Helmut Heit

This paper argues that essential features of Feyerabend's philosophy, namely his radicalization of critical rationalism and his turn to relativism, could be understood better in the light of his engagement with early Greek thought. In contrast to his earlier, Popperian views he came to see the Homeric worldview as a genuine alternative, which was not falsified by the Presocratics. Unlike socio–psychological and externalist accounts my reading of his published and unpublished material suggests that his alternative reconstruction of the ancient beginnings of the Western scientific tradition motivate and justify his moderate Protagorean relativism.

Friedrich Nietzsche has emerged as one of the most important and influential modern philosophers. For several decades, the book series Monographien und Texte zur Nietzsche-Forschung (MTNF) has set the agenda in a rapidly growing and changing field of Nietzsche scholarship. The scope of the series is interdisciplinary and international in orientation reflects the entire spectrum of research on Nietzsche, from philosophy to literary studies and political theory. The series publishes monographs and edited volumes that undergo a strict peer-review process. The book series is led by an international team of editors, whose work represents the full range of current Nietzsche scholarship.

This paper argues that a particular philosophical and historical understanding of Ancient Greek thought is used to establish a superior Western identity of universal prevalence. Starting with the terminological differences between ethnocentrism and Eurocentrism, I then reconstruct the rise of Eurocentrism by examining the changing conceptualizations of Greeks and Barbarians in Ancient texts from Homer to Aristotle. The third section explores how Western historians of philosophy and culture have used this Greek self-understanding to legitimate the view of Western cultural superiority based on universalism. Finally, I discuss several possibilities to counter this form of Eurocentric Western identity-politics

Ever since Aristotle cryptically mentioned the λεγοµέυοις ἀγράφοις δόγµασιυ (Physics 209b) and proposed they differ significantly from the explicit statements in the published Platonic dialogues, these so-called unwritten doctrines were objects of speculation. Given Plato’s notorious distrust in unprepared readers and the uncontrollable vulnerability of published writings to all kinds of misunderstandings, the existence of esoteric teachings seems plausible. Like his most prominent ancient counterpart, Nietzsche displays severe reservations against hasty readers, too, and his usage of literary devices and all kinds of masks, as well as his explicit advice to a “reader, how I deserve him” (EH “Books” 5), indicate ..

RESUMO Neste artigo argumento que Nietzsche desenvolve a ideia de uma gaia ciência, que afirma a vida, como um possível resultado de uma história cultural do ascetismo e da sublimação. As seções finais da "Genealogia da moral" introduzem uma distinção entre ciência normal e idealista e discutem suas respectivas relações com o ascetismo. A prática do trabalho científico normal e a busca idealista pela verdade revelam, ambas, a falta de ideais autônomos. Uma análise de sua compreensão do conhecimento hipotética e instrumentalista mostra que a discussão nietzscheana da verdade não é autorrrefutável. Nietzsche não é um inimigo da ciência, mas afirma uma posição privilegiada para a filosofia na hierarquia das disciplinas em um amplo contexto de emancipação cultural. ABSTRACT This paper argues that Nietzsche develops the idea of a life-affirming, joyful science as a possible result of a cultural history of ascetism and sublimation. The closing sections of "On the Genealogy of Morals" introduce a distinction between normal and idealist science and discuss their respective relation to ascetism. The practice of normal scientific labour and the idealist quest for truth both reveal the lack of autonomous ideals. An analysis of his hypothetical and instrumentalist understanding of knowledge-claims shows that Nietzsche's discussion of truth is not self-refuting. Nietzsche is no enemy of science but assumes a privileged position for philosophy in the hierarchy of disciplines within a broader context of cultural emancipation.

The aim of this paper is to point out significant similarities and productive dissonances between Marx and Nietzsche. My thesis is that these two thinkers have much more in common as is usually acknowledged. After a prove that Nietzsche most certainly know Marx, I develop several aspects of commonality. Both pursue philosophical projects of critical transformation, employ a hermeneutics of suspicion beyond good and evil, propose a naturalized anthropology and historical reconstructions. The final passages discuss their respective views on capitalism and socialism. The similarities as well as the differences between Marx and Nietzsche could serve as a productive resource and inspiration in our contemporary attempts to understand the world we live in.

Globalisation seems to be especially the Westernisation of the World. One of the crucial elements of (Western) European cultural identity is the reference to its scientific and philosophical inheritance. European culture is held to be rooted in ancient Greece, where a unique, historically inevitable and irreversible transition from myth to reason is thought to have taken place. I shall try to re-examine this still predominant view to clarify the elements of Western thought by comparing it with its historical predecessors in ancient Greek mythology in order to discuss its Euro-centric elements. For this purpose, two questions have to be asked: What is so special about ancient Greek philosophy? And how and why did it come into being? The arguments given to solve the first question are hardly convincing. If we might not be able to give a satisfying answer, the search for the reasons to come up with something like Western philosophy are becoming more important.

