>[...]
>Original Newtonian thinkers (Deterministic Materialists, as they are called
>sometimes) such as Laplace theorize that if they knew the whole data
>concerning the positions and speeds of all bodies in the universe in a
>given moment, they could calculate the outlook of the universe in any
>moment in the future or in the past. This means that the future and the
>past are fixed patterns and events could occur only in one way. In other
>words and aspects this means that there is nothing such as free will, let
>alone
>will to power. Consciousness is just atoms bumping together, something
>happens because it had to happen, things couldn't be any other way. If one
>accepts N's proof for ER than he must also accept Laplace's (who was a much
>better physicist then N) proof for deterministic materialism (DM).
>As easily seen, DM leads one into a most perfect nihilism, which is even
>worse than Schopenhauer's philosophy, on the grounds that N attacks him.
Of course, he "trumps" this account by asserting that it too is necessary
and fated, etc. I'm not sure that Nietzsche is a strict determinist,
however. He asserts, for instance, that there is neither a free nor an
unfree will, because there is no will at all. In some other respects, he
would seem to anticipate quantum mechanics, denying the materiality of the
atom, for instance, stating that it is the ultimate projection of the
subject into "things," for instance, in other words, a fiction. With that,
any kind of deterministic materialism that might be ascribed to Nietzsche's
thinking goes right out the window.
I'm not convinced that Nietzsche's experiments in trying to prove the ER as
a physical theory are entirely serious, in that they necessarily assume, as
you point out, the materiality of the atom as a fixed entity, a concept that
he clearly and consistently disputes elsewhere. Rather, my feeling is that
they are attempts largely to assemble arguments of the sort, "Assuming a
finite amount of matter (number of atoms), it follows...", knowing full well
that the whole argument depends upon the materiality of the atom, which he
of course rejects. It may be an argument he is cooking up, in other words,
in order to be able to serve it up to those who _do_ believe in the
materiality of the atom.
>For a better discussion, please consider;
>
>1. I am not a native speaker of English, and my native language (Turkish)
>does not even remotely resemble it. Naturally, Turkish does not resemble
>German, too. (Think about translations.)
>
>2. Philosophy is one of my hobbies. I have read TSZ, BGE and EH in Turkish.
>I have also read some articles on N and his works in both Turkish and
>English.
>
>As a result, when you use philosopers' terminology abundantly and uncommon
> vocabulary too often, I just do not understand what you mean.
Your English is quite good. And yes, since discussion on this list is
carried on in English, the lingua franca of the Web it seems, it is easy to
forget that Fred was a _German_ philosopher. How does TSZ come across in
Turkish!? How did you come to reading Nietzsche? School? By accident? What
do your friends think?
Steve C.
--- from list nietzsche@lists.village.virginia.edu ---