American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly

At early ages, Buber, Scholem, and Rosenzweig encountered Nietzsche’s work. Nietzsche’s philosophy was reduced to short catchwords or barely mentionedin their later writings. His views on Jews and Judaism seemed to have mattered little, and he first and foremost aided their rebellious breaks with both traditionaland enlightened concepts of God. Nietzsche’s proclamation of God’s death thus served them to articulate their own unease with religious traditions. Yet in manyways the confrontation with Nietzsche was both attenuated and accentuated by the concept of Erlebnis and elevation of aesthetical categories. Ironically, Nietzsche’s challenge to Jewish thought was less in his alleged anti-religious stance, than in the celebration of an unmitigated experience, which was incompatible with any attempt of forging a new critical Jewish philosophy.

Focusing on Nietzsche’s madman parable from The Gay Science, this essay shows how the language/imagery of aphorism 125 draws on a Cynical critique ofmorality that has far-reaching consequences for understanding Nietzsche’s notions of nihilism, transvaluation of values, and amor fati. My claim is that the work ofDiogenes of Sinope will shape both the rhetorical structure and the philosophical thematics of The Gay Science. As the “Socrates gone mad,” Diogenes/the madman brings his lantern to the marketplace to seek a God who has fled, the deus absconditus. Countering Christian-Platonic metaphysics with Diogenean satire, Nietzsche advocates the embrace of physis as the sphere of human creation and valuation. Against this Cynical background we can see how the madman parable’s announcement of God’s death has less to do with atheism or the argument about the existence of God than it does with the existential concerns of the human being.