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:
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).
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.
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.
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.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten