Daily Times

Nietzsche contends that history can play three important roles, which he terms as ‘Monumental’, ‘Antiquarian’ and ‘Critical’. In this way, ‘Monumental history’ brings the great achievements of humanity into focus. This gear of history is important for individuals because it makes them aware of what is possible for human beings to achieve. Likewise, ‘Antiquarian history’ helps contemporary individuals to appreciate their life and culture while ‘ Critical History’ approached in an effect can be used to pass judgement- by judging the past, the critical historian became attentive about the flaws and failures of their culture.

Throughout the human epoch, the fact cannot be denied that it is the social and political forces that imposed their will upon history. For some historians, the imposition of will is a conniver fact-what famous historian Richard Hofstadter said: “It is naïve to think that conspiracies do not occur in history, but it is insane to think that history itself is a conspiracy”. Basically, history is nothing but the reflection of human consciousness, which has six stages.

First, consciousness of unreflected generality called myth. Second, consciousness of generality reflected in particularity, which resembles the consciousness of history as prehistory. Third, the consciousness of unreflected universality, known as universal myth. Fourth, consciousness of particularity reflected in generality, which is known as the consciousness of history proper. Fifth, the consciousness of reflected universality often known as world historical consciousness and finally, the consciousness of reflected generality, which stresses on overcoming decomposed historical consciousness.

It was Nietzsche who paved the way for the establishment of a new myth and for him, both man and society are standing on the brink of historical deconstruction whether through the diagnosis of time or through the self-projection of freedom, power, and elective affinity-a situation in which certain ideas and certain processes seek each other out in history

The problem with the latter historical scholarship, during Nietzsche’s time was that “historical knowledge was pursued for its own sake whether consciously or unconsciously”, to which Nietzsche cited five dangers. Firstly, modern historical knowledge undercuts joy in the present. Secondly, modern historical knowledge, made aware about vast historical currents that their present actions are too feeble to change what they have inherited. Thirdly, modern historical knowledge assaults psyche by encouraging sense that inner person is disconnected from outer world especially with more information. Fourthly, modern historical knowledge encourages jaded relativism towards reality and present experience and finally, modern historical knowledge inspires irony and cynicism about contemporary individuals’ role in the world.

As an illustration, historical consciousness is the consciousness of historicity which is all espousal. But for Nietzsche history was the manufactured blasphemy of human unconsciousness that had snatched human free will and its will to power. In the latter context, the fact cannot be denied that the rise of fascism and Nazism was the result of furious battle between a historical myth and historical fact. What Mussolini wrote in his 1924 article, in which he said; “we fascists have had the courage to discard all traditional political theories and we are aristocrats and democrats, revolutionaries and reactionaries, proletarians and anti-proletarians, pacifists and anti-pacifist. It is sufficient to have a single fixed point: stable history and nation-the rest is obvious”.

Similarly, in his 1922, speech in Naples, Mussolini said, “We have created our own myth. The myth is a faith, it is passion, it is not necessary, it shall be reality. It is the reality by fact that, it is god, a hope, a faith that is the nation-our myth is the greatness of the nation”. Indeed, the life-force speech of Mussolini resembles his disenchantment with the established manufactured mythic history, which he utterly resented. Consequently, it was Nietzsche who paved the way for the establishment of a new myth and for him, both man and society are standing on the brink of historical deconstruction whether through the diagnosis of time or through the self-projection of freedom, power, and elective affinity-a situation in which certain ideas and certain processes seek each other out in history.

In contrast, Nietzsche’s connection with the current approaches of history were psychologically and ethically devastating to his contemporaries, particularly to the ‘young philosophers’ of his time to whom he contends that the only antidote would be reverse to these trends. The antidote is being ‘Unhistorical’ means to forget the overburdened information about the history and the other anti-dote is ‘Supra-historical’- means to rely on arts and religion. Besides this, classical scholarship is not enough to justify the present experience of contemporary individuals- just like this, modern scholarship is inevitably incomplete to identify the past. Thus, the will to power from Hobbes to Nietzsche grasped both the manifestation and utter-abnegation of characteristics.

Published in Daily Times, February 5^th 2019.