21:15 "tragedy only happens when you are trying to live well ... when you are trying to live well and you deeply care about the things you're trying to do that the world enters in a particularly painful way"
Thats what i took from this too, also that when you lose your very faith in your ethics becuase of the world grinding you down, at which point you no longer have interest in doing good, or politics.. essentially nihilism cause you dont even want to live for your own ethical virtue...
"that it's based on being something like a plant more than a jewel, something that's rather fragile but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.." very well-put ma'am
It's always a pleasure to listen to an intelligent human like Martha Nussbaum. The dreadful deficit in life today is that such people are all too few, esp. outside of the academic world, or within it at times, partly because we have been blunted by the commercialization of everything.
“There is a saying in Tibetan, 'Tragedy should be utilized as a source of strength.' No matter what sort of difficulties, how painful experience is, if we lose our hope, that's our real disaster.” ~ Dalai Lama XIV
For all of us baffled, bewitched, bewildered or tragically destroyed by the slow but sure motion of political and social events in India over the past nine years, these words by Nussbaum in her talk with Bill Moyers might be heartening, as they were to me: “The condition of being good is that it should always be possible for you to be morally destroyed by something that you couldn’t prevent. To be a good human being is to have a kind of openness to the world-an ability to trust certain things beyond your own control that can lead you to be shattered in very extreme circumstances … for which you were not yourself to blame. And I think that says something very important about the condition of the ethical life-that it is based on a trust in the uncertain: a willingness to be exposed. It’s based on being more like a plant than a jewel, something rather fragile but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.”
“All these philosophers just have brains that work on an extremely high level. Wish I could be like that.” - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Your very insightful and well-thought-out comment shows us that you already *do* have exactly that-a brain that is working on an extremely high level. Please give yourself a pat on the heart.
awesome. some very good points, the one I want to highlight is her using the example of the Greeks as dealing with everyday human life and how philosophy today should come down from this technical position and reorient itself more in the line with everyday existence. I know, blah, blah, that's nothing new, Pragmatism says the same, etc, but no, my god, its true. we need to talk about moral validity outside of any appeal to metaphysics, our basis is human experience, and the Greeks, like nussbaum said, really capture that struggle of everyday life - in her examples of, say, competing commitments.
Go read some continental philosophers, thats all they do and all theyre good for. analytic philosophers are not trying to perform a social role with their work, and for them to attempt to do so would detract from philosophy as a body of knowledge, it performs best when put under the strain and scrutiny of epistemic darwinism, just like the natural sciences
Yeah but this point, which we can compare to the one made by pragmatists, isn't Nusbaum's main point. What she wants to ultimately, I think, say is that, beinga good person implies commiting to different things that we love, as well as being able to trust others in order to live in a society and be humans, but this commitment and this trust makes is in a way vulnerable and forces us to face different sorts of "tragedies". Living those tragedies may compell us to try to sclude ourselves looking to simply achieve individual confort, or in the worse cases individual revenge, but this seclussion comes at the cost of our humanity.
Alan Nikolai Stratmann only difference between alot of people and the people that are known for it would be persistence as well as an undying consciousness of curiosity, i’d say.
last semester I did a report on Chapter 6 on The Symposium. It really changed the way how I used to know Socrates, and even Aristophanes. Fragility of Goodness is indeed a must-read book
I think Ms. Nussbaum has experienced a measure of Greek tragedy in her own life. She speaks from personal experience and her intellect is laid over this.
Pretty much a negative statement of the Golden rule... Do unto others that which you would have them do to you rephrased as don't do unto others that which is unacceptable to you.
She shows the power of civilised intellect enough to run a...superpower! with all good human qualities intact..empathy,compassion, sympathy etc,with the ability of true understanding of all cultures,far from the animal instinctive actions played out by todays self proclaimed "exceptional"lot!!.. of megalomaniacs!
This is really compelling. I love classic Martha Nussbaum. I will really have to look into her earlier works. I've only read Monarchy of Fear (2019) and it wasn't quite my cup of tea.
I've always thought that the Greek gods were portrayed as far beyond flawless and so it was up to the humans to question them and stand up to them if necessary, questioning their belief in them and following the belief of the human heart in knowing what is right, being fearless and bold in their belief and choice of what is right. The wrong choice was made because in the play you described Agamemnon acted out of fear.
Claiming "Love" as a narrow fell good momentary emotion instead of understanding the masculine definition of sacrificing personal happiness for future security of families as also another explanation of the term Love.
What a beautiful woman! As I was looking up various videos on the Life of Seneca (seeing that I'm reading Seneca's "Anger, Mercy, Revenge" which Nussbaum had a hand in translating and editing), I stumbled upon this early interview. I'm currently reading John Calvin's Commentary on Seneca's De Clementia which he wrote in 1532 (translated & edited in 1969), a work which shows Calvin's genius early in his life before his conversion and succession to being the most influential Reformer and author of some major works still recognized today. Martha Nussbaum like so many other secular philosophers seem to make assessments of Classical Greek and Roman thought while leaving out so many contemporary Christian writers during the later part of the Roman period (Seneca was contemporary with the Apostle Paul and Christ), which to my thinking anyway, seems to be willfully blind to a fuller understanding of earlier thought. The Apostle Paul I'm sure was aware of Seneca's thought and so was Augustine and certainly Calvin, as well as Erasmus, yet these fellows are never referred to by any of these "selective" modern thinkers such as Martha Nussbaum. If she's aware of them (as she should be if she wants to be called a "scholar"), and doesn't dismiss them, she might have recognized that there can be a more optimistic view of the "plight of mankind".
Egon , check out John Kerrigan's book Revenge Tragedy - where he brings in Seneca's Tragedies in light of the book of Revelation , Hamlet , the Inferno , Meda , etc.. but there remains a problem here : how does one communicate true tragedy in a post - christian era ? this is very hard to do . there has to be that element of tragedy that evokes Aristotles ''Pity and Fear'' and yet provides hope via the gospel of Mark 16:4 -'he is not here for he has been raised '. e.m.cioran said that Jesus would have been the perfect tragic hero had he not been raised form the dead .
Thankyou for your comment Natecrow...Now I have moved my son seems to be coping quite well....I am so glad I did it. I am happy and my husband is happy and I can see from looking at pictures on Facebook and reading letters from my grandchildren everyone is coping quite well. I think I must have thought I was too indispensible and I know that is not true. None of us are indispensible.
Agamemmons moral dilemma was probably designed to be maximally conflicting. It was an archetype of conflict. Or in a practical sense his advisors asked sacrifice of his daughter as only a bigger sacrifice would be important enough to appease God's or show his commitment to his army and nation
7:39 reminds me of Michael Douglas, in traffic where his daughter gets hooked on drugs, even while he is believing himself to be someone who is correcting that issue
You might say the life that chooses that has been dehumanized, either by itself or others from the society that has rejected it. But is it fair to say that they are not human themselves? I don’t think it makes an oppressed person “not human” to feel their only recourse is to reject or revenge itself in a society that refuses to allow that person to participate in it. E.g. the slave in 17th century America
Maybe the epic of Gilgamesh had pointed out to these issues much much earlier than the Greek thought. I think if one starts with an absolute sense of no Ethics nor any values it would be easier to let go and it would be easier to build on just this absolute facts rationally. What absolute Ethics means in this vast universe? What meaning there is to began with? We merely exist and we are died just like that and if general relativity is correct then We are dead already, no past no present and no future. On the other hand this notion itself must free us and free us especially from any system that has no rational reasons to justify itself. And then if no rational reasons to justify itself then why should we care about it?
There is a contradiction, in that she states that somethimes choices an individual is presented with will both have some negative outcome - but, however in the Euripides story, she labels the best friend who murdered the son for money as a "bad" person. The mother who trusted this best friend was a "good" person. Though, does not this dilema of choice also present itself for the murderer? Perhaps the woman had to choose between two terriable choices as well. What if she killed so that her family, too, could survive through the war? Would we all not kill for our loved ones, if it meant that our loved ones could live? Pretend the murderer was pondering two choices, 1 - become a murderer so that her family can live, or 2 - be a "good" person, do your duty to your friend, and let your own family die. Machivelli would say that in that case, being a moral person is selfish because you valued your own moral self worth above the well being of others. Sometimes to help others we have to sacrifice our own conscience in the process.
+sarah041795 I think she would say that the best friend was also living a tragic life IF the way you presented her two possible routes are true and not that she killed purely out of greed and not to instead survive her family.
She never actually refferes to the person who killed Hecuba's son as an evil person, only as the element that forced Hecuba's tragedy, making her lose her only and deepest source of trust, and in turn making her lose her very humanity, by turning her into a dog that lives secluded from society, seeking only self confort in the form of revenge.
The dilemma presented by her as far as i am concerned can be over passed by making a priority hierarchy and sticking to it but i understand the time limitation on the woman's side makes competing in a world where men can have children at old age and can focus on their job for longer makes it harder for women to be as successful as men but that is a biological problem and not a moral problem as far as i can see.
3:10 -- you read the Bible about Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac? :) God provided the lamb. God solved the conflict. The lamb was in the ticket, but THE LAMB, is Christ Jesus.
Moyers really exposes himself as being someone who came from a fortunate background, as someone who seems to embrace a libertarian free will viewpoint.
on a small scale I am in the process of moving away from my son and grandchildren where I have been helping him for a long time to look after his children following his divorce. I am married and my new husband needs the opportunity to work and we are going to leave the area to try elsewhere. I am torn and feel I want to help everyone. I have decided my son must learn to cope. Adversity brings realisation. We begin to learn what is truly important. I need to follow my own path too.
And calling people who are focusing on certain aspect of thier life "not good people" and claiming the idiots who doesn't prioritize their life in a hierarchy is insulting and disrespectful but also it show a jealousy on her part on the fact all people not having the same life choice as her and being comfortable with their choice so i call bullshit!!!
You idiot - don't you realise that she is a replicant of Carl Sagan. A female duplicate extracted from his DNA. She does a damn good job at hiding it but her guard occaisionally slips
Has Victor Davis Hanson ever debated Nussbaum? Such a confrontation would have provoked much thinking; a conservative classicist squaring off against a liberal one --
I might be the only one thinking that, i don't know, but i don't see what novelty it brings to philosophy. I think this is incredibly hollow. I mean, the struggle of choice is present in almost every philosophy : ancient Greece, christianity, kantianism, etc. We all have to make choices and taking a choice implies that we neglect the other option but so what ? Everybody knows that. No need to be a philosopher to know that. Sure, we have to take care of each others. But taking care is a field outside philosophy : you cannot conceptualize how to take care of someone. There are so many factors to take into account that all it really comes to is your personal judgement. Even Kant who preaches a universal morality says that the universal law can only come from your own conscience and nothing else. This tension between universality of morality and singularity of the experience is already present with Kant and other philosophers in a more indirect way. The problem she is trying to solve might be interesting but it is not an object of philosophy. Philosophy is above all about reason, it is not a matter of winning. And by the way, Greek tragedy is more about Catharsis. Even if the notion of "Catharsis" is problematic for interpretation, it is most likely that the aim of catharsis was to confront the spectator to an intense emotional dilemma in order to make him stronger when he will have to make decisions. Greek tragedy was not a lesson of morality, it was more a sort of training for the citizen to follow his reason and not to panic when he had to make difficult choices. The intensity of the play was aiming to develop the endurance of the viewer to emotions. Sorry for my english (i am french)
The central point in Doctor Nusbaum's teachings here isn't "the struggle of choice", nor the notion of "taking care of somebody" (whic I think wouldn't actually be so hard to conceptualize). What she's trying to say is that the goodness of a human being necessarily implies a sort of vulnerability (or fragility), because in order to be good we need to, not only commit ourselves to different things that are important in our lives, (such as how Agamenon had a commitment to both his army as well as his family), but also be able to trust others (our friends, families, communities etc). However, this commitment to multiple things, as well as this willingness to trust, opens up the possibility of tragedy, and in the face of that tragedy, which is often forced upon us by possibilities outside of our control, we may be compelled to seclude into individualism, seeking only self conformt and sometimes revenge. This seclussion in turn makes us cut our ties to society, depriving us of our very humanity (this is pointed out through the example of how Hecuba ended up turning into a dog). She isn't trying to make a point about what tragedy is or isn't about, she's only using it as a reference to explain her point. (also philosophy is not about "reason above all", it's about many things, among them ethics. The notion of philosophy being about reason is a modern one).
@@peliparado94 You are right to say that philosophy is not about reason above all in some way, i exaggerated a little. But it depends also on what you call "reason" (you could refer to the modern notion of reason, which is very intellectual, or you could refer to the more platonic one, which is a divine principle that can be attained through hard work and meditation). In some way she is not totally wrong. I mean her arguments are not wrong, they are rather coherent and reasonable. But, as you said, philosophy is not only about reason. For me it is also about style and i would be closer to Nietzsche's point of view. Nussbaum is for me a product of her time : she is dull and sluggish. All her thinking about individual liberties and emotions makes me think of the modern socialists (the "bien-pensants" in french, we could say the "right-minded" in english, that is to say the ones who are always talking about goodness and how you should be kind to each others etc etc. That is to say the conformists). I am personally close to socialist ideas but i completely reject this derivative which consists in being a complete whiner. I think this kind of thinking is the product of our modern era : as a society, we now only promote security and well-being. Could it be the emergence of the last man that Nietzsche was talking about ? I think so. We arrived at a point where the disparition of moral values have been so strong that the human has now completely rejected suffering. He is now becoming a total pussy, only wishing for security and well-being. And while i say that, i have to specify that i am not a fan of J. Peterson as you might think while reading this. Also, another thing that annoys me with Nussbaum is that she is the perfect incarnation of the modern philosopher. She goes on to the TV, she sells books etc in order to explain to the people how you have to be a good person bla bla bla. But for me this is totally hypocritical. First, i think we have to admit that you would have never seen Plato on a TV set, because it just doesn't make sense for a philosopher to participate to a show. Secondly, i think she is not addressing the right issues : she is talking about feminism and stuff but when does she question the wars the US make all around the world, where does she question the millions of poor workers and the people living in the streets ? If she is so attached to goodness then why is she accepting the honors and prizes coming from a criminal regime ? To me it sounds a lot like hypocrisy or perfect ignorance. Two things that are not very philosophical we might say. I think she is more a hostess or an animator rather than a philosopher. Maybe she is not conscious of that, and maybe she thinks she is truly saying important things but in this case she is very dumb. Also, and this is a case of common sense, do you really think the media would let her speak if her message was in any way important or relevant ? The whole media system (as well as the school system) is not made in order to inform and develop critical thinking, it is quite the opposite if you want to know the truth. So it is clear that she is not telling any powerful truth in her discourse, otherwise she would not get any rewards that's for sure.
@@Louis-hu5ow I think she wasn't trying to tell us how we should or should not be, as much as trying to come up with a description for what "goodness" is and why it is something fragile. Summarized, you might say it is our ability to trust others and commit, as only with those capacities are we able to create society, being that the element that defines us as human beings. That said, it is not that clear where this goodness might take us, as the "good" characters the greek tragedy end up in tragedy, in a way, precisely because of that goodness. Were it not for Agamennon's dual commitment, it wouldn't have hurt to chose one or the other option without hesitation, and were it not for Hecuba's trust, the betrayal of her friend would probably not have hurted as much. However, when we look at it from a political perspective, wouldn't it make sence for the consolidation of a society, and in termn the conditions for "goodness" to be our primary goal? For a thinker like Nietszche, the answer would probably've been no, as he'd consider goodness to be more af a result of an exercise of power, that breaks previous moral molds to create new ones. But for a thinker like Plato, the answer would've most likely been the same as Dr. Nusbaum's. This is evident when Plato (roughly) defines the role of the Republic and it's heads, as to lead others into becoming the best possible version of themselves, something for which the role of philosophy proves fundamental. As to the question of wether Plato would've appeared on a TV host or not, it is but a useless counterfactual. Let's not forget however, that a lot of Plato's dialgues take place in the city's Agora, ei, in the eye of a public audience. As far as wether important messages get in the media or not, I cannot think of the media, specially today, as some sort of centralized, unified entity created by some conspirationists to promote control (although mainstream media does certainly have a few of these traits). The question is wether those abilities being explained have the capacity to reach and be internalized by a large audience. And in that regard, look at how this video was posted 7 years ago and only has a few thousand fews and a few dozen comments, while videos with virtually no content get billions of views, and superflous self help books are best sellers on amazon. Martha Nusbaum is highly regarded in the niche of the "intellectual work" so to speak, but her books aren't best sellers, and her interviews don't amass millions of views. Finally, to adress a point you make about Nusbaum being a hypocrite for not addressing certain problems like US interventionism, hunger, etc. She does actually address them extensively in her books.
I don't mean to offend, I admire Martha and her insightful take on philosophical issues but I find her very very sexy in a mature way and can't help noticing how her she looks as appealing as she did in this video shot years ago. I love you Martha.
Why the heck does it have to be political? Just answer the question about Lindon Johnson without injecting it with the anti-war agenda, please. That takes away from its philosophical value and just cheapens it. Since he felt divided about it but still went for it, shows that he was not at least a hypocrite in this example.
