Papers on Nietzsche and 19th century thinking by Peter Bornedal
Beyond Priest and Slave
Chapter III of a new book project
We agree that there is a rupture between remittance and reception of a sentence/an utterance, whi... more We agree that there is a rupture between remittance and reception of a sentence/an utterance, which must be irreparable since we are unable to restore past intentions with sufficient clarity and precision. It must be true that experiences always sink back as memory traces, becoming less and less vivid. This is compelling thinking; however, the pertinent observation obtains to undersigned a conclusion different from that of Derrida. Even granted the irreparable loss of original moment of inscription, the loss of original intentions does not constitute absence as overshadowing our general activities and behaviors, but enables us rather to live the present. This may at first seem a paradoxical conclusion, but the consequence of the disappearance of original intentions is not the 'necessary possibility' of absence or the 'necessary impossibility' of the presence.
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth, 2020
A preprint version of "Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth" (Rowman and Littlefield, L... more A preprint version of "Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth" (Rowman and Littlefield, Lexington Books, 2020)
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth, 2020
Download flyer to see offer from Rowman and Littlefield
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth: A World Fragmented in 19th Century Epistemology, 2019
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth: A World Fragmented in 19th Century Epistemology, 2019
During the century, one started to question the validity of the theological and metaphysical noti... more During the century, one started to question the validity of the theological and metaphysical notions of knowledge in step with the growing scientific realization that we are, firstly, infinitesimally small compared to an infinite universe, secondly, random outcomes of evolution, and thirdly, poorly equipped to perceive our surrounding world. The new discoveries deliver a triple blow to human pride and are formative for Nietzsche's critical discussions of 'truth' and the 'true world.' We notice already here that Nietzsche's skepticism regarding 'Truth' is less an irrational romantic-idealist impulse, than a reflection of the scientific progress of his age. Truth is becoming an endangered species in the new paradigm. In an interesting reversal of the common understanding of the issue, the defense of Truth is now decried as traditionalist religious and metaphysical speculation, while the rejection of Truth is applauded as the new progressive 2 naturalist-scientific view.
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth: A World Fragmented in 19th Century Epistemology, 2019
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth: A World Fragmented in 19th Century Epistemology, 2019
Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth: A World Fragmented in 19th Century Epistemology, 2019
[500]: While Kant's suggestion of a 'thing-in-itself' has been subject to much examination, the d... more [500]: While Kant's suggestion of a 'thing-in-itself' has been subject to much examination, the discussion of the concept by post-Kantian philosophers of the 19 th century has received less attention, although it largely defined the science debates of the century. The paper is a sketch of some of the positions we encounter from the beginning to the closure of the century, positions often reapplying Kant's notion in the context of emerging new scientific disciplines, such as nuclear physics, evolutionary biology, or psycho-physiology.
A new translation of a philosophical classic. Bilingual German/English. Included as an appendix t... more A new translation of a philosophical classic. Bilingual German/English. Included as an appendix to "Nietzsche's Naturalist Deconstruction of Truth" (2019, Rowman and Littlefield)
In the 19 th century neo-and post-Kantian intellectual climate, we find a long and sustained disc... more In the 19 th century neo-and post-Kantian intellectual climate, we find a long and sustained discussion of knowledge trying to come to terms with Kant's notion of the "thing-in-itself." Everybody agrees that the old theological metaphysics is dead, i.e., that knowledge has no spiritual foundation. But throughout the century, one still hopes to establish a foundational principle with the same authority, namely a principle that can guarantee the objectivity of the sciences and the scientific laws. In the new emerging materialism of the early part of the century, the Kantian 'thing-in-itself' still has a role to play as the placeholder for matter, forces, substances, and causes. The world, whose smallest constituents are now realized to be atoms, may not be spiritual, but it is in its foundation still seen as animated by these new 'corpuscular atoms' and their associated central forces.
Keynote address, Brasilia, Brazil, 2012
Chapter 3 from 'The Surface and the Abyss'; Walter de Gruyter.
Chapter 5 from The Surface and the Abyss. Walter de Gruyter, 2010
Chapter 2 from "The Surface and the Abyss," Walter de Gruyter.
When one, some years ago, read commentators of Nietzsche from the postmodernist and deconstructio... more When one, some years ago, read commentators of Nietzsche from the postmodernist and deconstructionist tradition, one got the impression that there was nothing more to say of Nietzsche's philosophy as philosophy; it was as if the reception of Nietzsche's philosophy as philosophy was closed. Only because Nietzsche was a fascinating poetical-rhetorical writer, the commentator was preoccupied with him, especially with exploring a rich material of poeticisms, images, allegories, or metaphors left in his texts. There was little or no description of Nietzsche's thinking as a conceptual system, nor as a response to problems in the prevailing contemporary, evolutionary-cognitive-psychological, paradigm. Instead, one focused on a single image, an allegory, or a metaphor, which was supposed to 'generate' Nietzsche's discourse, but so far had gone undetected. To understand Nietzsche's discourse as a conceptual system was not seen to be important, but to understand its 'origin' as ambiguous non-origin -as generating, from a root that was indecidable and oscillating, a discourse that was purely rhetorical -became important.
