Nietzsche's Perspectivism
Discussion
Eric Schaetzle:
"In his article "What Friedrich Nietzsche Did to America", Alexander Star wrote: "In a 1985 book “Nietzsche: Life as Literature,” the Princeton philosopher Alexander Nehamas argued that Nietzsche's perspectivism does not imply that all beliefs are equally valid but that “one’s beliefs are not, and need not be, true for everyone.” On this reading, to fully accept a set of beliefs is to accept the values and way of life that are bound up with it, and since there is no single way of life that is right for everyone, there may be no set of beliefs that is fit for everyone. At its best, American individualism is not about the aggrandizement of the self or the acquiescent assumption that everybody simply has a right to think what they want. Rather, it stresses that our convictions are our own, and should be held as seriously as any other possessions. Or, as Nietzsche imagined philosophers would one day say, “ ‘My judgment is my judgment’: no one else is easily entitled to it." He proposed that everything we know is merely a partial “perspective knowing”. Nietzsche's contemporaries in philosophy were looking for mystical and transcendent truths, but he wondered whether knowledge or facts can exist independently of human conception of them. KJL Kjeldsen writes, "The only way that we can process any information about the world is through our sense organs; this information must then be interpreted through the brain. Truth is not mystical and transcendent, but a concept which we have created for the purposes of understanding the world, and engaging with it. It is something humans seek after because there is a need for it. Nietzsche is arguing that the very notion of a fact as independent of the human mind is nonsensical. Such a thing would be, by definition, both imperceptible and inexpressible." CS Peirce's (fallibilist, pragmatist, synechist) beliefs are substantively similar, and though he chose the label "objective idealism", this rather appears to be a form of epistemological idealism. Nietzsche: "The world has once again become infinite to us: insofar as we cannot reject the possibility that it includes infinite interpretations". (aphorism 374 from The Gay Science) In "The Portable Nietzsche" Walter Kaufmann translates a line from Notebooks (Summer 1886 – Fall 1887) thus: "Against that positivism which stops before phenomena, saying "there are only facts," I should say: no, it is precisely facts that do not exist, only interpretations." (458) Physicists might note the observer effect in physics. In order for anything to be observed at all, it must first be interacted with, which changes the state of that which is observed. In quantum mechanics there are truly only interpretations.
Both Rovelli and Nietzsche are "perspectivists" in their own ways. We can see how Nietzsche arrived at this conclusion. Rovelli approached it from the field of quantum mechanics, where facts can be different depending on the role of the observer (he refers to "Schrodinger's cat", for example). They both pose what appears to be a similar philosophical situation, and raise issues that have yet to be fully resolved. How do we arbitrate disputes? What role does power, science, religion, and social construction play (and how are these understood)? First a few brief detours. In some places religion served political needs. In life we cannot avoid making some judgments about right and wrong, and this is a stumbling block. In the development of Christianity we can see in many parables that Jesus suggests that understanding context can be more important than blindly applying a set of rules (like Mosaic law) to every situation. Many Christians today have forgotten how important context is and descended into blind dogmatism, exactly the pharisaical perspective Jesus stood in opposition to. Ironically, atheists who understand the importance of context are nearer in spirit to Jesus than Christians who have forgotten it. When we consider the forces undermining cooperative social institutions and undercutting our attempts to construct a more resilient society, it might be a failure, whether from lack of exposure, ability, or out of fear, to understand and integrate alternative perspectives that emerge from different contexts. Truth is not only shaped by processes of social construction, but can be traced back to a deeper understanding of reality (Rovelli's view). While biosemiotics expands the notion of significance as a property of all living things, Rovelli expands the notion of what an "observer" constitutes. So the value of perspectivism here isn't in choosing our own truths or facts (where Nietzsche advocates this I must conditionally disagree), but rather in recognizing that the processes by which we determine "truth" are relevant to the truths themselves. We only have access to our internal perspective and cannot claim perfect objectivity in any situation. [A brief discursion on facts may be in order here... I have a friend who pointed to voting ballots found in the trash and the spike in vote counts, suggesting these constituted proof of widespread election fraud. Trump took this and ran with it. Both events were taken out of context to support the claim that the 2020 election was stolen. But had people understood that the first case was isolated, and the second case was an artifact of the vote counting process, the Big Lie would've had fewer legs to stand on. I also know people who claim the coronavirus is no worse than the flu. And in fact, some people who have contracted it display no symptoms. But when we look at the consequences across the nation, and the strain the pandemic has placed on the health care system, it is a lot worse than the flu. Understanding context is not the strong point for some people, but that's how we form an accurate perspective on isolated facts. Without knowing the context, these isolated facts very easily become the seeds for Big Lies.]
