Greg Detre
Sunday, 14 January, 2001
Schacht draws a parallel between Nietzsche and later Wittgenstein (and slightly also to Plato) in that they used unconventional style as a means to convey their message. In the case of Nietzsche, he is more like a courtroom lawyer than a meticulous analytic philosopher. Though indeed sometimes he utilises detached, deft cuts of precision and insight, he flits to ad hominem attacks and flights of figurative, metaphorical and often incomprehensible purple prose, dashing wild sweeps of rhetoric, where the force and power of the writing replaces careful, evidenced argument. Wittgenstein�s later writings (e.g. Philosophical Investigations) depart markedly from his earlier considered painstaking procedure (e.g. Tractatus) for a reason � Wittgenstein preferred to consider in detail a multitude of real world snippets, building up an alternative picture of things by slowly undermining the way we usually see them, but the overall effect is difficult to codify.
discuss the fragmented text style etc.
Nietzsche is often dismissed because his system is not presented in the usual form of reasoned, step-by-step argument. He is sometimes belittled for his personal, vicious attacks � Schacht does not regard these as offensive or embarrassing, but he does cut straight past them as incidental to the essential philosophical narrative. Schacht considers as an aside that they might be somewhat carefully included to discourage all but larger minds from pursuing his work, neatly excluding those who would dismiss him on such grounds.
More importantly still than points of style, Nietzsche is often accused of being self-contradictory. It is easy to find places and themes where his attitude and arguments are impossible to harmonise. For instance, Nietzsche�s treatment of nihilism is confusing and mixed, as Stephan Sorgxxx points out. Schacht elects to focus on what he sees as the later half of Nietzsche�s writings as being more insightful, developed and philosophically more valuable, yet there isn�t a clear sense of progression where ideas and conclusions have superceded others. In fact, there is a strong sense that though Nietzsche�s thought may have developed, he holds pretty much his entire output to be coherent and be an expression of much the same vision. Given the plethora of references to truth and interpretation scattered throughout his works, it initially seesm strange then that no single thrust or set of theories emerges.
A plausible explanation for this apparent incoherence which dovetails with Nietzsche�s mode of presentation is to focus on the �perspectivism� that Nietzsche consistently espouses.
infinite regression and paradox of
Nietzsche�s interpretation of things while attacking all interpretations
�there is no truth� � but is that
not too a truth?
the impossibility of objectivity in
the sense of a passive, omnidirectional, disembodied eye roving the universe.
instead, objectivity is more akin to layers and reflections of interpretations
upon interpretations, each one adding dimension to the last, and building up a
meta-perspective in some way. in this way perhaps, an acknowledged, informed
perspectivism can be �truer� and more objective than a single, deep, entrenched
and rich paradigm.
after
all, if subjectivity is being tied to a single perspective, objectivity must
surely be a measure of how many distant and different perspectives you can
hold.
see Douglas Smith�s introduction to �A Genealogy of Morals�, especially 3rd essay
Nietzsche attacks the �philosophical labourers� of the past whose task is one of analysing the current state of affairs, determining what intepretations have been and are being made and what values pertain to what. It is the business of the �new philosophers�, the �attempters�, to create their own interpretations and value systems, exploding the systems of today. They are legislators, not merely analysers. This is why philosophy must be �experimental�, not in the sense of being empirical, but in terms of continually revising, creating and experimenting with new interpretations and valuations. Indeed, the task of these new, true philosophers is the very hardest of all, that of escaping from the restraints, practises, values and interpretations of their day, for we all are �children of our time� - stepping outside one�s today is the difficult business of philosophy.
Nietzsche is not searching for the absolute, single answer in the way that science or philosophy usually do. However, he still recognises and works hard to avoid the temptation to accept anything unproblematically � logic, science, a �real world� corresponding with our senses, language etc.
He attacks philosophers for being dogmatic. He seems to mean more with this term than simply being unreceptive to others� ideas, but rather that they do not experiment and create their own intepretations and values continually, but rather tinker and stagnate with just one.
art quotes � 476
Schopenhauer: �will� as the world in itself � �formless, aimless, turbulent principle�
tragedy exposes the suffering and absurdity of life = Dionysian wisdom, e.g. Hamlet
art � overcoming + transfiguration
art - life
Ubermensch as symbol of the human ascent to the level of art, the struggle sublimated to creativity above the all too human
483: Apollonian + Dionysian = art-states of nature
Christianity: art as lies = a �hostility to life