Uploads
Papers on Nietzsche and 19th century thinking by Peter Bornedal
REACTIVE EPISTEMOLOGY: A CRITIQUE OF DERRIDIAN DECONSTRUCTION FROM A NIETZSCHEAN POINT OF VIEW
Under contract with Walter de Gruyter in the series “New Studies in the History and Historiography of Philosophy.” Edited by Gerald Hartung and Sebastian Luft
Two of the essays discussed the works of Paul Grice and Jürgen Habermas and their theories on language and communication, in these essays, the goal was to demonstrate that despite the attempt of Grice and Habermas to give ontological foundations for inherent communicative rationality, their endeavors were unsuccessful. The third essay discussed John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism and argued that Mill’s attempt to decide what is in principle Good remain futile and incomplete.
I agreed with Derrida that we cannot give metaphysical justification for rationality or the good life. We can only decide to pursue these ideals, but there is nothing beyond the decision that makes the pursuit necessary or inherent. According to this position, I saw Deconstruction as a kind of Pragmatism.
"As the doctors disputate, which gives the degree “dr. phil.,” the dissertation constitutes the highest degree achievable in the Danish university system, it ranks significantly higher than the Ph.D., and the acceptance indicates the acknowledgment of an entirely independent, mature, and original work. The degree “dr. phil.” can best be compared to the German habilitation or the recent French Doctorat d’etat.
The dissertation written in English consists of an introduction and three sections at in all 667 pages, to this come twelve pages list of literature, 8 pages Danish summary. It is a philosophical-literary theoretical wok written within the traditions of Phenomenology, Hermeneutic, Pragmatics, and post-structuralism.
The committee agrees that Peter Bornedal’s dissertation is presented as a philosophical anthropology, which is a thoroughly constructed alternative to both Hermeneutics, and Deconstructive critique of Metaphysics. We have agreed to the following conclusive statement in our general recommendation to the Faculty of Humanities, Copenhagen University:
“If the author is right in the assertion that metaphysics shall always be an impossible project, and that Derrida’s generalized notion of writing is no genuine alternative to classical metaphysics, but only a more radical metaphysics, then he has, by his work, delivered a suggestion to a philosophical anthropology, which, in perspective and clarification, surpasses what hitherto has been presented in the language-philosophical and literary critical debate. Bornedal is very broadly orientated and knowledgeable, especially in phenomenological-philosophical works. His criticism is always sober and it has, not least, its strength, when it goes to the roots of the philosophers he criticizes, especially when dealing with Descartes, Husserl, Heidegger, Austin, and Derrida. Particularly the reading of Husserl, and the criticism of Derrida’s approach to Husserl, and to Austin and Searle, is exciting and impressive. This is philosophical reflection on the highest level. Derrida has here not just someone parroting him, but a worthy opponent who respects him, and also defends his as far as possible, both against traditional rationalistic philosophy, and against these of Derrida’s pupils, who ignore a rational core in Deconstruction. The dissertation is a very independent and original work, it is of international standard, and if this long treatise undergoes a certain abridgement before publication, it will without doubt be a fruitful contribution of the newest language philosophy within the phenomenological tradition. The committee therefore recommends that the dissertation is approved for defense of the Philosophical Doctoral Degree.”
“As it appears from the subtitle the dissertation deals with a series of readings about and in the writings of the philosopher and the grammatologist Jacques Derrida, from his first work—the translation of and the commentary on Husserl’s “Die Frage nach dem Ursprung der Geometrie als intentional-historisches Problem” (1962), up to his latest, “La Carte Postale” (1980). These readings take form as a careful and detailed statement of what Bornedal himself is calling “the theoretical machine” which is functioning in the effort of the Derridian deconstruction. In his dissertation the point has been to make an evaluation and a description of the relations between Derrida and his sources and preconditions (foremost Nietzsche, Freud, Husserl, and Heidegger), his use of these preconditions, and his deconstructive transgression of phenomenology. At the same time this becomes an attempt to understand the work of Grammatology in itself from within because the investigations remain inside the grammatology and do not try to raise themselves above it. This result in an opening understanding of the basic concepts of Derrida in the way they have developed in the years between 1962 and 1980; i.e., generalized writing, différance, arché-trace, supplement, temporalisation, dissemination, etc. Central chapters deal with the relation of grammatology to the phenomenological conception of time in Husserl and Heidegger’s thinking, as well as with the elaboration of psychoanalysis by Lacan, the latter in relation to a critical evaluation of the reading of Lacan by Derrida in his essay “La facteur de la Vérité”. The clue of the whole project has been the question, how to think a “subjectal principle” within a theory of writing as the grammatological, which seems to exclude such a principle.” Signed: Nils Egebak and Jørgen Dines Johansen,
As the dissertation was published as book in 1985, it was one of the first book-length commentaries on Derrida’s Grammatology/Deconstruction (preceded only by a few commentators such as C. Norris and J. Culler). In tone and style, it was first and foremost a neutral presentation of Derrida’s thinking, although it shifted the emphasis to the ‘writer’ from Derrida’s more abstract ‘writing.’