Since as far back antiquity, philosophers have been inquiring into the nature of conflict. One of the most prominent ideas to have dominated this inquiry is that conflict represents an undesirable... Show moreSince as far back antiquity, philosophers have been inquiring into the nature of conflict. One of the most prominent ideas to have dominated this inquiry is that conflict represents an undesirable part of life, one that stands opposed to the ideals of harmony, co-operation and consensus. Nietzsche, however, rejects this position, proffering various arguments for why we ought to positively value conflict. Yet Nietzsche’s stance is by no means unambigious. Commentators sharply disagree regarding the specific form of conflict to which his endorsement refers. His “hard” readers present him as a warmonger, who predominantly advocates unmeasured, destructive types of struggle (e.g. war). Conversely, Nietzsche’s “soft” readers claim that he exclusively promotes a measured, agonal mode of struggle modelled on the non-violent contests (or agons) that pervaded ancient Greek culture. I contend that both of these readings are one-sided and require modification. Indeed, the thesis that this dissertation defends is that Nietzsche promotes both measured and unmeasured struggle in an entirely coherent manner. I further argue that commentators have neglected the most significant form of conflict in Nietzsche’s thought, which is characterised by a combination of measured and unmeasured conflict. This species of struggle is analogous to the biological process of digestion, which simultaneously involves 1) a measured struggle to incorporate that which is deemed serviceable to the organism, and 2) an unmeasured struggle to eliminate material deemed redundant or harmful. This dualistic struggle is what I term organisational conflict on account of the fact that both incorporation and exclusion form part of a single overarching impetus to establish healthy organisation. Show less
This paper engages in a critical discussion with Christa Davis Acamporaconcerning Nietzsche’s concept of the agon. It takes issue with the “meaning-making”model of the agon developed in her book Co...Show moreThis paper engages in a critical discussion with Christa Davis Acamporaconcerning Nietzsche’s concept of the agon. It takes issue with the “meaning-making”model of the agon developed in her book Contesting Nietzsche, the typology fordistinguishing productive agonal confl ict from destructive confl ict, and its applicationto the Apollinian-Dionysian relation in GT and to Nietzsche’s critique of Socrates.Acampora’s model, it is argued, modernises and soft ens Nietzsche’s agon by takingout the moment of negation, disempowerment, or critical opposition that belongstogether with reciprocal affi rmation or stimulation in agonal interaction.Keywords: Agon, Wettkampf, Vernichtungskampf, Homer, Socrates, Apollinian / Dionysian,dialectic.Zusammenfassung: Der Beitrag tritt in eine kritische Diskussion mit Christa DavisAcampora uber Nietzsches Begriff des Agon ein. Er befasst sich mit dem ,sinngebenden‘Modell des Agon, das sie in ihrem Buch Contesting Nietzsche entwickelt, ihrertypologischen Unterscheidung des produktiven agonalen vom destruktiven Konfliktund deren Anwendung auf die Relation des Apollinischen und Dionysischen in GTund auf Nietzsches Sokrates-Kritik. Acamporas Model, so die These, passt NietzschesAgon dem heutigen Geschmack an, zeichnet ihn weich, indem sie das Moment derNegation, Entmachtung, kritischen Gegenstellung herausnimmt, das ebenso wiegegenseitige Bejahung oder Reizung zur agonalen Interaktion gehort.Schlagwörter: Agon, Wettkampf, Vernichtungskampf, Homer, Sokrates, apollinisch /dionysisch, Dialektik. Show less
