Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: The Fitness for Free-Will

Expand Messages
  • Sindarius
    Jim, Interesting post. You write: Surely if Nietzsche thinks that in reality purpose is lacking. . . . One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs
    Message 1 of 10 , Nov 15, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      Jim,

      Interesting post.

      You write: "Surely if Nietzsche thinks that "in reality purpose is lacking. . . . One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is the whole – there exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole.", then the intentional standpoint is essentially a false horizon, and we should stick to the third-person, objective, scientific standpoint if we are to think clearly about political issues. Aesthetics and ethics seem to disappear totally as there is nothing which could "judge, measure, compare, condemn". In the passages I quote, I think Nietzsche is guilty of a rather crude scientism where the validity of the intentional standpoint seems to be denied any legitimacy at all."

      First, I will respond about I had meant. The "intentional standpoint" is a phrase coming from Husserl. In his phenomenological method, this standpoint constitutes the "natural" horizon minus secondary or subsequent layers of meaning. This concept has problems on its own, but I used the phrase to mean the ordinary sense one has at any time of being a free agent insofar as experience is only compelled to be present. What Nietzsche says above would be consistent with that, and would be, in fact, a radical version of it.

      Secondly, Nietzsche's scientism. He is guilty of it sometimes; sometimes he opines contrary. Nearly all of "Human All-Too-Human" takes a very positivistic view of things. This is interesting, because the notebooks from this period are very different.

      I wouldn't count the quoted statements as scientistic or as positivistic, at least necessarily. You would better have called them nihilistic. But Nietzsche's whole point is to show the faultiness of remaining just at the "No". Hence the transvaluation that "Twilight" is supposed to be a part of. Additionally, Nietzsche always speaks about how constituted morality is precisely that which impedes creativity, so it is not hard to imagine why his "Dammerung" (Twilight) would include such a bold erasure.

      Thanks again,
      Wil


      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "Jim" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
      >
      > Wil,
      >
      > My understanding of Wittgenstein is that a lot of the time he was arguing that specifically philosophical concepts are incoherent, rather than just failing to pick out anything in the world (i.e. false).
      >
      > I read Nietzsche as arguing not that `free will' is incoherent, but is false, in the sense that nobody actually has free will.
      >
      > But this is a fairly trivial point and not worth arguing about.
      >
      > The other area where I think the two sections from TI are in tension with something you write, is with regard to your last paragraph:
      >
      > "However, from a phenomenological point of view, the intentional standpoint of an observing subject always appears free. And thus we live within that horizon which grounds not only political-juridical questions, but all aesthetics and ethics. Nietzsche most often writes from within horizon."
      >
      > Surely if Nietzsche thinks that "in reality purpose is lacking. . . . One is necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is the whole – there exists nothing which could judge, measure, compare, condemn the whole.", then the intentional standpoint is essentially a false horizon, and we should stick to the third-person, objective, scientific standpoint if we are to think clearly about political issues. Aesthetics and ethics seem to disappear totally as there is nothing which could "judge, measure, compare, condemn".
      >
      > In the passages I quote, I think Nietzsche is guilty of a rather crude scientism where the validity of the intentional standpoint seems to be denied any legitimacy at all.
      >
      > Jim
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.