in fact, a preju- diced proposition, idea, or ‘suggestion,’ which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event.

This 'prejudiced proposition' is what Thomas Kuhn refererred to as a paradigm in the context of scientific inquiry.

I was really stirred by that passage when I first read it, and I still think it's valuable. This is the part that seems most important to me at the moment:

They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of ‘inspiration’), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or ‘suggestion,’ which is generally their heart’s desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event.

This idea has appeared in other philosophers, has it not? We don't start from nowhere. We start in the middle of things, already biased and invested. We rationalize. Thinking is wishful.

I think being highlighted here is the mistake of philosophers who can't separate fact from interpretation. Interpretations stack up on top of each other and build something complex and thoughtful but each building block is personal truth and betrays the intention of a universal claim. I may be wrong and I haven't read the book and so I probably shouldn't be commenting at all but that was what I thought of while reading the passage.

"Being highlighted here is the mistake of philosophers who can't separate fact from interpretation."
No, Nietzsche is arguing that all fact IS interpretation. Truth is perspectival in nature, and all perspectives are value systems.

I suppose that is technically true when we look at what the word fact means but only because interpretation is required to utilise arguments of causation. Do you think though he is perhaps underestimating the role of the unconscious mind in interpretation? To ascribe values to an automated process seems inappropriate right?

I don’t really think so ... from what I understand of the opening of this work he is referring to the “drive” we have to question, and what lies behind the drive to question.

Drives for Nietzsche are ways of valuing. So are scientific paradigms.

I was referring to the “fact IS interpretation” no the value part.

Later on in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche says:

"Now it is beginning to dawn on maybe five or six brains that physics
too is only an interpretation and arrangement of the world (according to
ourselves! if I may say so) and not an explanation of the world."
"It is no more than a moral prejudice that
the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world’s most
poorly proven assumption. Let us admit this much: that life could not exist
except on the basis of perspectival valuations and appearances; and if,
with the virtuous enthusiasm and inanity of many philosophers, someone
wanted to completely abolish the “world of appearances,” – well, assuming
you could do that, – at least there would not be any of your “truth”
left either! Actually, why do we even assume that “true” and “false” are
intrinsically opposed? Isn’t it enough to assume that there are levels of
appearance and, as it were, lighter and darker shades and tones of appearance
– different valeurs, to use the language of painters? Why shouldn’t
the world that is relevant to us – be a fiction?"

If you could reference the page/paragraph it would be appreeciated.

It’s been a while since I’ve read it and I’m rereading now. I don’t think he mentions “fact” does he? I took what you mentioned to be a reference back to the “theoretical men” first touched on in “The Birth of Tragedy”. I could obviously be wrong I’m no professional scholar and I’m not inclined to read what other philosophers say about any work until I’ve drawn my own roughshod conclusions.

paragraphs 14 and 34

Thanks. I’ll probably attempt a post to express what strike me about this most - and it is difficult to only read any extract from Nietzsche without having some appreciation of what he means.

Also, will be posting some other parts in different threads. If nothing else he’s a very rich source and this is historically apparent if you can see how many people he’s influenced and still influences.

While much is made of Nietzsche’s Dionysian desires, it is the Apollonian maxim: know thyself, that is central to Nietzsche. But to know yourself you must become who you are. It is not about discovery but creation. Yet one does not create ex nihilo.

As he well knows but does not so easily let on, thus it was for his kindred spirit, Plato. When he says:

I am a complete skeptic about Plato … (TI, 2)

this should be understood as one skeptic addressing another, one poet to another. One who would be commander and legislator to another who was and still is.

THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . . (BGE, 211)

I have long thought that Nietzsche made too much of the mathematical format of Spinoza's Ethics. The observation overlooks a humility that is thorough going throughout the work. Consider his notion that speaking of God having "free" will is the projection of the human need to work toward ends.

Also, Spinoza's idea of Substance is a direct challenge to the duality of Descartes. The guy did a lot of what Nietzsche wanted to do.

