Abstract

This article argues that Clark and Dudrick’s study of Beyond Good and Evil, despite numerous qualities and the correct conclusion that Nietzsche pursued a normative project, remains dissatisfying for two main reasons: First, the methodological distinction between esoteric and exoteric doctrines, problematic as it is from the outset, would require a detailed genetic reconstruction of Nietzsche’s ways of obscuring his “real views” and of translating them into a new language. Clark and Dudrick, however, seem to use that distinction mainly to accommodate Nietzsche to their understanding of good philosophy. Second, their reconstruction of empiricist and idealistic epistemologies, given in terms of exclusive opposites, fails to appreciate how Nietzsche tries to replace such false contradictions with gradational differences and how he dialectically distributes approval and criticism to both through the composition of his aphorisms.

pdf