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.
It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown.
Philosophy has historically been regarded as the study of fundamental, objective truths of the universe. But Nietzsche argues it's the opposite: it is the philosopher's own personal confession.
It is an "unconscious auto-biography" whose roots lie in its author's prejudices.
Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument. But whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as INSPIRING GENII (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practiced philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate LORD over all the other impulses. For every impulse is imperious, and as SUCH, attempts to philosophize.
Instead of taking the philosophy as-is, we should understand the philosophy in the context of the philosopher. Who is this philosopher and what morality has he [1] presupposed in order to make such metaphysical claims?
Although Philosophy obsesses over knowledge, Nietzsche rejects the idea that philosophy is manifested from this "drive for knowledge." Instead, knowledge is used as a tool for pursuing a more fundamental, moral drive. This fundamental drive vies with all the other drives for the right to explain the ultimate purpose of existence. It aims to dominate all other drives. It is a tyrant of the mind.
To be sure, in the case of scholars, in the case of really scientific men, it may be otherwise—"better," if you will; there there may really be such a thing as an "impulse to knowledge," some kind of small, independent clock-work, which, when well wound up, works away industriously to that end, WITHOUT the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part therein. The actual "interests" of the scholar, therefore, are generally in quite another direction—in the family, perhaps, or in money-making, or in politics; it is, in fact, almost indifferent at what point of research his little machine is placed, and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist, a mushroom specialist, or a chemist; he is not CHARACTERISED by becoming this or that.
For some scientific men, the drive for knowledge might actually exist: "...thinking really is often a little machine that works without the participation of the overall system of human drives." [2] Thinking works independently of drives.
The real interests of these men most likely lie elsewhere: in family, money, politics. And in this case, the field of study he works is unimportant. He could become a "good philologist, mushroom specialist, or a chemist." He invests no personal importance to his job.
In the philosopher, on the contrary, there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and above all, his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to WHO HE IS,—that is to say, in what order the deepest impulses of his nature stand to each other.
Philosophy is the opposite. Everything the philosopher does is personal. Every knowledge attained is the result of the tyrannical drive to explain his purpose of the universe, which he calls the philosophy. And this philosophy is his confession.
Notes:
All instances of "he/him" are to be interpreted as he/she and him/her. I will use "he/him" for readability.
From the 1st draft of this aphorism taken from one of Nietzsche's notebooks. Feel free to compare the original text with the notebook version. I personally find the explanation of thinking as an isolated machine easier to comprehend than the original text's description.
To reply you need to sign in.