[lit-ideas] Re: ...but "I" /meant/ well
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 14:44:13 -0700
On 9/4/13 12:41 PM, Mike Geary wrote:
Memphising along without any motives at all.
Torgeir wrote
" Nietzsche denies that we can ever know the intentions of any other
human being. In fact, Nietzsche emphasizes the relative unimportance
of conscious thinking, "consciousness is a surface," in favor of
subconscious thinking and instincts. Hence, Nietzsche argues, not
only can we not know the motives of other individuals, we cannot
even know our own motives. This is a frequent theme in Nietzsche's
writings, for example, "the most common lie is the lie one tells to
oneself; lying to others is relatively the exception." "
and Mike asked
> Yeah, but why did Nietzsche say that? Hey? That's the question.
That seems the right question. Was Nietzsche reporting on an experiment
he'd conducted in which he found that we can't know the intentions of
others or even our own intentions? Unlikely. This would need some way to
view what I thought I intended and what I _really_ intended
side-by-side, to see that they differ; but the futility of this, given
Nietzsche's claim is obvious; I cannot make such a comparison, for I
have no way of knowing what my 'real' intention is.
Motives are not intentions, although they may be cousins. I intend to
read Pope's Essay on Criticism, but my motive for doing so is to get a
higher mark in my 18th Century literature course.
Finally, intentionality, as it's been discussed here, is a different
notion than the notion of intentionality used in discussing or examining
intentional behaviour.
Sorry to have gone on so long.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
