Este artículo pretende establecer una relación entre la frase “Dios ha muerto” y el tema de la ciencia en Nietzsche. Para tal fin, se hará un análisis de la frase “Dios ha muerto” a la luz de la reciente interpretación hecha en el mundo alemán. En segundo lugar, nos ocuparemos de los conceptos de ausencia y caos para determinar si dichas nociones pueden ser consideradas como un paso ulterior a la “muerte de Dios”. Finalmente, revisaremos el tema de la ciencia: (...) las opiniones que Nietzsche tenía de la misma, las implicaciones que se desprenden de sus obras y, sobre todo, el nexo directo de la ciencia con dicha muerte. El vínculo entre estos temas permite una nueva comprensión del futuro de las investigaciones sobre el filósofo de Röcken. This article aims to establish a relationship between the phrase “God has died” and the theme of science in Nietzsche. For this purpose, an analysis of the phrase “God has died” will be made in the light of the recent interpretation made in the German world. Secondly, we will deal with the concepts of absence and chaos to determine if these notions can be considered as a further step to the “death of God”. Finally, we will review the subject of science: Nietzsche's views on it, the implications that stem from its works and, above all, the direct nexus of science with that death. The link between these themes leads to a new understanding of the future of research on the philosophy of Röcken. (shrink)

El pensador suizo Andreas Urs Sommer es, sin dudarlo, uno de los actuales especialistas de Nietzsche. En el año 2017 publica un texto titulado Nietzsche und die Folgen, un libro que recobra la figura del pensador alemán a la luz de ideas bastantes novedosas que hasta ahora no habían sido presentadas por la mayoría de los intérpretes de Nietzsche. En ese sentido, la filosofía experimental (Experimentalphilosophie) que presenta Sommer es la que ha llamado la atención de la crítica. Se trataría (...) de esconder bajo el juego experimental la filosofía de Nietzsche, omitiendo de ese modo un cierto tipo de compromiso de sus postulados filosóficos. Esta determinación está cobrando fuerza en la medida en que nos muestra las consecuencias de la filosofía experimental. Este trabajo pretende desarrollar, por un lado, los postulados centrales de la propuesta de Sommer para luego confrontarlos a la luz de la crítica y en qué medida dicha crítica es medular. Lo anterior da luces a una discusión que, más que inclinarse a la polémica, muestra el nutriente de una fructífera investigación. -/- The Swiss thinker Andreas Urs Sommer is, undoubtedly, one of Nietzsche’s current specialists. In the year of 2017 publishes a text entitled Nietzsche und die Folgen, a book that recovers the figure of the German thinker in the light of quite novel ideas that until now had not been presented by most of the interpreters of Nietzsche. In that sense, the experimental philosophy (Experimentalphilosophie) presented by Sommer is the one that has caught the attention of critics. It would be a matter of hiding Nietzsche’s philosophy under the experimental game, thus omitting a certain type of commitment from his philosophical postulates. This determination is gaining strength insofar as it shows us the consequences of experimental philosophy. This work aims to develop, on the one hand, the central postulates of Sommer’s proposal and then confront them in the light of criticism and to what extent such criticism is central. The foregoing gives light of a discussion that more than leaning to the controversy shows the nutrient of a fruitful investigation. (shrink)

This paper critically examines Deleuze’s treatment of the Nietzschean problem of nihilism. Of all the major figures in contemporary continental thought, Deleuze is at once one of the most luminous, and practically a lone voice in suggesting that nihilism may successfully be overcome. Whether or not he is correct on this point is thus a commanding question in relation to our understanding of the issue. Many commentators on Nietzsche have argued that his project of overcoming nihilism is destined to failure (...) because of the affinity between the problem of nihilism and the logic of negation. While Nietzsche wants an absolute affirmation of life, Spinoza’s principle that “all determination is negation,” as well as Hegel’s dialectical conception of negation, suggest that affirmation free of negation is not possible. However, some commentators indicate that Deleuze successfully shows how overcoming nihilism is possible because his “logic of difference” allows for an affirmation which is not dialectically reappropriated by negation. This paper argues that beyond such logical considerations, there are metaphysical and existential reasons why Deleuze’s interpretation of nihilism fails to show that it can be overcome. For Deleuze, the overcoming of nihilism hinges not just on a logic of difference, but on a radical interpretation of Nietzsche’s doctrine of eternal return as “selective being.” Drawing on recent scholarship and on Nietzsche’s own writings I argue that this is not a tenable interpretation, and also, more importantly, that the metaphysical and existential implications of this understanding of eternal return reinstate nihilism at the very point where it is supposedly overcome. Moreover, I argue that there are attendant ethical and political dangers to Deleuze’s position on nihilism. (shrink)

The books I review are a series of three volumes of the same project, Nietzsche’s Engagements with Kant and the Kantian Legacy, edited in 2017 by Marco Brusotti, Herman Siemens, João Constâncio, Tom Bailey, Maria João Mayer Branco and Katia Hay who seek to situate Nietzsche’s work in relation to Kant and Kantianism and to interpret it from this perspective. This review consists of two parts: the first part reviews and discusses each of the works focusing on a selection of (...) prominent chapters; the second part extends their intuitions. (shrink)

The late Nietzsche defended a position which he sometimes to refers as ‘sensualism’ and which consists of two main theses: senses ‘do not lie’ (T1) and sense organs are ‘causes’ (T2). Two influential interpretations of this position have been proposed by Clark and Hussain, who also address the question whether Nietzsche's late sensualism is (Hussain) or not (Clark) compatible with the epistemological view which he held in his previous work and which has been dubbed the ‘falsification thesis’ (FT). In my (...) paper I will show that both readings raise substantial difficulties and propose an alternative account of Nietzsche's sensualism. In particular, I will argue: (a) that according to Nietzsche the representational content of sensory experience ‘does not lie’ since it is physically grounded in causal exchanges with the external world which are mediated by sense organs; (b) that Nietzsche believes that the claim that senses ‘do not lie’ is also true of the phenomenal, qualitative content of sensory experience; and (c) that FT, despite its prima facie tension with (a) and (b), fit well Nietzsche's sensualism. (shrink)

I argue that Nietzsche puts forward a pandispositionalist view that can be seen as the conjunction of two basic claims: that powers are the basic constituents of reality, on the one hand, and that the only properties things possess are relational qua dispositional, on the other hand. As I believe that such a view is, at least in part, motivated by his rejection of Kant’s notion of things in themselves, I start by sketching the metaphysics of Kant’s transcendental idealism and (...) by presenting Nietzsche’s critical reaction to it. After that, I start to work out Nietzsche’s pandispositionalist view by considering first the case of physical reality and second that of psychological reality. I then argue that in both cases that view does not conflict with Nietzsche’s naturalism. In the last part of the paper I explore how his notion of will to power fits into such a pandispositionalist picture. Here, I shall argue, some serious tension does arise, for the claim that Nietzsche sometimes makes to the effect that the will to power is a fundamental physical force seems to clash with central aspects of his mature thought. However, whereas he repeatedly entertains that claim in his unpublished notes, it is far from clear that he ever meant to endorse it in his published work. Thus, I conclude that the available textual evidence only justifies attributing to Nietzsche the kind of pandispositionalist view spelled out in the first sections of the present paper, and not also the further claim that the will to power is a fundamental physical force. (shrink)

O título deste paper conecta duas palavras, frequentemente aplicadas ao pensamento de Nietzsche, mas usualmente não de forma simultânea, dado que perspectivismo e naturalismo são frequentemente vistos como conceitos alternativos, ou mesmo contraditórios. Enquanto perspectivismo é associado a leituras estéticas, construtivistas, kantianas e mesmo relativistas e pós-modernas de Nietzsche, a noção de naturalismo o aproxima da ciência, do empirismo e do realismo. Por esta razão, muitos dos que atribuem a Nietzsche versões de perspectivismo abrigam reservas com relação a leituras naturalistas (...) e vice versa. Esse paper, todavia, argumenta que Nietzsche não defende ou desenvolve abertamente ‘naturalismo’ ou ‘perspectivismo’ na forma de doutrinas ou teorias. Devemos ser relutantes em aplicar denominadores, aparentemente tão estreitos a sua filosofia, haja vista poderem muito bem ser, fundamentalmente, enganadores. Ademais, tais abordagens tendem a resultar em preconceitos confirmados ao invés de novas ideias. Então, com relação a questão de se Nietzsche deve ser chamado de um ‘naturalista’, me parece que a maldade [evil] tem peso consideravelmente maior do que a necessidade, nesse caso. Nietzsche não ensina doutrinas mas exemplifica, testa e propõe certas práticas filosóficas, sendo que essas sim contêm características naturalistas e perspectivísticas. Ele convida o seu leitor a adotar perspectivas naturalistas e as explora experimentalmente nos seus respectivos contextos práticos a fim de perseguir um dado projeto. As abordagens naturalizantes de Nietzsche da mente, filosofia e ciência, seu aparente empirismo, sensualismo e materialismo são sempre contrapesados por uma epistemologia crítica. (shrink)

