Nietzsche on Objects

Abstract

Nietzsche was persistently concerned with what an object is and how different views of objects lead to different views of facts, causality, personhood, substance, truth, mathematics and logic, and even nihilism. Yet his treatment of objects is incredibly puzzling. In many passages, he assumes that objects such as trees and leaves, tables and chairs, and dogs and cats are just ordinary entities of experience. In other places, he reports that objects do not exist. Elsewhere he claims that objects exist, but as mere bundles of forces. And sometimes he proposes that we bring all objects into existence. Nietzsche’s writings, then, appear to support various secondary readings, which are jointly inconsistent. My chief aim is to present and defend the reading that Nietzsche embraces constructivism about objects, the neo-Kantian view that all objects are socially constructed. I first explain this view and argue that all non-constructivist readings are not supported by Nietzsche’s texts. I then present Nietzsche’s object constructivism, reconstruct his argument for the position, and defend it from an internal objection. I finish by suggesting that Nietzsche might have embraced such a radical conception of objects because it plays a crucial role in overcoming nihilism.

Defending Nietzsche's Constructivism about Objects

“…His texts often address questions concerning the existence and non‐existence of objects, the relation of objects to human minds, and how different views of objects impact commitments in many areas of philosophy—not just metaphysics but also epistemology, semantics, science, and even ethics. I have argued (Remhof ), along with Nehamas (: Ch. 3), Anderson (), and Cox (: 152–163), that Nietzsche adopts a radical Kantian view of objects called constructivism .…”

“…1 1For prominent non‐constructivist readings, see Clark (), Leiter (), Hales and Welshon (), Doyle (), and Nola (, 1999). For challenges to these readings, see Remhof (), (2017).…”

“…10 10For the opposing idea that objects are intrinsically unified bundles of forces, which would render CV5 false, see Hales and Welshon () and Doyle (). For criticism, see Remhof (), (2017).…”

“…The constructivist view I attribute to Nietzsche, which holds that human practices bring objects into existence, is meant to include actions motivated by subconscious drives as well as reflective, conscious actions. My use of the term ‘actions’ instead of ‘practices’ in Remhof () was not sufficiently clear on this point. ‘Actions’ strongly suggests active, conscious, reflective behaviors, and Nietzsche does not seem to think that such behavior must exist for objects to exist.…”

“…16 16One might argue that forces themselves are not constructed. For considerations that suggest otherwise, see Remhof (), (2017).…”