Nietzsche and Philosophy

1. Introduction

Nietzsche and Philosophy (Nietzsche et la philosophie, 1962) is Gilles Deleuze’s first major monograph devoted entirely to a single philosopher and a foundational text in the post‑war reception of Nietzsche. The book presents Nietzsche not as a precursor of existentialism, a moral psychologist, or an aphoristic stylist, but as the architect of a systematic critique of Western thought and of a new “philosophy of the future.”

Deleuze’s study focuses on a cluster of concepts—will to power, active and reactive forces, eternal return, and genealogy—in order to reconstruct Nietzsche’s philosophy as a theory of forces and values rather than of consciousness or truth. It is within this framework that Deleuze proposes the influential idea that Nietzsche “overturns Platonism” and inaugurates a non‑dialectical, affirmative thinking of difference and becoming.

The work is often read as a bridge between mid‑century French Nietzscheanism and later so‑called post‑structuralism. It has been taken, both by supporters and critics, as an early blueprint for Deleuze’s own philosophy, but it is equally treated as an ambitious, if controversial, interpretation within Nietzsche scholarship.

2. Historical Context and Intellectual Milieu

2.1 Post‑war French Philosophy and Nietzsche

When Nietzsche and Philosophy appeared in 1962, Nietzsche was already prominent in France, but largely filtered through existentialist and humanist lenses (Sartre, Camus) or through spiritual and religious readings (e.g. Jaspers). Deleuze’s book intervened in a context where Nietzsche was often associated with individual authenticity, absurdism, or philosophical anthropology, and where philological German scholarship (e.g. Heidegger’s multi‑volume lectures) was beginning to circulate.

2.2 Structuralism, Anti‑Humanism, and Marxism

Deleuze’s study emerged alongside structuralism in linguistics and anthropology (Saussure, Lévi‑Strauss) and amid debates about Marxism and humanism (Althusser). Within this constellation, several French thinkers—Foucault, Derrida, Klossowski, Bataille—were turning to Nietzsche as a resource for critiquing subject‑centered philosophy, historicism, and phenomenology.

2.3 Academic and Publishing Setting

The book was published by Presses Universitaires de France in the Bibliothèque de Philosophie series, marking Nietzsche’s entry into mainstream academic philosophy in France. It contributed to shifts away from the then‑dominant canons of Hegelianism and phenomenology and helped consolidate a distinct French, theoretically oriented Nietzsche reception.

3. Author and Composition of Nietzsche and Philosophy

3.1 Deleuze’s Intellectual Trajectory

By the time Deleuze wrote Nietzsche and Philosophy, he had already published studies on Hume (Empirisme et subjectivité, 1953) and on key figures such as Bergson and Kant. These works displayed his interest in rethinking empiricism, subjectivity, and difference. Nietzsche became, for Deleuze, a decisive interlocutor for formulating a philosophy that would depart from both phenomenology and Hegelian dialectic.

3.2 Genesis and Writing Process

The book was composed around 1960–1961, drawing on Deleuze’s teaching and seminars at French universities (notably the Sorbonne and later Lyon), where Nietzsche was still relatively marginal in the official curriculum. Commentators generally agree that Deleuze worked from the then‑available French and German editions of Nietzsche’s works and from emerging French secondary literature, including Pierre Klossowski’s writings.

3.3 Relation to Deleuze’s Later Work

Scholars commonly regard Nietzsche and Philosophy as a preparatory text for Deleuze’s later major works, especially Difference and Repetition (1968) and Anti‑Oedipus (1972, with Félix Guattari). The book’s treatments of will to power, difference, and critique prefigure themes that Deleuze would subsequently develop in a more explicitly systematic and original form.

4. Structure and Organization of the Work

Nietzsche and Philosophy is arranged in an introduction followed by four substantive chapters and a concluding section (often counted as a fifth chapter). Although Deleuze rarely signals transitions in a textbook‑like way, the architecture is relatively clear.

