Andrew Heidtke Dr.

Bonzon

Nietzsches Methodology
Frederich Nietzsche is certainly an interesting character. His writing style is difficult at best and depends mainly on symbolism to portray its messages. Possibly the most prominent theme Nietzsche argues for is creation of new values based on each individuals personal ideals. Thus, if one values strength, then one should create a value system based around that and to impose those values on others. Frequently Nietzsche calls for the revaluation of all values (specifically in the preface to Twilight of the Idols), and calls on everyone to do this for themselves. Beyond Nietzsches explicit (or is it implicit?) message is an interpretative method that allows his readers to create for themselves. I argue that the most valuable thing he gives to his readers is not the actual messages, but the method used to discern these messages. Not only this, but it seems that Nietzsche knew this and promoted this reading of his works. Thus Nietzsches methodology is of equal, if not greater, value to the messages he imparts, and this knowledge has proven important to not only a deeper understanding of his works but also as a method for understanding other bodies of literature. It is necessary however to discuss just what procedures and methods Nietzsche is promoting through his literature. He worries that people are generally unaware of the motivations and values that they accept uncritically. This is a problem because at least some of the values we hold dear today are harmful for the long-term well being of the human race. For example, Nietzsche attacks the system of morality that most humans accept right now and claim that not only does it come from a non-moral background (which, if true, would destroy any reason for its value claims), but that it is degrading the quality of the human race by promoting

the weak and shunning the strong. Thus his On the Genealogy of Morality is devoted to this double task of both refuting the foundations of morality and to suggesting that new values must take its place. How is this supposed to be accomplished? The answer is Nietzsches methodology. He can give us an examination and push in the direction he believes is best, but he cannot give the world a new system that everyone will adhere to. Instead, strong spirits must take his words, realize their power, and then create new value systems that can be accepted by the majority. As Nietzsche puts it in his Preface: Suffice it to say that once this prospect opened up to me, I myself had reasons for looking about for learned, bold, and industrious comradesIt is a matter of traveling the vast, distance, and so concealed land of morality1. Nietzsche needs strong individuals who are willing to journey away from morality with him, to set a new path. And his writings are a call to action for such spirits. Yet all of that is only one facet of Nietzsches methodology. While strength of spirit is necessary to create new values, there is no reason that Nietzsches values are the ones that should be accepted. Particularly when writing about his aphorisms, he says that these short statements reflect upon the readers ability to comprehend and interpret for himself; the aphorism elucidates a part of the reader, not a part of the writer. Nietzsches difficult writing style means that the reader must actively interpret what he means because it will not just be delivered to the reader. And this is exactly what Nietzsche wants: free spirits who are capable of investigating what has been given and to find its flaws. Once the flaws have been found, they can be exposed and things can be changed. Nietzsche himself argues that this is the type of reader he wants, saying An aphorism honestly coined and cast has not been deciphered simply because it has been read through; rather its interpretation must now being, and for this an art of interpretation is

Preface to On the Genealogy of Morality, pg. 5

needed.2 Only an active reader, a free spirit if you will, is capable of taking his message and creating some practical thing from it, a creative act that will invariably improve humanity because it is done through strength. Nietzsches interpretative style then is to allow access only to those powerful spirits with the capability of changing themselves and others, an issue of paramount importance. Where does this double movement of interpretation and creation leave us? It is a necessary pre-requisite to a deeper reading of all of Nietzsches works. Actively taking a part in the texts not only instills the values necessary for creativity, but gives the reader even more insight into Nietzsches difficult texts. With this focus in mind, I will turn to some of his overarching themes to clarify my points. The first overriding theme, which relates quite closely to creativity, is his discussion of free spirits. Nietzsche identifies these characters as something of a vanguard for the overmen, a class of humans who are capable of overpowering the decadent system we have now and of instilling their own values of strength upon the world. Nietzsche cannot identify any overmen and ponders if their appearance is forthcoming (or even possible)3. Thus he turns to the free spirits to break the ground for the future of humanity. Although it might seem odd that Nietzsche does not consider the free spirits capable of becoming overmen, he does make a critical distinction between the two: the overmen are truly strong humans who are capable of not just breaking free of the present morality, but of creating new values and imposing them upon others. On the other hand, the free spirits might be able to postulate new values, but will never be able to impose them on the rest of the population. A discussion of the values of the free spirits will suffice here, since the only thing missing from them is the implementation aspect, which is not critical to Nietzsches project. As