She lost me as soon as she said we need government to be educated, to be able to think, to live a full life. Maybe we need government to make sure there are libraries but I certainly did not learn to think in public school. Government can enforce the social contract, build muh roads and MAYBE help me if I've really been knocked down and really need help (if no one else is willing or able) but other than that, leave me alone.
We'd all be living fuller lives if governments the world over were more educated in compassion and sensed the losses inherent to the choices they're making on our behalf during this pandemic.
Of course everything you do will be wrong, life is not a gift but a punishment, the world is Hell, and we are commended to life in it, the real gift is to die, that's why i would give my eternal soul it i could be out of this world. Every day i make a pack with the Devil, "My Eternal Soul for Death." All i want is to get out of this world.
I agree; I like a lot of what Mr. Moyers has done in the last 40 years; I don't like that he is not honest about what a dirt bag LBJ was-including what he knew about the JFK assassination.
Morality, "Goodness", "Badness", are illusions, idols. Expect the worst from people and you will never be disappointed. You imply that those who refuse to suffer are somehow inferior to those who do. I disagree. Transforming one's soul from the disingenuous farce of the human to the pure and natural state of the wolf is a move upwards in my opinion. Yes, my love, when goodness fails, spite, anger, the demons of hatred will keep us alive and wreak havoc upon those who sinned against us and our blood. Twas ever so. What right thinking man would have it any other way?
"The judge smiled. The fool was no longer there but another and this other man he could never see in his entirety but he seemed an artisan and a worker in metal. The judge enshadowed him where he crouched at his trade but he was a coldforger who worked with hammer and die, perhaps under some indictment and an exile from men's fires, hammering out like his own conjectural destiny all through the night of his becoming some coinage for a dawn that would not be. It is this false moneyer with his gravers and burins who seeks favor with the judge and he is at contriving from cold slag brute in the crucible a face that will pass, an image that will render his residual specie current in the markets where men barter. Of this is the judge judge and the night does not end."
The form in which "goodness" is conceptualized by MArtha Nusbaum, has nothing to do with inferiority of supeiority, it is conceptualized to imply that goodness, meaning our ability to trust others and commit to various different causes, opens the possibility of tragedy upon us. To exmplify, two classic greek tragedies are used, Agamenon, who's commited to both his family and his city were at a stake, and Hecuba, who was bertayed by the only person she truly trusted. The fragility of goodness implies that when faced with tragedies due to situations beyond our control, we may chose to seclude ourselves and lose our trust, effectively cutting our ties to society, and in turn resigning our very humanity.
I echo Carlos. Please tell me why you believe Nussbaum’s philosophy is not if not a spring of insight and inspiration but at least an evocation or exploration of that “spring”
And she calls for politics of feeling.... If I didn't have to watch this for school.... She is laying down the foundation of the far left. Emotional discourse and government as mommy and daddy. Her more recent anti-Trump politics of blame speech demonstrates that she has not gotten better with age.
Nussbaum seems nervous and rather strained here, as though she'd consumed perhaps a pot or two of strong coffee before coming before the cameras. She speaks rapidly, and her vocal inflections are all over the place. It is as though she tenses up before speaking; she does not first relax, breathe deeply and then begin to talk. And her makeup is a tad excessive, although that is perhaps simply my taste..
Leaving aside her makeup(?),i think her demeanor and expression are indicative of her investment in the subject matter("waking her up in the middle of the night")..it is not an arid plain,a technical matter,it is a living ,breathing complexity the she has clearly experienced and continues to experience directly.Many of us are assailed by similar complexities daily,sometimes with force,other times intimations.Nihilism and passive nihilism are huge problems in a world with seemingly limitless instability.
21:15 "tragedy only happens when you are trying to live well ... when you are trying to live well and you deeply care about the things you're trying to do that the world enters in a particularly painful way"
Thats what i took from this too, also that when you lose your very faith in your ethics becuase of the world grinding you down, at which point you no longer have interest in doing good, or politics.. essentially nihilism cause you dont even want to live for your own ethical virtue...
Good old times when the interviewers were asking relevant questions and were excellent partners in the conversation.
Dont miss the bryan magee interviews !
Check out Lex Fridman.
O
O
O
"that it's based on being something like a plant more than a jewel, something that's rather fragile but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.." very well-put ma'am
It's always a pleasure to listen to an intelligent human like Martha Nussbaum. The dreadful deficit in life today is that such people are all too few, esp. outside of the academic world, or within it at times, partly because we have been blunted by the commercialization of everything.
A Good Woman. Her soul is tangible. Perhaps this is the point.
This is such an amazing discussion between two people
Great to listen to. Heard it twice. And this interviewer is a philosopher in his own right!
Would love to hear Bill Moyer's talk about his time as press secretary of that dispicable man Lyndon Baines Johnson.
This is one of the greatest lessons I've ever had in my life.
These are things I try to teach my kids and this beautiful current instantiation of Hypatia is something to be admired - well done indeed.
“There is a saying in Tibetan, 'Tragedy should be utilized as a source of strength.'
No matter what sort of difficulties, how painful experience is, if we lose our hope, that's our real disaster.” ~ Dalai Lama XIV
13:55 18:40 21:10 Powerful and beautiful words
Thank you for this video and for the very thought-provoking quotes in the description.
A beautiful setting for an unforgettable interview.
For all of us baffled, bewitched, bewildered or tragically destroyed by the slow but sure motion of political and social events in India over the past nine years, these words by Nussbaum in her talk with Bill Moyers might be heartening, as they were to me:
“The condition of being good is that it should always be possible for you to be morally destroyed by something that you couldn’t prevent. To be a good human being is to have a kind of openness to the world-an ability to trust certain things beyond your own control that can lead you to be shattered in very extreme circumstances … for which you were not yourself to blame. And I think that says something very important about the condition of the ethical life-that it is based on a trust in the uncertain: a willingness to be exposed. It’s based on being more like a plant than a jewel, something rather fragile but whose very particular beauty is inseparable from that fragility.”
Mi piace la gioia e la forza che trasmette.
Gran donna davvero.
All these philosophers just have brains that work on an extremely high level. Wish I could be like that.
Reincarnate
“All these philosophers just have brains that work on an extremely high level. Wish I could be like that.”
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Your very insightful and well-thought-out comment shows us that you already *do* have exactly that-a brain that is working on an extremely high level.
Please give yourself a pat on the heart.
awesome. some very good points, the one I want to highlight is her using the example of the Greeks as dealing with everyday human life and how philosophy today should come down from this technical position and reorient itself more in the line with everyday existence. I know, blah, blah, that's nothing new, Pragmatism says the same, etc, but no, my god, its true. we need to talk about moral validity outside of any appeal to metaphysics, our basis is human experience, and the Greeks, like nussbaum said, really capture that struggle of everyday life - in her examples of, say, competing commitments.
Matthew D A
Go read some continental philosophers, thats all they do and all theyre good for. analytic philosophers are not trying to perform a social role with their work, and for them to attempt to do so would detract from philosophy as a body of knowledge, it performs best when put under the strain and scrutiny of epistemic darwinism, just like the natural sciences
+Samson .Pz ... Does this actually mean anything?
Yeah but this point, which we can compare to the one made by pragmatists, isn't Nusbaum's main point. What she wants to ultimately, I think, say is that, beinga good person implies commiting to different things that we love, as well as being able to trust others in order to live in a society and be humans, but this commitment and this trust makes is in a way vulnerable and forces us to face different sorts of "tragedies". Living those tragedies may compell us to try to sclude ourselves looking to simply achieve individual confort, or in the worse cases individual revenge, but this seclussion comes at the cost of our humanity.
"Pragmatism says the same, etc, but no, my god, its true."
Could feel the Zizek energy in this sentence
Philosophy in the language of Literature....go Martha!
Alan Nikolai Stratmann only difference between alot of people and the people that are known for it would be persistence as well as an undying consciousness of curiosity, i’d say.
Wow. Just incredible. TY
last semester I did a report on Chapter 6 on The Symposium. It really changed the way how I used to know Socrates, and even Aristophanes. Fragility of Goodness is indeed a must-read book
This was gold. TY!
Wow. It would be interesting to see those two talk again today.
I think Ms. Nussbaum has experienced a measure of Greek tragedy in her own life. She speaks from personal experience and her intellect is laid over this.
reading of Hecuba brought me to tears
Martha's a boss.
There is nothing better understanding than this and she described it very well. Thanks
What a fine way to speak.
A final ethical choice-to live without a desire for revenge.
What I have to do myself is to see . . . that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn
- Henry David Thoreau -
Pretty much a negative statement of the Golden rule... Do unto others that which you would have them do to you rephrased as don't do unto others that which is unacceptable to you.
@@hoogmonster
. . . and some businesses thrive on negative P.R. (bad public relations or bad press)
- Al Capone -
Wow.. thanks for sharing this amazing quote
This is heavenly awesomeness.
I love her!
She shows the power of civilised intellect enough to run a...superpower! with all good human qualities intact..empathy,compassion, sympathy etc,with the ability of true understanding of all cultures,far from the animal instinctive actions played out by todays self proclaimed "exceptional"lot!!.. of megalomaniacs!
This is really compelling. I love classic Martha Nussbaum. I will really have to look into her earlier works. I've only read Monarchy of Fear (2019) and it wasn't quite my cup of tea.
very thoughtful and inspiring
Disobedience without a doubt Martha! I think in your heart you know what to do each time.
I've always thought that the Greek gods were portrayed as far beyond flawless and so it was up to the humans to question them and stand up to them if necessary, questioning their belief in them and following the belief of the human heart in knowing what is right, being fearless and bold in their belief and choice of what is right. The wrong choice was made because in the play you described Agamemnon acted out of fear.
thanks for posting
Claiming "Love" as a narrow fell good momentary emotion instead of understanding the masculine definition of sacrificing personal happiness for future security of families as also another explanation of the term Love.
She predates Brene Bown in vulneralbility.
Didn't we see her in "Cheers"?
She is very passionate.
What a beautiful woman! As I was looking up various videos on the Life of Seneca (seeing that I'm reading Seneca's "Anger, Mercy, Revenge" which Nussbaum had a hand in translating and editing), I stumbled upon this early interview. I'm currently reading John Calvin's Commentary on Seneca's De Clementia which he wrote in 1532 (translated & edited in 1969), a work which shows Calvin's genius early in his life before his conversion and succession to being the most influential Reformer and author of some major works still recognized today. Martha Nussbaum like so many other secular philosophers seem to make assessments of Classical Greek and Roman thought while leaving out so many contemporary Christian writers during the later part of the Roman period (Seneca was contemporary with the Apostle Paul and Christ), which to my thinking anyway, seems to be willfully blind to a fuller understanding of earlier thought. The Apostle Paul I'm sure was aware of Seneca's thought and so was Augustine and certainly Calvin, as well as Erasmus, yet these fellows are never referred to by any of these "selective" modern thinkers such as Martha Nussbaum. If she's aware of them (as she should be if she wants to be called a "scholar"), and doesn't dismiss them, she might have recognized that there can be a more optimistic view of the "plight of mankind".
Egon , check out John Kerrigan's book Revenge Tragedy - where he brings in Seneca's Tragedies in light of the book of Revelation , Hamlet , the Inferno , Meda , etc.. but there remains a problem here : how does one communicate true tragedy in a post - christian era ? this is very hard to do . there has to be that element of tragedy that evokes Aristotles ''Pity and Fear'' and yet provides hope via the gospel of Mark 16:4 -'he is not here for he has been raised '. e.m.cioran said that Jesus would have been the perfect tragic hero had he not been raised form the dead .
Thankyou for your comment Natecrow...Now I have moved my son seems to be coping quite well....I am so glad I did it. I am happy and my husband is happy and I can see from looking at pictures on Facebook and reading letters from my grandchildren everyone is coping quite well. I think I must have thought I was too indispensible and I know that is not true. None of us are indispensible.
