Yeah me too, i couldn't fathom the fact that most videos on my carefully curated philosophy playlist were deleted. So i checked and the channel was gone.
I like that he mentions the evolutionary biologists. I don't know if anyone has fully hammered out the details of it, maybe Daniel Dennett has touched on something like this, I suppose it would be a naturalistic view of truth. If it is something we evolved to to perceive value, then that is its source and its value all in one, emerging from the mists of time in our deeper ancestry along with language and survival. What if valuing truth - even what we understand to be truth - is as natural and reflexive for our minds as breathing is for our lungs. Of it's a value we gained from our evolved nature, this means we have bootstrapped it as a value into religion and later with science, also as a natural consequence. Dennett distinguishes biological evolution with sociological evolution as well. This might mean that we have an intuitional, natural truth valuing mechanism, and a sociologically determined truth valuing mechanism, but both can contain errors as they function as a perception. Truth, to some degree, can this refract like light through a diamond, in a post modern sense. It's not that truth doesn't exist or has no value, it's that it's multifaceted, and sometimes, paradoxically, untrue. That starts to cook the brain a bit. We may have evolved to value truth so much that we will even value something untrue over the truth if it seems truer than what's true. I can't help but noticed that Nietzsche has a very rigid 19th century cold and rationalist understanding of science, positing that science couldn't answer this question. Maybe it still can't but I'd like to believe maybe it has since she'd some light in it with primate and mammalian evolution. Life is the meaning of life - that's the boot strap - or at least one of the meanings of it, myth doesn't have to be invoked for the animals and prehistoric humans and hominids. If truth is evolved or from myth and divine, then it functions just as well, we don't actually have to know where or when or how or why we began valuing it if we can decide we value it. We don't have to make excuses, we can just value it because we choose to, or value it if we believe we do. It's a bit like staring into a mirror, we can't explain ourselves to ourselves. Now here's a perplexing and fun part: things that are untrue also carry value even though they can be at times counterfeit to truth, such as the myths Nietzsche says we've destroyed. Fast forward well over a century after Nietzsche and what we understand as religion is more or less still thriving, so much so that in some instances it is deliberately corrosive and resistant to truth and scientific truth, having the effect as a social placebo for truth. In yet another leap of sociological evolution, and perplexing for truth and the myth making, non-religion has appeared to begun maturing as a religion in itself. It's not quite the same thing in the same manner, especially in practice and how it formulates it's myths, but it's "holy" books and cows and creeds have been spreading in the petry dish for some time since before Nietzsche. I feel personally testament to that in being able to value evolutionary origins, and valuing religion on my own terms informed from evolution. I might not have all the answers, but do I really need all of them in order to decide for myself? The battle or war is far from resolved in most minds however, but it seems that in Nietzsche's time it all seemed irreconcilable; in our time it's possible to threat the needle and say that it is reconcilable, though we've inherited a lot of that legacy that perceives them as mutually exclusive. What if that isn't true and doesn't need to be? It's as if it never entered the religionists and scientists, or philosophers minds of Nietzsche's time: that religion is not necessarily or must be opposed to truth or science, and vice versa. I think religion is just a different avenue and manifestation for understanding truth. I think postmodernism does well to explore some of the quandaries, such as a counterfeit truth being valued more than demonstrable truth, in some cases truth is actively discarded. This is still a function of survival, or at least perceived survival. They hold on to the anti science and in particular their anti evolution "truth" because it is perceived to be fatal to their beliefs or religion. This is somewhat of a cognitive dissonance, but it also emerges and presents a sociological source of conflict. Which is potentially alarming if we could have evolved to perceive truth as a human value for survival; what if we also evolved to deny it, also for survival? So we might be able to simply, conveniently, deny that life might not have meaning too, instead of having to conjure it from our ancestral and living identity as humans and agents of life, but I prefer to stick with Nietzsche and positivity affirm life than to simply doubt the negative. But it is troubling, if untruth can function as truth in counterfeit and we'd effective never know or need to know. That's a pessimists view, if even our science and best examples of truth are mere illusive figments our minds evolved to create, but then that perception would also be an illusion and figment and we'd never know if it were true either. To me this is simultaneously affirmative of truth but also shattering of the enlightenment paradigm that we are inherently rational, which is explored in postmodern thought. I rather like Kant's general take on things, maybe it's true that truth doesn't exist and has no value, but I wont lose any sleep over it. It's a null hypothesis harder to prove than truth itself. It seems the equation points in a certain direction... towards truth as true and valuable (but remember my post modern presumption that even untruth might have value, particularly as a mechanism for biological and sociological survival. It would be better to not feel nihilism if we could simply retreat from it too, and not necessarily fight and destroy it head on like Nietzsche. If nihilism we're the truth, then it would be good for survival to retreat from it into the fantasy of affirming life).
