Nietzsche and the Nazis (The Video) Part One
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 чер 2024
- This is the first part of a four part presentation of Dr. Stephen Hicks' book, Nietzsche and the Nazis. The focus is on the nature of philosophy of history and why weak arguments about the origins of the Nazi Party are insufficient. A philosophical explanation is necessary.
Adolf Hitler and the Nazis claimed that the 19th century German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche(1844-1900), was one of their inspirations. Were they right to do so?
This video investigates the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche as well as the political ideas of the Nazi Party. To what extent did Nietzsche's philosophy provide a foundation for the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis?
Timestamps:
01:29 Part 1: Introduction and Philosophy and History
05:39 Part 2: Explaining Nazism Philosophically
20:40 Part 3: National Socialist Philosophy
Stephen R. C. Hicks, Ph.D., is Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University, USA, and has had visiting positions at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., University of Kasimir the Great in Poland, Oxford University’s Harris Manchester College in England, and Jagiellonian University in Poland.
Other links:
Explaining Postmodernism audiobook: • Explaining Postmoderni...
Nietzsche and the Nazis audiobook: • Nietzsche and the Nazi...
Playlists:
Education Theory: • Education Theory
Entrepreneurship and Values: • Entrepreneurship and V...
Nietzsche: • Nietzsche
Ha I remember watching this on Netflix a lifetime ago!
Can anyone recommend a book that focuses on Nazi party policy?
Yes, Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.
Who's that kid?
Ubermensch
Übermensch 🫡
This is good content, I remember seeing this vid a while ago. However, I'm not sure I necessarily agree.
I'm a fan of Zeihan on Geopolitics. Zeihan often implies and discusses how, many trajectories taken by countries fundamentally have to do with geographical realities, coming into contact with a few other variables (an equally important one of which is demography).
I'm also interested in the fields of psychometrics, and behavioral genetics. Incidentally, it is my opinion that much of Nietzsche's genius involved an uncanny ability to approximately predict a surprising number of the findings in these fields, while nevertheless ironically limited in his perspective by factors contained within that very analysis. Namely, he certainly seems to have been a highly disagreeable genius-type, probably low in agreeableness. He seems to have been correct, that many immutable characteristics (unfortunately) have considerable bearing on the perennial 'contest' between/among individuals and groups. However, due to his own particular characteristics, he was not well equipped to adequately recognize that cooperation, and agreeableness, are ALSO adaptive mechanisms of a certain kind, for the ultimate perpetuation of the species.
Returning to the variable of geographic and environmental influence on selection for certain human behaviors:
Germany was not always a unified country (I cannot recall or summarize historical details in this case) and Zeihan has discussed how, ever since Germany became a unified country, many of the conflictual regional dynamics that we all recognize from the past one or more centuries, were already essentially 'baked in'.
Germany's central location in Europe gives it a strategic advantage, which has been further emphasized historically, by its size and accompanying sizable population. It's rich in certain resources, but lacks others that its neighbors possess, and is nearly landlocked, so the picture starts to become clear as to why it's often suggested that to a significant extent, "geography is destiny". This description is a recipe for an aggressive, sizable regional power.
Other dynamics of the kind that Professor Hicks discusses, are certainly relevant in my opinion. However, I would tend to argue that these are typically downstream of imposed geographic and environmental realities, and limitations.
In other words, different abstract ideas may be circulating in a culture at any given time, and of course ideas are very important. But, why do some catch on more than others? It seems to me that those ideas most reflective of a population's material circumstances, will subsequently come to hold the most sway, in order to mobilize context-specific, group-level actions.
Also, although genetics don't account for everything, (plus there's plenty of genetic variation within groups,) nevertheless environment can significantly account for the majority of a group's evolved (genetic) behavioral traits over a period of time.
Although it's obviously somewhat uncouth to discuss humans a type of "animal" (outside of biological research) and of course, humans are such a complex animal that we must be for all intents and purposes, generally considered in a different category, still, the above observations seem much more obvious when applied to other animal species (of course conditions of privation, we recognize, tend to cause less aggressive or territorial members of a species to die off, and others to survive and pass on their genes).
While Germany is hardly a harsh environment that leads to selection for particularly aggressive traits in the majority of the population, nevertheless, we can expect traits like agreeableness to be higher in cultures/populations that frequently come into contact with other groups via trade along accessible waterways (when trade is situationally advantageous over time) or whose land is hospitable to the cooperative venture of agriculture, etc.
Germany might match some of these descriptors more than others, so there's some extent to which stereotypes (which can never be universally generalized without becoming misleading and discriminatory) might have some bearing and accuracy at the group level.
In my opinion, the only hedge against moral relativism, involves the biological limiting parameters of the human species. Even for populations better genetically adapted to, for example, harsh desert environments and tribalist cultures, in those cases, the fact that neuroticism tends to be higher, involves increased physiological stress on the human organism.
Therefore, it is by distinguishing micro-level and macro-level adaptations, that one can argue that certain behavioral predispositions and traits are ultimately more or less adaptive for humans.
I'd argue that America has only retained the best ideas, because they 'took root' in the best land, and geography. The more a precedent can be established, and internationally exported, for nearly ideal society and governance under nearly ideal conditions, the greater the health of the entire species.
Perhaps some people take an issue with a tribe claiming to be the chosen people of the creator of everything.
Oh yes. Insecure losers do. I feel sorry for you.
God loves every his child.
No favorites
Deception
@@zhizhi9138 nice ESL comment.
Yet you don't have an issue with the hundreds of other religions which claim that exact thing?
Yuman naych@ b a pyramid scheme😂
1 view in one minute bro fell off
8:40
Yes. The Turks are absolutely all those things!
Stopped watching right there. 😁