What plays the part - in modern life - of the voice of god that utters such irreconcilably conflicting ideas?
Agamemmons moral dilemma was probably designed to be maximally conflicting. It was an archetype of conflict. Or in a practical sense his advisors asked sacrifice of his daughter as only a bigger sacrifice would be important enough to appease God's or show his commitment to his army and nation
thanks for this.
Wow! Whata Dame!
Lol she is a philosopher too
Does anyone know when this interview occurred? Much earlier than 2011 I think.
I would guess sometime in the 80's
1996
1964
This was actually back in the 30s at the height of the Great Depression if you can believe it. That’s why the video is poor quality
7:39 reminds me of Michael Douglas, in traffic where his daughter gets hooked on drugs, even while he is believing himself to be someone who is correcting that issue
Wow, I so enjoyed this. Thanks for posting.
Tragedy puts the fragility of goodness on trial
she is tremendous.
I LOVE HER
You might say the life that chooses that has been dehumanized, either by itself or others from the society that has rejected it. But is it fair to say that they are not human themselves? I don’t think it makes an oppressed person “not human” to feel their only recourse is to reject or revenge itself in a society that refuses to allow that person to participate in it. E.g. the slave in 17th century America
I'm surprised that you took that away as your talking point from such an interesting discussion, it's quite sad.
24:30 bookmark
💙💙💙💙💙
Maybe the epic of Gilgamesh had pointed out to these issues much much earlier than the Greek thought. I think if one starts with an absolute sense of no Ethics nor any values it would be easier to let go and it would be easier to build on just this absolute facts rationally. What absolute Ethics means in this vast universe? What meaning there is to began with? We merely exist and we are died just like that and if general relativity is correct then We are dead already, no past no present and no future. On the other hand this notion itself must free us and free us especially from any system that has no rational reasons to justify itself. And then if no rational reasons to justify itself then why should we care about it?
There is a contradiction, in that she states that somethimes choices an individual is presented with will both have some negative outcome - but, however in the Euripides story, she labels the best friend who murdered the son for money as a "bad" person. The mother who trusted this best friend was a "good" person. Though, does not this dilema of choice also present itself for the murderer? Perhaps the woman had to choose between two terriable choices as well. What if she killed so that her family, too, could survive through the war? Would we all not kill for our loved ones, if it meant that our loved ones could live? Pretend the murderer was pondering two choices, 1 - become a murderer so that her family can live, or 2 - be a "good" person, do your duty to your friend, and let your own family die. Machivelli would say that in that case, being a moral person is selfish because you valued your own moral self worth above the well being of others. Sometimes to help others we have to sacrifice our own conscience in the process.
+sarah041795 I think she would say that the best friend was also living a tragic life IF the way you presented her two possible routes are true and not that she killed purely out of greed and not to instead survive her family.
This is a lovely twist to the plot that Euripides himself might have appreciated.
She never actually refferes to the person who killed Hecuba's son as an evil person, only as the element that forced Hecuba's tragedy, making her lose her only and deepest source of trust, and in turn making her lose her very humanity, by turning her into a dog that lives secluded from society, seeking only self confort in the form of revenge.
The dilemma presented by her as far as i am concerned can be over passed by making a priority hierarchy and sticking to it but i understand the time limitation on the woman's side makes competing in a world where men can have children at old age and can focus on their job for longer makes it harder for women to be as successful as men but that is a biological problem and not a moral problem as far as i can see.
She argues against a "priority hierarchy". Such a hierarchy is not realistic to human behavior and the human experience.
That was awesome
3:10 -- you read the Bible about Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac? :) God provided the lamb. God solved the conflict. The lamb was in the ticket, but THE LAMB, is Christ Jesus.
Moyers really exposes himself as being someone who came from a fortunate background, as someone who seems to embrace a libertarian free will viewpoint.
what happened a year ago?
" What's Hecuba to him or he to Hecuba?" Shakespeare Hamlet.
What if you could point to the dictionary as the source of all problems . . . ?
on a small scale I am in the process of moving away from my son and grandchildren where I have been helping him for a long time to look after his children following his divorce. I am married and my new husband needs the opportunity to work and we are going to leave the area to try elsewhere. I am torn and feel I want to help everyone. I have decided my son must learn to cope. Adversity brings realisation. We begin to learn what is truly important. I need to follow my own path too.
It’s clear Moyers hasn’t experienced tragedy in his life.
And calling people who are focusing on certain aspect of thier life "not good people" and claiming the idiots who doesn't prioritize their life in a hierarchy is insulting and disrespectful but also it show a jealousy on her part on the fact all people not having the same life choice as her and being comfortable with their choice so i call bullshit!!!
HOLY FUCK
NO MORE WARS
The society library.
Her last comments could really be applied to Russia today (2022)
Martha Nussbaum does a great Carl Sagan impersonation.
She's like a smarter version of Carl...
You idiot - don't you realise that she is a replicant of Carl Sagan. A female duplicate extracted from his DNA. She does a damn good job at hiding it but her guard occaisionally slips
@@vilandes incel alert
No
Evil is impotent.
-Ayn Rand
Has Victor Davis Hanson ever debated Nussbaum? Such a confrontation would have provoked much thinking; a conservative classicist squaring off against a liberal one --
I might be the only one thinking that, i don't know, but i don't see what novelty it brings to philosophy. I think this is incredibly hollow. I mean, the struggle of choice is present in almost every philosophy : ancient Greece, christianity, kantianism, etc. We all have to make choices and taking a choice implies that we neglect the other option but so what ? Everybody knows that. No need to be a philosopher to know that.
