Reviewed by:

• Nietzsche's Metaphilosophy: The Nature, Method, and Aims of Philosophy ed. by Paul S. Loeb and Matthew Meyer
• Melanie Shepherd

This volume brings together well-established Nietzsche scholars working within diverse philosophical and stylistic frameworks to address the question of how Nietzsche understands philosophy. Specifically, Loeb and Meyer aim to investigate Nietzsche's answers to the following three questions: "What should philosophy be? How should philosophy be done? Why, or to what end, should philosophy be practiced?" (2–3). The question of what philosophy means for Nietzsche is arguably central to a great deal of existing secondary literature, from French interpreters of the 1960s and 1970s to the numerous contemporary volumes that take Nietzsche's style seriously as illuminating, rather than obfuscating, his philosophical project. This volume advances that conversation by raising the question of Nietzsche's metaphilosophy directly and in the context of a greatly expanded field of Nietzsche studies characterized by methodological pluralism. Given the wide range of philosophical debates animating contemporary Nietzsche studies, this book delivers a welcome reflective pause, allowing readers to consider contemporary debates in light of Nietzsche's own aims. Though argumentative moves are made a bit quickly in places, often because authors are drawing on arguments they have developed in detail elsewhere, on the whole the essays are well researched, interesting, and intelligent.

Meyer's essay tackles the problem of the variety of metaphilosophies espoused by Nietzsche throughout his career, unifying them around a dialectic between the will to truth and art. He offers a compelling explanation for why Nietzsche's early antithesis between Socratic philosophy and art bears such similarity to his later work while differing substantively from his attitudes in the free spirit works, explaining the more positivistic bent of those texts as part of Nietzsche's self-conscious strategy for demonstrating how philosophy overcomes the will to truth and becomes a form of art. This tension between truth and art is explored in several other essays. João Constâncio contrasts Nietzsche's interest in value creation with Spencerian positivism, arguing that Nietzsche's philosophy is an aesthetic activity requiring reflective taste, understood in a Kantian sense. Rebecca Bamford explores how the idea of experimentation in the free spirit works informs Nietzsche's philosophical project, and she argues that Nietzsche's naturalism, rather than being entirely consistent with the sciences, instead incorporates both truth and error as essential for human development.

Both Loeb and Marco Brusotti begin with Nietzsche's mature conception of the philosopher in Beyond Good and Evil §211 to show that Nietzsche's metaphilosophy hinges on the notion of the philosopher as a creator of values. Brusotti argues that BGE provides a natural history of the philosopher and associated figures such as the scholar, and he concludes by suggesting, without quite developing, the provocative idea that Nietzsche's autobiographical turn toward the end of his career represents an implosion of his metaphilosophy. Similarly, Loeb differentiates among the types related to the philosopher [End Page 337] in BGE, but he advances an idiosyncratic interpretation of Zarathustra that will be familiar to many readers, arguing that the philosopher's new values are the organizing force pointing superior human beings toward self-sacrifice. Robert Pippin also focuses on the philosopher in BGE in order to consider the religious dimensions of Nietzschean philosophy. While Pippin's meditative style often enables novel insights, his essay here winds without reaching a clearing, and is thus not his strongest example of that style.

Antoine Panaïoti uses Nietzsche's metaphilosophy to critique the significant trend in Nietzsche scholarship of forcing Nietzschean ideas into the language of analytic philosophy and its attendant assumptions. Using two key metaphors from Nietzsche's early work, Panaïoti argues that philosophy, as an affirmative task, must guide the sciences rather than follow their lead. His broad critique of analytic interpreters of Nietzsche receives an implicit reply from other essays in the volume. Paul Katsafanas, for instance, pulls a compelling moral methodology out of Nietzsche's work in an essay...

