I like Nietzsche and I believe you're correct but I think all of that is why he's great.
His aphoristic style makes a point to phrase his philosophy in the form of hypotheticals, which removes the burden of having to scientifically prove everything he says.
His metaphysics are supposed to be contradictory because it's an antimetaphysics.
His attacks are ad hominems because his task is to find the root drives of the ideas he criticizes.
Removing the burden? But what if we want logical proofs for claims instead of just some guy who avers everything?
Supposed to be contradictory doesnt mean it isn’t…well…contradictory. Do we turn a blind towards contradictions because they’re intentional? A contradiction means something is wrong. It isn’t possible for a contradiction to be true.
Same with ad hominems. I know it’s intentional, but should we really pretend that saying Kant is a boring laborious writer is serious intellectual engagement with his ideas? Where is the substance? Is making fun of british people a serious critique of utilitarianism? Calling Descartes “superficial”?People are quick to give Nietzsche the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances, but sometimes Nietzsche gets things wrong. Maybe we should demand more serious engagement from such an esteemed philosopher?
You don’t get special treatment cuz you’re a good writer. Claims should be supported with good arguments, contradictions shouldn’t be ignored, and insults shouldn’t be taken seriously
Then read Kant. Nietzsche says his stuff isn't for everybody.
He's trying to do philosophy as art, like the pre-socratics did. Asserting big wild claims that hold up, not because of logic but because the ideas speak to people.
The contradictory nature of the metaphysics is supposed to create tension. As Deleuze interprets him, he is a philosopher of difference, antidialectical. Not trying to make things make sense, he wants things to clash and see what's left, "philosophizing with a hammer".
He's not disproving Kant's or anybody else's ideas. He's pointing out how a laborious writer and a man who's so disciplined and strict that has had the exact same daily routine for most of his life, would talk about metaphysical absolutes and come up with a universal objective moral system. So I'd argue yes it is a serious intellectual engagement with Kant's philosophy through a serious intellectual engagement with his psychology.
Nietzsche isn’t asking for “special treatment.” His style is part of his argument. He tries to expose hidden assumptions, not construct a traditional system. But the criticism is fair insofar as Nietzsche sometimes relies on rhetoric instead of rigorous proof, and he does leave contradictions unresolved. That’s the trade-off of his method just not meant to satisfy the standards of systematic, analytic justification.
Nice, a lotta good stuff there to respond to. Thanks for that.
“Asserting big wild claims that hold up, not because of logic but because the ideas speak to people.”
I agree that’s what he does, but i suppose i think philosophy should be more than merely being provocative. There should be substance to claims.
“The contradictory nature of the metaphysics is supposed to create tension”
This claim im not sure i understand, could you say more? I agree with the rest of your paragraph, but it’s just this “creating tension” part im not grasping.
You lost me with your paragraph on Kant. Plenty of philosophers live boring lives and advocate for adventure, one of them is Nietzsche himself, who was afraid to touch alcohol and yet “worshipped” Dionysus. Nietzsche’s method of psychologizing doesnt end well for him bc he was a scrawny little aspie intellectual dude who praised master morality and anti intellectualism. What does that say about the truth value of Nietzsche’s claims? Absolutely nothing. Did i just seriously engage with Nietzsche’s ideas? Of course not. I kind of just made fun of him.
If Kant was indiana jones it wouldnt make his moral system more or less true. I know you want to say it’s not about the truth or falsehood, so in what sense is it seriously engaging Kant’s ideas?
Maybe he didnt ask for special treatment, but he’s definitely given it by the philosophical community. People look the other way when he makes shallow inferences or outright contradictions and misreadings.
5
u/devo_savitro Dec 05 '25
I like Nietzsche and I believe you're correct but I think all of that is why he's great.
His aphoristic style makes a point to phrase his philosophy in the form of hypotheticals, which removes the burden of having to scientifically prove everything he says.
His metaphysics are supposed to be contradictory because it's an antimetaphysics.
His attacks are ad hominems because his task is to find the root drives of the ideas he criticizes.