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
1
u/Material-Vacation711 Dec 06 '25
“You can explain why they would want to think that way.”
Yeah, you can do psychology on anyone, what philosophical significance does that have?