Nietzsche's Rank-Order of Sciences and Humanities.

In section 23 of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche suggests that psychology should “be recognized again as the queen of the sciences, for whose service and preparation the other sciences exist.” And in section 204, he implies that philosophy should rule, not least of all over the sciences. Now consider the following.

“The second: they are the guardians of the law, those who see to order and security, the noble warriors, and above all the king as the highest formula of warrior, judge, and upholder of the law. The second are the executive arm of the most spiritual, that which is closest to them and belongs to them, that which does everything gross in the work of ruling for them – their retinue, their right hand, their best pupils.”
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist(ian), section 57.]

Now the reason psychology is called “queen” rather than “king” of the sciences, is that the German word Psychologie is feminine.

If psychology is the king of the sciences, then the sciences make up the second caste. Philosophy belongs to the first caste, then. And indeed, Nietzsche calls the first caste of the Indian caste system, which is actually the caste of priests, the caste of philosophers (ibid., section 56).

Now in German, the word Wissenschaft (“science”) means more than only the natural and social sciences. The humanities, for instance, are called Geisteswissenschaften, “spiritual (or intellectual) sciences”. But Nietzsche did not consider philosophy a science – not even an “intellectual” science. And he envisioned psychology as king of all the sciences – natural, social, and intellectual.

I said he did not consider philosophy a science. But it is usually reckoned among the humanities, i.e., the “intellectual” sciences. Then again, Nietzsche distinguished two kinds of philosopher:

“1. those who want to ascertain a complex fact of evaluations (logical or moral);
2. those who are legislators of such evaluations.”
[The Will to Power, section 972 (1884).]

In Beyond Good and Evil (1885), he is much more explicit:

“I insist that philosophical laborers and men of science in general should once and for all cease to be confused with philosophers”.
[section 211.]

To those who read both these sections in full, it will be clear that by “philosophers” in BGE 211 he means those mentioned under 2. in WtP 972, and by “philosophical laborers” in the former he means those mentioned under 1. in the latter.

We thus see that all the sciences (Wissenschaften), even philosophy in the academic sense, belong to the second caste (of the two I have described so far), whereas, of the disciplines mentioned, only philosophy in the Nietzschean sense belongs to the first caste.

But in WtP 972, we see that the founders of religions also rank among the legislators of evaluations. Perhaps we might designate this whole sphere as “art” (though only high art, of course: not mere craftsmanship). For in BGE 58, he says “one could include the homines religiosi [religious men] among the artists, as their highest rank.”

But if the religious man is the highest kind of artist, how can philosophy be the supreme art and the summit of the whole pyramid?

“The philosopher as a further development of the priestly type:–has the heritage of the priest in his blood; is compelled, even as rival, to struggle for the same ends with the same means as the priest of his time; he aspires to supreme authority.”
[WtP 140.]

At the present time in human history, names are not conventional. This means that man is pre-literate. Most discussions are no more than a tossing and turning of the vagueness of human thought.

Why some ancients considered philosophy over all the sciences is because, for example to Plato, a dialetician was the master of language. Since we effect human will through language, it simply followed. At that time the craft of a philosopher was dialectic, however what that word meant then and now differ greatly.

There was a reason for the study of the exact sciences, they taught one how names, words, could or could not be manipulated. Thus the term philosopher today has little or no meaning left to it. If one used Plato’s standard of what a philosopher was, one would be hard pressed to name a philosopher.

The good news is that children sometimes grow up to be that at which, in their childhood, they only played at being.

We can see why philosophy ranks higher than science if we understand philosophy and science as Heidegger understood them, as metaphysics and physics, respectively (physics being the study of all natural phenomena – and we may reckon all phenomena, even cultural ones, among the “natural” phenomena).

Science is concerned with beings, but not with the Being of beings. The main question of science is: “How do beings behave?”; whereas the main question of philosophy is “Why do beings behave the way they behave?”, that is, “What is the Being of beings?”

