This was a great video. You are the first person that I've listened to who didn't try to sugar coat Nietzsche's philosophy. Many people try to paint him as some liberal, progressive moral cookie-cutter or as someone who's thoughts were so mysterious as to be incapable of comprehension. I've read some books of his and you didn't hold anything back or misinterpret anything. I will, definitely, watch more videos of yours.
You're welcome. I have to say that its actually one of the things I do find attractive about Nietzsche's thought, his critique of the science/rationalism/progress kind of line.
One of the few lectures I'll be recording in full from my Ethics class this semester -- though I'll hopefully shoot a lot of Core Concept videos in that class
My girlfriend sent me a link to this particular lecture, as she knows my love of Nietzsche. I thank you for the clarity of your explications. I've read most of Nietzsche's books several times each, but the ressentiment part always confused me a little. This lecture really helped. :)
Glad it was useful for you. Yes, Ressentiment is one of those concepts which Nietzsche, upon first glance, seems to be using just one way, and then upon closer reading, actually sees as much more widespread. It's what one might call an "analogical" term
I have a sort of counter-experience. I was tempted to switch from Philosophy to English, since I saw myself becoming a writer eventually. The Poetry guy whose classes I was attending sat me down and told me that he strongly advised against it -- a real surprise to me -- his reasoning being that I would become a stronger writer by staying in Philosophy.
I think you need to actually read the works you're engaging in discussing here in these comments section. Nietzsche considered feminism to be one (out of many) forms of ressentiment -- that involves asserting power, but in a reactive way.
Thanks! Well, I'd say that Ayn Rand's objectivism is to some degree inspired by a certain reading of Nietzsche. There's quite a few differences, but I'll just mention two here. There's a big difference between their notions about the individual and "creating values" -- what goes on with this, what resistances or dangers there are to face. There's also a huge difference in the way they work out their thoughts. Rand is rather crude, dogmatic. Nietzsche is really like a virtuouso and fencer
Might makes right: what about Ahab in Moby Dick? "Who's over me?" Or "I'd strike the sun if it insulted me." He calls his first mate, Starbuck, "Underling" and his obsession with power is expressed in many ways many times. I would love to hear you do a lecture on Moby Dick~! which just happens to be my favorite book.
No, you might think Nietzsche is for something like a meritocracy, where those who are measurably "better" should therefore rule. But, that's one of the issues -- to be strong for Nietzsche means to dominate, to impose one's will upon others, even one's own standards as opposed to theirs, So, given a bunch of Nietzschean strong people, you're not actually going to have a common standard for all of them
Yes, his point was not actually that one cannot become a writer in any field -- just that his experience was that studying Philosophy seemed to make for better writers than the kind of study of his own field. I'd say there's nothing wrong with dabbling -- or with entirely crossing boundaries between disciplines, which historically, turn out to be somewhat arbitrary. There's a kind of institutional requirement to choose, to be sure -- but that need not actually confine one in studies
When I was watching There will be Blood for the 3rd time, I thought the main character Daniel Plainview extraordinarily played by Daniel Day-Lewis was a nietzschean character. And I think this movie portrays Neitzsche's philosophy pretty well.
I love your vids, I listen to them every morning as I cycle to work. My passing vague interest in philosophy is becoming a passion partly because of these vids. Just saying thanks
Well, I didn't have that in mind so much in agreeing that Nietzsche exerted some influence on psychoanalysis. Freud, along with Nietzsche and Marx, gets called one of the great "masters of suspicion" -- all of them focusing on undoing and critiquing various forms of "false consciousness" Later on, Adler and his school end up focusing quite a bit on the will-to-power, exclusively enough for Jung to criticize them precisely on those grounds
This is fantastic. I'm (Hopefully) re-entering Education this year to follow through with a Philosophy university course, so its great to watch these sorts of video's, thanks again and keep up the great work!
I just re-watched it. It's interesting. I just came across a quote by Rich Eisner in my Intro to Mass Communications class that went something like, "We have no obligation to make art. We have no moral obligations. We have no obligation to be original. All we have an obligation to do is to make money." Not an exact quote. But it opened my eyes to the truth of the status quo. For years, I've had this fascination with the Renaissance. I see this is flawed. The Medicis are dead. Cash is king.
