He argues against empiricism in the genealogy of morals, beyond good and evil, and some of what he wrote on history.
He does so because they fail to understand that language is something historical that is fought over and changes over time. Thus his aphorism that 'only that which has no history can be defined.'
He does so because they fail to understand that language is something historical that is fought over and changes over time. Thus his aphorism that 'only that which has no history can be defined.'