Abstract
The introduction elucidates a disconnect in the secondary literature between Nietzschean drive theory on the one hand and the Internalization Hypothesis on the other. I demonstrate that the problems associated with drive theory can be resolved by situating it within the context of Nietzsche’s story—articulated in GM II 16—of how animal instincts became incorporated forming the psyche. The introduction provides helpful summations of the main topics of each chapter in the book.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
I write “minimally” because there are more controversial, robust views of drives in the literature. One such view is the “homunculi” drive position which stipulates that drives are like proto-agents. See Maudemarie Clark and David Dudrick’s The Soul of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 2012.
- 2.
Paul Katsafanas, The Nietzschean Self: Moral Psychology, Agency and the Unconscious, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016), 11.
- 3.
Paul Katsafanas, The Nietzschean Self: Moral Psychology, Agency and the Unconscious, 74.
- 4.
The description of the psyche as an encapsulation of drives may seem peculiar but here, I am simply providing a literal reading of Nietzsche’s Internalization Hypothesis where Nietzsche posits that subjectivity is simply the container for competing drives and where these drives have an animal base.
- 5.
The hypothesis is appallingly undertheorized in the secondary literature a point well-established in William Beals’s relatively recent and significant article, William Beals, “Internationalization and Its Consequences” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol 44. No. 3 Autumn, 2013, 435–445, 435.
- 6.
Nietzsche, GM: III: 28.
- 7.
Immanuel Kant, The Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. Norman Kemp Smith, (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 2007, A 84, B116.
- 8.
In brief, the standard reading of GM II 16 holds that Nietzsche is describing our collective, proto-human pre-history. Brian Leiter, in his Nietzsche on Morality, explains this idea well: “What bears emphasizing here is that we are discussing a phenomenon of pre-history: we are discussing what the animal man had to be like before regular civilized intercourse with his fellows (the advantages of society) would even be possible. That means, of course, that the phenomenon we are discussing—the development of conscience and, in particular, bad conscience—predates the events discussed in the First Essay of the Genealogy”. (My bolding, Leiter, 229). I call this interpretation of GM II 16 the standard reading as Conway, Hatab, Janaway, Owen, and many others hold something like it. This reading, which on the surface, seems the most natural–especially when situated with GM II 1–5 and GM II 17–is, nonetheless, deeply problematic when one thinks through its implications. I explore this reading in much more detail in Chap. 4.
- 9.
Will to power is one of Nietzsche’s core ideas and, as expected, there is a plethora of interpretations of the concept in the secondary literature. I explore my own position on will to power, in full, in Chap. 2. Having said that, my approach chimes with the upshot of James I. Porter’s article: “Nietzsche’s Theory of the Will to Power,” (A Companion to Nietzsche, Ed. Keith Ansell Pearson. UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2006, 548–565). Although it is tempting to think, that, with will to power Nietzsche is offering a new metaphysics, this interpretation is mistaken. Will to power is an allegory of sorts according to Porter. Nietzsche uses it to remind his readers of an all too human need to totalize the world. The moral lesson of will to power, then, is this: don’t totalize. Do not engage in metaphysical thinking full stop. In my view, Paul Loeb develops a similar and more thoroughly explored notion of this idea. In his judgment, will to power is not advancing a pan-psychism (as is often contended in the secondary literature) but rather denotes a thought-experiment that aims at disabusing us of thinking that any truths may be discovered through metaphysical thinking. He notes, “BGE [36] does indeed outline a panpsychist conception of will to power, but only as a heuristic and counterfactual thought experiment that grants us a purely explanatory and analogical perspective on the radically de-anthropomorphic features of cosmological will to power.” 84 Paul Loeb, “Will to Power and Panpsychism: A New exegesis of Beyond Good and Evil 36”. Nietzsche on Mind and Nature (Ed(s) Manuel Dries and P.J.E. Kail Oxford University Press, 2015), 57–88. For different readings of will to power in the literature, see my book: Brian Lightbody Nietzsche’s Will to Power Naturalized: Translating the Human into Nature and Nature into the Human. (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2017).
- 10.
Mattia Riccardi, “Virtuous Homunculi: Nietzsche on the Order of Drives”, Inquiry, 61:1, 21–41, 2018.
- 11.
Tom Stern, “Against Nietzsche’s Theory of Drives,” Journal of the American Philosophical Association Vol 1. Issue 1 Spring (2015) 121–140.
- 12.
In Chap. 4, I explain how these components may be thought of as “strands” or “threads” which, over a relatively short period of time, become interwoven.
- 13.
Iain P. Morrisson, “Nietzsche, the Anthropologists, and the Genealogy of Trauma” Genealogy 1–16, 1, 2021.
References Used in this Chapter
Beals, William. “Internationalization and Its Consequences” Journal of Nietzsche Studies, Vol 44. No. 3 Autumn, 2013, 435–445
Clark, Maudemarie and Dudrick, David. The Soul of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil, (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), 2012
Fowles, Christopher. “The Heart of the Flesh: Nietzsche on Affects and the Interpretation of the Body”, Journal of the History of Philosophy, Volume 58, Number 1, January 2020, pp. 113–139
Kant, Immanuel. The Critique of Pure Reason, Trans. Norman Kemp Smith, (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 2007
Katsafanas, Paul. The Nietzschean Self: Moral Psychology, Agency and the Unconscious, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016
Kaushik, Rajiv. “Literature, Ontology, and Implex in Merleau-Ponty: Writing and Finding the Concrete Limit of Phenomena”, Humanities 2021, 10(4) 2021,1–12.
Leiter, Brian. Nietzsche on Morality. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Lightbody, Brian. Nietzsche’s Will to Power Naturalized: Translating the Human into Nature and Nature into the Human. Lanham, MD. Lexington Books, 2017.
Loeb, Paul. “Will to Power and Panpsychism: A New exegesis of Beyond Good and Evil 36”. Nietzsche on Mind and Nature (Ed(s) Manuel Dries and P.J.E. Kail Oxford University Press, 2015), 57–88.
Morrisson, Iain, P. “Nietzsche, the Anthropologists, and the Genealogy of Trauma” Genealogy 1–16, 1, 2021.
Porter, James, I. “Nietzsche’s Theory of the Will to Power,” A Companion to Nietzsche. Ed. Keith Ansell Pearson. UK: Blackwell Publishers, 2006, 548–565
Riccardi, Mattia. “Virtuous Homunculi: Nietzsche on the Order of Drives”, Inquiry, 61:1, 21–41, 2018.
Stern, Tom. “Against Nietzsche’s Theory of Drives”, Journal of the American Philosophical Association Vol 1. Issue 1 Spring (2015) 121–140
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lightbody, B. (2023). Introduction. In: A Genealogical Analysis of Nietzschean Drive Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27148-9_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27148-9_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-27147-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-27148-9
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)