Why do some of the best books have some of the worst covers? It’s a shame, given the unholy alchemy of heuristics and biases we use to select what we pay attention to. This book has sat on my “next” shelf for well over a year, and that is at least in part due to my abhorrence of this cover. I guess I am “human, all too human” after all 😉.
Clark’s work is masterful. She peels back the layers and layers of confusion and argumentation over just what Nietzsche meant when he claimed that truth is illusion. Defying radical interpretations that posit this claim as a (self-defeating) falsification thesis, and disclaiming deconstructivist interpretations as well, she contextualizes this claim in relation to Nietzsche’s own embrace and then gradual rejection of metaphysical realism, and in particular Kantian and Schopenhauerian distinctions between phenomenal appearance and noumenal essence. She then traces the development of Nietzsche’s thought towards metaphysical anti-realism, and then proceeds to interpret four central Nietzschian doctrines in light of this mature position: perspectivism, ascetic ideal, will to power, and eternal recurrence.
Arguing against metaphysical interpretations of these doctrines, she makes a convincing case for the practical power of these doctrines, and their relation to Nietzsche’s ultimate philosophical goal of overcoming the ascetic ideal without simply re-succumbing to it in a new, obscured form. The arguments are at times very deep, and intricate, particularly in the early stages of the book that focus specifically on the modern philosophical debates about the nature of truth and its bearing on Nietzsche’s theory of truth. But the payoff these sections provide is well worth the effort, and then overall picture Maudemarie provides of Nietzsche’s development makes his inconsistencies clear without diminishing or simplifying their complexity.
Bravo, Maudemarie!