Interesting thought process of untrustworthiness being an evolutionary mechanism of certain people caused from survival instincts from certain anacesters that would also mean the more modern and technologically advanced civilization becomes whatever gene implanted for untrustustworthiness would eventually be rooted out of all humans that would make for a scary utopian film.
Looking under the hood we just might never recover from the existential terror we have unleashed. Every time I entertain Nietsche's ideas, I'm absoluetly lost for meaning.
Please reupload those Socrates to Sartre videos if possible. I was using them to prepare for an upcoming examination. Power tripping youtube sucks balls though.
Being able to make a determination as to whether a given proposition is true (and/or degree to which such could be considered true) has a utility of use which supports whatever tapestry of meaning that one has created and/or accepted. If one cares not for the utility and/or are incapable of using the utility, then such doesn't add to one's life even as such may be an issue (whether understood or not). I think it is a mistake to presume that our cognitive models entail the same components, values, and/or linkages. The various issues of communication, understanding, epistemology, and more should make it all too clear that there is a fair amount of variance.
I Would ask why do we value enlivening activity/avoiding nihilism and why should we, because it seems the interest in whatever activity a man can do, whether it brings self realization or not, is extrinsic, and very easily personified by capitalist ideals. Because the analytic reafirmation of science and mythology (i prefer "narrative") as tools can't have a pragmatic stop at what interests society/the utilitarian ideal. work, in its most abstract meaning, should be put to the same analysis, that's a blind spot And my point of view, signalling to schopenhauer, russell, rousseau and dostoevski, is that these pragmatic values are put in place to protect concepts of social norm, othering, virtue of work, and vilification of non-activity and non-being. If we grant science doesn't offer a counter ideal to religion, upholding ilusion and enshrining the concept of "good activity" doesn't seem to have any tangible contrast to it either does it? It's just another dogmatic North on a semantic compass And if we assume we need shared mythology, i don't see evidence to point that science, or a poetically written negation of meaning is less likely to serve as that than the church of fear and abnegation, which has, and still to this day I realize i sound like a marxist with my anti-work point but i also am judgemental of Marx's claim of "nessessity of action"
Nietzsche liked the Pragmatism of William James. What? A refined continental philosopher approving a brash young American philosophy? Yes, he liked its definition of the truth as useful. Or at least it’s valuing of the truth in so far as it is useful and enlivens us.
Yeah, I have always thought of James as the American Nietzche. I find the whole “cash-value of an idea” thing to closely resemble Nietzche’s way of speaking of ideas as furthering being or not. I think they both work with Darwin in the background in some sense.
