This idea emerges when we pair our quotation with something that Nietzsche wrote in one of his last and most read writings, Thus Spoke Zarathustra :. You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist. P erspectivism, as the name suggests, is a way of viewing the world through combining differing perspectives.
There is not one objective and eternally true way to view or understand the world, Nietzsche suggests, but rather a multitude of differing perspectives that are subject to cultural, societal and biological limitations.
Accordingly, it is only through combining these different views that we can begin to appreciate a broader understanding of the universe we live in. This might seem an obvious point — hardly profound — but perspectivism, as well as the extent to which Nietzsche truly advocated it as opposed to wielding it to undermine objective thinking , is rather controversial, for it points to a relativist attitude towards truth.
Astrophysicists, for instance, would certainly dismiss the idea that there are a number of different ways to think about, say, the nature of the universe. That life is governed by the laws of physics, they would argue, rests on solid mathematical foundations and myriad experiential data: it is the correct way to think about the universe.
The only perspective? So, feel free to label all the non-evidence based subjects as mere perspectives, but leave science out of it. Is perspectivism thus a load of rubbish? Does the deeper reading of our quotation merely reveal a flawed idea? Sure, they might say, science has been remarkably successful at explaining and harnessing nature for our benefit, but like everything else it remains a human construct.
The imperfect theories of science are not eternal; they simply express the way we — with our fleeting, biologically limited existences — currently think the universe works, evidenced by data that we — with our primitive, restrictive tools — have access to.
Brilliantly clever? Wonderfully useful? Objectively true? Not so sure, for science cannot escape the subjective lens of humankind. Besides, its focus on the physical structure of the universe has led to the sacrifice of something rather significant: meaning. Take the heart. Is it only a lump of muscle that pumps blood around the body?
Or is it, too, a hackneyed metaphor for love? Take stars. Are they only burning masses of exploding gasses, billions of miles away?
Twinkle, twinkle, ickle stars. The point, to put an end to this overblown language, is that surely there is a place for all these things: surely our worldview is enriched by collating different perspectives, by thinking of the universe not only in terms of how it works but also in terms of what it means.
Living in an internet age in which mortal battles in online comments sections rage on a daily basis, we could perhaps learn from the thought that none of us really perceive or opine the truth, as such truth may be permanently denied to us due to our limited and finite perspectives.
Let's conclude this brief discussion on perspectivism with some final words from our main man Nietzsche, taken from arguably his masterwork, On the Genealogy of Morals :. And as to whether these fruits of ours are to your taste? But what is that to the trees! I f you're interested in learning more about Nietzsche and his fascinating, oft-misunderstood philosophy, we've compiled a reading list consisting of just the right mix of primary and secondary literature to give you a well-rounded understanding of exactly why Nietzsche has come to dominate today's popular culture.
Why does anything exist? Do we have free will? How should we approach life? Start learning today. Each break takes only a few minutes to read, and is crafted to expand your mind and spark your philosophical curiosity.
Dance then turns out to be a model path for thinking itself; dancing and dance-seeing are a kind of knowledge of the sensory effects of movement in general. For philosophy to reflect on contemporary dance means for it to exploit the resources of dance and search for an expanded concept of thought that can surmount the Cartesian dualism.
This cannot succeed in opposition to rationality, but only in dynamic approaches to thought capable of opening new contexts of meaning. Although philosophy, particularly phenomenology, has always addressed the role of the body within the process of thought Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Waldenfels , this discourse has still not given sufficient attention to the fact that the human body can be a dancing body.
The project proposed by this theory of the human subject surmounts the classical dualism of mind and body and describes the dancing subject as a dynamic unity. Laban ventured the thesis that dance is itself a kind of thought, a kind of body-thought.
Modern dance began to look upon philosophy as a partner in thinking. But this fresh start was also interpreted differently, especially in its ideological evaluation, and was not taken seriously by philosophers at the time. Dance philosophy — thinking in a body The contemporary dance of today, which stands in the tradition of the modern dance of the s and 30s, may be described as an artistic practice that moves on the borders to other disciplines; a practice that seeks the permeability of disciplinary membranes and is precisely thus capable of meeting philosophy as an equal through the oscillating of thought movements and dance movements.
Contemporary dance no longer serves as a metaphor for thought, but rather presents itself as a sensuous and intellectual thinking in a body. Dance is therefore a kind of knowledge on the basis of which man can be understood. Dance shows in the clearest possible way how meaning emerges situatively and performatively in the sensuous perceptible. Thinking in bodies lays the foundation, as for example Miriam Fischer and Jean-Luc Nancy have proposed, for a philosophy of dance, which focuses on the genesis of meaning in the sensuous, the theory of the subject and the meaning of philosophy.
A philosophy that sees itself as dancing ranges through themes in anthropology, the theory of meaning and aesthetics, and combines methodological approaches from modern metaphysics, life philosophy, phenomenology, hermeneutics, ontology and deconstruction. A philosophy of dance may still seem a disconcerting affair to thought. But mind and body both differ and merge.
The artistic dancing subject moves in becoming and so in knowing, as Nancy would say.
0コメント