An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective
Ontology is a part of metaphysics; it concerns what there is. Is it possible to consider being and reality not in a traditional metaphysical way—that is, not as a ground, an origin, a cause, but as a movement, a flux, a dynamogenic principle? I will set out from a seminal aphorism by Nietzsche, occu...
| Huvudupphovsman: | |
|---|---|
| Materialtyp: | Artikel |
| Språk: | English |
| Publicerad: |
MDPI AG
2023-04-01
|
| Serie: | Philosophies |
| Ämnen: | |
| Länkar: | https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/8/2/35 |
| _version_ | 1827295231495634944 |
|---|---|
| author | Fabbrichesi Rossella |
| author_facet | Fabbrichesi Rossella |
| author_sort | Fabbrichesi Rossella |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Ontology is a part of metaphysics; it concerns what there is. Is it possible to consider being and reality not in a traditional metaphysical way—that is, not as a ground, an origin, a cause, but as a movement, a flux, a dynamogenic principle? I will set out from a seminal aphorism by Nietzsche, occurring in <i>Human, all too Human</i> (§2): “A lack of the historical sense is the hereditary fault of all philosophers. But everything has evolved; there are no eternal facts, as there are likewise no absolute truths. Therefore, historical philosophising is henceforth necessary, and with it the virtue of diffidence”. I will then move on to explore Peirce’s late thought, starting from a passage in a letter to W. James, where the author supports a “futurist” interpretation of reality—as he had in the juvenile writings—and speaks of “the reality of the public world of the indefinite future as against our past opinions of what it was to be.” This can be defined as a process of “mellonization,” that operation of logic by which what “is conceived as having been is conceived as extended indefinitely into what always will be”. Similarly, in the Preface to <i>Human, all too Human</i> Nietzsche writes: “Our destiny rules over us, even when we are not yet aware of it; it is the future that makes laws for our today”. I will try to read some Peirce’s statements in a Nietzschean perspective within the context of the plan to develop a dynamic and historical ontology; and I will try to read the “enigma” of Nietzsche’s Eternal recurrence from a Peircean perspective. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T04:37:15Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-6049159180c94f4bbbcc504d31a4e1b7 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2409-9287 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T14:16:07Z |
| publishDate | 2023-04-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Philosophies |
| spelling | doaj.art-6049159180c94f4bbbcc504d31a4e1b72024-04-03T08:30:04ZengMDPI AGPhilosophies2409-92872023-04-01823510.3390/philosophies8020035An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean PerspectiveFabbrichesi Rossella0Department of Philosophy, Università degli Studi di Milano, 20122 Milano, ItalyOntology is a part of metaphysics; it concerns what there is. Is it possible to consider being and reality not in a traditional metaphysical way—that is, not as a ground, an origin, a cause, but as a movement, a flux, a dynamogenic principle? I will set out from a seminal aphorism by Nietzsche, occurring in <i>Human, all too Human</i> (§2): “A lack of the historical sense is the hereditary fault of all philosophers. But everything has evolved; there are no eternal facts, as there are likewise no absolute truths. Therefore, historical philosophising is henceforth necessary, and with it the virtue of diffidence”. I will then move on to explore Peirce’s late thought, starting from a passage in a letter to W. James, where the author supports a “futurist” interpretation of reality—as he had in the juvenile writings—and speaks of “the reality of the public world of the indefinite future as against our past opinions of what it was to be.” This can be defined as a process of “mellonization,” that operation of logic by which what “is conceived as having been is conceived as extended indefinitely into what always will be”. Similarly, in the Preface to <i>Human, all too Human</i> Nietzsche writes: “Our destiny rules over us, even when we are not yet aware of it; it is the future that makes laws for our today”. I will try to read some Peirce’s statements in a Nietzschean perspective within the context of the plan to develop a dynamic and historical ontology; and I will try to read the “enigma” of Nietzsche’s Eternal recurrence from a Peircean perspective.https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/8/2/35PeircepragmaticismabductionfuturitymellonizationNietzsche |
| spellingShingle | Fabbrichesi Rossella An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective Philosophies Peirce pragmaticism abduction futurity mellonization Nietzsche |
| title | An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective |
| title_full | An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective |
| title_fullStr | An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective |
| title_full_unstemmed | An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective |
| title_short | An Apology for a Dynamic Ontology: Peirce’s Analysis of Futurity in a Nietzschean Perspective |
| title_sort | apology for a dynamic ontology peirce s analysis of futurity in a nietzschean perspective |
| topic | Peirce pragmaticism abduction futurity mellonization Nietzsche |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/8/2/35 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT fabbrichesirossella anapologyforadynamicontologypeircesanalysisoffuturityinanietzscheanperspective AT fabbrichesirossella apologyforadynamicontologypeircesanalysisoffuturityinanietzscheanperspective |