At 30 years old, Wilheilm Friederich Nietzsche wrote an essay on how to do History, under the suggestive title "From the usefulness and disadvantages in history to life." Perhaps most interesting about this work is their particular vision on how to make history in an efficient manner and at the same time, Nietzsche makes the approach over time. But this test can not be understood fully if it is interpreted in context. The year was 1874, Nietzsche had been severely attacked by the local academic critical content in his first book " The origin of Greek tragedy " had made the culture of ancient Greece. It's that unwavering loyalty to the truth that their actions had led into question a legend idyllic German intellectuals had with the Greco-Roman Culture: Nietzsche had on not only the virtues analysis detached from the Greek god Apollo (the restraint and order ), but those coming from the God Dionysos (brute force, irrationality and excess.) The latter did not please the German academics who saw in the Greek past a role model, based on the virtues "Apolinar" of this civilization, but without delving into the history of defects arising in Dionysius. Opinions against Nietzsche for such work and the subsequent attack on his academic position at the University were the breeding ground reaction Friederich, which with a prose and a depth worthy of Plato turned in his essay on " Utility and drawbacks in the history to life "to destroy the arguments of his critics. The title of the work left to explain his reason: Nietzsche begins by citing the words of Goethe in reference to his rejection of everything that not only instructs but quickened. Nietszsche indicates that the same happens with the "history": "... we need history to life and action, not away from it and less to cover it up "and thus comes as a bad report of his time in Germany (and indirectly of his critics). Suggests that the "historical culture" is not a virtue prevailing in Germany, but a "defect" and that in his homeland are suffering from an "illness", a "devouring historical fever" and as a classical scholar should be allowed to act time. Thus, ten chapters of this paper, crumble and analyzes the history and forms (and incidentally is dedicated, with an almost obsessive detail, to demolish the foundations of those who felt less the contribution of their work and their work University).
Nietsche The central thesis developed in this paper is that both " the historical and the unhistorical are equally necessary for the health of individuals, peoples and cultures ." For Nietzsche the importance of forgetting the past is a critical tool that makes the benefit of the good life. Stresses the herd of animals and children who have no past to deny and to concentrate on what they do at present is to jump a fence or a game to play, and it weighs in man as an element that makes happiness , "ability to sense a non-historical as the happiness lasts, ie, ignoring the past. The core of thought Nietzsche in this essay argues that man must have a right balance between the historical (what you should know, remember and use for the benefit of the present life) and ahistorical (what should be remembered as the excess of history and memory disturbed and buries the present) to germinate life and man becomes a man. Nietzsche seeks not mummify the history and bind its movement and flexibility for the utility of this. It is ahistorical it operates as a "modified atmosphere" without which life is extinguished and did not even have dared to start and jump-start to live. Hence the essential function of this circle ahistorical taking care of crucial value precisely history: to serve for life and not to be a museum of memories.
Nietzsche goes further and raises the sense superhistórico sobrehistórico or as a stepping stone to even greater historical modes of analyzing the past. What is this? We split. The sense "sobrehistórico" is that in the atmosphere indicated sniffs of "ahistorical", than be forgotten. In this context the look superhistórica rises and does not feel seduced to live or to participate in history or tempted to take in the future the story too seriously and he has encountered in past events why and wherefore of their existence. Is that pointing to what men should forget historical over-end in which past and present are one and the same thing (represent a fixed, immutable structure and meaning "eternally the same.") Nietzsche concludes that "It is not surprising if you have names of poison antidotes against the historical: the" ahistorical "(art and the strength to forget) and the" supra-historical "(the forces that look away from what is in the process of becoming and the target which gives character to the existence of the eternal and unchanging, such as art and religion).
0 comments:
Post a Comment