The question has been raised whether Nietzsche intends eternal recurrence to be like a categorical imperative. The obvious objection to understanding eternal recurrence as like a categorical imperative is that for a categorical imperative to make any sense, for moral obligation to make any sense, it must be possible for individuals to change themselves. And Nietzsche denies that individuals can change themselves. Magnus thinks the determinism “implicit in the doctine of the eternal recurrence of the same renders any imperative impotent…. (...) How can one will what must happen in any case?” At the other end of the spectrum, those who do hold that eternal recurrence is like a categorical imperative, for their part, tend to ignore or deny the determinism involved in eternal recurrence. This article explores the extent to which it can be claimed that eternal recurrence is like a categorical imperative without downplaying Nietzsche's dterminism. (shrink)

Many people think Marx a totalitarian and Soviet Marxism the predictable outcome of his thought. How might one combat this completely mistaken image? What if one could demonstrate that Western European social democracy represents Marx’s thought far more than did Soviet Marxism? What if one shows that Marx and social democracy are quite compatible? What if one shows that Marx actually supported social democratic parties? If social democracy is closer to being the true face of Marxism after Marx, then all (...) claims of totalitarianism evaporate. There is nothing remotely totalitarian about social democracy. And from the start, social democrats were highly critical of the undemocratic tactics of Soviet Marxism. To demonstrate the relationship between Marx and social democracy it will be necessary to show that, for Marx, socialist society is compatible with a market economy—as long as markets are controlled to eliminate alienation. It will also be necessary to show that markets can be controlled democratically, that Marx was very much a democrat, and that he and Engels worked quite actively with democratic parties. It will also be necessary to show that Marx developed a theory of revolution compatible with a democratic electoral movement engaged in by a social democratic party. It will also be necessary to show that Marx and Engels, from the late 1860s on, worked extensively with and supported the Social Democratic Party (SPD) of Germany—which eventually became the largest party in Germany and the largest socialist party in the world. (shrink)

This article tries to explain how Hegel's Phenomenology is organized, what it is trying to do, and where it is trying to go. It argues that the Phenomenology gives a transcendental deduction of the absolute. Hegel's strategy is to keep setting out more and more complex forms of experience and to demolish any explanations of this experience that are simpler than the absolute--thus, to show that the absolute is the only explanation of experience. We finally get a paradigm with enough (...) scope to include everything, make it a part of a whole, and leave nothing out. (shrink)

A Study of the Phenomenology of Spirit Philip J. Kain. more important than the object. The object is nothing but an object-of-my- desire (A, I, 36/SW, XII, 64-5). Strangely enough — and this is another reason why desire is such an excellent ...

FOR NIETZSCHE, THERE IS NO TRUTH. WHAT THEN ARE WE TO SAY OF HIS DOCTRINES OF WILL TO POWER AND ETERNAL RECURRENCE WHICH SEEM TO BE HELD AS TRUTHS? THEY TOO ARE ILLUSIONS. BUT, IF SO, HOW CAN ONE HOLD THAT THESE ILLUSIONS ARE TO BE PREFERRED TO OTHER ILLUSIONS? BECAUSE THE HIGHEST STATE IS TO BE THE SOURCE OF ALL VALUE AND MEANING ONESELF WITHOUT RELYING ON AN INDEPENDENT STANDARD OF TRUTH.

This book traces the development of Marx's ethics as they underwent various shifts and changes during different periods of his thought. In his early writings, his ethics were based on a concept of essence much like Aristotle's, which Marx tried to link to a principle of universalization similar to Kant's "categorical imperative." In the period 1845-46, Marx abandoned this view, holding morality to be incompatible with his historical materialism. In the later work he was less of a determinist. Though he (...) no longer wished to reject morality, he did want to transcend a morality of burdensome obligation and constraint in order to realize a community built upon spontaneous bonds of solidarity. (shrink)

On what might be called a Marxist reading, Hegel’s analysis of civil society accurately recognizes a necessary tendency toward a polarization of classes and the pauperization of the proletariat, a problem for which Hegel, however, has no solution. Indeed, Marxists think there can be no solution short of eliminating civil society. It is not at all clear that this standard reading is correct. The present paper tries to show how it is plausible to understand Hegel as proposing a solution, one (...) that is similar to that of social democrats, and one that could actually work. (shrink)

Nietzsche believed in the horror of existence: a world filled with meaningless suffering_suffering for no reason at all. He also believed in eternal recurrence, the view that that our lives will repeat infinitely, and that in each life every detail will be exactly the same. Furthermore, it was not enough for Nietzsche that eternal recurrence simply be accepted_he demanded that it be loved. Thus the philosopher who introduces eternal recurrence is the very same philosopher who also believes in the horror (...) of existence. In this groundbreaking study, Philip Kain develops an insightful account of Nietzsche's strange and paradoxical view that a life of pain and suffering is perhaps the only life it really makes sense to want to live again. (shrink)

This book traces the development of Marx's ethics as they underwent various shifts and changes during different periods of his thought. In his early writings, his ethics were based on a concept of essence much like Aristotle's, which Marx tried to link to a principle of universalization similar to Kant's "categorical imperative." In the period 1845-46, Marx abandoned this view, holding morality to be incompatible with his historical materialism. In the later work he was less of a determinist. Though he (...) no longer wished to reject morality, he did want to transcend a morality of burdensome obligation and constraint in order to realize a community built upon spontaneous bonds of solidarity. (shrink)

This article examines Hegel's treatment of Antigone and of women in the Phenomenology of Spirit. I differ from many other scholars in arguing that Antigone ought to be understood as like the Hegelian slave—both were dominated and oppressed, but, through that very domination and oppression, they subverted the master and ultimately made as significant a contribution to culture as he did. Antigone represents a form of individualism which, unlike liberal individualism, is compatible with the Sittlichkeit that Hegel wants to achieve (...) for the modern world. Despite the fact that many of Hegel's views on women are not acceptable, he nevertheless has some things to say that can be of value for feminists. Certainly, his views are not as objectionable as the ones he seems to hold in the Philosophy of Right, and the latter should not be projected back into the Phenomenology. (shrink)

Nietzsche believed in the horror of existence—in a world filled with meaningless suffering. He also believed in eternal recurrence—that our lives will repeat infinitely and that in each life every detail will be exactly the same. Furthermore, it was not enough that eternal recurrence simply be accepted—Nietzsche demanded that it be loved. Thus the philosopher who introduces eternal recurrence is the very same philosopher who also believes in the horror of existence—a paradox that is completely overlooked by commentators (who thus (...) fail to adequately understand Nietzsche). All of this demands careful explanation. (shrink)

I would like to offer an interpretation of the Genealogy of Morals, of the relationship of master morality to slave morality, and of Nietzsche's philosophy of history that is different from the interpretation that is normally offered by Nietzsche scholars. Contrary to Nehamas, Deleuze, Danto, and many others, I wish to argue that Nietzsche does not simply embrace master morality and spurn slave morality.1 I also wish to reject the view, considered simply obvious by most scholars, that the iibermensch develops (...) out of, or on the model of, the master, not the slave.2 And to make the case for all of this, I want to explore the relationship between Hegel's master-slave dialectic and the conflict Nietzsche sees between master morality and slave morality. That Nietzsche does not intend us to recall the famous master-slave dialectic of Hegel's Phenomenology as we read the Genealogy of Morals, I find difficult to believe. Yet very few commentators ever notice, let alone explore, this connection. (shrink)

All three believed that the modern world could be remade according to this model, though none succeeded in his endeavor. At times Schiller seemed to recognize the failure of the model; in his mature writing Hegel dropped the model; and Marx, as he grew older, fundamentally modified the model. Nevertheless, focusing upong their attempts and failures allows an explanation of certain aspects of one of the fundamental concerns of current Marx studies: Marx's humanism and the relationship between his earlier and (...) later thought. Using this approach, Kain shows that Marx's development cannot be divided into two neat periods - an early humanistic or philosophical period and a later scientific period - as some scholars argue, nor can one argue for an essential unity to his thought as other scholars do. Instead Kain finds Marx continually shifting his views in his attempt to come to grips with the issues that concern him. But Kain also finds a deep-seated humanism in Marx's later writings which grows out of, but differs from, the humanism of his early work. (shrink)

Philip J. Kain deftly demonstrates the historical antecedents to and continuing relevance of Karl Marx's thought. Kain reveals the unappreciated pluralism of Marx, how it has endured and how it will continue to adapt to the challenges of modern day thought such as feminist theory.

