ABSTRACT
A brief survey of the secondary literature confirms the observation of Keith Ansell-Pearson: “Inquiry into the political dimension of Nietzsche’s thought still remains the most contentious and controversial aspect of Nietzsche studies.”1 Peter Bergmann states that, whereas “his accusers have placed him outside his time” by deeming him “unpolitical,” “his defenders have placed him above his time” by regarding him as “antipolitical.”2 It is highly significant that Nietzsche did not articulate key roles for particular positions in society. With an aloofness from contextualized particulars, Nietzsche endorsed no specific political modelswhether monarchy, oligarchy, etc. Instead, he cited Machiavelli’s claim that “the form of governments is of very slight importance, although semi-educated people think otherwise. The great goal of politics should be permanence, which outweighs anything else, being much more valuable than freedom.”3 He then added, “Only when permanence is securely established and guaranteed is there any possibility of constant development and ennobling inoculation, which, to be sure, will usually be opposed by the dangerous companion of all permanence: authority.”4