The guy did a lot of what Nietzsche wanted to do. — Valentinus

I won't get into the rhetoric of his pronouncements on Spinoza, but a postcard to Overbeck shows Nietzsche's admiration of Spinoza:

I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect—but in five main points of his doctrine I recognize myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil. Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness. Strange!

I did not know of this.
Thank you.

Nietzsche is arguing that all fact IS interpretation. Truth is perspectival in nature, and all perspectives are value systems. — Joshs

I agree that he says that, but it seems to be that this has to be taken as an exaggeration or a wicked joke. While writing the line in a particular mood, I suspect that Nietzsche that he was sharing a fact and not just an interpretation. I understand the charm of 'no facts, only interpretations,' but I doubt that we can live or speak without absurdity without such a central distinction.

As I read Nietzsche, he's an intellectually stimulating mess. His work for me is the portrait of a powerful mind at work. It doesn't stick together, though of course it's not unrelated fragments either. Sometimes he's a prophet, sometimes a skeptic, etc.

Fascinating post. That's a good example of the one of the sides of Nietzsche. Is this side really different from the founder of a religion?

Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? — Nietzsche

I recall a line when he described conquerors as artists, imposing a form on the conquered. I found it to be an illuminating metaphor. Accusations of irrationalism seem fair here, though presumably Nietzsche in such a mode would dismiss rationality as some kind of superstition of the weak. Nevertheless, worldly power seems to require technology and the efficient coordination of human effort. In short, I don't see an escape from unromantic forms of rationality for anyone who isn't satisfied with an otherwise impotent self-love. At his strangest, Nietzsche was an autoerotic fireworks display.

Accusations of irrationalism seem fair here ... — old

They are fair, but not accurate. Nietzsche leads the casual reader to such conclusions, but dig down and Nietzsche is rational but, in his own words, not irrationally rational.

They are fair, but not accurate. Nietzsche leads the casual reader to such conclusions, but dig down and Nietzsche is rational but, in his own words, not irrationally rational. — Fooloso4

Good point. FWIW, I've read lots of Nietzsche. He was my favorite for many years. Personally I could never find just one Nietzsche. For me he offered a portrait of a personality in all of its complexity.

I like the phrase 'irrationally rational.' I think there's wisdom in that. I like Nietzsche when he's not so manic that he's no longer funny. I suppose he's also funny when he's manic, but it becomes unclear whether he's still in control. Ecce Homo is quite a ride.

" I understand the charm of 'no facts, only interpretations,' but I doubt that we can live or speak without absurdity without such a central distinction."

Nietzsche isn't the only philosopher to put the fact-value distinction into question. Quine, Donald Davidson, Hillary Putnam, Thomas Kuhn and Nelson Goodman are among many who have reached similar conclusions..

"To be objective, one would have to have some set of mind-independent objects to be
designated by language or known by science. But can we find any such objects? Let us look at an extended example from the philosopher Nelson Goodman.

A point in space seems to be perfectly objective. But how are we to define the points of our everyday world? Points can be taken either as primitive elements, as intersecting lines, as certain triples of intersecting planes, or as certain classes of nesting volumes. These definitions are equally adequate, and yet they are incompatible: what a point is will vary with each form of description. For example, only in the first "version," to use Goodman's term, will a point be a primitive element. The objectivist, however, demands, "What are points really?" Goodman's response to this demand is worth quoting at length: If the composition of points out of lines or of lines out of points is conventional rather than factual, points and lines themselves are no less so. ... If we say that our sample space is a combination of points, or of lines, or of regions, or a combination of combinations of points, or lines, or regions, or
a combination of all these together, or is a single lump, then since none is identical with any of the rest, we are giving one among countless alternative conflicting descriptions of what the space is.
And so we may regard the disagreements as not about the facts but as due to differences in the conventions-adopted in organizing or describing the space. What, then, is the neutral fact or thing described in these different terms? Neither the space (a) as an undivided whole nor (b) as a combination of everything involved in the several accounts; for (a) and (b) are but two among the various ways of organizing it. But what is it that is so organized? When we strip off as layers of convention all differences among ways of describing it, what is left? The onion is peeled down to its empty core."

how much of personal timidity and vul- nerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!

