[Update: In response to comments, I have toned this post down a bit. It was unduly harsh in relation to the fault I am identifying.]
NR‘s Jason Steorts, responding to Whitaker Chambers scholar Richard Reinsch, writes:
I think Reinsch mischaracterizes Nietzsche if he means to say that the Nietzschean position “inexorably leads to the rise of a master class.” . . . Certainly some have read Nietzsche as Reinsch does — Heidegger, for instance, and Bertrand Russell (Heidegger liked what he found, while Russell abhorred it) — but this view is no longer dominant among Nietzsche scholars. I would recommend, as a corrective, the work of the late Nietzsche scholar Walter Kaufmann. My personal opinion is that Nietzsche’s thought tends in a direction very like that of some forms of Buddhism, though Nietzsche himself was not aware of this (having fallen prey to Schopenhauer’s caricature of that tradition) and was not always true to his ideal. Perhaps I shall have more to say about this on a future occasion.
With his invocation of unnamed “Nietzsche scholars,” eccentric (though anodyne) interpretation of Nietzsche as Buddhist, and warning that the he may have more to say in the future, Steorts is implicitly claiming to know a lot about Nietzsche. But that claim doesn’t square with what he actually writes.
Steorts begins by calling the idea that Nietzsche’s thought “inexorably leads to the rise of a master class” a mischaracterization of Nietzsche. But this idea is not a characterization of Nietzsche at all, much less a false one. It is, rather, a speculation as to the consequences of Nietzsche’s thought (whatever they may be). So, right away, Steorts sets out to refute an interpretation of Nietzsche that isn’t even an interpretation – a rather elementary mistake.
Next, Steorts claims that the interpretation is “no longer dominant among Nietzsche scholars.” As an example, Steorts cites Walter Kaufmann. Wait a second… Walter Kaufmann? Kaufmann died thirty years ago. He hardly represents contemporary Nietzsche scholarship. He published his major philosophical work on Nietzsche a full sixty years ago. Nietzsche scholarship (as opposed to popular receptions, such as via Mencken in the U.S.) virtually begins with Kaufmann. There is no “dominant” scholarly interpretation that Kaufmann could have corrected in the first place.
Further, though (unlike Steorts) I’m not going to hold myself out as an authority on the history of Nietzsche scholarship, it seems quite unlikely that Kaufmann’s work has held up since 1950. First, there has likely been important archival work since 1950 which may have forced a revision of earlier views. Second, the climate of opinion in 1950 — when, for example, Marxism and Freudianism still predominated — was very different from the climate of opinion today. The change may lead to a re-evaluation of Nietzsche. Finally, Kaufman carried a lot of ideological baggage. The Nazi regime — which hailed Nietzsche as an intellectual hero and forerunner — had only lately convulsed the world. You can almost depend upon it that, in his zeal to rescue Nietzsche from the Nazis, Kaufmann [qua Nietzsche interpreter – not necessarily as a translator] distorted Nietzsche’s words.
As it happens, a simple google search of top Nietzsche scholars (I entered simply “Nietzsche Brian Leiter Walter Kaufmann”) reveals that Kaufmann, though still influential, is not considered the leading authority on Nietzsche any more. Here, for example, Brian Leiter ranks Nietzsche scholars by Google Scholar citations. Kaufmann’s citations (already artifically inflated by the fact that he arrived at the beginning of the Nietzsche industry) have been surpassed by works written after his death. Leiter himself ranks in the top ten and is the leading Nietzsche scholar of his generation. And what does Leiter have to say about Kaufmann? He is, say Leiter, an “unreliable scholar” who “saved Nietzsche from the misrepresentations of the Nazis, but added his own by introducing a more straightforwardly moralistic interpretation.” So, contrary to Steorts, Kaufmann [again, as interpreter – not necessarily as translator] has been displaced, possibly even discredited. (Incidentally, according to Leiter, Heidegger’s interprertation of Nietzsche isn’t at all what Steorts claims.)
In short, on the evidence of Steorts’s own words, he is exagerrating his knowledge of the state Nietzsche scholarship. (Not coincidentally, the one Nietzsche scholar whom Steorts appears to have read is the same one whose name appears ubiquitously on all the readily available translations of Nietzsche into English.) To be fair, opining on things that they actually know little about is pretty much what bloggers do. Still, this time Steorts took this common failing a bit too far.
Speaking as someone who routinely pretends to be erudite, I think this is a venial sin, not a moral one.
