This 2012 article argues there is insufficient textual support for the claim that Nietzsche was a non-cognitivist -- that

the role of the judgement in question is to express the relevant non-cognitive attitude.

The author argues -- same as some philosophers who claim he merely began as an error theorist -- from key passages that support error theory over non-cognitivism in Human all too Human.

Astrology and what is related to it... astrology believes the starry firmament revolves around the face of man; the moral man, however, supposes that what he has essentially at heart must also constitute the essence and heart of things. (HH 4)

Note the title; morality and religion are being equated with astrology as involving claims that are clearly just false

It could just as well be an instance, instead, of comparing the old science with the future gay science; there's lots of ambiguity in Nietzsche. The paper argues that

the non-cognitivist's point is precisely that there is no mistake, deception, or confusion involved in valuing - non-cognitivists see themselves as saving us from having to posit errors or deception as essential to valuing.

I wonder if Nietzsche could be concerned with saving us from the errors or deception of only some valuing, valuing that does not express the particular non-cognitive attitude of self affirmation and power, rather than the alternative valuing.

Would that still be in the aforementioned spirit of non-cognitivism: of that valuing not being said to be a mistake or deception? What textual support would that claim have [I think it fits well with my rudimentary understanding of Nietzsche's genealogy and psychology]? Was Nietzsche a non-cognitivist?

Your Answer

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