A book on ethics and philosophy of values

suivre sur twitter

c) Creative subjectivism as a symptom of absolute anthropocentrism

What is remarkable is that subjectivism (classical and creative) was seen as a struggle against anthropocentrism. So Nietzsche claims to be fighting against human pride.
For him, it is the search for man's real, objective value that constitutes man's supreme presumption: The whole pose of “man against the world,” of man as a “world-negating” principle, of man as the measure of the value of things, as judge of the world who in the end places existence itself upon his scales and finds it wanting--the monstrous insipidity of this post has finally come home to us and we are sick of it. We laugh as soon as we encounter the juxtaposition of “man and world,” separated by the sublime presumption of the little world “and.” 1.

Similarly, he rejects all morality, in the sense that the moralist would perform the foolishly proud act of claiming to judge other men: Let us finally consider how naive it is altogether to say: "Man ought to be such and such!" Reality shows us an enchanting wealth of types, the abundance of a lavish play and change of forms--and some wretched loafer of a moralist comments: "No! Man ought to be different." He even knows what man should be like, this wretched bigot and prig: he paints himself on the wall and comments, "Ecce homo!" 2
In short, for Nietzsche, it is the act of judging (man or the world), of proposing a model (even though he seems to be proposing the model of the superman), that is pretentious. We have to ask ourselves whether, in trying to avoid this kind of pride, he is not falling into a much more important form of pride: anthropocentrism.

It was Freud who, in a famous text in his Introduction to Psychoanalysis, proposed the theorisation of anthropocentrism that we will take as our starting point.
It begins with Copernicus, whose heliocentrism led man to understand that the Earth, and hence humanity, is not the centre of the universe, around which all the other stars would revolve. Darwin, for his part, shows that man is merely the product of a long process of evolution, and not the completed, i.e. perfect, creation of a loving God. Finally, psychoanalysis (Freud had the modesty not to mention his own name) reveals that man is not a rational intellect, but is governed by an unconscious that surrenders him to the impulses from which he would like to escape, and hide: "The ego of each one of us […] is not even master in his own house".

In so doing, Freud was optimistic that human pride and anthropocentrism would decline over the course of the twentieth century. He thought he could see a convergence at work in the sciences that would bring about such a result.

The Copernican theory simply refuted 'spatial' anthropocentrism, i.e. the idea that man was at the centre of the universe in terms of his coordinates in space. When this was lost, man may at first have thought he had lost everything. But it soon became clear to him that he could find new grounds for pride, and that he could finally claim to be the centre of the universe in a way other than spatially.

In the doctrine of creative subjectivism as we have just described it, the universe is devoid of all value; it is man who creates values and, in his great goodness, gives them to the universe; man is the source of value for the world. The human being is therefore the axiological - and no longer spatial - centre of the universe. If we allow ourselves a metaphor, we could say that he is no longer at the centre of the "painting" (which is what the old anthropocentrism maintained), but that he has come out of the painting, can now contemplate it at each of its points, notices its absence of "beauty" and gives it to the latter: this is the new anthropocentrism.


1. The Gay Science, V, §346
2. Twilight of the Idols, V, 6