Friedrich Nietzsche e a crítica da subjetividade cartesiana

O nome de Descartes aparece várias vezes nas obras publicadas e nos fragmentos póstumos de Nietzsche. As considerações do filósofo alemão são quase sempre críticas e recuperam, embora com um diferente juízo de valor, a interpretação do pensamento cartesiano fornecida pela tradição idealista. Nesta perspetiva, Descartes é considerado o pai do racionalismo ocidental, o pensador que teria colocado o cogito no centro da representação. A este respeito, analisar criticamente a leitura nietzschiana não significa só questionar a validade da sua interpretação, mas pôr em causa os mesmos cânones da modernidade filosófica. Palavras-chave: Nietzsche. Descartes. Cogito. Idealismo alemão. Heidegger. Modernidade. Friedrich Nietzsche et la critique de la subjectivité cartésienne Résumé: Le nome de Descartes apparait plusieurs fois dans les œuvres publiées et dans les fragments posthumes de Nietzsche. Les considérations du philosophe allemand sont presque toujours critiques et reprennent, même si avec un diffèrent jugement de valeur, l’interprétation de la pensée cartésienne fournie par la tradition idéaliste. Dans cette perspective, Descartes est considéré comme le père du rationalisme occidental, à savoir, le penseur qui aurait placé le cogito au centre de la représentation. À cet égard, analyser de façon critique l’approche de Nietzsche n’implique pas seulement mettre en question la validité de son interprétation, mais aussi remettre en cause les canons de la modernité philosophique. Mots-clés: Nietzsche. Descartes. Cogito. Modernité. Friedrich Nietzsche e the criticism of Cartesian subjectivity Abstract: Descartes’ name appears several times in Nietzsche’s published works and in his posthumous fragments. The considerations of the German philosopher are almost always critical and resume, although with a different value of judgement, the interpretation of Cartesian thought provided by Idealistic tradition. In this perspective, Descartes is considered as the father of Western Rationalism, namely, the author that would place the cogito at the center of representation. In this regard, to critically analyzing Nietzschean approach toward Descartes it does not only imply to questioning the validity of his interpretation, but also to questioning the very same canons of philosophical modernity. Keywords: Nietzsche. Descartes. Cogito. Modernity. Data de registro: 17/11/2020 Data de aceite: 30/12/2020

Tragedy

From Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Poetics onward, tragedy has loomed large in the genealogy of literary theory. But this prominence is in many regards paradoxical. The original object of that theory, the Attic tragedies performed at the Dionysian festivals in 5th- century bce Athens, are, notwithstanding their ubiquitous representation on the modern stage, only a small fraction of the tragedies produced in Athens, and are themselves torn from their context of performance. The Poetics and the plays that served as its objects of analysis would long vanish from the purview of European culture. Yet, when they returned in the Renaissance as cultural monuments to be appropriated and repeated, it was in a context largely incommensurable with their existence in Ancient Greece. While the early moderns created their own poetics (and politics) of tragedy and enlisted their image of the Ancients in the invention of exquisitely modern literary and artistic forms (not least, opera), it was in the crucible of German Idealism and Romanticism, arguably the matrix of modern literary theory, that certain Ancient Greek tragedies were transmuted into models of “the tragic,” an idea that played a formative part in the emergence of philosophical modernity, accompanying a battle of the giants between dialectical (Hegelian) and antidialectical (Nietzschean) currents that continues to shape our theoretical present. The gap between a philosophy of the tragic and the poetics and history of tragedy as a dramatic genre is the site of much rich and provocative debate, in which the definition of literary theory itself is frequently at stake. Tragedy is in this sense usefully defined as a genre in conflict. It is also a genre of conflict, in the sense that ethical conflicts, historical transitions, and political revolutions have all come to define its literary forms, something that is particularly evident in the place of both tragedy and the tragic in the dramas of decolonization.

Die Autonomie des ,souveränen Individuums‘ in Nietzsches Genealogie der Moral

The second essay of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals introduces the ‘sovereign individual’ as ‘responsible’, ‘autonomous’ and ‘free’. Does this affirmative use of moral terminology reveal an unexpected affinity between Nietzsche’s thought and philosophical modernity? In the last decades, this issue has been at the heart of a vast and controversial debate. My analysis shows that, rather than throwing light on Nietzsche’s general position, the specific use of Kantian terms in this passage of GM is due to a polemical intention. Implicitly, Nietzsche rejects Eduard von Hartmann’s criticism of the ‘absolute sovereignty of the individual’. The author of the Phänomenologie des sittlichen Bewusstseins (1879) sees the most radical herald of this ‘sovereignty’ in Max Stirner. From Nietzsche’s point of view, Hartmann’s rejection and Stirner’s affirmation share a reductive conception of ‘sovereignty’. Reinterpreting and ‘revaluing’ Kant’s moral terminology, Nietzsche aims to give an interpretation of individual sovereignty that is at the same time antithetical to Stirner’s and wholly at odds with Hartmann’s ethical views. In showing this, the paper gives a new answer to an old question; for already in the 1890s, Hartmann himself, accusing Nietzsche of plagiarizing Stirner, raised the issue of the historical relationship between the two philosophers. More generally, the paper shows that Nietzsche employs a specific textual strategy, which consists in taking Kantian terms in an ‘anti-Kantian’ sense and systematically cultivating the art of using ‘a moral formula in a supramoral sense’.

A propósito de mundus est fabula: Descartes y la confección del mundo

René Descartes’s philosophy has been considered by “philosophical modernity” as a watershed in the evolution of philosophy seen as a “historical entity”. This is because it implies a “re-creation” of “science” where science establishes itself as the reading (and writing) of the “world” which is driven by that “human impulse” is seen as the unmoved judge of knowledge: doubt. But this doubt gives a character of finiteness and limitation to knowledge acquired through natural light, that is, through the ability to compare and distinguish what is in accordance with the explicit or implicit assumptions that condition its action. Thus, given that certainty only makes sense in and for natural light, the “world” that is constructed in the science of Descartes will remain limited to natural light and this science to the fable in which it is told.