Every philosopher presents special problems of interpretation. With Nietzsche these problems are especially crucial. The very richness of Nietzsche's thought and expression becomes a trap for the incautious or imaginative mind. Perhaps the greatest temptation for the interpreter of Nietzsche is to attempt to 'systematize" his thought into a consistent whole. Any such attempt necessarily results in distortion, for there is a fluidity in Nietzsche's thought which does not lend itself to strict categorization. This is not to deny that there are certain organic patterns in his philosophy. These patterns emerge, however, as Jaspers correctly insists, only upon careful, critical comparison of pertinent passages drawn from the entire corpus of Nietzsche's works. No single passage can be taken as a definitive statement of Nietzsche's views of any particular subject. Frequently, by presenting two or three especially relevant quotations from the author being considered, a critic can support the correctness of his interpretation. With Nietzsche, however, such a procedure is inadequate, for in many cases other passages can be found which will support an alternative, if not opposite, interpretation. Nor is this difficulty alleviated by vast compilations of relevant passages, for then one could gain just as much, and quite likely more, from re-reading Nietzsche's works themselves. Thus, a compromise must be effected. The interpreter of Nietzsche must weigh each remark of Nietzsche not only with regard to its actual context within the work, but with regard to the context of all of Nietzsche's other utterances on the same subject as well. Only in this way can the interpreter arrive at an understanding which truly represents Nietzsche's basic thought, and only thus will he be able to present those inconsistencies which truly belong to Nietzsche. These inconsistencies are important, for they point up certain basic difficulties in Nietzsche's general program of philosophizing.