“It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of – namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown.”

-- F. Nietzsche

that's very different from saying that biography can improve or disprove something! As a matter of facts, Nietzsche writes here about moral purpose of philosophy. "Autobiography" here is a trick; confirming that you must separate author life from texts. In German, Nietzsche uses the word "mémoires", which are an author own recollections of experiences. The "Auto" part in the translations, coming from the Greek autòs, meaning self, is the key part here. A description of Nietzsche's sickness made by someone else is hardly an autobiography.

Hard disagree, PoMo. The work stands alone. "No man is a hero to his valet" is the truism that springs to mind. Reducing everything to the times & the man is just a way to bring it all down to our own pedestrian level so we can feel equal. The goal of every great artist is to transcend their humanity.

We know nothing about Homer, or even if there was such a person, but The Iliad and The Odyssey have been read for 3,000 years.

It's like arguing whether a mountain ought to be experienced from a distance, so you can see it, or from the top, so you can see from it.

Both!

OK w/me

Case in point: Russell’s views on Nietzsche.

There can be value in understanding where a thought came from: the problem is reducing all of the thought to its provenance. Nietzsche was sick, hence you must restate the validity of his arguments. This argument is garbage. Try to prove it, you will fail. You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography. Otherwise, your thoughts too will be just what you had for breakfast

> You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography

What you’re implying is that considering the circumstances of life is ad hominem, which I do not agree with.

I’d argue that you cannot truly understand the philosophy without the context, it’s baked in. So you need to know the context to truly disagree with the correct thing, but yes the disagreement should be specifically with the idea, not with the person.

Eg not “Nietzsche had a privileged life therefore he was wrong” more like “Nietzsche’s approach to and thoughts on the will to power only really apply when considering the monomania spurred by his father’s early demise and his deep interest in philology. A 21st century approach to nietzschean thought would doubtlessly look very different since material, literary and spiritual conditions have changed somewhat”

This I agree with. Context is a thing, saying as the article did things along the line of "Nietzsche was sick so this explains x" is another