What do you think?
Rate this book
Modern European Philosophy
Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy
Friedrich Nietzsche haunts the modern world. His elusive writings with their characteristic combination of trenchant analysis of the modern predicament and suggestive but ambiguous proposals for dealing with it have fascinated generations of artists, scholars, critics, philosophers, and ordinary readers. Maudemarie Clark's highly original study gives a lucid and penetrating analytical account of all the central topics of Nietzsche's epistemology and metaphysics, including his views on truth and language, his perspectivism, and his doctrines of the will-to-power and the eternal recurrence. The Nietzsche who emerges from these pages is a subtle and sophisticated philosopher, whose highly articulated views are of continuing interest as contributions to a whole range of philosphical issues. This remarkable reading of Nietzsche will interest not only philosophers, but also readers in neighboring disciplines such as literature and intellectual history.
- GenresPhilosophyNonfiction
316 pages, Paperback
First published February 22, 1991
10 people are currently reading
319 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 29, 2021
Clark surveys the entire breadth of Nietzsche’s philosophical thinking about the status of truth, revealing the evolution of Nietzsche’s approach to this central question of philosophy. The evolution that Clark identifies in the appearance of truth within Nietzschean philosophy begins with a discussion of Nietzsche’s early claim that truth only exists as a matter of mere linguistic and social convention. Clark’s account of Nietzsche’s thinking on truth culminates in a presentation of what she sees as Nietzsche’s ultimate position: the commitment that truth has a reality in its empirical accessibility and that the necessary correlate of this is that truth is not to be conceived metaphysically as correspondence to reality as it is in-itself. The rigor and sophistication with which Clark treats the development of Nietzsche’s philosophising vis-à-vis truth results in Clark’s survey being of exceptional quality. Usefully, Clark foregrounds her inquiry into the evolution of Nietzsche’s thinking about truth by reviewing prominent interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophising on this question, including those of Heidegger, Kaufmann, Nehamas and Paul de Man (though Foucault’s Nietzscheanism is, perhaps surprisingly because of Clark’s innovation of the ‘epistemological left’ in Nietzsche interpretation, not referred to).
April 25, 2024
Nietzsche is a very slippery fellow and Clark does her best to interpret him "objectively" (does anyone even believe that is possible anymore even in the 90s?) but I can't help thinking she reads into Nietzsche what she wants. It is deeply amusing to watch someone try and interpret Nietzsche in a way that allows there to be a kind of truth but with firmly supporting Nietzsche's annihilating attack on metaphysical truth.
The first half of the book is Clark rearticulating different interpretations of Nietzsche which was confusing as she bounced back and forth between 4-5 different readings of people I was unfamiliar with, but it was interesting to get a glimpse of Heidegger's and Kaufman's In this part she does the oddest dance of trying to interpret Nietzsche as saying there is some truth in the world without saying there is truth in the world because that would be a transcendent and metaphysical statement and both Clark and Nietzsche firmly rejected this notion.
Early in his early work, in his artistic, art is redemptive phase, including BT and the unpublished essay Truth and Lie in an extra-moral sense Nietzsche firmly rejects truth or that we could know any kind of truth. He does this because he rejects that we can ever know the thing-in-itself so we are lost in representations as we falsify the world through our concepts and words. Clark doesn't say why but in this phase Nietzsche clearly attacked rationality because he wanted to open the door to art and mystery.
In his later works Nietzsche comes to realize (or earlier since he never published this essay) that by abolishing the "true world" that also abolishes the apparent world as well, which makes this world true. This seems to be a Neo-Kantian position since he agrees with Kant that we can never know the thing-in-itself but he also rejects that we could ever know the thing-in-itself in order to make this world false.
My big issue with this work is that Clark never seems to grasp that the "truth" that is left over from this is a partial and limited truth. She would of course say I am referring to the thing-in-itself to say this and I can't know that which I do agree that we can't rationally know the thing-in-itself. However, Nietzsche's doctrine of perspectivism clearly indicates that the "truth" we know is shaped by our perspective and our drives and will to power. So my perspective on truth can be truth for me but not for her otherwise it would be metaphysical! She would say but we can agree science posits truth that can be objective and I would agree but that is a low level kind of truth. Knowing scientific intervention A has effects B and C does not tell us how to interpret those effects it only tells us they happen. We have to decide if they are good and bad which is predetermined by our perspective which is shaped by our will to power or which one allows us to flourish better.
So I highly disagree with Clark that Nietzsche's philosophy allows us to be both moraline free and truthful and rational at the same time. The truth she salvages from Nietzsche is very limited. But she does try very hard and seems to even think at the end of the work that Nietzsche provides a basis for self restraint.
I do agree with her that Nietzsche does seem to create a foundation for empirical science in his later works.
