, and these differences reflect varying understandings of what life means and how it should be lived. For example, the ancient Greeks saw hope as a very different concept than modern Germans did. This demonstrates that morality is not a static entity, but rather a dynamic and variable concept.

ldquo;For ancient Babylonians and Persians, hope meant something different from what hope meant to Germanic peoples in the middle of the nineteenth century. Even within the confines of European culture, the meaning of hope has evolved.rdquo;

Mann’s interpretation conflates moral universals with a singular and unchanging concept of morality, failing to grasp Nietzsche’s critique of the rigid and often stifling nature of certain moralities.

Evaluation of Thomas Mann as an Author

Thomas Mann’s literary works, while recognized in their time, are often marred by a tendency to narrate rather than to show. Mann’s writing frequently resorts to telling readers what to think, rather than presenting ideas through concrete examples and narrative. This is highlighted in his renowned work 'The Magic Mountain', where only one-quarter of the text is considered indispensable. Mann’s approach to writing reflects a distinctly Germanic practice of instructing the reader rather than immersing them in a compelling narrative.

Conclusion

Thomas Mann’s interpretation of Nietzsche in his 1948 essay is laden with misinterpretations and misconceptions. Mann fails to fully grasp Nietzsche’s nuanced views on the interplay between intellect and instinct, and the complex relationship between life and morality. His critique is not only unfounded but also overlooks the dynamic and culturally-contextual nature of morality. While Mann’s literary works may have achieved a certain status in cultural history, his understanding of Nietzsche’s philosophy remains wanting. It is crucial to revisit and critically examine the works of these thinkers to gain a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of their ideas.