22:13 *Nietzsche truth as fiction* “In short [truth may be], mutually agreed upon fictions which after long use seem obligatory to a people.” Lacan agreed: “reality is structured like a fiction.” Though science seeks after truth it cannot monopolize it. He argues that science is in fact based on a foreclosure of the concept of truth as cause-this closure is false. As Nietzsche said in _Gay Science,_ “Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it.”
i used to be wary of deconstructionism, until i actually read the philosophers themselves and saw how complex, but more importantly relevant the idea that our cherished beliefs down to the everyday level are fabricated folk tales, more or less.
red skippy yeah that’s the ideal of democracy though (despite its non existence). Lacan/Zizek make the point that reality is fantasy in the sense that at the bottom of the well is the fat of myth which structures our everyday life/economy. The important point is the Hegelian absolute, the structuring gap of negativity. What do we want in this reality? How to decide collectively when things like Facebook (Cambridge analytica) can now hack the human animal? It’s a nauseating situation... but seeing people in love with Rick and others like him do give me a modicum of hope.
@@lesliebrown6378 if you dropped a motorcycle into the jungle 1000 years ago it would cease to be a motorcycle, it would become something completely different and it's likely it would never be ridden as intended. That's what he means. The cultural story of motorcycle is what gives it meaning and utility and makes it not just a jumble of metal parts.
"Homie don't play that." I remember a bit of Rorty where he says that Platonistic (metaphysical, absolute, universal, abstract, and ostensibly disinterested) philosophy sets out to believe more truths by ruminating about Truth. In light of Nietzsche's words on truth, I think I will try to believe fewer truths.
Matthewsinsane, My thoughts exactly. I dream that if Rick were alive in tandem with Zizek we would have a very different political scenario in the USA. This is what Mead meant about "a few people... ." Wonderful wonderful wonderful. I miss him.
Zizek and Rick both make philosophy fun. Philosophy is inherently fun, but it is a matter of presentation. I myself, listen to philosophy lectures whilst playing EVE Online
40:27 "...as the poet" YEATS once said: "I/ MANY ingenious lovely things are gone That seemed sheer miracle to the multitude, protected from the circle of the moon That pitches common things about. There stood Amid the ornamental bronze and stone An ancient image made of olive wood -- And gone are Phidias' famous ivories And all the golden grasshoppers and bees... ...But is there any comfort to be found? Man is in love and loves what vanishes, What more is there to say? That country round None dared admit, if Such a thought were his, Incendiary or bigot could be found To burn that stump on the Acropolis, Or break in bits the famous ivories Or traffic in the grasshoppers or bees." [W.BYeats - Nine Hundred and Nineteen] It was a good line, but the context fleshes it out. None dared admit to breaking Phidias' ivories until IS.
It would be if Nietzsche wasn't arguing that the question about the correct perception is meaningless. In other words, his point isn't to defend perspectivism, it's to criticize the demand for a single truth.
I always thought, felt, that women's "innate" (per-monotheistic brainwashing of both men and women) morality is inherently different than men's "contrived" monotheistic morality. Men and women have two whole different sets of issues: women's involve their role as selector and men's role as selectee. women will need a morality that protects them from rape and subjugation, and abuse of their children, while men will contrive a morality around confining a secured female mate to ensure their progeny and sexual satisfaction. THE IRONY with Nietzsche's slave-master morality (priestly/knightly) is that the male morality has created the slave morality (within beta men and subjugated women). Witches who opposed both moralities (although one could say the witch was a superwoman in the Nietzsche-an sense) were burned at the stake, men who opposed both were also persecuted, some of them philosophers, others, scientists. Nietzsche's hateful remarks on women were regarding women with this slave morality as infected by "man's idea of godliness." His hateful remarks on males were also those infected by this disease. I don't think N was hateful, however, of people, but of paradigms. He was not a nihilist of life, but a nihilist of nihilism of life.
Yeah but he gave his view on why he wasn’t scared. The University and the Western tradition it stands for are supposed to be under siege because the Western tradition itself encourages criticism and skepticism of the established paradigms of thought, which Rick says are what the deconstructionist feminists etc are doing.
28:36 *Nietzsche’s speculative truth* “What if truth turned out to be a woman? The underlying thematic being myth. What if it’s not what you guys think it is-a lecture where you outline five propositions and then argue for them. And make points, win arguments. See all these sort of battlefield metaphors-deploy your argument, attack their position, win your points. What if truth didn’t turn out to be anything like that at all? Nietzsche asks rhetorically.”
2:33 I think this comment on relativism is only true at the extremes. It’s not that intentional lies are equal to attempts at empiricism, but every interpretation is equally wrong in that none are actually right.
“It is a difficult thing for man to admit to himself that the insect or the bird perceives an entirely different world from the one that he does, and that the question of which of these perceptions of the world is the more correct one is quite meaningless.” - Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense (Does this not imply perspectivism?)
I read this as him simply saying it's difficult for man to do so. Man naturally tends towards perspectivism but should rise above it or be critical of it at the least.
Humans have only used "truth" and "knowledge" as a form of the will to power, as Nietzsche has expressed his writings. I'm still not convinced he was not a relativist, either way he will not admit it, Nietzsche refuted any doctrines, theories and systems.
honestly when i first started reading nietzche i interpreted his extremely sexist remarks to be playing on the absurdity of the statements or else making a general social observation. not that he as a person might not have held sexist beliefs but i don’t think he was just pulling a schopenhaur to randomly shit on women. A line in the gay science about how men chase women for their uniqueness and then women change to be more what they think the man wants and thus causing the man to lose what he chased after really resonated w me as a woman
"Truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that that is what they are." Moralists speak of Truth, capital 'T', the virtue of honesty reified to the level of a moral absolute. It is easy to forget that 'moral absolute' is an empty category (an illusion) because it saves one the effort of re-examining one's life.
I always thought, felt, that women's "innate" (per-monotheistic brainwashing of both men and women) morality is inherently different than men's "contrived" monotheistic morality. Men and women have two whole different sets of issues: women's involve their role as selector and men's role as selectee. women will need a morality that protects them from rape and subjugation, and abuse of their children, while men will contrive a morality around confining a secured female mate to ensure their progeny and sexual satisfaction. THE IRONY with Nietzsche's slave-master morality (priestly/knightly) is that the male morality has created the slave morality (within beta men and subjugated women). Witches who opposed both moralities (although one could say the witch was a superwoman in the Nietzsche-an sense) were burned at the stake, men who opposed both were also persecuted, some of them philosophers, others, scientists. Nietzsche's hateful remarks on women were regarding women with this slave morality as infected by "man's idea of godliness." His hateful remarks on males were also those infected by this disease. I don't think N was hateful, however, of people, but of paradigms. He was not a nihilist of life, but a nihilist of nihilism of life.
The pattern you apply to men's and women's issues is also true (in both the factual and telic sense: eg my 'true' love/ the arrow which flies 'true') of the wolf, the orca and the chimp: meaning that they too "contrive" to form male dominance hierarchies from which the female hierarchies select, with the same end of securing progeny. The alpha male/female is neither the biggest bully nor the smallest coward, but the best Parent: ie. the alpha who bullies is deposed, along with the alpha who fails to look out for the omega. That four social species should arrive at the same idea of the 'best' alpha shows the pattern a matter, less of "brainwashing", than of convergence. "You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes." [Friedrich Nietzsche]
I think there is a difference between Relativism as Roderick conceives it - literally assuming all ideas and positions have equal validity - and Relativism as people of the sort of Christian, often Scholastic, ultimately Right wing position see it - lacking any reason and/or justification. Differently put: Roderick opposes Relativism as a lack of prefence, Whereas the Right opposes Relativism as a lack of basis/foundation. One side says that obviously some ideas are better than others. Another side says that there are some ideas that have been suffiently thought through, and that are justified and reasoned, while others are mere fancy, although obviously a result of personal preference and therefore not non-judgmental. I guess the Right goes with what seems to be completely Unassailable as long as you accept the premise, whereas the left goes with a maxim that doesn't need any more proof than the reality that transpires as it is put into action
I think it is important to take Nietzsche with a grain of salt. Imo Nietzsche´s contribution was much more about his critical examniation of existing beliefs and assumptions, which introduced a whole new level of psycho-philosophical analysis explaining how beliefs relate to the people aspousing or adhering to them and the history behind it all, than about what really is to be beliefed. So Nietzsche is about characterizing beliefs not by themselves as dissociated abstractions that do or do not correlate to other abstractions (such as truth), but about how they have come about and ofwhat benefit or detriment they are to us. However reducing beliefs to that aspect is imho not only truncated,in its ignorance of abstract realities but also (whether intended or not) highly corrosive, in a sort of inherent and implicit dialectic, whose approaching end points we can now clearly see playing out in its destructive and divisive character all over our isntitutions of education (i´m basically saying Nietzsche is in part at fault for the malignant "postmodern" mutation of intellectual thought broadly experienced by normal people as "SJW-ism") Underlying this is a fallacy of geneology which confuses the supposed explanations for the existence and dominance of our "western cultural beliefs and practices with those beliefs themselves and completely ignores and EXPLAINS AWAY THE TRUTH VALUE OF OUR BELIEFS BY REDUCING THEM TO THE STORY OF HOW THEY CAME TO BE!
