I'll agree with this in general, both that Nietzsche wants to bypass rationalization and normatization, but only insofar as normatization and rationalization is driven by life "disaffirming" herd mentality. Normatization reduces conflicts, and the constant use of "we" by Nietzsche does more than merely suggest that free spirits should be "on the same side", at least as it relates to the not "we".
His railings are against rationalization processes and the normatism of Christian/enlightenment ideals.
Okay.
I was referencing the "natural/artificial" distinction. One way to discuss the elimination of the distinction is to refer to everything as natural. Or, we can take the Nietzschean tack (in doing away with the illusory world, we have also done away with the "real world"!). Still, tomato-tomahto.
I don't think you can say "tomato-tomahto" in reference to this; but that's possibly for a much larger discussion on language and ideology. "Natural" and "artificial" carry cultural values and suggestive undertones that are not symmetrical.
I meant to point this out in the prior post, but stating that Nietzsche gives us the insight or the tools as it were, to move into deconstruction of the subject, is an entirely different statement, and infinitely more agreeable, than to say a "more shrewd" reading would do this. The latter suggests at Nietzsche's real intent, or that Nietzsche supported etc.
By now, you should know that I never make claims as to an author's "real intent."
I merely meant that by reading more closely we can discover the tools embedded within Nietzsche's writings for critiquing even those same writings. The foreshadowing of deconstruction is in Nietzsche's work, that's for sure; and if we want to be shrewd readers, then we have to acknowledge the irreconcilability of that presence with some of his more traditional sentiments. Nietzsche may have recognized this as well, but at some point every writer has to make concessions - or else your book will never be finished.
Two things that really need to be cleared up in regards to both the deconstructive core theory and and Nietzsche: Neither one supports in any way to the progressive hydra. Both go "men as such - women as such" and then the progressive take stops reading and starts vomiting ink about how enlightened what they just read is.
I'll go further and defend Nietzsche as recognizing that deconstruction was a potential outcome of the unchaining, and that even he did not desire that. Stare not too long into the abyss. The deconstructed subject winds up with a ridiculous mustache and in diapers.
I don't think you can say he didn't desire it. All he wrote was: "Stare not long into the abyss. The abyss stares also back at you." There's no sense of an author's desire here. It's merely an aphorism, a statement. The compulsion of Nietzsche's philosophy is toward the abyss; if that is something he desires, or admonishes, then he breaks his own rule over and over again (eternally, and recurrently).
Also, being faithful to the translation of "ubermensch," we have to acknowledge the possibility that Nietzsche understood this not as a kind of supreme version of humanity, but as something entirely beyond humanity - or as something that is, explicitly, not human. We tend to think of "uber" as meaning ultimate or supreme, but in German it can also suggest transcendence or some kind of otherness. Furthermore, Nietzsche does not speak these words on the ubermensch - Zarathustra does...
Finally, Nietzsche's entire philosophy is compromised by the core antagonism that he exposes between truth and appearance - or between the world-as-we-perceive-it and the world-as-is, or something like that. Ultimately there is no reconciliation here, and Nietzsche acknowledges that point:
Our "new world": we have to realize to what degree we are the creators of our value feelings - and thus capable of projecting "meaning" into history. This faith in truth attains its ultimate conclusion in us - you know what that is: that if there is anything that is to be worshipped it is appearance that must be worshipped, that the lie - and not the truth - is divine!
