Epistemological Subjectivism: Friedrich Nietzsche*
One of the best-known defenders of subjectivism was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900). Nietzsche was one of the forerunners of the 20th-century movement of existentialism, a philosophy that emphasizes subjective choosing over objective reasoning.
Radical Perspectivism
Nietzsche’s theory of knowledge can be stated quite simply: we don’t have any objective knowledge at all. He is a paradigm case of a subjective relativist. The only reality we can know, he says, is the reality that is subjectively constructed by each individual. Ironically, Nietzsche seemed to have arrived at this position because he rejected the correspondence theory of truth, one of the most common starting points for an objectivist epistemology. The correspondence theory of truth states that (1) reality has a determinant, objective character and (2) a belief or statement is true or false to the degree to which it corresponds to or represents the objective features of reality. The cruel catch, according to Nietzsche, is that we can never have that sort of relationship to reality. By setting a high standard for truth and noting that we can never reach this ideal, Nietzsche concluded that we can never have objective truth. Like a goldfish who is confined to its bowl, looking out at the world from within it, each of us thinks, speaks, and lives within our own, subjective perspective. But what about facts? Aren’t they out there, independent of us, and don’t they function as an objective standard for the truth or falsity of our beliefs? “Not at all!” says Nietzsche:
Radical Perspectivism
Nietzsche’s theory of knowledge can be stated quite simply: we don’t have any objective knowledge at all. He is a paradigm case of a subjective relativist. The only reality we can know, he says, is the reality that is subjectively constructed by each individual. Ironically, Nietzsche seemed to have arrived at this position because he rejected the correspondence theory of truth, one of the most common starting points for an objectivist epistemology. The correspondence theory of truth states that (1) reality has a determinant, objective character and (2) a belief or statement is true or false to the degree to which it corresponds to or represents the objective features of reality. The cruel catch, according to Nietzsche, is that we can never have that sort of relationship to reality. By setting a high standard for truth and noting that we can never reach this ideal, Nietzsche concluded that we can never have objective truth. Like a goldfish who is confined to its bowl, looking out at the world from within it, each of us thinks, speaks, and lives within our own, subjective perspective. But what about facts? Aren’t they out there, independent of us, and don’t they function as an objective standard for the truth or falsity of our beliefs? “Not at all!” says Nietzsche:
No, facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations. We cannot establish any fact “in itself ”: perhaps it is folly to want to do such a thing.
|
There cannot be any uninterpreted “facts” or “truths,” for everything we encounter is seen from one perspective or another. Nietzsche calls this approach his theory of perspectivism. If Nietzsche is correct, then to suppose that there is an impersonal, objective, and perspective-free outlook on reality is like supposing that we could take a picture of the Lincoln Monument in which the perspective was neither from the north, east, south, west, or any direction whatsoever. Although there is obviously no visual perspective-free perception, most objectivists claim that a conceptual perspective-free standpoint is possible. Some have called this standpoint the “view-from-nowhere” assumption. But Nietzsche believes there is no such standpoint, for every judgment is made from someone’s concrete, personal perspective.
To understand Nietzsche’s approach to truth, it is helpful to remember that he was a philologist. In studying ancient texts, such as a Greek play, we never have the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies that were passed down through the centuries and were put together from multiple, partial, and sometimes inconsistent versions of the original. During this process it was inevitable that errors and mistakes crept into the copies that were then passed on as part of the manuscript. Because of these errors, it was necessary for each ancient scribe copying the text or a present-day scholar reading the text to interpret and reconstruct it to make the best possible sense out of it. But in reconstructing the text, the copyist’s or the scholar’s outlook, personal judgment, and biases in interpretations became part of the text itself.
In much the same way, Nietzsche thought, each of us interprets the “text” of the world. In perceiving and thinking about the world, we are not like mirrors that passively record what is out there. Instead, we are reconstructing and interpreting the data to create a vision of the world that not only makes sense to us but that conforms to our subjective needs. The notion that we play an active role in constructing our knowledge is taken from Kant’s insight. However, Kant believed there was a single way of structuring experience that was carried out by the categories of the human mind that were universal to everyone and that were fundamentally rational. For Nietzsche, however, there are multiple ways of structuring experience that are relative to each individual, and that are driven by our fundamentally nonrational nature, including our passions and our subjective interests, needs, and motives.
To understand Nietzsche’s approach to truth, it is helpful to remember that he was a philologist. In studying ancient texts, such as a Greek play, we never have the original manuscripts. What we have are copies of copies of copies that were passed down through the centuries and were put together from multiple, partial, and sometimes inconsistent versions of the original. During this process it was inevitable that errors and mistakes crept into the copies that were then passed on as part of the manuscript. Because of these errors, it was necessary for each ancient scribe copying the text or a present-day scholar reading the text to interpret and reconstruct it to make the best possible sense out of it. But in reconstructing the text, the copyist’s or the scholar’s outlook, personal judgment, and biases in interpretations became part of the text itself.
In much the same way, Nietzsche thought, each of us interprets the “text” of the world. In perceiving and thinking about the world, we are not like mirrors that passively record what is out there. Instead, we are reconstructing and interpreting the data to create a vision of the world that not only makes sense to us but that conforms to our subjective needs. The notion that we play an active role in constructing our knowledge is taken from Kant’s insight. However, Kant believed there was a single way of structuring experience that was carried out by the categories of the human mind that were universal to everyone and that were fundamentally rational. For Nietzsche, however, there are multiple ways of structuring experience that are relative to each individual, and that are driven by our fundamentally nonrational nature, including our passions and our subjective interests, needs, and motives.
People typically fail to read this message accurately because they bring to the text their expectations, their assumptions, their past experience, and their background knowledge. That misinterpretation is Nietzsche’s point. We “see” what our conceptual frameworks or perspectives allow us to see or what they direct us to see. Did you say that the message was “Paris in the spring”? If so, your reading of the message was incorrect. Put your finger on each word of the message as you read it. If you are like most people, the first time you repeated the message you got it wrong. If something as simple as this message can be reconstructed and interpreted according to our own framework of assumptions, what makes us think we operate any differently with the whole of reality?
* Lawhead, William F. The Philosophical Journey: an Interactive Approach. McGraw-Hill, 2009. pp. 143-145
This text has 45 sentences, with 850 words (20.24 per sentence) with 1.58 syllables per word.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 10.9
This text has 45 sentences, with 850 words (20.24 per sentence) with 1.58 syllables per word.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 10.9
Comprehension and Reading Skills Quiz
If taking the online version of this quiz, please click through using the button below. It will automatically score itself when you finish. If you miss two or more questions, you should consider taking a Reading Skills lab to enhance your reading and study skills proficiency.