But I should think that today we are at least far from the ridiculous immodesty
that would be involved in decreeing from our corner
that perspectives are permitted only from this corner.
Rather has the world become "infinite" for us all over again,
inasmuch as we cannot reject the possibility that
it may include infinite interpretations.
F. Nietzsche, The Gay Science
The works written on the life and opus of Friedrich Nietzsche are numerous, yet when he defines himself as a posthumous thinker, he tacitly authorizes us to repeatedly approach both his philosophical as well as his human facets, in order to reinterpret them with each new present, with each new Zeitgeist.
Thus, the discoveries made by Carl Gustav Jung concerning the reality of the psyche, in particular his findings regarding archetypes and the collective unconscious, open up a new route for us to approach Nietzsche’s life from a fruitful perspective. Consequently, the tools used for this investigation stem mainly from the analytical psychology founded by the Swiss psychiatrist and intuitively anticipated by the German philosopher. Although there exist excellent approaches to the figure of Nietzsche, either from depth psychology (Among which, within the framework of analytical psychology, it is worth mentioning Nietzsche: A Psychological Approach to His Life and Work, by Liliane Frey-Rohn ) or his relationship with the feminine (Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche, by Luce Irigaray; David Farrel Krell’s Postponements: Woman, Sensuality, and Death in Nietzsche; Gary Shapiro’s Alcyone: Nietzsche on Gifts, Noise, and Woman.), this research, guided by the perspectivist view of the same thinker, offers a new conception with regard to his life: his relationship with the "eternal feminine," within the framework of analytical psychology, as well as the influence of this relationship on both the creativity as well as the destructiveness of the thinker.
I would like to point out that we use the term "analytical psychology" in its broadest sense, which covers both its creator as well as all his "progeny," be they classical, archetypalist, or developmental. Nonetheless, the methodological "baton" will be entrusted basically to the classical approach, in that I will highlight the dialogue between the conscious and the unconscious ambits and the conflict of opposites inherent to this dialectic. That is to say, I will assume the basic perspective of the classical approach; the compensatory tendency of the psyche in search to fulfill a given teleology ("The "classical" approach relies on a spirit of dialogue between conscious and unconscious...It therefore also regards the conscious ego an uniquely indispensable to the whole process, in contrast to the "archetypal" school, for which the ego is one of many autonomous archetypal entities. An in contrast to the "developmental" school, the "classical" school defines development not much by years of age or even by psychological stages, as by an individual’s attainment of that conscious Self which is hers or his alone to realize". David L. Hart, "The classical Jungian school" in The Cambridge Companion to Jung. Polly Young-Eisendrath and Terence Dawson (edit). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1997, p. 89. In the same book, Andrew Samuels writes in the chapter entitled "Jung and the post-Jungians": "As far as theory goes, I think the classical school weights the options in the following order: (a) The Self, (b) the archetype, (c) the development of personality...For the developmental school, its theoretical weighting would be: (a) the development of personality, (b) the Self, (c) the archetype....For the archetypal school, in theoretical forms, its prioritizing would be:(a) the archetype, (b) the Self, (C) the development of personality –but there is not much attention paid to the last two items by the archetypal school". p. 10.). The reason for this choice is based mainly on the focus of the research: the relationship of the ego with the anima, seen from the perspective of the constellation of the innate resources manifested through archetypal imagery, with particular emphasis on the last period of the thinker’s lucid life. In an effort to achieve a compensatory and finalist comprehension of the psyche, I will examine the purpose and meaning of his states of mind, emotional life, interests and choices, symptoms, as well as the attempts of the Self, which, in its centering, ordering and unifying functions, attempts to integrate the split aspects of the constellated archetypes, in reply to the natural compensatory tendency of the psyche toward wholeness, by way of the opposites in a dynamic interrelationship. Following this same train of thought, I will present the synchronistic events from the compensatory viewpoint of the external world. Given the transgressive nature of archetypes, their field of action is not limited exclusively to the psychic world; it also includes the surrounding physical world. Thus, an account of the synchronistic events in the life of the philosopher makes evident, once again, the profound hidden order and the unity in all that exists. Particular emphasis will be given to the images which appear in dreams, visions, hallucinations, and poems, all rich in psychological insight, to reflect especially the work of the particular archetype which constitutes the core of this investigation: the anima, both as content, as well as in its mediating function with the unconscious world.
"Everybody knows nowadays that the ability to accept contradiction is a sign of high culture" (GS 279); consequently, and respecting the philosopher’s own view, a reflection of his spirit, I will use "many and different eyes," as he himself suggested, in approaching the central point of this research: the relationship of the philosopher with the anima and the unconscious enactment of the Dionysus-Ariadne myth. I recognize the existing divergences in the postulates of the various schools; nonetheless, this does not constitute a reason for discarding the possibility of amplifying the basic material, enriching it with a multiperspectivist contribution. With this attitude we show fidelity "to the greatest usefulness of polytheism," as the thinker himself had postulated.
Consequently, in addition to using as a methodology the ideas contributed by Jung and by the followers of the classical school, such as Marie-Louise von Franz, Joseph L. Henderson, and Esther Harding, I will amplify the primary material with reflections derived from such illustrious minds as those of Erich Neumann, Edward F. Edinger, Ann Ulanov, Edward C. Whitmont, and Andrew Samuels, so as to not bypass the developmental phases of early childhood and youth, pivotal axes of his creativity and of definitive importance in the "Dawn" and "Twilight" of Nietzsche’s psychic and creative life. I will likewise make use of the views offered by James Hillman and Rafael López-Pedraza, figures who occupy preeminent positions in the archetypalist school, and who have made important advances in the phenomenological area and have contributed amply to the imaginal ambit. The images thus originated have gained greater depth and richness of meaning. The gods have acquired a renewed vitality in their voices. And although their "pearls" are not strung on a teleological cord, the fact that they are loose doesn’t make them less than what they are: valuable pearls.3
The intention behind this far-reaching view is to avoid falling into a castrating and limiting sectarianism that shouts out that it is the possessor of the "great truth." S