Nos proponemos abordar el vínculo de Nietzsche con la modernidad política tomando como punto de partida su crítica del espacio público burgués en el contexto de la Alemania de Bismarck. La Kulturkritik nietzscheana apuntará así a recuperar una concepción nihilista del antagonismo en el plano estético e intelectual con implicancias radicalmente transformadoras en el plano de la vida social. Pese a su rechazo de la democracia y su cuestionamiento permanente de las ideologías modernas, en el pensamiento tardío de Nietzsche la (...) politización y la temporalización propias de la experiencia política del Sattelzeit (Koselleck) constituirán elementos por igual influyentes tanto en su visión de la cultura como al nivel de su reflexión ontológica. Ellas aparecerán así fuertemente reflejadas en una concepción de la crítica y en su versión particular del “antagonismo cultural” (Geisterkrieg), dos preocupaciones específicamente dirigidas contra los efectos despolitizadores de la moral cristiana en el periodo decimonónico burgués. (shrink)

Many commentators have claimed that Nietzsche views the “sublimation” (Sublimierung) of drives as a positive achievement. Against this tradition, I argue that, on the dominant if not universal Nietzschean use of Sublimierung and its cognates, sublimation is just a broad psychological analogue of the traditional (al)chemical process: the “vaporization” of drives into a finer or lighter state, figuratively if not literally. This can yield ennobling elevation, or purity in a positive sense—the intensified “sublimate” of an unrefined original sample. But it (...) can also yield drives that are attenuated or otherworldly, in a pejorative sense. One (but only one) kind of Nietzschean sublimation is the “translation” of drives to “imaginative and spiritual” (Imaginative und Seelische) modes of expression. I con­clude that, despite certain appearances to the contrary, Nietzsche ultimately values basic drives’ powerful expression, without preferring either that this occur specifically as “higher culture” or as “savage” natural impulse. (shrink)

Pettit endorses a ‘republican’ conception of social freedom of the person as consisting of a state of non-domination, and takes this to refute Mill’s ‘liberal’ claim that non-domineering but coercive interference can compromise social freedom of choice. This paper argues that Pettit’s interpretation is true to the extent that Mill believes that the legitimate, non-arbitrary and just coercion of would-be dominators, for the sake of preventing them from dominating others, can render them unfree to choose to do so without rendering (...) them socially unfree (qua dominated) persons in their own right. However, contra Pettit, Mill is correct to reject the ‘republican’ view for at least two reasons. Firstly, it enables him to avoid commitment to the implausible implication that would-be dominators who sincerely deny any interest in a shared system of basic liberties are automatically rendered unfree persons by the coercion necessary to uphold such a system. Secondly, it enables him to avoid begging the question against ‘immoralists’ like Nietzsche, whose opposition to systems of reciprocal non-domination is at least partly motivated by the losses of social freedom of choice they entail for those they deem to be worthy of dominating others. (shrink)