For different feminist theorists, housework and child rearing are viewed in very different ways. I argue that Marx gives us the categories that allow us to see why housework and child care can be both a paradigm of unalienated labor and also involve the greatest oppression. In developing this argument, a distinction is made between alienation and oppression and the conditions are discussed under which unalienated housework can become oppressive or can become alienated.

Within Rousseau scholarship there is serious disagreement concerning the correct way to understand Rousseau's social and political thought. For many, Rousseau does not allow for individual liberty, and also, for many, he is a muddled, confused, and inconsistent thinker. I would like to argue that Rousseau does allow for individual liberty and that his major social and political doctrines are much more consistent than is usually thought to be the case. In my view, Rousseau is a very careful thinker, but (...) his thought is difficult to understand and it is often misunderstood. (shrink)

The article focuses on philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche's commitment to a virtue ethic and his belief in the horror of existence. It talks about the Nietzsche view on the need to construct a meaning for suffering in order to obscure the meaninglessness of existence. The philosophical implications that follow from the horror of existence and the need for virtue to be compatible with happiness are discussed. The article also explores the need for power to create and maintain illusions related to virtue (...) ethic and existence. (shrink)

PHILIP J. KAIN MARX” METHOD, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND HUMANISM A Study in the Development oth's Thought D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY MARX' METHOD, EPISTEMOLOGY, AND HUMANISM SOVIETICA PUBLICATIONS AND  ...

Hegel is not a democrat. He is a monarchist. But he wants monarchy because he does not want strong government. He wants to deemphasize power. He develops an idealist conception of sovereignty that allows for a monarch less powerful than a president—one whose task is to expresses the unity of the state and realize the rationality inherent in it. A monarch needs to be a conduit through which reason is expressed and actualized, not a power that might obstruct this process.

Marx has been criticized by feminists for many reasons, much of it based upon a misunderstanding of Marx. Many feminists take Marx's view to be that the family, gendered division of labor, and male domination are determined by either purely economic factors of natural biological factors. I try to show that Marx holds neither of these views. I also try to show that reproduction and the oppression of women that arises from men's control of private property, which are often claimed (...) to be matters of peripheral interest to Marx, are, in fact, conceptually most central and important for him. (shrink)

FOR HEGEL, ALIENATION ("ENTAUSSERUNG") IS NOT TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH ESTRANGEMENT ("ENTFREMDUNG"). ALIENATION CAN LEAD TO ESTRANGEMENT; IT CAN WORK TO OVERCOME ESTRANGEMENT; OR IT CAN SIMPLY BE POSITIVE AND DESIRABLE ON ITS OWN. WHILE ESTRANGEMENT IS NECESSARY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CULTURE, ULTIMATELY IT IS NEGATIVE AND IS TO BE OVERCOME; ONLY POSITIVE ALIENATION WILL THEN REMAIN. FOR THE YOUNG MARX, ALIENATION NEVER OVERCOMES ESTRANGEMENT, AND ALIENATION IS NEVER POSITIVE. ALIENATION ALWAYS LEADS TO ESTRANGEMENT AND BOTH ARE TO BE (...) OVERCOME COMPLETELY. AGAINST THIS BACKGROUND IT BECOMES POSSIBLE TO STUDY THE DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH THESE CONCEPTS OPERATE. (shrink)

Schweickart and I both discuss market socialism. Neither of us accepts the traditional Marxist view that market economies necessarily produce contradictions that drive them toward collapse. Both of us think the socialist experiments of the twentieth century show that markets cannot successfully be eliminated. Thus, for market socialism, we keep a market and we work to prevent it from producing contradictions, alienation, and collapse. One question that arises here concerns the role of labor unions. Should they play a major role (...) in market socialism, or are there respects in which they would obstruct it? There is another important issue that Schweickart should discuss. Market socialism, given its commitment to a market, must face the issue of market generated alienation or fetishism. Can market socialism avoid such problems? And if so how? (shrink)