Did Nietzsche just call Spinoza a sickly recluse??

I define "power" as basically influence over another's decisions--and it's a matter of degree with each person. I don't think a great deal of rationality is necessary. It doesn't take a lot to have a high degree of worldly influence and independence: ask a gang leader.

I define "power" as basically influence over another's decisions--and it's a matter of degree with each person. I don't think a great deal of rationality is necessary. It doesn't take a lot to have a high degree of worldly influence and independence: ask a gang leader. — yupamiralda

I see your point, and I agree that a person doesn't have to know physics or philosophy, for instance, to rise in the world. I would't limit rationality to things like physics or philosophy though. Perhaps the dominant form of rationality is know-how. To become a gang leader requires interpersonal know-how. For me the 'rational' way to figure out how to get such a position is to observe and question those who already have that position. It seems possible that their account of their success would be less useful than observing them closely. Sometimes we know how without knowing exactly how we know how.

Nietzsche isn't the only philosopher to put the fact-value distinction into question. Quine, Donald Davidson, Hillary Putnam, Thomas Kuhn and Nelson Goodman are among many who have reached similar conclusions.. — Joshs

Indeed. I'm familiar with some of those above and with others who also question the distinction. I also understand that defending the distinction is likely to come off square or unexposed.

To be objective, one would have to have some set of mind-independent objects to be designated by language or known by science. But can we find any such objects? — Joshs

I'm a little iffy about the first sentence, but I'll respond to this as well as I can. Is the Lincoln Memorial a mind-independent object? How about the moon? What about what you or I ate for breakfast?

Surely we can look at the world from different perspectives, but that 'perspective' metaphor already implies that it's one and the same thing that's being looked at. The notion of interpretation also includes something like fact that is being interpreted. Saying there are no facts but only interpretations is like saying there are no sons/daughters but only fathers.

A point in space seems to be perfectly objective. But how are we to define the points of our everyday world? Points can be taken either as primitive elements, as intersecting lines, as certain triples of intersecting planes, or as certain classes of nesting volumes. — Joshs

For my money, a mathematical example is less than ideal here. If math has an objectivity, I think it's a result of the discourse being normal. I do understand the value in showing the limits or breaking points of various important concepts, but perhaps there's a tendency to dwell on these atypical breaking points and ignore the typical success of the concepts. When you or I watch the news, for instance, do we not almost automatically sort the facts from the spin? And maybe the pizza delivery guy 'made bank' last night. I'd be tempted to ask him how much he made, rounded to the nearest dollar.

Surely we can look at the world from different perspectives, but that 'perspective' metaphor already implies that it's one and the same thing that's being looked at. — old

It also implies an ordering principle whereby the different views are related to each other. Various and sometimes contradictory elements are presented to bring attention to this order. I cannot recall reading anything that suggested it was a structure that could be changed.

The desire for different outcomes will start with accepting that.

I may as well say something about why I posted this. I have been kind of obsessed with the limits of language (written/spoken; as this is an example of!) and antonyms and synonyms. I imagined if I were to make an attempt at writing a ‘philosophical work’ that the title/subtitle would be “Dichotomies and Magnitudes,” with the contents being an examination and destruction of these terms as merely convenient delineations rather than taking them as any sense of ‘being a human’ (what ever that means!).

