資料來源：Adair-Toteff, Christopher.
(2015). Confronting modernity: Tönnies and Simmel on Nietzsche's philosophy of
the future. European Journal of Cultural
and Political Sociology, 2(3-4), 345-359.
Introduction
l 尼采代表未來，閱讀它的方式，意味著人們如何面對未來。(It is the argument of this paper that Nietzsche represented the
future, so when Tönnies and Simmel read him, they were in effect learning how
to ‘confront modernity’.)
Tönnies on Nietzsche: from revelation to
repudiation
l Tönnies喜愛早期尼采，但厭惡晚期尼采，他批評尼采是資本主義哲學家，不管民間疾苦。（. To
him, people are justified in calling Nietzsche ‘the philosopher of capitalism’
(Tönnies, 1990, pp. 101–104, 1892a). Tönnies believes that modernity will
include a turning-away from the traditional values of the household and will be
replaced by pure greed and egoism – thus, the subtitle to ‘Nietzsche-Narren’ is
‘in der “Zukunft” und in der “Gegenwart’” – stressing future and past (Tönnies,
1990, pp. 98, 102, 1892a).）
l 寫了一本尼采崇拜，是嚴謹的書，來批評尼采及其後續追隨者。（Tönnies’ book on the cult of Nietzsche, Der Nietzsche-Kultus, was a
well-thought out critique written by the rather well-respected author of
Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft.）
l （Tönnies所珍視的價值，是尼采鄙棄之價值）Equality, brotherhood,
comfort, morality, obedience, love, and femininity – all of the traits that
Tönnies extols, Nietzsche emphatically rejects (Nietzsche, 1988b, pp. 125, 281,
300). All of the traits that Tönnies values, Nietzsche classes under the ‘Herd
Instinct’ (Nietzsche, 1988b, pp. 260, 121, 124). What Tönnies considers the
best in humanity, Nietzsche regards as a tyranny against nature (Nietzsche,
1988b, p. 108). Tönnies’ youthful embrace of Nietzsche's early and engaging
writings was replaced by a mature, reflective rejection of Nietzsche's later,
‘inhuman’ philosophy.
Simmel on Nietzsche: morality and
psychology
l 齊美爾認為Tönnies對尼采的理解有誤，而展開了論戰。(Simmel did not have any
such youthful interest in Nietzsche; however, he had a growing appreciation of
Nietzsche's moral philosophy. As a result, Simmel could not simply let Tönnies’
attack on Nietzsche go unanswered; first, he had too much respect for Nietzsche
and secondly, Tönnies’ criticism was fundamentally wrong in too many ways.
Simmel made sure that his criticisms of Tönnies would be received by a large
and important audience – he published his review in the Deutsche
Litteraturzeitung – the same place that Tönnies had published his review of
Nietzsche's Zarathustra in 1892.)
l 齊美爾主張，尼采不是一個利己主義者，反而是道德主義者。（This leads to what Simmel contends is Tönnies’ main misunderstanding
of Nietzsche – the acceptance of the vulgar belief that he is an egoist. In
Simmel's view, this is completely mistaken, and obscures the fact that Nietzsche
is a great moralist.）
l 齊美爾的著作（‘Nietzsche und Kant’ remained an intriguing sketch, but Simmel developed ‘Schopenhauer und Nietzsche’ into a
book.）
l 尼采的重要性：重視非凡例外。（Nietzsche is against the belief in equality because for him what is
important is the belief in the ‘extra-ordinary’ and the uncommon, not the
‘everyday’ and the common (Simmel, 1995, p. 371).）
l 齊美爾論叔本華與尼采的區隔（Simmel maintains that the opposition of the Nietzschean and the
Schopenhauerian morals rests on a single point: that Schopenhauer believes that
‘suffering’ is the ‘substance of all morality’ while Nietzsche rejects it
completely (Simmel, 1995, p. 364). Furthermore, Nietzsche's philosophy of
development is at variance with Schopenhauer's pessimistic account of monotony
(p. 182). It is the philosophy of becoming as opposed to being, and Simmel
draws the greatest metaphysical distinction between democracy and aristocracy
(p. 184). Democracy for the masses is a type of decadence, to which, as a
staunch believer in aristocracy, Nietzsche is opposed (p. 380). Nietzsche may
be anti-democratic and anti-social, but that does not make him immoral (p.
