Nietzsche wrote in a scientific culture transformed by Darwin. He read extensively in German and about British Darwinists, and his own works dealt often with such obvious Darwinian themes as struggle and evolution. Yet most of what Nietzsche said about Darwin was hostile: he sharply attacked many of his ideas, and often slurred Darwin himself as mediocre, so most readers of Nietzsche have inferred that he must have cast Darwin quite aside. But in fact, this book argues, Nietzsche was deeply and pervasively influenced by Darwin. He stressed his disagreements, but was silent about several core points he took over from Darwin. Moreover, the book claims, these Darwinian borrowings were to Nietzsche's credit: when we bring them to the surface we discover his positions to be much stronger than we had thought. Even Nietzsche's radical innovations are more plausible when we expose their Darwinian ground; we see that they amount to a new Darwinism.
My overall project is to show that Nietzsche's ideas do cohere into a philosophical system comparable to his predecessors’ – despite his own strong attacks on the system, and on these predecessors. This system centers around his view of the world as will to power. I work to make this notion conceptually precise, and to show how it extends into his wealth of other thoughts, including his analysis of the basic types of persons and societies, his insistence that the world is “not being but becoming,” his values of individuality and self‐creating, his attacks on morality, and his critique and affirmation of truth. The claim that Nietzsche promotes such a systematic view seems inconsistent with his well‐known “perspectivism”; I argue that the latter issues from his conception of these wills to power as perspectives, and that this source shows us both the forces and limits of that doctrine.
The time dependencies of capacitance and dissipation factor, for aluminum specimens supporting air‐formed or anodic films, have been measured at 103 Hz during immersion in near‐neutral chromate, dichromate, chloride, bromide, iodide, fluoride, and sulfate solutions. Supporting observations have been made using optical microscopy and scanning and conventional electron microscopy. Behavior in chromate and dichromate solutions is interpreted in terms of the healing of “mechanical” flaws originally present in air‐formed films and the thinning of anodic films down to a passive film thickness of about 25Aå. Results in bromide, iodide, and especially chloride solutions are interpreted in terms of pitting by dissolution of transiently exposed metal at the bases of flaws and subsequent undermining of the surface oxide film, which plays a relatively inert role throughout the process. A quantitative model, describing the effects of pit development from flaws on measured specimen impedances, is presented. Relatively little attack occurs in sulfate solution, whereas in fluoride solution the impedance changes are consistent with rapid removal of the surface oxide film and its replacement by a complex oxyfluoride. The general degree of aggression of the anions toward oxide‐coated aluminum increases in the order of dichromate, chromate, sulfate, iodide, bromide, chloride, fluoride.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.