{"title":"Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s Philosophy: Origins of the Discussion (1890s – 1930s)","authors":"G. V. Biserov","doi":"10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-167-180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines the early discussion on the role of Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s philosophy, including some relatively little-known contributions by R. Oehler, E. Bertram and A. Baeumler, as well as more widely mentioned interpretations of K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger and K. Löwith. I show that in the 1890s–1930s the significant influence of Heraclitus on Nietzsche’s thought was considered indisputable. However, interpretations of the period can be divided into the ‘authentic’ ones (e.g., Oehler, Löwith), each of which view Nietzsche’s use of Heraclitus thought as significant for Nietzsche’s own philosophy, and ‘idiosyncratic’ ones (e.g. Heidegger, Jaspers), which, by interpreting Nietzsche from their own idiosyncratic perspectives, naturally put less philosophical weight on reading Nietzsche from the standpoint of Heraclitus. This review leads to the conclusion that a study of Nietzsche’s Heraclitus can contribute to two contemporary debates in Nietzsche studies: the discussion on Nietzsche’s ontological position and to the discussion around the so-called continuity thesis.","PeriodicalId":240316,"journal":{"name":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Siberian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25205/2541-7517-2022-20-2-167-180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The paper examines the early discussion on the role of Heraclitus in Nietzsche’s philosophy, including some relatively little-known contributions by R. Oehler, E. Bertram and A. Baeumler, as well as more widely mentioned interpretations of K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger and K. Löwith. I show that in the 1890s–1930s the significant influence of Heraclitus on Nietzsche’s thought was considered indisputable. However, interpretations of the period can be divided into the ‘authentic’ ones (e.g., Oehler, Löwith), each of which view Nietzsche’s use of Heraclitus thought as significant for Nietzsche’s own philosophy, and ‘idiosyncratic’ ones (e.g. Heidegger, Jaspers), which, by interpreting Nietzsche from their own idiosyncratic perspectives, naturally put less philosophical weight on reading Nietzsche from the standpoint of Heraclitus. This review leads to the conclusion that a study of Nietzsche’s Heraclitus can contribute to two contemporary debates in Nietzsche studies: the discussion on Nietzsche’s ontological position and to the discussion around the so-called continuity thesis.
本文考察了关于赫拉克利特在尼采哲学中的作用的早期讨论,包括R. Oehler, E. Bertram和A. Baeumler的一些相对鲜为人知的贡献,以及更广泛提及的对K. Jaspers, M. Heidegger和K. Löwith的解释。我表明,在19世纪90年代至30年代,赫拉克利特对尼采思想的重大影响被认为是无可争辩的。然而,对这一时期的解释可以分为“真实”的(例如,Oehler, Löwith),每个人都认为尼采对赫拉克利特思想的使用对尼采自己的哲学具有重要意义,以及“特殊”的(例如,海德格尔,雅斯贝尔斯),通过从他们自己的特殊角度解释尼采,自然地减少了从赫拉克利特的立场阅读尼采的哲学重量。通过对尼采的《赫拉克利特》的回顾,我们可以得出这样的结论:对尼采的本体论立场的讨论和对所谓的连续性论点的讨论,对尼采的《赫拉克利特》的研究可以促成当代尼采研究中的两个争论。