Response to Bernard Reginster, Jorah Dannenberg, and Andrew Huddleston

This is a response to Bernard Reginster's, Jorah Dannenberg's, and Andrew Huddleston's comments published in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies 47.3, on Agency and the Foundations of Ethics. I address the main points raised in their critiques: Dannenberg's concerns about whether I...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Nietzsche studies 2016-11, Vol.47 (3), p.457-478
Main Author: Katsafanas, Paul
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Humans
Hunger
Internalism
Medical treatment
Motivational internalism
Nietzschean philosophy
Nihilism
Normativity
Subjectivism
Will to power
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This is a response to Bernard Reginster's, Jorah Dannenberg's, and Andrew Huddleston's comments published in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies 47.3, on Agency and the Foundations of Ethics. I address the main points raised in their critiques: Dannenberg's concerns about whether I have adequately characterized nihilism and his argument that Nietzschean constitutivism would be of no help to the nihilist; Reginster's argument that constitutivism offers no interpretive advantage over internalism and subjectivism, his contention that it is a mistake to see all drives as aiming at expression, and his arguments against my claim that all actions aim at power; and Huddleston's critiques of the will to power thesis and objections to the constitutivist project. I argue that these objections and concerns can be answered.
ISSN:0968-8005
1538-4594
DOI:10.5325/jnietstud.47.3.0457