u/turekstudent

Hi everyone, first post here! It's nice to meet you.

I've recently been thinking a lot about Nietzsche's "homeless ones," after I first encountered it in The Gay Science 377 and found it to be personally relatable. It's usually read as a critique of nationalism, which it is, but what stood out to me is how Nietzsche flips the usual value judgment. The "homeless" figure with no nation starts to look stronger, while the nationalist can look insecure, like they are overcompensating:

>"Among Europeans today there is no lack of those who are entitled to call themselves homeless in a distinctive and honorable sense: it is to them that I especially commend my secret wisdom and gaya scienza. For their fate is hard, their hopes are uncertain; it is quite a feat to devise some comfort for them. We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today?" (The Gay Science 377, trans. Walter Kaufmann)

This then connects to Human, All Too Human 475, where Nietzsche calls nationalism artificial and something that has to be constantly enforced. He suggests it serves dynastic and economic interests more than ordinary people. So the nation is not a deep foundation, but something constructed and maintained even as trade, travel, and cultural mixing were already weakening it:

>"This artificial nationalism is, however, as dangerous as was artificial Catholicism, for it is essentially an unnatural condition of extremity and martial law, which has been proclaimed by the few over the many, and requires artifice, lying, and force to maintain its reputation. It is not the interests of the many (of the peoples), as they probably say, but it is first of all the interests of certain princely dynasties, and then of certain commercial and social classes, which impel to this nationalism." (Human, All Too Human 475, trans. Helen Zimmern)

Even more fascinating, the loss of this larger national identity does not affect everyone the same way, as Nietzsche made clear. In Beyond Good and Evil 242, Nietzsche contrasts the "herd" produced by modern conditions with rare exceptional individuals. Put in the same conditions, we would come to see radically different outcomes depending on the person. Most people replace lost belonging (the nation) with something smaller, but there are a few who do not seem to follow this trend, instead adopting what Nietzsche calls a "hidden Yes," his idea of affirmation:

>"The same new conditions that generally lead to a leveling and mediocritization of man, a useful, industrious, abundantly serviceable, and able herd animal man, are to the highest degree suitable for giving rise to exceptional people who possess the most dangerous and attractive qualities. What I'm trying to say is: the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary exercise in the breeding of tyrants, understanding that word in every sense, including the most spiritual." (Beyond Good and Evil 242, trans. Judith Norman)

But this is also where I get stuck. If the more rootless, no single nationality affirming European person really is the stronger type, then the modern West should be producing them in decent numbers. Certainly more than in the 19th century. So... where exactly are they?

I in the end decided to make an entire video essay and lecture on this, explaining all these threads, along with others, using Goethe as Nietzsche's example of a figure who cannot be reduced to a single national identity. I cut some surrounding material to keep the focus on the "homeless ones." I would of course welcome all feedback and criticism, it was my own adaptation of these concepts for the first time.

All the best,
Thomas Turek