![]() satisfying" if it explains why MPS harms higher human beings, per the complaint in (2) (p. Robertson challenges my account of the descriptive component, arguing that any account of (1) would be more "theoretically. ![]() I had proposed that Nietzsche's targets in critiquing morality ("morality in the pejorative sense" or MPS) were systems of value that (1) presupposed particular descriptive claims about human agency and/or (2) embodied normative commitments harmful to those Nietzsche views as higher human beings. Robertson fairly canvasses various accounts in the literature - by Maudemarie Clark, Philippa Foot, myself, and Bernard Williams - but then focuses on my account (Leiter 2002: 78 ff.), which he basically accepts, while proposing one interesting emendation. Let us begin with the "Scope Problem." Robertson's meticulous paper takes up the challenge of how "to separate the object of critique from positive ideal," and in such a way that the positive ideal is not vulnerable to the same objections Nietzsche lodges against morality (p. I will return to it briefly at the end in order to focus first on the more philosophically serious pieces. Finally, Schacht is the only author to focus exclusively on the question of what Nietzsche's naturalism amounts to unfortunately, his is the weakest essay in the volume. Third, three other authors (Anderson, Christopher Janaway, Reginster) examine aspects of Nietzsche's moral psychology, particularly his conception of human agency, motivation, and the self. First, when Nietzsche critiques morality, what is his target and how can his critique (and his naturalism) be squared with his own evaluative views (Railton, Simon Robertson)? Call this, following my terminology (Leiter 2002: 74-77, which Robertson explicitly adopts), "the Scope Problem." Second, several essays (Hussain, Poellner, Thomas) address metaethical questions, in particular, what the metaphysical and semantic status and character of Nietzsche's own evaluative judgments are supposed to be. The essays can be grouped into three main areas. The volume as a whole is essential for Nietzsche scholars, and some of the essays will interest moral philosophers more generally. Almost all the essays (with an exception to be noted) are written to a high standard of scholarly care and philosophical argumentation, and can be read profitably by philosophers not primarily interested in Nietzsche. Of perhaps special interest is that the volume features two essays by well-known moral philosophers, Peter Railton and Alan Thomas, neither of whom has written on Nietzsche previously. ![]() Lanier Anderson, Nadeem Hussain, Peter Poellner, Bernard Reginster, and Richard Schacht. This volume comprises nine new essays, primarily on various topics in Nietzsche's ethics, especially his critique of morality, meta-ethics and moral psychology only one essay primarily concerns the meaning of "naturalism." The contributors include, besides the editors, several well-known figures in Anglophone Nietzsche studies: R. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |