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). Jul 15, 2019 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, 2019 at 12:16
  • 1
    '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. Jul 15, 2019 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, 2019 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, 2019 at 19:38

1 Answer 1


I quote from Beyond Good and Evil section 21:

It is we alone who have fabricated causes, succession, relativity, purpose. When we speak of something of 'in itself', we speak mythologically.

This proves that Nietzsche takes a Humean stance towards causality — as something man-made, constructed, and not mind-independent.

  • Science hasn't yet found evidence for cause and effect. I suppose it qualifies as a delusion.
    – Scott Rowe
    Sep 17, 2023 at 2:33
  • Towards the end of Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche implicates the modern fixation on objective truth as a residue of Judeo-Christian "slave morality," so this seems right, Scexit.
    – Hokon
    Sep 17, 2023 at 4:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .