When hearing of Nietzsche here I think of Rorty’s private/Public distinction and the following passage from Rorty: ”Privatize the Nietzschean-Sartrean-Foucauldian attempt at authenticity and purity, in order to prevent yourself from slipping into an attitude which will lead you to think that there is some social goal more important than avoiding cruelty.” Said differently: be as aristocratic and weirdly Nietzschean as you please in your private realm as long as that doesn’t divert you from your Public democratic responsibilities of mutuality Still, its a fairly loose distinction .
I got an add at the start of this video that was just the live recording of a Musk town hall on x that goes on indefinitely unless you hit skip and it took me like five minutes before I finally looked at my phone and realized it wasn’t a weird very long intro to this podcast.
37:00 On selective reading: “The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
This reminded me of Zizek saying that Marx wanted capitalism without the bad things of it, and the critique of the Proudhonian communists that Radika Desai does. Also, may I suggedt someone to talk to? The guy from existential comics. Thanks a lot for sharing your podcast here. Cheers.
im pretty sure that German word Pills used at the beginning for "ready to speech" or "ready to talk" means "over talkative"/"obnoxious", or at least that's what I vaguely remember from my high school German class...
Legit the only other leftist hardcore critical theory/post modern/philosophy who do it well besides maube csrefreee wandering which is a little more vague
So, I really really like @Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, and, of course, Pill Pod, but I think I'm super worried about how inaccurate, sometimes forehead-slapping so, they can be on interpretations of philosophers... maybe accuracy isn't the thing they're doing and, rather, they're playing with themes (a bit like Deleuze does with Nietzshce, Spinoza and Hume), but this thematic aligning of Nietzsche and Marx really rests on a continuity that doesn't quite work. I suspect most of this is brought on by a misreading (or, perhaps, more accurately, a 'reading-into') of Nietzsche's pathology of ressentiment (Genealogy, BGE, etc), and the Will to Power (affect/drive structure) stuff found esp in his later writings. My worry is that the lack of academic rigour is just passing unchallenged and we're now seeing weird, trivialised (unintentionally), versions of Nietzsche emerging in ways that are actively unhelpful. The same is also true on some of the videos on Deleuze on this channel... I'm no Deleuze expert (and I'm sure Plastic Pills knows WAAAAY more about him than I do), but I do know quite a bit about Hegel (my PhD was on Hegel and Nietzsche) and the overview given was just... wrong. I'm not sure if this is Plastic Pill's fault, or if they were just restating Deleuze's '''''''reading'''''' of Hegel, but either way it comes across as a bit of a straw man. I don't mean to be 'shitty in the comments' and I'd genuinely be interested to hear suggestions on how we go about introducing rigour in philosophy youtube videos. I think philosophy as a university course is dying (if not dead, already) and, undoubtedly, youtube essays will replace it... but how do we ensure there's not a drop in exegetical quality? I mean, starting a youtube channel to address mistakes other youtubers have made sounds pretty terrible, but perhaps there's another way?
From jonas on account his reading nietzsche is very selective as their is but many nietzsche as he said it(quite like deleuze). Though about pill pod description of hegel well yeah it was a sort of deleuzian reading of hegel but from i can remember deleuze was influence by the reading of hegel at his time(lacan was also too).
It's the internet dude. This is UA-cam. The academic rigor presented here is delimited by performativity and the material limits of video essay/podcast. This is about E N J O Y M E N T. Jonas was clear in the beginning that Nietzsche is no socialist. Doesn't mean he can't be read in this way. It might infuriate those of us who have read closely the Nachlass, the smaller lecutures, etc., but the man is free to present his interpretation, no?
This guy speaking about the 'positives' of slave morality. Lol. If you really wanna speak on Nietzsche, at least talk of things like regulative fictions. Most people miss the Kant in Nietzsche. This whole discussion is rhetorical. They're arguing from premises already assumed.
Nope, you're spot on and that's just the limitations of the internet as someone already said in this comments section. Is there any way I can read your thesis on Hegel and Nietzsche?
Nietzsche wasn't for the abolition of classes, infact, he often found the withering away of the aristocracy somewhat troubling, or at least was apathetic to this fact. The pathos of distance, anyone? Can't talk about Nietzsche and politics/the 'free' will without mentioning the pathos of distance. Also, can't talk about N without discussing Dionysus. It was the final 'gotcha' of all things political, descriptive, regulative, etc. (like morality, like 'class', like power, like 'need' and 'ability' etc.). "What good are your concepts for me?". The laypeople discuss politics, ask questions like, "what is the best orientation?", "what is its purpose?", "why X instead of Y?" The powerful simply 'do' politics, driven by the affects, the will to power, and so on. A politics of description is antithetical to N, almost without exception. Then again, he was the king of '500,000 opinions', so, naturally, let the interpretations continue.
That might be true but Jonas isn't suggesting that N is a class abolitionist or socialist but he says that he has some radical spirit within him. 41:00-43:00 min.
@@condimentofmassdestruction9114 I think I understand you. However the radical aspect of N is usually found nevertheless juxtaposed against any politics of description. Really, he was just a romanticist of radicality, when pressed he almost always returned to a politics of power, of the strong over the weak, of individuals over states, and so on. You have to reject much of his matter-of-factual writing to hold a view otherwise.
John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life
Two of my favorite philosophy channels.. Now this is a treat.
There's a lot of simping here for CCK.. Yeah, I would simp too.
When hearing of Nietzsche here I think of Rorty’s private/Public distinction and the following passage from Rorty: ”Privatize the Nietzschean-Sartrean-Foucauldian attempt at authenticity and purity, in order to prevent yourself from slipping into an attitude which will lead you to think that there is some social goal more important than avoiding cruelty.”
Said differently: be as aristocratic and weirdly Nietzschean as you please in your private realm as long as that doesn’t divert you from your Public democratic responsibilities of mutuality
Still, its a fairly loose distinction .
Nietzsche would scoff at Rorty, lmao.
Christmas came early this year
I got an add at the start of this video that was just the live recording of a Musk town hall on x that goes on indefinitely unless you hit skip and it took me like five minutes before I finally looked at my phone and realized it wasn’t a weird very long intro to this podcast.
37:00 On selective reading:
“The worst readers are those who behave like plundering troops: they take away a few things they can use, dirty and confound the remainder, and revile the whole.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche
But Neitzsche also selectively read himself in Ecce Homo, so by that quote's standard Neitzsche was also among the worst readers.
This was a notably good discussion!
Hyped af for this
This reminded me of Zizek saying that Marx wanted capitalism without the bad things of it, and the critique of the Proudhonian communists that Radika Desai does.
Also, may I suggedt someone to talk to? The guy from existential comics.
Thanks a lot for sharing your podcast here. Cheers.
im pretty sure that German word Pills used at the beginning for "ready to speech" or "ready to talk" means "over talkative"/"obnoxious", or at least that's what I vaguely remember from my high school German class...
Pardon, which word?
Thanks I was thinking to refresh my english with philosophy and psychology
Thank you.
I enjoyed this interview more than the book tbh
This was amazing
Jonas speaks better American English than most Americans I know
subtítulos en ESPAÑOL, PLEASE!!!
