I love my Introduction to Philosophy class. There’s something great about reading texts from around 400 B.C. and having them still feel completely relevant. Most philosophical principles are timeless because our minds — presumably — will always be relevant to us. No one can definitively solve the meaning of life, so we continue to search for a plausible guess. That’s the great thing about philosophy as a subject. Unfortunately, not every aspect of it is so resistant to change.
Friedrich Nietzsche, for example, wrote “Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future” in 1886. This collection of musings delves into discussing morality and the necessity of suffering in human life. His compelling theories about power and morals only seem to get more relevant as time goes on. Overall, these theories seem insightful and well intentioned. That is, until you reach the “Apophthegms and Interludes” chapter, which contains such gems as: “When a woman has scholarly inclinations, there is generally something wrong with her sexual nature.”
Nietzsche’s views on women are known to be controversial. In some texts, he praises them and in others … well, you read the quote. His views overall are distinguished as profound and correct to many, so reading quotes like these raises an important question: do we excuse the offensive comments of famous historical figures?
We like to blame someone’s environment for his or her misdeeds. School shooters are humanized by mental illness or unstable home lives in the media, and terrorists are often defined as “brainwashed” by their defense lawyers. And to some degree, that’s justified. Context and home life can have a monumental impact on one’s outlook. This is why we look the other way when older relatives make inappropriate comments. “They just grew up in a different time than us,” is a common excuse. But is it really that harmless?
Excusing problematic behavior by loved ones in the privacy of your own home is one thing. Though it’s still not OK, it affects a much smaller scale of people than excusing historical figures does. The problem we face with these people is their prowess. Philosophers like Nietzsche are lauded for a reason, and usually that reason is their intelligence. Editing or speaking out against some of their views challenges this intelligence, depleting their credibility.
Excusing these views, on the other hand, promotes the history of oppression felt by virtually everyone besides able-bodied, cis, Christian, straight white males. Whether it’s Nietzsche’s misogyny or Walt Disney’s alleged anti-Semitism, the offensive side of historical figures shouldn’t be explained away by circumstance. Ignoring them simply allows these untrue claims about certain people to fall under the umbrella of their intelligence. Bigots can cite them as justification for their prejudice.
It’s important to separate the oppressive language from the inspired language. Doing so is difficult, because the lines are hard to draw about what’s okay to include. Generally, any phrase that is intended as derogatory to a group that has a history of being oppressed should be identified as such.
I’m not arguing that we should attempt to censor these famous works. Censorship, though it may start out with good intentions, can quickly infringe on freedom of expression. Our goal should merely be to openly identify and discuss the offensive parts, so they cannot be cited as influential along with the rest of their work.
Some may argue, especially when it comes to subjective fields like art, that this is a matter of opinion. It isn’t. If we treated the work of people like Nietzsche as an individual’s point of view, maybe that would be true. But we don’t. We apply their theories to our own lives, adopt their outlooks and build politics out of them. Well-known intellectuals have a massive effect on culture, and we don’t always want our culture to reflect the past.
Continuing to treat Nietzsche’s misogyny with the same respect we give to his theories on power is insulting to the women who fought — and continue to fight — for their rights around the world. This is not only true for philosophers, but influential figures in any field. It perpetuates a long tradition of sweeping prejudice under the rug for the sake of history.
This is not to say that every historical figure guilty of some form of prejudice used their works to intentionally hurt others. Some of them may not have believed that they were hurting anyone at all. But that is precisely why it’s so important to identify their harmful behavior now. In today’s world, we have the information and the public freedom to know when something is derogatory, and it’s our responsibility to speak up about it.
