Freud (and later commentators) have failed to explain how the origins of psychoanalytical theory began with a positivist investment without recognizing a dual epistemological commitment: simply, Freud engaged positivism because he believed it generally equated with empiricism, which he valued, and he rejected ‘philosophy’, and, more specifically, Kantianism, because of the associated transcendental qualities of its epistemology. But this simple dismissal belies a deep investment in Kant’s formulation of human reason, in which rationality escapes natural cause and thereby bestows humans (...) with cognitive and moral autonomy. Freud also segregated human rationality: he divided the mind between (1) an unconscious grounded in the biological and thus subject to its own laws, and (2) a faculty of autonomous reason, lodged in consciousness and free of natural forces to become the repository of interpretation and free will. Psychoanalysis thus rests upon a basic Kantian construction, whereby reason, through the aid of analytic techniques, provides a detached scrutiny of the natural world, i.e. the unconscious mental domain. Further, sovereign reason becomes the instrument of self-knowing in the pursuit of human perfection. Herein lies the philosophical foundation of psychoanalytic theory, a beguiling paradox in which natural cause and autonomous reason — determinism and freedom — are conjoined despite their apparent logical exclusion. (shrink)

Metaphors allow us to come to terms with abstract and complex information, by comparing it to something which is structured, familiar and concrete. Although modern science is “iconoclastic”, as Gaston Bachelard phrases it, scientists are at the same time prolific producers of metaphoric images themselves. Synthetic biology is an outstanding example of a technoscientific discourse replete with metaphors, including textual metaphors such as the “Morse code” of life, the “barcode” of life and the “book” of life. This paper focuses on (...) a different type of metaphor, however, namely on the archetypal metaphor of the mandala as a symbol of restored unity and wholeness. Notably, mandala images emerge in textual materials related to one of the new “frontiers” of contemporary technoscience, namely the building of a synthetic cell: a laboratory artefact that functions like a cell and is even able to replicate itself. The mandala symbol suggests that, after living systems have been successfully reduced to the elementary building blocks and barcodes of life, the time has now come to put these fragments together again. We can only claim to understand life, synthetic cell experts argue, if we are able to technically reproduce a fully functioning cell. This holistic turn towards the cell as a meaningful whole also requires convergence at the “subject pole”: the building of a synthetic cell as a practice of the self, representing a turn towards integration, of multiple perspectives and various forms of expertise. (shrink)

In recent years, Nietzsche’s views on (natural) science attracted a considerable amount of scholarly attention. Overall, his attitude towards science tends to be one of suspicion, or ambivalence at least. My article addresses the “Nietzsche and science” theme from a slightly different perspective, raising a somewhat different type of question, more pragmatic if you like, namely: how to be a Nietzschean philosopher of science today? What would the methodological contours of a Nietzschean approach to present-day research areas (such as neuroscience, (...) astrophysics, synthetic biology or climate studies) amount to? In other words, my paper reflects a shift of focus from author studies to extrapolation. The design of my article is as follows. I will start with the question (already widely discussed in the expert literature) to what extent Friedrich Nietzsche (a classical philologist by training) managed to familiarise himself with the natural sciences of his epoch. Subsequently, I will outline some basic methodological and conceptual ingredients of Nietzsche’s philosophy of science, focussing on core issues such as “genealogy”, “interpretation”, “enhancement” and “truth”. Next, I will elucidate Nietzsche’s genealogical methodology with the help of three case studies (three representative samples if you will) taken from Nietzsche’s writings and dealing with physiology, astronomy and neuro-psychology respectively. Finally, I will present the methodological contours of a Nietzschean understanding of contemporary technoscience. (shrink)

The ‘French reading’ of Nietzsche crystallized almost 50 years ago at the 1972 conference at Cerisy-la-Salle, Nietzsche aujourd’hui. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual conference of the Friedrich Nietzsche Society, with the theme of ‘The Politics of Difference’, Newcastle University, 20–21 September 2018. Nietzsche’s fortunes have since undergone some dramatic shifts in France, but there are signs that he is once again on the ascendency, in particular the 2016 edited collection Pourquoi nous sommes Nietzschéens (a (...) direct riposte to the 1991 Pourquoi nous ne sommes pas Nietzschéens). Taking a bearing from the French readings, I want to explore the question of what ‘Nietzsche today’ might mean for us today. At Cerisy in 1972, the meaning of Nietzsche was centred on the twin critiques of humanism and capitalism. While these issues persist, several articles in the 2016 collection indicate that they are now inflected through the vast contemporary significance of technology. One of the key debates here is Nietzsche’s significance for transhumanism. For Bernard Stiegler, transhumanism is the culmination of nihilism, understood as the reign of big data and the total quantification of the self. In this regard, he alludes to a ‘hypernihilism’ of the contemporary era, characterised by the quantifying effects of information technologies, which work in conjunction with capitalism to produce an ultimate ‘averaging’ force. I will argue that Stiegler gives an essential corrective to the largely critical engagements with neonihilism of the Nietzscheans of the previous generation, but that his emphasis on the value of negentropy risks reaffirming the logic of the transhumanism he critiques. Nietzscheanism today, I will argue, requires an appreciation of the dual tendencies of nihilism – identified here as neonihilism and hypernihilism – such that we must draw on contributions from both generations of French Nietzscheans in order to think and respond to the problems of our contemporary era. (shrink)

Friedrich Nietzsche was Less Well-Read in the history of philosophy than were many of his peers in the pantheon, whether Hegel before him or Heidegger after, but he was not for that reason any less hesitant to pronounce judgment on the worth of the other great philosophers: Plato was “boring”; Descartes was “superficial”; Hobbes, Hume, and Locke signify “a debasement and lowering of the concept of ‘philosophy’ for more than a century”; Kant was an “idiot” and a “catastrophic spider,” etc.1 (...) Against this overarching trend of negativity, his uncharacteristically positive response to one thinker, a thinker who initially appears to us as quite different from him, is all the more surprising. In the summer of .. (shrink)

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar a questão da intencionalidade na fórmula “Como alguém se torna o que se é”, registrada por Nietzsche como subtítulo a Ecce homo. O problema da intencionalidade emerge, por um lado, a partir de uma frase do próprio livro de Nietzsche que reza: “Que alguém se torne o que é pressupõe que não suspeite sequer remotamente o que é”; e, por outro lado, da hipótese segundo a qual ‘tornar-se o que se é’ ocorre unicamente através (...) das vivências, compreendida como pathos e, portanto, como um contra-conceito à intencionalidade. Os conceitos de destino e fluidez serão as duas hipóteses que serão analisadas, a fim de nos distanciarmos do problema da intencionalidade. (shrink)

Scientific progress has been understood as synonymous with the growth of knowledge and the advancement of humanity. In this brief survey, this concept is problematized both in rhetorical terms and within the neoliberal framework. Despite the sustained marketing of the scientific community and its funding agencies, the dangers associated with progress are explained and highlighted.

“Como tornar-se o que se é” é a máxima que Nietzsche resgata da II Ode Pítica, de Píndaro, para fazer frente ao “conhece-te a ti mesmo”. “Conhece-te a ti mesmo” é a “receita para o declínio” enquanto “como tornar-se o que se é” exprime a “conservação de si”. O estabelecimento dessa oposição requer, todavia, alguns esclarecimentos. Antes de tudo, não podemos ignorar que Nietzsche recorre à tradução latina nosce te ipsum para o grego gnothi seauton, uma opção engenhosa, sobretudo se (...) levarmos em consideração as disputas interpretativas na antiguidade em torno do sentido do “conhece-te a ti mesmo”. Originariamente, a máxima délfica era equivalente à sophrosyne, cumprindo, assim, a função de recomendar prudência ao homem na sua vida prática. Ulteriormente, no entanto, o “conhece-te a ti mesmo” foi assimilado como um apelo para que o homem conhecesse o seu divino nous. Essa interpretação, predominante nos períodos helenístico e imperial, foi introduzida pela tradição platônica, sendo em seguida combinada, por Fílo, com elementos da tradição hebraica, culminando com a idéia de que o conhecimento de si só pode ser alcançado pela conversão rumo a Deus. Essa digressão nos revela, portanto, que quando Nietzsche emprega o nosce te ipsum, ele busca interrogar justamente esse sentido tardio, manifestamente metafísico, atribuído ao “conhece-te a ti mesmo”. A máxima délfica surge como um problema na medida em que faz do homem um animal assombrado pela sua carência de ser. A ilusão de querer atingir um “ideal de ser humano”, “ideal de felicidade”, “ideal de moralidade”, a fé de ser depositada no futuro ou no passado, engendra a negatividade no homem e o impede de ser si mesmo. Assim, a máxima “como tornar-se o que se é” busca indicar que é somente mediante uma maneira fatalista de encarar a vida, isto é, que prescinde do saber de si e do querer-se diferente, que cada um pode conservar a sua si-mesmidade e ser completo. (shrink)

