tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post8999188038168723637..comments2024-03-28T08:57:53.180+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Nietzsche Under Lou Salomé’s WhipLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-74002058428305617822013-01-23T01:09:25.790+00:002013-01-23T01:09:25.790+00:00I am of the opinion Nietzsche was beginning to und...I am of the opinion Nietzsche was beginning to understand self-organizing network processes, fractal geometry, strange attractors, etc., but did not have the scientific language with which to speak of them. When you are trying to say the unsayable, you must turn to poetry.<br /><br />I discuss Nietzsche's later works and these ideas here:<br /><br /><br />http://evolutionaryaesthetics.blogspot.comTroy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-57655146702118719842013-01-18T04:16:50.663+00:002013-01-18T04:16:50.663+00:00I do not exactly see the inconsistency of Nietzsch...I do not exactly see the inconsistency of Nietzsche's middle and late writings. In his middle writings, Nietzsche argues that Darwinian and Historical science are deadly truths. In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche claims that he wants to discuss the value of truth, which I have always understood him to mean the value of Darwinian and Historical truths. Nietzsche already believed that these were deadly truths insofar as they assaulted our sense of the world we live in as a moral cosmos; yet I think Nietzsche was so ecstatic because he believed that he had invented a myth that was broadly consistent with the truths of Darwinian science and promoted them as an expression of our place in the cosmos. I am not sure what to make of Nietzsche's politics, but his metaphysics in his late writings seem almost banal to me. <br />What else could it be but a truism to say that everything intelligible is governed by an arche? What more is Nietzsche even saying when he claims that the intelligible character of the world is will to power and nothing else?<br /><br />I guess I am attempting to argue the point that I think Nietzsche was arguing; even within the framework of Darwinian science, we are still free to judge and make evaluations of the world. The metaphysics of science and knowledge can be given expression in mythopoetic fashion, and probably in more than one mythopoetic fashion. However, I am open to persuasion that Nietzsche was going beyond merely presenting his evaluation of science in mythopoetic fashion. But why shouldn't science and philosophy have some of the romance of myth?Paulnoreply@blogger.com