David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
In John Richardson & Ken Gemes (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Nietzsche. Oxford. 727-755 (2013)
Freud claimed that the concept of drive is "at once the most important and the most obscure element of psychological research." It is hard to think of a better proof of Freud's claim than the work of Nietzsche, which provides ample support for the idea that the drive concept is both tremendously important and terribly obscure. Although Nietzsche's accounts of agency and value everywhere appeal to drives, the concept has not been adequately explicated. I remedy this situation by providing an account of drives. I argue that Nietzschean drives are dispositions that generate evaluative orientations, in part by affecting perceptual saliences. In addition, I show that drive psychology has important implications for contemporary accounts of reflective agency. Contemporary philosophers often endorse a claim that has its origins in Locke and Kant: self-conscious agents are capable of reflecting on and thereby achieving a distance from their motives; therefore, these motives do not determine what the agent will do. Nietzsche's drive psychology shows that the inference in the preceding sentence is illegitimate. The drive psychology articulates a way in which motives can determine the agent's action by influencing the course of the agent's reflective deliberations. An agent who reflects on a motive and decides whether to act on it may, all the while, be surreptitiously guided by the very motive upon which he is reflecting. I show how this point complicates traditional models of the role of reflection in agency.
|Keywords||Nietzsche drive instinct philosophical psychology agency|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Mark Alfano (2013). The Most Agreeable of All Vices: Nietzsche as Virtue Epistemologist. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (4):767-790.
Robert Miner (2011). Nietzsche's Fourfold Conception of the Self. Inquiry 54 (4):337-360.
Simon Robertson (2011). Normativity for Nietzschean Free Spirits. Inquiry 54 (6):591 - 613.
Similar books and articles
Brian Leiter (2009). Nietzsche's Theory of the Will. In Ken Gemes & Simon May (eds.), Philosophical Topics. Oxford University Press. 119-137.
John Deigh (1996). The Sources of Moral Agency: Essays in Moral Psychology and Freudian Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Paul Katsafanas (2011). Activity and Passivity in Reflective Agency. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics Volume 6. Oxford. 219.
Lucy Huskinson (2004). Nietzsche and Jung: The Whole Self in the Union of Opposites. Brunner-Routledge.
Paul Katsafanas (2011). Deriving Ethics From Action: A Nietzschean Version of Constitutivism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):620-660.
Donovan Miyasaki (2004). Freud or Nietzsche: The Drives, Pleasure, and Social Happiness. Dissertation, University of Toronto
Paul Katsafanas (2012). Nietzsche on Agency and Self-Ignorance. Journal of Nietzsche Studies 43 (1):5-17.
Carl B. Sachs (2008). Nietzsche's Daybreak. Epoché: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 13 (1):81-100.
Paul Katsafanas (2011). The Concept of Unified Agency in Nietzsche, Plato, and Schiller. Journal of the History of Philosophy 49 (1):87-113.
Paul Katsafanas (forthcoming). Value, Affect, and Drive. In Peter Kail & Manuel Dries (eds.), Nietzsche on Mind and Nature. Oxford.
Added to index2009-08-13
Total downloads227 ( #3,155 of 1,692,749 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #13,056 of 1,692,749 )
How can I increase my downloads?