File spoon-archives/nietzsche.archive/nietzsche_1995/nietzsche.Feb.95.16-23, message 47


Date: Tue, 21 Feb 95 14:24:23 GMT
From: I.P.Wright-AT-computer-science.birmingham.ac.uk
Subject: Nietzschean perspectivism and science


Chris,

I am quite surprised at your response to my last post about the
eternal return being a scientific doctrine.

> I must say that you have not understood what i said at all. The Nietzsche
> list is hardly the place to preach 'normic and true for all knowers'
> conditions. I have present an interpretaion of the ER that takes into
> account the entire history of the philosophical concept of causality,
> and i have indicated that the ER is directed against Kantianism and
> concepts like 'true for all knowers'. I find it hard to believe that
> you have really thought much at all about Nietzschean philosophy so
> long as you resopnd with 'common sense' and 'normic conditions'. Nor
> would my mention of evaluation be 'unclear' if you had bothered
> to read _The Genealogy of Morals_ and 'understood' wath Nietzsche is
> saying there. If you wish to talk abut Nietzschean philosophy in
> Nietzsche's terms, and nt under the pretenses of 'normality' i will
> be happy to continue--otherwise, we have little to say.

It is odd to me that you have decided to comment on only one
aspect of my post -- and ignored the arguments I put forward
for viewing will to power and eternal return as strictly
scientific doctrines, and not at all concerned with `religious'
or `mythical' fictions as you suggested. I should have suspected
that my twist on Nietzschean perspectivism might have
caused some consternation. Indeed, your reply largely consists
of ad hominem attacks, which I now feel obliged to rebut even
though this has nothing to do with philosophy and Nietzsche's
thought.

As a point of information I have read almost all Nietzsche's
published works in English, including _The Genealogy of Morals_.
I have also studied many Nietzschean commentaries, including
Deleuze and Kaufmann. Finally, I have extensively thought
about Nietzscheanism from the tender age of 14 when I read,
and failed to understand, Zarathustra. Nietzsche has been
a constant presence in my life. I would hope that this qualifies
me to participate in this list and present my own interpretations
of Nietzsche, even if they differ from the general consensus.

Back to philosophy. It is my contention that Nietzschean perspectivism
in no way implies a devaluation of human truth achieved through
scientific activity. Indeed this would be alien to Nietzsche's
project. If you are not prepared to accept this as a valid
opinion than I politely direct you to a recent interpretation
of Nietzsche -- Maudemarie Clark's `Nietzsche on truth and
philosophy' -- that takes just such a stance. Perhaps you
would like to tackle a statement I made in my previous post:
`But the common aspects of perspectives of ways of being do
coalesce into objective knowledge for human beings
because we all live in the same material world.' Now this
may make sense or may not, and I would like to find out
by discussing this with someone on this list in a spirit
of investigation. I would also suggest -- perhaps less politely
-- that you are suffering from the very ascetic ideal that
Nietzsche strove most of his life to fight against.
Like any thinker Nietzsche changed his emphasis through the
course of his intellectual career. The early Nietzsche,
particularly in `Truth and Lie in the Extra-Moral Sense'
viewed truth as an `error' and `only' a human perspective.
This understanding of Nietzschean perspectivism has contributed
to current ideas that reality is socially constructed.
But this is a one-sided idea (ignoring that material circumstances
constrain possible interpretations) and, in some thinkers
at least, reveals that they are suffering from what the
later Nietzsche dubbed the `ascetic ideal'.

The ascetic ideal is the revenge of the symbol upon the
symbolised, or the ideal on the earthly. It is a particular
psychological trait of philosophers (derived from the
ascetic priest). Nietzsche realised that in his early
philosophy it was precisely this ideal that led him to
devalue human truth in terms of some higher (and abstract
and impossible) ideal. Human truth is `only' a perspecive
_compared to what_? -- Compared to a God eye's perspective,
an all-knowing, all-seeing viewpoint that can cognize
things-in-themselves. Nietzsche's great insight was that
he (and many philosophers before and after him) was still
pious -- still looking for certain knowledge and immutable
truth. He was suffering from the ascetic ideal.

Now it is my contention that scientific activity, particularly
in the natural sciences, can discover human truths (evaluations
if you will) that are true for all. That this truth is transient,
mutable and socially agreed upon should not imply that we
devalue such knowledge wrt a non-existent Truth (the ascetic ideal).
This is theoretical move you are taking when devaluing scientific
knowledge as `mythical'.

I find it strange when someone denies the possibility of arriving at
a human objectivity through scientific activity, while
using a means of communication that is proof positive of
the scientific method, and at the same time using Nietzsche
to back up their claims. They are making a double error --
a theoretical error in the sense that they have not read their
Nietzsche, and a practical one in the sense that they are posting
to the world via devices built through the application of
the scientific method.

I hope this isn't too strong, but, if I may say, it was you
who started the rudeness.

God died and shattered into a billion human, all-too-human
perspectives. Some postmodernists are still dancing around the
pieces, shouting and pointing, `Look -- it's not as good as it
was -- truth is only perspective!' But Nietzsche celebrated
this fact, _valued_ human truth and scientific activity (which
is not in the least bit compromised by perspectivism) and
warned against those who suffer from the ascetic ideal.

> Forget postmodernism. I don't think i ever claimed to be postmodern.
> I'm willing to say that i have delineated what the ER means 'for all
> knowers' and will dig up more evidence to support my hypothesis if
> you wish to discuss what Nietzsche meant by ER and not what 'normalacy'
> dictates we accept. What do you say? Do yo want to talk Nietzschean
> philosophy or about common sense?

If you re-read my post you will see that I did not accuse you
of being postmodern. I will be very pleased to continue discussing
Nietzsche's thought in a friendly and informed manner.
It is obvious that are philosophical preferences differ in
important ways -- perhaps Nietzsche can be the ground upon
which they can be resolved. Perhaps you would like to begin
by criticising the arguments I have put forward, and not me.

Philosophically yours,

-E.


	--- from list nietzsche-AT-jefferson.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005