In this essay I explore what might be meant by the “nearest things” in Nietzsche’s philosophy. In the first part of the essay I contextualise Nietzsche’s concerns with “the closest things of all” in the “free spirit” period (1878–1882) and raise the question of how knowledge of them is possible. This idea is developed in the second part of the paper in relation to the claim that dominant (Platonic/christian) habits of thought impede our understanding of the body. In the third (...) section, I suggest that Nietzsche’s interest in Epicurean thinking in this period enables us to situate the nearest things within the political aesthetics of a transfigured physis. In the final section, I examine how Nietzsche’s 1881 notes on eternal return provide a less-well known locus for his philosophy of the nearest things, one which suggests that to “incorporate” eternal return we need to become “good neighbours” to what is close. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ Cette étude met en perspective le précédent constitué par les travaux précoces du jeune Nietzsche où ce dernier fait valoir la force structurante de la métaphore comme matrice des facultés cognitives. Nous offrons d’abord une brève esquisse des postulats et des acquis des grammaires cognitives associées aux travaux d’Eleanor Rosch, ensuite de George Lakoff et Mark Johnson, ainsi qu’à la notion d’inscription corporelle de l’esprit développée par Francesco Varela. Cet exercice sert de propédeutique à une série de lectures tangentes (...) mobilisant divers angles d’approche appelés à faciliter noter évaluation des contributions de Nietzsche au domaine de la cognition. Les travaux examinés nous situent dans la période contemporaine de la publication de son premier grand ouvrage, La naissance de la tragédie : les notes pour le cours intitulé Présentation de la rhétorique ancienne, prononcé au semestre d’hiver 1872-1873 à l’Université de Bâle, ensuite ses Theoretische Studien, datant de l’été 1873, avec un renvoi aux développements plus tardifs dans le Gai Savoir. La thèse de Nietzsche peut être résumée comme suit : tous les éléments de l’appareil catégorial et du régime conceptuel à l’aide desquels nous appréhendons la réalité, a fortiori la notion de vérité qui en est le garant, sont le « précipité » ou le résidu d’un faisceau de métaphores qui constituent la force structurante des facultés cognitives. Si chez Kant nous n’avons accès qu’aux phénomènes et non au noumène, chez Nietzsche nous n’avons affaire qu’à des perspectives ou des points de vues alors que la réalité nous est monnayée sous forme de vérités qui sont des fictions ou des métaphores usées. Il ressort de cet examen que le tropisme endogène de la langue constitue une force majeure dans l’implémentation d’une conceptualité qui a la vertu d’oblitérer sa préhistoire et de se ménager un statut qui est incessamment implosé par le reflux de l’imagination créatrice nourrie par la force métaphorique qui répond à une impulsion foncière que Nietzsche associe à une « force artiste » qui tend à démultiplier les perspectives dont la généalogie se conjugue à l’exponentiel. ABSTRACT This paper highlights the precedent, managed by the precocious insights of the young Nietzsche who advocated the structuring force of the metaphor as the matrix of cognitive powers. We first provide a short sketch of the postulates and gains of cognitive grammars. We examine the guidelines of the works on cognitive research led by great Eleanor Rosch, George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, as well as the concept of embodied mind developed by Francesco Varela. This summary survey is a crash introduction to a series of angular readings from a large array of perspectives on Nietzsche's early contributions to the field of cognition. The works prospected are contemporary of the publication of Nietzsche first great work, "The Birth of the Tragedy", including his notes for the lecture course on rhetoric taught at the University of Basel during the winter semester, in 1872-73, then his "Theoretische Studien", written during summer 1873, with a consideration of later developments in his "Gay Science". The overall thesis advocated by Nietzsche in these works could be summarized as follows: all the elements of the categorical apparatus and the conceptual framework by which we assess reality, a fortiori the notion of truth which vouches for it, are the "precipitate" or the residue of a cluster of metaphors which constitute the structuring force of cognitive powers. The instinct of conservation and a subtle form of dissimulation lead to the elision of the tropic dynamics of language to the benefit of a literalism bound to a structuring amnesia. If for Kant we get access only to phenomena and not to noumenon, for Nietzsche we always deal with perspectives or points of view, whilst reality is traded to us by mean of truths which are mere fictions or worn out metaphors. So we come to acknowledge that the endogenous tropism displayed by language uses constitutes a major force in the implementation of conceptuality, that last one being eager to absorb its own prehistory into oblivion and to endow itself a status which is in close to timelessly imploded by the ebb of creative imagination fuelled by sheer metaphoric force, a spontaneous impulsion that Nietzsche ties to an "artistic force" which tends to multiply the perspectives whose genealogy is driven by an exponential factor. (shrink)