THE FIRST STAGE OF COMMUNISM, FOR MARX, IS A MODIFIED EXCHANGE ECONOMY. THUS IT SHOULD BE MARKED BY ALIENATION OR FETISHISM. BUT MARX DENIES THIS IN CHAPTER 1 OF VOLUME I OF "CAPITAL". THE REASON BEING THAT THE WORKERS WOULD BE IN CONTROL OF THEIR EXCHANGE RATHER THAN CONTROLLED BY IT. IN EARLIER WRITINGS, THIS CONTROL SEEMED TO REQUIRE A POWERFUL STATE APPARATUS, AND THUS POLITICAL ESTRANGEMENT. IN SOME, BUT NOT ALL, OF HIS LATER WRITINGS, MARX ARGUES THAT SUCH A (...) STATE APPARATUS WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY. THIS CONFLICT IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT MARX EMPLOYS TWO DIFFERENT MODELS FOR THE TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM. (shrink)

The question has been raised whether Nietzsche intends eternal recurrence to be like a categorical imperative. The obvious objection to understanding eternal recurrence as like a categorical imperative is that for a categorical imperative to make any sense, for moral obligation to make any sense, it must be possible for individuals to change themselves. And Nietzsche denies that individuals can change themselves. Magnus thinks the determinism “implicit in the doctine of the eternal recurrence of the same renders any imperative impotent…. (...) How can one will what must happen in any case?” At the other end of the spectrum, those who do hold that eternal recurrence is like a categorical imperative, for their part, tend to ignore or deny the determinism involved in eternal recurrence. This article explores the extent to which it can be claimed that eternal recurrence is like a categorical imperative without downplaying Nietzsche's dterminism. (shrink)

While many philosophers have found Hegel's critique of Kantian ethics to be interesting in certain respects, overall most tend to find it rather shallow and to think that Hegel either misunderstands Kant's thought or has a rather crude understanding of it. For example, in examining the last two sections of Chapter V of the Phenomenology - 'Reason as Lawgiver' and 'Reason as Testing Laws' (where we get an extended critique of the categorical imperative)- Lauer finds Hegel's treatment to be truncated (...) and inadequate.1 The only trouble, though, is that like most other readers of the Phenomenology, Lauer does not recognize that Hegel had been examining and criticizing Kantian ethics throughout a much greater part of-indeed, more than half of-Chapter V. Once we do understand this, I think we must concede that Hegel's treatment is hardly truncated and that it cannot be described as shallow or inadequate. I will try to show that Hegel demonstrates a rather sophisticated understanding of, and gives a serious and thorough critique of, Kantian practical reason. (shrink)

THE EARLY MARX'S THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE DOES NOT INVOLVE THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN UNKNOWN THING-IN-ITSELF AND DOES NOT IMPLY THAT WE CAN ONLY KNOW OBJECTS AS THEY HAVE BEEN CONSTITUTED FOR-US. WE CAN KNOW THINGS AS THEY ARE IN-THEMSELVES. TO SHOW THIS, WE MUST ALSO SEE THAT THE OBJECT OF KNOWLEDGE IS BOTH CONSTITUTED AND THAT IT REFLECTS OR COPIES THINGS AS THEY ARE IN THEMSELVES.

HEGEL'S POLITICAL THOUGHT COMBINES ROUSSEAU'S POLITICAL THEORY AND KANT'S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY. IT COMBINES (1) RATIONAL FREEDOM REALIZED THROUGH A GENERAL WILL OR CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE, (2) A THEORY OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT LIKE KANT'S WHERE CONFLICTING PARTICULAR INTERESTS LEAD TO A MORAL SOCIETY, (3) AND CUSTOM, TRADITION, OR COMMUNITY LIKE THAT FOUND IN ROUSSEAU. TO DO THIS HEGEL MUST REJECT CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ROUSSEAU AND KANT AND EXPLAIN HOW COMMUNITY INSTEAD OF BEING CORRUPTED BY PARTICULAR INTERESTS, AS ROUSSEAU THOUGHT IT WOULD, (...) CAN COME TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THEM. THE KEY TO THIS WILL BE HEGEL'S CONCEPT OF SPIRIT. (shrink)

One of Hegel's major concerns is to decide the place, importance, and scope of reason. Grand claims have traditionally been made on its behalf--that it is the highest form of knowledge capable of knowing all that can be known. This article examines the central role that theoretical reason plays, for Hegel, in leading us toward idealism, its failure to live up to its grand claims, its failure to adequately establish idealism, and the way in which this failure, oddly enough, turns (...) into a success by preserving idealism from solipsism. (shrink)