4.1 Internal Organization

Each chapter proceeds by thematic clusters rather than linear textual exegesis. Deleuze typically:

1. Extracts a key concept (e.g. will to power).
2. Opposes a “misreading” (e.g. psychological or power‑political interpretations).
3. Reconstructs a systematic role for the concept in Nietzsche’s overall philosophy.

Subsections are only occasionally marked, which has led commentators to reconstruct the argumentative progression differently. Nonetheless, the work moves from ontological and methodological concerns (forces, will to power, genealogy) to ethical and evaluative issues (morality, values, “superior man”), maintaining a continuous focus on Nietzsche’s critique of reactive forces.

5. Central Arguments and Key Concepts

5.1 Will to Power and Forces

Deleuze’s central claim is that Nietzsche’s will to power is a differential principle governing the relation between forces. Proponents of this reading hold that:

• Will to power is not a psychological drive or desire for domination.
• It designates how forces relate, dominate, and interpret one another, thereby producing values and meanings.

Critics counter that Deleuze downplays Nietzsche’s more straightforward uses of “power” and his political or agonistic language.

5.2 Active/Reactive Forces and Genealogy

Deleuze interprets Nietzsche’s genealogical method as an analysis of active and reactive forces underlying practices and values. Active forces create and affirm; reactive forces negate and internalize. Genealogy, on this view, shows that “universal” moral concepts are outcomes of particular reactive configurations such as ressentiment and bad conscience.

5.3 Eternal Return as Selective Ontology

A major argument of the book is that Nietzsche’s eternal return is not a cosmological doctrine of literal repetition, but a selective principle:

"

Only what can be affirmed returns.

Proponents of Deleuze’s reading claim that eternal return “tests” forces and allows only what is fully affirmable (active forces, difference) to return. Alternative interpretations—cosmological, existential, or theological—maintain that Deleuze abstracts too far from Nietzsche’s own formulations.

5.4 Overturning Platonism and the Image of Thought

Deleuze contends that Nietzsche overturns Platonism by reversing the hierarchy between a world of true essences and the world of appearances, affirming becoming and multiplicity. This is linked to a critique of the traditional image of thought, which presupposes recognition, common sense, and a natural orientation toward truth. Nietzsche’s philosophy is portrayed as constructing a new image of thought centered on critique, difference, and creation of values.

5.5 Superior Man / Overman and New Values

In the closing arguments, Deleuze reads Nietzsche’s “surhomme” as the figure who passes the test of eternal return and embodies the affirmative creation of new values. Some commentators endorse this as a way of defusing elitist or biologistic readings, while others argue that it marginalizes problematic hierarchical and political dimensions present in Nietzsche’s texts.

6. Legacy and Historical Significance

6.1 Impact on French and Continental Philosophy

Nietzsche and Philosophy is widely regarded as pivotal for the French and broader continental reception of Nietzsche. It provided a systematic, concept‑driven Nietzsche who could speak to structuralist and post‑structuralist concerns. Thinkers such as Foucault, Derrida, and Lyotard engaged, explicitly or implicitly, with Deleuze’s Nietzsche in developing their own critiques of subjectivity, truth, and representation.

6.2 Role in Nietzsche Scholarship

Within Nietzsche studies, Deleuze’s interpretation has been influential but contested. Supporters view it as revealing systematic undercurrents in Nietzsche’s fragmentary oeuvre, especially concerning will to power and eternal return. Critics argue that Deleuze projects his own philosophical agenda—non‑dialectical difference, anti‑humanism—onto Nietzsche, sometimes at the expense of textual and historical nuance.

6.3 Long‑Term Significance

The book continues to function as:

• A canonical reference for non‑Heideggerian, non‑existentialist readings of Nietzsche.
• A key text in the genealogy of post‑1960s continental philosophy.
• An example of “creative” philosophical interpretation that raises methodological debates about how to read classic authors.

Whether taken as a faithful exegesis or as a transformative appropriation, Nietzsche and Philosophy remains central to discussions of Nietzsche’s place in contemporary thought and to assessments of Deleuze’s philosophical development.