Kant recognizes two distinct forms of self-knowledge: introspection, which gives us knowledge of our sensations, and apperception, which is knowledge of our own activities. Both modes of self-knowledge can go astray, and are particularly prone to being distorted be selfish motives; thus, neither is guaranteed to provide us with comprehensive self-knowledge. Nietzsche departs from Kant in arguing that these two modes of self-knowledge (1) are not distinct and (2) are far more limited than Kant acknowledges. In addition, Nietzsche departs from (...) Kant in arguing that we can acquire self-knowledge by looking away from ourselves. I provide a brief sketch of the ways in which this is so. In particular, Nietzsche argues that genealogy enables a form of self-knowledge: it helps us to identify some of the subtle factors shaping our actions as well as the influence of our current conceptual repertoires on our perceptions and understandings of our actions. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that Nietzsche's view on consciousness is best captured by distinguishing different notions of consciousness. In other words, I propose that Nietzsche should be read as endorsing pluralism about consciousness. First, I consider the notion that is preeminent in his work and argue that the only kind of consciousness which may fit the characterization Nietzsche provides of this dominant notion is self-consciousness. Second, I argue that in light of Nietzsche's treatment of perceptions and sensations we should (...) conclude that he takes each of such state types to involve a specific kind of consciousness which differs from Sconsciousness. I label these two additional kinds of consciousness perceptual consciousness and qualitative consciousness, respectively. I conclude the paper with some remarks on how, in Nietzsche's picture, these three different kinds of consciousness might relate. (shrink)

This paper argues that Nietzsche develops a novel and compelling account of the distinction between conscious and unconscious mental states: he argues that conscious mental states are those with conceptual content, whereas unconscious mental states are those with nonconceptual content. I show that Nietzsche’s puzzling claim that consciousness is ‘superficial’ and ‘falsifying’ can be given a straightforward explanation if we accept this understanding of the conscious/unconscious distinction. I originally defended this view in my ‘Nietzsche’s Theory of Mind: Consciousness and Conceptualization’ (...) ; since then, the view has come under criticism on several fronts. Brian Leiter and others suggest that there is not enough textual evidence for the view. In addition, Leiter, Mattia Riccardi and Tsarina Doyle argue that, rather than aligning the conscious/unconscious distinction with the conceptual/nonconceptual distinction, Nietzsche endorses a higher-order tho.. (shrink)

ABSTRACTWhile much recent attention has been directed towards Nietzsche’s reflections on the mind, and on consciousness in particular, his often-suggestive comments about thinking have thus far avoided comparable scrutiny. Starting from Nietzsche’s claims that we ‘think constantly, but [do] not know it’, and that only our conscious thinking ‘takes place in words,’ I draw out the distinct strands that underpin such remarks. The opening half of the paper focuses upon Nietzsche’s understanding of unconscious thinking, and the role of affects therein. (...) In what remains, I consider the difference between conscious and unconscious thought, with a particular focus on two important readings. The first, put forward by Paul Katsafanas, claims that conscious states alone have conceptually-articulated content. The second, defended most prominently by Mattia Riccardi, argues that Nietzsche’s various claims evince a form of HOT theory. I argue that neither reading is quite right, and instead propose an alternative interpretation of conscious thinking ‘in words’, which draws on work on inner speech. (shrink)

The article is divided in three main parts. The first part shows that the first three chapters of the second essay of On the Genealogy of Morality give a genealogical account of the emergence of reason in human history, and that this account involves the claim that reason is a development of human engagement with social rules: Nietzsche understands the emergence of reason as the emergence of a normative space of reasons. The second part interrogates Nietzsche’s conception of value, purpose, (...) and meaning in order to show that he is not a proponent of any version of “bald naturalism”: he does not equate what is “really real” with a natural world of causation devoid of value, purpose, and meaning. The third part of the article shows that, although Nietzsche’s perspectivism does not assign to the space of reasons the status of a purely autonomous realm of justification, he does not dismiss rational normativity, or the space of reasons, as merely illusory. Nietzschean genealogy is shown to be a reflective questioning of our values that investigates the reasons behind our deeper normative commitments. (shrink)