The main question of science is preceded by another, the basic question of science: “What are beings?” To be sure, this question was formerly answered by a philosopher. This philosopher, however, was the natural philosopher Democritus, whose answer was “Beings are a-toms (un-divided particles).” In modern physics this answer has been replaced by “Beings are quanta (amounts – of energy)”, and more recently by “Beings are strings (tiny strands – of energy)”. The question what energy is, however, is not a question for physics but for philosophy – metaphysics.

From the above we can easily make out the difference between science and philosophy. Basically, philosophy asks “What is Being?” whereas science asks “What are beings and how do they behave?” Anthropology, for instance, answers the basic question of science by “Beings are human beings”, and then seeks to answer as accurately as possible how they behave. It is only psychology, however, that seeks to answer why beings behave as they behave. Yet it does not seek to answer the question what Being is. Rather, it accepts the answer from philosophy. Thus Nietzsche’s psychology is, in his own words, “morphology and ontogeny [Entwicklungslehre, “doctrine of the development”] of the will to power” (BGE 23). It thus departs from Nietzsche’s answer to the basic question of metaphysics, “Being is will to power.”

Also in BGE 23, Nietzsche says “psychology shall be recognized again as the queen of the sciences, for whose service and preparation the other sciences exist. For psychology is now again the path to the fundamental problems.” With the mention of these “problems” he does not refer to the fundamental question of philosophy as metaphysics, though.

The problems Nietzsche mentions are ethical problems. For Nietzsche, all the sciences other than psychology exist for the service and preparation of psychology. But does psychology stand in the service of philosophy as metaphysics?

It seems to me that, for Nietzsche, metaphysics is really beyond this whole rank-order. The answer to metaphysics’ basic question informs psychology, which in turn stands in the service of the arts, and especially of the highest art, religion. Religion, however – and this is how it’s connected to philosophy – is basically concerned with ethics. All the “art” – the deceit! – of religion is sanctified in relation to the ethics it serves to impose. Thus Nietzsche writes:

“it costs dear and terribly when religions hold sway, not as means of education and breeding in the hands of the philosopher, but in their own right and as sovereign, when they themselves want to be final ends and not means beside other means.”
[BGE 62.]

This whole Nietzschean rank-order, like everything else in Nietzsche’s philosophy, stands in the service of the education and breeding of what, from Thus Spake Zarathustra on, he called the Overman.

So what of Deleuze’s statement that philosophy is concept creation? Would Nietzsche have agreed?

Philosophy is the art of form.

Pragmatism is the attempt by scientists to merge science with philosophy.

Science is the art of logic.

[b]Creation Science[/b] is the attempt by clergymen to merge religion with science.

Spirituality is the art of language.

In terms of intellectual power, the philosopher has more than the scientist, and the scientist has more than the clergyman.

You’re back!

I knew you wouldn’t give up so easily.

Not concept creation, but value creation.

“I insist that philosophical laborers and men of science in general should once and for all cease to be confused with philosophers—that on precisely this point “to each his own” should be strictly applied, and not much too much given to the former, much too little to the latter. It may be required for the education of a philosopher that he himself has also once stood on all those steps on which his servants, the scientific laborers of philosophy, remain standing—must remain standing; he himself must perhaps have been critic and skeptic and dogmatist and historian and, in addition, poet and collector and traveler and reader of riddles and moralist and seer and “free spirit” and practically everything, so as to traverse the whole range of human values and value-feelings and be able to gaze from the heights into every distance, from the depths into every height, from the nook-and-comer into every broad expanse with manifold eyes and a manifold conscience. But all these are only preconditions of his task: this task itself demands something different—it demands that he create values.”
[BGE 211.]

Yes, value creation. The philosopher here becomes inseparable from the man of knowledge. Philosophy as a function of wisdom, the wisest of course being Zarathustra.

But here is a question: if the Dionysian perspective is the greatest (ie the greatest good and bad speaks through it), what is left in the realm of values for a Zarathustra to create?

