It is common in accounts of the secularization of Western thought to make reference to the name of Nietzsche. Nietzsche is undeniably a critic of religion, but he is equally a critic of the secular. It is for this reason that I propose thinking about Nietzsche’s philosophy as postsecular. This term is one that has evolved over the last couple decades in response to the so-called “return of the religious” in society, social theory, and philosophy and suggests that secularity and (...) religiosity are not antithetical and therefore that we must move beyond the forms of thinking that would regard them as such. First, I focus on his concepts of will to power, interpretation, perspectivism, and history, and sketch how they are all interrelated and how these ground his interpretation of religion. Based on this view, I show, second, that while religion is, for Nietzsche, a historical perspective, it is also, for him, part of the historical genealogy of secularity. This point leads to my final one on the relationship between secularity and religion in Nietzsche’s thought, where I argue that, on his own terms, Nietzsche’s anti-Christianity is a hyper-Christianity, even while rejecting facets of Christianity. (shrink)

Nietzche and Grant both challenge us to make a clear choice about what we believe the world and human beings to be, while describing clearly the consequences of such a choice. This thesis attempts to clarify the choice with which they confront us, by examining what they say about three key topics: modernity, history and morality. In doing so, its aim is to highlight what it is that differentiates them and why. The thesis draws two conclusions, one about the fundamental (...) difference between Grant and Nietzsche and the other about the possible bases for a choice between their world views. The fundamental difference between Grant and Nietzsche is that for Nietzsche the world is chaos, and being is becoming, while for Grant there is order and purpose in the world, and being is seen as unchanging goodness. It is these particular views of being that shape and influence what each says about modernity, history and morality. The thesis argues that the basis for choosing between the world views of Nietzsche and of Grant must be faith or belief, rather than knowledge, for whatever reasons or justification one can give for choosing between being as becoming and being as unchanging goodness presuppose a context of being that is assumed or taken as already given. Source: Masterss International, Volume: 37-01, page: 0078. Adviser: Robert Pinto. Thesis --University of Windsor, 1997. (shrink)

Nietzsche's views on knowledge have been interpreted in at least three incompatible ways - as transcendental, naturalistic or proto-deconstructionist. While the first two share a commitment to the possibility of objective truth, the third reading denies this by highlighting Nietzsche's claims about the necessarily falsifying character of human knowledge (his so-called error theory). This paper examines the ways in which his work can be construed as seeking ways of overcoming the strict opposition between naturalism and transcendental philosophy whilst fully taking (...) into account the error theory (interpreted non-literally, as a hyperbolic warning against uncritical forms of realism). In doing so, it clarifies the nature of Nietzsche's ontological commitments, both in the early and the later work, and shows that his relation to transcendental idealism is more subtle than is allowed by naturalistic interpreters while conversely accounting for the impossibility of conceiving the conditions of the possibility of knowledge as genuinely a priori. (shrink)

Against some recent attempts to place Nietzsche within the nihilistic tradition, I argue here that Nietzsche was not a nihilist. The first part of the article provides an analysis of creativity and nihility as two aspects of the interpretative process. It also integrates this analysis of the interpretative process with Nietzsche’s theory of affects, arguing that particular interpretative attitudes correspond to particular affective structures. The second part of the article shows that any attempt to categorize Nietzsche as a nihilist is (...) based on confusing the healthy forms of interpretation and their corresponding aberrations. Nietzsche’s position on creativity and interpretation ultimately suits more the anti-nihilist interpretative attitude and system of affects than any favorable description of a complete or perfect nihilist. (shrink)