Not exactly. Like I said in my previous response, good-bad is a kind of valuation, and it's opposed to the good-evil valuation. It has a connection with the Might-Makes-Right view, but is not identical to it. I'd suggest actually watching my 4-video series on the Genealogy You can say you want to use an expression to mean whatever you like -- but nobody is obliged to follow your usage. If you're using technical terms associated a particular philosopher, it's best to stick with their usage
I am glad you liken Nietzsche to Thrasymachus, perhaps Callicles as well. It seems appropriate to remember that Glaucon was spirited (thymos) and that it was the spirited person who valued honour who was closer to a philosopher than Adiminatus who was closer to Cephalus in his approach to communal norms and business. Thank you.
Well, I like Kohlberg myself. His theory is pretty good, particularly in dealing with the lower levels of his scale. When you get to the higher levels, it seems a bit more reflective of his own particular moral commitments -- and he's been criticized for that by some big "heavy-hitters": Alasdair MacIntyre, Jurgen Habermas, and Carol Gilligan (one of his own students) Interestingly, some of the early work Kohlberg did had to do with prisons and prisoners -- I talk a bit about that in a video
It would be the stuff about the Ethics of Care -- Virginia Held and Rosemarie Tong are working off of Carol Gilligan, who in turn is criticizing Kohlberg
Raskilnikov from Crime and Punishment stands out as a character who explicitly justifies his actions on the basis of the idea that might == right, his moral conversion at the end of the book aside. The other character who exemplifies this idea is Frodo from Lord of the Rings. It might not seem that way at face value but a deeper reading of the movie clearly show this.
Yep -- in fact, from the "master morality" perspective, it is good to exploit the weak. There are indeed connections between Nietzsche's work and psychoanalysis.
Maximizing economic freedom empowers the weak and favors the strong simultaneously. Nietzsche would've liked it. In that case, all actions are "good" unless they are an act of coercion or fraud, which diminish economic freedom. Unfortunately, people have some preoccupation with "helping" the weak via government, which in turn restricts their freedom. It's difficult to reconcile. btw, The Walking Dead TV show has a good example for nearly every question you asked your class. Good lecture!
Thanks. I think the 'Weak' resonate with Freud's 'oral phase' which includes identification, internalization, and interjection. Being imposed on by external substances. The 'Master' resonate with the 'anal phase' of exerting, controlling (ones feces) and having power. And perhaps the genital-Oedipus complex resonates with N uberhuman.
How hard is it to earn a Masters and Ph.D.? Well, that depends on a lot of factors. It's certainly not impossible, or I wouldn't have done it! I've actually got a video I shot a while back about what's involved in becoming a philosophy prof.
The linguistic/entomological stuff you aren't boring the students with has always been interesting to me. I think Nietzsche has something to say about the psychology of language as it relates to groups of people...fitting for a German right?
It was Michael Eisner, actually. He used to work for Disney. Steve Jobs also had qualms with this guy when Steve worked at Pixar. What is the value of philosophy? I used to tell my friends that I was majoring in Philosophy and they would scoff. So I switched to English and kept it a secret.
I see. I believe we can become writers in any field. The thing for me is to pick one field and stick with it. I'm sort of a polymath and do not have the patience for one subject and one subject alone. I have to dabble in all the fields. While this may detract from my academic career, I feel more useful as a dabbler. However, I've come to the conclusion that the writers I like best write literature, so I will try to emulate them the most. A close second are the philosophers.
Are you actually understanding what is meant by a "good-bad" valuation? It does not mean that the same thing is both good and bad. It means that those are the two main values applied to things.
Well, that's a rather ambiguous one -- I don't think N. would actually be all that keen on unregulated capitalism as such, precisely because what it does is makes the market, economic imperatives, and (in late capitalism) consumer tastes, determinants of human culture. On the side of the capitalist -- the ones who form companies, engage in economic competition and conflict, develop new products, techniques, forms of organization -- he might be for quite a few of those kind of people
Well. . . you'd have to look at it in two ways -- through what he calls "master morality" and what he calls "slave morality". So, for master morality, stealing and killing against the weak are going to be quite all right. Against someone who actually is "master caliber," not so much, but they'll defend themselves, take revenge, or demand justice. For slave morality, stealing and killing are simply evil -- the sorts of things masters do, that slaves don't do
I recently conceived the idea that only in a completely anarchist society can one have a fair opportunity to be happy, because there is nothing inhibiting them achieving/attaning whatever they desire except their personal weakness. Am I off by thinking this correlates to the Nietzchean theories expressed in this video? (I have no background in philosophy)
Thank you so much professor, I try to related to my work though, and my Idea is a reverse osmosis artifice that philosophy is a key role in a day of ambiguous schemes. Unknown friends, unseen stories, and unreal power are all subjective that heavily put human underpressure. I'm a big fan anyway, thank heap Dr.