I think his precise phrase was “yea man the Dionysian perspective really rocks”

I’m not even sure why he wrote the darn book when he could have summed things up so pithily - luckily the keen minds of ILP are at hand to help him…!


How does this inseparability follow from the fact that philosophy is value creation?

Well spotted man! I did indeed use the wrong term. I should have said: ‘…the man of experience, not least of all he who has found himself.’

“Experience” as in this?

“It may be required for the education of a philosopher that he himself has also once stood on all those steps on which his servants, the scientific laborers of philosophy, remain standing—must remain standing; he himself must perhaps have been critic and skeptic and dogmatist and historian and, in addition, poet and collector and traveler and reader of riddles and moralist and seer and “free spirit” and practically everything, so as to traverse the whole range of human values and value-feelings and be able to gaze from the heights into every distance, from the depths into every height, from the nook-and-comer into every broad expanse with manifold eyes and a manifold conscience.”

Good question. The point is – and this is why I suggested, in Human Superhuman, that Dionysus, in the sense of the “Primordial One”, might be beyond good and bad as well – the point is that the Dionysian perspective is not the greatest, but is only willed to be the greatest. The will wills the greatness of will: strong will wills strength – that is, strong-willedness – to be good (as opposed to bad). This is what value-creation is.

“Valuing is creating: hear it, ye creating ones! Valuation itself is the treasure and jewel of the valued things.”
[Zarathustra, Of the Thousand and One Goals.]

The Nietzschean philosopher’s creation of values is his valuing strong will above weak will; but this valuation is itself a function of strong will! Which reminds me:

“And ye tell me, friends, that there is to be no dispute about taste and tasting? But all life is a dispute about taste and tasting!
Taste: that is weight at the same time, and scales and weigher; and alas for every living thing that would live without dispute about weight and scales and weigher!”
[Zarathustra, Of the Sublime Ones.]

Taste (that is, valuation!) is a function of will. The good man, that is, the strong man – the strong-willed man –, necessarily has good taste. And it is good taste to value strength above weakness – thus judgeth Zarathustra.

“The noble man conceives the basic concept “good” in advance and spontaneously out of himself and only then creates for himself an idea of “bad”!”
[Nietzsche, GM I, 11, paraphrase.]

So, how is your fairytale factory working?

[-X :^o :laughing:

Strong is simply blonde. “Strength is gained through scaring” and paleness is gained through scaring. => Paleness = strength.

What now? All blondes are creators of values? But pale criminals killed Caesar. But criminals = pale. All non-creators + destroyers are pale. All socialists are criminals and pale and destroyers. Most of them are blonde. What is missing? Blood? Spirit? The creative force?

Values, in the sense of grown humans, not in the sense of artists :-({|= or other children which “are dependent on values” are virtues or moralities. – Something that has only the god or overman above.

But the artistic creeps have everything possible above: kings, philosophers, priests, moralities, virtues, great events… they are unfree to the highest extent.

The main difference is if someone has read books to destroy or to create (and destroy, but only if there is something on his way).

Poor socialists think if there has something been destroyed it is a proof that something has been created. They think “I will destroy and someone else will create something on the place of my nazi-bunker” and the whole process he calls Dionysian. But, of course, this has nothing to do with the pupils of Zarathustra. They care less about nazi-bunkers and more about values.

Who of you has ever mentioned a single virtue in his whole life?

I read my first summary’s of Nietzsche last night, with the summary of The will to power, This is a very interesting philosophy, that in my opinion really stands out from a lot of the others out there. And i to believe in no good and bad, that its created by humans. I believe in a will, and i could see all things in nature displaying attributes to what Nietzsche observed, the will to survive, the will to grow, the will to become more “powerful”. But i also believe that reality is a illusion, energy vibrating, splitting, connecting, and by the laws of the universe our “reality” becomes perceived through our senses. So what is essentially a vibrating dance of energy, we then come into this bath of energy and begin defining, controlling, bathe ourselves in ideas and thoughts. So does Nietzsche believe in no individual soul? or spirit? what does he think about reincarnation? And can a will ever reach its perfection? or will it grow forever?

