Band 16, Heft 1

When one undertakes research on Nietzsche, a confrontation with Heidegger’s interpretation of his philosophy is almost unavoidable. Widely known, particular and influent, this interpretation is nevertheless problematic and its analysis, particularly of its occurence in Holzwege , leads to a questionning of the generally admitted notions of ontology, metaphysics, ethics, and nihilism. These notions are an integral part of the philosophical vocabulary and never seem to pose a problem. I am claiming here that, although they might seem quite univoqual and clear, these terms do pose a problem, at least when one wants to analyse Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche. I will divide this paper according to the following plan. I will begin by presenting Heidegger’s interpretation of Nietzsche as it appears in Holzwege . This interpretation will lead us to the first question: how to define “ontology”, “metaphysics”, and “ethics” and how to relate them. From this question, and its tentative answer, I will move to the question of Heidegger’s possible nihilism. This discussion will lead us to another question: what is nihilism exactly? With my answer to this question, the circle will be closed and I will determine whether there is nihilism in Nietzsche, as Heidegger claims

This paper has two parts. The first part (sections 1 to 5) is historical, presenting a brief history of the concept of necessity from the time of antiquity to the present. It is shown that the conceptions of necessity in antiquity had four main sources: matter-necessity, form-necessity, efficiencynecessity, and purpose-necessity. Special attention is accorded to the syncretistic concept of the necessity of fate, and its transformations from the beginning of antiquity to its end. Moreover, it is pointed out that already in antiquity we find the conception of proofnecessity, and the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic necessity. At present, of the original four main sources of conceptions of necessity, three have dried up, leaving only form-necessity still active. The second part of the paper (sections 6 to 9) is dedicated to the development of a rigorous theory of form-necessity (or nomological necessity, broadly conceived), at the end of which a skeptical note is struck regarding laws of nature