What do you think Nietzsche meant by "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." (Beyond Good and Evil, 146)? What kind of monster? What does it mean to look into an abyss?
This is one of the aspects of Nietzsche that is easily overlooked by people who want to see him as simply nihilistic and destructive.
For Nietzsche, the construction of the self is not a religious act, an obligation, or an act of submission to nature, as variously seen by 'moralities' -- it is an art form. In The Gay Science he says something to the order of 'One must make of one's Self a work of art, carving away something here, growing something there, repurposing some mass of unavoidable ugliness elsewhere to present a more pleasant view from the distance...' (I do not have a copy here, and I cannot find it online, if someone can give me the words...)
Edited to add
"it is only they [artists] who have taught us how to estimate the hero that is concealed in each of these common-place men, and the art of looking at ourselves from a distance as heroes, and as it were simplified and transfigured,—the art of "putting ourselves on the stage" before ourselves. It is thus only that we get beyond some of the paltry details in ourselves! Without that art we should be nothing but fore-ground, and would live absolutely under the spell of the perspective which makes the closest and the commonest seem immensely large and like reality in itself."
-section 78 of The Joyful Wisdom
End of Edit
A monster is one whose 'self' lacks 'art'.
Power may be the medium of morality, and its goal, but tasteless use of power is like tasteless use of any other medium. To see his aesthetic, you can look at his own artistic process, which he displayed over and over again by choosing mythological or poetic representations, or you can look at his critiques of other's work. Particularly, I think it is why he bothered to publish 'contra Wagner'.
He accuses Wagner's music of being an assault on the audience, brandishing its scale in a way that shocks the senses and bruises the organs, and of having too little consistency and comprehensibility -- winding an endless melody, rather than a theme.
In this context, I think the quote about monsters indicates there are aesthetic choices that we should restrain ourselves from making even though they would be effective. We should choose scale, elegance and consistency. If others' use of power lacks art, we should not simply confront them with more power, if that involves less art. We should restrain ourselves.
In particular, I think 'an abyss' is a sort of monster, the monster of complete cynicism and true nihilism -- the completely empty man that early 'beatnik' post-modernism seems to favor. There is always power to be uncovered by renunciation of boundaries, but pursuing an utter lack of restraining form leaves one 'powerfully empty', and perhaps incapable of recovering one's artistic nature.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
If you engage in any kind of activity, you begin to embrace the viewpoints and facts related to the activity. If you keep on immersing yourself, the more all-encompassing the viewpoint becomes: "if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."
I believe that for Nietzsche, facts, interpretations and activities are always tied together, which can be illustrated in terms of how people in different occupations see the world around them.
E.g. If you are a doctor, you solve health-related problems daily (activity), you observe facts which are related to health (e.g. pulse, blood pressure, breathing, general wellbeing) and often think of different things how they relate to health (interpretation). On the other hand, if one works as a manufacturer, one knows how produce certain kinds of things (activity and viewpoint). One also knows how much materials cost (fact) and how much people are willing to pay for the goods (facts). I believe this is the idea behind another famous Nietzsche quote: "There are no facts, only interpretations".
I assume that N. means by 'facts' things which confront the individual as external constraints and the individual has no power over them.
However, the facts are tied to certain kind of activities: If I drive a car, I must abide the driving regulations, the technical constraints of the car, and the financial realities of keeping the car in shape and fixing it whenever faults emerge. I can use the car as I please but I have to abide to these constraints.
On the other hand, if I sell the car and decide to go with a bike instead, the constraints/ facts of car-driving no longer apply to me. I am then bound by the constraints which control riding a bike (different kind of regulations, regions where I ride and so on). I no longer need to care about whether gas costs 1,3 euros or 2,6 euros because I am no longer engaged in car-driving. When I switch from car driving to riding a bike, the activity changes and so do the constraints.
I cannot alter the facts associated to particular activity, but I can find freedom in choosing what kind activity I engage in. The types of activities which are available for me at the moment, are determined by the society in which I have been born into. And engaging, I also gain the particular types of freedoms associated to that particular activity.
Facts always require seriousness from people and try to convince that they are eternal and never change. N. is pointing out with this example that the facts of witch hunting were tied to interpretation which was prevalent at certain time but as times have changed, people no longer dabble in witch hunts and he is claiming that this applies to all human activities.
The monster doesn't fight fair. Ethics and morals mean nothing to the monster as their action is unrestrained. In doing battle how can a person win without sinking to their level? A person fights the monster and grows weary, over time there is less and less they wont do to achieve victory. In trying to defeat the monster they have become just like it.
A person is aware of the darkness that lies in the monster, while the monster is aware of the darkness that can be nurtured within every person.
I believe that the first part of the quote means that one should make sure it doesn't become what it fights. I immediately thought of Robespierre in the French Revolution, he was fighting the "monsters" that were the French Monarchy and traditional government. He succeeded by overthrowing the government and instilling the one he wanted but in the end he turned into the monster that he seeked to destroy. The second part is very powerful, I believe that it is less negative than the first sentence. I believe that nietzsche meant that if you try hard enough to become something eventually you will become it but only if you surround yourself with that "abyss"
Considering both sentences of the quote I think it would mean that if in the process of bringing about change you become have become obsessed with what you are trying to change then you have already failed because you have become that what you wanted to change. Considering the second sentence apart: "And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you" and taking abyss to mean infinite emptiness then it (the abyss) reveals how empty you are, too.
Perhaps N is cautioning against trying to change the herd or anything that is beneath you, such as one whose 'self' lacks art, as per another respondent. It's almost impossible to change the herd, and if you try, the herd will change you, and not for the better -- you will become more like it. If this is right, staring into the abyss Involves getting wrapped up with the herd, and N advises looking away, to stay above what is beneath you, to focus on your task.
I think Nietzsche meant this as both a political and spiritual statement about fear, darkness and light.
On an individual level, when we feel pushed to fight, we have the capacity to either act from consciousness, retaining and responding through a framework of our own deep humanity and values, or allow the unconscious, what Jung calls the shadow, to go on default response in a way that can ultimately compromise that framework - we unleash our own capacity to be a monster.
Nietzsche's 'looking into the abyss' is metaphoric for falling into our own darkness, if we allow a descent into our fear, hatred or unchecked righteousness to feed the way we view and respond, we reflect that abyss, our shadow 'the monster'. It consumes us, becomes us.
Nietzsche's frequent themes eschewing religion and god, prescribed morality and dogma in favour of self realisation, agency of conscious, independent thought and personal creative capacity identify the potential of man to be led and corrupted by their fears - the shadow when personal accountability is overshadowed by a sense of judgement and righteousness.
“One must not let oneself be misled: they say 'Judge not!' but they send to Hell everything that stands in their way.”
I think "monster" is a word that anyone can project upon. Everyone can have some form of monster that lives within their imagination whether it be fear, rage, your shadow, the unknown, gluttony, sloth, lust, greed, violence, murder, death, darkness... monster is a archetype that most cultures can relate to. There is some kind of mythical evil in every culture. So people can interpret that word in countless ways. And in the process of fighting these demons within oneself or with others, one must not lose their humanness, their soul. If one loses their way in this process, disconnects, dissociates, and becomes that which he hated or abhorred in others, will see that abyss, that darkness, that emptiness staring right back at you. You have become the monster.
I think N was trying to say that with the right motives, it is impossible to become the monster that you are fighting, not that he is cautioning about becoming a monster. I think it is precisely that fear and uncertainty he aimed to reduce for those fighting noble causes. Analogous to 'two objects cannot occupy the same point in space', you cannot become that which you destroy out of altruism.
Nietzsche gives an example of fighting a monster:
"But in the loneliest wilderness happeneth the second metamorphosis: here the spirit becometh a lion; freedom will it capture, and lordship in its own wilderness.
Its last Lord it here seeketh: hostile will it be to him, and to its last God; for victory will it struggle with the great dragon.
What is the great dragon which the spirit is no longer inclined to call Lord and God? "Thou-shalt," is the great dragon called. But the spirit of the lion saith, "I will."
"Thou-shalt," lieth in its path, sparkling with gold- a scale-covered beast; and on every scale glittereth golden, "Thou shalt!"
The values of a thousand years glitter on those scales, and thus speaketh the mightiest of all dragons: "All the values of things- glitter on me.
All values have already been created, and all created values- do I represent. Verily, there shall be no 'I will' any more. Thus speaketh the dragon." -Thus Spake Zarathustra, Ch 10.1
There can be absolutely no doubt Nietzsche was familiar with the dragon Fafner as Wagner called it, in The Ring Cycle. Wagner was drawing on The Old Norse Eddas and The Volsunga Saga.
For a long time, these Viking and Old English texts were considered essentially, meaningless. Just made-up mythic stories about outlandish and impossible things, and no depths to explore. This was challenged in terms of critical analysis of literature by the anthology Monster Theory: Reading Culture (available free online here). From the blurb of that:
"In viewing the monstrous body as a metaphor for the cultural body, the contributors to Monster Theory consider beasts, demons, freaks, and fiends as symbolic expressions of cultural unease that pervade a society and shape its collective behavior. Through a historical sampling of monsters, these essays argue that our fascination for the monstrous testifies to our continued desire to explore difference and prohibition."
See also Tolkien's great scholarly contribution, The Monsters And The Critics.
What has been taken as vacuous story-telling about impossible creatures, very often seems to have been about change in cultic practices; in a non-monotheist world, without a hegemonic church with an unalterable text. We can find this dynamic in Beowulf, which has been linked to the transition from pagan rites around intoxicants and human sacrifice (very like the Elusinian mysteries, one of the worlds longest practiced rites), and contention for sway over the community with the then new Christian culture. Power could not be cemented by force alone, it also crucially required, having the best story. Before written texts, that defined human history - the best story.
It has been suggested many of the cthonic deities in Ancient Hellenic culture, and the Titans more generally, represent a previous era of cult practices, overtaken by the Olympian deities but living on in literally underground practices. The Pythia at Delphi, and mythological Python, is perhaps the clearest example, as this ancient cult underwent an exceptionally long overlap with these 'new' practices, which required a reconciliation of narratives that accounted for which cult was ascendent, but also made space for a socially useful and powerful priestesshood.
Another great example is The Green Knight, which seems to represent the encounter of the Christian Arthurian knights and their ethical code of chivalry, with pagan traditions about rebirth and submission to natural cycles.
Did Nietzsche intuit this kind of 'monster theory' interpretation of old literature? I think his 'Thou Shalt' dragon with scales glittering, shows his layered understanding of monsters. A lion that becomes a dragon, would in the language of his metamorphasees create values and deny further change, deny that values can be dynamic, to suppress others. Nietzsche composed concert music, and placed art in position of highest importance in life - and he did so in terms of exploring new values, which is why the neo-Pagan thinking of Wagner had so captured him, reasserting heroic narrative against fixed metanarratives. So yes, I think he did at least to some extent understand the history of cultic change held in mythology. And, himself seeking a way to reconcile society with his recognition that "God is dead for we have killed him in our hearts", he knew that great heroic narratives were the path, the way to recast and recontextualise conflicts of values, to define a new compelling reality to invite others too. Hence, his choice of the narrative of Zarathustra, echoing biblical and Hellenic stories of prophets and philosophers, and subverting them.
I discussed the 'abyss' part already here: Trying to Understand Quote by Nietzsche
Could already be an example of "slave morality" which he seems to have outlined later in that book. In that if you deify your opponents as monsters and lean in on your resentment of them, you give them power over yourself. They are the ones who control your thinking and acting, in that everything you do and think is in response to this powerful enemy (even if it's phrased as an antagonism, it's the monster who determines your moral code). So if all you think relates to the monster how can you think of becoming anything other than a monster or what would you be once you've defeated the monster?
And probably a similar concept applies to the abyss. One might think of an observer as a neutral position, but actually observing is quite an active activity, where you engage with a thing on it's own terms not trying to insert yourself in the situation but just focusing on what the other is doing. As such what you observe and experience doesn't just happen, but becomes part of your own experiences and as such part of yourself. So especially when observing the dark and unknown you should be cautious about how much power you give that observation over yourself.
My take would be that it's a variation of a rejection of hatred, because you can't defeat an enemy that lives rent free in your head. In order to achieve a master morality you'd need to become the agent and go beyond good and evil and instead replace these categories with your own evaluation of the world. Good would be something positive (something that you've posit = put in place), rather than the more lazy version of defining good as the absence of evil, because in that framework you couldn't have something good without evil existing because without something to exist there can't be a negative of it.