Sure, we have to take care of each others. But taking care is a field outside philosophy : you cannot conceptualize how to take care of someone. There are so many factors to take into account that all it really comes to is your personal judgement. Even Kant who preaches a universal morality says that the universal law can only come from your own conscience and nothing else. This tension between universality of morality and singularity of the experience is already present with Kant and other philosophers in a more indirect way. The problem she is trying to solve might be interesting but it is not an object of philosophy. Philosophy is above all about reason, it is not a matter of winning.
And by the way, Greek tragedy is more about Catharsis. Even if the notion of "Catharsis" is problematic for interpretation, it is most likely that the aim of catharsis was to confront the spectator to an intense emotional dilemma in order to make him stronger when he will have to make decisions. Greek tragedy was not a lesson of morality, it was more a sort of training for the citizen to follow his reason and not to panic when he had to make difficult choices. The intensity of the play was aiming to develop the endurance of the viewer to emotions.
Sorry for my english (i am french)
Louis Venditti we know you are French
The central point in Doctor Nusbaum's teachings here isn't "the struggle of choice", nor the notion of "taking care of somebody" (whic I think wouldn't actually be so hard to conceptualize). What she's trying to say is that the goodness of a human being necessarily implies a sort of vulnerability (or fragility), because in order to be good we need to, not only commit ourselves to different things that are important in our lives, (such as how Agamenon had a commitment to both his army as well as his family), but also be able to trust others (our friends, families, communities etc). However, this commitment to multiple things, as well as this willingness to trust, opens up the possibility of tragedy, and in the face of that tragedy, which is often forced upon us by possibilities outside of our control, we may be compelled to seclude into individualism, seeking only self conformt and sometimes revenge. This seclussion in turn makes us cut our ties to society, depriving us of our very humanity (this is pointed out through the example of how Hecuba ended up turning into a dog).
She isn't trying to make a point about what tragedy is or isn't about, she's only using it as a reference to explain her point. (also philosophy is not about "reason above all", it's about many things, among them ethics. The notion of philosophy being about reason is a modern one).
@@peliparado94 You are right to say that philosophy is not about reason above all in some way, i exaggerated a little. But it depends also on what you call "reason" (you could refer to the modern notion of reason, which is very intellectual, or you could refer to the more platonic one, which is a divine principle that can be attained through hard work and meditation). In some way she is not totally wrong. I mean her arguments are not wrong, they are rather coherent and reasonable.
But, as you said, philosophy is not only about reason. For me it is also about style and i would be closer to Nietzsche's point of view. Nussbaum is for me a product of her time : she is dull and sluggish. All her thinking about individual liberties and emotions makes me think of the modern socialists (the "bien-pensants" in french, we could say the "right-minded" in english, that is to say the ones who are always talking about goodness and how you should be kind to each others etc etc. That is to say the conformists). I am personally close to socialist ideas but i completely reject this derivative which consists in being a complete whiner. I think this kind of thinking is the product of our modern era : as a society, we now only promote security and well-being. Could it be the emergence of the last man that Nietzsche was talking about ? I think so. We arrived at a point where the disparition of moral values have been so strong that the human has now completely rejected suffering. He is now becoming a total pussy, only wishing for security and well-being. And while i say that, i have to specify that i am not a fan of J. Peterson as you might think while reading this.
Also, another thing that annoys me with Nussbaum is that she is the perfect incarnation of the modern philosopher. She goes on to the TV, she sells books etc in order to explain to the people how you have to be a good person bla bla bla. But for me this is totally hypocritical. First, i think we have to admit that you would have never seen Plato on a TV set, because it just doesn't make sense for a philosopher to participate to a show. Secondly, i think she is not addressing the right issues : she is talking about feminism and stuff but when does she question the wars the US make all around the world, where does she question the millions of poor workers and the people living in the streets ? If she is so attached to goodness then why is she accepting the honors and prizes coming from a criminal regime ?
To me it sounds a lot like hypocrisy or perfect ignorance. Two things that are not very philosophical we might say. I think she is more a hostess or an animator rather than a philosopher. Maybe she is not conscious of that, and maybe she thinks she is truly saying important things but in this case she is very dumb. Also, and this is a case of common sense, do you really think the media would let her speak if her message was in any way important or relevant ? The whole media system (as well as the school system) is not made in order to inform and develop critical thinking, it is quite the opposite if you want to know the truth. So it is clear that she is not telling any powerful truth in her discourse, otherwise she would not get any rewards that's for sure.
@@peliparado94 Conclusion : she is a biiiiiiiitch ! Ahaha
@@Louis-hu5ow I think she wasn't trying to tell us how we should or should not be, as much as trying to come up with a description for what "goodness" is and why it is something fragile. Summarized, you might say it is our ability to trust others and commit, as only with those capacities are we able to create society, being that the element that defines us as human beings.
That said, it is not that clear where this goodness might take us, as the "good" characters the greek tragedy end up in tragedy, in a way, precisely because of that goodness. Were it not for Agamennon's dual commitment, it wouldn't have hurt to chose one or the other option without hesitation, and were it not for Hecuba's trust, the betrayal of her friend would probably not have hurted as much. However, when we look at it from a political perspective, wouldn't it make sence for the consolidation of a society, and in termn the conditions for "goodness" to be our primary goal? For a thinker like Nietszche, the answer would probably've been no, as he'd consider goodness to be more af a result of an exercise of power, that breaks previous moral molds to create new ones. But for a thinker like Plato, the answer would've most likely been the same as Dr. Nusbaum's.
This is evident when Plato (roughly) defines the role of the Republic and it's heads, as to lead others into becoming the best possible version of themselves, something for which the role of philosophy proves fundamental. As to the question of wether Plato would've appeared on a TV host or not, it is but a useless counterfactual. Let's not forget however, that a lot of Plato's dialgues take place in the city's Agora, ei, in the eye of a public audience. As far as wether important messages get in the media or not, I cannot think of the media, specially today, as some sort of centralized, unified entity created by some conspirationists to promote control (although mainstream media does certainly have a few of these traits). The question is wether those abilities being explained have the capacity to reach and be internalized by a large audience. And in that regard, look at how this video was posted 7 years ago and only has a few thousand fews and a few dozen comments, while videos with virtually no content get billions of views, and superflous self help books are best sellers on amazon. Martha Nusbaum is highly regarded in the niche of the "intellectual work" so to speak, but her books aren't best sellers, and her interviews don't amass millions of views.