The second half of the book get's distracted by some of the big theories which is interesting but she seems to forget she is writing on truth. I think this book if it stayed focused could have been confined to a essay. Describing everyone's position ends up being confusing and going through all these N aspects was interesting but also not relevant.
But I enjoyed her talking about Perspectivism, Will to Power, Ascetic Ideal and the Eternal Recurrence.
It would have been helpful if she had a summarizing chapter to tie all the loose ends together as well.
Perspectivism - Clark sees that it fights against his representationalism from his earlier work and makes space for his empiricism since we can trust our senses now that we have no reason to doubt them. Many people seem to think that N did not believe in a privileged perspective. I tentatively disagree, I think this is where his aristocracy comes in to reflect that when value becomes physical orders in rank in society take on the distinction of value. Also N advocates the new philosophers will be the one to legislate new values. Notice the absence of democratic process or equal weight being given to different perspectives. N clearly believes some perspectives have more value then others. Those who disagree I think are just reading their marxist equality into N aristocratic philosophy. To fight against N earlier belief in there being no truth she fights against the idea that for truth to exist we would have to know all the perspectives there are.
Will to Power - Clark argues is not a metaphysical or cosmological theory. She interprets the Will to Power as a type of enhancement. This ties the will to power into the will to truth. As the first degree of the will to truth is the power and manipulation of external objects but also a cruelty towards oneself. Not letting oneself believe what one wants or to do what one wants.
Eternal Recurrence - She interprets not as a cosmological theory but as an ideal she thinks replaces the Ubermensch. It's an ideal that checks to see if you would respond with enthusiasm to the idea of having to relive everything over an infinite number of times in order to affirm life in all it's tragedy (A Dionysian insight which she doesn't point out). She seems to think this doesn't mean you have to affirm the pain or someone like Hitler which I think completely misses the point of BGE.
Ascetic Ideal - Creates meaning and sustains life by denying life in the hope of a "true world" but it also creates the will to truth which is based on the ascetic ideal. N calls modern philosophy anti Christian but not anti religious because it still has this ideal hidden inside it. The will to truth destroys the ascetic ideal by showing the belief in God is untenable anymore and the that it is directed against life. N asks what drives the will to truth at any price and concludes that it is driven by the acetic ideal and that once the will to truth realizes this it will overcome the ascetic ideal. Clark believes we need a new ideal in order to be truthful or we will keep using the old one.
She also seems to think that the Eternal Recurrence is a replacement for the ideal of the Ubermensch. Since the Ubermensch turns against life and fails to affirm it by the thought that he will eternally have to overcome the small man (ascetic man). The ascetic priest condemns the noble's value by means of the ascetic ideal which itself condemns life. So the Ubermensch denies value to the small man and also to man except as means for his own self negation.
Ultimately I think Nietzsche is so confusing because he is not an either or rationalistic philosopher which is why people have such a hard time fitting him in a box. He seems to be a yes and philosopher and more mystical which makes sense in a way but isn't always rational but he still speaks in the rational language.
The first half of the book is Clark rearticulating different interpretations of Nietzsche which was confusing as she bounced back and forth between 4-5 different readings of people I was unfamiliar with, but it was interesting to get a glimpse of Heidegger's and Kaufman's In this part she does the oddest dance of trying to interpret Nietzsche as saying there is some truth in the world without saying there is truth in the world because that would be a transcendent and metaphysical statement and both Clark and Nietzsche firmly rejected this notion.
Early in his early work, in his artistic, art is redemptive phase, including BT and the unpublished essay Truth and Lie in an extra-moral sense Nietzsche firmly rejects truth or that we could know any kind of truth. He does this because he rejects that we can ever know the thing-in-itself so we are lost in representations as we falsify the world through our concepts and words. Clark doesn't say why but in this phase Nietzsche clearly attacked rationality because he wanted to open the door to art and mystery.
In his later works Nietzsche comes to realize (or earlier since he never published this essay) that by abolishing the "true world" that also abolishes the apparent world as well, which makes this world true. This seems to be a Neo-Kantian position since he agrees with Kant that we can never know the thing-in-itself but he also rejects that we could ever know the thing-in-itself in order to make this world false.
My big issue with this work is that Clark never seems to grasp that the "truth" that is left over from this is a partial and limited truth. She would of course say I am referring to the thing-in-itself to say this and I can't know that which I do agree that we can't rationally know the thing-in-itself. However, Nietzsche's doctrine of perspectivism clearly indicates that the "truth" we know is shaped by our perspective and our drives and will to power. So my perspective on truth can be truth for me but not for her otherwise it would be metaphysical! She would say but we can agree science posits truth that can be objective and I would agree but that is a low level kind of truth. Knowing scientific intervention A has effects B and C does not tell us how to interpret those effects it only tells us they happen. We have to decide if they are good and bad which is predetermined by our perspective which is shaped by our will to power or which one allows us to flourish better.