You can not call reality illusion, because they are oposites. What is more real, reality or illusion? There is no way to prove illusion is real. Fatamorgana? There is no way to prove that your car is a “dance of energy”. Why don’t you take a “dance” with your airplane? Or your dream, and go to work…

I mean, is philosophy for lunatics?

I haven’t seen a single normal person in this whole messageboard!

Note that “bad”, as we use the word here, is not the same as “evil”. In fact, it is more or less the opposite. “Good and bad” are extramoral values, whereas “good and evil” are moral values. Basically, “good and bad” are simply “strong and weak”, respectively, whereas “evil” is what the cunning among the weak call the strong, in comparison to whom they then call themselves “good”. Thus the original (noble) valuation was:

Good (strong)
Bad (weak).

This was then revalued by the cunning among the weak as:

Good (weak)
Evil (strong)

Nietzsche’s revaluation of all values is a return to the noble valuation.

Yes. It is more than the will to survive. As one Moody Lawless wrote;

"Will To Power [WTP] is opposed to Social Darwinism [SD]; whereas SD talks of evolution’s will to survival, Nietzsche argued that Nature does not seek to so much survive, as to FLOURISH.

WTP describes that constant expansion of things even to the point of their own extinction and destruction [and hence not always to survival].

Nietzsche noticed that it was NOT the best human specimens who survive and flourish, but the mediocre, the average - even the down-right botched.

The great tragedy of life is that the rare and highest types are the most threatened and vulnerable."

I think Nietzsche would have thought of reincarnation as I do. I believe in only two kinds of reincarnation. The first is the reincarnation of ancestors in their offspring (parents in their children). The method of this kind of reincarnation is the passing on of genetic information. The method of the other kind is the passing on of cultural information (by means of books, etc.). This is what I call “spiritual” reincarnation (as opposed to the first kind, which is physical).

Buddha, by the way, did not believe in an individual soul either: he said “there is reincarnation, but no transmigration of souls.”

Our tendency to define, control, etc. the “vibrating dance of energy” that is existence in ideas and thought etc. actually follows from the will to power. The highest will to power is to impose the character of Being (in the Parmenidean sense) on Becoming (the flux, the dance, etc.). The will to power always is concerned with such violation, such imposition.

It is, of course, another nonsense from Nietzsche’s quoting-machine.

Christianity has called many things “evil”, but the church called love and erotics evil too. The point is, as N states in Dawn, if you accept love and erotics as evil, you are a bad, common man. The whole rock and roll movement is a movement of bad people. They are all about love/sex and put up the “devils” sign up.

And nobody can say that roman soldiers have been bad and thus accepted christianity or felt them selves “evil”. All empires have taken first the Old testament. The NT comes into the game only after the translation into german. After the translation of the NT about 100.000 german villagers have lost their lives in a rebellion.

Therefore I call:

good noble and bad common.

That is why nazis and communists are bad: they all come from the Arbeiter Partei!

I can agree with what you say, But why would we end up in a human body thats capable of so much critical thought just so if Nietzsche had his way the biggest could bash the smallest face in? rampage and do as his will pleases, with no thought of the other in question and what he might be experiencing? I guess its all how you look at it, i could see truth in what you say if i see it from that angle, but theres always another angle. And when you see it from that angle that makes sense. It seems to me Nietzsche saw truths in this world, defined them as his perspective allowed, and from there people had a new way to look at things down here. But what is beyond this world? what is the source of the “I”. Were all strong, the weak are the ones who say they are weak. We all have the source of “I”.

There is no beyond, Mr Loser, there is no escape. Only bad people want beyond, want an escape. Good people affirm everything real. The “beyond” has been made for the superfluous. But we don’t need them alive anymore.