Oh, boy, are you going to regret you ever asked me this…
I wouldn’t exactly put it that way. He certainly was very suspicious of the cult of science and rationality, but I wouldn’t say he discounted it completely. I think (and remember, I’m an undergraduate Spanish major, so take this with a grain of salt) that Nietzsche was inherently against any mode of thinking that required folks to subjugate themselves. He viewed science and rationality as necessarily bloodless and lacking vitality.
But the man had to have a certain degree of rationality to be a philosopher in those days – he was the youngest person ever to be granted a professorship in his time, and people were pretty much expecting the same old philosophy crap when he busted out with his first book, “The Birth of Tragedy” – which prompted his colleagues to respond with the 19th century equivalent of, “Are you on crack?!!” It was more dismissive of philosophers and scientists than anyone was really comfortable with, and quite unpopular at the time of its writing. Nietzsche’s belief was that philosophers and scientists were downright foolish in being certain that they had obtained some kind of Ultimate Truth that was indisputable – he pretty much saw all philosophical assertions as subjective–not necessarily worthless, but not the epitome of Absolute Value that many of the time perceived them to be.
I know that Nietzsche wrestled with the value of Socratic/dialectic modes of reasoning because, though he denounced and insulted Socrates every chance he got, he also declared him a “worthy enemy.” In fact, he’s pretty much stated that if he mentioned any other philosopher’s works in his writings at all, it means he believed they must have some philosophical merit, because they were persuasive enough that he had to actually sit down and think about whether he agreed or not. So yes, he did in fact call Socrates “stupid” and claimed it was because he was so ugly (“Twilight of the Idols”) – but it’s not really insulting when you understand Nietzsche’s concept of a “worthy enemy.”
In keeping with his suspicion of reason, “The Will to Power” (the last book he ever wrote, just months before his complete mental breakdown) posits that the ultimate value in life is to feel powerful – lest the average reader (or Russell, for that matter) interpret this to mean that he wanted social influence, it is important to understand the kind of things Nietzsche associated with feeling powerful. Among them: taking walks outside, listening to classical music, positing one’s own moral values, stepping away from the “herd” or “slave” mentality (which he saw embodied by Christianity), etc. In terms of whether or not he was a fascist, he despised all forms of government and if you absolutely HAD to label him with a political ideology, it would probably be anarchy. A lot of people interpret Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” as an apologist response to social hierarchy and its abuses – not so. He was interested more in moral systems than government systems. He didn’t feel it was necessary to restructure society, just to restructure how one determines if a person has value within that society. Nietzsche would have been outraged beyond belief regarding what his sister did (connecting his name to Hitler’s and anti-Semitism.)-- especially because he considered the Jews to be a superior race (second only, I’m sure, to the Greeks.)
But there is a REALLY IMPORTANT point that must be made here. One of the key difficulties with interpreting Nietzsche’s work is separating his personal experiences and general mental instability from the ideas he espoused. For every quote advocating a thing, he pretty much has another quote denouncing it. He was completely aware that his messages were often contradictory, and even reveled in it. He believed that one of the greatest marks of a strong man was the ability to hold two conflicting beliefs at the same time. This stemmed from his inherent belief that philosophers took their opinions to be Absolute Truth – in essence, he was saying, “I don’t feel the need to rationally justify my perspectives because I know they are after all only perspectives.” But on the other hand, the guy was a freakin’ mental case. He suffered from any number of psychological disorders and his behavior was often markedly different from the ideals he espoused. He would declare his hatred of women and then fall hopelessly in love. He would write such controversial statements as, “If your brother is falling, give him a kick!” but in person was one of the most meek, polite, genteel little guys anyone could know. He had ISSUES, and it is for this purpose I believe it is ESSENTIAL to understand Nietzsche the man before understanding Nietzsche the philosophy.
For example, let’s take the primary message of “The Birth of Tragedy.” In a few sentences, it was this: “The Greek god Apollo represents structure and form, and the Greek god Dionysus represents vitality and power. The Greek god Dionysus is better, and the downfall of German society is owed to the lack of Dionysian men. But Richard Wagner will set us all straight, because his music embodies the life well lived!”
His next work? “Nietzsche Contra Wagner” – on how Wagner is a decadent little bitch and his music sucks and doesn’t represent the Dionysian spirit AT ALL.
Note that Nietzsche’s fundamental belief system didn’t change–even decades later he was still crazy about this issue of Dionysian vitality–but he was still directly contradicting himself. Unless you understood that Nietzsche was a close, personal friend of Wagner, viewed him as his greatest mentor, and then felt betrayed by him, his philosophy would make no sense.
Re: Buddhism – and I feel especially interested in this topic, because I’m actually a Buddhist – Nietzsche directly addressed Buddhism in his book “The Will to Power.” He thought it was one of the better religions out there, but still viewed it as a kind of nihilism. Nietzsche was NOT a nihilist. He felt nihilists were weak-willed. Sure, all of life is interpretation, but the true ubermensch is going to stand up and create his own values. So it wasn’t really accurate for Russel to say that Nietzsche valued only destruction. Nietzsche thought destruction was a good high, but that it was essentially meaningless if you didn’t then create something else. Nietzsche also saw Buddhism’s pacifist perspective as equivalent to the Christian (herd, slave mentality) doctrine of “turn the other cheek.” Though he thought Buddhism was head and shoulders above the rest of religion, he still viewed Buddhists as fundamentally unable to assert their Will to Power.
