Can 'das man' or 'the they self' help us understand Nietzsche's response to nihilism? I'm asking because these are concepts I think I can intuitively grasp from within my life, quite unlike Nietzsche's theory of types (even if anyone living fits). And I want to stop my nihilistic despair.

So I have two questions:

  1. Can we say that being lost in the meaninglessness of the they self, rather than some other meaninglessness, is a defective response to nihilism?

  2. Are Heidegger's lectures on Nietzsche considered good, and what might prep me for reading them?

By the they self, broadly speaking I mean petty conformism, especially when not able to make choices for yourself, so that we are "lost" in others. Their "meaninglessness" would perhaps be one that covers up its reasons, like it does my own death.


In one's concern with...the Others, there is constant care as to the way one differs from them, whether that difference is merely one that is to be evened out, whether [one = Dasein] has lagged behind the Others and wants to catch up in relationship to them, or whether one's Dasein [self] already has some priority over them and sets out to keep them suppressed.

  • 1
    I think you mean "thyself" instead of "they self" – Not_Here Aug 23 '17 at 12:10
  • @Not_Here what, what do you mean? really? doesn't it just mean das man? – user28117 Aug 23 '17 at 12:24
  • 2
    My comment had nothing to do with the topic of your question or answering or interpreting what you're asking, I was pointing out what I thought was a spelling error. If "das man" has to do with "they" as in third person plural, then the phrase you're looking for is "themselves" not "they self". I had only seen "das man" translated as "the one" so I thought you meant "thy" instead of "they" but if you mean to say "they self" then the correct way to say that is "themselves", that's all I'm saying. – Not_Here Aug 23 '17 at 13:09
  • 1
    ah ok thought it was standard H. terminology faculty.washington.edu/ckeyt/heidlst/heid2.htm – user28117 Aug 23 '17 at 13:32
  • 1
    No, I just didn't understand the objection. Jargon seems inescapable here, all available translations are equally un-apt. And the jargon could use some grounding. I would at least move the link from the comment into the OP. – jobermark Aug 24 '17 at 1:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy