PART II. THE CRITIQUE OF CRITIQUE, VALUE OF VALUE

Gilles Deleuze

Between the 1950s and 1960s, when French philosophy academia was still embroiled in debates over Marxism, existentialism, and phenomenology, Deleuze’s work “Nietzsche and Philosophy” suddenly broke in with its reinterpretation of Nietzsche mingled with Deleuze’s core ideas. Several of Deleuze’s revolutionary and groundbreaking concepts such as difference, repetition, becoming, etc. are expressed through Nietzsche’s mouth in the book, paving the way for post-modernism philosophy. In this book, Deleuze criticizes traditional metaphysics’ presupposition and perspective with Kant as a representative of Nietzsche's philosophy’s paradigm. This article is split into two parts. In the first section, the critique of Kant is based on tracing the genealogy of Kant's philosophy; the second section includes Nietzsche’s original dissection on Kant, mainly focusing on the concept of “thing-in-itself” and Deleuze’s further elaboration.

Section 1

It is believed that there are two indispensable factors to achieve a real critique. Everything and their origins must refer back to their values, meanwhile, the values must refer back to the things that bestow the values on them. [1] In other words, if something is said to possess a certain value, the reason why it has value and what makes it have value need to be clarified. The question of critique is the question of “value of the value.” Usually, when commenting on something, a set of values is held in the first place: value becomes the basis of evaluation. For instance, one may say one is doing something bad because the other is smoking. Here, the presupposed value is that smoking is bad probably because smoking is bad for human health, and things that harm human health are hazardous. However, as Deleuze says “more profoundly,” evaluation and the perspective of evaluation are the prerequisites of values, values are derived from the former. The evaluation, fundamentally perspectives of evaluation, tends to be ways of living. It serves as the principle of value, and people base their judgments on this principle of value. The idea is that one views the world based on a set of opinions. Thus, under a certain mode of life, people always have their own beliefs, emotions, and thoughts, and they can only speak certain kinds of words, have certain kinds of feelings, and adhere to a certain set of values. As different individuals, the perspectives of evaluation are different. This leads to one of Deleuze’s critical concepts: l’élément différentiel, the elements where values gain value.

One of Kant’s famous three Critiques, “The Critique of Pure Reason” is introduced in the last post of this website for those who want to gain an overview of this book. In this case, Kant’s critique is described as “removing values from criticism, contenting themselves with producing inventories of existing values or with criticizing things in the name of established values.” [1] This is because Kant cannot explain the value of his value and his philosophy overemphasizes universality and necessity. When something is said to be universal, it is implied that everyone has the same perspective of evaluation, the differences have been erased, and the l'élément différentiel is obliterated. Resultantly, Deleuze deems the fact -that Nietzsche points out Kant doesn’t attain true critique because Kant doesn’t pose the problem of critique in terms of values- is one of Nietzsche’s essential works. [1]

Section 2

In addition, Nietzsche’s more elemental critique lies in his rejection of “thing-in-itself” (Ding an sich), which also signs his rejection of traditional metaphysics. Back in the Ancient Greek Times, philosopher Parmenides separated being and non-being, the starting point of appearance-reality dualism and dichotomy. Plato’s theory of “form” set the tone of this dualistic view in Western philosophy. Quite similar to the relationship between appearance and reality, Kant distinguishes between the phenomenal world (the world as it appears to us) and the noumenal world (“thing-in-itself,” which is beyond human cognition). Nietzsche challenges the foundation of Kant's epistemology and ontology, arguing that the “thing-in-itself” is a contradictory and life-denying metaphysical construct. [2] Firstly, Nietzsche claims if the “thing-in-itself” is unknowable, its existence cannot be legitimately asserted. The second point that Nietzsche repudiates promotes the essence of Nietzsche’s philosophy: affirmation of life. Nietzsche argues the continuation of the Platonic-Christian tradition that devalues the sensory world (phenomena) in favor of a “true world” (noumena). [3] But for Nietzsche, senses are the primary means of accessing reality, senses and the body are the sole means of understanding the world. The world is precisely as we perceive it. Therefore the “thing-in-itself” is an unnecessary abstraction that distracts from the immediacy of sensory experience, undermining the value of lived experience.

Nietzsche’s critique of Kant is not merely epistemological but also existential, as it seeks to liberate philosophy from life-denying abstractions to affirm the value of immanent, lived reality.

References:

1.       Deleuze, Gilles. Nietzsche and philosophy. Columbia University Press, 2006.

2.       Hill, R. Kevin. Nietzsche's critiques: The Kantian foundations of his thought. Oxford University Press, 2003.

3.       Nietzsche, Friedrich. The antichrist. E-Kitap Projesi & Cheapest Books, 2024.