Indeed it is. Perhaps not the college you're used to. But, this is a service class for non-majors at Marist College, which is a fairly selective liberal arts college in New York. I actually like my students quite a bit, so I don't care too much for UA-camrs (who get this access to the classroom for free) complaining about my students If you think the videos are too simple for you, I'd suggest not watching them, and moving on to more challenging ones
No, in the Genealogy, Nietzsche is pretty clearly against most of the understandings framing evolution in terms of "adaption". He thinks that's reactive, rather than active, and doesn't really capture what is going on with the will-to-power. I think he'd also say of many people who seem to be what we might call "evangelicals of evolution" that they are basically just the flip side of the ascetic approach found earlier in Christianity, Platonism, etc. -- and that they're full of Ressentiment
Isn't it (the social-cultural emergent milieu) really more a product determined by "intelligence," and from intelligence a kind of perceived "merit?" Merit is the personal "confession" or "speech" after "self-realization" concludes something about the reality of one's self. Also, others perceive "merit" in us. I perceive something about myself. Others may agree or not. If they agree, this is me. I may force others to agree. This, too, is me (if I am successful). For instance, I'm a common man and I have very few natural abilities. This is perception. But, surely, the common people are kept "common" by sayings like, "In whatsoever state I find myself, therewith I've learned to be content." Which is good advice by any account, but nevertheless stifling to any idea of "reform." We are all interested in reform, but find we can do very little. M.L. King was certainly not willing to accept his own "common" estate. But, he knew and understood the New Testament. As a minister of the Christian Gospel, shouldn't King have settled for the Biblical idea, "In whatsoever state I find myself...?" But, then, through the process of self-realization, he learned that he was a person of merit, intelligence. And, so he was. Others agreed. So, he took down the whole system. We live in a multi-cultural, multiracial political-social-media State today because of King and his White allies. But, such, though misguided, is nevertheless the product of "intelligence." Nietzsche never really indicates an understanding of intelligence. Hobbes, too, seems never to conclude anything about political power being the outcome of intelligence. Perhaps it was too early (historically), then, for people to understand something taken, generally, for granted. In my reading I have only found Herrnstein and Murray, "The Bell Curve," to understand intelligence, its correct definition, description, and use. E.O. Wilson (the sociobiologist) and evolutionary psychology, as science, historically precede Herrnstein and Murray and seem to allow for human dominance as expressed by "intelligence." They would each seem to suggest, "The strong rule, but by intelligence and therefore merit." And, we all agree. There is good evidence to suggest that after the despair of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, the partial comprehension of "mind of man" offered by Wittgenstein, the deconstruction put forward by Foucault and Derrida, the reconstruction resulting from Rorty, Rawls,and Nozick, the future and conclusion to philosophy (just dessert) should be realized in neurophilosophy and "intelligence quotient" (statistical measurement). This could be something, you might say, like philosophical "alchemy." I'm sure you would agree, a "transmutative process," until (at last) Great Atlantis makes itself of rising red-red dust.
Nope! Wrote it myself. I'm a professional writer. You, on the other hand, are accustomed to "copy/paste." You are the idiosofreeinyomous. Ever been to college, dummogee? I think you are a "burger."
Hello again DR Sadler, What is the name of the video you are referring to? I am not familiar enough with your stuff yet to really know where to start looking. Thanks.
i've only watched the first twelve minutes but it's good as always. i would hope that you got paid for posting these on UA-cam. But charity is noble. You've inspired me to become a professor myself, though i currently seek a bachelor's in english literature. How hard is it to attain a master's and a Ph. D.?
Hello DR Sadler, I noticed your response on my page for submitting to your channel. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I must admit I do have a question. I am doing a project for class (I will not ask you for help with the project itself) and I am wondering what your thoughts are on Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. I will be doing my own research but understanding the views of someone else can certainly help to broaden my horizons. Thank you sir.
