En 2002, le paléontologue américain Stephen Jay Gould a rendu un surprenant hommage à l’évolutionnisme de Nietzsche. J’explique ici leur proximité critique, déjà annoncée par Daniel Dennett en 1995, de trois façons différentes. Je montre d’abord qu’elle permet à Gould de se départir du partage dualiste entre sciences de la nature et sciences humaines et sociales, dans lequel Dennett essaie de l’enfermer. Je montre ensuite qu’elle ouvre, loin de toute tentation d’instaurer de nouveaux «crochets célestes», des voies fécondes et inattendues (...) pour repenser l’hypothèse de la volonté de puissance. Je soutiens enfin qu’elle apporte des gages solides à l’ensemble de la critique nietzschéenne du darwinisme.In 2002, American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould paid a surprising tribute to Nietzsche’s evolutionism. I explain this critical affinity, which Daniel Dennett had already pointed out in 1995, focusing on three aspects. First, I show how it allows Gould to dispense with the dualistic separation between natural sciences and humanities and social sciences, in which Dennett tries to confine him. Second, I explain how it allows for promising and unsuspected ways to re-examine Nietzsche’s Will to Power hypothesis. Finally, I argue that it provides solid grounds for Nietzsche’s criticism of Darwinism. (shrink)

In this paper, I critique the prevalent notion that only in the abyss can one emerge to be the Übermensch, or to use Hollingdale’s term, the Superman. To support this, I will first expound on the notion of the abyss as ethical nihilism from the perspective of the death of God to Nietzsche’s critique of morality. I argue that ethical nihilism as an abyss is insufficient in constituting Nietzsche’s Superman. I will then set how the Superman emerges through counter-stages. The (...) paradox is that such tragic an abyss that serves as conditio sine qua non for the Superman falls flat when looked at in the perspective of life. There underlies a fundamental difficulty in simply accepting the proposals of acknowledging the abyss or ‘becoming what one is.’ Later, Nietzsche’s anti-romanticism and anti-Darwinism are explored to support such difficulty. (shrink)

Despite his position as one of the first philosophers to write in the “post- Darwinian” world, the critique of Darwin by Friedrich Nietzsche is often ignored for a host of unsatisfactory reasons. I argue that Nietzsche’s critique of Darwin is important to the study of both Nietzsche’s and Darwin’s impact on philosophy. Further, I show that the central claims of Nietzsche’s critique have been broadly misunderstood. I then present a new reading of Nietzsche’s core criticism of Darwin. An important part (...) of Nietzsche’s response can best be understood as an aesthetic critique of Darwin, reacting to what he saw as Darwin having drained life of an essential component of objective aesthetic value. For Nietzsche, Darwin’s theory is false because it is too intellectual, because it searches for rules, regulations, and uniformity in a realm where none of these are to be found – and, moreover, where they should not be found. Such a reading goes furthest toward making Nietzsche’s criticism substantive and relevant. Finally, I attempt to relate this novel explanation of Nietzsche’s critique to topics in contemporary philosophy of biology, particularly work on the evolutionary explanation of culture. (shrink)