A Comparative Analysis: Nietzsche and Peirce's Philosophical Methods

This essay provides a comparative analysis of the philosophical methods of Friedrich Nietzsche and Charles Sanders Peirce. It begins by highlighting the contrasting backgrounds and primary interests of the two philosophers, with Nietzsche focusing on culture and creativity, and Peirce on logic and the nature of belief. The essay explores Nietzsche's embrace of the scientific method, emphasizing its role in establishing beliefs aligned with reality, and contrasts it with Peirce's method of tenacity. It delves into Nietzsche's concepts of the Dionysian and Apollonian, and Peirce's methods for setting beliefs, including tenacity, authority, and the scientific method. The essay examines their differing views on truth, belief, and the process of arriving at knowledge, offering insights into their distinct approaches to philosophical inquiry. The essay draws on the work of scholars like Jackson, Bazzano, Brown, and others to support its claims and provide a comprehensive overview of the two philosophers' methodologies.

Philosophy
Student’s Name:
Student’s ID:

1
Table of Contents
Comparison and Contrast between Nietzsche’s and Peirce’s Conception of Method in Philosophy...........2
Method for Arriving at a Belief used by Nietzsche......................................................................................2
Method Privileged by Peirce........................................................................................................................4
References...................................................................................................................................................6

2
Comparison and Contrast between Nietzsche’s and Peirce’s Conception of Method in
Philosophy
The comparison between Nietzsche and Peirce seems to be odd since the only thing they had
common is that they lived almost at the same time. They had not only different writing styles but
also different philosophical concepts. The primary interest of Nietzsche was culture while the
primary interest of Peirce was logic. The vision of Nietzsche in philosophy was creativity, and
according to him, creativity is a function of degree and is decided by the powers to suppress the
desires and passion in services (Jackson 107-141). He had explained physiologically and
psychologically about creativity in his theory of affects.
Nietzsche’s concept of creativity could be interpreted on the basis of celebrating and living life
creatively. He had categorized creativity into two parts, the Dionysian and the Apollonian. The
first concept was based on the aspects of passionate emotions, while the second concept was
based on the aspects of rational intellect. On the other hand, the vision of Peirce in philosophy
was an analysis of the nature of belief. Peirce considered that belief is a stable and pleasing
concept and provides satisfaction to the people (Peirce 1-15). So, people cling to them and lead
an individual towards shaping his or her actions and guiding his or her desires. The methods used
by Peirce for setting beliefs are the method of tenacity, method of authority, method of priori and
the scientific method (Pollock and Agler 245-269).
Method for Arriving at a Belief used by Nietzsche
The scientific method to arrive at the belief of Peirce was used Nietzsche since Nietzsche
believed in reality, and this method set the beliefs that correspond to reality. In an ideal world,
the beliefs must be considered objectively free from subjective thinking so that the assumptions

3
could be similar for everyone. It was believed by Nietzsche that it could be done by the scientific
method, by reviewing the empirical interpretations and reasoning the reality of the things
(Bazzano 23-36). For satisfying the doubts of the people, it is essential that a process must
determine the beliefs of the individuals not by humans, but by some external reality which does
not affect the thinking of an individual. The external reality will not be external in a sense and
not limited its impact on one person. It needs to be something that touches or may touch
everybody. Although these impacts are essential according to different conditions of the
individuals, the process should be in that way where the conclusion of everybody must be the
same, and this is the method of science.
The underlying assumption of this method is reaffirmed in a more familiar language. There are
real things those features are completely independent of the views of the people about them.
Those things impact the senses of the people by customary laws, and though these senses are
different like the relationships of the individuals with the objects. But, by taking the benefit of
the regulations of perception, the people could determine by thinking the reality and truth of the
things anyone, if she or he has adequate experience and enough reasons regarding it can lead to
one correct assumption (Jackson143-178).
The next question is the relationship between reality and truth to be right, and that belief should
match with the reality. Reality is described as a practical matter and affects sensibly that it
generates, but the only impacts caused by reality are beliefs. Thus, the scientific method can
distinguish between true and false beliefs. Ultimately, it leads towards a circle assumption that a
view that is destined to be finally approved by everybody those who examine is the truth, and the
thing signified in this view is the reality. Hence, the reality is interpreted by truth and truth is
interpreted by reality, and this is so clearly mentioned that it is strange that Peirce had himself

4
became blind to this misconception. Nietzsche believed that the scientific method is the only
method that can find the difference between right and wrong ways (Brown 63-82).
Method Privileged by Peirce
The method of tenacity for setting belief was privileged by Peirce since he considered this
method for its straightforwardness, strength and simplicity. He believed that men those who
follow it are distinguished for their charismatic decisions that become easier with the
psychological rule. They do not spend time in trying to make decisions for what they desire and
act fast like lightning on whatever substitutes comes first, hold them till the end, whatever takes
place and without any hesitant. It is one of the impressive qualities that usually go along with the
everlasting and excellent success. It is not possible not to feel jealous for the person who could
dismiss reasons, even though everybody knows how it comes out ultimately (Houser 379-400).
This method signifies that when the individuals utilize this process, they merely persistently
embrace all the beliefs they already adopted, and discard whatever all the beliefs they previously
rejected. Thus, using this method will not change the already established beliefs of the
individuals and vice versa. The golden standard of truth for those individuals using this method
is what is believe by them. Hence, when somebody suggests a belief to them, they simply
embrace that implied belief against their golden standard of truth that is the beliefs already hold
by them and considers them right and if they do not already believe they consider them false
(Kasser 840-853).
Peirce regarded that it is the simplest process to make a decision on what to believe and do not
need considerable thinking and considers it extremely handy. He pointed this method towards the
desire for relaxation and the anxiety for doubt. It is a process that regarded as real since they are

5
considered to be true from immemorial time. Peirce said that the knowledge is conveyed from
culture or tradition and truth is the truth since an individual considers it also in front of
challenging situations. This process follows the logic since it is true; its consistency and validity
is unquestionable and has no chance of confirmation.
References
Bazzano, Manu. "Changelings: the self in Nietzsche’s psychology." Therapy and Counter-
tradition. Routledge, 2016. 23-36.
Brown, Richard SG. "Nietzsche:‘ That profound physiologist’." Nietzsche and science.
Routledge, 2017. 63-82.
Houser, Nathan. "Social minds and the fixation of belief." Consensus on Peirce’s Concept of
Habit. Springer, Cham, 2016. 379-400.
Jackson, Jeffrey M. "Nietzsche’s Negative Dialectic: Ascetic Ideal and the Status
Quo." Nietzsche and Suffered Social Histories. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 2017,
107-141.
Jackson, Jeffrey M. "Working-Through Perspectives in Nietzsche and Object Relations
Psychoanalysis." Nietzsche and Suffered Social Histories. Palgrave Macmillan, New
York, 2017. 143-178.
Kasser, Jeff. "Genuine belief and genuine doubt in Peirce." European Journal of Philosophy,
26.2, 2018, 840-853.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Fixation of Belief. Popular Science Monthly 12, November 1877,
1-15.

6
Pollock, Ryan, and David W. Agler. "Hume and Peirce on the ultimate stability of
belief." Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 97.2, 2016, 245-269.