A fantastic lecture on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. After I finished watching this lecture I immediately went on to amazon and got myself a copy of beyond good and evil.
Thank you for posting these lectures, Professor Sadler. You seem like a genuinely nice person with an exceptional mind. How are you able to know so much about very different philosophers? For me, I can only focus on a philosopher for half a year or so, and in a matter of years, I completely forget about him/her.
You're a better man than I am, Dr.Sadler. I would have had a difficult not calling some of those in your audience morons. There's no way anyone could ever know if Emerson and Nietzsche had the same brain structures.
Greg Moberg Well, after teaching for a long time, you eventually develop some patience. . . or you've got to get out of the business, because it will drive you nuts!
He’s teaching a language bro. Say your Japanese teacher is teaching you in Japanese and you struggle after a year studying Japanese to string a sentence-you think you’d appreciate it if he called you a moron? At the same time, some of the people in the audience are getting ahead of themselves in their judgment of Nietzsche. He’s a useful thinker.
Their brains did have similar structures but Emerson’s used double joists whereas Nietzsche used a single joist to cut costs, which he later paid for dearly. Stop it! Discussions on hiw life is best lived is serious goddammit! You there, smiling in the back - yes, you - cut it out!
" i have a tendency, because I am a philosopher, to make it all make sense together". Yes, me too. Philosophy books and even philosophers are determinate fields where one can satisfy this urge or need....but the best place is trying to do this with ones own character, and if one has real ambition...all of reality. This was my original ambition. Now I am in middle age, and still have not made all things all make sense together. Perhaps my will to power is the will to truth...except I still have hope that truth is objective. I like watching and re watching your videos. Thank you.
Hahaha! I think as we get older the prospect for it all making sense together becomes dimmer - not because our capacities are fading, but because we're realizing just how complex matters are!
As usual your lectures on my favorite philospher Friedrich Nietszche are excellent--and by my favorite old professor of Philosophy! Thank you !!!---XYZ
In the discussion Dr. Sadler says that maybe Nietzsche's philosophy rules out mercy. Nietzsche does talk about mercy, but he frames it within the idea of will to power. Someone powerful will show mercy to those lower than them as an expression of their own power. Why? Because they can afford to. And he thinks whole societies operate the same way. As societies become more powerful, they punish less often and less severely. For example, most countries in Europe don't even have the death penalty anymore, but go back in history and look at all the cruel punishments they used to inflict. I think with Nietzsche hugging the horse before he collapsed, he wasn't being inconsistent. A horse is lower than a human being. It's natural for a higher human being (man) to have feelings of pity toward lower creatures (animals).
Love this series you are doing. One of my favorite philosophic thinkers. Thanks for the great video. As well, I would say when it comes to Nietzsche and compassion think he means compassion in the sense of showing compassion for the wrong reasons (such as doing it for making ones self look better, instead of doing it because it is the right thing).
One could do that sort of revaluing of the term -- but you'd have to keep in mind that nearly every case, in Nietzsche's eyes, of "compassion" would not be the sort you're describing, but the sort that is driven by ressentiment. Nietzsche rejects doing the right thing because it is the "right thing" -- that would be more like Kant or other deontological thinkers
" there was progress but there was something rotten underneath, he went back to the classics..." Rubbing His nose in the source of the rot, He mistook his loss of smell for freshness.
Another great lecture Dr Sadler. I find myself drawn to Will to Power; fascinated by the notion that even altruistic actions and religious piety can be disguised motivations to empower. I wonder though, if God had not "died" within a utilitarian society, whether Nietzsche's premise would have been as valid. It all kind of relies on the fact that man's attempt to order good and bad comes from being godless. If you are an atheist, I think the premise of Will to Power makes a degree of sense.
+Nick Whittle (Nick John Whittle) Well, there's plenty of religious thinkers who recognize that in many cases what seems to be self-less, beneficent, or loving actions -- and religious piety -- can indeed be masks for pride, for self-will, and so on. In fact, it's rather a commonplace in a good bit of Christian literature. One can certainly think that this is sometimes or even often the case, without going on to conclude that it is always the case. One 20th century Christian thinker I particularly recommend, in this respect, would be Max Scheler, and the book I'd recommend is called Ressentiment. He's a good example of someone who recognizes what contributions Nietzsche has to make, criticizes where he thinks Nietzsche went off, and recontextualizes the phenomenon of Ressentiment in relation to Christian thought and life. I wouldn't say that God died, in the sense that Nietzsche means, in a utilitarian society. The devaluation of the highest values, and the onset of nihilism takes a while to develop in Europe, in which a growing focus on social utility is only one of many different interconnected themes. Just as important, for example, is the growth of modern science as an expression of an ascetic "will to truth."
Yes, I completely understand what you mean about there being interconnected factors. Thanks for the heads-up on Scheler's book - I will definitely take that into consideration. This may help me to understand as well the theory that Christianity in some way emerged or had ties with the slave morality of the post-Roman empire. I might be completely off the mark though. As a post-script, I suspect it is easier to understand Nietzsche if one is an atheist (as I am). Best wishes, Nick.
Well, there's a whole portion of the atheist spectrum who will be considerably handicapped in understanding Nietzsche precisely because they're representative of the atheists who Nietzsche himself says haven't gotten the point -- today's "new Atheists" would be a prime example. So, perhaps there might be some people who are atheists who will be able to understand Nietzsche better. I can tell you, as someone who has engaged with Nietzsche, and engaged with those who are similarly engaged, it's not my experience that atheists would have any advantage over theists in understanding Nietzsche.
+Gregory B. Sadler You are right, of course. I am only now beginning to extend my interest in him and already in terms of what I have seen and read, his works and concepts resonate with me. However, if I was a churchgoer I would struggle with some elements. I think I should've said instead that those who possess a staunch belief in God may struggle with his concepts, rather than those who do not worship a higher realm more freely understanding. Or can that not truly be said either?
I am inclined to think there might be a common misreading on Nietzsche's view of nobility and power. A lot of people seem to relate that view to the most base power of the brute evil doer who gains power by any means, but there is a lot in his work about beauty. He took his cue from the Greeks whose view of the warriors were always of the most beautiful souls in spirit and in appearance. (This is not to say I feel this is what is greatest necessarily). These nobles held a pride in themselves, but they held a pride in themselves for a reason. The example that arises in the lecture is Agammemnon (though the context is about his less than heroic end)... and though he was a powerful noble in the Greek sense, I don't think he was really the ideal of that nobility. Really it occurs to me that the architypal nobility in the old sense was Achilles, as the beautiful and powerful warrior. (Though this leads me to recall how Achilles was almost a brat in his response to Agammemnon taking the woman he had claimed), but he did express other virtues, like loyalty and the desire to do battle because his friend Patroclus was killed by Hector... I think the reading of Nietzsche as a teacher of pure evil comes about because of the way he uses the word evil in his works (in Zarathustra, "evil, there is still a place for you yet"), and because he apposes Christianity so vehemently which is really the beginning of the evil designation as Nietzsche strives to point out... When he makes those remarks about the place for evil, I don't really think he is saying that the evil are the great and the noble... it is something more like, what has been designated evil is not always or not necessarily so... and so in the transvaluation, what has been deemed evil will not be done away with completely. I also think that this "provocativeness" of Nietzsche was really a way of poking those around him and provoking them into a battle, maybe even into the experience of ressentiment that they would then hopefully realize existed within them and subsequently deal with. Even Nietzsche's apparent ressentiment to the weak, that the greatest threat to the strong is the weak... I don't really think he could even mean this truly, because if it was a true threat it would negate the strength. It's possible that Nietzsche uses ressentiment against the weak to lure people in and get them aligned to a notion of strength "we don¨t want to be weak..." kind of thing, but if one truly comes through a battle with ressentiment one must realize that ressentiment against the perceived weak must too be overcome.
Long post -- so I'll just respond to a few points. So, evil. . . if we look at good and evil from Nietzsche's perspective, then yes, he's not "a teacher of pure evil", since the goal is to get beyond both of those values and back to a more primordial type of goodness. But, we should also expect -- and be totally unsurprised to find -- that from the perspective of the good-evil valuation, he'd get labeled as a proponent of evil. There are indeed a number of common misreadings on Nietzsche, nobility, and power. In a popular lecture/discussion (which this is -- it's a talk at the library, presuming no philosophical background in the participants), those are nearly always going to come up. I do think that he is serious about the danger -- to the strong -- of a culture in which the weak can really rein in the strong. It's not just a matter of the weak vs. the strong, on a "level playing field" so to speak. It's rather that, in his view, there's several millennia of culture, ideas, institution, "taming" that makes it difficult for the strong to even recognize themselves as such.
I am sure that certain actions of Nietzsche's powerful would be construed as evil. I do think though that Nietzsche's willingness to stand behind such actions was at least partly due to his recognition that valuations are frequently shifting, even within the Christian mindset. It would seem unthinkably evil today to undergo anything like the inquisition or persecution of heretics... though it might not to all Christians either, there was a discussion on another philosophy forum where Christians were discussing what they could do to get rid of atheists... Also after the reformation as personal interpretations of the bible arose, things like some of the seven deadly sins (which I believe were not canonical to begin with) lost much of their bite... and even Christian humility (though not really a sign of evil, at least a valuation in following Christ) has lost some of its importance... some churches even advocate aquisition of wealth. At the risk of being controversial, I do want to address your comment about speaking for a popular audience for a number of reasons. I am aware that much philosophy (especially political philosophy) creates a distinction between "the few" and "the many" as it is sometimes called. While I do think it is valid in some instances, I don't think it is always valid, and less so in regards to the information they are capable of being exposed to. I am a little reluctant to speak about it, because of your position, but I hope you will understand that my words are meant as inquiry and not in any way as a personal jab. It would seem that insofar as a presentation is philosophical it would have to be about deep and honest inquiry. While the listeners might have other beliefs and opinions, so far as discussion takes place it would seem to me that no path of discussion and iquiry should be barred so far as it is conductive to thinking and getting at the truth. To hear about various philosophical positions without deep and honest inquiry seems to me akin to getting a sampling of ideologies. Which is not to say that ideologies aren't involved in the philosophical process, but the inquiry directed at and made using ideas is, I believe, supposed to add the balance. As for the last point - the threat to the strong- I am not sure if I am projecting my own thoughts onto Nietzsche overly much, but it doesn't seem to me that the strong could be so deeply effected by the conditioning, and that it would be either their natural will which demands of them (in a sort of unconscious process) that they create their own valuations, or else those who engage in the deepest inquiry and who peirce the veil, or find their way outside of the cave, so to speak, who would be the strong... While I might not be chosing the best examples, some in history might seem to me to be Hobbes (who recognized the usefulness of religion), Marquis de Sade (who I don't think anyone could claim did not create his own values), perhaps Napoleon, even some of Nietzsche's more direct inspirations, Spinoza and Machiavelli... I do know that Nietzsche wasn't altogether fond of Hobbes way of philosophizing, but I wonder if that was less because he thought he was weak than because he saw him as an adversary worthy of being grappled with and perhaps defeated? I hope you will pardon the longwindedness of my comments. It may be the case that if a Socrates asked me to make my answers brief in the way he did Protagoras I might find myself conceding to him.
Nietzsche’s sister used him and we must remember Nietzsche was a disciple of Dionysus, as such, he was a satirical writer. What’s more, he was a psychologist, so much of his work is directed upon a journey to discover oneself. Be a Superman / Superwoman for oneself.
Could someone give me the source that says Nietzsche would scratch out something he wrote and then write the exact opposite? It seems essential to understanding him.
Nietzsche realized at the end of his (lucid) life that he himself always was a Nihilist. This is according to his late fragments. And: It makes sense, right? All his attempts are aporetic. By the way Heidegger admitted -- to Gadamer and Pöggeler -- "Nietzsche has broken me". ...
gee...I wonder at the Republic 340 B where Clitophon denies Thrasymachus' assent to where the stronger can make errors, and retains that justice IS the interest of the stronger( there is no measure of truth beyond the will), if Nietszche could step in , cold and asserting the will to power ?
@ about 1:00 someone asks if Nietzsche dealt with love. I must be odd, but I see love everywhere in Nietzsche, particularly in the intersection of Eternal Recurrence and Amor Fati. I understand that dominance and sadism etc are part of the picture, and perhaps the ultimate "appetite" (as opposed to hunger) that is what we *are*; ie our hardwiring. But Eternal Recurrence and Amor Fati, at least in my reading of the way he phrases these ideas, seem to challenge us to become something more than what we are. ER seems to imply (perhaps simply as a thought experiment) that existence is all there is. Yet he describes it in the context of a "what if?", inviting a reaction to it - and seems to offer love as a means of ... how shall we put it? - embracing of what simply *is*. "Like it, don't lump it". Same for Amor Fati, yet he says "I want to see things this way", as opposed to "we are this way" (as in the Will to Power). I'm probably succumbing to projection here, and one sees what one expects to see or wants to see. But it does seem to me that Nietzsche *is* making a powerful case for love as a supreme "goal" as opposed to simple self-definition, as in the Will to Power. One of these days, I would love to fly down to Wisconsin for a day when you have a gathering like these. Wonderful stuff, and thanks for sharing.
Well, I suppose that it depends considerably on what main concepts on Nietzsche one uses to interpret his work as a whole. I focus less myself on the Eternal Recurrence theme, and admittedly much more on the will to power, so I wind up with a different Nietzsche-view. You're always welcome to come down to one of our events - best way to see the calendar is on the ReasonIO site. We're not doing anything with Nietzsche this year, though, unless someone books me for a talk later on in the year.
I should think that what makes particular the aspect of the nobles (insofar as we are to contrast them to masses) is that they hold a sort of spirit, a virtuous soul which is self affirming and lighthearted; it is in that we call them good. That they dominate others is, I believe, incidental or in the very least contingent.
Well, you're certainly entitled to have your own views on that, which to some degree resemble those of e.g. Scheler's -- but that's clearly not Nietzsche's view on the matter.
hi, i am reading Nietzsche. I have Kaufman's Basic Writings and the Portable. I may be entering my Nietzsche period, b/c i see it's relevance "in my face" with the current political landscape. My question is where do i go to find the "type" of insanity that has been attributed to him. The word insanity has no real meaning. Just today i saw two different sets of words used. One alluded to Syphilis and another to Cancer. Is there a current consensus? is there a majority opinion? No rush. Unsure where to ask this.
"People are bored by intellect, they mistrust intellect; politics has swallowed up all earnestness for really intellectual things." it was this very quote that seemed to describe some perspectives of people today. true tragedy. Thanks for your comment. I am reading and re-reading it to see your perspectives. My take is that many people really do not want to take the time for discourse. The urge to be pithy and 'clever looking' while "moving along" seems strong in sapiens. Of course ; maybe i am missing some important points. I am a fan of Hegel's perspective on edification, and the value of tarrying. I hope to have a deeper understanding after I have finished more texts.
