Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Advancing the Agōn: Nietzsche’s Pre-texts and the Self-Reflexive Will to Truth

Advancing the Agōn: Nietzsche’s Pre-texts and the Self-Reflexive Will to Truth This article argues that Clark and Dudrick’s study of <i>Beyond Good and Evil</i>, despite numerous qualities and the correct conclusion that Nietzsche pursued a normative project, remains dissatisfying for two main reasons: First, the methodological distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines, problematic as it is from the outset, would require a detailed genetic reconstruction of Nietzsche’s ways of obscuring his “real views” and of translating them into a new language. Clark and Dudrick, however, seem to use that distinction mainly to accommodate Nietzsche to their understanding of good philosophy. Second, their reconstruction of empiricist and idealistic epistemologies, given in terms of exclusive opposites, fails to appreciate how Nietzsche tries to replace such false contradictions with gradational differences and how he dialectically distributes approval and criticism to both through the composition of his aphorisms. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The Journal of Nietzsche Studies Penn State University Press

Advancing the Agōn: Nietzsche’s Pre-texts and the Self-Reflexive Will to Truth

Heit, Helmut.
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies , Volume 45 (1) – Mar 26, 2014
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/penn-state-university-press/advancing-the-ag-n-nietzsche-s-pre-texts-and-the-self-reflexive-will-ID0KH9qYH9
Publisher
Penn State University Press
Copyright
Copyright © The Pennsylvania State University.
ISSN
1538-4594

Abstract

This article argues that Clark and Dudrick’s study of <i>Beyond Good and Evil</i>, despite numerous qualities and the correct conclusion that Nietzsche pursued a normative project, remains dissatisfying for two main reasons: First, the methodological distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines, problematic as it is from the outset, would require a detailed genetic reconstruction of Nietzsche’s ways of obscuring his “real views” and of translating them into a new language. Clark and Dudrick, however, seem to use that distinction mainly to accommodate Nietzsche to their understanding of good philosophy. Second, their reconstruction of empiricist and idealistic epistemologies, given in terms of exclusive opposites, fails to appreciate how Nietzsche tries to replace such false contradictions with gradational differences and how he dialectically distributes approval and criticism to both through the composition of his aphorisms.

Journal

The Journal of Nietzsche Studies – Penn State University Press

Published: Mar 26, 2014

There are no references for this article.