Este texto contrasta o entendimento comum do "perspectivismo de Nietzsche" com o seu uso da palavra "Perspektive" e termos semelhantes. As primeiras seções proporcionam uma breve pesquisa do desenvolvimento dos diversos significados através da carreira de Nietzsche e a influência de Gustav Teichmüller. As seções subsequentes revelam alguns problemas de leituras comuns do perspectivismo, como a teoria do conhecimento de Nietzsche. Discutindo os assuntos de falsificação, objetividade e autorreferência, as seções remanescentes levam à conclusão que o perspectivismo não deve ser (...) entendido como a doutrina epistemológica de Nietzsche, mas como algo que não o deixa criar tal doutrina.This paper contrasts common understandings of "Nietzsche's perspectivism" with his use of the word "Perspektive" and related wordforms. The first sections provide a brief survey of the development of different meanings throughout Nietzsche's career and the influence of Gustav Teichmüller. The next sections unfold some problems of common readings of perspectivism as Nietzsche's theory of knowledge. Discussing the issues of falsification, objectivity and self-reference, the remaining sections lead to the conclusion that perspectivsm should not be understood as Nietzsche's doctrine of epistemology but rather as what keeps him from providing such a doctrine. (shrink)

La Zarathoustra de Nietzsche, de son propre aveu l’opus magnum de Nietzsche a toujours été appréhendé sous l’angle de ses contenus et de ses thématiques : volonté de puissance, surhumain, éternel retour. Le vitalisme de Nietzsche, illustré par ces trois enseignements centraux de Zarathoustra, a rarement été recherché dans la forme et les caractéristiques précises d’un discours qui se voulait pourtant novateur et que l’on pouvait supposer — à l’opposé du discours neutre et reproducteur de la tradition philosophique — chercher (...) à être lui-même « vital ». Pour les mêmes raisons, comment a-t-on pu négliger à ce point l’impact communicationnel qu’un tel discours se devait de produire sur ses lecteurs, à l’image du discours prosélyte que Zarathoustra adresse sans cesse à ses auditoires ? Si Zarathoustra est une apologie du vouloir exacerbé sous toutes ses formes, ne fallait-il pas justement qu’il fût un appel à vouloir, un manifeste plutôt qu’un traité. C’est ce renouveau qu’apporte le discours nietzschéen dans le discours philosophique séculaire, c’est sa fonction appellative que nous entendons analyser ici à l’aide d’une panoplie d’outils linguistiques allant de la morphosyntaxe aux modèles actantiels, mais toujours dans l’objectif de replacer ces caractéristiques dans une perspective philosophique.Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, the philosophical work that the philosopher regarded as his magnum opus, has always been approached through its contents and themes : the will to power, the Übermensch, Overman, eternal recurrence. Nietzsche’s “vitalism,” as illustrated by Zarathustra’s three central teachings, has rarely been sought in the form and precise characteristics of a discourse that was intended to be innovative and could therefore itself be expected to be “vital,” . Allowing this hypothesis, we must ask how interpreters could ignoreFor the same reasons, how could interpreters ignore to such an extent the communicative impact that such a discourse was intended to produce on its readers, following in its way the proselytizing discourse that Zarathustra restlessly addressed to his audiences ? If Zarathustra represents the apologia of an exacerbated will in all its forms, is it not logical to regard Nietzsche’s work as an appeal intended to strengthen that will ; as a manifesto rather than a treatise ? It is thus the renewal that Nietzsche’s discourse brings to traditional philosophical discourse andthe appellative function it fulfills that we will analyse here, using a variety of linguistic tools ranging from morphosyntax to actantial models. Our aim will invariably be to set these features in a philosophical perspective and framework. (shrink)

Resumo: Se Nietzsche critica o próprio conceito de verdade, ele emprega, no entanto, com muita regularidade essa expressão, como em Ecce homo e em O Anticristo. Apontar essa tensão é insuficiente: há uma contradição ou antes uma polissemia? Este estudo, que distingue o perspectivismo e o relativismo, examina os diferentes sentidos de “verdade” na obra de Nietzsche a fim de construir uma resposta a essa questão. Ela mostra que a verdade depende da interpretação em busca de justiça, ainda que essa (...) orientação continue problemática.: Though Nietzsche critiques the very concept of truth, he nonetheless uses the word very regularly, even in such late texts as Ecce Homo or The Antichrist. Merely taking note of this tension is not enough: is it contradictory, or rather a case of polysemy? This study, which distinguishes, along the way, between perspectivism and relativism, examines the different meanings of “truth” in Nietzsche’s work, so as to figure out an answer to this question. It shows that truth is a matter of interpretation in search of justice, even if this movement itself remains something of a problem. (shrink)

Abstract Both the subject of science and the notion of creativity in Nietzsche have not been studied with the attention they deserve. The subject of science, however, can be considered a thread of research that is attracting the attention of a large number of philosophers. The notion of creativity, for its part, occupies, among other notions, a little known place within the interests that revolve around the figure of the thinker of Röcken. Therefore, we intend to develop a study of (...) the concept of science in Nietzsche focusing on an analysis of his criticism, to pose the gaze on the subject of Darwinism. Creativity will be studied in light of Nietzsche works and later in nexus with science. The relationship between these themes allows a novel approach to the study of science in Nietzsche and, therefore, to perceive its possible consequences. (shrink)

The present paper investigates Nietzsche’s theory of power. The first part analyses the concept of will to power, understood as a synthesis of the multiplicity of forces. The connection between the will to power and interpretation is dealt with at length in the second chapter of this text. Interpretation means domination, organization, the adjustment of something in view of its usefulness to a dominant will to power, but also the creation of values, their infiltration into things, and not least the (...) internalization of the belief that values are universal, because through them, domination becomes effective. The next chapters of the text focus on the main strategies of domination, i.e. the internalization of values and the language. Since values are not only the most important tools of domination, but also the main lies and illusions of man, the language provides shortcuts for giving commands and for understanding them. (shrink)

The question of Nietzsche's place in hermeneutics raises many questions: can Nietzsche's thought itself be characterized as "hermeneutical" and to what extent, given that hermeneutics was only developed as such after him? Can and should hermeneutics, which until recently did not take his thought much into account, incorporate Nietzsche's thought as a whole? Whereas a mutual fecundation will always be fruitful, this paper argues that one should resist a simple integration of Nietzsche into hermeneutics in light of their different understandings (...) of truth, interpretation and nihilism. It thus becomes possible to also resist the postmodern and nihilistic understanding of hermeneutics. Aware of their differences, hermeneutics and Nietzsche will perhaps have more to say to one another. (shrink)

Although most scholars trace the Liar Paradox to Plato’s contemporary, Eubulides, the paper argues that Plato builds something very like the Liar Paradox into the very structure of his dialogues with significant consequences for understanding his views. After a preliminary exposition of the liar paradox it is argued that Plato builds this paradox into the formulation of many of his central doctrines, including the “Divided Line” and the “Allegory of the Cave” and the “Ladder of Love”. Thus, Plato may have (...) been the first to formulate the view that Graham Priest calls dialetheism, roughly, the view that some contradictions are, in an illuminating way, inescapable and true. The paper argues that Plato builds this Liar paradox into the formulation of his signature views because he holds that the attempt by finite human beings to theorize about transcendent realities results in the simultaneous necessity, and impossibility, of transgressing the limits of language—leading to the paradoxes. Finally, it is argued that the existence of these paradoxes in these Platonic doctrines is the direct result of an intrinsic hermeneutical circle in Plato’s aforementioned signature views. (shrink)