Scan barcode
A review by caris96
The Joyous Science by Friedrich Nietzsche
5.0
“What do they want when they seek knowledge? Nothing more than to reduce something strange to something familiar. And we philosophers – do we really regard knowledge as anything more than that? The familiar, that is, what we are accustomed to, what no longer surprises us, the commonplace, any kind of rule which we are unable to break, anything and everything in which we feel at home – what? Is our need for knowledge not merely this need for the familiar? The desire to discover in everything strange, unusual, or questionable something which no longer troubles us?” (243).
A collection of his self-reflections on morality, epistemology, and science, Nietzsche challenges essentialist views of these subjects that had dominated the Western philosophical canon before him, and returns to the perspective of experience. My impression is that “The Joyous Science” was relatively advanced for its time, and would come to inspire much of the phenomenological work of the mid- to late-twentieth century. Nietzsche also heavily influenced Foucault’s own methodology – a favourite of mine – and I owe my love for existentialism and philosophy as a whole to this very book.
Nietzsche has a way of critiquing concepts that other philosophers had refuted before, but in a unique way. Hume argued that cause and effect were no more than inferences that we could not empirically justify; Kant defended it as a necessary basis for reasoning altogether. Nietzsche throws out all of this and rejects these fundamental concepts for reasons outside the empiricist/rationalist divide. He has an almost elegant way of turning assumptions inside out, exposing their internal contradictions, and effectively using one’s own framework against them. He constantly disappoints the philosopher’s search for truth by reminding him of his limitations and subjectivity. Yet at the same time, he elevates these characteristics – our humanness – to inspire us; to point us inward to our selves instead of upward to so-called authorities of morality and knowledge.
“Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, and no one who transgresses. When you know that nothing is intentional, then you also know that nothing is accidental; for it is only where there is a world of intentions that the word ‘accident’ has any meaning” (109).
He even turns his experiential gaze towards aesthetics and the natural world. ‘Genoa’ (186) may be my favourite of Nietzsche’s aphorisms. It’s both lyrical and at the same time profoundly critical. If I ever had to recommend a philosophical work to anyone, it just might be this. It’s also quite accessible, and I think no matter who you are, you’ll enjoy this work in some way.
A collection of his self-reflections on morality, epistemology, and science, Nietzsche challenges essentialist views of these subjects that had dominated the Western philosophical canon before him, and returns to the perspective of experience. My impression is that “The Joyous Science” was relatively advanced for its time, and would come to inspire much of the phenomenological work of the mid- to late-twentieth century. Nietzsche also heavily influenced Foucault’s own methodology – a favourite of mine – and I owe my love for existentialism and philosophy as a whole to this very book.
Nietzsche has a way of critiquing concepts that other philosophers had refuted before, but in a unique way. Hume argued that cause and effect were no more than inferences that we could not empirically justify; Kant defended it as a necessary basis for reasoning altogether. Nietzsche throws out all of this and rejects these fundamental concepts for reasons outside the empiricist/rationalist divide. He has an almost elegant way of turning assumptions inside out, exposing their internal contradictions, and effectively using one’s own framework against them. He constantly disappoints the philosopher’s search for truth by reminding him of his limitations and subjectivity. Yet at the same time, he elevates these characteristics – our humanness – to inspire us; to point us inward to our selves instead of upward to so-called authorities of morality and knowledge.
“Let us beware of saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, and no one who transgresses. When you know that nothing is intentional, then you also know that nothing is accidental; for it is only where there is a world of intentions that the word ‘accident’ has any meaning” (109).
He even turns his experiential gaze towards aesthetics and the natural world. ‘Genoa’ (186) may be my favourite of Nietzsche’s aphorisms. It’s both lyrical and at the same time profoundly critical. If I ever had to recommend a philosophical work to anyone, it just might be this. It’s also quite accessible, and I think no matter who you are, you’ll enjoy this work in some way.