1.18. Nietzsche's Philosophical Individuality and Diveristy (Multicplicity) vs. Hegel's Integration of Contradictions



Each dialectical communication exchange between two or more people opens up a myriad of possibilities of potential philosophical direction and without going into any particular direction, I will simply focus on the concept of that myriad of potential philosophical possibilities and what can be done with or about them.

Nitzsche was the great divisionist ('either/or' philosophy), deconstructionist ('anti-systemic' philosophy), and differentialist ('everything-is- different' philosophy). In contrast, Hegel was the great 'Contradiction -- then Integration' philosopher.

So here is where the two great philosophers differed. Hegel believed in a social-historical-cultural evolution theory ( applicable to philosophy, psychology, politics, law, medicine, science, religion, art, music, architecture, engineering, and every other avenue of human cultural development)whereby integration always follows contradiction between opposing perspectives.

Nietzsche -- after his first book, 'Birth of Tragedy' which is a classic Hegelian-style book and very noteworth for its accomplishment in that it can be viewed as a precursor to Freud and Psychoanalysis -- became an adamant 'anti-Hegelian' philosopher who disowned all 'systems', all 'Grand Narratives' (except perhaps his own), and instead started to emphasize the 'multiplicity' or 'individual diversity' of life -- without there being any need to talk about 'integration from contradiction'; rather, life simply needed to be appreciated in all of its individual displays of bio, cultural, and conceptual diversity.

So here is the best way to describe and contast the main philosophical difference between Hegel and Nietzsche: 1. Hegel philosophically trumpted the idea of 'contradiction followed by integration' whereas Nietzsche trumpeted the idea of 'contradiction and multicplicity without the need for, or rule of, any system, integration, or integrative system'.

Now the irony of this whole philosophical ocntroversy and contradiction is that both of them are right -- because life is a combination of integrating and differentiating (separating) forces. However, the deeper irony here, is that in the end, I think Hegel in terms of a social evolution theory turns out to be 'more right' than Nietzsche because go back and look at what I have just done in this paragraph -- essentially, I have integrated Hegel and Nietzsche, in classic Hegelian dialectical style, allowing for the always changing, moment to moment, unique combinations of both bio-cultural-philosophical (BCP)individuality (Nietzsche), and in the same and different domains, working towards integration rather than differentation and separation, BCP integration, synthesis, or union is happaning also at a similar or different rate of frequency (Hegel). In other words, the world is full of partnerships coming together while others break up, and in this regard, I have synthesized Hegel and Nietzsche in classic Hegelian dialectical style.

Thus, in my opinion, Nietzsche couldn't 'see the forest for the trees' -- he was locked inside his very important 'anti-Hegelian system of philosophical thought' which in the end, as I have just showed, has simply been proven to be just another 'feather in the cap of Hegelian dialectical social evolution theory -- with an 'Intelligent Design' behind it (coming from me -- and I don't profess or pretend to be God, even though I think that we all -- in our most creative moments -- have God-like capabilities which I would like to think He or She gave us to excercise to our fullest individual and collective capacities).

Over to you, Paul.

dave