By Laird Addis
Even though there's a large literature on Nietzsche's philosophy, this is often the 1st research in English that makes a speciality of his ontology. earlier than continuing to that ontology, Addis argues that, opposite to many commentators, Nietzsche defends either the prospect and the desirability of objectivity within the look for wisdom, together with wisdom of the fundamental positive factors of fact, that's, of ontology. In separate chapters, Addis then units out, analyzes, and evaluates the 5 crucial parts of Nietzsche's ontology: consistent swap, elements and issues, minds, causation, and may to strength. In each one case, Addis contributes an unique knowing of the characteristic less than dialogue, with extra element than exists in different remedies, and defended with rates from proper texts of Nietzsche.
Read or Download Nietzsche's Ontology PDF
Similar philosophy books
Time journal referred to as Mortimer J. Adler a "philosopher for everyman. " during this consultant to contemplating the massive questions, Adler addresses the subjects all women and men reflect on during lifestyles, comparable to "What is love? ", "How will we come to a decision the suitable factor to do? ", and, "What does it suggest to be stable?
Entsprechend der grundlegenden Zielsetzung der Neuedition der vorsokratischen Philosophen in der Editionsreihe Traditio Praesocratica, wesentlich die Überlieferungswege und Überlieferungsintentionen der jeweiligen Zeugnisse zu dokumentieren, ist die version der ersten milesischen Philosophen des 6.
Even supposing there's a large literature on Nietzsche's philosophy, this is often the 1st research in English that makes a speciality of his ontology. earlier than continuing to that ontology, Addis argues that, opposite to many commentators, Nietzsche defends either the prospect and the desirability of objectivity within the look for wisdom, together with wisdom of the elemental gains of fact, that's, of ontology.
- Heidegger in France (Studies in Continental Thought)
- Kant in Brazil
- Marx Through Post-Structuralism: Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze (Continuum Studies in Continental Philosophy)
- The Authenticity of Faith in Kierkegaard's Philosophy
Extra info for Nietzsche's Ontology
48 (8) An ordinary object is only a “bundle” of its properties. (9) “Bundles” of properties do not qualify as “things”. We may take the first three of these as expressing Nietzsche’s rejection of substance in particular, the next four his broader attack on the idea of reality as structured in a way that allows for things to an extent that would ground the applicability of formal logic, and the last two his “positive” theory as to how the world is with respect to ordinary objects. I will contend, as we continue, that Nietzsche is right to reject substance ontology but that his reasons are highly questionable, that he is wrong to reject commonsense continuants and the independent basis of formal logic, and that he is probably wrong to embrace bundle theory, but that even the bundle theory would be sufficient to affirm commonsense continuants and the independent basis of formal logic.
But being-fragile is an empirical property in that it can be understood by way of categorical empirical properties; in this case, the properties of being-struck and breaking. While there are various theories of exactly how the relevant definitions (the names of) of dispositional properties by way of (the names of) categorical properties should proceed (see Addis, 1981), we need not pursue this matter further, but simply agree that the dispositional properties of ordinary objects are a subset of their empirical properties.
But the full answer is much more complicated, and depends, among other things, on the answers one gives to two fundamental questions: (1) Is there in fact a world of eternal objects, a world of being, as we have been speaking so far? (2) If there is such a world, does it have, in some important ontological sense, a greater status than the world of becoming? Of course, if one answers the first question in the negative, then the answer to the second is moot. But almost all philosophers who have answered the first question in the affirmative have also answered the second question in the affirmative: there is, according to these philosophers, in addition to the everyday world of time and change, another world of eternal objects–whether forms or gods or something else–and that other world is not only a “better” world than the world of time and change, but also has more reality than the world of time and change.