Note:Nietzsche is difficult to understand. These writings are an attempt for myself to become better acquainted with his concepts. It is also a space for others to learn and converse in the subject matter. I don't have a degree in philosophy; most of my knowledge is the result of self-study. If you find something incorrect or inaccurate with my interpretations, please comment and we can learn together.
Having kept a sharp eye on philosophers, and having read between their lines long enough, I now say to myself that the greater part of conscious thinking must be counted among the instinctive functions, and it is so even in the case of philosophical thinking; one has here to learn anew, as one learned anew about heredity and "innateness." As little as the act of birth comes into consideration in the whole process and procedure of heredity, just as little is "being-conscious" OPPOSED to the instinctive in any decisive sense; the greater part of the conscious thinking of a philosopher is secretly influenced by his instincts, and forced into definite channels.
Philosophy has historically framed itself as a seeking for objective, abstract, universal knowledge. A knowledge devoid of subjectivity. However, looking more closely at the text, it becomes apparent that philosophy is hiding something: it is secret motivated by personal instinct.
Instinct is part of what it means to be an animal. Animals (including humans) have survival instincts. Humans are a bit different in that we have developed consciousness, which allows to reflect and evaluate our instincts.
While consciousness gives us a sense of control over instinct, it's a false sense. We are subject to instincts we cannot control: the subconscious. This is what "forces [us] into definite channels."
And behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, there are valuations, or to speak more plainly, physiological demands, for the maintenance of a definite mode of life. For example, that the certain is worth more than the uncertain, that illusion is less valuable than "truth" such valuations, in spite of their regulative importance for US, might notwithstanding be only superficial valuations, special kinds of niaiserie, such as may be necessary for the maintenance of beings such as ourselves. Supposing, in effect, that man is not just the "measure of things."
Logic is impersonal, however our desire to use logic in order to rationalize our desires is not. We are value-laden beings: we value certainty over uncertainty, pleasure over pain, truth over untruth, but why? The reason is to preserve our way of life. According to Nietzsche, this is our "niaiserie," or our foolishness.
This is an important point. It means that what we value is not objectively good, but good as-a-means-to preserving our own identity. Our values define who we are and how we identify with the world.
"Man is the measure of all things" is a saying from Protagoras, a sophist from Ancient Greece. It means that there is no absolute truth, but truth is how the individual sees it. [1]
Notes:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras
To reply you need to sign in.