On knowledge,instinct and..Nietzsche!

To begin at the very beginning, true to the Socratic Method, perhaps it would be appropriate to revisit and question any assumptions we may have about the nature and inception of knowledge; only then can we really begin to make a foray into Nietzsche’s profound views on the subject. So ,as uncomfortable as it may sound , let us, for the purpose of this exposition completely disregard the view of knowledge as an object and attempt to look upon it as an event; a consequence; or even a byproduct , maybe.

Of what, you ask?

Well, in delving deeper into the matter, I would urge you to adopt a more microscopic view of the concept of knowledge. You need only to make a cursory inspection of our surroundings to appreciate the fact that nature resists complexity- behind every seemingly complex entity in space or time there is always a set of simple ideas, concepts and ingredients which are, well, for all practical purposes, indivisible. The carbohydrates are after all made of simple sugar molecules; proteins, the building block of life, are composed of amino acids; and even energy, according to the Quantum theory, is transmitted in smaller packets.
So it seems rather inevitable that a construct as complex as knowledge should, also, have its foundations in simplicity- something more in the realm of the unconscious. And Nietzsche chose to call it instinct.

Now, in order to share Nietzsche’s view of knowledge we need to introduce into this microscopic view of knowledge, an element of causality or interplay. So, consider, if you will, a rather simplistic description of the formation of a chemical compound- the atoms of individual elements interacting, sharing, exchanging and finally giving rise to a more complex third entity. In fact, if Nietzsche is to be believed, this is similar to how knowledge comes into being- a causal effect of the interplay of instincts.

Let us now attempt to reconcile Nietzsche’s view with Freudian concepts of id and ego and superego. The id component of personality represents all the primeval needs we are constantly barraged by- hunger, thirst, lust, pain etc. Our instincts , untempered by the superego, would always seek to satisfy these needs .At the very beginning , therefore, data is all there is; we are surrounded by sensory stimuli which mean nothing to us but which force us to react anyways-react instinctively, to satisfy the id.

But gradually, according to Nietzsche, the interplay of these instincts will cause the inception of knowledge, the point in time when we are able to assimilate the data into information. From a Freudian perspective, it is conceivable that this is where the superego makes its presence felt and alters decision making in accordance with the individual’s reference points. To illustrate, if a speeding truck were to be headed your way while crossing a road, you would instinctively scamper to get out of the way owing to the fight or flight response. Now if, hypothetically, this had been the first time you were ever crossing a road, the approaching truck would have been for you merely a sensory stimulus, a data you reacted to instinctively. However, says Nietzsche, with the exercise of this instinct, knowledge has been conceived- the knowledge that caution must be exercised while crossing roads.

And there in a nutshell, is my opinion on what I believe was Nietzsche’s view on knowledge and instinct. Perhaps I haven’t been entirely accurate but as Nietzsche, himself, once famously said: There are no facts, only interpretations!