Given the way it was assembled, do you think the Will to Power is worth reading? Or is it irreparably misleading? Other guys like Heidegger and mishima seem to have gotten a lot out of it and I was considering reading it after Beyond Good and Evil. I've already read and thoroughly enjoyed Genealogy of morals and the Birth of Tragedy with your incredibly helpful lectures.
He often complained to mask his inferiority complex fueled by schoolboy taunts of being teased as the ‘Untermensch’. The rest of his life was mostly spent in overcompensating for thus interspersed with occasional forays into horse hugging.
Hey, have you heard of "Nietzsche's Epic of The Soul" by T.K. Seung? I think he offers quite an interesting interpretation of Zarathustra that is both strong and in opposition to most of the other readings of the text that I have seen. I would love to hear your thoughts on it :)
I have not read it. Generally, I spend very little time with secondary literature these day - I'm very busy rereading and presenting on primary texts. If you'd like to send me a copy, I'll certainly take a look at it
Would you contend that one can't have an immense understanding of a piece of philosophy without studying it in its original language, and without understanding the historical context of the piece?
To start with, I don't know what an "immense understanding" would be. And, while it certainly helps to be able to study a text in its original language, it is not always necessary. In fact, there are very astute readers who read a text in translation, and very bad readers who just happen to read in the original. Historical context, you can something similar. . ..
i'm gonna say three words....will to power = agonism [how many words is that] Also [!] it looks like supermensch is non other than...Abraham [going into stealth mode for the CIA] ..w/o the faith.
The overview was on point and the discussion was the sweet spot that philosophy teachers crave. Nietzsche probably represents one of many types of tortured philosophical minds. I don't call it insanity per se. Indeed, Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates, painting the comic picture that every intellectual adept paints within mixed company. The myth of Tiresias was in his inscrutable language that revealed itself over the course of intellectual growth, like Nietzsche, hinting at answers while hedging about the predictability of the next moment. Solomon admonishes readers simply "to know wisdom and instruction...to understand a proverb and an enigma." Enigma. Enigmatic is the substitute word for insane, except when insanity is added to enigma. There, the Bard says, "commendations go with pity." So we love and pity Nietzsche despite his virtues, which did conspire against each other - a truly pitiful denouement to an exceedingly commendable noetic life.
‘If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. And if you gaze even longer, you are likely to find some old yogurt you forgot to throw out gazing at nothing in particular’.
Is Nietzsche's work, "The Gay Science," one of his important works, or is it like "The Case of Wagner" where you can kind of don't have to read it to understand Nietzche, like what is "The Gay Science" about?
Well, there's different degrees of understanding. If your goal is to more or less hit on the main themes, you needn't read the Gay Science, I think. but, if your goal is a fuller understanding, then you probably ought to at some time
You gotta ask yourself: Why would you let that bother you enough to complain on his video? That's the one thing you want to put forward representing you, eh?
God I wish the Jesus-types would shut up and let the professor lecture without constant interruption and interjection. We get it, you disagree with nilhism and you are searching for more reasons to integrate into your anti nihilist arsenal, you've never had to take it seriously, you just dismiss it. But some of us are looking for sincere answers to genuine struggles, not easy dismissal, popular mantras or memes, Jesus or Religion. Let philosophers be philosophers and dogmaticists be dogmaticists.
So, you favor "nihilism"? It would be better to favor Nietzsche on "slave" mentality (morality) v. "master" mentality. Nietzsche would have a lot to say to New Age Democrats and World Communists.
Pretty sure if I could handle it without complaining as the presenter, you can probably handle doing so as a watcher, and focus instead on what's being said about Nietzsche
A fantastic lecture on the works of Friedrich Nietzsche. After I finished watching this lecture I immediately went on to amazon and got myself a copy of beyond good and evil.
That's excellent!
@@GregoryBSadler wauw
Here's the video from the talk at the Kingston Library yesterday morning. . . . some excellent discussion with quite a few local residents
Thank you posting these Mr. Sadler (Dr.?).
Thank you for posting these lectures, Professor Sadler. You seem like a genuinely nice person with an exceptional mind. How are you able to know so much about very different philosophers? For me, I can only focus on a philosopher for half a year or so, and in a matter of years, I completely forget about him/her.
You're a better man than I am, Dr.Sadler. I would have had a difficult not calling some of those in your audience morons. There's no way anyone could ever know if Emerson and Nietzsche had the same brain structures.
Greg Moberg Well, after teaching for a long time, you eventually develop some patience. . . or you've got to get out of the business, because it will drive you nuts!
@@GregoryBSadlerYour videos are wonderful. You are a good 'teacher'
your passion for the subject comes through. Good work! :)
He’s teaching a language bro. Say your Japanese teacher is teaching you in Japanese and you struggle after a year studying Japanese to string a sentence-you think you’d appreciate it if he called you a moron?
At the same time, some of the people in the audience are getting ahead of themselves in their judgment of Nietzsche. He’s a useful thinker.
Their brains did have similar structures but Emerson’s used double joists whereas Nietzsche used a single joist to cut costs, which he later paid for dearly. Stop it! Discussions on hiw life is best lived is serious goddammit! You there, smiling in the back - yes, you - cut it out!
@@craigseganti8999Well said!
