Comments on: … is truth in a nonmoral sense? http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/18/is-truth-in-a-nonmoral-sense/ A working notebook Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:23:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha by: todd http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/18/is-truth-in-a-nonmoral-sense/#comment-1417 Wed, 18 Apr 2007 18:46:46 +0100 http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/04/18/is-truth-in-a-nonmoral-sense/#comment-1417 I don't like Foucault's essay on Nietzsche. It's good for some of the genealogy stuff, saying why it's so cool, but I feel like Foucault like a lot of Continental thinkers ends up really just appropriating Nietzsche for his own purposes rather than really illuminating Nietzsche. But if you want to learn about Foucault and geneaology by all means. Truth comes up in Nietzsche a lot, and he explores it from a "physiological" angle, i.e. in terms of its role in the psyche of our species. The Gay Science has good concise stuff on this. I personally can't fucking stand the pomo discussions on truth and relativity. They fundamentally fail to distinguish between (socially) accepted facts or beliefs and truth. Nietzsche wasn't that dumb. Personally i think truth is hype. it's just not that interesting (except if you get into the davidson-someone else i forget debate about which is primary truth or meaning). The epistemology of what we accept based on society is interesting, but not when you fold metaphysics and epistemology. mofos. I don’t like Foucault’s essay on Nietzsche. It’s good for some of the genealogy stuff, saying why it’s so cool, but I feel like Foucault like a lot of Continental thinkers ends up really just appropriating Nietzsche for his own purposes rather than really illuminating Nietzsche. But if you want to learn about Foucault and geneaology by all means.

Truth comes up in Nietzsche a lot, and he explores it from a “physiological” angle, i.e. in terms of its role in the psyche of our species. The Gay Science has good concise stuff on this.

I personally can’t fucking stand the pomo discussions on truth and relativity. They fundamentally fail to distinguish between (socially) accepted facts or beliefs and truth. Nietzsche wasn’t that dumb. Personally i think truth is hype. it’s just not that interesting (except if you get into the davidson-someone else i forget debate about which is primary truth or meaning). The epistemology of what we accept based on society is interesting, but not when you fold metaphysics and epistemology. mofos.

]]>