The Nazis had a complex and largely distorted relationship with Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy. They appropriated elements of his work, particularly his ideas of the Übermensch (Overman) and the will to power, to justify their ideology of racial superiority, militarism, and authoritarianism. However, this was a significant misinterpretation of Nietzsche’s thought.
Nietzsche himself was highly critical of nationalism, anti-Semitism, and authoritarianism, all central to Nazi ideology. His sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, played a crucial role in shaping this misappropriation by editing his works after his death and aligning them with far-right political views, which Nietzsche would have opposed. The Nazis selectively interpreted Nietzsche’s language on strength and power to fit their agenda, ignoring his broader rejection of herd mentality and his disdain for any form of mass control or collective ideology.
The Nazis misused Nietzsche’s philosophy to support their regime, distorting his ideas for political purposes, while Nietzsche himself would have rejected their core beliefs and actions.
An Analysis of How Nietzsche Has Been Misinterpreted
Friedrich Nietzsche is one of the most complex, enigmatic, and profoundly influential philosophers of the 19th century. His works, which straddle the line between philosophy and literature, have sparked countless debates, misinterpretations, and re-interpretations. Nietzsche’s ideas, particularly his proclamation of the “death of God” and his conceptualisation of the Übermensch (or “Overman”), have been co-opted, misunderstood, and distorted by a wide range of ideologies, movements, and thinkers, often in ways that Nietzsche himself would likely have repudiated.
Among those who reflected deeply on Nietzsche’s work was the 20th-century French philosopher and writer Albert Camus. Camus, a leading figure in existentialist thought, though he rejected the label of an existentialist himself, is perhaps best known for his exploration of the absurd, the search for meaning in a seemingly indifferent universe. In Camus’s philosophical framework, Nietzsche occupies a central position, not merely as a precursor to existential thought but as a deeply misunderstood thinker. Camus admired Nietzsche but also believed that his philosophy had been profoundly misinterpreted, especially by those who sought to turn his ideas into a foundation for nihilism, authoritarianism, or despair.
The relationship between Nietzsche’s thought and the way it has been misunderstood, particularly in light of Camus’s interpretation, reveals much about both Nietzsche’s philosophy and the broader themes of existentialism and absurdism. To understand why Nietzsche was so misunderstood according to Camus, we must first explore Nietzsche’s key philosophical tenets and how they have been misrepresented over time. Then, we can examine how Camus’s perspective helps to clarify Nietzsche’s real philosophical contributions and what it means to live authentically in a world that may seem devoid of inherent meaning.
Nietzsche’s Philosophy: Key Themes
At the heart of Nietzsche’s philosophy is a radical critique of Western thought, morality, and religion. Nietzsche believed that much of Western culture had been dominated by a morality that he called “slave morality,” a system of values that prized meekness, humility, and self-denial. This morality, which he associated primarily with Christianity, was for Nietzsche a sign of life-denial, a rejection of the natural instincts of power, vitality, and self-assertion. He sought, therefore, to expose and critique this moral framework, suggesting that it was based not on objective truths but on ressentiment—the resentment of the weak towards the strong.
Nietzsche’s proclamation of the “death of God” is one of his most famous and frequently misunderstood statements. For Nietzsche, the death of God was not simply an attack on religious belief but a profound cultural event. It marked the collapse of traditional values, the loss of a metaphysical framework that had once given life meaning. In the wake of this event, Nietzsche believed that humanity faced a great crisis. Without God, there was no longer any objective foundation for morality, truth, or meaning.
But rather than lament this loss, Nietzsche saw it as an opportunity for human flourishing. The death of God cleared the way for the Übermensch, the figure of the Overman or Superman, who would create new values, assert his own will to power, and live authentically in a world without pre-given meaning. The Übermensch was not a figure of domination in the tyrannical sense, as later ideologues might claim, but a person who transcended the limitations of traditional morality and embraced life in all its fullness, creativity, and dynamism.
However, Nietzsche’s philosophy, particularly his concepts of the Übermensch and the will to power, was often misunderstood or deliberately misused. In the early 20th century, various political movements, most notoriously the Nazis, distorted Nietzsche’s ideas to justify authoritarianism, militarism, and racial superiority. This misappropriation of Nietzsche’s philosophy as a foundation for fascist ideologies is one of the most egregious examples of his thought being taken out of context and repurposed for political ends.
Nietzsche and Nihilism
Nietzsche is often associated with nihilism, a worldview that holds that life is devoid of meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. However, Nietzsche’s relationship to nihilism is far more nuanced than a simple endorsement of despair or pessimism. In fact, Nietzsche was one of the earliest thinkers to diagnose the condition of nihilism in Western culture, but he did not celebrate it; rather, he sought to overcome it.
For Nietzsche, nihilism was the inevitable consequence of the death of God. With the collapse of traditional religious and moral frameworks, individuals and societies were left in a state of existential confusion and despair. But Nietzsche did not believe that nihilism was the final destination. Instead, he saw it as a necessary phase in the development of human consciousness. The recognition that life lacks inherent meaning, he argued, could lead either to despair or to the opportunity for creative self-affirmation. Nietzsche’s response to nihilism was not resignation but a call for the creation of new values, a revaluation of all values that would affirm life and its inherent chaos, contingency, and suffering.
This nuanced understanding of nihilism is often overlooked in discussions of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Too often, Nietzsche is portrayed as a nihilist, someone who revels in the meaninglessness of life, when in fact he was a thinker deeply concerned with the problem of meaning and with the question of how one might live meaningfully in a world without God.
Camus’s Interpretation of Nietzsche
Albert Camus, in his works such as The Rebel and The Myth of Sisyphus, grappled with many of the same existential questions that Nietzsche had addressed, particularly the problem of meaning in a world without a transcendental foundation. For Camus, Nietzsche was not merely a philosopher of nihilism but a thinker who offered a way to confront the absurdity of existence without succumbing to despair.
Camus’s concept of the absurd, which describes the conflict between humans’ desire for meaning and the indifferent, chaotic nature of the universe, owes much to Nietzsche’s critique of traditional metaphysical systems. However, where Nietzsche looked towards the Übermensch as a figure who could transcend nihilism, Camus remained more sceptical of such transcendence. For Camus, the absurd condition could never be entirely overcome; it could only be confronted and embraced.
In The Rebel, Camus provides an extended meditation on Nietzsche’s thought, placing him at the centre of his analysis of rebellion and metaphysical revolt. Camus admired Nietzsche for his rejection of traditional values and his courageous confrontation with the problem of nihilism. However, Camus also believed that Nietzsche had been widely misunderstood, particularly by those who sought to use his philosophy to justify totalitarianism or political violence.
For Camus, Nietzsche’s Übermensch was not a tyrant or a fascist leader, as some interpreters had suggested. Instead, the Übermensch represented an individual who creates meaning for himself in a world that offers no inherent meaning. This creation of values is an act of rebellion, not in the sense of political revolution but in the metaphysical sense of refusing to accept the given structures of morality and meaning. Camus believed that this act of rebellion, this refusal to submit to nihilism, was central to Nietzsche’s philosophy.
However, Camus also recognised the dangers inherent in Nietzsche’s thought. In The Rebel, Camus reflects on how Nietzsche’s concept of the will to power had been misinterpreted by later thinkers and political movements. The will to power, in Nietzsche’s original sense, was not merely a desire for domination or control over others; it was the creative, life-affirming force that drives individuals to assert their own values and live authentically. But for Camus, the danger lay in the way this concept had been distorted by those who sought to use Nietzsche’s ideas to justify violent revolution or authoritarian rule.
Camus argued that Nietzsche’s philosophy could easily be twisted into an ideology of power for power’s sake, where the creation of values becomes indistinguishable from the imposition of one’s will on others. This, Camus believed, was a profound misunderstanding of Nietzsche’s intent. For Nietzsche, the will to power was not a license for cruelty or oppression but a call to embrace life in all its complexity and contradiction.
The Misunderstanding of Nietzsche
One of the reasons Nietzsche was so profoundly misunderstood, according to Camus, is that his philosophy was often interpreted through the lens of political ideologies that Nietzsche himself would have rejected. The association of Nietzsche with fascism, in particular, is one of the most damaging misinterpretations of his thought. Nietzsche was a fierce critic of nationalism, anti-Semitism, and the herd mentality that he believed characterised mass movements and authoritarian regimes. In fact, Nietzsche’s sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, was largely responsible for editing and promoting Nietzsche’s work in ways that aligned it with her own far-right political views after his death.
Nietzsche’s philosophy, with its emphasis on the individual’s creative power and its critique of conventional morality, was deeply opposed to the collectivism and conformity that characterised both fascism and communism. Yet, because Nietzsche’s language often glorified strength, vitality, and overcoming, it was easy for later interpreters to twist these concepts into justifications for political domination and violence.
Camus was particularly concerned with how Nietzsche’s rejection of traditional morality could be misinterpreted as an endorsement of immoralism or amoralism. Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity and slave morality was not an argument for cruelty or self-indulgence, but a call to transcend the life-denying aspects of traditional values and embrace a more life-affirming ethos. However, this subtlety was often lost on Nietzsche’s readers, especially those who sought to use his ideas for political or ideological purposes.
Camus’s Defence of Nietzsche
In The Rebel, Camus sought to defend Nietzsche from these misunderstandings. He argued that Nietzsche’s philosophy, far from being a nihilistic or authoritarian creed, was fundamentally concerned with the problem of how to live authentically in a world without God. For Camus, Nietzsche was a thinker of rebellion, someone who refused to accept the given structures of meaning and morality and instead sought to create his own values.
Camus also recognised the existential courage in Nietzsche’s thought. Nietzsche’s willingness to confront the void, to acknowledge the absence of any ultimate meaning or purpose, was for Camus an act of intellectual bravery. But more than that, it was an act of affirmation. Nietzsche did not simply despair in the face of the absurd; he embraced it. He called for a “yes-saying” to life, a joyful acceptance of life’s chaos, suffering, and uncertainty.
In this sense, Nietzsche’s philosophy was not a philosophy of despair but a philosophy of hope. It was a call to live fully, to embrace the challenges and contradictions of existence, and to create meaning in a world that offers no ready-made answers. For Camus, this was the true essence of Nietzsche’s thought, and it was a message that had been obscured by those who sought to turn Nietzsche into a prophet of nihilism or authoritarianism.
Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy remains one of the most profound and challenging bodies of thought in Western intellectual history. His ideas, from the death of God to the concept of the Übermensch, continue to resonate and provoke debate. However, as Albert Camus argued, Nietzsche has often been profoundly misunderstood, particularly by those who sought to use his ideas for political or ideological purposes.
Camus’s interpretation of Nietzsche emphasises the life-affirming aspects of his philosophy, his rejection of nihilism, and his call for the creation of new values in a world without inherent meaning. Nietzsche, for Camus, was not a nihilist or a philosopher of despair but a thinker of rebellion, someone who confronted the absurdity of existence with courage and creativity. In this way, Camus sought to defend Nietzsche from the many misinterpretations that had plagued his legacy, offering a reading of Nietzsche that emphasises hope, affirmation, and the possibility of living authentically in a world without God.