Rovelli devotes half of his attention in Helgoland to Bogdanov, and if anyone is capable of finding a path out of the numerous traps and snares that a relational perspective can set, perhaps Bogdanov can provide some guidance. Beginning with the premise that everything is a relationship, if my relationship to something is different from your relationship to it, then am I right and you are wrong? Of course not. But then how do we arbitrate disputes between us? We can establish other standards by which to function as an organizational whole. This is essentially the process of forming additional, new relationships between us and our mutually shared interests that are capable of contextualizing situations involving such larger system dynamics, this creates a broader perspective in the hierarchical structure of relationships capable of integrating diverse perspectives to enable equitable arbitration. (In Helgoland, Rovelli resolves the issue of quantum entanglement in a similar manner by expanding the scope of the system.)
In A Home and a Resting Place, Peter Critchley wrote: "The struggle to attain a disinterested viewpoint, to find an Archimedean point which enables us to discern pure rational principles, is a chimera in this understanding, and may even be part of an ideological attempt to assert particular interests under the cover of claims to the universal good. Not only are we never in a position to be able to call something an objective fact, we are well advised to be suspicious of those who dress up their claims in terms of objectivity. Ultimately, all that human beings can do is perceive the world and interpret what comes to their senses. If we want to push the argument to extremes, and provoke a certain outrage, there are as many truths as there are perceivers." He then rightly asks: "But if it is all interpretations, I’m interested to know on what grounds Nietzsche advances his interpretation over others, rather than accept the world as the endless circulation of interpretations, no one of which counts as more valid than another." Nietzsche's statement that "morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena — more precisely, a misinterpretation" implies that intersubjective norms established for the purpose of improving social and environmental conditions are in conflict with our needs. As he wrote "it is our needs that interpret the world; our instincts and their impulses for and against". But haven't cultural anthropologists shown that cultural norms and institutions function to promote general health and well being, and aid in achieving common goals while restraining profligate wastefulness? To wit, haven't our morals emerged precisely from our needs? Another of Critchley’s books, Being at One, also wrestles with the individualism and ethical nihilism of our world (much like Arran Gare did in Nihilism Inc.). He effectively articulates a position not unlike that of the “ethics of care” and the derived notion of “relational ethics”, and like the developmental and evolutionary accounts of ethics provided by Kauffman and Mumford, Rovelli’s RQM, as described in Helgoland, extends these attempts all the way down to the very fabric of reality. Unfortunately, as Rovelli is a physicist and not a rigorous philosopher, elsewhere he has used the adjectives “relational” and “perspectival” interchangeably while describing his ideas. We should note however that within the field of ethics there is a world of difference between Nietzsche’s perspectivism, which focuses on a sort of individual liberation, and an ethics that is rooted in relational capacities such as the ethics of care. Some people may confuse his position, but to be clear, Rovelli has many times acknowledged that we “live and thrive only in relation”, as Critchley put it, to our physical and social environment.
Politics is currently engaged in unwinnable wars around incommensurate values. How do we get out? One possible approach is to contrast the relational and absolutist views, then generate two 'transformations' and two 'acknowledgements' to evaluate which is valid: Acknowledge the absolute is absolute. Transform the absolute to relative. Transform the relative to absolute. Acknowledge the relative is relative. In practice, absolute standards remain elusive. And yet society cannot operate without some minimal set of standards, those we typically call cultural norms, social institutions, and other means for calibrating our divergent viewpoints to achieve common goals. Ethics requires reason, not faith, to transcend parochial perspectives that are capable of causing terminal division and hatred. The physical body is composed of divisible units and yet works toward common purposes (until cancer destroys its innate harmony). It has been often remarked how the body politic functions in much the same way. Nietzsche provides a version of perspectivism that is anti-social, and therefore he can't be turned to for useful recommendations on social policy. His relativities will never find harmony. But perhaps a more culturally and environmentally informed perspectivism, one derived from relational ethics that values synchrony across individuals and groups, would fare better. We've seen attempts by Viveiros de Castro, and possibly Bogdanov, Freinacht, and others. The only valid approach? We cannot begin until we acknowledge the relative is relative. As Jacob Bronowski said, "When people believe that they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave [genocide, ecocide]. This is what men do when they aspire to the knowledge of gods. We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance... we have to touch people."
In "Perspectivism Narrow and Wide: An Examination of Nietzsche's Limited Perspectivism from a Daoist Lens", Casey Rentmeester wrote: "Rather than a singularity, perspectivism may be better seen as a multiplicity, a dynamic interplay. Whereas the Daoist conception of nature is one of flows of energy that work together to create a harmonious equilibrium, Nietzsche views nature as a battlefield of urges striving to increase their power by overcoming any and all opposing forces, whether they be weak or strong. In other words, whereas Chuang Tzu stresses the interdependence and mutual cooperation of all natural things, Nietzsche stresses the fundamental strife inherent in natural processes that results from each entity working independently to enhance its own power. The radical egalitarianism that Chuang Tzu espouses is intimately intertwined with his espousal of perspectivism, which differs from the Nietzschean perspectivism. Those of us who want to fight for equality for historically oppressed groups such as women may want to turn to Chuang Tzu for a more inclusive form of perspectivism. The fact that Chuang Tzu’s perspectivism denies oppressive frameworks makes his philosophy more fruitful for those of us who want to fight for equality."