Daniel Tutt on The Nietzsche Podcast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- Daniel's book, How to Read Like a Parasite: www.penguinrandomhouse.com/bo...
My Patreon: / untimelyreflections
Daniel Tutt is the author of How to Read Like a Parasite, subtitled, How the Left Got High On Nietzsche, a new book which warns leftist thinkers about the power and danger of Nietzsche. Daniel has a long history of engaging with Nietzsche’s philosophy, and argues for a pugilistic relationship with him. In his view, the French leftists who utilized Nietzsche’s work centered Nietzsche to their own detriment. Daniel’s project aims not at canceling Nietzsche, but in reading him with a sober understanding of his political perspective and the ways in which it informs all of his ideas.
#nietzsche #marx #marxism #philosophy #historyofphilosophy #philosophypodcast #thenietzschepodcast
I really do admire Keegan enabling other thinkers to have perspectives on the podcast and to using Nietzsche's aristocratic radicalism to play devil's advocate rather than making it the sine non qua of the show. It shows engagement on their own terms to compare and contrast Nietzsche to other thinkers both past and present rather than devolving into a echo chamber.
He cleverly avoided justifying the possibility of his Marxists politics 3-4 times & the challenge posed by Robert Michels against socialist parties.
When the modern Leftist invokes Marx, it’s only used to vaguely gesture at some empathy for the “masses”.
“‘Equality for equals, inequality for unequals’ - THAT would be the true voice of justice: and, what follows from it, ‘Never make equal what is unequal’” (Twilight of the Idols, section 48: PROGRESS IN MY SENSE).
Great episode. You should get this guy back for more focussed discussions, for example, "on Foucault/Badiou/Lacan and Nietzsche with Daniel Tutt". Even if you've done episodes on those thinkers before. Great to hear Nietzchean takes from someone so well versed in leftwing philosophy.
I really like the phrase, which was coined in this episode: "The Bronze Age perverts of this world..."
It’s a reference to Bronze Age Pervert, the supposedly-Nietzschean internet troll and author.
@@JHimminy I got that but I think it stands on its own now --apart from the official Bronze Age Pervert.
@@JHimminyBAP is the real Nietzschean and one of the most important and creative thinkers we have today. He speaks the Truth.
@@andredubois4601 speaks the "truth" gtfo
I suggest reading his dissertation “Selective Breeding & the Birth Of Philosophy”.
One of my basic criticisms of this discussion is that it is framed in the all-too-stupid familiar duality of "Left" and "Right". --as if the world, and all the positions within it, can be boiled down to two separate points of view. I think the "Left" is too conservative for Nietzsche because there are many things within the Left that are resistant to change (the fierce opposition to war being one of the most obvious). At the same time the Right is not conservative enough for Nietzsche because of its ignorance of history and lack or deep roots. So Nietzsche is more left than the Left and more right than the Right, which destroys the dumb idea that there are two poles and one is simply fit into the spectrum between absolutes.
These "Left" and "Right" professors speak in the cheapest form of literary analysis, indulging endlessly and hopelessly in vague and entirely unsubstantiated claims. REMINDS me of how many of these soft influencers in academia faculty are on more than one payroll.
I think in this debate (and also generally) the central opposition between left and right revolves around the question of equality, not conservation. Nietzsche is a profoundly anti-egalitarian philosopher with an "aristocratic epistemology" (lukacs) which destroys any rational basis for the joint struggle for political and social equality build upon universal solidarity. The opposition here is really that between Nietzsche or Spinoza (not Nietzsche or Aristoteles, as MacIntyre claimed).
how do you think the conflict between nietzche and Spinoza should be framed? (how do they contrast?) @@deletemymind565
@@deletemymind565 "aristocratic epistemology" ....excellent example of the same pseudo-intellectual word-salad in which collectivists and "marxists" love to indulge themselves. This isn't rigorous philosophy - it's a hobby.
