I ultimately agree with Lukacs' assessment of Nietzsche as a reactionary bourgeois philosopher and a product of the German philosophy's idealism, irrationalism and affinity for myths. This spiritual and idealist radicalism, which conveniently avoids challenging the material structures of society, is precisely why he remains 'seductive' and influential among bourgeois intellectuals, the post-modern philosophers and the 'new' left. I'm not familiar with Harich's work but going off of your assessment, the overemphasizing on Nietzsche and the idea that suppression of Nietzsche's philosophy could've saved leftism is the desperate idealism of a philosopher who overestimates the influence of his own field and goes against the dialectical materialism of Marx, which says philosophy and culture are not elevated from the socio-political conditions of the time and are in a dialectical relationship with every other aspect of society.
I find Lukács's category of irrationalism self-defeating because if anti-foundationalism is irrational then hegel is an irrational thinker because its accepted by the majority of hegel scholars including ones with fundemental disagreements, for example brandom and houlgate, accept that hegel is an anti-foundationalist thinker. Not mention that every other student of Schopenhauer adopts hegel in their system, including Mainländer who was enjoyed by August Bebel, the leader of the SPD, who was staunchly anti-war.
I really great interview. I especially like Tutt's hands off interview style. Occasionally, he interjects a question or two, but they're incisive and to the point.
What a fascinating discussion! After reading your book, what I find most intriguing is the tension between the Colli-Montinari's philological focus on the minutest details especially of Nietzsche's posthumous fragments on the one hand and, on the other, the diverse political turmoils and intellectual battles that emerged from this historical-critical edition. This tension, it seems to me, can be traced back directly to the internal contradictions within Nietzsche himself: his meticulous obsession with dispersed, wayward details about huge (non-)metaphysical problems (truth, perspective, transvaluation, the human subject) that literally glide away from his pen into speculative and highly questionable realms of ideas that he could no longer control himself. Interrogating these tensions time and again, I think, might be one possible answer to the question of what Nietzsche might mean for us today.
Maybe, but equally we could add that the radical identitarian left has become fascist. It makes no secret of its authoritarianism, or even of its approval of violence.
I ultimately agree with Lukacs' assessment of Nietzsche as a reactionary bourgeois philosopher and a product of the German philosophy's idealism, irrationalism and affinity for myths. This spiritual and idealist radicalism, which conveniently avoids challenging the material structures of society, is precisely why he remains 'seductive' and influential among bourgeois intellectuals, the post-modern philosophers and the 'new' left.
I'm not familiar with Harich's work but going off of your assessment, the overemphasizing on Nietzsche and the idea that suppression of Nietzsche's philosophy could've saved leftism is the desperate idealism of a philosopher who overestimates the influence of his own field and goes against the dialectical materialism of Marx, which says philosophy and culture are not elevated from the socio-political conditions of the time and are in a dialectical relationship with every other aspect of society.
I find Lukács's category of irrationalism self-defeating because if anti-foundationalism is irrational then hegel is an irrational thinker because its accepted by the majority of hegel scholars including ones with fundemental disagreements, for example brandom and houlgate, accept that hegel is an anti-foundationalist thinker.
Not mention that every other student of Schopenhauer adopts hegel in their system, including Mainländer who was enjoyed by August Bebel, the leader of the SPD, who was staunchly anti-war.
I really great interview. I especially like Tutt's hands off interview style. Occasionally, he interjects a question or two, but they're incisive and to the point.
What a fascinating discussion! After reading your book, what I find most intriguing is the tension between the Colli-Montinari's philological focus on the minutest details especially of Nietzsche's posthumous fragments on the one hand and, on the other, the diverse political turmoils and intellectual battles that emerged from this historical-critical edition. This tension, it seems to me, can be traced back directly to the internal contradictions within Nietzsche himself: his meticulous obsession with dispersed, wayward details about huge (non-)metaphysical problems (truth, perspective, transvaluation, the human subject) that literally glide away from his pen into speculative and highly questionable realms of ideas that he could no longer control himself. Interrogating these tensions time and again, I think, might be one possible answer to the question of what Nietzsche might mean for us today.
Truly good conversation.
Minute 45-6: I think Felsch means Domenico Losurdo (not Giovanni).
I find it interesting that you do not understand that fascism and progressive liberalism have become the same thing.
Maybe, but equally we could add that the radical identitarian left has become fascist. It makes no secret of its authoritarianism, or even of its approval of violence.