" i have a tendency, because I am a philosopher, to make it all make sense together". Yes, me too. Philosophy books and even philosophers are determinate fields where one can satisfy this urge or need....but the best place is trying to do this with ones own character, and if one has real ambition...all of reality. This was my original ambition. Now I am in middle age, and still have not made all things all make sense together. Perhaps my will to power is the will to truth...except I still have hope that truth is objective. I like watching and re watching your videos. Thank you.
Hahaha! I think as we get older the prospect for it all making sense together becomes dimmer - not because our capacities are fading, but because we're realizing just how complex matters are!
As usual your lectures on my favorite philospher Friedrich Nietszche are excellent--and by my favorite old professor of Philosophy! Thank you !!!---XYZ
Thank you Dr. Sadler, your lecture clarified some of Nietzsche's ideas that I have difficulty with.
Thanks for breaking down Nietzschean literature. Really enjoy your lectures, it's making my module on radical political theory less excruciating.
Hahahaha! I can just imagine
In the discussion Dr. Sadler says that maybe Nietzsche's philosophy rules out mercy.
Nietzsche does talk about mercy, but he frames it within the idea of will to power. Someone powerful will show mercy to those lower than them as an expression of their own power. Why? Because they can afford to. And he thinks whole societies operate the same way. As societies become more powerful, they punish less often and less severely. For example, most countries in Europe don't even have the death penalty anymore, but go back in history and look at all the cruel punishments they used to inflict.
I think with Nietzsche hugging the horse before he collapsed, he wasn't being inconsistent. A horse is lower than a human being. It's natural for a higher human being (man) to have feelings of pity toward lower creatures (animals).
Well, there you go
Such a good guy , thanks for your being sir
I try to do my best, most of the time
Another great lecture! Thanks Dr Sadler.
You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it!
Dr. Sadler, what are some recommended works of secondary literature on Nietzsche that you'd recommend to someone who has read most of his works?
I'm not a secondary lit guy, as you know
Love this series you are doing. One of my favorite philosophic thinkers. Thanks for the great video. As well, I would say when it comes to Nietzsche and compassion think he means compassion in the sense of showing compassion for the wrong reasons (such as doing it for making ones self look better, instead of doing it because it is the right thing).
One could do that sort of revaluing of the term -- but you'd have to keep in mind that nearly every case, in Nietzsche's eyes, of "compassion" would not be the sort you're describing, but the sort that is driven by ressentiment.
Nietzsche rejects doing the right thing because it is the "right thing" -- that would be more like Kant or other deontological thinkers
" there was progress but there was something rotten underneath, he went back to the classics..."
Rubbing His nose in the source of the rot, He mistook his loss of smell for freshness.
Thanks for this talk on Nietzsche. Looking forward to your next talks.
You're welcome -- that one will be at the end of this month
Another great lecture Dr Sadler. I find myself drawn to Will to Power; fascinated by the notion that even altruistic actions and religious piety can be disguised motivations to empower. I wonder though, if God had not "died" within a utilitarian society, whether Nietzsche's premise would have been as valid. It all kind of relies on the fact that man's attempt to order good and bad comes from being godless. If you are an atheist, I think the premise of Will to Power makes a degree of sense.
+Nick Whittle (Nick John Whittle) Well, there's plenty of religious thinkers who recognize that in many cases what seems to be self-less, beneficent, or loving actions -- and religious piety -- can indeed be masks for pride, for self-will, and so on. In fact, it's rather a commonplace in a good bit of Christian literature. One can certainly think that this is sometimes or even often the case, without going on to conclude that it is always the case.
One 20th century Christian thinker I particularly recommend, in this respect, would be Max Scheler, and the book I'd recommend is called Ressentiment. He's a good example of someone who recognizes what contributions Nietzsche has to make, criticizes where he thinks Nietzsche went off, and recontextualizes the phenomenon of Ressentiment in relation to Christian thought and life.
I wouldn't say that God died, in the sense that Nietzsche means, in a utilitarian society. The devaluation of the highest values, and the onset of nihilism takes a while to develop in Europe, in which a growing focus on social utility is only one of many different interconnected themes. Just as important, for example, is the growth of modern science as an expression of an ascetic "will to truth."
Yes, I completely understand what you mean about there being interconnected factors. Thanks for the heads-up on Scheler's book - I will definitely take that into consideration. This may help me to understand as well the theory that Christianity in some way emerged or had ties with the slave morality of the post-Roman empire. I might be completely off the mark though. As a post-script, I suspect it is easier to understand Nietzsche if one is an atheist (as I am). Best wishes, Nick.
Well, there's a whole portion of the atheist spectrum who will be considerably handicapped in understanding Nietzsche precisely because they're representative of the atheists who Nietzsche himself says haven't gotten the point -- today's "new Atheists" would be a prime example.
So, perhaps there might be some people who are atheists who will be able to understand Nietzsche better. I can tell you, as someone who has engaged with Nietzsche, and engaged with those who are similarly engaged, it's not my experience that atheists would have any advantage over theists in understanding Nietzsche.
