02.09.2013 Views

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

stankovic, sasa thesis.pdf - Atrium - University of Guelph

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

it expresses a life which contradicts life, a reactive life which finds in knowledge a means <strong>of</strong><br />

preserving and glorifying its type” (NP 100). Life without knowledge that depends on the<br />

concept that imposes on being is precisely the activity <strong>of</strong> the Overman. Deleuze asks after the<br />

genesis <strong>of</strong> Kant’s thought. “Kant lacked a method which permitted reason to be judged from the<br />

inside without giving it the task <strong>of</strong> being its own judge…We require a genesis <strong>of</strong> reason itself,<br />

and also a genesis <strong>of</strong> the understanding and its categories: what are the forces <strong>of</strong> reason and <strong>of</strong><br />

the understanding? What is the will which hides and expresses itself in reason? What stands<br />

behind reason in reason itself?” (NP 91). The answer is clear. What generates reason, what hides<br />

and expresses, what stands behind reason is the reactive, negative type nihilism: “We cannot<br />

even say that nihilism and its forms are categories <strong>of</strong> thought, for the categories <strong>of</strong> thought the<br />

categories <strong>of</strong> thought, <strong>of</strong> reasonable thought – identity, causality, finality – themselves<br />

presuppose an interpretation <strong>of</strong> force which is that <strong>of</strong> ressentiment…The spirit <strong>of</strong> revenge is the<br />

genealogical element <strong>of</strong> our thought, the transcendental principle <strong>of</strong> our way <strong>of</strong> thinking” (NP<br />

34-5). For this reason, Deleuze argues, it is not so much the question <strong>of</strong> criticizing false claims to<br />

knowledge. Instead, it is the question <strong>of</strong> criticizing the element by means <strong>of</strong> which we criticize<br />

certain claims for knowledge as false. In other words, the question is <strong>of</strong> criticizing true<br />

knowledge itself. “We may criticize pretenders, we may condemn those who trespass on<br />

domains, but we regard the domains themselves as sacred. Similarly for knowledge: a critique<br />

worthy <strong>of</strong> the name must not bear on the pseudo-knowledge <strong>of</strong> the unknowable, but primarily on<br />

the true knowledge <strong>of</strong> what can be known” (NP 90). In other words, the question is <strong>of</strong> criticizing<br />

the truth itself. “Critique does nothing ins<strong>of</strong>ar as it has not been brought to bear on truth itself<br />

…” (NP 90). The question is <strong>of</strong> criticizing the type <strong>of</strong> will to power. How is such a critique<br />

executed?<br />

253

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!