审核人：

• 尼采的元哲学：哲学的性质，方法和目的。保罗·S·洛布（Paul S.Loeb）和马修·迈耶（Matthew Meyer）
• 梅兰妮·谢泼德（Melanie Shepherd）

这本书汇集了在各种哲学和风格框架下工作的著名的尼采学者，以解决尼采如何理解哲学的问题。具体地说，勒布和迈耶的目的是调查尼采对以下三个问题的回答：“哲学应该是什么？哲学应该怎样做？为什么要实践哲学？到底要实践什么？” （2–3）。从1960年代和1970年代的法国口译员到众多当代文学作品，尼采对哲学的意义对于尼采来说是至关重要的，从他的著作中可以看出尼采对哲学的重视而不是混淆不清。本书通过提出尼采的问题来推进对话。尼采研究的方法论多元论直接或在广泛扩展的尼采研究领域的背景下进行了哲学的元哲学研究。鉴于围绕着当代尼采研究开展了各种各样的哲学辩论，这本书提供了令人欢迎的反思性停顿，使读者可以根据尼采自身的目的考虑当代辩论。尽管在某些地方进行辩论性动作的速度很快，通常是因为作者正在利用他们在其他地方详细阐述的论点，但总体而言，本文是经过充分研究，有趣且精明的。让读者可以根据尼采自己的目标考虑当代辩论。尽管在某些地方进行辩论性动作的速度很快，通常是因为作者正在利用他们在其他地方详细阐述的论点，但总体而言，本文是经过充分研究，有趣且精明的。让读者可以根据尼采自己的目标考虑当代辩论。尽管在某些地方进行辩论性动作的速度很快，通常是因为作者正在利用他们在其他地方详细阐述的论点，但总体而言，本文是经过充分研究，有趣且精明的。

迈耶的论文解决了尼采在他的整个职业生涯中所倡导的多种形而上学的问题，使它们围绕着对真理和艺术的意志之间的辩证法统一起来。他提供了令人信服的解释，说明尼采为何在苏格拉底哲学与艺术之间的早期对立与他的后期作品具有如此相似之处，而又与他在自由精神作品中的态度有实质性差异，解释了这些文本作为尼采自我意识策略的一部分更为积极主义的倾向。展示哲学如何克服真理的意志并成为一种艺术形式。在其他几篇文章中也探讨了真理与艺术之间的这种张力。若昂·康斯坦乔（JoãoConstâncio）将尼采对价值创造的兴趣与斯宾塞的实证主义进行了对比，认为尼采的 哲学是一种康德式的审美活动，需要反思性的品味。丽贝卡·班福德（Rebecca Bamford）探索了自由精神实验的思想如何为尼采的哲学项目提供了信息，她认为尼采的自然主义与其完全与科学不符，反而将真理和错误结合为人类发展的基本要素。

勒布（Leeb）和马可·布鲁索蒂（Marco Brusotti）都从尼采在《善与恶》（Beyond Good and Evil§211）中对哲学家的成熟概念开始，以表明尼采的元哲学取决于哲学家作为价值创造者的观念。Brusotti认为BGE提供了哲学家和相关人物（例如学者）的自然历史，并且他的结论是，在没有充分发展的情况下，提出了一个挑衅性的思想，即尼采走向职业生涯的自传转向代表了他的元哲学的内爆。同样，勒布（Leeb ）在BGE中与哲学家[第337页]相关的类型之间进行区分，但他提出了Zarathustra的特质解释许多读者会对此感到熟悉，他们认为哲学家的新价值观是将卓越的人类指向自我牺牲的组织力量。罗伯特·皮平（Robert Pippin）还专注于BGE的哲学家，以考虑尼采哲学的宗教方面。尽管皮蓬的冥想风格通常可以带来新颖的见解，但他的文章内容wind绕而没有空缺，因此并不是他最有力的例证。

安东尼·帕纳奥蒂（AntoinePanaïoti）使用尼采的元哲学来批判尼采学术研究的重大趋势，这种趋势迫使尼采思想成为分析哲学及其相关假设的语言。帕奈奥蒂运用尼采早期工作中的两个主要隐喻，认为哲学作为一项肯定性任务，必须指导科学而不是遵循科学的先河。他对尼采的分析解释员的广泛批评收到了该卷其他文章的默示答复。例如，保罗·卡萨法纳斯（Paul Katsafanas）在一篇论文中从尼采的作品中引出了一种引人注目的道德方法论...