_This is the teaching of Nietzsche._
I must repeat that throughout this work I am considering the teaching
of Nietzsche (and Hegel’s too) insofar as it has become the pretext
for a great moral preaching, though I know perfectly well that in
reality this teaching is something far more complex. I shall quote
the following judicious observation, in connection with the fact
that certain philosophers have only themselves to blame for ‘the
misunderstanding of their true thought’:
‘Nietzscheism has been subjected to the same test as Hegelianism. And
no doubt here and there philosophical themes have served especially as
pretexts to cover up a new offensive on the part of barbarism. _But
the fact that they have been utilized, the manner in which they have
been utilized, have a significance which must not be overlooked._ Is
it not the criterion of a philosophy which may be called rational
without reserve and equivocation, that it should remain incorruptibly
faithful to itself? On the other hand, _the systems which begin by
accepting contradictions, reserving the right to add that they are
capable of surmounting them or of “living” them, lodge their enemy in
their midst_. Their punishment is that their antithesis still resembles
them; and that is what has happened to Nietzsche.’ (L. Brunschvicg, _Le
Progrès de la Conscience dans la philosophie occidentale_, p. 431.)
This book contains an excellent exposition of ‘Hegelian themes’ and
‘Nietzschean themes’, precisely insofar as they have become political
breviaries.