Nietzsche ir postmodernizmas

LTKokią įtaką Nietzsche turėjo postmodemiajam diskursui? Ar yra galimas "vienintelis Nietzsche"? Ar vis dėlto yra tiek "Nietzsche'ių", kiek sukūrėjo pasekėjai ir interpretatoriai. Knyga parašyta remiantis prielaida, kad postmodernusis diskursas daugiausia formavosi sekant heidegeriška Nietzsche's interpretacija. Antra vertus, taip pat manoma, kad M. Heideggerio, G. Bataille’o, J. Derrida, M. Foucault, G. Deleuze'o, A. Nehamas'o, R. Rorty tekstuose sukurtieji "Nietzsche's" neredukuojami vienas į kitą. Jie kalba pirmiausia su juos sukūrusiu autoriumi ir apie šį autorių. Trečia vertus, knygoje suteikiamas žodis ir neonyčininkų kritikams J. Habermasui, W. Welschui bei šiuolaikiniams antinyčininkams prancūzų filosofijoje. [Anotacija knygoje]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Nietzsche, vertybės, Platonas, postmodernizmas; Nietzsche, values, Plato, postmodernism.

ENThis book is based on the Habermasian presupposition that Nietzsche is the philosopher who turned philosophy from modernism to postmodernism. But is it possible to define one "postmodern Nietzsche"? The author of the book doubts such a possibility and tries to describe the traces of multiple Nietzsche's masks in the context of French postmodern philosophy of the XXth century. The book starts with the introduction (Masks of Nietzsche) where Nietzsche's longing for future philosophy and philosophers is described (Nietzsche and the philosophers of the future). How to read Nietzsche today? - this rhetorical question starts the discussion on the possibilities of different responses to Nietzsche's inheritance one can discern in the texts of Georges Bataille, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, Gilles Deleuze and Michel Foucault. Following different biographical solutions as answers to the question What does the mask of Nietzsche hide? author comes to a conclusion that with an exception of some successful biographies (such as written by Halevy or by Lou Salome) trying to describe uniqueness of Nietzsche following his life facts leads aside to a schema or a wishful thinking. Author in one of the chapters of introduction (Nietzsche's biography as autobiography) agrees with Jacques Derrida insight saying that the name - Friedrich Nietzsche - should be distinguished from the bearer of the name and seeing his attempts to clarify his own name in his autobiographical text Ecce hommo as a creation of new mask, in success to his plurality of masks and names. Nietzsche's signature is always created by the reader - this is the conclusion of the book according to Derrida. So the author suggests her own interpretation of one of possible Nietzsche's masks, created by XXth century - Nietzsche as being the first postmodern thinker.Nietzsche, as well as the problem of postmodernity, is not neglected in Lithuania (Chapter: What the "Lithuanian Nietzsche" is like?). Nietzsche's works Also sprach Zaratustra, Jenseits von Gut und Bose, Gotzen-Dammemng, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, Zur Genealogie der Moral, Ecce homo are translated into Lithuanian. Nietzsche's expression Der Wille zur Macht (The will to Power) is translated either as valia valdyti (Tekorius), or as valia viešpatauti (Šliogeris), or as valia galiai (Sverdiolas) or as valios galia (Mickevičius). For his new translation of Zaratustra, the interpreter Tekorius suggested new expression valia siekti galios (the will to achieve power). Arūnas Mickevičius wrote doctoral theses on the postmodern interpretation of Nietzsche and all the introductions to Nietzsche's books in Lithuanian as well. Five years ago we had a discussion on Nietzsche who can be parallel to Habermas' and Rorty's approach. Šliogeris writing the introduction to the collected writings of Friedrich Nietzsche expressed the idea very similar to that expressed by Habermas’ concerning neo-Nietzscheans' approach. They are destructive and even dangerous - they both come to this conclusion. Richard Rorty, following Alexander Nehamas' interpretations, states that Nietzschean philosophy opens the possibility of self-creation. The same is also approach of the author of this book. Vytautas Rubavičius' book Postmodern Discourse: Philosophical Hermeneutics, Deconstruction, and Art is concentrated not on Nietzschean roots but on Heidegger's and Derrida's deconstructive strategies and their attitudes towards meaning and truth in art. The roots of postmodern discourse and the internal courses of its "aesthetisation" conditioned by the peculiarities of re-thinking art phenomena as well as the deconstruction strategy for breaking down all the oppositions between the "center" and the "periphery&am.Audrone Žukauskaite published a book Beyond the Signifier Principle: Deconstruction, Psychoanalysis, Critique of Ideology where she takes the challenge of Western Postmodernism. In this book the author tries to reveal theoretical coherence and continuity not only of psychoanalysis and critique of ideology, but deconstruction as well. Nietzsche is not also in the center of her interest. Rita Serpytytė wrote a lot on Nietzsche’s impact on the concept of contemporary nihilism, concentrating on interpretation of Gianni Vattimo. The first chapter (Nietzsche and the reevaluation of classical ethical values) starts from Nietzsche's response to the philosophical challenge of the sources he was meditating on: the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer and Immanuel Kant. Nietzsche's opposition to Kant (pluralism versus monism, voluntarism versus rationalism, poetics of writing versus clumsy expression of thought) can be considered as a postmodern opposition to modernism. In the second chapter (Der Wille zur Macht: From philosophy of Life towards postmodernism) the main hypotheses of the book is supposed: every new interpretation of Nietzsche starts from its own premises and is sometimes incommensurable with another. Which Nietzsche? - the beginning of chapter asks rhetorically - are we talking today of? Simmel interpreted him as a philosopher of life, very close to Schopenhauer, Jaspers - as an existentialist, very close to Pascal and Dostoyevsky, Heidegger, quite opposite, as a last metaphysician, very strict philosopher, similar to Aristotle. Kaufmann interpreted the concept of Wilier zur Macht as a self-overcoming, Nehamas - as a self-creation, Rorty followed after Nehamas as well. Danto suggests analytical reading of Nietzsche, Vattimo emphasizes dionysical creative forces in it. Even French postmodernists who can be considered as main followers of his thought emphasize different aspects of his thought. [...]. [From the publication]