A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i>
Traditional interpretations of Nietzsche’s <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> (GM) argue that the work is a treatise on, or a straightforward account of, Nietzsche’s moral thinking. This is typically contrasted with what has become known as the postmodern reading, which holds that the core o...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-09-01
|
| Series: | Genealogy |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/6/4/81 |
| _version_ | 1797457942904045568 |
|---|---|
| author | William A. B. Parkhurst |
| author_facet | William A. B. Parkhurst |
| author_sort | William A. B. Parkhurst |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Traditional interpretations of Nietzsche’s <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> (GM) argue that the work is a treatise on, or a straightforward account of, Nietzsche’s moral thinking. This is typically contrasted with what has become known as the postmodern reading, which holds that the core of GM is an attack on the very notion of the truth itself. These two interpretations are often taken to be non-coextensive and mutually exclusive. However, I argue, using a genetic form of argumentation that tracks the development of the text through archival evidence, that both are partially correct, since Nietzsche sees all fundamental problems hitherto as moral questions in service of the ascetic ideal and the will to truth. According to Nietzsche, all the hitherto fundamental questions of philosophy are not value-free but are deeply value-laden. To put this more precisely, Nietzsche rejects the fact-value distinction itself. Questions of morality are not separable from epistemology, questions of epistemology are not separable from morality, and both subjects have worked in service of the ascetic ideal. Further, I provide new evidence on the debate about the counter-ideal to the ascetic ideal. I claim that <i>Amor Fati</i> embodies that ideal. I argue for this using a section from the preface that was added but then removed. This section was removed because it gave away the conclusion of the work, that all fundamental problems, including questions of truth, are based on moral prejudices. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T16:30:02Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-075feea270d64f2a887f0ab4588e25f4 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2313-5778 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T16:30:02Z |
| publishDate | 2022-09-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Genealogy |
| spelling | doaj.art-075feea270d64f2a887f0ab4588e25f42023-11-24T15:02:01ZengMDPI AGGenealogy2313-57782022-09-01648110.3390/genealogy6040081A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i>William A. B. Parkhurst0Department of Philosophy, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI 49401, USATraditional interpretations of Nietzsche’s <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> (GM) argue that the work is a treatise on, or a straightforward account of, Nietzsche’s moral thinking. This is typically contrasted with what has become known as the postmodern reading, which holds that the core of GM is an attack on the very notion of the truth itself. These two interpretations are often taken to be non-coextensive and mutually exclusive. However, I argue, using a genetic form of argumentation that tracks the development of the text through archival evidence, that both are partially correct, since Nietzsche sees all fundamental problems hitherto as moral questions in service of the ascetic ideal and the will to truth. According to Nietzsche, all the hitherto fundamental questions of philosophy are not value-free but are deeply value-laden. To put this more precisely, Nietzsche rejects the fact-value distinction itself. Questions of morality are not separable from epistemology, questions of epistemology are not separable from morality, and both subjects have worked in service of the ascetic ideal. Further, I provide new evidence on the debate about the counter-ideal to the ascetic ideal. I claim that <i>Amor Fati</i> embodies that ideal. I argue for this using a section from the preface that was added but then removed. This section was removed because it gave away the conclusion of the work, that all fundamental problems, including questions of truth, are based on moral prejudices.https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/6/4/81philosophyhistory of philosophyFriedrich Nietzsche<i>The Genealogy of Morals</i>genetic interpretation |
| spellingShingle | William A. B. Parkhurst A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> Genealogy philosophy history of philosophy Friedrich Nietzsche <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> genetic interpretation |
| title | A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> |
| title_full | A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> |
| title_fullStr | A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> |
| title_short | A Genetic Interpretation of the Preface of <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> |
| title_sort | genetic interpretation of the preface of i the genealogy of morals i |
| topic | philosophy history of philosophy Friedrich Nietzsche <i>The Genealogy of Morals</i> genetic interpretation |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2313-5778/6/4/81 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT williamabparkhurst ageneticinterpretationoftheprefaceofithegenealogyofmoralsi AT williamabparkhurst geneticinterpretationoftheprefaceofithegenealogyofmoralsi |