A remarkable number of Nietzsche's substantive moral psychological views have been borne out by evidence from the empirical sciences. Moral judgments are products of affects on Nietzsche's view, but the latter are in turn causally dependent upon more fundamental features of the individual. Nietzsche accepts a doctrine of types. The path is short from the acceptance of the Doctrine of Types to the acceptance of epiphenomenalism, as Leiter, and more recently, Riccardi argue. This chapter explains Nietzsche's phenomenological account of willing, (...) which serves as independent motivation for the view that Nietzsche denies the causal efficacy of conscious acts of willing. It also explores that in spite of an absence of volitional freedom, self‐control can be usefully understood on a strength‐model of motivational resources. The chapter concludes with a brief discussion of how Nietzsche, without employing the contemporary methods of empirical psychology, could nonetheless be such a prescient moral psychologist. (shrink)

In this paper I clarify a major affinity between Nietzsche and Spinoza that has been neglected in the literature—but that Nietzsche was aware of—namely a tendency to what I call etiology. Etiologies provide second- order explanations of some opponents’ first-order views, but not in order to decide first-order matters. The example I take up here is Nietzsche’s and Spinoza’s rejections of free will—and especially their etiologies concerning how we wrongly come to think that we may boast of such a capacity. (...) In working through the former (i.e., their rejections of free will) in order to make my central metaphilosophical point regarding the latter (i.e., their accounts of why we generally affirm that we have free will), I shed important new light on Nietzsche’s relation to Spinoza. I also further our understanding of what role such second-order accounts play within each of their larger projects on their own terms. (shrink)

This paper explores similarities between the sacrilegious revaluations Nietzsche and Spinoza undertook with regards to Christianity and Judaism respectively. In both cases, these revaluations involve a devaluation of an ancestral religious tradition, followed by the infusion of alternative values posited through forms of secular salvation linked to immanent conceptions of eternity. Given the importance of the structural and phenomenological similarities the paper analyses, it is argued that if Nietzsche thought of himself as the Anti-Christ, there is a convincing case to (...) think of Spinoza as the Anti-Moses. And because both the Anti-Christ and the Anti-Moses not only devaluated their respective religious traditions, but also suggested forms of beatitude based on a valorizing notion of eternity, their efforts are profoundly religious. Accordingly, Nietzsche and Spinoza are not only arguably the greatest Christian and Jewish heretics, but also the prophets of innovative forms of secular and immanent religiosity. (shrink)

Es muy defendible afirmar que el volumen dedicado a Spinoza de la obra Historia de la filosofía moderna de Kuno Fischer es la mediación más importante –si bien no la única– para comprender la relación Spinoza-Nietzsche. A partir de la lectura de esta obra en 1881, Nietzsche reconoce a Spinoza como precursor e identifica una tendencia en común entre ambos: «hacer del conocimiento el afecto más potente». Los principales objetivos de este trabajo son destacar la exposición que Fischer lleva a (...) cabo de algunos de los contenidos de la filosofía spinociana para poder valorar mejor su influencia en Nietzsche y resaltar la importancia que tiene tulo 22 de la edición de 1865, titulado «La voluntad humana», donde se interpreta la voluntad como deseo consciente, lo que tendrá sus consecuencias en la recepción de Nietzsche de la filosofía spinociana, además de permitir una discusión respecto del rol no siempre atendido de la voluntad en Spinoza. (shrink)

Since the late 1960s there has been a resurgence of interest in Spinozism in France: Gilles Deleuze was among the first who gave life to a ‘new Spinoza’ with his seminal book Expressionism in Philosophy: Spinoza. While Deleuze was primarily interested in Spinoza’s ontology and ethics, the contemporary French philosopher Étienne Balibar focuses on the political writings. Despite their common fascination for Spinoza’s relational definition of the individual, both thinkers have drawn very different consequences from the Spinozist inspiration regarding the (...) relevance of his philosophy for a contemporary ethical and political thought. Deleuze draws from Spinoza an ethics of the encounter, an ‘ethology’ that is concerned with the composition of bodies on a plane of immanence. Balibar, on the contrary, deals with the modes of communication that we institute between one another and that are always effectuations on two levels at once: the real and the imaginary. Whereas Deleuze emphasizes the conception of a... (shrink)

This article is concerned with the Spinozian topic of understanding human actions and its interpretation by Nietzsche in The Gay Science 333. Nietzsche doesn’t read directly Spinoza’s work but rather the volume of Kuno Fischer’s History of Modern Philosophy dedicated to the XVIIth century philosopher; this can be confirmed by the way in which the text is quoted. Even if Nietzsche reduces greatly the power of understanding to one of its aspect translating intelligere as erkennen, it is necessary to emphasize (...) that the aphorism presents a novelty that can enrich the study of the relationship between these two philosophers. Nietzsche identifies conscious thought with the “last scenes of reconciliation” between different drives of a previous unconscious process. Even if the point of departure of this survey is the centrality of affects in both thinkers, it will also identify a precise limit which distances Spinoza’s understanding of the affects from the centrality of drives in Nietzsche’s philosophical project. (shrink)

Es muy defendible afirmar que el volumen dedicado a Spinoza de la obra Historia de la filosofía moderna de Kuno Fischer es la mediación más importante –si bien no la única– para comprender la relación Spinoza-Nietzsche. A partir de la lectura de esta obra en 1881, Nietzsche reconoce a Spinoza como precursor e identifica una tendencia en común entre ambos: «hacer del conocimiento el afecto más potente». Los principales objetivos de este trabajo son destacar la exposición que Fischer lleva a (...) cabo de algunos de los contenidos de la filosofía spinociana para poder valorar mejor su influencia en Nietzsche y resaltar la importancia que tiene tulo 22 de la edición de 1865, titulado «La voluntad humana», donde se interpreta la voluntad como deseo consciente, lo que tendrá sus consecuencias en la recepción de Nietzsche de la filosofía spinociana, además de permitir una discusión respecto del rol no siempre atendido de la voluntad en Spinoza. (shrink)