It is not simply a matter of man against man, it is the way of all of nature, all of life. — Fooloso4

What is natural does seem to be the central issue. And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing.

And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing. — Paine

Do you mean what is natural is contested or the contest of different philosophies or different interpretations of Nietzsche?

I was thinking of Nietzsche's idea of our present science as something that was available but problematic as a vehicle of certain knowledge. So, the natural was not presented as outside of the approach of established disciplines but not included either as a final word.

So, it is not clear whether the doubt about science is to be understood as a rejection of all that it produces or something else. In view of the fact that Nietzsche introduces a competing "science" not based upon a refutation of the other kind, but on the question of completeness, it is difficult to say what that is or could be.

Nietzsche's views on science are something I have not given enough attention to. A few scattered thoughts as to where attention should be given:

The relation between knowledge , truth and life.

Not simply science but the different sciences.

Determinism and eternal return.

Each of those thoughts merit exploration.

I don't want to hijack this thread to discuss them, especially since it would call for reading much more than Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

I will try to put together an OP on the matter. I am more than a little uncertain, however, if such a dive into primary texts will interest the Forum.

I am more than a little uncertain, however, if such a dive into primary texts will interest the Forum. — Paine

That is an uncertainty that I confront every time I start and continue to put time and effort into a thread based on a primary text. There are always more readers than there are members who participate.

I encourage you to do it.