YES HOLY SHIT YES AMAZING
Legit the only other leftist hardcore critical theory/post modern/philosophy who do it well besides maube csrefreee wandering which is a little more vague
So, I really really like @Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, and, of course, Pill Pod, but I think I'm super worried about how inaccurate, sometimes forehead-slapping so, they can be on interpretations of philosophers... maybe accuracy isn't the thing they're doing and, rather, they're playing with themes (a bit like Deleuze does with Nietzshce, Spinoza and Hume), but this thematic aligning of Nietzsche and Marx really rests on a continuity that doesn't quite work. I suspect most of this is brought on by a misreading (or, perhaps, more accurately, a 'reading-into') of Nietzsche's pathology of ressentiment (Genealogy, BGE, etc), and the Will to Power (affect/drive structure) stuff found esp in his later writings. My worry is that the lack of academic rigour is just passing unchallenged and we're now seeing weird, trivialised (unintentionally), versions of Nietzsche emerging in ways that are actively unhelpful. The same is also true on some of the videos on Deleuze on this channel... I'm no Deleuze expert (and I'm sure Plastic Pills knows WAAAAY more about him than I do), but I do know quite a bit about Hegel (my PhD was on Hegel and Nietzsche) and the overview given was just... wrong. I'm not sure if this is Plastic Pill's fault, or if they were just restating Deleuze's '''''''reading'''''' of Hegel, but either way it comes across as a bit of a straw man. I don't mean to be 'shitty in the comments' and I'd genuinely be interested to hear suggestions on how we go about introducing rigour in philosophy youtube videos. I think philosophy as a university course is dying (if not dead, already) and, undoubtedly, youtube essays will replace it... but how do we ensure there's not a drop in exegetical quality? I mean, starting a youtube channel to address mistakes other youtubers have made sounds pretty terrible, but perhaps there's another way?
From jonas on account his reading nietzsche is very selective as their is but many nietzsche as he said it(quite like deleuze). Though about pill pod description of hegel well yeah it was a sort of deleuzian reading of hegel but from i can remember deleuze was influence by the reading of hegel at his time(lacan was also too).
It's the internet dude. This is UA-cam. The academic rigor presented here is delimited by performativity and the material limits of video essay/podcast. This is about E N J O Y M E N T. Jonas was clear in the beginning that Nietzsche is no socialist. Doesn't mean he can't be read in this way. It might infuriate those of us who have read closely the Nachlass, the smaller lecutures, etc., but the man is free to present his interpretation, no?
This guy speaking about the 'positives' of slave morality. Lol. If you really wanna speak on Nietzsche, at least talk of things like regulative fictions. Most people miss the Kant in Nietzsche. This whole discussion is rhetorical. They're arguing from premises already assumed.
Nope, you're spot on and that's just the limitations of the internet as someone already said in this comments section. Is there any way I can read your thesis on Hegel and Nietzsche?
Did you make this comment before watching the video, just based on the title?
You should have dude from owls at dawn on xoxo
YESSSSSSS
Subtitles spanish please
fuckin hype
Nietzsche wasn't for the abolition of classes, infact, he often found the withering away of the aristocracy somewhat troubling, or at least was apathetic to this fact. The pathos of distance, anyone? Can't talk about Nietzsche and politics/the 'free' will without mentioning the pathos of distance. Also, can't talk about N without discussing Dionysus. It was the final 'gotcha' of all things political, descriptive, regulative, etc. (like morality, like 'class', like power, like 'need' and 'ability' etc.). "What good are your concepts for me?". The laypeople discuss politics, ask questions like, "what is the best orientation?", "what is its purpose?", "why X instead of Y?" The powerful simply 'do' politics, driven by the affects, the will to power, and so on. A politics of description is antithetical to N, almost without exception. Then again, he was the king of '500,000 opinions', so, naturally, let the interpretations continue.
That might be true but Jonas isn't suggesting that N is a class abolitionist or socialist but he says that he has some radical spirit within him. 41:00-43:00 min.
@@condimentofmassdestruction9114 I think I understand you. However the radical aspect of N is usually found nevertheless juxtaposed against any politics of description. Really, he was just a romanticist of radicality, when pressed he almost always returned to a politics of power, of the strong over the weak, of individuals over states, and so on. You have to reject much of his matter-of-factual writing to hold a view otherwise.
@@JS-dt1tn oh ok
John 3:16 KJV: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life