Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
In this short article, I present several challenges to Maudemarie Clark and David Dudrickâs bold claim that one of Nietzscheâs main goals in <i>Beyond Good and Evil</i> is to establish himself as âKantâs true heir.â First, I critique their argument that the prefaces to the <i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> and <i>BGE</i> bear a âstriking similarityâ to each other. Second, I try to refute their claim that Nietzsche in <i>BGE</i> 11 is âpositioning himself ⦠as the true successor to Kant.â Nietzsche does not exhibit the positive interest in the a priori that one expects from even the most minimal Kantian, and his norms are hardly Kantâs. Finally, in my conclusion, I draw some qualified connections between Nietzscheâs normative project and a more naturalistic option within the history of philosophyânamely, American pragmatism.
The Journal of Nietzsche Studies – Penn State University Press
Published: Mar 26, 2014
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.