Ekow Stone Word! There’s a book about to come out from the critical theory publisher, Zero Books, ‘Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson’, a collection of essays from various scholars across various fields, with an intro from Zižek. I can’t help but think Rick would have an essay in there, if not a few of his own going after the “Peterson phenomenon”, in general. Another book they’re publishing that I’m interested in is about PoMo conservatism, which is a full length by one of the essay writers of the aforementioned Peterson critique, and as I was listen to an interview with the author, my mind was drawn to some of Rick’s lectures. That’s a topic, in general, I’d love be able to hear from him on.. Oh well, most of Rick’s lectures stand as a refutation to most of Peterson’s PoMo/NeoMarxist handwringing anyway. After all, Peterson is really just an updated version of the “paleo conservative” that Rick is going against in a lot of his lectures anyway. I remember when I first discovered these lectures, and other discussions/interviews from this period, from various scholars, and was sort of amazed and disgusted to find that so much of what Peterson, and the “IDW”, generally, goes on about is just a rehashing of old arguments and battles. Peterson is really just some amalgamated simulacra, and if only his followers could see the multiple layers of irony of his “war against the postmodern”, or however you want to put it, I can’t help but imagine his whole image would just blow away like a house a cards in a tornado.. Granted, many of them have come to such realizations, or like realizations, and abandoned his cult like “world”, but I think for a lot of his followers that he really is a stand in for Christ, or some similar likeness that is desperately needed for conform... but that’s a whole other can of worms.. I digress. ✌️
I have to laugh out loud at this rambling criticisms of dr. Jordan Peterson in relation to this video especially Peterson is not wrong on several key aspects and the shitbag Marx's postmodernist DeGeneres repeatedly criticized doctor Peterson because he's not wrong and you're just embracing degeneracy and chaos. Rick stocks are given me a interesting perspective however and I'm learning more on these perspectives as I go
@@DevastationMtrsports Marx was modernist not post-modernist. Its really only people obsessed with JP who think he was post modernist. One of my issues with Marx is how modernist he was as modernism is extremely outdated.
@@DianaCHewitt Yes he was modernist, but we are even beyond post modern now and stumbling into hyper-modernity..with a West in serious decline amid manufactured crisis and a Great Reset..m
@@DevastationMtrsports Great Reset isn't real. Its a prophecy made up by randos on the internet. I'm super optimistic about the west and the spread of liberalism. The West is finally starting to approach proper modernity by discarding the trash of "traditional values." The future is bright, secular, globalist, and free. I beg you don't fall for internet conspiracies.
Facts cannot be the basis of interpretation. See Dewey and William James. BUT, The Sun goes across the Sky, and we don't move - is self evident, UNTIL....you interpret it. The Sun goes round the Earth? The Earth is the center?
For me Truth is for Scientists, Goodness is for Humanists. But don't confuse it with Beauty. The perfect is the enemy of the good. The counter Are Lies, Evil, and Ugliness.
Did anyone else noticed that when he speaks of african americans and the way they talk and rhyme or use the word "ain't", and how that is no worse than the Cambridge accent, etc... he was talking about himself, can you imagine how much shit he got for his accent, let alone his misreadings of N.?? He just had to drop that in there someplace.
@@AnonymousAnonymous-xy9tz He explained that people tend to consider those who use the dialect associated with African Americans as less intelligent. We can pretend this isn't the case but I don't know who you'd be lying for
He expanded the concept of 'tribe' right off the bat!! Western civilization as a whole is a tribe?? same as some isolated small group is a tribe!! I'm sorry he's dead but he's wrong about this and several other points, specially referring to Nietzsche. The Prof. says N. had the highest respect for Socrates, but N. called him "the buffoon who got himself taken seriously", in another passage where he describes him in conversation with a Face reader, and the face reader tells S. he has all the worst evils in the world within him, and S. says 'you do know me', and N. adds "and he was right"... that's a weird sort of respect!! There are many other points like these, he was a good lecturer, but he did put his misreadings of N. into many impressionable minds, specially the ones who had never read him, or would never read him after this.
As far as my limited understanding goes Nietzsche respected Socrates greatly but also saw him as a teacher and thus as someone he should overcome. Thus attacking him in all kind of harsh ways.
Seriously? "Straw-person?" Are we really so far gone that some West Texas man as far back as 1991 would get up before an audience and say "straw-person argument?" Well, as one of my favorite contemporary philosophers says, do at least one thing politically incorrect each day. Here's mine for today: STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!
ironic that he lectures on someone criticising institutional interpretation/control of the truth when Roderick sounds like every dogmatic marxist that infests the humanities. Utterly lacking in self awareness.
So he complains about the o so trivial deflationary theory of truth without even getting the theory right. The theory doesn't state that "snow is white if and only if snow it white". It states that the proposition 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. Quite a big difference.
@Un-heimlich I think the point OP is trying to make is that the subject and the predicate of the proposition are irrelevant. You could use any subject instead of snow, and any predicate instead of is white. Truth just holds. I personally think Mr. Roderick was bringing up this statement just for comedic reasons, tho, so I don't think what he said was important to dwell into.
Jeez, do you think he could get more abstract? He's lecturing on N. and he hasn't even listed off his corpus or how his ideas changed throughout his thinking life? The Nietzsche of Birth of Tragedy wouldn't agree with the Nietzsche of Twilight of the Idols, for instance... very light on facts, this guy is. Lots of seeming profundity. And if he thinks he understands the paradox of truth then he's just dumb, because he makes the same mistake that many others do, namely: he holds to the belief that his theory of truth, to be valid must aspire to universality, and understanding that our current truths are 'merely' historical, we should aspire to a truth that is new and free of this history. The mistake is that Nietzsche's critique applies to ALL truths! Even the new truth as a result of rigorous, conscious critique will still be 'merely' historical. You can't escape it, that's just what truth is. This is the trap that the SJW's fall into, they reallize that we have creative liscense over our social truths that we've uncritically adopted, and they take it up in the name of creating a more 'woke' justice, not realizing that this very stance, the assumptions which influence their project, are themselves 'worn out coins'. In other words, most take on board N.'s critique of truth, then immediately jettison it (like this guy does) to try to attain some imperial truth that takes this critique into account. This is a description that must be recognized, not a challenge to be accepted, or a critique to be answered... down that way lies madness.
I don't think you listen to lecture. As for only relevant opinion you wrote - this is pop lecture not academic, what would it gain by going through n evolution of thought?
Get a text book, the man isn't lecturing children, he's trying to place Nietzche and relate his ideas to other ideas and to the 1990s. In other words he's analytical, but analysis is a thing of the past, now people unpick and unpack, just like they do when working in an Amazon warehouse.
this was 1 lecture in a series. what do you expect in 40minutes? For Rick to exhaust every theme of Nietzsche from every book? and this is a learned audience - not novices. I know you felt cool using the word "profundity" but you shhhh now.
@@willowbell3756 agreed. my father got to meet Roderick at a conference once. Said he was effortlessly insightful. they only talked for an hour or so but he always remembered him as a very "interesting and lucid guy". Said Rick could talk about any contemporary topic.
His interpretation is too 'left wing', it does to feel authentic to Nietzsche - he did not have a problem with the powerful having control and thought that going against this was going against life.
36:40 - Don't listen to someone who clearly hasn't red the Bible, but tries to bash creationists. (Well there are many creationists that don't believe in the Bible and that is their downfall) Job 40:15-19 (KJV) 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. Behemoth = A huge or monstrous creature. (Oxford dictionary: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/behemoth) There the Bible clearly states that dinosaurs lived. As for humans and dinosaurs lived together: They did (www.creationliberty.com/images/dino06.jpg) (www.creationliberty.com/images/dino75.jpg) But don't take my word on it. Read it for yourself and search the truth in the writings of both the creationist and the evolutionists.
The problem with Nieztche's thinking is he wasn't a philosopher at all. He was a poor man who writed excellent german literature, but not one single consistent idea on philosophical matters. He has not a "system". Yes: to develop a systematic reasoned thinking is a hard task and Nietzche was too obsessed with having a little bit of success with women to made that hard task. His ridiculous "posses" in photographs with Lou Von Salome are hilarious and sad at the same time. His "announcement" of the Superhuman being is just as ridiculous (again) with the contrast with his complexed bourgeois way of life. His "great discovery" of the eternal return is anything but original. His very dogmatic and non reasoned aphorisms are boring. At the end of the day, Nietzsche was a sad, sickly person who never got that joy of being living and free himself proclaimed. His influence in Philosophy? I'm affraid irrelevant for any medim and/or high thinking person. His repercussion in even less intelligent people than him? Tragic for millions of people, alike Karl Marx. He was as looser that couldn't accept or fight his nature. Hi was an error of Life. He was a miserable man. He was the son of a Lutheran dominating father he never was so brave to oppose. He was not even the infinitesimal part of the "Superhuman" he announced.
2:33 I think this comment on relativism is only true at the extremes. It’s not that intentional lies are equal to attempts at empiricism, but every interpretation is equally wrong in that none are actually right.
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche as Myth & Myth-maker [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kjFiU9nDQD4/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche as Myth & Myth-maker [full length]](/img/tr.png)
![Rick Roderick on Nietzsche's Progeny [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z10hEb00tVY/mqdefault.jpg)
![Rick Roderick on Epicureans, Stoics, and Skeptics [full length]](/img/1.gif)
i just discovered this guy. I love him! He's great. Sad to find out that he's gone. At least we have these lovely videos. Thanks!
Such a talented speaker. He somehow always ends the lecture with something inspiring and thought-provoking.
22:13 *Nietzsche truth as fiction* “In short [truth may be], mutually agreed upon fictions which after long use seem obligatory to a people.”
Lacan agreed: “reality is structured like a fiction.” Though science seeks after truth it cannot monopolize it. He argues that science is in fact based on a foreclosure of the concept of truth as cause-this closure is false.
As Nietzsche said in _Gay Science,_ “Cause and effect: such a duality probably never exists; in truth we are confronted by a continuum out of which we isolate a couple of pieces, just as we perceive motion only as isolated points and then infer it without ever actually seeing it.”
i used to be wary of deconstructionism, until i actually read the philosophers themselves and saw how complex, but more importantly relevant the idea that our cherished beliefs down to the everyday level are fabricated folk tales, more or less.
red skippy yeah that’s the ideal of democracy though (despite its non existence). Lacan/Zizek make the point that reality is fantasy in the sense that at the bottom of the well is the fat of myth which structures our everyday life/economy. The important point is the Hegelian absolute, the structuring gap of negativity. What do we want in this reality? How to decide collectively when things like Facebook (Cambridge analytica) can now hack the human animal? It’s a nauseating situation... but seeing people in love with Rick and others like him do give me a modicum of hope.
do you think the difference between an animal and anrock
a rock is folk tale your intelligent chatter
just found out a motorcycle is just a folk tale
@@lesliebrown6378 if you dropped a motorcycle into the jungle 1000 years ago it would cease to be a motorcycle, it would become something completely different and it's likely it would never be ridden as intended. That's what he means. The cultural story of motorcycle is what gives it meaning and utility and makes it not just a jumble of metal parts.
"Homie don't play that."
I remember a bit of Rorty where he says that Platonistic (metaphysical, absolute, universal, abstract, and ostensibly disinterested) philosophy sets out to believe more truths by ruminating about Truth. In light of Nietzsche's words on truth, I think I will try to believe fewer truths.
I didnt know that Russel Crowe gives lectures. Thanks a lot for presenting this view.
If you liked the bit about facts and interpretations, you absolutely have to read "The structure of scientific revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn
6:17 “when Socrates asks the famous question what is _X.”_ Lacan answers 2000 years later _objet a_ object cause of desire.
I'll never get tired of this man using the word BANAL
I like when he says "they-yat" instead of of "that".
And whaa-hi for why. A talented communicator.
Found this as recommended never heard about him it's great love it he made me smile a few times, thank you
Matthewsinsane, My thoughts exactly. I dream that if Rick were alive in tandem with Zizek we would have a very different political scenario in the USA. This is what Mead meant about "a few people... ." Wonderful wonderful wonderful. I miss him.
He looks a tad like Zizek too....
If Zizek was from texas.......
lmfao!!!
Fucking lol'ing hard. Nailed it. Have kids please.
Mix Mark Hamill and Slavoj Zizek and you get Rick Roderick
Zizek and Rick both make philosophy fun. Philosophy is inherently fun, but it is a matter of presentation. I myself, listen to philosophy lectures whilst playing EVE Online
& Zak Galifinakus (from the movie Due Date) XD
40:27 "...as the poet" YEATS once said:
"I/
MANY ingenious lovely things are gone
That seemed sheer miracle to the multitude,
protected from the circle of the moon
That pitches common things about. There stood
Amid the ornamental bronze and stone
An ancient image made of olive wood --
And gone are Phidias' famous ivories
And all the golden grasshoppers and bees...
...But is there any comfort to be found?
Man is in love and loves what vanishes,
What more is there to say? That country round
None dared admit, if Such a thought were his,
Incendiary or bigot could be found
To burn that stump on the Acropolis,
Or break in bits the famous ivories
Or traffic in the grasshoppers or bees."
[W.BYeats - Nine Hundred and Nineteen]
It was a good line, but the context fleshes it out.
None dared admit to breaking Phidias' ivories until IS.
Thank you so much for sharing these important and timely videos!
It would be if Nietzsche wasn't arguing that the question about the correct perception is meaningless. In other words, his point isn't to defend perspectivism, it's to criticize the demand for a single truth.
I love this video, It looks like we are moving at warp 14 to the right. ;)
yep
26:00 Roderick addresses the often cited remarks of Nietzsche in regards to stereotyping women and sexism.
I always thought, felt, that women's "innate" (per-monotheistic brainwashing of both men and women) morality is inherently different than men's "contrived" monotheistic morality. Men and women have two whole different sets of issues: women's involve their role as selector and men's role as selectee. women will need a morality that protects them from rape and subjugation, and abuse of their children, while men will contrive a morality around confining a secured female mate to ensure their progeny and sexual satisfaction. THE IRONY with Nietzsche's slave-master morality (priestly/knightly) is that the male morality has created the slave morality (within beta men and subjugated women). Witches who opposed both moralities (although one could say the witch was a superwoman in the Nietzsche-an sense) were burned at the stake, men who opposed both were also persecuted, some of them philosophers, others, scientists. Nietzsche's hateful remarks on women were regarding women with this slave morality as infected by "man's idea of godliness." His hateful remarks on males were also those infected by this disease. I don't think N was hateful, however, of people, but of paradigms. He was not a nihilist of life, but a nihilist of nihilism of life.
I am scared. His joke about the University actually came true
Yeah but he gave his view on why he wasn’t scared. The University and the Western tradition it stands for are supposed to be under siege because the Western tradition itself encourages criticism and skepticism of the established paradigms of thought, which Rick says are what the deconstructionist feminists etc are doing.
28:36 *Nietzsche’s speculative truth* “What if truth turned out to be a woman? The underlying thematic being myth. What if it’s not what you guys think it is-a lecture where you outline five propositions and then argue for them. And make points, win arguments. See all these sort of battlefield metaphors-deploy your argument, attack their position, win your points. What if truth didn’t turn out to be anything like that at all? Nietzsche asks rhetorically.”
2:33 I think this comment on relativism is only true at the extremes. It’s not that intentional lies are equal to attempts at empiricism, but every interpretation is equally wrong in that none are actually right.
@15:51 homie don't play that !!!! LOLOL AMAZING
"If you swear that 'there's no truth, and who cares?' how can you say it like you're right?"
---bright eyes - we are nowhere, it is now
27:44 “What if Truth turned out to be a Woman?”
Turns out it is-says Lacan.
“It is a difficult thing for man to admit to himself that the insect or the bird perceives an entirely different world from the one that he does, and that the question of which of these perceptions of the world is the more correct one is quite meaningless.”
- Friedrich Nietzsche, On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense
(Does this not imply perspectivism?)
I read this as him simply saying it's difficult for man to do so. Man naturally tends towards perspectivism but should rise above it or be critical of it at the least.
10:10 - Did he mean "...against which *Nietzsche* saw himself fighting", or did he really mean Socrates?
Humans have only used "truth" and "knowledge" as a form of the will to power, as Nietzsche has expressed his writings. I'm still not convinced he was not a relativist, either way he will not admit it, Nietzsche refuted any doctrines, theories and systems.
He is philosophical terrorist
Love this first time I’ve seen him 👍
35:45 no, that's bs. facts are facts.
why does he touch his face at 1:54?
an itch perhaps?
Mike Well said! That's what we need. Philosophers who explain the obvious!
lol, I recognize you from dr. Sadlers videos :)
honestly when i first started reading nietzche i interpreted his extremely sexist remarks to be playing on the absurdity of the statements or else making a general social observation. not that he as a person might not have held sexist beliefs but i don’t think he was just pulling a schopenhaur to randomly shit on women. A line in the gay science about how men chase women for their uniqueness and then women change to be more what they think the man wants and thus causing the man to lose what he chased after really resonated w me as a woman
Is he teaching again (at a university that is)?
Sadly, he died in 2002.
Oh, man. Did he get to teach at all after Duke?
@19:05 jp
"Truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that that is what they are."
Moralists speak of Truth, capital 'T', the virtue of honesty reified to the level of a moral absolute. It is easy to forget that 'moral absolute' is an empty category (an illusion) because it saves one the effort of re-examining one's life.
21:55 the lies that we tell ourselves. An elected oligarchy
He's brilliant but I bet he'd be embarrassed by some of his own antics had he lived longer.
It's actually... opposite😮
I always thought, felt, that women's "innate" (per-monotheistic brainwashing of both men and women) morality is inherently different than men's "contrived" monotheistic morality. Men and women have two whole different sets of issues: women's involve their role as selector and men's role as selectee. women will need a morality that protects them from rape and subjugation, and abuse of their children, while men will contrive a morality around confining a secured female mate to ensure their progeny and sexual satisfaction. THE IRONY with Nietzsche's slave-master morality (priestly/knightly) is that the male morality has created the slave morality (within beta men and subjugated women). Witches who opposed both moralities (although one could say the witch was a superwoman in the Nietzsche-an sense) were burned at the stake, men who opposed both were also persecuted, some of them philosophers, others, scientists. Nietzsche's hateful remarks on women were regarding women with this slave morality as infected by "man's idea of godliness." His hateful remarks on males were also those infected by this disease. I don't think N was hateful, however, of people, but of paradigms. He was not a nihilist of life, but a nihilist of nihilism of life.
The pattern you apply to men's and women's issues is also true (in both the factual and telic sense: eg my 'true' love/ the arrow which flies 'true') of the wolf, the orca and the chimp: meaning that they too "contrive" to form male dominance hierarchies from which the female hierarchies select, with the same end of securing progeny.
The alpha male/female is neither the biggest bully nor the smallest coward, but the best Parent: ie. the alpha who bullies is deposed, along with the alpha who fails to look out for the omega. That four social species should arrive at the same idea of the 'best' alpha shows the pattern a matter, less of "brainwashing", than of convergence.
"You have evolved from worm to man, but much within you is still worm. Once you were apes, yet even now man is more of an ape than any of the apes." [Friedrich Nietzsche]
@@differous01 yes that resonates. By chance are you a fan of Peter Sloterdijk? I’ve been liking his vision as of late .
41:20 - Welp, now that didn't age well now, did it? :)
I think there is a difference between Relativism as Roderick conceives it - literally assuming all ideas and positions have equal validity - and Relativism as people of the sort of Christian, often Scholastic, ultimately Right wing position see it - lacking any reason and/or justification.
Differently put:
Roderick opposes Relativism as a lack of prefence,
Whereas the Right opposes Relativism as a lack of basis/foundation.
One side says that obviously some ideas are better than others.
Another side says that there are some ideas that have been suffiently thought through, and that are justified and reasoned, while others are mere fancy, although obviously a result of personal preference and therefore not non-judgmental.
I guess the Right goes with what seems to be completely Unassailable as long as you accept the premise, whereas the left goes with a maxim that doesn't need any more proof than the reality that transpires as it is put into action
I think it is important to take Nietzsche with a grain of salt.
Imo Nietzsche´s contribution was much more about his critical examniation of existing beliefs and assumptions, which introduced a whole new level of psycho-philosophical analysis explaining how beliefs relate to the people aspousing or adhering to them and the history behind it all, than about what really is to be beliefed.
So Nietzsche is about characterizing beliefs not by themselves as dissociated abstractions that do or do not correlate to other abstractions (such as truth), but about how they have come about and ofwhat benefit or detriment they are to us.
However reducing beliefs to that aspect is imho not only truncated,in its ignorance of abstract realities but also (whether intended or not) highly corrosive, in a sort of inherent and implicit dialectic, whose approaching end points we can now clearly see playing out in its destructive and divisive character all over our isntitutions of education (i´m basically saying Nietzsche is in part at fault for the malignant "postmodern" mutation of intellectual thought broadly experienced by normal people as "SJW-ism")
Underlying this is a fallacy of geneology which confuses the supposed explanations for the existence and dominance of our "western cultural beliefs and practices with those beliefs themselves and completely ignores and EXPLAINS AWAY THE TRUTH VALUE OF OUR BELIEFS BY REDUCING THEM TO THE STORY OF HOW THEY CAME TO BE!
He rambles.
Thomas Frank Hall Mary Wilson Ronald
towards the end like 41:20 makes me wish he was around to confront Jordans Peterson’s bs
Ekow Stone Word! There’s a book about to come out from the critical theory publisher, Zero Books, ‘Myth and Mayhem: A Leftist Critique of Jordan Peterson’, a collection of essays from various scholars across various fields, with an intro from Zižek. I can’t help but think Rick would have an essay in there, if not a few of his own going after the “Peterson phenomenon”, in general. Another book they’re publishing that I’m interested in is about PoMo conservatism, which is a full length by one of the essay writers of the aforementioned Peterson critique, and as I was listen to an interview with the author, my mind was drawn to some of Rick’s lectures. That’s a topic, in general, I’d love be able to hear from him on..
Oh well, most of Rick’s lectures stand as a refutation to most of Peterson’s PoMo/NeoMarxist handwringing anyway. After all, Peterson is really just an updated version of the “paleo conservative” that Rick is going against in a lot of his lectures anyway. I remember when I first discovered these lectures, and other discussions/interviews from this period, from various scholars, and was sort of amazed and disgusted to find that so much of what Peterson, and the “IDW”, generally, goes on about is just a rehashing of old arguments and battles.
Peterson is really just some amalgamated simulacra, and if only his followers could see the multiple layers of irony of his “war against the postmodern”, or however you want to put it, I can’t help but imagine his whole image would just blow away like a house a cards in a tornado..
Granted, many of them have come to such realizations, or like realizations, and abandoned his cult like “world”, but I think for a lot of his followers that he really is a stand in for Christ, or some similar likeness that is desperately needed for conform... but that’s a whole other can of worms.. I digress. ✌️
I have to laugh out loud at this rambling criticisms of dr. Jordan Peterson in relation to this video especially Peterson is not wrong on several key aspects and the shitbag Marx's postmodernist DeGeneres repeatedly criticized doctor Peterson because he's not wrong and you're just embracing degeneracy and chaos.
Rick stocks are given me a interesting perspective however and I'm learning more on these perspectives as I go
@@DevastationMtrsports Marx was modernist not post-modernist. Its really only people obsessed with JP who think he was post modernist. One of my issues with Marx is how modernist he was as modernism is extremely outdated.
@@DianaCHewitt Yes he was modernist, but we are even beyond post modern now and stumbling into hyper-modernity..with a West in serious decline amid manufactured crisis and a Great Reset..m
@@DevastationMtrsports Great Reset isn't real. Its a prophecy made up by randos on the internet. I'm super optimistic about the west and the spread of liberalism. The West is finally starting to approach proper modernity by discarding the trash of "traditional values." The future is bright, secular, globalist, and free. I beg you don't fall for internet conspiracies.
Facts cannot be the basis of interpretation. See Dewey and William James. BUT, The Sun goes across the Sky, and we don't move - is self evident, UNTIL....you interpret it. The Sun goes round the Earth? The Earth is the center?
And who forces you to speak with the vulgar? Nietzsche
Indeed, this is perspectivism.
First "OUR" truth, then, Any truth!
For me Truth is for Scientists, Goodness is for Humanists. But don't confuse it with Beauty. The perfect is the enemy of the good. The counter Are Lies, Evil, and Ugliness.
Did anyone else noticed that when he speaks of african americans and the way they talk and rhyme or use the word "ain't", and how that is no worse than the Cambridge accent, etc... he was talking about himself, can you imagine how much shit he got for his accent, let alone his misreadings of N.?? He just had to drop that in there someplace.
You misspelled dialect.
Weirdly racist. Idk why he specified race.
@@AnonymousAnonymous-xy9tz He explained that people tend to consider those who use the dialect associated with African Americans as less intelligent.
We can pretend this isn't the case but I don't know who you'd be lying for
He expanded the concept of 'tribe' right off the bat!! Western civilization as a whole is a tribe?? same as some isolated small group is a tribe!!
I'm sorry he's dead but he's wrong about this and several other points, specially referring to Nietzsche. The Prof. says N. had the highest respect for Socrates, but N. called him "the buffoon who got himself taken seriously", in another passage where he describes him in conversation with a Face reader, and the face reader tells S. he has all the worst evils in the world within him, and S. says 'you do know me', and N. adds "and he was right"... that's a weird sort of respect!!
There are many other points like these, he was a good lecturer, but he did put his misreadings of N. into many impressionable minds, specially the ones who had never read him, or would never read him after this.
As far as my limited understanding goes Nietzsche respected Socrates greatly but also saw him as a teacher and thus as someone he should overcome. Thus attacking him in all kind of harsh ways.
@@davidd854
Worthy enemies?
@@ggrthemostgodless8713 Worthy enemy, perhaps
Some things are KNOWABLE, Some things are NEVER to be Known.
