Skip to main content

Nietzsche as naturalist

Corresponding regions of human and shark brain are shown. The shark brain is splayed out, while the human brain is more compact. The shark brain starts with the medulla, which is surrounded by various structures, and ends with the telencephalon. The cross-section of the human brain shows the medulla at the bottom surrounded by the same structures, with the telencephalon thickly coating the top of the brain.

“One drop of blood too much or too little in the brain can make our life unspeakably wretched and hard…But the worst is when one does not even know that this drop of blood is the cause. But ‘the Devil’! Or ‘sin’!” - F. Nietzsche, Daybreak.




Comments

  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christopher,

    What are we to make of this quotation out of context? The only thing that I make of it is that it is meaningless to cite the Devil as the cause of our problems, just as it is meaningless to say the God created the universe. In both cases, the assertion would more honestly be replaced with, "We don't know the cause of our problems" and "We don't know how the universe came to be (if it did not always exists)." As for "sin," Nietzsche may mean that it is just an empty label we apply to actions (our own or others') that make our lives wretched. In any case, if the quotation has profundity, then I've missed it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In exegetical terms, this is one of the passages that Leiter cites in his scholarly papers (and references now and then on his blog) in arguing against one prominent interpretation of Nietzsche. The prominent interpretation at issue is called "aestheticism" sometimes and "perspectivism" at other times. The idea is that Nietzsche regarded the world as if it were a work of art, open to contending but not mutually exclusive interpretations.

      Leiter is arguing on the contrary that Nietzsche is a naturalist. He believes by understanding the world as matter in motion one understands it rightly, and by trying to give any spiritual construction to it one fails to understands it at all. There is nothing so neutral here as perspectivism suggests. Naturalism is simply right. The above quote is one of the texts Leiter cites for this point.

      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008749

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak