--- author: Gilles Deleuze category: philosophy date: '2025-08-13' description: being and multiplicity external: https://antilogicalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/nietzsche-and-philosophy.pdf finished: 2025 id: Nietzsche and Philosophy language: french modified: 2026-06-05 15:07:59 GMT-04:00 notebook: '[[thoughts/Philosophy and Nietzsche|Nietzche]]' posters: '[[library/posters/nietzsche-and-philosophy.jpg]]' status: evergreen subcategory: multiplicity tags: - philosophy title: Nietzsche and Philosophy year: 1962 authors: Gilles Deleuze created: '2025-08-13' published: '2025-08-13' pageLayout: default slug: library/Nietzsche-and-Philosophy permalink: https://aarnphm.xyz/library/Nietzsche-and-Philosophy.md generator: quartz: v4.6.0 hostedProvider: Cloudflare baseUrl: aarnphm.xyz full: https://aarnphm.xyz/llms-full.txt --- _by [[thoughts/Giles Deleuze|Giles Deleuze]]_ The decadence of modern philosophy is the theory of value imposes conformism and a new form of submission of sense and [[thoughts/Value|value]] has to be a critique ### Value Problem with [[thoughts/Philosophy and Kant|Kant]] is that he failed to pose the problem of critique in terms of values Notion of [[thoughts/aesthetic value|aesthetic value]] implies critical reversal Critical philosophy has two inseparable moments: the referring back of all things and any kind of origin to values, but also the referring back of these values to something which is, as it were, the origin and determines their value. This is Nietzsche’s twofold struggle: - against those who remove values from criticism, contenting themselves with producing inventories of existing values or we criticising things in the name of established values (the “philosophy labourers”, Kant and Schopenhauer, [[library/Beyond Good and Evil|BGE]] 211) - against those who criticise, or respect, values by deriving them from simple facts, from so-called “objective facts” (the utilitarians, the “scholars”, BGE VI). Nietzsche attacks both the “high” idea of foundation which leaves values indifferent to their own origin and the idea of a simple causal derivation or smooth beginning which suggests an indifferent origin of values Genealogy: substitute pathos of difference or distance for both Kantian principle of universality and the principle of resemblance dear to utilitarianism ([[library/On The Genealogy of Morals|GM]] I) ### Sense - there are no _one_ definition of sense - We don’t know where the force come from - Philosophy is symptomatology, not {{sidenotes[semeiology]: study of signs and symbols and their use or itnerpretation. In a sense, we are performing [[thoughts/hermeneutics|hermeneutics]] practice towards symbols.}} - To interpret and to evaluate is to weigh causal and effects. > force is not a cause, but a symptom. ### against [[thoughts/dialectics]] Life struggles with another form of life as it affirms its own difference and enjoys this difference. The negative is not present in the essence as that from which force draws its activity: on the contrary it is a result of activity, of the existence of an active force and the affirmation of its difference. The negative is a product of existence itself: the aggression necessarily linked to an active existence, the aggression of an affirmation. As for negation as a concept, “it is only a subsequently-invented pale contrasting image in relation to its positive basic concept - filled with life and passion through and through” (GM I 10 p. 37). For the speculative element of negation, opposition or contradiction Nietzsche substitutes the practical element of difference, the object of affirmation and enjoyment. It is in this sense that there is a Nietzschean empiricism. The question which Nietzsche constantly repeats, “what does a will want, what does this one or that one want?”, must not be understood as the search for a goal, a motive or an object for this will. What a will wants is to affirm its difference. In its essential relation with the “other” a will makes its difference an object of affirmation. > “The pleasure of knowing oneself different”, the enjoyment of difference (BGE 260); This is the new, aggressive and elevated conceptual element that empiricism substitutes for the heavy notions of the dialectic and above all, as the dialectician puts it, for the labour of the negative. ### Tragedy > \[!tip\] Tragic > > The linking among contradictions, negatives, and opposition Tragedy has three ways of dying: - Socrates’ dialectics, or Euripidean death - Christianity - Modern dialectics and Wagner 1. BT emphasizes the contradiction is between primitive unity and individuality 2. Reflected in the opposition of Dionysus and Apollo - Apollo overcomes the suffering of the individual by the radiant glorification of the eternity of the phenomenon: construct appearances of appearance, thus freed from suffering - Dionysus shatters the individual, absorbing him into original being ⇒ reproduces contradictions as pain of individual and introduces into higher pleasure 3. Two antithesis ways of solving tragedy 4. Reconciliation dominated by Dionysus ### Nietzsche’s Evolution Tragic in totality lies within its contradiction, Dionysus’ resolutions and expressions of such solutions Characteristic of tragic culture, as seem in Kant, Schopenhauer, Wagner, as in trying to solve it - wisdom takes the place of science as the highest end. ### Existence and Innocence Necessary to disperse the universe, to lose respect for the whole > Innocence is the game of existence, of force and will Existence affirmed and appreciated, force not separated, the will not divided in two - first approximation of innocence Mentioned Heraclitus = tragic thinker H understood existence on the basis of an instinct of [[thoughts/play|play]] Existence as an [[thoughts/aesthetic value|aesthetic]] phenomenon rather than moral or religious #### Affirmation of [[thoughts/being]] Heraclitus denied the duality of worlds, “he denied being itself’. Moreover he made an affirmation of becoming. We have to reflect for a long time to understand what it means to make an affirmation of becoming. In the first place it is doubtless to say that there is only becoming. No doubt it is also to affirm becoming. But we also affirm the being of becoming, we say that becoming affirms being or that being is affirmed in becoming. Heraclitus has two thoughts which are like ciphers: according to one there is no being, everything is becoming; according to the other, being is the being of becoming as such. A working thought which affirms becoming and a contemplative thought which affirms the being of becoming. These two ways of thinking are inseparable, they are the thought of a single element, as Fire and Dike, as Physis and Logos. For there is no being beyond becoming, nothing beyond multiplicity; neither multiplicity nor becoming are appearances or illusions Multiplicity is the inseparable manifestation, essential transformation and constant symptom of unity > Affirming [[thoughts/being|being]] of becoming and affirming becoming are two return state Eternal return is distinct return of outward movement, distinct contemplation of action ### The dice-throw The game as two set of movement - Earth is where the dice is thrown and sky is when the dice is thrown back - The dice-throw affirm becoming and it affirms the being of becoming Not a large number of throws produce the repetition of combinations but rather the number of combinations which produce the repetition of the dice throw Dice that are thrown once is the affirmation of chance Combination of dice that are thrown is the affirmation of necessity Necessity is affirmed by chances and chances id being affirmed by the act of necessity ### Nietzsche and Mallermé 1. To think is to send out a dice-throw 2. Man does not know how to play 3. To throw a dice is not only irrational, but also constitute to the tragic attempt and tragic thought par excellence Necessity is the abomination of chance ### Tragic thoughts Spirit of revenge as in different form nihilism takes place It is a type, but not separable from typology ### The Touchstone Relates to other tragic philosopher, but shan’t take this at face value Tragedy in Nietzsche philosophy, one must ask: - How does this other think? - How much ressentiment and bad conscience remains in his thoughts? [[library/Thus Spoke Zarathustra|Zarathustra]] opposes playing to betting, dancing to leaping. ### What is the [[thoughts/Will to Power|will to power]]? The will to power is the element from which derive both the quantitative difference of related forces and the quality that devolves into each force in this relations Mixed with eternal return, centered around the concept of force and internal will [[thoughts/Giles Deleuze|Deleuze]] brought up the argument that Nietzsche belongs to neo-Kantian not because his philosophy follows deontological framework, but because of the way he handles these Kantian demands > \[!tip\] synthesis > > Established the principle of synthesis, the will to power and determined this as the differential and genetic element of force in which directly confronts one another. He turned synthesis into synthesis of sheer force The will in power is the synthesis itself, and in the synthesis in relation to time, forces pass through the same difference again and results in diversity - synthesis is one of the force - The difference and reproduction is one of the force - The _eternal return_ is the synthesis in which its principle is the same ipl to power N oppose will to power to Schopenhauerian will to live, only because of the extreme generality of the latter. (P.51)

The concept of force is, by nature, victorious because the relation of force to force, understood conceptually, is one of domination: when two forces are related one is dominant and the other is dominated. (Even God and the universe are caught in a relation of domination, however debatable the interpretation of such a relation may be in this case.)

> Nevertheless, this victorious concept of force needs a _complement_ and this complement is _internal_, an internal will. It would not be victorious without such an addition. This is because relations of forces remain indeterminate unless an element which is capable of determining them from a double point of view is added to force itself. > Forces in relation reflect a simultaneous double genesis: the reciprocal genesis of their difference in quantity and the absolute genesis of their respective qualities. > The will to power is thus added to force, but as the differential and genetic element, as the internal element of its production. It is in no way anthropomorphic. More precisely, it is added to force as the internal principle of the determination of its quality in a relation (x + dx) and as the internal principle of the quantitative determination of this relation itself (dy/dx). > The will to power must be described as the genealogical element of force and of forces. Thus it is always through the will to power that one force prevails over others and dominates or commands them. Moreover it is also the will to power (dy) which makes a force obey within a relation; it is through will to power that it obeys.” We have already encountered the relationship between the eternal and the [[thoughts/Will to Power|will to power]], but we have neither elucidated nor analysed it. > \[!question\] Question > > Heidegger on “Why most will [not understand](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMV9cdIlYYU\&ab_channel=essentialsalts) will to power?”