Seriously? "Straw-person?" Are we really so far gone that some West Texas man as far back as 1991 would get up before an audience and say "straw-person argument?" Well, as one of my favorite contemporary philosophers says, do at least one thing politically incorrect each day. Here's mine for today: STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN! STRAWMAN!
chris65536 hows that politically incorrect?
patriarchal ~
More like are we so far gone people like you would get so enraged by this.
ironic that he lectures on someone criticising institutional interpretation/control of the truth when Roderick sounds like every dogmatic marxist that infests the humanities. Utterly lacking in self awareness.
Lol congratulations on your rebelion
So he complains about the o so trivial deflationary theory of truth without even getting the theory right. The theory doesn't state that "snow is white if and only if snow it white". It states that the proposition 'snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. Quite a big difference.
@Un-heimlich I think the point OP is trying to make is that the subject and the predicate of the proposition are irrelevant. You could use any subject instead of snow, and any predicate instead of is white. Truth just holds. I personally think Mr. Roderick was bringing up this statement just for comedic reasons, tho, so I don't think what he said was important to dwell into.
Jeez, do you think he could get more abstract? He's lecturing on N. and he hasn't even listed off his corpus or how his ideas changed throughout his thinking life? The Nietzsche of Birth of Tragedy wouldn't agree with the Nietzsche of Twilight of the Idols, for instance... very light on facts, this guy is. Lots of seeming profundity.
And if he thinks he understands the paradox of truth then he's just dumb, because he makes the same mistake that many others do, namely: he holds to the belief that his theory of truth, to be valid must aspire to universality, and understanding that our current truths are 'merely' historical, we should aspire to a truth that is new and free of this history. The mistake is that Nietzsche's critique applies to ALL truths! Even the new truth as a result of rigorous, conscious critique will still be 'merely' historical. You can't escape it, that's just what truth is. This is the trap that the SJW's fall into, they reallize that we have creative liscense over our social truths that we've uncritically adopted, and they take it up in the name of creating a more 'woke' justice, not realizing that this very stance, the assumptions which influence their project, are themselves 'worn out coins'. In other words, most take on board N.'s critique of truth, then immediately jettison it (like this guy does) to try to attain some imperial truth that takes this critique into account. This is a description that must be recognized, not a challenge to be accepted, or a critique to be answered... down that way lies madness.
I don't think you listen to lecture. As for only relevant opinion you wrote - this is pop lecture not academic, what would it gain by going through n evolution of thought?
Get a text book, the man isn't lecturing children, he's trying to place Nietzche and relate his ideas to other ideas and to the 1990s. In other words he's analytical, but analysis is a thing of the past, now people unpick and unpack, just like they do when working in an Amazon warehouse.
this was 1 lecture in a series. what do you expect in 40minutes? For Rick to exhaust every theme of Nietzsche from every book? and this is a learned audience - not novices. I know you felt cool using the word "profundity" but you shhhh now.
Yeah he liked to extrapolate and his lectures are brilliant. I wish I'd been taught by people like him when I did my degree. @@turinhorse
@@willowbell3756 agreed. my father got to meet Roderick at a conference once. Said he was effortlessly insightful. they only talked for an hour or so but he always remembered him as a very "interesting and lucid guy". Said Rick could talk about any contemporary topic.
What if truth were a fishwife?
His interpretation is too 'left wing', it does to feel authentic to Nietzsche - he did not have a problem with the powerful having control and thought that going against this was going against life.
36:40 - Don't listen to someone who clearly hasn't red the Bible, but tries to bash creationists. (Well there are many creationists that don't believe in the Bible and that is their downfall)
Job 40:15-19 (KJV) 15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
Behemoth = A huge or monstrous creature. (Oxford dictionary: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/behemoth)
There the Bible clearly states that dinosaurs lived.
As for humans and dinosaurs lived together: They did (www.creationliberty.com/images/dino06.jpg) (www.creationliberty.com/images/dino75.jpg)
But don't take my word on it. Read it for yourself and search the truth in the writings of both the creationist and the evolutionists.
The bible is also a dinosaur.
@@johnmiller7453
Lmafao
The problem with Nieztche's thinking is he wasn't a philosopher at all.
He was a poor man who writed excellent german
literature, but not one single consistent idea on philosophical matters.
He has not a "system". Yes: to develop a systematic reasoned thinking is a hard task and Nietzche was too obsessed with having a little bit of success with women to made that hard task. His ridiculous "posses" in photographs with Lou Von Salome are hilarious and sad at the same time.
His "announcement" of the Superhuman being is just as ridiculous (again) with the contrast with his complexed bourgeois way of life. His "great discovery" of the eternal return is anything but original. His very dogmatic and non reasoned aphorisms are boring.
At the end of the day, Nietzsche was a sad, sickly person who never got that joy of being living and free himself proclaimed.
His influence in Philosophy? I'm affraid irrelevant for any medim and/or high thinking person. His repercussion in even less intelligent people than him? Tragic for millions of people, alike Karl Marx.
He was as looser that couldn't accept or fight his nature. Hi was an error of Life.
He was a miserable man.
He was the son of a Lutheran dominating father he never was so brave to oppose. He was not even the infinitesimal part of the "Superhuman" he announced.
You're a moron.
2:33 I think this comment on relativism is only true at the extremes. It’s not that intentional lies are equal to attempts at empiricism, but every interpretation is equally wrong in that none are actually right.