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 --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005