ფრიდრიხ ნიცშეს ფილოსოფიის ქრისტიანული ფალსიფიკაცია ერთ გალაკტიონოლოგიურ კვლევაში

აბსტრაქტი

სტატიიდან აღებული ავტორის ინგლისურენოვანი რეზიუმე:

Key words: Christianity, Jesus, Eternal Return, Dionysiac, Affirmation Interdisciplinarity and interliterariness is topical in contemporary thought, so re- searching Friedrich Nietzsche’s influence on Georgian poetry is important.

Greatest Geor- gian poet Galaktion Tabidze has some explicit relation with the philosopher. In Georgian academic space, even philologists specialized in German culture often misinterpret and even mistranslate Nietzsche’s words. Venera Kavtiashvili, in her book “German Literary- esthetic Receptions in Galaktion Tabidze’s Creative Work”, tries to present Nietzsche as a hidden, true Christian. Nietzsche himself is against interpreting his works arbitrarily, as poetry, in radical Heideggerian sense. Regardless his poetic style, he still remains philosopher. Deconstruction is falsely associated with hermeneutic-interpretative inclusivism and arbitrariness.

As Paul de Mann says, we cannot interpret the text according our goals; right reading is impossibility of reading. Derrida tells us we should reveal undecidability of the text, absence of one right reading. However, such radicalism is somehow “politi- cally motivated”, as Rorty indicates, against meta-narratives. Deconstruction itself is de- rived from deconstructing Platonian metaphysics by Nietzsche who, on its side, requires careful reading and propagates slow reading, “rumination”, not distorting facts by inter- pretations. It is important not to abuse “Reader’s rights” and distance oneself from own pre-judgments, to control them in order to make it possible to appear sufficient perspective for some objectivity, in order to make horizons more or less close, according to Gadame- rian principles of hermeneutics.

Venera Kavtiashvili shares that interpretation of Nietzsche, which does not consider the philosopher as an atheist or immoralist. According to Jaspers, Nietzsche just expressed the attitude of new generation when he declared God as dead. However, Death of God is complex concept, which implies atheism, also deconstructing metaphysics, denying “true world”, Being as opposed to Becoming, idealism and so on. Nietzsche is immoralist, as he often clearly states, but he also announces destruction of old value system, in order to create new one, which, however, is not related to Christianity, but to radical aristocratism. Venera Kavtiashvili shares the opinion of Karl Jaspers that Nietzsche considers Jesus as the only true Christian, criticizes only falsified Christianity, and regards Jesus as overman type, who stands above Zarathustra.

Venera Kavtiashvili relates Galaktion’s poetry named “Its eyes were left open...” to Nietzsche, indicating that not opposing the evil is his own position as well, but Nietzsche declares not contradicting evil, freeing oneself from revenge, as a remedy for only sick people, not war type people represented by Nietzsche himself. We can cite here the Jesus himself: ““It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick”. Nietzsche is somehow positively disposed towards Jesus, considers him as noble person, but still strictly criticizes him. Nietzsche calls Jesus idiot in a strict physiological sense, as a person who is pathologically supersensitive and as a result has developed ha- tred towards all kind of reality, hence lack of instinct for fighting, pride, sexual instinct as well, which is typical for certain kind of epileptoid neurosis.

Nietzsche also declares that Jesus lacked the ability to perceive reality, he is opposite type of genius and hero. Venera Kavtiashvili concludes that Galaktion in his poetry, following Jesus, de- clares death as only shortest way from suffering, paradoxically, at the same time research- er states that Nietzsche’s life philosophy is against atheism, positivism and Christian obedience where free will, dionysiac ecstasy and intoxication with life is highest values. Concept of free will as theologian’s manipulative trick is often rejected by Nietzsche. Dionysian ecstasy, according to Nietzsche, is leading towards negation of life, as in Indian Buddhism.

Nietzsche’s new Dionysianism is not simple “intoxication”, but “overcoming” which means staying aware of all the conflicts in their total and clear affirmation. Therefore, “intoxication with life” is very general and is associated with hedonism, which is rejected by Nietzsche and declared as the main cause of Christian life negative doctrine. Fear of pain is resulted in the religion of love. Nietzsche condemns hedonism as a way of avoiding suffering which is very valuable for him, everything great, noble is connected with suffering. In addition, Nietzsche distinguishes Dionysian death affirma- tion, which is strength in the face of fear, from Romantic death affirmation caused by life hatred and weakness.

Venera Kavtiashvili’s argument for Nietzsche’s hidden and true Christianity is his letter to a friend where as if Nietzsche is stating that he was Christian from the childhood and never had been against it. However, it is obvious mistranslation. Nietzsche says that he follows Christianity in many aspects and never had been disposed against it with al- ways the same hostility. The last phrase here is important, as it is repeated in another letter written after 2 days to another friend to whom Nietzsche writes that many times he tried to achieve Christian ideal, but always recognized its impossibility. Above, it was said that Nietzsche is following Christian ideal in many aspects, but it does not means that it is the case in all aspects.

Many things considered as moral are acceptable for Nietzsche too, but with a different motivation, that is basic and important difference here. For example, Nietzsche condemns revenge and punishment, he is proposing psy- chological treatment for criminals (when it will be available) and if unsuccessful – volun- tary euthanasia. This is not the case of falsified Christianity with eternal hell for those who do not repent. None that of unfalsified one – where one simply surrenders without caring about treatment of criminal. Nietzsche is obviously least Christian when he condemns not only pity, but also any kind of compassion or love of neighbor.

According to Nietzsche, Christianity declared war against pathos of distance and unequal rights, which are basis for any rights, with- out pathos of distance outside, there is no possibility for the one inside, accordingly, no possibility for constant self-overcoming of human being, strengthening species of man. Some kind of equality is only possible among equally strong, in other cases oppression, violence, exploitation is necessary for creating highest culture. Venera Kavtiashvili is relating the possibility of reviving Christianity to Ni- etzsche’s concept of eternal return. However, if Jesus was the only and last Christian, real Christianity did not even exist, so which Christianity should be revived according to Nietzsche?

falsified one? That would make Nietzsche sad, as Zarathustra is made sad when he acknowledges that “small man” will also return. However, reviving here should be understood as its universal reign, because Nietzsche does not aim at totally abolishing even falsified Christianity, as the enemy, which makes him stronger. However, this sadness is not the cause for nihilism for Nietzsche unlike the case with European nihilism. If the world had final goal, it would have achieved it already, so it does not have the one. Thus, present is justified regardless its relation to the future or the past, becoming is justified regardless final purpose. The end is joy of the cycle itself, eternal return is the cause for enjoyment.

On the other hand: one should live so that repeat- ing that life was desirable for the one. For Nietzsche, Dionysian way means affirming life, being eternal Yes to life. Venera Kavtiashvili also speaks about reviving Christian culture. Nietzsche speaks about demonizing Eros by Christianity as the main reason why Christian culture is ob- sessed with erotic stories, which is ridiculous. Finally, here the attempt to tame the great philosopher and absurdity, superficiality and tendentiousness of Nietzsche’s Christian interpretation is obvious.

გამოქვეყნებულია ჟურნალში „სჯანი“, ტ. 20/1 (2019), გვ. 246–265. ნაშრომის გახსნა