Interpretations of Nietzsche as a virtue theorist have proliferated in recent years as commentators have sought to read him as a modern eudaimonistic philosopher while also attempting to show what makes his contribution to this tradition valuable and distinctive.1While some commentators still contend that interpreting Nietzsche as a eudaimonist is antithetical to his overtly-stated philosophical aims,2 over the last decade there has been a upsurge of support for such readings, especially from commentators who emphasise what they claim is the pervasive influence of the Hellenistic tradition on his work. Keith Ansell-Pearson has argued that Epicurus was a key influence on Nietzsche’s middle period, for example; whereas Michael Ure has claimed that the Stoic thought of Seneca and Epictetus was also highly influential.3 Nevertheless, even those commentators who agree that Nietzsche can be informatively situated, or is even best situated, within the Hellenistic tradition cannot agree on two seemingly-intractable puzzles which any virtue-theoretical reading must solve in order to give a full account of his moral philosophy. The puzzles can be stated as follows: Puzzle 1: Which character traits does Nietzsche endorse as virtues? Puzzle 2: What is Nietzsche’s ethical ideal? This article offers an exegetical strategy to shed light on both puzzles, especially the first one regarding which character traits Nietzsche endorses as virtues which, as we shall see, is tougher to answer by a straightforward appeal to his texts. To elucidate this puzzle, I will propose that his approving comments regarding excellence-based moral philosophy indicate that his own ethics is also structured in terms of an ethical ideal with a requisite set of virtues which, following his ancient philosophical influences, he views as fundamentally connected. As Julia Annas notes, one the most distinctive ‘assumptions which ancient theories make [is] the relationship of [our] virtues to our final end’,4 and given Nietzsche’s interest in, and apparent endorsement of, ancient eudaimonism – especially compared to his invariably scathing remarks on the modern deontological and utilitarian traditions – we have reason to think that he shares this view.5 What is significant for this article, however, is that Nietzsche’s commitment to a kind of eudaimonism modelled on the ancient world offers a potential way to solve both puzzles. If his virtues and ethical ideal are connected in a similar way to ancient eudaimonistic theories, then understanding his ethical ideal allows us to infer which character traits he endorses as virtues, and vice versa. Although it might be objected that a method tackling both puzzles in tandem would be unworkable if their solutions were contained in each other, in what follows I will show that Nietzsche’s extensive comments on his ethical ideal of ‘becoming what one is’ positions us in a strong position to infer which character traits he prizes most highly. I will call these character traits ‘virtues of self-cultivation’.

中文翻译：

---

尼采式的自我修养

近年来，关于尼采作为美德理论家的解释激增，因为评论家试图将他解读为现代真爱主义哲学家，同时也试图展示是什么使他对这一传统的贡献具有价值和独特性。 1尽管一些评论家仍然认为将尼采解释为eudaimonist 与他公开陈述的哲学目标背道而驰，2 在过去十年中，对此类读物的支持激增，尤其是来自评论家的支持，他们强调他们声称希腊传统对他的作品的普遍影响。例如，基思·安塞尔-皮尔森 (Keith Ansell-Pearson) 认为伊壁鸠鲁对尼采的中期时期产生了关键影响；而迈克尔·尤尔声称塞内卡和爱比克泰德的斯多葛思想也具有很大影响。 3 然而，即使那些同意尼采在希腊传统中信息丰富、甚至处于最佳位置的评论家也不能就任何美德理论阅读必须解决的两个看似棘手的难题达成一致意见，以便充分说明尼采的道德哲学。这些谜题可以表述如下： 谜题 1：尼采认可哪些性格特征为美德？谜题2：尼采的伦理理想是什么？这篇文章提供了一个解经策略来阐明这两个难题，尤其是第一个关于尼采认可哪些性格特征为美德的问题，正如我们将看到的，通过直接诉诸他的文本更难回答。为了解开这个谜团，我将提议，他对以卓越为基础的道德哲学的赞同评论表明，他自己的伦理也是根据伦理理想构建的，具有一套必要的美德，在他的古代哲学影响之后，他认为这些美德具有根本的联系。正如朱莉娅·安纳斯 (Julia Annas) 所指出的，最独特的“古代理论做出的假设 [是] [我们的] 美德与我们最终目的的关系”，4 并且考虑到尼采对古代 eudaimonism 的兴趣和明显的认可——尤其是与他的总是对现代义务论和功利主义传统的严厉评论——我们有理由认为他同意这一观点。 5 然而，本文的重要意义在于，是尼采对一种以古代世界为模型的 eudaimonism 的承诺提供了解决这两个难题的潜在方法。如果他的美德和伦理理想以类似的方式与古代的幸福主义理论联系起来，那么理解他的伦理理想可以让我们推断出他认可哪些性格特征为美德，反之亦然。虽然有人可能会反对，如果它们的解决方案相互包含，那么同时解决这两个难题的方法将是行不通的，但在接下来的内容中，我将表明尼采对其“成为一个人”的伦理理想的广泛评论将我们置于一个可以推断出他最看重哪些性格特征。我将这些性格特征称为“修身美德”。如果他的美德和伦理理想以类似的方式与古代的幸福主义理论联系起来，那么理解他的伦理理想可以让我们推断出他认可哪些性格特征为美德，反之亦然。虽然有人可能会反对，如果它们的解决方案相互包含，那么同时解决这两个难题的方法将是行不通的，但在接下来的内容中，我将表明尼采对其“成为一个人”的伦理理想的广泛评论将我们置于一个可以推断出他最看重哪些性格特征。我将这些性格特征称为“修身美德”。如果他的美德和伦理理想以类似的方式与古代的幸福主义理论联系起来，那么理解他的伦理理想可以让我们推断出他认可哪些性格特征为美德，反之亦然。虽然有人可能会反对，如果它们的解决方案相互包含，那么同时解决这两个难题的方法将是行不通的，但在接下来的内容中，我将表明尼采对其“成为一个人”的伦理理想的广泛评论将我们置于一个可以推断出他最看重哪些性格特征。我将这些性格特征称为“修身美德”。虽然有人可能会反对，如果它们的解决方案相互包含，那么同时解决这两个难题的方法将是行不通的，但在接下来的内容中，我将表明尼采对其“成为一个人”的伦理理想的广泛评论将我们置于一个可以推断出他最看重哪些性格特征。我将这些性格特征称为“修身美德”。虽然有人可能会反对，如果它们的解决方案相互包含，那么同时解决这两个难题的方法将是行不通的，但在接下来的内容中，我将表明尼采对其“成为一个人”的伦理理想的广泛评论将我们置于一个可以推断出他最看重哪些性格特征。我将这些性格特征称为“修身美德”。