Well, Myrkul? I take your inability to answer my question as an admission that you're wrong.
You don't usually give up so easily...
You have to understand Nietzsche to see why there is judgment in the begining of your perception. I will try to make it simple.
One of the big thesis in Nietzsche thinking is this : well before your instinct, your sensation there is a judgment, which mean an operation of the intellect.
Because he is appearing at the begining of the knowledge processus we can state that it's not a conscious judment. We can see it as the condition of possibility for perception to occur.
But how can we say that such a judment exist? Philosopher just don't throw proposition like that.
You have to come back to Kant.
Usually before him, we thought that we could gain some knowledge about an object, just by studying it.
But Kant come into play and yield : BULLSHIT if you want to be able to see an object you have to put something from you : which are the intuition of time and space.
We can agree, that time and space are not properties of an object. So they must come from something else, which is the subject.
It's the same for the causation categorie (for example : if a ball (A) touch another ball (B), the other ball will move). To be able to say that A cause B you have to make the link between A and B, an intellect opération which come from the subject and not from the object.
Now time, space and causation are what Kant call the condition of possibility of experience. Which mean, that before an object appear in your perception, these three things have come to play. They are the intuition that make you able to give you the form of the experience.
These form that are the possibility of experience are what we call an a priori. Which mean something that is independ from the experience, and so are what is really objective in the world.
And then Nietzsche come into play and yield : BULLSHIT there is not such thing as a priori.
What nietzsche is saying when he put critics on the concept of kantian "a priori" it's not that they do not exist. What he can accept, it's there property of a priori. For nietzsche there is not such thing as an objectiv truth, because everything is in "becoming". This "becoming" is not perceptible without an opération of the intellect which "fixe" (put a limitation in english?) this becoming and give something stable. Here we go the place where the first judgment apply.
You have to understand that this "becoming" threaten the organism. For two reason :
-The sensation in the world of becoming are always new. Which mean that for someone they are essentially unknown
-In order to go away of this unknown, you have to put something that you already knew. To be more clear, if sensation at there first apparition are always new, this novelty is shut down by putiting a sensation you already, know which is less powerful.
This operation is necessary because the world of becoming threaten the organism.
This is why the essence of the world for Nietzsche is suffering, and the essence of the superman (i hope it how you said it in english ^^) it's the man who can bear a lot of suffering.
The world of the becoming make men suffer because it's just to intense for the organism to bear it. To reduce this suffering, men have to logicise the world. Reduce the unknown to the known. Put old thing on what is always new. The will to power is essentialy this. Not some kind of domination bullshit, but the power to see a lot of new sensation. Sensation that transcends the sensation of the everyday life which have been drain from there intensity.
To come back to the kantian critics. The "a priori" have been a way for the organism to stabilise the "becoming" to reduce his power. Here is why we say later, that Nietzsche accept the "a priori" as something which put form to the becoming. But they are totallu empiristic.
So here what we got :
"Time, space and causation are what we use to be able to fixe the world of the becoming
They are not a priori because for them to become, they have to make there proof for the conservation of the organism. If they weren't able to maintain the organism, the way we shape your experience would be totally différent.
So something as to decide that the things are good for the organism to live.
So something judge these category as good.
And if the category are what your intellect is using to shape the experience.
There is a judgment at the begining of the experience. Before you know it.
(it's more complex because in those judgment there is all the history of manking coming into play.)
Show Posts