Left wing/ right wing, the ultimate divide and conquer. Evola was a little better, he was not a fascist, but a superfascist. A brilliant degence, and he was eightly aquitted. As Evola was a super fascist, Reich was a super communist. When upon enter USA he was questioned on having the communist manifesto in his library, he replied, he also had Hitlers mein kampf. Also brilliant. If one is an extremist of one knows nd or the other, good, but not good enough, too human. Rather one should be a right wing extremist and left qing extremist simultaneously, then ona has wingspan to soar truly high. One can see a bunch of imbeciles with one wing or the other intact, on the ground, pecking each other to death in fury, arguing over which wing is the best.
loving these interviews coming in!
I still think Nietzsche despised Marxists & communism as resentful Tarantula's.
Does not mean cannot have guests on the show that may hold opposing positions and interpretations.
Also does give subtle nuances to Nietzsche that cannot box him up in a particular "left vs right" but beyond categories.
Saying that, I think Keegan could have grilled Daniel Tutt more on the notion of utopian "equality" - something I think Nietzsche was opposed to on multiple levels. (psychological, political, economic, pragmatic, sociological & cultural)
There were no Marxists back then bozo
I am convinced that marxism and its derivatives are probably the worst things that have ever happened to mankind. I am opposed to basically every word that this man has stated but I have to admit that the idea of a parasitical reading did intrigue me quite a bit. Props to Keegan for being such a great host
It was a good convo. The guest was well spoken. Totally skeptical of anyone claiming to be a “Marxist” at this point, given the obvious we see around us.
looking forward to this!
would be cool to have Devin Goure on again at some point down the road. Really enjoyed his talk here and his on-going criticisms of Tutt
Same
Could the romans and the jews stop fighting already... this alphabet soup masking ancient religions is annoying...
I don't think Tutt answered a single question. He just spirals into an alphabet soup of philosophies.
He states both that Nietzsche must be understood in his historical context, but then proceeds to do the exact opposite.
He states that Nietzsche desires to stabilize the status quo, then states that Nietzsche must be viewed in light of political revolution.
He talks about using a scalpel to delineate Marxism, then proceeds to throw around generic, undefined terms like "the Left".
He has some interesting thoughts, but they're undercut by his contradictory statements.
Dialectics!
@@finecinematix5242 Hardly. More like a perennial Comp. Lit. grad student who originally learned this, both to get laid, and to wear down/ bore his defense committee.
Nietzsches desire to stabilize the Status quo of hierarchical class society must of course be seens as a reaction to the on-going plebian revolutions of his time. Why do you think that this is a contradiction?
@deletemymind565 A further question is why he seems to think retaining a status quo doesn't require some level of upheaval, especially when the status quo is being challenged? Looked at another way, we might raise the question of whether N's radicalism and his invigorating rhetoric calling for overcoming might actually be a call for a new man capable of the strength to maintain hierarchies.
Great conversation. I remember listening to Bloom talking about his students in that anecdote, I think it was in his lectures on Machiavelli or Nietzsche. I mention it because I felt the same way. Lost, in a deconstructed frame work. No meta narrative to hold me. Anyways the answer to this disorder was Homers Iliad.
Great vid
Left? Right? A straight line,, a goal.
This was a decent episode with some interesting moments, and I'm glad you show off so many different perspectives on Nietzsche, but I can't say I was too impressed with Mr. Tutt. He stumbles around a fair amount, and he completely dodged what I think was your most important question, that of the Iron Law of Oligarchy.
And to add some commentary about the utility of Nietzsche and over lap with anarchism’s idea of equality and how to reconcile it with his idea of the will to power to a pro social light here’s my understanding.
Lets take his notion of our baser predatory instincts to control and dominate, and that morality is the excess of guilt used to repress it and put it in a social setting of reciprocity, not adversarial but mutual. Where ones powers aren’t suppressed but amplified in a mutual exchange of ebs and flows, of appropriating and uplifting from each other. Where what one takes is immediately replaced by what’s given.
