Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
judgments of fact will turn out to be surprisingly similar to moral judgments as seen by emotivists: their surface grammar would misleadingly suggest that they are fact-stating when actually, they are merely expressions of attitude, the products of our "drives." Green embraces this latter alternative and argues quite convincingly that Nietzsche is precisely such a global "noncognitivist." And it is the case that Nietzsche, even very late in his authorship, extensively in his unpublished notes but occasionally in his published works as well, writes as if there is some sort of deep problem with our truth-claiming practices. What is more, most of Nietzsche's discussions of this sort do seem to wear a Kantian ancestry on their sleeve, not least in their choice of terminology. Since Nietzsche did not, on the whole, publish the notes in which these reflections take place, it may not be necessary to choose between these two options as a matter of intellectual history: Nietzsche himself may have been quite uncertain about the implications of his commitments and may have been in the process of trying to sort out what to do with them when madness descended and he fell silent. However that may be,
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies – Penn State University Press
Published: May 30, 2010
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.