Nietzsche coming to us all through Video.. So lovely if we'd only heed the advice offered. That Egoic self which cowardly hides in a dark place void of action. Whilst it quivers upon those intrusive thoughts. It pokes and kicks in front of self but nothing happens. So it now accuses any action to be its enemy, knowing not why not how things occur; it's purely relative like a radar on overdrive during wartime..Those in the light pass the Egos and know to stand clear or they may kick and bruise you, leaving a mark that can last forever. Or you learn to negotiate through the maze of Egoic radars going crazy.. So life continues to educate itself for all to see whom have eyes to do so. It can be a wonderful thing if correctly understood. Today we exist in an entropy educational growth system that is automated. It's a mechanism with a mechanistic nature that disallowes us from learning about it's mechanistic way's.. As you think you can't think, another with a super incredible intellect knows not of his wiseness... He does not compare or become judgemental.. One day these sides meet up and here we are today. I call the wise ones today (blue bloods),all the rest (99.997) standard post reset red blooded orphans. You will grow up to be wise if you so choose. Realm will continuously undergo phases and shifts of all kinds . The decay also has a part.. System is perfect in its nature, it'll deplete resources well by reducing humanities size as to better utilize Earth's supply. You see you can never harm nor bump the system in which your a part fallen from... Is not possible, you may not see or (re=cognize) it yet... This pain body organism has witnessed resets an been topside to coordinate the setting and clean up from the past humanity. I'm a sort of janitor who plays around whilst on break.. plausible deniability remains, no damage could ever occur. Pain is relative and has polarity. Currently my job is to learn and improve the suffering by finding a place for negative polarity. Problem is your all profoundly different and what's enjoyable for isn't for another. So we have a problem.. It can't be separated, you must carry it within... Today I've recommended inner peace and understand. This allows your decay regardless it's polarity, to slowly burn away. Problem is that I've got 4 or so GENErations here.. Can't balance without cracking some egg's. You never suffer, you aren't the body .. new generation released and you'd be best to mind yourself. You'll not know of the happenings. I operate as you rest..... Clues are littered throughout, entire place is a map.. There Are No Coincidental occurrences. If there were I'd simply go back or split it. You see this splitting as the Mandela effect. Good luck to you all. I love you all so very much. Best thing for everyone is to keep you nose out of another's life. That I give highest priority. You will Not pester my seekers of knowledge and truth. Truth has no polarity.. this you learn today. Good luck.
I nearly shat myself when the original video disappeared days ago. Thank you for the re upload
This lecture is astoundingly interesting, well-researched, and -presented.
Ken Gemes doesn't run this channel 👍
19:03 24:55
damn, i didn't know they had microphones in nietzsche's time.
Thanks so much for taking the time to reupload this stuff. I just about shat myself just now when I saw the original page was gone.
Yeah me too, i couldn't fathom the fact that most videos on my carefully curated philosophy playlist were deleted. So i checked and the channel was gone.
I'm out of the loop. Can I ask why the channel was deleted?
@@ahmedsalar9016 copyright strikes from the open university
Somebody please help this brilliant man with his notes 🤣. In all seriousness I greatly enjoyed this lecture.
The qoute from 15:58 is from human, all too human. Called, the phenomenon and the thing in itself. Really powerful qoute.
I like that he mentions the evolutionary biologists. I don't know if anyone has fully hammered out the details of it, maybe Daniel Dennett has touched on something like this, I suppose it would be a naturalistic view of truth. If it is something we evolved to to perceive value, then that is its source and its value all in one, emerging from the mists of time in our deeper ancestry along with language and survival. What if valuing truth - even what we understand to be truth - is as natural and reflexive for our minds as breathing is for our lungs. Of it's a value we gained from our evolved nature, this means we have bootstrapped it as a value into religion and later with science, also as a natural consequence. Dennett distinguishes biological evolution with sociological evolution as well. This might mean that we have an intuitional, natural truth valuing mechanism, and a sociologically determined truth valuing mechanism, but both can contain errors as they function as a perception. Truth, to some degree, can this refract like light through a diamond, in a post modern sense. It's not that truth doesn't exist or has no value, it's that it's multifaceted, and sometimes, paradoxically, untrue. That starts to cook the brain a bit. We may have evolved to value truth so much that we will even value something untrue over the truth if it seems truer than what's true.
I can't help but noticed that Nietzsche has a very rigid 19th century cold and rationalist understanding of science, positing that science couldn't answer this question. Maybe it still can't but I'd like to believe maybe it has since she'd some light in it with primate and mammalian evolution. Life is the meaning of life - that's the boot strap - or at least one of the meanings of it, myth doesn't have to be invoked for the animals and prehistoric humans and hominids. If truth is evolved or from myth and divine, then it functions just as well, we don't actually have to know where or when or how or why we began valuing it if we can decide we value it. We don't have to make excuses, we can just value it because we choose to, or value it if we believe we do. It's a bit like staring into a mirror, we can't explain ourselves to ourselves.
Now here's a perplexing and fun part: things that are untrue also carry value even though they can be at times counterfeit to truth, such as the myths Nietzsche says we've destroyed. Fast forward well over a century after Nietzsche and what we understand as religion is more or less still thriving, so much so that in some instances it is deliberately corrosive and resistant to truth and scientific truth, having the effect as a social placebo for truth.