188). Simmel makes this clear in the eighth and final lecture entitled ‘Die
Moral der Vornehmheit’ (‘The Morality of Nobility’).）
l 齊美爾指出尼采認為貴族道德比起基督教道德更為高尚（Simmel is not very clear on how Nietzsche intended to do this;
however, he is definite in his emphasis on the main ‘virtue’ that the noble
person has, namely, the sense of responsibility, not only towards oneself but
also to others. The contrast with Christianity is based on the fact that
Christians demand little from others while the noble person actually demands
more (pp. 392–394, 396, 404). This again connects to Nietzsche's notion of development.
If Christianity is content with eternal peace, Nietzsche is not.）
l （永恆復返是種道德義務──過高尚的生活，重複作自己熱愛之事）Simmel connects the feeling of responsibility with Nietzsche's
‘final theme of the most wonderful doctrine of Nietzsche’ that is, the ‘eternal
return of the same’.7 Nietzsche does not mean the eternal recurrence as a
metaphysical concept, rather, as a moral one (p. 398). The ‘Übermensch’ has the
moral obligation to not only accept, but to embrace, the idea that all of life
in its greatest moments, as well as its most trivial ones, is destined to be
endlessly repeated. This is the progressive, developmental task of the
‘Übermensch’ (pp. 399–401). It is the eternal return that is also connected to
the feeling of responsibility. Simmel insists that despite Nietzsche's claim to
be an ‘immoralist’, his doctrine is far more concerned with the ethics of
Schopenhauer. Simmel's point is that, for Nietzsche, one must act in such a way
that the same act is worthy of being endlessly repeated (p. 404): this is what
acting responsibly means. Kant's ethics were universal, but they were temporal;
Nietzsche's ethics were personal, but he replaces universality with the idea of
eternal recurrence.
Confronting modernity
l 兩人的不同際遇與發展，Tönnies的說法在德國學界較成主流。認為社會學研究的對象是社會，但在道德的偏好上，仍是傾向鄉村。（In 1910, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Soziologie (DGS) was formed
with Tönnies and Simmel as founding members. Both gave important speeches at
its first conference held in Frankfurt at the end of October 1910. Simmel gave
his speech on the opening evening; Tönnies gave the opening address on the
first full day of the conference. Simmel did not participate in the second
conference in 1912, and died before the third one. In contrast, Tönnies would
remain the driving force of the DGS until its dissolution in the mid-1930s.
Through the DGS and through his writings Tönnies demonstrated his belief that a
major function of sociology was the study of the community (‘Gemeinschaft’).
Even though he recognised that it was intended to study ‘society’
(‘Gesellschaft’), his distinct moral preference was for the ‘community’
(‘Gemeinschaft’).
l 但齊美爾則偏好城巿，而且肯定衝突與疏離作為人類面對的現代性議題。while Tönnies finds them objectionable and wants to retreat into an
idyllic communal past, Simmel
recognises that they are inevitable and must be realistically confronted. That
means not only accepting them, but also studying them because of their
increasing presence in modern society. While there are many traits that Simmel
investigates sociologically, two are of critical importance here – conflict and alienation.）相關討論見諸《社會學》一書，以及1918年〈Der Konflikt der modernen Kultur’〉的討論。
l （總評價：齊美爾擁抱尼采，邁向未來；而Tönnies傾向馬克思，懷念無異化的存在。韋伯則透過齊美爾，認識到文化問題的重要性）
Simmel and
Tönnies were both friends and colleagues of Max Weber; both joined him in
developing sociology as a modern science and in promoting the separation of
facts from values (Merz-Benz, 1995, p. 27). Weber never shared Tönnies’
idealistic pursuit of social justice; but he certainly did share Simmel's
heroic pessimism and the recognition of the centrality of conflict in life.
Like Tönnies, Weber was one of the first scholars to recognise the
philosophical importance of Karl Marx. But, like Simmel, Weber also recognised
and appreciated the cultural importance of Nietzsche. Using Weber's words about
Marx and Nietzsche, we can conclude that Simmel accepted and even embraced
Nietzsche, while Tönnies rejected and repudiated him. Simmel remained
‘faithful’ to Nietzsche's view of the modern world, while Tönnies longed for
Marx's view of the ‘inevitable’ future.
（結語）Both Tönnies and Simmel ‘confronted
modernity’; but Tönnies was content to imagine it as it should be while Simmel
was prepared to confront it as it will be.
沒有留言:
發佈留言