Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles/Eperons: Les Styles de Nietzsche Reprint edition

In having forgotten what I've read and read what I've forgotten, I am pleasantly bemused. Where to begin where this is no beginning but <<from>> and no end but <<essence>> (and as I write these words of Derrida the endless possibilties of ideas spur forth, from nothing, from being, from woman essence, the essence of woman - and in these phrases the kernel of a metaphysical enquiry). Perhaps at a distance from the text, can any thoughts be produced. this was some of the most pleasant reading I've done in a while. I don't know how much I <<understood>> and <<remember>>, but it was fun. I think, though, reading Derrida is like reading poetry. So much is packed into a dense space and such play of words, philosophies and language are at work that at point I can only enjoy the literary quality of his writing.

This slim text on Nietzsche and Heidegger caused a storm in European Nietzsche circles when it was first released in 1978, and it is often cited today as evidence of Derrida's apparent command of Nietzsche's philosophy. In the text, Derrida primarily deals with the issue of women in Nietzsche, and brings his misogyny back to the problem of truth itself. This is a very rich and dense text, with issues as broad as Mauss' 'The Gift,' madness, and a very tight hermeneutic reading of Heidegger's Nietzsche work. Nevertheless, I am still left wondering what all the excitement is really about.

What is 'Truth' anyhow? In Spurs, this question is rigorously explored using Nietzsche's aphoristic writing style as an example of honesty in literature/philosophy. The reader weaves through the maze that is Spurs, searching for answers ('Truth') but only finding style and utterly visual metaphors created by Nietzsche and polished by Derrida. Is 'Truth' a "veiled woman" or is it "Nietzsche's umbrella"? Bring your interpretive seeds and sow them in the weave of Spurs--perhaps you'll find an answer that will suit your, well....ahh....nevermind...

Amazing Essay, and of serious interest to anyone puzzled by Nietzsche's comments on women in his texts!Derrida offers the first strong reading (that I've seen) of Nietzsche's writings about women as something more than trite sexism. Derrida's interpretations shed new light on some of Nietzsche's metaphysical and psychoanalytic theorizing, and he goes on to use Nietzsche as a springboard into some of Hiedegger's thinking and some of his own critiques of Hiedegger. Despite being a great way to approach Derrida's own theories, it is a mistake to argue that Nietzsche's commentary on women is 'Derridized' here. Derrida gives an (at least tentatively) affirmatory account which is rigorous, nuanced, very convincing and stands alone in scholarship of Nietzsche and Feminism.All that being said, the translation is a little poor at times. For example, "cavalier philosopher" is translated as "Philosopher-Knight," which, in english, implies Kierkegaard's Knight-of-Faith and only in that connection barely hint's at Nietzsche's 'Noble'. In French the Knight-of-Faith is "chevalier de la foi" (...Chevalier not cavalier). Derrida's use of "cavalier" works perfectly well in English, and implies the 'cavalier attitude' of philosophers which Nietzsche often derides and the 'cavalier' quality of Nietzsche's 'Noble' - an important character in Nietzsche's staging of several problems he takes up in his work. This may seem like minutia, but it is one of many examples where the translation is misleading and Derrida's thinking becomes opaque to readers unfamiliar with Nietzsche, Hiedegger and Derrida's own work.Luckily the french text is given in its entirety in the book as well and anytime something doesn't look right, you can check for yourself.

My approach to the fame which Derrida enjoys is his daring in playing with the danger of disrupting what people think that they know. In his discussion of the final topic in this book, a note which Nietzsche wrote that said, "I have forgotten my umbrella," he openly expresses his philosophical doubt about its significance with what must be considered his standard stance, "The meaning and the signature that appropriates it remain in principle inaccessible." (p. 125) Offering an interpretation is like guessing what Nietzsche's umbrella might have been metaphorically, as one might consider the significance of religion, social thought, conscience, or morality as it relates to a person's place in the world. The interest in Derrida's examination of Nietzsche's style, "Hence the heterogeneity of the text," (p. 95) seems to be greatest in the consideration of alternative positions which Nietzsche offers regarding women, truth, etc. "It is not that it is necessary to choose sides with the heterogeneous or the parody (which would only reduce them once again). Nor, given that the master sense, the sole inviolate sense, is irretrievable, does it necessarily follow that Nietzsche's mastery is infinite, his power impregnable, or his manipulation of the snare impeccable." (p. 99) This stuff is only obvious to those whose ludicrous embrace of comic material does not exceed their grasp of what a comic society consists of, the fools that mortals be. Don't get back to me on this: ask anybody.