Interpretation: arbitrariness or philological competence?
Within the context of perspectives opened by Nietzsche’s analysis of language and given such a conceptual stretching of the notion of “interpretation”, this paper sets a couple of questions: is every interpretation an arbitrary interpretation? This question is obviously connected to the following: is it possible to distinguish fictional narratives from historical narratives? Is it possible to avoid the danger of arbitrariness resulting from “everything is interpretation”? Starting from an analysis of paragraph 109 of Gay Science it is possible to indicate some answers to these questions.