The simplest way to imagine this is in a group setting of play. The best times of my life and easily the most communal is when I was in an environment where people are trying to make each other laugh, goof around, play, share ideas and passions and understandings. I’m sure everyone can relate to this experience at some stage of their lives. Your laughing and participation leads to bout of someone else’s. Its invigorating to all involved. You could argue that’s the same energy that makes this pod cast so engaging is that same spirit taking over between the host and guest.
There might well be a competition to make others laugh and bring them happiness, and there might very well be egoistic and narcissistic drives at play. A drive to be seen, validated and distinguished. But it’s a setting where there’s a mutual up lifting and feeding off each others out put. A leveling and uplifting. The will to power, a passive one running in tandem with a social and egalitarian flair.
This is how many capitalists imagine capitalism to work on the ground. But the reality is that there is no mutual uplifting, there is appropriation and weaponizing of what’s taken to maintain rank, wealth, power and status. Like hoarding joy from others makes you happy or something. A grinding into dust the life force of the working classes in that process.
I guess the point is that he might invoke the will to power as just mans animal instinct trapped under the vices of Christian morality. Which is a dubious claim in of it self. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be contexts where it can be put a be socially beneficial. And the task of socialism should be about creating and making the spaces where life isn’t a tragedy but a joy. In and outside of production. Where its not based on repression and resentment but mutual empowerment. That doesn’t mean absolute “equality”, or an end of struggle and development. It means no longer the wasted struggle and development to make dead objects from the flesh of our selves to sate the mammon fetishisms of the bourgeoise.
Good match up 🥊
I can see why many of these "philosophy" professors could never have a successful YT channel on Nietzsche. They are all one-trick ponies regurgitating a weak dissertation. Their are many ways to rhetorically cloak a conveniently-narrow framing of an otherwise expansive subject.
Most of us know that left and right are passé concepts, and that such blockheaded distinctions do not help to further us. It must be noted that many people still are ‘left and right’ minded, enough so that the discussions within the two realms will remain for many years to come.
This observation is only for those who’ve criticised the many ‘left and right’ references in this talk. As Deleuze said in the 60’s, whilst criticising ‘systems’, he had to note that, “systems have lost none of their power.”
31:00 not really two different things lol
I heavily dislike it when people base their philosophy of their politics. Activists are just as poisonous towards philosophy as any moralist. Nietzsches philosophy is too inspiring to be simply read for its politics anyways.
Why is politics separate from philosophy?
Agreed. Politics should be based on philosophy. But I don’t think the two can be separated, nor can we usually identify which came first for a person.
The idea that you can separate politics from philosophy is ludicrious and self-deceptive.
@@deletemymind565 You couldn't possibly be educated in the diverse fields of philosophy and say something that dumb.
I can't stress this enough but the overlap between proudhons social science and Nietzsche is striking.
You should try and get the premier neo proudhonian on the pod cast Shawn P Wilbur who's done significant translation and genealogical work on proudhons thought and texts.
There's a strong parallel between almost all the points hit on by Nietzsche. And Shawn could do a better job of explaining the over lap "progress is about releasing pressure of complex forces that make a totality, he calls such conflict / release "god"
So...thermodynamics?
@@kakistocracyusa sorta yea. But from a interpretation of collective forces that create a total that makes society. I'm not an expert on it but from what i can gather it had something to do with Proudhon rejecting the Hegel's dialectic in collapse of contractions on to each other in to another point of logic, but a balancing of forces borrowed from Kants antinomies or something.
His idea of collective force, that is similar to and probably borrowed from Confucianism about how everything is a a bundle of forces that find balance in a total (see the human body for instance) with out breaking down or creating a rank of organs is how he reconciled socialism with a individualism, and he applied to all levels of social and interpersonal analysis.
I’m curious if there are any interpretations of Nietzsche that are consistent with a Christian worldview
Probably not, but Nietzsche did have a few nice words to say about Jesus, so that could be a starting point.
