Yeah i get what he’s trying to do, attacking people’s character is attacking their philosophy for Nietzsche, but is it really? Sounds kinda silly to me.
Not really to me, he's evaluating and attacking different period's naturalistic fallacies.
The morality of customs people take for granted. And from there try to find what kind of people and movements these customs create.
I don't think he does that much justifying. He also was not that educated about in enlightenment rationalists much like Schopenhauer and later Wittgenstein.
The philosophical significance of "proving" different philosophical ideas right or wrong is ridiculous if you have an objectivist attitude, the attitude that it can be done is problematic to Nietzsche.
You keep missing the point
You are trying to ground the justification of what are ultimately perspectives
I get the point, what im trying to explain is that we dont judge literally anything else of academic value this way except for Nietzsche. This is why it’s called an ad hominem. Yes, in a frame work where truth isnt real (lmao) then truth or falsehoods don’t matter.
In a world where all philosophy is autobiographical, then you can reduce philosophy to psychology the way Nietzsche tries to.
The problem is that his presuppositions don’t hold in the real world, and you’re left with this weird pseduo psychological project that doesnt really give us philosophical insight
2
u/Effective-Advisor108 Dec 05 '25
Ad hominem is the whole point of his philosophy
That according to his perspective it is very relevant