Postmodernists, excluding a handful of them — After reading this writing, you’ll find who is sensible among them, although your favorite postmodernists may become all old-fashioned — , have taken the notions, subject, teleology, identity, .., and etc., and, considered that those stereotypes, at most times, arise from G. W. F. Hegel. They would compare Hegel with Friedrich Nietzsche, find those stereotypes in writings of Hegel, and almost become mad with joy. They, it is certain, should follow Nietzsche blindly. They attack those notions very bravely; ‘Subject, teleology, and identity are fictional and metaphysical, therefore, we need to liberate people from those fictional notions and Hegel,’ they, taking the name of Hegel as a sort of derogatory term, would want to say. But they are completely-unaware that they betray Nietzsche’s philosophy.

It is necessary to think how many of postmodernists are, with following Nietzsche, bound to betray his philosophy.

Nietzsche believes only things rooted in this world. God is not in the world. Therefore, God is a conjecture, says Zarathustra. All we can get arises only from this world; God is a conjecture: but I should like your conjecturing restricted to the conceivable. / Could ye CONCEIVE a God? — But let this mean Will to Truth unto you, that everything be transformed into the humanly conceivable, the humanly visible, the humanly sensible! Your own discernment shall ye follow out to the end! [“Zarathustra: II:2:8-9”]. In Nietzsche’s philosophy, every human thought must not be, at all, apart from the world. On the earth, we have no heaven. He never takes any outer-world seriously — The world described in his notable work, “Also Spake Zarathustra,” might be akin to the mathematical theory of Georg Cantor, ‘infinity,’ because both have no outside of themselves; Weariness, which seeketh to get to the ultimate with one leap, with a death-leap; a poor ignorant weariness, unwilling even to will any longer: that created all Gods and backworlds [“Zarathustra: I:2:11-12”]. He, it is certain, should be all tired in backworlds — Zarathustra confessed that he once thought of backworlds beyond human — as an angel , who appeared in a movie of Wim Wenders, he criticizes his former self and backworlds. He would think that all who gets to the ultimate with a death-leap must be ridiculous, although, that young warriors risk their lives in war to save their nation, one philosopher saw it as ideal and beautiful — They would be described as ‘Blonde Beasts’ by Theodor Adorno. According to the critical account of the ultimate given by Nietzsche, we’ll find that nation is all fictional and imaginary, namely, an imagined community as analyzed by Benedict Anderson.

Not a few of postmodernists see nation to be imagined and attack the notion, with following Nietzsche, it seems completely-right. But they, beyond doubt, betray Nietzsche. Nation must be just imagined but it is too influential in the world to reject the fiction. It is all inevitable to us in this world. The fact that people battle for nation, nobody denies. To consider nation only as a fiction would cause a new backworld; In other words, postmodernism would create a new metaphysics — And the metaphysics would not realize itself metaphysical. The fiction has a strong effect upon this world, and, therefore, when one postmodernist criticizes it simply, he, it is certain, should come back to a backworld both unconsciously and carelessly; He, then, must be all unaware of himself apart from this world. It is necessary to recall that the fiction is perfectly-combined with our world. The truth would be invisible to the postmodernist. Compared with Adorno, he is too careless. Adorno, although he often criticized severely Hegel, took Hegel’s philosophy and the dynamics of civil society described by the philosopher very seriously; Hegel’s analysis both of nation and of civil society is still necessary, because he never forgot the simple truth that the world and society has been constructed through labour-work; His spirit had never been headed for the direct world where people grasp all things-themselves without any medium; Adorno says, The verity of Hegel’s philosophy resides in the fact that nobody can leave the world constructed through labour-work for the direct world (“Hegel: Three Studies: I:15”).

Nietzsche’s philosophy never liberates us from this world. It is necessary to find that the world is combined with uncountable numbers of fiction and how these fictions arise from our world; Nation and society have been built through human-activity. Religion, as well. And, that those fictions have never been destroyed only with enlightenment, history proves. Nietzsche gave no answer but the inconclusive problem; In the matter of critics against Hegel, the rejection of backworlds often means that of our-world-itself. This is just the farce that these critics have ever repeated — History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce; They would not see correctly the conflict among Young-Hegelians, their ancestors — I am not a pessimist in any sense, however I love the dictum of Antonio Gramsci; Pessimism of Intellect, Optimism of Will. They would not find why Karl Marx called himself ‘Hegel’s pupil.’ These insensible critics are caricatured fully in the preface of “The German Ideology”.

Hitherto men have constantly made up for themselves false conceptions about themselves, about what they are and what they ought to be. They have arranged their relationships according to their ideas of God, of normal man, etc. The phantoms of their brains have got out of their hands. They, the creators, have bowed down before their creations. Let us liberate them from the chimeras, the ideas, dogmas, imaginary beings under the yoke of which they are pining away. Let us revolt against the rule of thoughts. Let us teach men, says one, to exchange these imaginations for thoughts which correspond to the essence of man; says the second, to take up a critical attitude to them; says the third, to knock them out of their heads; and — existing reality will collapse.

Hegel’s philosophy had been attacked many times by Young-Hegelian-philosophers, such as Bruno Bauer, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Max Stirner. Although it developed Marx’s thought, he named eventually himself ‘Hegel’s pupil.’