Nietzsche — Philosophy as Philology
It is often difficult to find a place for Nietzsche in the history of philosophy if we think about the history of philosophy generally as a continuous enterprise. It is tempting to think about the history of philosophy as such because the impression in which philosophers are in constant conversations with each other and responding to their predecessors has often been entrenched by the way we study philosophy. We can situate or categorize most of the relatively well-known philosophers like Aristotle, Kant, or Quine, in some philosophical dialogues, or in certain traditions. But we have to suspend that mode of thinking for Nietzsche, who was born in a peculiar time for philosophy, who also had a particular approach for philosophy.
The history of philosophy for 19th-century philosophy, in general, was particularly discontinuous, and numerous actual events affected the status of philosophy in academia as well as its influence in society. From the shock of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th-century, philosophy in continental Europe, especially Germany, namely the tradition of German Idealism became associated with a general perspective of historical rationality unfolded through time. Hegel’s philosophical question about political freedom and rational institutions became embedded in reality as a determined progressive social phenomenon.
Philosophers in the 19th century were mostly responding to a mixture of previous philosophical topics critically infused with political problems of the day. This was not the case previously, when philosophy was a mostly self-contained enterprise, and philosophical training involved to focus on specific categories of abstract entrenched questions that students were expected to answer in novel ways.
The discontinuity in mainstream philosophy is mainly caused by the revolutions of 1848, which is a series of democratic, liberal revolts against European monarchy governments throughout Europe. There were little coordinations among revolutionaries in distinct countries, and most of the revolutions were violently suppressed by reactionary forces with little changes in the political landscape. There was a sense of widespread disillusionment of the republican ideal, which permeated to European continental philosophical traditions, and subsequently discredited these philosophical traditions which were thought to be the intellectual foundation of the revolution itself. Hegel and Kant, who were the intellectual beacons in the early 19th-century, were dropped in academic philosophy. It wasn’t until the late 19th-century that there was a revival of Kant and Hegel, where modern states emerged from the ancient feudal order throughout western Europe, and Idealist political goals were imposed from the top rather than consequences of popular movements.
Nietzsche was born in 1844, just four years before the revolutions, and before the neo-Kantian period, in the middle of the philosophical discontinuity, and studied Philology. Nietzsche did not study Philosophy in a university setting. Rather, he focused on classics and was trained in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and French for the purpose of reading and analyzing important primary sources.
What Nietzsche studied is a distinct field on written language in historical sources that had its roots in Greek and Roman society. Before the printing press was invented, replicating a piece of written work involved the cumbersome process requiring a reader to dictate to a group of scribes. Accuracies depended on both the reader and the copier. Unsurprisingly, mistakes were often compounded after each sequence, and philologists were often confronted with multiple versions of the same text.
The study in philology involved detailed examinations of ancient texts to deduce thinkers’ original thoughts. The field was critical in providing correct interpretations not only for authors whose written works survived but also those intellectual figures whose written works did not survive(or did not have written work at all), by relying on a multitude of secondary sources.
If we consider Nietzsche’s most significant contribution to be in the field of philosophy, it becomes interesting when we analyze the scope of Nietzsche’s philosophical training. Due to his philology training, it is safe to assume that Nietzsche read mostly Plato and Aristotle, and most definitely did not study anyone from the modern tradition rigorously (that is, from Descartes to Hegel). Nonetheless, one would expect him to have some second-hand knowledge of Kant and Hegel. In other words, Nietzsche’s training in philosophy involved a very particular selection of philosophical text. Specifically, Nietzsche’s philosophical outlook can be generally seen as disconnected from the overarching trend in philosophy if we view philosophy as more or less a self-containing subject.
Moreover, philology as an analytical style emphasized on historical development, which undeniably influenced Nietzsche. In Anglo-American academia, philology is described as “historical linguistic”, or “study of a language’s grammar, history, and literary tradition”. Indeed, philology offered Nietzsche a unique perspective in conducting philosophy, and most importantly, a unique perspective in approaching philosophy to begin with.
Nietzsche’s philosophy is marked by historicity and contingency. This is different from the Hegelian view of history, in which Hegel posits a natural logic to a sort of deterministic development. For Nietzsche, historical events are contingent in conjunction with different historical forces. Nothing is necessary about Platonic Philosophy, or Christianity, or Kant.
As someone outside of the mainstream philosophical tradition, Nietzsche sees the role of philosopher as not a self-contained subject in itself, but rather as fulfilling different social roles in society, appropriate to the time in which the philosopher resides. Specifically, the brilliant philosopher in Nietzsche’s view ought to pose and answer different sets of questions particular in response to different times in history as well as different social arrangements one finds himself in. For example, Plato was responding to the growing crisis of sophistry in the city-state of Athens, which threatens the status-quo orders with relativism and chaos. For another example, Kant was writing to address and reconcile between the emergence of Newtonian science and Christian morality in the late 18th-century. This is in contrast with the view that philosophers in different times all seek to answer an immutable, eternal set of questions, like what is the nature of consciousness, what is causation, or how do we stand in relation to reality.
Indeed, Nietzsche can pat himself on the back for following his own standard for good philosophy. Two of Nietzsche’s most fundamental questions are what he thinks to be appropriate of his time, and at the same time, at a radically different perspective which steps outside the confines of orthodox philosophy.
What is the value of morality?
This dismantles the western assumption of morality as obviously valuable and coherent. To see morality as a whole is to step back from morality, and examine the enterprise of morality itself before diving into a study of morality that assumes the authority of morality. That is, refusing to engage with morality in the sort of, what is our duty, at all.
What is the value of truth?
This dismantles the conception of truth as the final unconditional ideal. Nietzsche believes that there is value in analyzing the concept of truth itself, and to not just accept something is true at the end of the conversation.
Nietzsche identifies the problem of nihilism and decadence to be central in the late 19th-century and centers his philosophy as a response to this problem. It corresponds to what Nietzsche perceives to be a general lack of vitality, lack of meaning in European society. Nietzsche’s most important works serve to address the problems he identified in his own particular style, that is, from a historical perspective that avoids suggestions of determinism. Most famous for providing an analysis of Christianity, Nietzsche tells us how did we get into the dreadful situation of widespread decadence in the first place.
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?” — Nietzsche, The Gay Science