+Gregory B. Sadler You are right, of course. I am only now beginning to extend my interest in him and already in terms of what I have seen and read, his works and concepts resonate with me. However, if I was a churchgoer I would struggle with some elements. I think I should've said instead that those who possess a staunch belief in God may struggle with his concepts, rather than those who do not worship a higher realm more freely understanding. Or can that not truly be said either?
+Gregory B. Sadler Could you recommend a worthy book that engages with Nietzsche at a profound level...? Nick.
I am inclined to think there might be a common misreading on Nietzsche's view of nobility and power. A lot of people seem to relate that view to the most base power of the brute evil doer who gains power by any means, but there is a lot in his work about beauty. He took his cue from the Greeks whose view of the warriors were always of the most beautiful souls in spirit and in appearance. (This is not to say I feel this is what is greatest necessarily). These nobles held a pride in themselves, but they held a pride in themselves for a reason. The example that arises in the lecture is Agammemnon (though the context is about his less than heroic end)... and though he was a powerful noble in the Greek sense, I don't think he was really the ideal of that nobility. Really it occurs to me that the architypal nobility in the old sense was Achilles, as the beautiful and powerful warrior. (Though this leads me to recall how Achilles was almost a brat in his response to Agammemnon taking the woman he had claimed), but he did express other virtues, like loyalty and the desire to do battle because his friend Patroclus was killed by Hector...
I think the reading of Nietzsche as a teacher of pure evil comes about because of the way he uses the word evil in his works (in Zarathustra, "evil, there is still a place for you yet"), and because he apposes Christianity so vehemently which is really the beginning of the evil designation as Nietzsche strives to point out... When he makes those remarks about the place for evil, I don't really think he is saying that the evil are the great and the noble... it is something more like, what has been designated evil is not always or not necessarily so... and so in the transvaluation, what has been deemed evil will not be done away with completely.
I also think that this "provocativeness" of Nietzsche was really a way of poking those around him and provoking them into a battle, maybe even into the experience of ressentiment that they would then hopefully realize existed within them and subsequently deal with.
Even Nietzsche's apparent ressentiment to the weak, that the greatest threat to the strong is the weak... I don't really think he could even mean this truly, because if it was a true threat it would negate the strength. It's possible that Nietzsche uses ressentiment against the weak to lure people in and get them aligned to a notion of strength "we don¨t want to be weak..." kind of thing, but if one truly comes through a battle with ressentiment one must realize that ressentiment against the perceived weak must too be overcome.
Long post -- so I'll just respond to a few points.
So, evil. . . if we look at good and evil from Nietzsche's perspective, then yes, he's not "a teacher of pure evil", since the goal is to get beyond both of those values and back to a more primordial type of goodness. But, we should also expect -- and be totally unsurprised to find -- that from the perspective of the good-evil valuation, he'd get labeled as a proponent of evil.
There are indeed a number of common misreadings on Nietzsche, nobility, and power. In a popular lecture/discussion (which this is -- it's a talk at the library, presuming no philosophical background in the participants), those are nearly always going to come up.
I do think that he is serious about the danger -- to the strong -- of a culture in which the weak can really rein in the strong. It's not just a matter of the weak vs. the strong, on a "level playing field" so to speak. It's rather that, in his view, there's several millennia of culture, ideas, institution, "taming" that makes it difficult for the strong to even recognize themselves as such.
I am sure that certain actions of Nietzsche's powerful would be construed as evil. I do think though that Nietzsche's willingness to stand behind such actions was at least partly due to his recognition that valuations are frequently shifting, even within the Christian mindset. It would seem unthinkably evil today to undergo anything like the inquisition or persecution of heretics... though it might not to all Christians either, there was a discussion on another philosophy forum where Christians were discussing what they could do to get rid of atheists...
Also after the reformation as personal interpretations of the bible arose, things like some of the seven deadly sins (which I believe were not canonical to begin with) lost much of their bite... and even Christian humility (though not really a sign of evil, at least a valuation in following Christ) has lost some of its importance... some churches even advocate aquisition of wealth.
At the risk of being controversial, I do want to address your comment about speaking for a popular audience for a number of reasons. I am aware that much philosophy (especially political philosophy) creates a distinction between "the few" and "the many" as it is sometimes called. While I do think it is valid in some instances, I don't think it is always valid, and less so in regards to the information they are capable of being exposed to.
I am a little reluctant to speak about it, because of your position, but I hope you will understand that my words are meant as inquiry and not in any way as a personal jab.
It would seem that insofar as a presentation is philosophical it would have to be about deep and honest inquiry. While the listeners might have other beliefs and opinions, so far as discussion takes place it would seem to me that no path of discussion and iquiry should be barred so far as it is conductive to thinking and getting at the truth.
To hear about various philosophical positions without deep and honest inquiry seems to me akin to getting a sampling of ideologies. Which is not to say that ideologies aren't involved in the philosophical process, but the inquiry directed at and made using ideas is, I believe, supposed to add the balance.
As for the last point - the threat to the strong- I am not sure if I am projecting my own thoughts onto Nietzsche overly much, but it doesn't seem to me that the strong could be so deeply effected by the conditioning, and that it would be either their natural will which demands of them (in a sort of unconscious process) that they create their own valuations, or else those who engage in the deepest inquiry and who peirce the veil, or find their way outside of the cave, so to speak, who would be the strong...
