Demian - Hermann Hesse

Thanks to and Caroline and Lizzy for organizing German Literature Month. Please visit their sites for tons of links to commentary on all sorts of great German literature.

Those familiar with the writings of Hermann Hesse will find that Demian covers familiar ground. Like many of Hesse’s novels, this work is a Bildungsroman, or the chronicle of the development of a young person’s character. It is a philosophical novel that draws upon contradictory thought systems as espoused by Carl Jung, Friedrich Nietzsche, Gnosticism, Christian theology, Hinduism and Buddhism to name a just a few. As this novel was written fairly early in Hesse’s career, these ideas, as well as the plot, are unfortunately a little underdeveloped here.

Emil Sinclair is raised in a middle class German family. His home life is comfortable and warm with caring family and parents, holiday celebrations, religion, etc. Early in life he begins to realize that he is different from his family as well as his peers. Sinclair seems to live more in his mind and spirit than do those around him. Moreover, he recognizes an opposite world inhabited by darker things.

“On the other hand, the other world began right in our own house; it was altogether different, smelled different, spoke differently, made different promises and demands. In this second world there were maids and journeymen, ghost stories and scandalous rumors; there was a motley flow of uncanny, tempting, frightening, puzzling things, things   like slaughterhouse and jail, drunks and bickering women, cows giving birth, horses collapsing, stories of burglaries, killings, suicides. All these beautiful and scary, wild and cruel things existed all around, in the next street, in the next house; policemen and vagrants ran around, drunks beat their wives, clusters of young girls poured out of the factories in the evening, old women could cast a spell on you and make you sick, bandits lived in the woods, arsonists were caught by the constabulary—this second, violent world gushed out fragrantly everywhere,”

Sinclair meets another boy, Max Demian. This extraordinary character seems to understand the duality inherent in the universe and sees into a higher reality. This knowledge is accompanied by amazing powers of persuasion over others. Through the years the pair lose touch for long periods but reconnect several times.

As Sinclair grows up he vacillates between the worlds of “Light” and  “Dark” with periods of wild revelry followed by stretches of piety and asceticism. Eventually, after episodes of mystical experiences and dreams, he reestablishes his friendship with Demian.

At this point Sinclair establishes a spiritual balance between his conflicting natures. He and Demian form associations with other “enlightened” people who follow many different belief systems.

Sinclair meets Demian’s mother, Frau Eva. This woman is a figure of wisdom and near spiritual perfection. Sinclair falls deeply in love with her. The two experience a spiritual relationship and connection. As World War I breaks out, both Sinclair and Demian enter military service and meet their destinies.

This is a deep philosophical work. It is clear that Hesse is identifying a duality in the universe, the “Light” and “Dark.” There are multiple references to the Gnostic God Abraxas. This deity represents a combination of universal opposites.

The “Light” side, Spirituality, Christianity and other religious thought are portrayed as half of the balance in the universe.

“the reality of a pious life such as my parents led, for instance; I knew it was neither unworthy nor hypocritical. Instead, I constantly retained the most profound respect for religiosity”

The other half of Hesse’s equation is the necessity of the darker side of the Universe. The writings of Nietzsche are referenced several times. Some Gnostic interpretations of Bible stories are presented. For instance, the idea that the Cain and Abel actually presented Cain in a positive and noble light is suggested.

It is well known that Hesse’s philosophy was influenced by the theories of Carl Jung’s collective unconscious. Sinclair comes to understand that these forces inside of him are shared by all and perhaps result from human evolution.

“But we’re comprised of everything that comprises the world, each of us, and just as our body bears within it the lines of evolutionary descent all the way back to the fish and even much farther beyond that, in the same way our soul contains everything that has ever dwelt in human souls. “

Sinclair enters the world of the highly enlightened when he reconciles that both universal forces are necessary for a balanced psyche and society. I cannot help but to think that Nietzsche must have rolled in his grave at the thought that Hesse’s system rolled together his beliefs with the ideas of piety and Christianity!

I like Hesse’s take on things as an interesting and useful worldview. As a personal philosophy, his concept of balance can be beneficial and helpful. However, Hesse, like many philosophies and religions, seems to go further and imply that these dualities are part of the basic fabric of the universe. I differ with him in this regard as I think that these beliefs are more of an enlightened point of view as opposed to a nuts and bolts description of the universe.

Though full of varying philosophical thoughts, I find Hesse to be relatively transparent as to what he is attempting to say. Though this is the first time that I have read Demian, I have read numerous other works by Hesse, so I was somewhat intellectually prepared beforehand. I would highly recommend that a prospective reader be somewhat familiar with the basics of Jung’s theories on Collective Unconscious and Archetypes as well as Abraxas. A little knowledge of Gnostic beliefs would also help. Deep study is not necessary, twenty or so minutes in Wikipedia will open up many doors to this work.

Readers of this blog will know that I like books full of ideas and philosophical ruminations. This book is indeed full of these things and I very much enjoyed it. However I would not recommend this novel to those who are unfamiliar with Hesse’s other works. The ground that is covered here is covered in his other books in more satisfying ways. This is a short work, too short to be packed with so many ideas. Thus I find that the philosophies expounded here seem underdeveloped. The author needs more words. Similarly, I think more character development would have helped. Finally, the end of the novel seems rushed and comes too quickly.

I have previously read Siddhartha, Steppenwolf, Narcissus and Goldmund, The Journey to the East and The Glass Bead Game. I tend to love Hesse's work. I would recommend any of these as more fulfilling, both thematically and aesthetically,  works over Demian. If one has already read Hesse’s other great works and wants to read more, then I think that they will find this is an enjoyable supplementary novel.

The Anti - Christ by Friedrich Nietzsche

The Anti - Christ is the forth work that I have read by Friedrich Nietzsche. My recent commentary on On the Genealogy of Morals is here. I read the Horace B. Samuel translation of this treatise.  

This book is an ideological as well as emotional, even hateful, attack on what Nietzsche perceives as the Judeo - Christian tradition and philosophy. While in some ways this is a rehash of ideas presented in earlier works, in this book the philosopher maps out this particular thesis in intricate detail.  Nietzsche describes his primary contention,

“Christianity,” which is to say, the corruption of souls by means of the concepts of guilt, punishment and immortality”

“Corruption” of souls being an effect of Christianity, Nietzsche sees modern Europeans as being motivated by guilt and punishment. As a result, modern society is riddled with weakness and decadence. He equates Christianity to anarchy. He blames it for what he perceives to be the malevolency of democracy and scoffs at the ideas that humans are equal.  He sees Christianity as the revenge and rule of the lowest elements of society. A proper society in his view would be controlled by elites, and he is contemptuous of even the middle classes,

 “A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. “

 For Nietzsche, the problem with the concept of immortality and the afterlife is that it focuses human attention away from the reality of life, and is thus the worship of death and, therefore, abominable. He condemns belief systems that distract people from reality.

Nietzsche extolls the virtues of what he considers to be high civilization, principally the Roman Empire, as well as the Islamic Empire. He sees those societies as great, having existed without guilt and decadence. In the philosopher’s eyes, these civilizations were springs of culture, learning and science that were not burdened by ideas that make humanity weak. In addition, he admires these empires for their warrior ethos.

There are a plethora of additional arguments here, all illustrating how Nietzsche believes that Christianity and its supposed offspring, socialism, anarchy and democracy, have destroyed high civilization.

I certainly disagree with certain aspects of the Christian belief system. However, on almost every level, Nietzsche’s arguments simply do not hold water for me. I believe that human progress has resulted from a combination of ideals. These include the drive and will of the individual to succeed despite societal constraints that Nietzsche champions. However, human progress has also been driven by the tendency to exhibit compassion and charity, ideals that the philosopher treats with contempt. Furthermore, much of the tendency in people that Nietzsche defines as a “slave morality” is clearly built into our genes.

I also find many flaws in Nietzsche’s views of history, sociology and psychology. For example, he attributes the fall of Rome entirely to the spread of Christianity. He also gives too much credit to Christianity by implying that the world would be mostly devoid of charity, democracy, the philosophy of equality, etc. without it. His reasoning is, on some issues, utterly without nuance. He is full of hatred towards thought systems and people that he disagrees with. As a result, I find this treatise to often be childish and downright silly.

To be sure, Nietzsche has been influential on subsequent belief systems. For example, his thoughts have not only heavily impacted the philosophies of Libertarianism and Objectivism, but even upon deeper and more reasoned thinkers such as D.H. Lawrence and Hermann Hesse.  He does delve into extremely audacious and uncharted territory. He is opinionated and, at times, lays out interesting arguments. He often exhibits great insight. I also remember other works by the philosopher, such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil as being less vitriolic as well as a little more levelheaded. However, at least when it comes to this work, for me, these attributes do not compensate for the immaturity and the flawed nature of these writings.

On the Genealogy of Morals - by Friedrich Nietzsche

On the Genealogy of Morals is the third work by Friedrich Nietzsche that I have read. The edition that I finished is a modernized version of the Horace B. Samuel translation. Nietzsche covers many of his usual themes in this effort. Having read Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil several years ago I found that the lines of reasoning found in this treatise were similar, but often presented from different angles.

In some many ways this is a bold and brilliant work. However, I cannot think about this tome in a meaningful way without first pondering Nietzsche’s presentation. The famous philosopher is openly contemptuous, downright nasty and at times personally vituperative of the many belief systems and adherents to those systems that he disagrees with. On the Genealogy of Morals contains scathing attack after scathing attack on religions, philosophies and other forms of human beliefs that Nietzsche opposes. While the assaults are based upon chains of reasoning, they are often childish and hysterical. For instance, the philosopher describes people who act in ways that can be labeled as “Virtuous.”

“These abortions! What a noble eloquence gushes from their lips! What an amount of sugary, slimy, humble submission oozes in their eyes! What   do they really want? At any rate to represent righteousness, love, wisdom, superiority, that is the ambition of these "lowest ones," these sick ones!”  

These incessant rants actually serve as parody of the views that Nietzsche is advocating. He directs these tirades against people who espouse such beliefs as Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Nihilism, Nationalism, Democratic values, Socialism and a whole host of other philosophies. He rarely aims his contempt at ethnic groups, however. Oddly enough, he expresses hatred for anti – Semites. He does, however, exhibit an unfortunate streak of misogyny.

With all that said, Nietzsche is an audacious and extremely influential thinker. He takes aim at thoughts and belief systems that are ingrained and part of the foundation of much the world’s cultures and thought patterns, and challenges them head on. His primary goal in this work is to overthrow conventional notions of morality.

Though I disagree with almost all of the philosopher’s conclusions and am horrified by some of his hypothesis, I believe that there is room to question these basic tenets of human thought and culture. If anything, it forces us to analyze and justify some of the fundamental structures of what we call our moral system.

First Nietzsche takes aim at what people consider virtue. As he also espouses in Beyond Good and Evil, he sees the concept of “Evil” as an idea that fits a  “slave morality”. The concept of Evil and its opposite concept of “Good” were created by inferior people in order to sap the power of the strong, vibrant and healthy.  Nietzsche advocates for robust action by the superior and resourceful that should be unencumbered by what he deems “bad conscience”. Concepts such as justice and fairness are factors that are weakening humanity,

“It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "Those birds of prey are evil, and he who is as far removed from being a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb, - is he not good?"

For much of the work Nietzsche sets his sights upon what he calls “Ascetic Values”. This seems to be a combination not only self-denial, but also religion, metaphysical concepts and abstract values. Nietzsche argues that anything that attempts to direct our thoughts, actions and belief away from hard but wonderful reality is a contemptible denial of life itself. Such thinking is surrender to negativity and depression. Visions, transcendental states, etc. are extreme manifestations of this rejection of the world and thus an abrogation of life.

Nietzsche goes much further; he rejects the idea that scientific thought is anything but an advanced manifestation of the perverse force of Asceticism. According to Nietzsche, belief in truth itself is an abstract and, ultimately, metaphysical concept. The search for truth is a cold and bloodless endeavor that is also a rejection of life. The conflict between superstation and science is false as both systems are part of the same problem!

Ultimately Nietzsche advocates a morality based upon will, strength and individual greatness. He idolizes the classical virtues of ancient Greece and pre - Christian Rome.

I have barley summarized and I have oversimplified the philosophy presented in On the Genealogy of Morals. I have also skipped major arguments contained in the book. My point here is that this work goes way beyond most philosophies presented in the last two thousand years. It challenges our most basic conceptions. I will not try to refute Nietzsche’s beliefs here, as I would assume that the vast majority of readers would easily find their own objections to most of this philosopher’s conclusions.

Nietzsche can be infuriating. When he launches into melodramatic tirades he can also be unintentionally and ridiculously hilarious. Hidden beneath all the venom and ridiculousness is a bold attempt to redefine what modern civilized society deems to be morality. I not only disagree with his belief system, but I find major components of it reprehensible. On the other hand, it is good to have some basic “truths” challenged from time to time.  Although he often falls flat on his face, I must concede some respect for a thinker who takes such a long and crazy leap.