Rebecca Bamford

In this paper, I aim to clarify the development of Nietzsche’s account of objectivity in his published and authorized works. In the available scholarship, it has been noted that Nietzsche explicitly differentiates between two types of objectivity. What I shall here call type 1 objectivity is the type that Nietzsche often criticizes, namely objectivity as pure disinterested. Type 2 objectivity is the type that Nietzsche refers to in On the Genealogy of Morality as “future ‘objectivity’”. Having clarified what Nietzsche’s objections to type 1 objectivity are, I will explain his view of type 2 objectivity, showing how type 2 or “future ‘objectivity’” is indebted in its conception to Nietzsche’s free spirit project.

My particular focus in this article is on getting clearer about what Nietzsche’s experimentalism entails. Some immediate resistance may form in response to this proposal, based on my use of the term experimentalism. As Walter Kaufmann has pointed out in a discussion of experimentalism, Nietzsche himself does not discuss his work using this concept; in the original German, Nietzsche uses the terms “Experiment” and “Versuch.”1 In light of this, two main concerns may be raised about my proposal that experimentalism is worth some of our time and attention: whether it is necessary or helpful to focus discussion on yet another “ism” within Nietzsche scholarship and given that experimentalism is not Nietzsche’s..

ABSTRACT This article, invited for presentation to the North American Nietzsche Society at the 2020 Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association, is a commentary on Mark Alfano's 2019 monograph, Nietzsche's Moral Psychology. It critically discusses Alfano's synoptic digital humanities approach and examines the efficacy of two aspects of his argument about Nietzsche's philosophy developed using this methodology: the connection between life and will to power, and the role of speech acts.

Bernard Reginster has argued that in "Nietzsche's terminology, 'experimentation [Versuch]' is a paradigmatic exercise of curiosity."1 According to Reginster, the kind of curiosity in question, as far as Nietzsche's concept of the free spirit is concerned, is not the state of knowing or of being certain of the truth of some proposition, but is rather a matter of the activity or process of truth seeking and of inquiry.2 My own view is very similar: I have argued that experimentalism is a form of virtue for Nietzsche.3 Specifically, as I have suggested, Nietzsche employs experimentalism in two main ways: as a strategy for philosophical engagement, for example through his use of diverse writing styles and authorial...

I argue that moral intuitions about Nietzsche as an exemplar of practical cruelty can be overturned. My argument is based upon the possibility of abandoning the notion of pure and unmediated passivity as intrinsic to the phenomena of human suffering and of Mitleid, as identified by Nietzsche. I claim that wrongly identifying intrinsic passivity in the phenomenology of Mitleid and of suffering generates the moral sceptical intuition. Once this case of mistaken identity is uncovered, 1 suggest, there is no reason to remain subject to the force of the intuition. I support my account with a fresh reading of 'The Ugliest Man', from Book IV of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

This essay argues that in Ecce Homo, Nietzsche engages critically with philosophical methodology as a part of his wider interest in the transvaluation of all values. It shows that Nietzsche’s remarks in the text are commensurate with his wider critical engagement with philosophical methodology in texts such as The Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morals. The advantage of reading the text as philosophical autobiography, this essay suggests, is that it helps us to appreciate that Ecce Homo offers a performative critique of philosophical methodology that prizes pure rationality at the expense of embodiment.