> On 2 Dec 2018, at 21:41, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 8:25:47 PM UTC, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > 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] <>> 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/ >>> <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! > > Those who don't grasp Nietzsche love that quote. In context, he meant that > the sense or presence of God or Divinity has waned from modern human > consciousness. AG
Intersting! Bruno > > 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 > <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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
