Nietzsche consistently valorizes artistic falsehoods. On standard interpretations, this is because art provides deceptive yet salutary fictions that help us affirm life. This reading conflicts, however, with Nietzsche’s insistence that life-affirmation requires untrammeled honesty. I present an alternative interpretation which navigates the interpretive impasse. With special attention to the influence of Friedrich Schiller, the paper argues for three claims: (1) Nietzsche does not hold that art is false because it “beautifies,” but because it produces mere semblances of, its objects; (2) (...) these semblances are essentially non-deceptive; (3) he values artistic illusions because they dispose us positively to illusion more generally. Such ‘evaluative reorientation,’ I argue, is not merely consistent with, but integral to, achieving Nietzsche’s ideal of honesty. (shrink)

In an unpublished text from the early postwar period, Georges Canguilhem deals with Nietzsche’s maxim “Become who you are!” Is this “apparently contradictory formula of a philosopher full of contradictions” really only seemingly inconsistent? Canguilhem regards it as a norm whose supposed metaphysical or objective content dissolves upon further analysis. So he here discerns a new instance of the same potential confusion he had already addressed in his classical essay on The Normal and the Pathological (1943). According to him, the (...) formula “become who you are!” must not be misunderstood in a naturalistic sense, a tendency from which not even Nietzsche himself, Canguilhem thinks, was entirely free. Besides the French philosophy of his time, his philosophical inquiry into “Become who you are!” critically engages two classic German Nietzsche scholars, Ernst Bertram and Karl Jaspers, as well as the French interpreters of the latter’s philosophy of Existenz, Mikel Dufrenne and Paul Ricœur. Finally, the paper highlights Nietzsche’s specific importance for Canguilhem and the ambivalence in his privileged relationship to the German thinker. (shrink)

Tarih felsefeleri bağlamında düşünüldüğünde Hegel ve Nietzsche felsefeleri birbirine zıttır. Hegel için tarih, tin’in kendini açımladığı bir süreçtir. Bu süreçte us, tarihsel kişiliklerin istenç, tutku ve arzularını kendi amacını gerçekleştirmek için kullanır. Nietzsche’nin tarih görüşü ise tıpkı diğer görüşleri gibi tek bir amaca hizmet ediyormuş gibi görünmektedir. Bu da; yaşamı geliştirmek için etkin istencin önünün açılması ve bu sayede üstinsana varmak olarak değerlendirilebilir. Bu çalışmanın amacı da her iki filozofun tarih görüşlerini ele almakla birlikte tarihi yaratmada büyük kişiliklerin rolünü ortaya (...) koymak olacaktır. Böylece her iki filozofun tarih görüşlerindeki farklar ortaya çıkacaktır. (shrink)