Finally, to adress a point you make about Nusbaum being a hypocrite for not addressing certain problems like US interventionism, hunger, etc. She does actually address them extensively in her books.
Agamemnon faced only a Ruler's dilemma; real people pick their family first.
Styx . . . Grand Illusion Reverberations
good luck
"Sophie's Choice" was a real dilemma; not these phoney 'Group versus Family' choices.
I don't mean to offend, I admire Martha and her insightful take on philosophical issues but I find her very very sexy in a mature way and can't help noticing how her she looks as appealing as she did in this video shot years ago. I love you Martha.
She is 14 in this video
Why the heck does it have to be political? Just answer the question about Lindon Johnson without injecting it with the anti-war agenda, please. That takes away from its philosophical value and just cheapens it. Since he felt divided about it but still went for it, shows that he was not at least a hypocrite in this example.
She lost me as soon as she said we need government to be educated, to be able to think, to live a full life. Maybe we need government to make sure there are libraries but I certainly did not learn to think in public school. Government can enforce the social contract, build muh roads and MAYBE help me if I've really been knocked down and really need help (if no one else is willing or able) but other than that, leave me alone.
We'd all be living fuller lives if governments the world over were more educated in compassion and sensed the losses inherent to the choices they're making on our behalf during this pandemic.
Scrupulous and lucid thinker.. bravo
Of course everything you do will be wrong, life is not a gift but a punishment, the world is Hell, and we are commended to life in it, the real gift is to die, that's why i would give my eternal soul it i could be out of this world. Every day i make a pack with the Devil, "My Eternal Soul for Death." All i want is to get out of this world.
Taino137 How is that working out for you?
BANANANAS BLET
I see in her the eyes of the egomaniac, at least in her younger days.
She has to be. Everyone who is smarter than average is egotistical. It's universal, inevitable and only way to be or can be
I agree; I like a lot of what Mr. Moyers has done in the last 40 years; I don't like that he is not honest about what a dirt bag LBJ was-including what he knew about the JFK assassination.
@anchorarms lololololol
go ducks
Students these days are pathetic, like infants, needing safe spaces etc and only be taught things they already agree with
Wow, she's amazing. Hopefully she isn't religious. That would be disappointing.
Marshal Ironsides
Love or agape is the religion. Life is the temple!
I'm not religious myself, but what difference would it make, if her points and thoughts are still the same?
Morality, "Goodness", "Badness", are illusions, idols. Expect the worst from people and you will never be disappointed. You imply that those who refuse to suffer are somehow inferior to those who do. I disagree. Transforming one's soul from the disingenuous farce of the human to the pure and natural state of the wolf is a move upwards in my opinion. Yes, my love, when goodness fails, spite, anger, the demons of hatred will keep us alive and wreak havoc upon those who sinned against us and our blood. Twas ever so. What right thinking man would have it any other way?
oh, I am living baby, trust me.
"The judge smiled. The fool was no longer there but another and this other man he could never see in his entirety but he seemed an artisan and a worker in metal. The judge enshadowed him where he crouched at his trade but he was a coldforger who worked with hammer and die, perhaps under some indictment and an exile from men's fires, hammering out like his own conjectural destiny all through the night of his becoming some coinage for a dawn that would not be. It is this false moneyer with his gravers and burins who seeks favor with the judge and he is at contriving from cold slag brute in the crucible a face that will pass, an image that will render his residual specie current in the markets where men barter. Of this is the judge judge and the night does not end."
The form in which "goodness" is conceptualized by MArtha Nusbaum, has nothing to do with inferiority of supeiority, it is conceptualized to imply that goodness, meaning our ability to trust others and commit to various different causes, opens the possibility of tragedy upon us. To exmplify, two classic greek tragedies are used, Agamenon, who's commited to both his family and his city were at a stake, and Hecuba, who was bertayed by the only person she truly trusted. The fragility of goodness implies that when faced with tragedies due to situations beyond our control, we may chose to seclude ourselves and lose our trust, effectively cutting our ties to society, and in turn resigning our very humanity.
The classics are a spring of insight and inspiration. Nussbaum's philosophy is not.
Why not?
I echo Carlos. Please tell me why you believe Nussbaum’s philosophy is not if not a spring of insight and inspiration but at least an evocation or exploration of that “spring”
We are good because we a fragile. Well, we definitely need mommy and daddy government in that case. One can always trust the government.
The computer is the epitome of government . . .
It is what government always wanted to be . . . and never could be ! ! !
BS. zero supposition: someone is better than someone else. BS.
And she calls for politics of feeling.... If I didn't have to watch this for school.... She is laying down the foundation of the far left. Emotional discourse and government as mommy and daddy. Her more recent anti-Trump politics of blame speech demonstrates that she has not gotten better with age.
Nussbaum seems nervous and rather strained here, as though she'd consumed perhaps a pot or two of strong coffee before coming before the cameras. She speaks rapidly, and her vocal inflections are all over the place. It is as though she tenses up before speaking; she does not first relax, breathe deeply and then begin to talk. And her makeup is a tad excessive, although that is perhaps simply my taste..
Leaving aside her makeup(?),i think her demeanor and expression are indicative of her investment in the subject matter("waking her up in the middle of the night")..it is not an arid plain,a technical matter,it is a living ,breathing complexity the she has clearly experienced and continues to experience directly.Many of us are assailed by similar complexities daily,sometimes with force,other times intimations.Nihilism and passive nihilism are huge problems in a world with seemingly limitless instability.
Tragedy puts the fragility of goodness on trial