In yet another leap of sociological evolution, and perplexing for truth and the myth making, non-religion has appeared to begun maturing as a religion in itself. It's not quite the same thing in the same manner, especially in practice and how it formulates it's myths, but it's "holy" books and cows and creeds have been spreading in the petry dish for some time since before Nietzsche.
I feel personally testament to that in being able to value evolutionary origins, and valuing religion on my own terms informed from evolution. I might not have all the answers, but do I really need all of them in order to decide for myself? The battle or war is far from resolved in most minds however, but it seems that in Nietzsche's time it all seemed irreconcilable; in our time it's possible to threat the needle and say that it is reconcilable, though we've inherited a lot of that legacy that perceives them as mutually exclusive. What if that isn't true and doesn't need to be? It's as if it never entered the religionists and scientists, or philosophers minds of Nietzsche's time: that religion is not necessarily or must be opposed to truth or science, and vice versa. I think religion is just a different avenue and manifestation for understanding truth.
I think postmodernism does well to explore some of the quandaries, such as a counterfeit truth being valued more than demonstrable truth, in some cases truth is actively discarded. This is still a function of survival, or at least perceived survival. They hold on to the anti science and in particular their anti evolution "truth" because it is perceived to be fatal to their beliefs or religion. This is somewhat of a cognitive dissonance, but it also emerges and presents a sociological source of conflict. Which is potentially alarming if we could have evolved to perceive truth as a human value for survival; what if we also evolved to deny it, also for survival? So we might be able to simply, conveniently, deny that life might not have meaning too, instead of having to conjure it from our ancestral and living identity as humans and agents of life, but I prefer to stick with Nietzsche and positivity affirm life than to simply doubt the negative. But it is troubling, if untruth can function as truth in counterfeit and we'd effective never know or need to know. That's a pessimists view, if even our science and best examples of truth are mere illusive figments our minds evolved to create, but then that perception would also be an illusion and figment and we'd never know if it were true either. To me this is simultaneously affirmative of truth but also shattering of the enlightenment paradigm that we are inherently rational, which is explored in postmodern thought. I rather like Kant's general take on things, maybe it's true that truth doesn't exist and has no value, but I wont lose any sleep over it. It's a null hypothesis harder to prove than truth itself. It seems the equation points in a certain direction... towards truth as true and valuable (but remember my post modern presumption that even untruth might have value, particularly as a mechanism for biological and sociological survival. It would be better to not feel nihilism if we could simply retreat from it too, and not necessarily fight and destroy it head on like Nietzsche. If nihilism we're the truth, then it would be good for survival to retreat from it into the fantasy of affirming life).
Interesting thought process of untrustworthiness being an evolutionary mechanism of certain people caused from survival instincts from certain anacesters that would also mean the more modern and technologically advanced civilization becomes whatever gene implanted for untrustustworthiness would eventually be rooted out of all humans that would make for a scary utopian film.
Read Clarks 1990 „Nietzsche on Truth and Philosophy“ + Leiters 2014 „Nietzsche on Morality“ and you will evolve past those post modern notions.
I've never been able to wrap my head around Nietzsche and Truth. Thanks!
Thank you for this lecture, it is immensely useful!
Looking under the hood we just might never recover from the existential terror we have unleashed. Every time I entertain Nietsche's ideas, I'm absoluetly lost for meaning.
You explain this so clearly
Umm, because being honest and true with my “self” has been the main way my life improved.
Please reupload those Socrates to Sartre videos if possible. I was using them to prepare for an upcoming examination. Power tripping youtube sucks balls though.
Being able to make a determination as to whether a given proposition is true (and/or degree to which such could be considered true) has a utility of use which supports whatever tapestry of meaning that one has created and/or accepted. If one cares not for the utility and/or are incapable of using the utility, then such doesn't add to one's life even as such may be an issue (whether understood or not).
I think it is a mistake to presume that our cognitive models entail the same components, values, and/or linkages. The various issues of communication, understanding, epistemology, and more should make it all too clear that there is a fair amount of variance.
As if the truth is something known to us
I Would ask why do we value enlivening activity/avoiding nihilism and why should we, because it seems the interest in whatever activity a man can do, whether it brings self realization or not, is extrinsic, and very easily personified by capitalist ideals.