Die Reformation von 1517 wird oft genug monumentalisch als Auftakt der Moderne erinnert. Demgegenüber setzt Nietzsches Kritik an der Revitalisierung des Christentums durch Luther und die Gegenreformation einen Gegenakzent. Wer sich in der Vergangenheit auf dieses Thema eingelassen hat, verfolgte oft nicht bloß gelehrte Interessen, sondern eine eigene weltanschauliche Agenda. Während manche Luther gegen die Kritik Nietzsches verteidigten, sahen andere im ‚Tod Gottes’ die konsequente Fortsetzung des reformatorischen Zerstörungswerkes. Zugleich erkannte Nietzsche die Reformation als fragwürdiges und folgenreiches Ereignis, rühmte die Sprachgewalt Luthers und strebte selbst nach einer grundlegenden Umgestaltung der Kultur. Das Thema ist daher noch immer nicht nur von historischem, sondern auch von aktuellem Interesse. Was lässt sich an der Beschäftigung Nietzsches mit der Reformation über Nietzsche, über die Reformation, über das Christentum und über unsere Gegenwart lernen? Diesen und weiteren Fragen widmen sich Volker Gerhardt, Beatrix Himmelmann, Gerald Hödl, Sebastian Kaufmann, Dagmar Kiesel, Duncan Large, Enno Rudolph, Michael Schmidt-Salomon, Christoph Türcke und weitere Forscher aus aller Welt.

Das Konzept der Kritik in Nietzsches Philosophie ist eng mit dem Begriff der Transformation verbunden. Dekonstruktive wie auch rekonstruktive Kritik reagiert auf Probleme und Krisen und zielt darauf, Kultur, Politik, Systeme von Wissen und Macht sowie die Menschen selbst in ihren Beziehungen zu sich und zu anderen zu transformieren. Dieser Band widmet sich den analytischen, transformativen und polemischen Dimensionen der Nietzsche'schen Begriffe der Kritik und der Wirksamkeit seiner Kritik. Was bedeuten die Begriffe der Kritik bei Nietzsche und in welchem Verhältnis stehen sie zu traditionellen Kritik-Begriffen? Ist Nietzsches Kritik emanzipatorisch, romantisch, aristokratisch, reaktionär, liberal, humanistisch, posthumanistisch? Welche kritischen Bewegungen knüpfen an Nietzsche an? In welchem Sinne kommt Nietzsche als Verbündeter feministischer, ökologischer, konservativer, pro- oder antikapitalistischer und anderer Formen der Kritik in Betracht? Namhafte Nietzsche-Forscher wie Luce Irigaray, Babette Babich, Christoph Türcke, Martin Saar, Herman Siemens und viele andere stellen Nietzsches Philosophie in ein Licht, das sein Denken über die Grenzen der Nietzsche-Forschung hinaus hoch relevant macht.

ABSTRACT In this article, I investigate the reception of Richard Schacht's Nietzsche in Germany. Despite the fact that his later work was widely acknowledged in Germany, his 1983 monograph did not receive much attention. I suggest that this is due in part to the significantly differing landscapes in the United States and in Germany during the 1980s and in part to different methodological approaches. Schacht's incentive to introduce Nietzsche to an analytically minded and generally quite hostile American audience by means of extracting his arguments, not the least through extensive use of The Will to Power, did not contribute much to the contemporary focus of the founders of Nietzsche-Studien, who aimed to establish a professionalized reconstructive Nietzsche-research based on the critical edition of Colli and Montinari. However, in my concluding remarks I argue that Schacht's balancing approach and his notion of discourse-relative truth might serve intercontinental dispute about Nietzsche better than some currently more striking alternatives.

O título deste paper conecta duas palavras, frequentemente aplicadas ao pensamento de Nietzsche, mas usualmente não de forma simultânea, dado que perspectivismo e naturalismo são frequentemente vistos como conceitos alternativos, ou mesmo contraditórios. Enquanto perspectivismo é associado a leituras estéticas, construtivistas, kantianas e mesmo relativistas e pós-modernas de Nietzsche, a noção de naturalismo o aproxima da ciência, do empirismo e do realismo. Por esta razão, muitos dos que atribuem a Nietzsche versões de perspectivismo abrigam reservas com relação a leituras naturalistas e vice versa. Esse paper, todavia, argumenta que Nietzsche não defende ou desenvolve abertamente ‘naturalismo’ ou ‘perspectivismo’ na forma de doutrinas ou teorias. Devemos ser relutantes em aplicar denominadores, aparentemente tão estreitos a sua filosofia, haja vista poderem muito bem ser, fundamentalmente, enganadores. Ademais, tais abordagens tendem a resultar em preconceitos confirmados ao invés de novas ideias. Então, com relação a questão de se Nietzsche deve ser chamado de um ‘naturalista’, me parece que a maldade [evil] tem peso consideravelmente maior do que a necessidade, nesse caso. Nietzsche não ensina doutrinas mas exemplifica, testa e propõe certas práticas filosóficas, sendo que essas sim contêm características naturalistas e perspectivísticas. Ele convida o seu leitor a adotar perspectivas naturalistas e as explora experimentalmente nos seus respectivos contextos práticos a fim de perseguir um dado projeto. As abordagens naturalizantes de Nietzsche da mente, filosofia e ciência, seu aparente empirismo, sensualismo e materialismo são sempre contrapesados por uma epistemologia crítica.