Artificial and Unconscious Selection in Nietzsche’s Genealogy: Expectorating the Poisoned Pill of the Lamarckian Reading

Abstract

I examine three kinds of criticism directed at philosophical genealogy. I call these substantive, performative, and semantic. I turn my attention to a particular substantive criticism that one may launch against essay two of On the Genealogy of Morals that turns on how Nietzsche answers “the time-crunch problem”. On the surface, there is evidence to suggest that Nietzsche accepts a false scientific theory, namely, Lamarck’s Inheritability Thesis, in order to account for the growth of a new human “organ”—morality. I demonstrate that the passages interpreted by some scholars to prove that Nietzsche is a Lamarckian can be reinterpreted along Darwinian lines. I demonstrate that Nietzsche hits upon the right drivers of phenotypical change in humans, namely, torture and enclosures (e.g., walls of early states), but misinterprets their true impact. Nietzsche believes that these technologies are responsible for producing what I call “culture-serving memory” and the bad conscience by causing emotions that once were expressed outwardly to turn inward causing the “psychological digestion” of the human animal. In reality, however, these mechanisms are conducive to breeding a particular type of individual, namely, one who is docile, by introducing artificial and unconscious selective pressures into the environment of early humans. In showing that Nietzsche’s genealogical account of memory and bad conscience is not underpinned on a false scientific theory and is consistent with Neo-Darwinism, I deflect a potentially fatal blow regarding the veracity of Nietzsche’s genealogies.

The Passive Body and States of Nature: An Examination of the Methodological Role State of Nature Theory Plays in Williams and Nietzsche

“…The upshot of Williams' approach in contradistinction to other readings is that Nietzsche's Genealogy exposes the contradictory nature of Christian morality writ large. He is not merely providing an alternative perspective or a more warranted account of the same phenomenon as the traditional interpretation has it (For truthful readings of Nietzsche's Genealogy, i.e., the standard account, see: (Owen 2002(Owen , 2007Leiter 2002;Lightbody, 2019;Taylor 1984;Conway 1994Conway , 2008Morrisson 2014;Migotti 2006Migotti , 2016. I conclude my analysis by demonstrating how William's functional account is immune to the three criticisms I mentioned above.…”

“…218-19;Prinz 2016, p. 194). Although Prinz's objections, it should be noted, are ably and directly answered by (Migotti 2016) and indirectly by (Lightbody 2019), if one accepts Prinz's interpretation of genealogy, as a method of historical reconstruction, it is an easy task of discovering evidence that does not support Nietzsche's contentions. Thus, an alternative way to respond to the thrust of the "Just So" objection must be tried.…”