donderdag 26 juli 2018

Afscheid van Nietzsche en zijn Spinoza [3] - #spinoza


 
In dit blog breng ik het vervolg op het vorige blog van de zo compleet mogelijke opsomming – waar mogelijk mét link naar een PDF – van studies over hoe Nietzsche Spinoza las.

• Stuart Pethick, Affectivity and Philosophy after Spinoza and Nietzsche. Making Knowledge the Most Powerful Affect. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015 -  |  251 pagina’s  cf. book.google [cf. blog van 9 september 2017]
Ik nam in het vorige blog uit dit boek een deel van de inleiding over. Daar in het onderhavige literatuuroverzicht Gilles Deleuze niet voorkomt (anders dan via de kritische bespreking door
Oittinen, neem ik hier uit de inleiding van dit boek deze passage over, waarin naar Deleuze’s werk op dit punt wordt verwezen:
Important Influences
When it was stated above that the Spinoza—Nietzsche connection has largely been overlooked, there is one significant exception, and that is Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze articulated some strong resonances between Spinoza and Nietzsche, though without dedicating any specific work to doing so.3I Perhaps most importantly, Deleuze emphasises the importance of affectivity in their works,32 whilst highlighting the 'ethological' approach to ethics that this entails for Spinoza,33 and the symptomological approach to philosophy that this results in for Nietzsche.34 This being said, a different path than Deleuze's is taken in this book insofar as he largely engages with Spinoza and Nietzsche in order to find new ways of addressing the question of being and the related ontological problems of philosophy. To this end, Spinoza is articulated as continuing a univocal concept of being, while the emphasis is placed on a univocal concept of 'force' in Nietzsche, meaning that affectivity is couched in terms of force's differential element.35 The traditional questions of philosophy that Deleuze creatively addresses via Spinoza, Nietzsche and others are bracketed in this book in favour of a more concentrated engagement with effectivity and in particular its relation to the practice of philosophy. Apart from Deleuze, other important works that contribute to the reading of Spinoza in this book include Yovel's discussion of the orientating role of immanence, Vinciguerra's highlighting of the importance of vestigia and Balibar's and Negri's remarks on the importance of potentia.36 As regards to Nietzsche, Klossowski's focus on the body and the semiotics of 'impulses' or affects in place of the interpretations of consciousness, Blondel's linking of the body and text, Kofman's and Murphy's emphasis on the role of metaphor in Nietzsche's work, Nabais' re-evaluation of the role of the thought of the eternal return, Loeb's insight into the close link between this thought and Socrates, and Katsafanas' description of consciousness as one particular form of awareness among many all play important roles.37
________________

31 For example, Deleuze's (1988) second book on Spinoza begins with a discussion of Nietzsche, and goes on to make connections between them in terms of their shift in focus from consciousness to the body.
32 See for example Deleuze (1983: 61-63) and (1988: 48-51).
33 Deleuze (1988: 122-130).
34 Deleuze (1983: 3).
35 For a condense example of the use that Spinoza and Nietzsche are put to in order to address the question of being, see Deleuze (2004: 49-52).
36 Full details of these texts can be found in the bibliography.
37 There are many other influences of course (details of which can be found in the bibliography).

Dat en waarom Deleuze niet voorkomt in dit overzicht – vooral daar hij geen werk schreef waarin hij Spinoza en Nietzsche vergeleek - kan men overigens heel goed begrijpen uit de inleiding van het volgende werk dat zich in z’n geheel op books.google laat lezen:

Paolo A. Bolaños, On Affirmation and Becoming: A Deleuzian Introduction to Nietzsche’s Ethics and Ontology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2014 - 125 pagina's
 

• Jan Rehmann, “Spinoza und Nietzsche. Wider die Verwechslung von Handlungsfähigkeit und Herrschaftsmacht.” In: Das Argument 307/2014 [html, PDF]
 

Hannah Große Wiesmann, SPINOZA’S CONATUS AND NIETZSCHE’S WILL TO POWER: SELF-PRESERVATION VS. INCREASE OF POWER? In: ACTA UNIVERSITATIS CAROLINAE, Interpretationes; Studia Philosophica Europeanea, 2013 #2, pp. 49–61 [PDF]
Abstract: This paper presents Nietzsche ’ s reception of Spinoza with regard to the concept of power. It aims to show that Nietzsche ’ s indirect reception of Spinoza was most formative for his philosophy in the 1880s, where the concept of will to power is of crucial importance. Indeed, Nietzsche elaborates his conception of power through a critical interaction with Spinoza ’ s principle of self-preservation given in the theory of conatus. He considers this to be a theorem characteristic of the modern metaphysical obsession with being; with his concept of will to power, he opposes to it a principle, not of preservation, but of increase, which aims to revalue the idea of radical becoming. The paper explores Nietzsche ’ strategy of interpretation with regard to Spinoza ’ s theory of conatus, then analyses Nietzsche ’ s own conception of power, and finally calls in question Nietzsche ’ s claim for originality with regard to Spinoza.
Slotconclusie
In reconstructing Nietzsche ’ s critical dialogue with Spinoza, I aimed to show that he elaborates his conception of will to power through a critical interaction with Spinoza ’ s principle of self-preservation. Nietzsche ’ s conception of power, one of the most influential aspects of his philosophy, indeed owes its specific form to the indirect reception of Spinoza ’ s conatus theory. Yet, Nietzsche stylizes the will to power as an antithesis to Spinoza ’ s conatus and to the whole tradition of self-preservation, opposing dynamic self-transcendence and self-expansion to an alleged self-preservative immobility. As I have shown, Nietzsche gains this antithesis by obliterating the fact that Spinoza himself conceived of power as a dynamic principle including a tendency to increase. In this respect, Spinoza ’ s theory of power anticipated Nietzsche ’ s own concept of the will to power. Instead of being a radical restart in the history of philosophy, as Nietzsche claims, his theory of power takes up the ‘metaphysical ’ tradition represented by Spinoza. It thus seems that Spinoza is Nietzsche ’ s “predecessor” not only with regard to the aspects Nietzsche himself hailed on his famous postcard to Overbeck.

Hannah Große Wiesmann, "Chaos sive natura": Zu Nietzsches Kritik am spinozanischen Gottesbegriff. In: AnaHonnacker & Matthias Ruf (Hrsg.), Gott oder Natur: Perspektiven nach Spinoza. Münster : LIT (Philosophie aktuell, #12), 2015: 75-90. [cf. blog van 05-03-2015]
Zeynep TALAY TURNER, "Nietzsche and Spinoza: Thinking Freedom." Research Article In: Uludağ University Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Philosophy, Sayı 26 / Issue 26│Bahar 2016 / Spring 2016 [PDF]

M.G. (Gaby) de Jong, Spinoza’s Philosophy & Nihilism. God, Truth, and Freedom in an Uncaring Universe. MA Thesis Philosophy – University Utrecht, 24 mei 2017 [PDF]

Introduction [noten weggelaten]: When Spinoza’s Tractactus Theologico-Politicus (henceforth: TTP) was first anonymously published in 1670 it was met with strong opposition by the religious intelligentsia of the United Republic, with one of its most disturbed critics denouncing it as being a “book forged in hell”. These are harsh words, but Spinoza was not unaccustomed to these kinds of treatment; he was already an exile amongst exiles by having been “banned, cut off, cursed and anathematized” from the Portuguese-Jewish community in Amsterdam fourteen years before. The perceived crime that finalized his banishment was his refusal to distance himself from his philosophy, though still in its infancy, which was regarded by the elders of his faith to be heretical and evil. From these facts it is clear that in his life Spinoza unleashed a deeply disturbing philosophy that shook the Republic and Jewish community at their very core. But were these condemnations of malicious intentions, attributed to his work and character, warranted?
The main topic of this thesis is to investigate these claims and establish whether Spinoza’s philosophy contains nihilistic tendencies and sentiments, meant to alienate man from metaphysical perfection, and creating a situation in which everything is permitted, as his critics feared it would. In order to answer this question we will first need to understand some broad elements of Spinoza’s philosophy that made him a persona non grata to begin with. Secondly, there has to be an established meaning for the term ‘nihilism’ and what it fundamentally stands for. By solidifying the working elements of these two matters we have the necessary tools and methods to answer this main question of this thesis conclusively. Now that it has been made clear that Spinoza was a controversial thinker, it is now time to show why.

Razvan Ioan, “No one has yet determined what the body can do”: the turn to the body in Spinoza and Nietzsche. A comparative study in the History of Modern Philosophy focused on the recourse to physiology on the part of two key figures, Spinoza and Nietzsche. Dissertatie Univ. Leiden, 1 november 2017 [cf. & PDF] - Geeft uitgebreide vergelijkingen tussen Nietzsche en Spinoza. Eerder gesignaleerd in 't blog van 4 november 2017.
Abstract: This thesis is a comparative study in the History of Modern Philosophy focused on the recourse to philosophical physiology on the part of two key figures, Spinoza and Nietzsche. This involves comparative research into their emphatic appeal to the body as the key to solving fundamental philosophical problems. While the groundwork for comparative research has already been laid in studies of a number of key concepts, a comparative study of Spinoza and Nietzsche focused on physiology has not yet been conducted. I argue that, in spite of tremendous differences, these two thinkers come close in their rejection of moral and metaphysical illusions they claim are characteristic of the philosophical tradition they respond to, and in their focus on self-knowledge understood as knowledge of the body’s endogenous power to act. This leads them to formulate strikingly similar normative programs informed by their shared commitment to naturalism and immanence.


Hierna het 4e en laatste blog in deze reeks.
 

Geen opmerkingen:

Een reactie posten