El artículo analiza desde una perspectiva crítica las tentativas de interpretar a Nietzsche como un precursor del transhumanismo. Tras una breve contextualización del fecundo debate en torno a Nietzsche y el transhumanismo, se evalúa el carácter fraccional o parcial del alegato de Stefan Sorgner en favor de un “transhumanismo nietzscheano”. Después, se investiga la tensión entre humanidad, la superación del ser humano y su cría en los escritos de Nietzsche. Una vez ejecutado este análisis, y sin ánimo de caer en (...) el anacronismo, se sostiene que Nietzsche anticipa ciertamente un germen de la idea de post-humanidad, en su crítica de la cultura humanista y en su invitación a transformar el ser humano y superar el nihilismo, pero no asimilable a la vertiente tecnológica del transhumanismo. Para concluir, se sugiere una prospectiva de análisis del transhumanismo desde una perspectiva nietzscheana, tomando como ejemplo la imagen de las “sombras de Dios”. (shrink)

Interpretations of Nietzsche as a virtue theorist have proliferated in recent years as commentators have sought to read him as a modern eudaimonistic philosopher while also attempting to show what makes his contribution to this tradition valuable and distinctive.1While some commentators still contend that interpreting Nietzsche as a eudaimonist is antithetical to his overtly-stated philosophical aims,2 over the last decade there has been a upsurge of support for such readings, especially from commentators who emphasise what they claim is the pervasive (...) influence of the Hellenistic tradition on his work. Keith Ansell-Pearson has argued that Epicurus was a key influence on Nietzsche’s middle period, for example; whereas Michael Ure has claimed that the Stoic thought of Seneca and Epictetus was also highly influential.3 Nevertheless, even those commentators who agree that Nietzsche can be informatively situated, or is even best situated, within the Hellenistic tradition cannot agree on two seemingly-intractable puzzles which any virtue-theoretical reading must solve in order to give a full account of his moral philosophy. The puzzles can be stated as follows: Puzzle 1: Which character traits does Nietzsche endorse as virtues? Puzzle 2: What is Nietzsche’s ethical ideal? This article offers an exegetical strategy to shed light on both puzzles, especially the first one regarding which character traits Nietzsche endorses as virtues which, as we shall see, is tougher to answer by a straightforward appeal to his texts. To elucidate this puzzle, I will propose that his approving comments regarding excellence-based moral philosophy indicate that his own ethics is also structured in terms of an ethical ideal with a requisite set of virtues which, following his ancient philosophical influences, he views as fundamentally connected. As Julia Annas notes, one the most distinctive ‘assumptions which ancient theories make [is] the relationship of [our] virtues to our final end’,4 and given Nietzsche’s interest in, and apparent endorsement of, ancient eudaimonism – especially compared to his invariably scathing remarks on the modern deontological and utilitarian traditions – we have reason to think that he shares this view.5 What is significant for this article, however, is that Nietzsche’s commitment to a kind of eudaimonism modelled on the ancient world offers a potential way to solve both puzzles. If his virtues and ethical ideal are connected in a similar way to ancient eudaimonistic theories, then understanding his ethical ideal allows us to infer which character traits he endorses as virtues, and vice versa. Although it might be objected that a method tackling both puzzles in tandem would be unworkable if their solutions were contained in each other, in what follows I will show that Nietzsche’s extensive comments on his ethical ideal of ‘becoming what one is’ positions us in a strong position to infer which character traits he prizes most highly. I will call these character traits ‘virtues of self-cultivation’. (shrink)

In what follows I raise the question of Ariadne and Dionysus for Nietzsche, including the relative size of Ariadne’s ears, as Dionysus observes at the close of “Ariadne’s Lament” [Klage der Ariadne]. Nietzsche’s references to ears invoke not only Nietzsche’s “selective” concern with having the right ears but also the question of myth and genealogical context. Reading through myth is key not only in terms of the textual, lyric tradition but also painting and sculpture, including sarcophagi in antiquity. It makes (...) all the difference to ask, as Karl Kerényi cites Nietzsche as asking: Wer weiß …was Ariadne ist? And not less: who was she to Dionysus? To this extent, Nietzsche’s concern with ears, small and long, is less incidental or furry fetish than hermeneutic attunement. (shrink)

This essay foregrounds “covers” of popular recorded songs as well as male and female desire, in addition to Nietzsche’s interest in composition, together with his rhythmic analysis of Ancient Greek as the basis of what he called the “spirit of music” with respect to tragedy. The language of “sonic branding” allows a discussion of what Günther Anders described as the self-creation of mass consumer but also the ghostly time-space of music in the broadcast world. A brief allusion to Rilke complements (...) a similarly brief reference to Jankelevitch’s “ineffable.”. (shrink)