Resumo O artigo é uma tentativa de explorar a hipótese controversa de que possa haver uma profunda afinidade - até agora não identificada - entre a concepção de "luta por reconhecimento" [Kampf um Anerkennung] em Hegel e a concepção da dinâmica da "vontade de poder" [Wille zur Macht] em Nietzsche. Esta hipótese diz respeito ao modo como a luta e a dominação estão implícitas na noção hegeliana de reconhecimento, isto é: diz respeito à dinâmica intersubjetiva das formas falhadas de reconhecimento. (...) A luta e a dominação são conceitos fundamentais na concepção do reconhecimento em Hegel - mas, ainda assim, conceitos meramente operacionais na obra de Hegel, enquanto em Nietzsche se tornam temáticos, porque o conceito de "poder" se torna temático. O que o artigo procura mostrar é que a hipótese nietzschiana da "vontade de poder" é relevante no debate contemporâneo sobre "reconhecimento e poder" porque permite uma descrição adequada das dinâmicas intersubjetivas em que o reconhecimento recíproco não é alcançado e o que subsiste nelas são relações de luta e dominação, ou seja, vontade de poder qua vontade de dominação. Mas isso só é assim porque a hipótese nietzschiana da "vontade de poder" implica uma "doutrina dos afetos" e, por isso, uma concepção de "poder" [Macht] em termos de "ação à distância", i.e. de influência intersubjetiva mediada por percepções, interpretações e perspectivas. Esta concepção de "poder" implica atribuir ao desejo e à vontade humanas uma natureza "recognitiva", e está longe de implicar a dissolução das relações de poder em processos transsubjetivos de dominação. Daí a afinidade entre Hegel e Nietzsche que o artigo procura evidenciar.The article is an attempt to explore a controversial hypothesis, which can be stated like this: there is a deep affinity - hitherto largely unnoticed - between Hegel's conception of struggles for "recognition" [Anerkennung] and Nietzsche's conception of the dynamics of "will to power" [Wille zur Macht]. This hypothesis concerns the ways in which struggle and domination are implicitly involved in the Hegelian notion of recognition, that is: it concerns the intersubjective dynamics of failed-recognition. Struggle and domination are crucial concepts in Hegel's whole conception of recognition - but they are for him operative concepts, whereas in Nietzsche they become thematic, because the concept of "power" becomes thematic. What the article tries to show is that the Nietzschean hypothesis of "will to power" is relevant for the contemporary debate on "recognition and power" because it enables an adequate description of the intersubjective dynamics in which reciprocal recognition is not achieved and relationships of struggle and domination persist, i.e., what persists is "will to power" qua will to domination. However, this is only so because the Nietzschean hypothesis of "will to power" entails a "doctrine of the affects", and hence a conception of "power" [Macht] in terms of "action at a distance", i.e., in terms of intersubjective influence mediated by perceptions, interpretations, and perspectives. This conception of "power" entails a "recognitive" conception of human desire and human will, and, therefore, it would be wrong to claim that Nietzsche's "will to power" involves the dissolution of power-relations in trans-subjective processes of domination. Hence the affinity between Hegel and Nietzsche which the article tries to evince. (shrink)

it is not unusual to interpret Friedrich Nietzsche’s philosophy, or some of his claims, as a therapeutic thought nowadays.1 Nietzsche’s perspectivism, style, and controversial doctrines are supposed to do something, rather than merely teach or state a theoretical position. The legitimacy of this action and its actual goal are far from self-evident, however. This paper tackles the problem from the perspective of a fundamental tension, which is at work underneath Nietzsche’s project since The Birth of Tragedy: that is, the tension (...) between multiplicity and singularity, respectively personified, in that book, by the figures of Dionysus and Apollo. When it comes to ethics, this dimension of Nietzsche’s thought is... (shrink)

Abstract: Nietzsche’s famously wrote that “consciousness is a surface” (EH, Why I am so clever, 9: 97). The aim of this paper is to make sense of this quite puzzling contention—Superficiality, for short. In doing this, I shall focus on two further claims—both to be found in Gay Science 354—which I take to substantiate Nietzsche’s endorsement of Superficiality. The first claim is that consciousness is superfluous—which I call the “superfluousness claim” (SC). The second claim is that consciousness is the source (...) of some deep falsification—which I call the “falsification claim” (FC). I shall start by considering Nietzsche’s notion of consciousness. Here, I shall argue that the kind of consciousness he is concerned with is in fact self-consciousness and that he put forward a higher-order theory of it. Then, I shall address the two claims. Regarding (FC), my proposal will be that, according to Nietzsche, the content of (self-)conscious mental states is falsified in virtue of its being articulated propositionally. Regarding (SC), I shall claim that it is best read as a weak version of epiphenomenalism about conscious causation. In addressing both points, I shall discuss in particular the influential reading of Nietzsche’s theory of consciousness offered by Katsafanas (2005). (shrink)