Abstract Virtually all of the volumes under discussion in this essay accept that Nietzsche’s philosophical project is of a naturalistic kind. Where they differ is with regard to a) the extent and orientation of such naturalism, b) the import of such naturalism with regard to Nietzsche’s critique of morality, c) philosophy’s relationship to the natural sciences, and d) the potential metaphysical underpinnings of Nietzsche’s naturalism. Although most, albeit not all, of the contributions discussed in this review essay situate themselves in the tradition of analytic philosophy, I will argue that the debate about Nietzsche’s naturalism, and also about the nature of Nietzsche’s specific way of doing philosophy, opens the door to a postanalytic perspective. Against this background, the unproductive distinction between “analytic” and “continental” interpretations of Nietzsche’s writings thankfully begins to lose relevance.
Christian J. Emden (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: