Friedrich Nietzsche's treatment of the subject of knowledge demonstrates how necessarily intertwined knowledge is with social construct and power. Nietzsche calls into question the concept of knowledge as objective, and assumed discovery, advancing the idea that knowledge is born when instinct, cultural framework, and historical condition complement each other. Nietzsche's views on the social dependence of knowledge are critiqued in this essay, with a specific focus on his views expressed in On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil, and Beyond Selfless, particularly regarding arguments related to power, perspectivism, and the effect of historical contexts.
For Nietzsche, knowledge is not an impartial hunt for truth but rather an instrument deeply incorporated into the forms of power. In Genealogy of Morality, he exposes how the ascetic ideal controls the production of knowledge and subordinates science and philosophy to its metaphysical ends (Nietzsche 87). He argues that “...So the scientific truth-ideal is analogous in structure to the ideal of the ascetic priest, and is psychologically parallel in demanding abstinence and detachment from the rest of life…” (Janaway 237) These ideas argue against such Enlightenment truths as the notion of universal truth and advance the idea that all knowledge is a result of the fights of history and society's needs. Nietzsche understands the will to truth as part of the will to power. The "truth" upheld by society often reflects the interests of the ruling classes, making knowledge inherently dependent on the sociopolitical context from which it arises.
Further, Nietzsche’s theory of perspectivism, denying the existence of objects and universal truths, plays a central part in his theory. According to Nietzsche in Beyond Good and Evil, 'all truth is interpretations' and runs through the perspective of the individuals and groups who make them (3). He contends that what is perceived as "truth" is a reflection of subjective perspectives shaped by cultural, historical, and physiological factors. Nietzsche’s perspectivism demonstrates that knowledge is social because how we understand knowledge, namely interpretations, is shaped by collective experiences and time. This contests the belief that knowledge may be isolated from social frameworks. Instead, it shows how various interpretations of the role of religion reflect the values and norms that are dominant in that society.
Also, Nietzsche pays excellent attention to the historical contingency of knowledge. He disapproves of the assumption that expertise progresses linearly towards increased objectivity. However, he interprets it as a cyclic in which power structures and cultural value continuously shifts. In On the Genealogy of Morality, Nietzsche's account how moral concepts have changed historically in response to the evolving needs and power relations between societies (Nietzsche 86). Arguing that moral categories of knowledge are constructed and reconstructed through historical interpretation, he shows that no category of knowledge remains fixed once it is set loose in the social and political practice test market. It also shows that knowledge is dependent on society's progress.
Lastly, Nietzsche also effected the redefinition of knowledge as a creative rather than purely reflective process. In Beyond Good and Evil, he criticizes the standard view of what knowledge is and what it relates to, offering instead that it is a tool to shape or interpret what existence is (Nietzsche 4). Nietzsche can view the role of creativity in knowledge production through the role social imagination and cultural aspirations play in its creation. This critique of dogmatism and a static conception of truth is along these lines. To Nietzsche, knowledge is not static but fluid, always envisioned over and over by societies to fit their changing needs. Through this reimagining process, it becomes apparent that it is socially dependent, as it changes with collective learning and goals.