Fleck's Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact foregrounds claims traditionally excluded from reception, often regarded as opposed to fact, scientific claims that are increasingly seldom discussed in connection with philosophy of science save as examples of pseudoscience. I am especially concerned with scientists who question the epidemiological link between HIV and AIDS and who are thereby discounted—no matter their credentials, no matter the cogency of their arguments, no matter the sobriety of their statistics—but also with other classic examples of (...) so-called pseudoscience including homeopathy and other sciences, such as cold fusion. The pseudoscience version of the demarcation problem turns out to include some of the details that Latour articulates multifariously under a variety of species or kinds in his essay/interactive research project/monograph, ‘Biography of an Investigation’. Given the economic constraints of the current day, especially in the academy, the growing trend in almost all disc.. (shrink)

RESUMO Neste artigo argumento que Nietzsche desenvolve a ideia de uma gaia ciência, que afirma a vida, como um possível resultado de uma história cultural do ascetismo e da sublimação. As seções finais da "Genealogia da moral" introduzem uma distinção entre ciência normal e idealista e discutem suas respectivas relações com o ascetismo. A prática do trabalho científico normal e a busca idealista pela verdade revelam, ambas, a falta de ideais autônomos. Uma análise de sua compreensão do conhecimento hipotética e (...) instrumentalista mostra que a discussão nietzscheana da verdade não é autorrrefutável. Nietzsche não é um inimigo da ciência, mas afirma uma posição privilegiada para a filosofia na hierarquia das disciplinas em um amplo contexto de emancipação cultural. ABSTRACT This paper argues that Nietzsche develops the idea of a life-affirming, joyful science as a possible result of a cultural history of ascetism and sublimation. The closing sections of "On the Genealogy of Morals" introduce a distinction between normal and idealist science and discuss their respective relation to ascetism. The practice of normal scientific labour and the idealist quest for truth both reveal the lack of autonomous ideals. An analysis of his hypothetical and instrumentalist understanding of knowledge-claims shows that Nietzsche's discussion of truth is not self-refuting. Nietzsche is no enemy of science but assumes a privileged position for philosophy in the hierarchy of disciplines within a broader context of cultural emancipation. (shrink)

Nietzsche is a popular source of inspiration for transhumanist writers. Some, such as Sorgner and More, argue that Nietzsche ought to be considered a precursor of the movement. Transhumanism is a philosophy committed to the desirability of using technology to transform human beings, through significant alteration of their brains and bodies, into a new posthuman species. One of the defining characteristics of transhumanism is the desire for personal immortality. I argue that this feature of transhumanism is wholly incompatible with Nietzsche’s (...) philosophy, and a close examination of this disagreement brings out the degree to which transhumanists and Nietzsche differ in their values and philosophical commitments. Nietzsche does not think that personal immortality is desirable or metaphysically possible. I show that his views have more in common with philosophers like Bernard Williams and Derek Parfit than they do with transhumanism. (shrink)

The posthuman is a multidimensionally hybrid figure: it denotes both the post-biological or technological being that mostly inhabits science-fiction stories as well as the ensuing reconceptualisation of what it means to be human. Even within these conditions, it remains hybrid: posthuman beings are mixes of organic and non- organic materials while posthuman conceptualisations combine philosophical and technological perspectives. This dissertation claims that the profoundly hybrid nature of the posthuman forces its texts – whether fictional or theoretical – to adopt similarly (...) hybrid statuses. More concretely, on the one hand, its fictional nature forces the presence of fiction into theoretical texts, which mainly materialises intertextually. On the other hand, the posthuman’s philosophical extent as well as its hybridity as a being make it highly probable for theory and philosophy to manifest in posthuman-featuring fiction. This last phenomenon – which will be the focus of my presentation - may operate through three mechanisms: intertextuality, where theories of the posthuman are referred to in fiction; reflexive discourse, where philosophical reflection or theoretical content are conveyed by various narrative devices indirect speech, amongst others); and double referentiality, where philosophical reflection emerges out of the science-fictional juxtaposition of a cognitively estranging world with the actual world. The dissertation exemplifies the first aspect with the Japanese anime Ghost in the Shell 2 and the Belgian play Cocon!, which both feature characters named Haraway. The second and third aspects are described through the analysis of three novels: LoveStar by Andri Snær Magnason, The Possibility of and Island by Michel Houellebecq and Oryx and Crake, by Margaret Atwood. (shrink)