Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy by Rüdiger Safranski

I conclude this article by explicating several recent German approaches to the Nachlass which I think can offer a new possible approach. I then argue that the first option is impossible given historical evidence. I argue that we must either offer necessary and sufficient conditions for a piece of text being Nachlass, or we ought to abandon such abstract criteria altogether and embrace a contextual and historical approach. Each of these criteria pick out a different set of texts as 'Nachlass.' Thus, despite the veneer of agreement, the most broadly accepted methodological approach in the AngloAmerican tradition of Nietzsche scholarship is applied inconsistently. Safranski, Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy, Harvard University Press, 1989, kome sam zahvalan za nesebine savete tokom naeg dugog razgovora u jednom berlinskom kafeu. However, there are no agreed upon necessary and sufficient conditions of a particular textual object being considered 'Nachlass.' This absence leads to implicit and often tacit value demarcation criteria that can be broadly grouped into four types of consider ation: publication, authorization, publicness, and audience. It attempts to demarcate between the published works and the Nachlass. Retracing the tortured path that brought Nietzsche to wild private.

Based on a review of the literature and historical evidence, I argue that the use of the methodological principle known as the priority principle in AngloAmeri can Nietzsche scholarship is inconsistent and irreconcilable with historical evidence. Nietzsche : a philosophical biography / Rdiger Safranski translated by Shelley.

Schopenhauer and the Wild Years of Philosophy by Rüdiger Safranski