On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 2:02:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/2/2018 4:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Nov 2018, at 19:22, Brent Meeker <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/30/2018 1:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Perspectivism is a form of modalism.
>
>
> Nietzsche is vindicated.
>
>
> Interesting. If you elaborate, you might change my mind on Nietzche,
> perhaps!
> All what I say is very close the Neoplatonism and Negative Theology
> (capable only of saying what God is not).
>
> Bruno
>
>
> From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/
> 6.2 Perspectivism
>
> Much of Nietzsche’s reaction to the theoretical philosophy of his
> predecessors is mediated through his interest in the notion of perspective.
> He thought that past philosophers had largely ignored the influence of
> their own perspectives on their work, and had therefore failed to control
> those perspectival effects (*BGE* 6; see *BGE* I more generally).
> Commentators have been both fascinated and perplexed by what has come to be
> called Nietzsche’s “perspectivism”, and it has been a major concern in a
> number of large-scale Nietzsche commentaries (see, e.g., Danto 1965;
> Kaulbach 1980, 1990; Schacht 1983; Abel 1984; Nehamas 1985; Clark 1990;
> Poellner 1995; Richardson 1996; Benne 2005). There has been as much
> contestation over exactly what doctrine or group of commitments belong
> under that heading as about their philosophical merits, but a few points
> are relatively uncontroversial and can provide a useful way into this
> strand of Nietzsche’s thinking.
>
> Nietzsche’s appeals to the notion of perspective (or, equivalently in his
> usage, to an “optics” of knowledge) have a positive, as well as a critical
> side. Nietzsche frequently criticizes “dogmatic” philosophers for ignoring
> the perspectival limitations on their theorizing, but as we saw, he
> simultaneously holds that the operation of perspective makes a positive
> contribution to our cognitive endeavors: speaking of (what he takes to be)
> the perversely counterintuitive doctrines of some past philosophers, he
> writes,
>
> Particularly as knowers, let us not be ungrateful toward such resolute
> reversals of the familiar perspectives and valuations with which the spirit
> has raged against itself all too long… : to see differently in this way for
> once, *to want* to see differently, is no small discipline and
> preparation of the intellect for its future “objectivity”—the latter
> understood not as “disinterested contemplation” (which is a non-concept and
> absurdity), but rather as the capacity to have one’s Pro and Contra *in
> one’s power*, and to shift them in and out, so that one knows how to make
> precisely the *difference* in perspectives and affective interpretations
> useful for knowledge. (*GM* III, 12)
>
> This famous passage bluntly rejects the idea, dominant in philosophy at
> least since Plato, that knowledge essentially involves a form of
> objectivity that penetrates behind all subjective appearances to reveal the
> way things really are, independently of any point of view whatsoever.
> Instead, the proposal is to approach “objectivity” (in a revised
> conception) asymptotically, by exploiting the difference between one
> perspective and another, using each to overcome the limitations of others,
> without assuming that anything like a “view from nowhere” is so much as
> possible. There is of course an implicit criticism of the traditional
> picture of a-perspectival objectivity here, but there is equally a positive
> set of recommendations about how to pursue knowledge as a finite, limited
> cognitive agent.
>
>
> Thanks. But I do not oppose perspectivism with Plato, and certainly not
> with neoplatonism, which explains everything from the many perspective of
> the One, or at least can be interpreted that way.
>
> Pure perspectivism is an extreme position which leads to pure relativism,
> which does not make sense, as we can only doubt starting from indubitable
> things (cf Descartes). But Nietzsche might have been OK, as the text above
> suggested a “revised conception” of objective.
>
> With mechanism, you have an ablate truth (the sigma_1 arithmetical truth),
> and the rest is explained by the perspective enforced by incompleteness.
>
>
> My reading of Nietzsche is he thought that there are many different
> perspectives and one can only approach the truth by looking from different
> perspectives but never taking one of them as definitive. This goes along
> with his denial and rejection of being a system builder. I think he
> equated system builders with those who took their perspective to be the
> only one.
>
> Brent
>
Nietzsche is famous for two quotes:
*God is dead!*
*There are no facts, only interpretations.*
Notebooks (Summer 1886 – Fall 1887)
- Variant translation: Against that positivism which stops before
phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, *it is
precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations…*
- As translated in *The Portable Nietzsche* (1954) by Walter Kaufmann
<https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Walter_Kaufmann>, p. 458
[ https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche ]
I guess a perspective and an interpretation are pretty much the same things.
- pt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