To understand Hegel’s concept of Sittlichkeit (ethical life) and the role that love and marriage play in it, we must understand his concept of recognition. It is a mistake, however, to think as some do that mutual recognition between equals is sufficient for Sittlichkeit. Rather, for Hegel, the more significant and powerful the recognizer, the more real the recognized. Ultimately recognition must come from spirit (Geist). Understanding this will allow us to see, despite Hegel, that he can capture, better than (...) other theorists, many of the central concerns of contemporary same-sex marriage proponents and help provide them a philosophical underpinning. (shrink)

If it were possible to have organized experience without bringing the categories of the understanding into play, the Transcendental Deduction of the Critique of Pure Reason would be doomed to failure. In several places, however, Kant seems to admit that organized experience is, in fact, possible without the categories. The most important of these cases is that of aesthetic judgments--judgments of the beautiful and of the sublime--which clearly involve ordered experience and seem to occur without employing the categories. I argue (...) that this contraction is merely apparent and I try to resolve it. (shrink)

The importance of Kant's political thought can best be understood if we do two things: if we compare it to political theory as it existed before Kant and if we see how it fundamentally depends upon his philosophy of history. It is Kant's philosophy of history that allows him to take a major step beyond previous political thinkers. Kant brings together for the first time two projects which had traditionally remained separate. He develops a theory of the ideal state and (...) also a philosophy of history, i.e., a theory of how to actually realize the ideal state in history. (shrink)

This essay is concerned with Schiller, but it investigates themes that can also be found in other writers, especially in Hegel and Marx. All of these writers attempt (and ultimately fail) to work out a particular ideal model for labor and political institutions. This model was patterned after the ideal cultural conditions of ancient Greece and based upon modern aesthetic concepts, espe cially the concept of a synthesis between sense and reason. It was a model designed to overcome fragmentation or (...) alienation in the modern world that had been brought about by the development of the division of labor. (shrink)

MARX'S VIEWS ON MORALITY DO NOT REMAIN THE SAME THROUGHOUT ALL PERIODS OF HIS THOUGHT. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES HIS VIEWS ONLY IN THE PERIOD OF 1845-1857. IT TRIES TO SHOW THAT ESPECIALLY IN THE "GERMAN IDEALOGY" MARX DEVELOPS A DOCTRINE OF HISTORICAL MATERIALISM ACCORDING TO WHICH MATERIAL CONDITIONS DETERMINE CONSCIOUSNESS IN SUCH A STRICT WAY THAT MORAL OBLIGATION INDEPENDENT OF THOSE CONDITIONS IS IMPOSSIBLE. MORALITY, FOR MARX, IS IDEOLOGICAL ILLUSION DESTINED TO DISAPPEAR IN COMMUNIST SOCIETY.

The current issue over Marx's Grundrisse and Capital is whether these works represent a unity with or a rupture from his earlier writings. A third interpretation is more adequate than either of these: the new "dialectic method" of the later works transforms elements of his earlier outlooks into a new synthesis. In earlier works Marx describes three processes: the historical generation of the concrete, the historical development of categories, and the methodological ordering of these categories. However, his views changed on (...) which of these processes are primary. In the later works, the third process becomes independent; this modifies his view of the other two processes, and thereby of the relation of consciousness and laws of social development to material conditions. (shrink)

In his very influential book, History and Class Consciousness, Lukács argued that Engels illegitimately extended Marx's dialectical method beyond the social realm to the realm of nature and in doing so replaced Marx's dialectical theory of knowledge (in which subject and object are reciprocally trans formed) with a contemplative reflection theory (in which subject and object "persist in their old, rigid opposition").1 Since then, and very much in the same spirit, many others have located the difference between Marx and Engels (...) not in their treatments of historical materialism or method but in Engels' acceptance of a dialectic of nature and a theory of reflection.2 I shall try to argue precisely the opposite, namely, that their differences are to be located in the former, far more than in the latter, areas. (shrink)

A CAREFUL STUDY OF MARX'S METHOD IN THE "GRUNDRISSE" WILL SHOW THAT MARX OPERATES WITH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ESSENCE AND APPEARANCE AND ALSO THAT, FOR MARX, CAPITALIST SOCIETY IS JUST, BUT, CONTRARY TO THE VIEWS OF ALLEN WOOD, ONLY AT THE LEVEL OF SURFACE APPEARANCE. CAPITALIST SOCIETY IS ALSO UNJUST, BUT, UNLIKE THE VIEWS OF Z I HUSAMI, ONLY AT THE LEVEL OF ESSENCE--SOMETHING DISCOVERED BY SCIENCE WHICH GOES BEHIND SURFACE.