Because the analytic reafirmation of science and mythology (i prefer "narrative") as tools can't have a pragmatic stop at what interests society/the utilitarian ideal. work, in its most abstract meaning, should be put to the same analysis, that's a blind spot
And my point of view, signalling to schopenhauer, russell, rousseau and dostoevski, is that these pragmatic values are put in place to protect concepts of social norm, othering, virtue of work, and vilification of non-activity and non-being.
If we grant science doesn't offer a counter ideal to religion, upholding ilusion and enshrining the concept of "good activity" doesn't seem to have any tangible contrast to it either does it? It's just another dogmatic North on a semantic compass
And if we assume we need shared mythology, i don't see evidence to point that science, or a poetically written negation of meaning is less likely to serve as that than the church of fear and abnegation, which has, and still to this day
I realize i sound like a marxist with my anti-work point but i also am judgemental of Marx's claim of "nessessity of action"
Nietzsche v Wolfram ... so many paradoxes
Nietzsche liked the Pragmatism of William James. What? A refined continental philosopher approving a brash young American philosophy? Yes, he liked its definition of the truth as useful. Or at least it’s valuing of the truth in so far as it is useful and enlivens us.
Yeah, I have always thought of James as the American Nietzche. I find the whole “cash-value of an idea” thing to closely resemble Nietzche’s way of speaking of ideas as furthering being or not. I think they both work with Darwin in the background in some sense.
1:16:00
What is he talking about "cup" at "11:01- 11:18"
What is said at 11:21?
Fake glasses? To me they look really fake lol😆
It's good but a copy cat of Bedanta philosophy Hinduism. Truth is a relative word till you really had tasted the pure bliss of consciousness.
Read some Nietzsche and come back when (if) you understand it
@@nickshelbourne4426 He won't, they never do, for they are dogmatic ascetics. :)
Nietzsche coming to us all through Video.. So lovely if we'd only heed the advice offered. That Egoic self which cowardly hides in a dark place void of action. Whilst it quivers upon those intrusive thoughts. It pokes and kicks in front of self but nothing happens. So it now accuses any action to be its enemy, knowing not why not how things occur; it's purely relative like a radar on overdrive during wartime..Those in the light pass the Egos and know to stand clear or they may kick and bruise you, leaving a mark that can last forever. Or you learn to negotiate through the maze of Egoic radars going crazy.. So life continues to educate itself for all to see whom have eyes to do so. It can be a wonderful thing if correctly understood. Today we exist in an entropy educational growth system that is automated. It's a mechanism with a mechanistic nature that disallowes us from learning about it's mechanistic way's.. As you think you can't think, another with a super incredible intellect knows not of his wiseness... He does not compare or become judgemental.. One day these sides meet up and here we are today. I call the wise ones today (blue bloods),all the rest (99.997) standard post reset red blooded orphans. You will grow up to be wise if you so choose. Realm will continuously undergo phases and shifts of all kinds . The decay also has a part.. System is perfect in its nature, it'll deplete resources well by reducing humanities size as to better utilize Earth's supply. You see you can never harm nor bump the system in which your a part fallen from... Is not possible, you may not see or (re=cognize) it yet... This pain body organism has witnessed resets an been topside to coordinate the setting and clean up from the past humanity. I'm a sort of janitor who plays around whilst on break.. plausible deniability remains, no damage could ever occur. Pain is relative and has polarity. Currently my job is to learn and improve the suffering by finding a place for negative polarity. Problem is your all profoundly different and what's enjoyable for isn't for another. So we have a problem.. It can't be separated, you must carry it within... Today I've recommended inner peace and understand. This allows your decay regardless it's polarity, to slowly burn away. Problem is that I've got 4 or so GENErations here.. Can't balance without cracking some egg's. You never suffer, you aren't the body .. new generation released and you'd be best to mind yourself. You'll not know of the happenings. I operate as you rest..... Clues are littered throughout, entire place is a map.. There Are No Coincidental occurrences. If there were I'd simply go back or split it. You see this splitting as the Mandela effect. Good luck to you all. I love you all so very much. Best thing for everyone is to keep you nose out of another's life. That I give highest priority. You will Not pester my seekers of knowledge and truth. Truth has no polarity.. this you learn today. Good luck.
1:09:00