Nietzsche's Gnosis of Law

Kriterion: Revista de Filosofia, 2013

The article discusses how Nietzsche understands the institution of law and morals in distinction to Kant and the Christian tradition. It argues that Nietzsche to a large extent is inspired by the paradigm-shift toward a evolutionary biological thinking introduced by several of his peers in the late 19th century, among else F. A. Lange, who sees this shift as a sobering scientific-materialistic alternative to Kant. In Nietzsche, the Kantian moral imperative is replaced with a notion of a morality emerging thanks to historical, or pre-historical, civilizational processes, imposed on a feebleminded human without any inherent rational dispositions to obey Law. It is also a process, which rather than universalizing the human, splits it in a duality where one part obeys old immediate self-interests and another part obeys new 'commands,' having been shouted 'into the ear' by a so-called…

Undergraduate Review, 2010

ne of the most well known, but deeply debated, ideas presented by the philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, is the will to power. Scholars have provided a variety of interpretations for what Nietzsche means by this concept. In this paper, I argue that, under each interpretation, Nietzsche may still face what I call, the problem of moral chaos, or the problem of endorsing the claim that immoral acts, such as murder and torture, are justifiable as they exemplify the human will towards power over others. I ultimately argue that Nietzsche's philosophy avoids this problem: though Nietzsche proposes it is possible to harm others as a way to power, we should not direct our will to power in this manner. To illustrate this point, I investigate common interpretations of the will to power, arguing that the psychological interpretation is the most compelling. From here, I demonstrate through Nietzsche's passages that he clearly inspires humanity to direct the will to power towards individual inner growth, and not as a form of domination. Therefore, Nietzsche does not fall into the problem of moral chaos. Part I. The Will to Power: Metaphysical, Metaphorical or Psychological? In order to understand the moral connotations of the will to power, we need to first determine what Nietzsche really means by the will to power. There are generally three different interpretations: the metaphysical, metaphorical, and psychological interpretations. In this part, I examine each of these interpretations, arguing that the psychological interpretation is the most compelling.

Germán Sucar (ed.), Por qué Leer a Nietzsche Hoy? (forthcoming, Fontamara) (translated into Spanish), 2018

2013

Nietzsche ve Gücü Ele Geçirme Arzusunun Evrenselliği Bu çalışmanın çıkış noktası Friedrich Nietzsche'nin fikirleri hakkındaki çelişkili yorumlardır. Bu yorumlardan büyük bir kısmı Nietzsche'nin felsefesindeki tabiatçı eğilimleri ön plana çıkarırken diğer bir kısım yorum tabiatçı-karşıtı eğilimleri vurgulamaktadır. Bu farklı yorumları tam olarak anlayabilmek için Nietzsche'nin düşünce ve yazısının önemli bir unsurunu oluşturan gücü ele geçirme düşüncesini dikkate almak gerekmektedir. Tabiatçı ve tabiatçı-karşıtı olmak üzere iki tür güç vardır ve Nietzsche her iki gücü de kabul eder. Bu yüzden güce ulaşma ve en güçlü olma isteği Nietzsche'yi hem tabiatçı hem de tabiatçı-karşıtı güçleri ve dolayısıyla çelişkili fikirleri kabul etmeye götürür. Bu yüzden onun fikirlerine ilişkin yorumlardan onun düşüncesinde çelişkilerin önemine önem verenlerin onun fikirlerine ilişkin doğruya en yakın anlayış olduğu söylenmelidir. Aynı çelişkili güce ulaşma arzusu mantığı hem Hıristiyanlık'ta hem de diğer dinlerde mevcuttur. Burada sorulan, güce ulaşma arzusunun bütün insanlık dünya görüşlerinde var olan evrensel bir karakteristik olup olmadığıdır. Makalenin sonunda, güce ulaşma arzusunun çoğu zaman farkında olunmayan etkilerinin kurduğu tuzakların farkında olunmadıkça felsefî veya dinî diyaloğun tehlikede olduğu ifade edilmektedir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Nietzsche, güce ulaşma arzusu, tabîî kuvvetler, tabiat karşıtı kuvvetler Summary The point of departure of the paper is contradictory interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy. One large section of such interpretations emphasize the naturalistic tendencies in his philosophy while the second stressing the antinaturalistic counterparts. In order to fully grasp this diversity of interpretations it is important to

Nietzsche’s notion of the will to power has long been misunderstood and not given sufficient attention for its utility in understanding social dynamics. Much of this trouble is a function of the polemic overtones of Nietzsche’s writing style. We should read Nietzsche not as a Nazi, nihilist, or motivational speaker–as many have in the past–but rather as a perspectivist illuminating a serendipity by which we can understand much of the world–i.e., will to power. This paper will advance an immanent critique of the self-sufficiency of Nietzsche's notion of the will to power. Following an overview of the notion and how it should be interpreted, will to power will put it through a “stress test.” This paper will show precisely where the notion “breaks” and how we should remedy this shortcoming with a supplemented understanding of will–namely with my notion of will to decadence. The utility of this supplemented understanding of will is it better explains various forms of decadence (i.e., decay and stagnation) in art and aesthetics in a manner which Nietzsche’s notion of the will to power alone cannot.

Le Code de propriété intellectuelle n'autorisant, aux termes de l'article L. 122-5, 2° et 3° a), d'une part, que les « copies ou reproductions strictement réservées à l'usage privé du copiste et non destinées à une utilisation collective » et, d'autre part, que les analyses et les courtes citations dans un but d'exemple et d'illustration, « toute représentation ou reproduction intégrale ou partielle faite sans le consentement de l'auteur ou de ses ayants droit ou ayants cause est illicite » (art. L. 122-4). Cette représentation ou reproduction, par quelque procédé que ce soit, constitue donc une contrefaçon sanctionnée par les articles L. 335-2 et suivants du Code de propriété intellectuelle.

Routledge eBooks, 2017

As a student of Hans-Georg Gadamer, and later a translator and important commentator on Gadamer's philosophy, P Christopher Smith is widely acknowledged to be a leading hermeneutical philosopher. In a series of works, Smith has argued that Gadamer provides an important corrective to Nietzsche's caustic critical challenges, but that Gadamer's hermeneutics has no relevance for legal theory because law is just the manifestation of will to power. In this paper I argue that Smith misunderstands the nature of legal practice. Starting with a re-reading of the debate between Gadamer and Jacques Derrida about the legacy of Nietzsche's philosophy, I argue that Gadamer responds to Nietzsche's challenge in a manner that is exemplified in the critical dimensions of legal practice. Using the example of family law that Smith offers, I contend that Smith underestimates the critical and interpretive elements inherent in legal practice and captured in Gadamer's philosophy. I conclude that Gadamer offers a persuasive answer to Nietzsche's challenge.

Choice Reviews Online, 2004