I also thought Steorts’ essay on Rand was pretty good.Report
Walter Kaufmann, uninterestingly enough, is my favorite philosopher.
(Flashback! ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/05/plato-euthyphro-confucius-and-the-holy-ghost-hokey-pokey/#comment-51399 )
All that to say, if Kaufmann has been discredited, it’s news to me.
Indeed, his translations of Nietzsche are very, very good and, lemme check, does Leiter discuss Kaufmann’s *TRANSLATIONS* of Nietzsche in addition to his interpretations of him?
Why yes, yes he does.
Would you like to point out what Leiter said about Kaufmann the translator or would doing so “discredit” the portrait you are painting?Report
@Jaybird, Doesn’t having a favorite philosopher virtually define oneself as elite who is not in touch with real muricans?Report
@gregiank, not necessarily.
Bush was asked his favorite philosopher, remember. He gave an answer and *SOLIDIFIED* his intouchedness.
The question is whether having a favorite philosopher who is not an American marks oneself as an elite who is not in touch with real muricans.Report
@Jaybird, hmmmm Jesus wasn’t an American as i understand it.Report
@gregiank, Now who’s demonstrating that he is an elitist out of touch with real muricans?Report
@Jaybird, i know i’m not a real murican, i heard sarah and rush say it.Report
@Jaybird, I remember thinking Kaufman’s introduction to Buber’s I and Thou was really terrific.Report
@Austin Bramwell, Also, pointing out what Leiter’s praise of Kaufmann the translator would not discredit my point — though perhaps you’re right that by omitting it I made Leiter’s hostility to Kaufmann seem greater than it is.Report
@Austin Bramwell, it also calls into question the statement that “You can almost depend upon it that, in his zeal to rescue Nietzsche from the Nazis, Kaufmann distorted Nietzsche’s words. “Report
@Jaybird, Hmm, I didn’t even think of that. Isn’t it clear I’m just talking about Kaufmann as a Nietzsche scholar?Report
@Austin Bramwell, well, when I think of Kaufmann as translator and hear that “Kaufmann distorted Nietzsche’s words”, it’s very difficult for me to read that as about scholarship rather than translation.
Do you not see how such could be read that way?Report
@Jaybird, OK, I added bracketed clarifications.Report
@Austin Bramwell, I very much love Kaufmann’s moral philosophy.
His Nietzsche scholarship? I’ve heard good things, I’ve heard bad things… but when it comes to his translations, I don’t know that anyone except Hollingdale even comes close… and if you hope to do your own scholarship without learning fluent German, you’re pretty much stuck with one of those two.
I don’t know whether the non-translator Kaufmann is held in much esteem anymore (he was in the early 90’s) but to hear that he’d been discredited was, like, whoa.Report
Austin, I’m very glad you are blogging here, and I think you have a lot of interesting things to say. You’re own ideological/philosophical journey is an interesting one — although it is also to some degree archetypical of our times among conservatives of our generation.
I also agree that NR also publishes a lot worth criticizing. But — and perhaps I’m reading too much into what I know about you and your “public” history — your personal ax to grind with NR gets to be a little much sometimes. This is especially true with a post like this, which seems awfully nitpicky. Steorts is one of the better writers at NR, and I for one am glad he’s there amidst the detestable Andy McCarthys and Kathryn Jean Lopezs. I also second the above-mentioned appreciation of his piece on Ayn Rand.Report
@All. Maybe you guys are right. This was nitpicky and unduly harsh. I stand by it generally, but will to an update to try to soften.Report
I don’t mean this as a defense of Kaufmann, but Leiter’s criticisms are almost universally exaggerated at best and completely unfair at worst. And while Anglo-American interpretations of Nietzsche, largely from within the analytict tradition, certainly dominate the literature now, that’s as much because they dominate the literature period. Leiter’s Nietzsche is a naturalist, obsessed with and dominated by contemporary scientist. This is convenient, coming from a bunch of philosophers in a naturalist-dominated philosophical tradition. Not saying that Nietzsche didn’t have a naturalist streak, just that the history of Nietzsche scholarship is the history of people seeing what they want to see in Nieztsche, making it difficult not to be skeptical of this sort of convenience.
Also, it’s clear Steorts has little knowledge of Schopenhauer (who played a big role in making Europeans pay attention to Eastern thought in the 19th century), in addition to Nietzsche. Though the Buddhist nonsense means he must have at least read about Parkes.
Also, whatever the scholarly worth of Kaufmann’s translations, they remain the most fun to read. Oh, and I loved his intro to Buber as well.Report