2

In Human, all too human, part 1, par. 107 (“non-responsibility and non-guilt”) Nietzsche clearly brings forth the Spinozian theory of the “innocence of becoming”. I am a bit confused by this claim. Having read the Origin of Tragedy, I’ve come to feel that Nietzsche saw the causal and the logical interpretations of life as mere hypothesis among others. Yet in this paragraph (and in paragraph 26 as well), Nietzsche seems to hold this particular version of the world - the causal one - for true. Did Nietzsche consider causality as an objective property of the world, and not a projection of the imagination ?

  • Maybe useful : The Four Great Errors. And see J.Rayman, Nietzsche on Causation (2014). – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Jul 15 at 11:58
  • So according to the 2nd and 3rd errors, Nietzsche thought causality to be real, but hidden by fallacious systems of thought. And science would give the true causal ascription. Is that correct ? – user21102 Jul 15 at 12:16
  • 'Yes' to the first point, most likely 'no' to the second. Nietzsche is more daoist than scientist at this point, suggesting that by ridding ourselves of the erroneous beliefs about causality, a more natural, innate, and wise causality will come out. – Ted Wrigley Jul 15 at 16:36
  • I don’t feel confortable either with the idea that Nietzsche might be scientistic. I also think that the analogy with daoism is very illuminating. But I haven’t found yet any model/example of adequate causality according to Nietzsche, except the scientific one. – user21102 Jul 15 at 17:12
  • There is a newer Rayman paper (2016) and an earlier Remhof, J. (2015). Naturalism, causality, and Nietzsche's conception of science, (J. Ntz Stud. 46 online). The Eternal Recurrence (inspired by the heat death of the universe hypothesis) is the solid background for his view(s) on causality. – sand1 Jul 15 at 19:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.