While I might not be chosing the best examples, some in history might seem to me to be Hobbes (who recognized the usefulness of religion), Marquis de Sade (who I don't think anyone could claim did not create his own values), perhaps Napoleon, even some of Nietzsche's more direct inspirations, Spinoza and Machiavelli...
I do know that Nietzsche wasn't altogether fond of Hobbes way of philosophizing, but I wonder if that was less because he thought he was weak than because he saw him as an adversary worthy of being grappled with and perhaps defeated?
I hope you will pardon the longwindedness of my comments. It may be the case that if a Socrates asked me to make my answers brief in the way he did Protagoras I might find myself conceding to him.
Nietzsche’s sister used him and we must remember Nietzsche was a disciple of Dionysus, as such, he was a satirical writer. What’s more, he was a psychologist, so much of his work is directed upon a journey to discover oneself. Be a Superman / Superwoman for oneself.
Well that's one set of the many different plausible Nietzsche interpretations out there
Could someone give me the source that says Nietzsche would scratch out something he wrote and then write the exact opposite? It seems essential to understanding him.
Nietzsche realized at the end of his (lucid) life that he himself always was a Nihilist. This is according to his late fragments. And: It makes sense, right? All his attempts are aporetic. By the way Heidegger admitted -- to Gadamer and Pöggeler -- "Nietzsche has broken me". ...
gee...I wonder at the Republic 340 B where Clitophon denies Thrasymachus' assent to where the stronger can make errors, and retains that justice IS the interest of the stronger( there is no measure of truth beyond the will), if Nietszche could step in , cold and asserting the will to power ?
@ about 1:00 someone asks if Nietzsche dealt with love. I must be odd, but I see love everywhere in Nietzsche, particularly in the intersection of Eternal Recurrence and Amor Fati. I understand that dominance and sadism etc are part of the picture, and perhaps the ultimate "appetite" (as opposed to hunger) that is what we *are*; ie our hardwiring.
But Eternal Recurrence and Amor Fati, at least in my reading of the way he phrases these ideas, seem to challenge us to become something more than what we are. ER seems to imply (perhaps simply as a thought experiment) that existence is all there is. Yet he describes it in the context of a "what if?", inviting a reaction to it - and seems to offer love as a means of ... how shall we put it? - embracing of what simply *is*. "Like it, don't lump it". Same for Amor Fati, yet he says "I want to see things this way", as opposed to "we are this way" (as in the Will to Power).
I'm probably succumbing to projection here, and one sees what one expects to see or wants to see. But it does seem to me that Nietzsche *is* making a powerful case for love as a supreme "goal" as opposed to simple self-definition, as in the Will to Power.
One of these days, I would love to fly down to Wisconsin for a day when you have a gathering like these.
Wonderful stuff, and thanks for sharing.
Well, I suppose that it depends considerably on what main concepts on Nietzsche one uses to interpret his work as a whole. I focus less myself on the Eternal Recurrence theme, and admittedly much more on the will to power, so I wind up with a different Nietzsche-view.
You're always welcome to come down to one of our events - best way to see the calendar is on the ReasonIO site. We're not doing anything with Nietzsche this year, though, unless someone books me for a talk later on in the year.
Thanks! It doesn't need to be a Nietzsche discussion :-)
I should think that what makes particular the aspect of the nobles (insofar as we are to contrast them to masses) is that they hold a sort of spirit, a virtuous soul which is self affirming and lighthearted; it is in that we call them good. That they dominate others is, I believe, incidental or in the very least contingent.
Well, you're certainly entitled to have your own views on that, which to some degree resemble those of e.g. Scheler's -- but that's clearly not Nietzsche's view on the matter.
Perhaps I should be reading Scheler then.
Greg is a wizard #subscribed
hi, i am reading Nietzsche. I have Kaufman's Basic Writings and the Portable. I may be entering my Nietzsche period, b/c i see it's relevance "in my face" with the current political landscape. My question is where do i go to find the "type" of insanity that has been attributed to him. The word insanity has no real meaning. Just today i saw two different sets of words used. One alluded to Syphilis and another to Cancer. Is there a current consensus? is there a majority opinion? No rush. Unsure where to ask this.
There's lot of theories, but no real consensus about Nietzsche's state of mind. He's certainly someone well worth spending some time with, though!
"People are bored by intellect, they mistrust intellect; politics has swallowed up all earnestness for really intellectual things." it was this very quote that seemed to describe some perspectives of people today. true tragedy. Thanks for your comment. I am reading and re-reading it to see your perspectives. My take is that many people really do not want to take the time for discourse. The urge to be pithy and 'clever looking' while "moving along" seems strong in sapiens. Of course ; maybe i am missing some important points. I am a fan of Hegel's perspective on edification, and the value of tarrying. I hope to have a deeper understanding after I have finished more texts.
Given the way it was assembled, do you think the Will to Power is worth reading? Or is it irreparably misleading? Other guys like Heidegger and mishima seem to have gotten a lot out of it and I was considering reading it after Beyond Good and Evil.
I've already read and thoroughly enjoyed Genealogy of morals and the Birth of Tragedy with your incredibly helpful lectures.
I think its well worth reading.
Thanks, I'll check it out.
Nietzsche is my superman. and My philosophy idol.
A lot of us go through a stage like that
Wonderful lecture. In fact it’s so good, it’s honestly beyond good and evil! Would be a birth of tragedy if you stopped doing these videos!
I get what you're saying
Any chance one could get a hold of these printouts? :)
That's an email question, not a RUclips question
Student : You think he'd be pleased ?
Dr. Sadler : (smiles) No .
Nietzsche was not pleased with very much !
Hahaha! I forget what I've said as offhand remarks in most of my videos . . .
He often complained to mask his inferiority complex fueled by schoolboy taunts of being teased as the ‘Untermensch’. The rest of his life was mostly spent in overcompensating for thus interspersed with occasional forays into horse hugging.
one of my faves
Glad you enjoyed it
The skeletons in red dresses in the background are inspirational for the subject =P
Good!
Thanks from Brazil
You're welcome
Hey, have you heard of "Nietzsche's Epic of The Soul" by T.K. Seung? I think he offers quite an interesting interpretation of Zarathustra that is both strong and in opposition to most of the other readings of the text that I have seen. I would love to hear your thoughts on it :)
I have not read it. Generally, I spend very little time with secondary literature these day - I'm very busy rereading and presenting on primary texts. If you'd like to send me a copy, I'll certainly take a look at it
Would you contend that one can't have an immense understanding of a piece of philosophy without studying it in its original language, and without understanding the historical context of the piece?
To start with, I don't know what an "immense understanding" would be.
And, while it certainly helps to be able to study a text in its original language, it is not always necessary. In fact, there are very astute readers who read a text in translation, and very bad readers who just happen to read in the original.
Historical context, you can something similar. . ..
Gregory B. Sadler Thank you.
This was pretty cool.
Glad you enjoyed it
Plato for the masses that’s great 😍
i'm gonna say three words....will to power = agonism [how many words is that]
Also [!] it looks like supermensch is non other than...Abraham [going into stealth mode for the CIA] ..w/o the faith.
The overview was on point and the discussion was the sweet spot that philosophy teachers crave.
Nietzsche probably represents one of many types of tortured philosophical minds. I don't call it insanity per se.
Indeed, Aristophanes ridiculed Socrates, painting the comic picture that every intellectual adept paints within mixed company.
The myth of Tiresias was in his inscrutable language that revealed itself over the course of intellectual growth, like Nietzsche, hinting at answers while hedging about the predictability of the next moment.
Solomon admonishes readers simply "to know wisdom and instruction...to understand a proverb and an enigma."
Enigma.
Enigmatic is the substitute word for insane, except when insanity is added to enigma. There, the Bard says, "commendations go with pity."
So we love and pity Nietzsche despite his virtues, which did conspire against each other - a truly pitiful denouement to an exceedingly commendable noetic life.
‘If you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you. And if you gaze even longer, you are likely to find some old yogurt you forgot to throw out gazing at nothing in particular’.
1:22:18
> they don't have to be blonde
> no, maybe that helps, i don't know
**the guy in the audience**
> well, I do
> yeah
lol
Awesome
Tha ks
Is Nietzsche's work, "The Gay Science," one of his important works, or is it like "The Case of Wagner" where you can kind of don't have to read it to understand Nietzche, like what is "The Gay Science" about?
Well, there's different degrees of understanding. If your goal is to more or less hit on the main themes, you needn't read the Gay Science, I think. but, if your goal is a fuller understanding, then you probably ought to at some time
Don't belittle The Case of Wagner! It is a marvelous work, indeed probably his wittiest.
Listening to christians perform mental gymnastics to quiet nietzshe's ideas in their own minds is really quite annoying.
I'm sure if you're a tough Nietzsche follower, you'll manage just fine in not worrying overmuch about what others say
Why do so many of this audience find it impossible even to pronounce Nietsche correctly?
You gotta ask yourself: Why would you let that bother you enough to complain on his video? That's the one thing you want to put forward representing you, eh?
@@GregoryBSadler Wasn't a serious criticism :-) Really enjoyed the lecture and have subscribed to your channel. Really interesting content.
God I wish the Jesus-types would shut up and let the professor lecture without constant interruption and interjection. We get it, you disagree with nilhism and you are searching for more reasons to integrate into your anti nihilist arsenal, you've never had to take it seriously, you just dismiss it. But some of us are looking for sincere answers to genuine struggles, not easy dismissal, popular mantras or memes, Jesus or Religion. Let philosophers be philosophers and dogmaticists be dogmaticists.
Well, fortunately for you, there's plenty of other Nietzsche videos - with no audience - in my playlist
So, you favor "nihilism"? It would be better to favor Nietzsche on "slave" mentality (morality) v. "master" mentality. Nietzsche would have a lot to say to New Age Democrats and World Communists.
Damn the audience is annoying af
Pretty sure if I could handle it without complaining as the presenter, you can probably handle doing so as a watcher, and focus instead on what's being said about Nietzsche
Too bad that there's an audience there.
You live up to your name