Perhaps if you are a very esoteric Christian and a Perennialist. He did at times sign his letters The Crucified, after all.
Hey, are you gonna talk about women philosophers influenced by Nietzsche?
The Red Scare Podcast? ❤😂
How does the left think about the attainability of equality, and in what form, at what cost etc... that is the question. They never seem to (want to) go there, which maybe isn't all that surprising as that maybe is the goal and also the motivation where the whole ideology hinges on.
Just because you haven't acquainted yourself with the literature, from Rousseau to Marx or even Lenin, doesn't mean that the left has shied away from the question. As a matter in fact, framed as the abolition of class society this is very much at the core of Marxist theory. In particular, I would very much recommend to take a look at Istvan Mészáros' "Beyond Leviathan" where he develops the concept of substantive equality rooted in the social mode of interchange of production. Substantive freedom is parasitic upon substantive equality.
@@deletemymind565 I mean a questioning of the value of equality itself, whether it can be realised at all, and how it relates to other values when it conflicts with them.
Why should we value equality over other values at all? I don't think substantive equality says a lot about that.
2 minutes in and he’s a Marxist? Ok. Thanks, for saving us the time.
Tarantula
Are you that afraid you challenging your own beliefs that you can't stand listing to someone who doesn't share them?
A Marxist??? LOL!
POV you discover that people have different intellectual inspirations than yours
This guest sucked. Just an hour and a half of Daniel loving the smell of his own flatulence.
He made some very valid points but judging from the comment section it seems like most Nietuscheans didn't want to understand his critique in the first place.
@@deletemymind565 no the lens he comes with is a complete waste and not understanding. Hes a living exercise in not being Nietzsches audience but desperately trying to understand him anyway and try to use Nietzsche for his own postmodern gollop
He is Marxist 😂😂😂😂
Whan someone like me born in eastern Europe hear that 😂😂
I work in the U.K. and I had a colleague once who was a fanatical Marxist. I wished he actually lived under a Marxist regime
after this misguided guest - I am unsubscribing
Having interesting guests like this is the reason I subscribed. So, seems we are just trading places and your protest here will be impotent haha
@@qohelethsmind no one really cares what you or I have to say haha. I hate Commies. I have seen the destruction so the Elites in a C. country have all the perks while the masses suffer. hahahaha
I still think Nietzsche despised Marxists & communism as resentful Tarantula's.
Does not mean cannot have guests on the show that may hold opposing positions and interpretations.
Also does give subtle nuances to Nietzsche that cannot box him up in a particular "left vs right" but beyond categories.
Saying that, I think Keegan could have grilled Daniel Tutt more on the notion of utopian "equality" - something I think Nietzsche was opposed to on multiple levels. (psychological, political, economic, pragmatic, sociological & cultural)
@@philosophicalinquirer312 I am not an expert on Nietzsche and I did not listen to the full show but my hunch was that the guest misinterpreted N's positions to support his own "twisted" world view.
Relax ...it's thin pickin's in today's top-down-controlled academia landscape.
👎
An interesting one for sure! And i really appreciate that you can bring people with diffrent views on here. I often find left nietzscheans disappointing, eventhough i see myself as one. A bit shallow in their thinking i guess, as if they didn’t truly learn any of the lessons that nietzsche could teach the left. The fact that they talk about equality so often is bizzare to me when even Marx wa not pro equality but for freedom. The guest even said that we can learn a lot from what nietzsche said about equality and then moves on and doesnt say what those things are. Well, what are those things that he learned?
when does Marx argue against equality? I can imagine just wonder if you have a specific reference in mind.
@@fuanon3441 I don't have a direct reference from Marx in mind, sorry about that. What i do rember is that Raymond Guess talked about the idea in his lectures on Marx on UA-cam, freedom as a real thing that Marx cared about and equality as a sort of capitalist fiction