So I highly disagree with Clark that Nietzsche's philosophy allows us to be both moraline free and truthful and rational at the same time. The truth she salvages from Nietzsche is very limited. But she does try very hard and seems to even think at the end of the work that Nietzsche provides a basis for self restraint.
I do agree with her that Nietzsche does seem to create a foundation for empirical science in his later works.
The second half of the book get's distracted by some of the big theories which is interesting but she seems to forget she is writing on truth. I think this book if it stayed focused could have been confined to a essay. Describing everyone's position ends up being confusing and going through all these N aspects was interesting but also not relevant.
But I enjoyed her talking about Perspectivism, Will to Power, Ascetic Ideal and the Eternal Recurrence.
It would have been helpful if she had a summarizing chapter to tie all the loose ends together as well.
Perspectivism - Clark sees that it fights against his representationalism from his earlier work and makes space for his empiricism since we can trust our senses now that we have no reason to doubt them. Many people seem to think that N did not believe in a privileged perspective. I tentatively disagree, I think this is where his aristocracy comes in to reflect that when value becomes physical orders in rank in society take on the distinction of value. Also N advocates the new philosophers will be the one to legislate new values. Notice the absence of democratic process or equal weight being given to different perspectives. N clearly believes some perspectives have more value then others. Those who disagree I think are just reading their marxist equality into N aristocratic philosophy. To fight against N earlier belief in there being no truth she fights against the idea that for truth to exist we would have to know all the perspectives there are.
Will to Power - Clark argues is not a metaphysical or cosmological theory. She interprets the Will to Power as a type of enhancement. This ties the will to power into the will to truth. As the first degree of the will to truth is the power and manipulation of external objects but also a cruelty towards oneself. Not letting oneself believe what one wants or to do what one wants.
Eternal Recurrence - She interprets not as a cosmological theory but as an ideal she thinks replaces the Ubermensch. It's an ideal that checks to see if you would respond with enthusiasm to the idea of having to relive everything over an infinite number of times in order to affirm life in all it's tragedy (A Dionysian insight which she doesn't point out). She seems to think this doesn't mean you have to affirm the pain or someone like Hitler which I think completely misses the point of BGE.
Ascetic Ideal - Creates meaning and sustains life by denying life in the hope of a "true world" but it also creates the will to truth which is based on the ascetic ideal. N calls modern philosophy anti Christian but not anti religious because it still has this ideal hidden inside it. The will to truth destroys the ascetic ideal by showing the belief in God is untenable anymore and the that it is directed against life. N asks what drives the will to truth at any price and concludes that it is driven by the acetic ideal and that once the will to truth realizes this it will overcome the ascetic ideal. Clark believes we need a new ideal in order to be truthful or we will keep using the old one.
She also seems to think that the Eternal Recurrence is a replacement for the ideal of the Ubermensch. Since the Ubermensch turns against life and fails to affirm it by the thought that he will eternally have to overcome the small man (ascetic man). The ascetic priest condemns the noble's value by means of the ascetic ideal which itself condemns life. So the Ubermensch denies value to the small man and also to man except as means for his own self negation.
Ultimately I think Nietzsche is so confusing because he is not an either or rationalistic philosopher which is why people have such a hard time fitting him in a box. He seems to be a yes and philosopher and more mystical which makes sense in a way but isn't always rational but he still speaks in the rational language.
July 10, 2022
A decent overview of Nietzsche's epistemology. About half of the book is devoted to his concept of truth and theory of knowledge. The other half is about ascetic ideals, will to power and eternal return – and although the focus is supposed to be their relation to Nietzsche's epistemological views it drifts into a lengthy general discussion of the three concepts.
Clark presents several main views on Nietzsche. According to the traditional view he rejected metaphysical truth, or the idea of some platonic true world, but believed in the empirical truth. Supposedly, he considered will to power and eternal return to be scientific facts – or at least non-metaphysical, practical instructions that should be accepted not because they are true but because they are useful for life as the best way for overcoming nihilism. Others accuse Nietzsche of contradictions and incoherence, and postmodernists claim that the very idea of truth was unimportant to him and his works should be interpreted in an aesthetic way.
The whole interpretation is also complicated by the changes between Nietzsche's early and late philosophy. Clark documents his changing views on truth, the influence of Kant and Schopenhauer, his struggles with correspondence theory, representationalism, subjective idealism, the inescapable thing-in-itself, all of which culminated in his perspectivism. She adopts a moderate position, somewhere between the other presented views on Nietzsche's epistemology. She thinks it is appropriate to label his position as neo-Kantian because he rejects the metaphysical version of the correspondence theory of truth, the idea that we can have any knowledge about thing-in-itself (rejecting even the concept of thing-in-itself), while retaining the common sense version of the theory regarding the phenomenal reality as compatible with his perspectivism.