I believe many secretly guard the inner premise of some kind of ‘transcendent being’ in which one moves ‘above and beyond’ confused/imprecise human distinctions; or even beyond ‘distinction’ itself! I think we’re much lesser than this and we’ve actually stepped past what is ‘real’ by framing items as ‘unreal’. By this I mean that it is not a case of seeking to ‘transcend’ to some ‘higher state’, but rather to sink lower to what we’ve moved beyond in our cognitive and social evolution, in our relationships brought into being through the intricacies of language (written/spoken; as this is an example of!) whilst being acutely aware of our inablilty to distribute to others our inner-language - in the broader category of linguistics not merely as ‘worded thoughts’ (although in my experience some suffer to grasp this idea of ‘thinking’ in a wordless state; if your one of those I apologise for this and guess it’s better for you to dismiss this as utter drivel than dispute it). For you that cannot think in anything other than words I can still offer up the ‘landscape’ of words, language itself hidden from itself, as a worthy foe to battle with and wrestle some vague notion of meaning from as it twists and turns, shifting shape form and pattern, leaving the narrative of being a living, breathing chaos, the falsely dichotic, dynamic, ever-writhing Dionysus, that is - for want of a better term - the human ‘spirit’.

The whole business of reducing Nietzsche to some dichotic game of ‘objectivity’ versus ‘subjectviity’ or the weighing of this or that ‘interpretation’ as ‘true’ versus ‘false’, is to me at least, beside the point - which is a point, not a stretched out ‘thought’ bent and warped to fit our sense of selfhood and sense of ‘humanity’.

Without a doubt under the the most analytic mind, under the cold logic of investigation taken on as a means to set aside ‘emotion’ the drive is nevertheless an emotional drive not some sequence of events cut into neat tidy parcels.

Anyway, that is why I posted.

I can narrow that selected line down a little further for myself to this:

divinely indifferent dialectic

It sticks out for me because of my own little “divinely indifferent dialectic” I guess! Or rather my own plague of thoughts ;)

The whole business of reducing Nietzsche to some dichotic game of ‘objectivity’ versus ‘subjectviity’ or the weighing of this or that ‘interpretation’ as ‘true’ versus ‘false’, is to me at least, beside the point — I like sushi

I didn't understand all of your post, but I can relate to this. Nietzsche is a fascinating personality to hang out with. He contains multitudes. If I pick on him for this or that, I'm razzing an old friend for laying it on a little thick. A lonely wolf in his own time, he's almost common sense now. This morning's Don Draper thinks he's the first person to fall in love with his secretary gaze into the abyss. Because it can be an intensely negative and debilitating experience, the new arrival is sure that others can't really be gazing into the void ---for how could they be functioning as if nothing happened? or as if Nothing didn't happen...

For you that cannot think in anything other than words I can still offer up the ‘landscape’ of words, language itself hidden from itself, as a worthy foe to battle with and wrestle some vague notion of meaning from as it twists and turns, shifting shape form and pattern, leaving the narrative of being a living, breathing chaos, the falsely dichotic, dynamic, ever-writhing Dionysus, that is - for want of a better term - the human ‘spirit’. — I like sushi

FWIW, I think it's clear that concept alone is far from being all that matters. Reality is not just words, and performing effectively in it is not just a matter of concepts. Know-how is only partially verbal. Nietzsche and quite a few other philosophers use rhetorical strategies that have a cumulative, emotional effect. The strong philosophers tend to drop killer metaphors, with no exact meaning but plenty of suggestive power. Nietzsche is strong black coffee--disturbing, inspiring, with an effect that is not just propositional.

I’ve met a few people that simply refuse to accept, or aren’t aware of their ability to, that they can “think” without words.

This is something that’s always fascinated me. It is like assuming we’ve always had the ability to read a book. It is reasonable enough to say we’ve always been able to “read” (the environment) but not to say we’ve always been able to read written words. The same disparity with language and thoughts really bothers some so much they blankly refuse to say “thought” is possible without words.

Haven’t you met folks like that? I was shocked to find how common they are - although they’re not by any means in the majority from my experience.

I have myself sometimes thought or argued that there was no thinking without words, but I had a particular understanding of thought in mind. If (and it's context dependent) we include knowhow within thought, then suddenly most of our thinking is arguably happening without words.