Prejudices of Philosophers — Decoding Nietzsche

Here is what I understood from reading the first chapter of Beyond Good and Evil. Corrections/comments are welcome.

Introduction

In his widely popular book Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche lays down two major accusations on philosophers. First being that they lack critical sense, and the second being that they unthinkingly accept dogmatic premises under their pretense of morality. He blames them for basing whole metaphysical systems on their faith in opposites — that the good person is the opposite of the evil, instead of realizing that the latter is just a different version in which the same basic impulse finds a more direct outlet.

In his work, Nietzsche moves beyond the realm of ‘good and evil’ by leaving behind the traditional conception of morality, which he critiques heavily by analyzing the underlying basis of our moral assumptions and highlighting how they are culturally constructed rather than being absolutely and inherently ‘true’.

Introduction to Part 1 — Prejudices of Philosophers

This chapter is concerned with the history of philosophy — more specifically, on how traditional philosophy now lies in ruins.

The Importance of Untruth

It is here that Nietzsche quotes one of the most famous lines of his philosophical career — “Given that we want truth, why not prefer untruth?”

Nietzsche questions the basic drive of philosophy that is the will to truth. Human beings assume that there is a harmony between truth and our nature, with the former being integral to the latter.

However, Nietzsche believes truth to be deadly. He calls the philosophical hunt for truth a mythical one, that has unfortunately become vital for our survival. Here, he asks a question whose answer can also be understood to be the aim of his book —how can humanity break away from the ‘lie’ that they must search for the ‘truth’?

Faith in the Opposite Values

Nietzsche attacks the common belief that the world can be divided into opposites, as with the opposition of truth to falsehood. He emphasizes that the relationship between these ‘opposites’ is far more complex than it is made out to be. He says that our ‘truths’ are born out of our prejudices and our will to deceive — which essentially means that they are born from our falsehoods.

He elucidates this with an example of conscious thinking being contrasted with instinct, even though the former is informed by none other than the latter. It is by our instincts that we assign more value to truth than to falsehoods, but we should realize that even falsehoods can be of great value to us.

Even though philosophers try to project themselves as being disinterested and objective, it is usually their instincts and prejudices that inform them. At the base of every system, we find some ‘fundamental’ truths (which are actually prejudices), for which the rest of the system is said to be providing justifications.

For Nietzsche, each philosophy is nothing more than the confession of the respective philosopher, which does little other than giving an insight into the said philosopher’s mind.

Limitations of Language

Like the rest of us, Nietzsche is also trapped by the limitations of language. He acknowledged the power of language and harbored an early Wittgensteinian view that language imposes a ‘reality’ on the world. He points out that majority of our language consists of redundant terms like ‘truth’, ‘god, ‘soul’ and the like, which are a product of primitive psychology. Here, Nietzsche famously quotes — “..I am afraid we shall not get rid of God until we get rid of grammar.”

Futility of Free Will

Nietzsche calls the concept of free will an idiocy born from the inflated pride of humankind. The idea of free will, as per him, is ‘a crass stupidity’.

He claims that the concept of ‘will’ is far more complicated that it is assumed to be. The word ‘I’ contains within it a complex combination of commanding and obeying wills. The ‘freedom’ of our will is realized only when ‘I’ is identified as the source of both commanding and obeying.

Free will, as a concept, also relies on the faulty notions of cause and effect, where ‘will’ is presumed to be the ‘cause’. Physics states that the nature is governed by laws, and cause and effect are a part of it. Nietzsche says that nature could equally be seen as being totally lawless, governed by the unfettered assertion of wills.

He also argues that free will is an example of the error of causa sui (i.e., something that is generated within itself).

He says that the questions is not about the non-existence of free will, but of its strength or weakness.

Understanding ‘True’ and ‘False’

As terms from Logic, true and false apply to propositions and sentences, and not to things, people or wills. A statement that claims to be true is merely expressing a certain point of view. Nietzsche claims that there is no point of view that can represent the absolute truth, as all point of views represent different perspectives one can have. Therefore, if one adopts only one perspective, one views a misleading and incomplete picture.

Truth, which requires the medium of propositions to be expressed, needs to adopt a particular perspective which it claims to be true. This is how the bigger picture is falsified and distorted, he claims.

Once this belief in absolute truths and falsehoods is given up, a better relationship between truth and falsity can be realized. Nietzsche states that our ‘truths’, instead of being absolute, are merely personal interpretations of what we see.

Interpretations and Prejudices

How we interpret a particular experience depends on the perspective that we choose, which is in turn dependent on the prejudices and assumptions that we harbor. Philosophers are habitual of trying to justify their particular worldview, in contrast to all others. They believe their individual perspectives and moral prejudices to be ‘true’. This results in their philosophy being autobiographical above all else, as philosophers are essentially trying to justify their motivations and convince others to adopt the same.

Tyranny of Instincts

Nietzsche claims that the will to truth, or the ‘instinct for knowledge’ is not the foundation or father of philosophy. He calls every instinct to be tyrannical and aiming to philosophize. All philosophers and philosophies claim mastery to be the ultimate purpose of all existence. Since philosophy is driven by the urge to rule, it can be both good and bad. This is why Nietzsche calls the best philosophy to be the ‘science with a soul’, because unlike other scholars, philosophers are both spiritual and intellectual.

Will to Power

The universe is always changing, and that is one of the most significant trait it has, said Nietzsche. Fixed facts and conceptions reinforce the false misconception that the universe is fixed. For him, will is the agent of all change, which is why he focuses heavily on the concept of ‘will to power’. He claims that there is a struggle for domination and independence between wills, and this is precisely the source for all change. Instead of viewing people as ‘selves’ or ‘things’, he views them as a complex of wills that are struggling for domination.

For Nietzsche, philosophy is the most ‘spiritual’ will to power — because it attempts to impose the philosopher’s assumptions and prejudices on everyone else by being that their will is the ‘truth’.

Influence of Grammar

Nietzsche was greatly troubled by the influence of grammar upon philosophy, particularly the subject-predicate relation. He said that we misunderstand ‘I think’ to imply the existence of a distinct entity — ‘I’, which is thinking. He calls ‘I’ a complex of competing wills. He goes on to say that thoughts are not created by us. Instead, they come to us. He advices substituting ‘I think’ with “the will to think has become dominant over other wills at this particular time and place.”

Critique of Major Philosophers

Stoics

Stoics, said Nietzsche, urged us to live ‘according to nature’ and using philosophy to ‘create the world in its (Stoa’s) own image’. But nature is uncontrollable and cannot be managed in such a way, he said.

Plato

Nietzsche said that the Platonic distinction between real and apparent worlds for metaphysical truth replaced pre-Socratic wisdom only because it is safe, and not because of its truth value.

Kant

Nietzsche accuses Kant of giving circular arguments for believing in the existence of a faculty of synthetic a priori judgments.

Descartes

Nietzsche questions belief in ‘immediate certainties’ such as Descartes’ Cogito. Descartes said that he cannot doubt that he is thinking, but Nietzsche points that this only reflects Descartes’ lack of reflection upon the meaning of ‘I think’. Maybe it is not ‘I’ that thinks but the thought itself that comes to ‘I’. Also, how can Descartes be sure of the distinction between thinking, willing and feeling to be certain that it is indeed an act of ‘thinking’ that ‘I’ is performing?

Conclusion

Nietzsche points out how our truths are often based on prejudice instead of objectivity, and that we give an unfair preference to truth over falsehoods. Falsehoods, he claims, can be just as valuable, if not more. To elucidate, he gives the examples of Stoics imposing their truth onto reality and of Kant propagating the necessity of non-existent a priori knowledge (as less-valuable ‘truths’).