2 3

On the Genealogy of Morality, pg. 7 A fairly clear indication of this is in the Foreward to The Anti-Christ. Also see Preface to Genealogy of Morality

mentioned above, the free spirits aim to break down old value systems and to create new ones. Of this dualism of destruction and creation, the focus is clearly on the latter. Nietzsche repeatedly refers to himself as being a creative being, a yes-sayer instead of just a negative man.4 Part of this might be his rejection of the pessimism of his mentor Arthur Schopenhauer, but mostly it reflects Nietzsches dissatisfaction with the solutions produced by his predecessors and contemporaries. Arguing that with the death of God (note section 125 in The Gay Science for his dramatic flair on the idea), classical conceptions of meaning and value were no longer possible, Nietzsche demands that something be created in its place. This death of God has a double function for Nietzsche: on the one hand, it requires that something new is fashioned. Yet on the other hand, it also confirms him as a great affirmer because he is not responsible for destroying God; this was already done by the will to truth inherent in science and religion.5 From where does this passion for new values come from? Nietzsches gift lies not in the fact that he recognizes that classical morality is impossible now, but that some sort of meaning is necessary to humanity. In his Birth of Tragedy, he uses the myth of Silenus (a story about a wise mythical creature from ancient Greece) to illustrate the horrible position humanity is in: we are condemned to a life of suffering and without being able to justify such pain, we would simply kill ourselves. The ancient Greeks dealt with this pain by creating tragic plays, so that they could distract themselves from the tragedies that were their own lives. This however was impossible to sustain, and eventually Socrates came along and gave life meaning through reason. Herein lies the birth of the will to truth that drives science and religion and that figures prominently into Nietzsches writings. Particularly in The Gay Science, he indicates that this will to truth finally discovered that real truth is impossible to find, that everything will never be figured out. And

4 5

See Section 276 in The Gay Science For textual evidence of Nietzsches belief that he was a optimist, see the Preface to The Gay Science, Section 1

thus we are left once again in a position of suffering without meaning, without an answer to the wisdom of Silenus. Fortunately, Nietzsche has a solution, and that solution lies in the free spirits. These are the people who understand what position mankind is in and realize the need to change it. They are also antithetical to Christianity. Nietzsche clearly identifies with these people (the Foreword to Twilight of the Idols is quite elucidating), and in Section 2 of The Anti-Christ, he issues the claim: What is more harmful than any vice? Active sympathy for the ill-constituted and weak Christianity. Christianity makes it impossible for the free spirits to create freely, and it utilizes the herd who believe in its message to stifle any opposition. Even if the leaders of the Church could be brought to understand that their religion was bankrupt, they would still cling to it because it offers them the chance to be powerful. This is why Nietzsches double movement, of overt calls for creativity but also through a subtle instilling of a creative methodology, is so important. Virtually every book written by Nietzsche contains an exhortation by him to his readers, calling for them to create new values; it cannot be done by Nietzsche alone. These values that are to be created by the free spirits do not follow any set criterion except that should be the values that the creator exemplifies. Thus if I exemplify wisdom, I should strive to make that my primary value and should convince others to do the same. Nietzsche offers an extra criterion however: the values must not be ones that degenerate man. The first criterion subsumes this one because if values are created by spirits powerful enough to impose them, then such life-affirming values would be natural. Free spirits must be capable of postulating new values that they can convince others to follow (contrast this with overmen who would impose such values). In the end, it does not matter what values come about as long as they are creative and vital. Rather, it is the fact that they have been created and provide a

meaning to suffering (thus the herd of mere mortals would accept it) that constitute the real worth of these values. The above should demonstrate at least in part the importance of not just creativity, but of the methodology of creation. The free spirits are given essentially a blank template by Nietzsche that should drive them to action. He puts his ideals artistically in the Foreword to The AntiChirst, saying Strength which prefers questions for which no one today is sufficiently daring; courage for the forbiddenNew ears for new music. New eyes for the most distant things; unconditional freedom with respect to oneself. The section lays bare the mindset and methods that free spirits must use if they are to be successful. The free spirits cannot just sit back and read Nietzsches work as confirmation of how wonderful they are, but rather they must identify with and use his writings as a call to action. The quote above reveals that while he might be an artistic writer, Nietzsche is by no means clear. His straightforward passages are few and far between. This is not because he wants to be particularly opaque, but because he needs his readers to be strong enough to overcome difficulties. The free spirits are not just normal people who want to stand out for their own egos. Rather, they are powerful people who understand the need to create new values as the only way of satisfying their will to power. And thus, they must actively interpret and understand Nietzsche as a test to determine if they are truly capable of this action. A word must be made about the will to power because it is the inspiration for the higher beings. The herd might be motivated by values that are given to them (they unquestioningly accept these values), but the free spirits know that uncritically accepting values is a recipe for disaster and degeneration. Nietzsche argues that the will to power is the deepest human urge, and that it this urge that drives our actions. Essentially, man who rather have power over another

than preserve his own life (life-preservation is to preserve the ability to overpower), and as a consequence, all manner of moralities can be created by those who want power. Christianity is an obvious example of this: the priests were incapable of overpowering the strong in the world so they created a religion that would allow them to have power over the herd and to use the herd to gain power over the strong. Also, the priests will to power is what drove them to create a value system that would glorify themselves even at the cost of degrading the human race. Teaching the masses to deny this world in favor of another one does not make any sense, unless viewed in the light of the will to power. Thus, to overcome Christianity requires these strong types, these free spirits, who understand that their drive to rule comes from their will to power. And these are the only types who can overcome the insidious priests. Ultimately, the will to power is another crucial idea to understand if one is to create a system of values that others will follow. Every human has the will to power, but only those who are apart from the herd can actualize it. But this also means that the free spirits must be able to weave a narrative that satisfies the will to power of the herd in order to have them follow this newly created system of values. The free spirits can again be contrasted to the overmen because these beings would be capable of imposing their values on the herd (this assertion is backed up by Nietzsches treatment of early nobles in the first section of the Genealogy of Morality). Once again we see that Nietzsche has not prescribed any certain action, but merely a path to be taken and factors to be accounted for. In keeping with the idea that methodological creativity is the most important feature of Nietzsches work, let us now turn to a primary feature of many of his books: his aphoristic writing style. This style requires intense personal involvement with the text, and it is said that in reading the aphorism, the reader learns more about himself than about the writer. The prior

claim might require some explanation, and there are some reasons for such an understanding. First, aphorisms are generally short, fairly artistic statements about a certain subject. They offer no great resolution and often end in a question. How is one supposed to take much of the writer (in this case Nietzsche) out of such cryptic texts? Only through the art of interpretation. It is the creativity of Nietzsche that allows him to write such poetic and short ideas, but it is the creativity of the reader that is able to piece together the meanings hidden in those words. And this search for the meaning of the aphorisms is precisely what Nietzsche wants. Indeed, the entirety of the third section of his Genealogy of Morality is devoted to the interpretation of one aphorism. And as he puts it in his Preface to the book, An aphorism honestly coined and cast has not been deciphered simply because it has been read through; rather its interpretation must now being, and for this an art of interpretation is neededAdmittedly, to practice reading as an art in this way one thing above all elseruminating. This clearly indicates that Nietzsche attached great importance to his method of interpretation as a prerequisite to creativity. It is not enough just to create new values, but one must have a method already in mind if such creativity is to be genuine and powerful, and Nietzsche provides this method. This aphorism is quite important. Ostensibly the aphorism concerns wisdom.6 Yet the discussion quickly morphs into one not about wisdom, but about the methods that people use to try and reach wisdom, namely the ascetic ideal. The mere fact that he shifts the focus from the concept of wisdom to the method of obtaining it is significant in of itself, and something we will return to shortly. For now, a look at Nietzsches explanation of the ascetic ideal for different types of people is important. Particularly he claims that the ascetic ideal (which is generally lifedenying and thus no way of achieving wisdom anyways) is not found or is worthless for artists.

The aphorism in full is found in the Third Treatise of Genealogy of Morality and is as follows: Carefree, mocking, violent- thus wisdom wants us: she is a woman, she always loves only a warrior.

Artists are the ones most on face identified with the drive to creativity, and the fact that they have no use for some weak ideal to find wisdom is telling. Artists are capable of creating for themselves and do not need to follow the ascetic ideal to reach their goals. Beyond just the obvious focus on the artists (which is a fairly superficial reading of Nietzsche in any case) is the focus of the aphorism on the ascetic ideal as method for finding wisdom. There are no grounds for conflating wisdom with intelligence, but the fact that Nietzsche interprets his own aphorism as identifying a method is a telling indication of his focus. If a claim is made that Nietzsche does not practice what he preaches, it lies on tenuous ground at best. He gave specific, direct claims in the preface that the art of interpretation is of primary importance and then bent his own art of interpretation to a method that people use to find a goal! The aphorism is essentially a metaphor (amongst other things) for the interpretation Nietzsche wants his readers to perform. Wisdom is analogous to a value that people hold in high regard, a value that free spirits embody and want to project outwards for themselves and others. The ascetic ideal is the means in which people try to reach that goal, but it suffers from the fault of being life-denying and stale: it is not uniquely created by each individual. Thus creativity must be dynamic and individualized if one is to reach his goal. The artists identified in the aphorism are closely related to the free spirits in that they dont need a preset path to take to reach a goal, but they can make their own way to that point. Of worthy note is the usefulness of Nietzsches method. The above is yet another example of how the creative method, the method of interpretation, is so vital to reading Nietzsches literature. The little aphorism that he put at the beginning of his treatise spawned his entire understanding of it, which in turn spawned this papers further interpretation of his text. This is the depth of Nietzsches writing, in that it forces even those who oppose him to first

adopt his own method (the art of interpretation) to be able to find grounds on which to attack him. So even if a critic explicitly attacks Nietzsches ideas and emphasis on self-creation of new values, that critic is implicitly endorsing such ideas by adopting the interpretive method for criticism. There are a near infinity of aphorisms that could be interpreted (The Gay Science is a book that is entirely aphorisms), but we will focus our attention on just a few that are best elucidate Nietzsches focus on creativity. The first focus here is on Section 341 of The Gay Science, which is probably more familiar as the introduction of the concept of eternal recurrence. While its actual metaphysical importance is suspect, Nietzsche certainly meant it as a thought exercise that questioned our acceptance of this life. If the eternal recurrence were true, it would mean that everyone is fated to live their life over and over again in the same way. For many, and especially those who Nietzsche constantly critiques (those life-denying people), this is a frightening concept, that there is no relief from suffering in some afterlife. For those who find happiness at this proposition, this indicates that their lives are good and that they want to continue to live this life. This is exactly the type of life-affirming that Nietzsche desires in people, and to have such faith in oneself is to be able to create new values that will make life good. For a proper treatment of this, I will first address the eternal recurrence as aphorism and then the eternal recurrence as concept. As an aphorism, it screams for interpretation. Entire books have been written about this concept, and yet there is only one small aphorism about the idea in all of Nietzsches literature. While the idea can be more broadly associated with other ideas in the galaxy of Nietzsche, of itself it is define explicitly only by this short statement. As an aphorism, section 341 is a shining example of the test that Nietzsche lays before his readers,

demanding that they interpret for themselves first if they ever hope to understand him. Creativity is a necessity if one is to take such a small topic and expand it so broadly as to give it meaning and life of its own free of the confines of its context. Thus, interpretation and creativity are embedded into the text, not explicitly, but as an implicit command for his readers. The eternal recurrence as aphorism might be shining example of creativity, but the eternal recurrence as concept is not to be outdone. As mentioned above, the eternal recurrence is a test, dividing those who love their life and those who do not. Yet what is the critical dividing feature between these two groups? The latter group consists of those who follow the prescriptions of the priests and other life-denying figures who claim that this life of suffering is temporary. The herd accepts these views uncritically, and thus if the eternal recurrence was proven true, not only would it strip the meaning from their lives, but it would also shatter the foundation of their faith in an afterlife. On the other hand, the figures who accept the eternal recurrence are those who affirm life in all of its problems but also see an opportunity to create new values since these values will not be mooted by the constant passage of people into the afterlife. The eternal recurrence is essentially a call for one to create a life that one wants to live, and the only way to do that is to ignore the calls of the life-deniers and of the herd and to instead create a life filled with ones own values. There is a complaint however, against a possible disjoint in the analysis. Some may claim that eternal recurrence does not allow for new creation; it is a repetition again and again of the same things. First, this interpretation of the idea is probably false when viewed in the greater nexus of Nietzschean ideas. He explicitly states that interpretation and creativity are good things, that free spirits and overmen must strive to create their own values. It seems odd that he would also affirm a doctrine that did not allow these people to have any creative influence.

Secondly, this view of the eternal recurrence has already demanded a creative influence so as to be able to take this message from it. The text never explicitly says that creativity is impossible if this eternal recurrence were true. Thus the methods used to reach this point are not only an example of the inherent creative impetus in Nietzsches words, but an example against the thought that new creation is impossible (this interpretation is a new creation). Finally, it seems that creativity is a prerequisite to being content with the idea that we will live our lives over and over again forever. If one is living by ones own values and design, and the will to power is being satisfied by imposing these values on others, then this is a creative process leading to happiness. Thus, the eternal recurrence demands creativity from those who actually want to appreciate its message, that we must affirm life in order to appreciate it because its all that we have. The eternal recurrence, in the grand scheme of Nietzsches ideas, is heavily intertwined with what he calls amor fati, or love of fate. Essentially it says that one should consider good everything that happens in ones life, even if that be suffering or loss. Furthermore, it requires acceptance of events that happen in life because there is no way of escaping them. Because love of fate and eternal recurrence are so closely related, they both deliver the same type of critique to those that Nietzsche opposes. The life-denying would be against this idea because they believe that there is no need for suffering and that everyone will be delivered from it once in the afterlife. In their minds, there is no reason to accept this life if there is another, better life waiting after this one. Without the existence of that afterlife however, such an interpretation becomes problematic, and thus seeing suffering as good is a much more stable way of coming to terms with this life. Obviously the life-affirming spirits take the Nietzschean approach and do accept

suffering as good, and this is because they understand that life, in all of its multiplicities, is worth it. Love of fate is intimately connected with creativity; the reasons for this are partially related to the reasons that eternal recurrence demands creativity. Love of fate means that one needs to have the capacity to see the good even in the suffering, which means being able to bring such things into an individual value system. If one has adopted the herd mindset, that suffering is horrible and we must endure it just to be able to access the afterlife later, then one will be incapable of embracing fate. New values, independent of life-denial, are essential to loving fate. Indeed, in Sect. 276 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche expresses this understanding, to be a creative being, to affirm life: Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer. Affirmation and creativity go hand in hand, and both are critical to glorifying in life. A new system of values that one creates for oneself allows the individual to appreciate life because it is his, and no one elses. Unfortunately, there is not much textual evidence to support the claim that the creative dualism of explicit creative message and implicit creative methodology exists in Nietzsches explanation of amor fati. The main focus in those sections is upon the explicit creativity, and the words that Nietzsche uses do not require intense personal investment or investigation (beyond interpretation of the artistic language, which is of minor importance). But this complaint is paltry when compared to the shining dualism experienced elsewhere. Specifically, I turn to Nietzsches earliest book, The Birth of Tragedy, to paint a picture of creativity. The name of this book is fairly explanatory and addresses the existence of tragedy in Greece, its subsequent fall, and possible revival. While the revival is essentially stillborn (it depended on Wagnerian opera,

but Nietzsche quickly turned against the man), the rise and fall of tragic plays in Greece provide a useful explanation of creative processes in both regards (explicit focus and implicit methods). Related above was a discussion about the wisdom of Silenus, which formed the basis of the Greek understanding of life. Confronted with the horror of a meaningless, suffering-filled life, they needed something to distract them from this fact, and so they turned to tragedy. The tragic play, according to Nietzsche, allowed for a unity of the Apolline and the Dionysiac. It will be sufficient here to say that the Apolline was the rational restraint in man and the Dionysiac was a more animalistic, orgiastic expression. When these two were united on stage, the audience was able to pour its suffering into the play, and they left with their emotions spent, and thus could continue living with the wisdom of Silenus. The creativity here seems to be fairly obvious: the writers (Nietzsche identifies Aeschylus and Sophocles) of these tragedies had to somehow unite these two disparate forces into one in the limited context of the stage. Their triumph was evident in the reaction of the crowd after that body had poured all of its emotions into the tragedy onstage. Nietzsche believed that this was a supreme triumph because it was actually able to distract from the horrors of meaningless suffering. And thus the unique individual creativity of these men was able to transcend normal modes of the thought and were able to make something beautiful. Also worthy of note here is the types of plays they created. They always involved a chorus of mythical creatures who were supposed to represent the Dionysiac and to stir the crowd up into a frenzy in which the Apolline message of the play could be delivered. But the action onstage also indicated a focus on the creative in man. The tragic hero was doomed because of his fate, but it was a fate that had been manipulated from beyond. As far as it was within their power, they tried to avoid their doom. This was not possible by adopting normal methods of

thought, but by being a powerful individual and by creating a life worth living for himself. Aeschylus wrote plays about Prometheus, who defied the order of the gods to bring fire to mortals on earth (just note how much this figure exemplifies the overmen). And Sophocles wrote the great tragedies concerning Oedipus, who was always doomed by his fate and yet did everything in his power to resist it. In both instances, the hero defied the normal methods of doing things and created for themselves, much like the free spirits Nietzsche calls for in his later books. Yet beyond the explicit creativity glorified in these poets, there is the creative method that Nietzsche uses to write this book. Obviously, there are no direct records from the time beyond fragments of the play. But he is able to weave together a narrative that readers can accept, a narrative that is able to account for his message. Essentially, Nietzsche has identified a value (that tragedy gives meaning to life) and by using his own creative methods, has delivered a story that others can embrace; he is giving the herd a value that they can accept. Likewise, the writers used a creative method to give the world their plays. The point to be seen here is that creativity in writing or plays or whichever medium, are all secondary to a method of creativity in the first place. If an individual is able to create a new value, and then can use creativity to invent a method that will have others follow this new value, then it is considered a good value. But the starting point is creativity of method! The other focus of the Birth of Tragedy namely concerns the death of tragedy at the hands of Euripides, who was a follower of Socrates. Socrates preached that rationality was a better method for resolving the wisdom of Silenus, and that by optimism we could hope to discover meanings everywhere in the world (which would in turn justify our feelings). Euripides took these ideas and applied them to tragedy. He took out the Dionysiac elements and instead put too

much focus on the play. What more is that he adopted more realistic situations into the tragedies in the belief that the ability of the audience to relate to the characters was of utmost importance. The flaw here is that tragic plays were supposed to be an escape from the vicissitudes of life, and seeing those onstage (especially without the Dionysiac) removed the liberating elements. The problem with Euripides was that he tried using already invented things for his plays. No longer was the focus on the creation of new fantastic heroes, but merely the elevation of the normal to the stage. Nietzsche takes this critique and also applies it to Socrates, but the core elements do not adhere as well to him, and Nietzsche himself steers away from blanket attacks on Socrates later in his works. Euripides is not so lucky, and everything that Nietzsche says about him is negative (and is all contained in this book). To be faithful to the Nietzschean interpretation in the Birth of Tragedy (although perhaps I am allowed to make up my own ideas?), some analysis of Socrates role in the death of tragic plays must be understood. Socrates took reason and elevated it over creativity. The masses who never thought about the wisdom of Silenus were immune to this reinterpretation, but those who did understand were faced with the choice between reason and creativity. Previously, creativity had been at the forefront and it had allowed for tragedy and relief by that medium. Now however, Socrates was able to convince people that his method was better because it was not merely a distraction, but a way of life. The problem was that adopting reason and optimism as a way of life stripped the need to create new things out of the processes of life, and thus creativity was lost. For example, religion, which is a direct result from the Socratic will to truth, is essentially following a routine because it makes one feel safe and supposedly gives meaning to life. There is no room for creativity in the confines of doctrine, and so reason basically excluded creativity from the domain of intelligent peoples.

Nietzsche can thus be seen as trying to reclaim this creativity. While he first saw hope in the operas of Wagner, Nietzsche quickly lost faith in Wagner because he adhered too much to the pessimism (life-denying) thoughts of Schopenhauer. As seen above, creation is not lifedenying, it is life-affirming. While he does not express himself so clearly, there is a fair indication that Nietzsche sees himself as a free spirit who is trying to regain the power of tragedy so as to regain the power of creativity. His artistic writing style is emblematic of this idea because it not only requires creativity to write in such a style, but it requires creativity by the reader to take a personal role with the text and to interpret it. Where do we stand? The entirety of the above paper is but one interpretation of Nietzschean texts. But therein lays the beauty of Nietzsches creativity. Only by engaging with the words that he writes will a reader be able to take them and to create with them. When he is explicitly endorsing creativity, he is calling for free spirits to follow him and to make new values that they will follow. He appeals to their will to power as a reason that they should follow him. But the way that one must do that is through personal creation. Nietzsche knew this, and his aphorisms and other writings are a test to those who would follow him. Even if one rejects his ideas, one must adopt his creative art of interpretation to be able to critique him. And thus creativity is not just in his words, but his method, and to give meaning to life, creativity must come first.