Marx's historical-materialist philosophy of history has often been criticized for being ethnocentric. Jon Elster (1985, 490), for example, suggests that it has become a "conceptual straight-jacket for the study of much non-western history." Marshall Sahlins, in his book, Culture and Practical Reason (1976), as well as critics like Baudrillard (1975, 59, 65-67) Balbus (1982, 33-36), and Aronowitz (1981, 67-68), have argued that Marx develops a single, necessary historical pattern, worked up on the basis of the historical development of Western societies, (...) which is then conceptually imposed on all societies, including non-Western ones. Also, that this pattern of historical development proceeds from "lower," more "primitive" stages to "higher," more "civilized" ones and culminates in modern Western capitalist societies as the highest stage before socialism. Marx's productivism, escpecially, has been criticized along these lines. The term productivism is shorthand for the claim that material conditions, economic conditions, or the forces and relations of production are the factors that predominate in determining all aspects of a sociocultural world. These critics argue that the productivist claim is true, at best, only for modern societies. It is certainly not true, as some of these critics think Marx holds it is, for earlier or "primitive" societies. In the latter societies, as Sahlins (1976, vii-viii) puts it, cultural modes of symbolization predominate and no symbolic scheme is the only one possible given a specific set of material conditions. (shrink)

In The German Ideology , Marx developed his notion of "the materialist view of the world," which differed from both the earlier 1844 Manuscripts and the later Grundrisse, Critique of Political Economy, and Capital. First, whereas Marx had distinguished human life from other forms of life as the result of an essence, Marx now argued that material conditions determine the human condition. Second, ideas can affect human life but they are themselves the product of material conditions. Third, though he later (...) reverses himself, he rejects not only the identification but the value of abstractions and categories. Fourth, Marx no longer considers man's history to be a radical self-creation through labor, but a natural self-consciousness modified by productive and social intercourse. Finally, Marx inverted his theory of language and now considered it the product rather than the source of material conditions. (shrink)

Machiavelli's advice to the prince is to avoid self-interest and to work for the good of the state. This is not to say, however, that Machiavelli does not counsel evil. To achieve the good, one must do evil. It is necessary. But it is still evil. Machiavelli is not a utilitarian or a moral consequentialist in ethics. If an action has certain desirable consequences, it may be politically necessary to perform that action. But that does not make the action moral. (...) If it is evil, it remains evil. Yet it is necessary to do it to achieve the good. (shrink)

Machiavelli's advice to the prince is to avoid self-interest and to work for the good of the state. This is not to say, however, that Machiavelli does not counsel evil. To achieve the good, one must do evil. It is necessary. But it is still evil. Machiavelli is not a utilitarian or a moral consequentialist in ethics. If an action has certain desirable consequences, it may be politically necessary to perform that action. But that does not make the action moral. (...) If it is evil, it remains evil. Yet it is necessary to do it to achieve the good. (shrink)

Machiavelli's advice to the prince is to avoid self-interest and to work for the good of the state. This is not to say, however, that Machiavelli does not counsel evil. To achieve the good, one must do evil. It is necessary. But it is still evil. Machiavelli is not a utilitarian or a moral consequentialist in ethics. If an action has certain desirable consequences, it may be politically necessary to perform that action. But that does not make the action moral. (...) If it is evil, it remains evil. Yet it is necessary to do it to achieve the good. (shrink)

Some argue that for Nietzsche there are truths and that knowledge of them is possible and desirable. Others think that Nietzsche rejects the possibility of truth and that this gives rise to problems of self-contradiction. I argue that there is truth for Nietzsche. The truth is that existence is horrible. Truth exists. We can know this truth. But it would likely mean our annihilation. Thus, truth must be avoided -- which is different from, despite the fact that it will often (...) appear the same as, claiming that truth simply does not exist. We have through long evolution learned to avoid truth. (shrink)