The book is sadly not written in Nietzsche's concise and focused style. Some parts seem unnecessarily long, with pedantic elaborations of fairly obvious things, discussing questions that aren't central to the book, or giving too much attention to interpretations of other philosophers, some of which don't really seem that important. It is an academic work after all – and the writing is not any worse than the usual in that category. Also, the book lacks a concluding chapter that would wrap up the lengthy previous discussions, especially in the somewhat meandering second half, into a concise final statement. Overall, the book is worth reading; whether you agree with Clark's conclusions or not, it is a decent overview of a complex subject.
Clark presents several main views on Nietzsche. According to the traditional view he rejected metaphysical truth, or the idea of some platonic true world, but believed in the empirical truth. Supposedly, he considered will to power and eternal return to be scientific facts – or at least non-metaphysical, practical instructions that should be accepted not because they are true but because they are useful for life as the best way for overcoming nihilism. Others accuse Nietzsche of contradictions and incoherence, and postmodernists claim that the very idea of truth was unimportant to him and his works should be interpreted in an aesthetic way.
The whole interpretation is also complicated by the changes between Nietzsche's early and late philosophy. Clark documents his changing views on truth, the influence of Kant and Schopenhauer, his struggles with correspondence theory, representationalism, subjective idealism, the inescapable thing-in-itself, all of which culminated in his perspectivism. She adopts a moderate position, somewhere between the other presented views on Nietzsche's epistemology. She thinks it is appropriate to label his position as neo-Kantian because he rejects the metaphysical version of the correspondence theory of truth, the idea that we can have any knowledge about thing-in-itself (rejecting even the concept of thing-in-itself), while retaining the common sense version of the theory regarding the phenomenal reality as compatible with his perspectivism.
The book is sadly not written in Nietzsche's concise and focused style. Some parts seem unnecessarily long, with pedantic elaborations of fairly obvious things, discussing questions that aren't central to the book, or giving too much attention to interpretations of other philosophers, some of which don't really seem that important. It is an academic work after all – and the writing is not any worse than the usual in that category. Also, the book lacks a concluding chapter that would wrap up the lengthy previous discussions, especially in the somewhat meandering second half, into a concise final statement. Overall, the book is worth reading; whether you agree with Clark's conclusions or not, it is a decent overview of a complex subject.
Read
June 29, 2012Clark provides no shortage of distinctive positions on a number of prominent topics in Nietzsche's thought (e.g., perspectivism, will to power, eternal recurrence), and so while knowing Nietzsche better would have greatly helped me to see where I stood vis-a-vis her, I nonetheless received a terrific overview of some key interpretative issues and various ways in which one might address them. All in all, I can say I learned a lot from this book and will surely be returning to it.
May 26, 2021
Possibly the best critical study of Nietzsche's epistemology.
The books main concern is Nietzsche's views on truth and knowledge. And all the topics and arguments of the book recurs on this theme, even Nietzsche's doctrines of Will to power and Eternal Recurrence are explained to show that Nietzsche's views were consistent with his views on epistemology, Metaphysics and ascetic ideals.
This is probably the best study of Nietzsche's works I have read yet.
The books main concern is Nietzsche's views on truth and knowledge. And all the topics and arguments of the book recurs on this theme, even Nietzsche's doctrines of Will to power and Eternal Recurrence are explained to show that Nietzsche's views were consistent with his views on epistemology, Metaphysics and ascetic ideals.
This is probably the best study of Nietzsche's works I have read yet.
January 11, 2011
Clark presents a dramatic reinterpretation of Nietzsche's views on truth and the place of perspectivism, the eternal return, and will to power in his thought. Some of her arguments are more persuasive than others, but this book is essential reading in order to dispel many of the myths and misinterpretations of Nietzsche's philosophy.
June 4, 2008
Clark's account is penetratingly analytic, terse, and well written. She approaches the topic of Nietzsche's theory of truth by examining the different responses there have been to Nietzsche's claims about truth from both post-modernists and contemporary analytic philosophers. this is......
January 24, 2013
One of the best philosophical surveys of Nietzsche's epistemology.
September 21, 2007
Nietzsche is one of the well known modern philosopher. His ideas are original and give a big influence in philosophy world. Some people claim if Nitzsche's idea had been a basis for the birth of postmoderenism.
Maudemarie Clark in her book try to elaborate Nietzsche's idea on philosopphy and truth. She made Nietzsche's ideas on truth and philosophy more easily to be understood.
Maudemarie Clark in her book try to elaborate Nietzsche's idea on philosopphy and truth. She made Nietzsche's ideas on truth and philosophy more easily to be understood.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews