Nietzsche on Natural Philosophy and Platonism
Aphorisms from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil #12
I would like to continue commenting on aphorisms from Beyond Good and Evil (1886). We continue reading the first chapter of this book: “Prejudices of Philosophers.”
As a reminder, you can find the previous posts on the following page: Nietzsche.
It is perhaps just dawning on five or six minds that natural philosophy is only a world-exposition and world-arrangement (according to us, if I may say so!) and NOT a world-explanation; but in so far as it is based on belief in the senses, it is regarded as more, and for a long time to come must be regarded as more — namely, as an explanation. It has eyes and fingers of its own, it has ocular evidence and palpableness of its own: this operates fascinatingly, persuasively, and CONVINCINGLY upon an age with fundamentally plebeian tastes — in fact, it follows instinctively the canon of truth of eternal popular sensualism. What is clear, what is “explained”? Only that which can be seen and felt — one must pursue every problem thus far. Obversely, however, the charm of the Platonic mode of thought, which was an ARISTOCRATIC mode, consisted precisely in RESISTANCE to obvious sense-evidence — perhaps among men who enjoyed even stronger and more fastidious senses than our contemporaries, but who knew how to find a higher triumph in remaining masters of them: and this by means of pale, cold, grey conceptional networks which they threw over the motley whirl of the senses — the mob of the senses, as Plato said. In this overcoming of the world, and interpreting of the world in the manner of Plato, there was an ENJOYMENT different from that which the physicists of today offer us — and likewise the Darwinists and anti-teleologists among the physiological workers, with their principle of the “smallest possible effort,” and the greatest possible blunder. “Where there is nothing more to see or to grasp, there is also nothing more for men to do” — that is certainly an imperative different from the Platonic one, but it may notwithstanding be the right imperative for a hardy, laborious race of machinists and bridge-builders of the future, who have nothing but ROUGH work to perform. (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Helen Zimmern, The Project Gutenberg, 2003)
In this passage, Nietzsche contrasts the perspective of natural philosophy with the Platonic approach to understanding reality. The key difference is that natural philosophy does not offer an ultimate explanation of the world, but rather a description and ordering of phenomena.
According to Nietzsche, natural philosophy is based on empirical observation — what can be seen, touched, and measured — and is thus tied to sensory experience. For this reason, it has a real influence especially in an age characterized by a “plebeian” (plebejischem) sensibility that privileges the directly observable and tangible as the standard of truth.
By contrast, according to Nietzsche, Platonic philosophy represents an aristocratic mode of thought because it resists the authority of the senses. Plato and his followers searched for a higher order of understanding beyond mere sensory perception, constructing abstract concepts to grasp the multiplicity of sensory experience.
Nietzsche’s explanations reflect the intellectual climate of the late 19th century, a period marked by significant shifts in philosophical and scientific thought. For instance, the spread of positivism and empiricism, represented by thinkers such as Auguste Comte and John Stuart Mill, had led to an increased emphasis on observable phenomena and scientific methodology.
This trend contrasted with the idealist traditions that had dominated much of earlier 19th-century philosophy, especially in Germany. Nietzsche analysis can be seen as a response to this tension, offering a critique of both empiricist and idealist approaches to knowledge.
Moreover, his views are still relevant today. The tension he identified between empirical observation and abstract conceptualization remains a central issue in philosophy and beyond. This is especially true in important areas of science, such as quantum mechanics, where observable phenomena often resist intuitive understanding.
Finally, in the age of big data and artificial intelligence, his warning against confusing description with explanation is a warning about the need for critical reflection.
To be continued…
Your sponsorship means everything. Consider becoming a paid subscriber. You will get access to all my paywalled articles and support my Substack.
Both the mind and the heart of men proscribe something beyond merely the physical representation of reality. They know better through experience.