You say you are not a Nietzschean- might I ask why not? Do you believe that his characterization is not useful? Is there a better explanation of political allegiances that I am missing?
What you have here is great, presenting philosophy clear and accurate, good job man I see this as an awesome way to expose people to philosophy. I think morality has to do with social contracts, emotions, utility, and guidelines. Every modern philosophy I am aware of that advocates for these terms represents some kind of balance in the product of the ladder resulting in greater unification if you will, some kind of end that better than now. but I was curious if anybody puts all these philosophies together, that proves its better now, that things have progressed in a 'good' direction. Like quantum physics for the physics community, with all these separate functions can we come to a current series of logical philosophical conclusions? or are we skeptical to take it upon ourselves to progress these old ideas? I'm curious how old philosophical traditions transition to a current philosophical model and how that affects the experiences of peoples today.
I think there's plenty of philosophers out there who think things are better now (or when they wrote) than earlier. Nietzsche, however, is not one of them. . . .
Do I need to watch this summary of The Genealogy of Morals or can I just skip to the lectures where you dissect it bit by bit? Is much repeated is my question or are they explained differently.
Well, some of the same themes will show up in this one single video -- which remember is for an Ethics class, composed entirely of non-majors -- as in the 4-video sequence. But, if you're up for the longer set, I'd suggest watching them, and of course, (re)reading the text
Bravo for the lecture, mr professor! However, for me it was intriguing that there are no references to Nietzche's anti-christian view; he strongly links the slave morality with christian values and principles. As I recall for him, to have compassion and pity and to "love thy neighbour" means to be weak and naive, to be a slave, a sheep. Out of curiosity, did you intentionally leave out the religious component of the book because you are not allowed to talk religion in class in the US or is it for some other reason ? Thanks in advance and good luck with your work.
This is a one-hour sessions for students in my Ethics class, none of whom are Philosophy majors. If you'd like to see more in-depth discussion of the Genealogy, you can watch my 4 1-hour lecture videos over in the Existentialism playlist.
Sir, I know that I'm talking to a very skilled Professor but I had no choice to choose another way. Though I had done B.Tech; I'm deeply interested to study Philosophy. But the problem is I'am an Indian for which I don't know how to approach whether they allow me to study in abroad or not(will I be qualified to do that)? By deep-downing to earth, kindly suggest me a solution...
I don't see why you would not be able to study abroad -- but the main issue for that is the money it takes to do so. If I understand you rightly, you're saying that, because of the way the Indian post-secondary education system is set up, you would not be allowed to take Philosophy courses in Indian state schools?
One more comment question.. Is might makes right really what he was saying ? Some one like Solgenitzyn who's moral slave revolt happened in his own mind as he was dominated by the soviet gulag..he came out of it a powerful person. Had asceticism or Eastern thought been influencing hi at this point?
Yes, Nietzsche is at bottom saying that might makes right, at least with respect to the master class. He's taking it further than most committed to a similar stance do, even his heroes like Callicles. The Gulag -- and indeed entire Soviet system -- of Solzhinitzen's experience would actually not fit into the "master" class as Nietzsche describes it. For Nietzsche, communism and the systems it produces are actually products of the slave revolt in morality
Gregory B. Sadler Maybe I am missing the point or confusing concepts. I was thinking of Solzhinitzen as an Ubermench type who was forged in the furnace of the gulag..He transcended the slave morality of the system albeit internally,like Nietzsche's Sisyphus as Noble even though he is chained to his fate. Oh and thanks for this channel !
Well. . . Solzhinitzen is actually a Christian thinker, so that's not going to fit Nietzsche's conceptions all that well. . . Keep in mind that in this video -- I've got a whole 4-part series on the Genealogy in my Existentialism playlist -- is meant to be a very bare bones introduction to Nietzsche in an Ethics class for non-majors As to the channel, you're very welcome
Thank you for posting professor! How would Nietzsche value capitalism? I can only assume that his individualism and might makes right philosophy that he would be in favor of unregulated capitalism.
@GBS ; Didn't Nietzsche just propose all this on a purely intellectual level? The evidence from his life shows that he was "socially awkward" which , frankly is another way of saying he was pretty ineffectual ie power-less? Now I understand it's easy to judge someone from afar as I am doing and I accept that it took big balls to stand up in the Victorian era and express controversial ideas, so in effect perhaps he actually was powerful but his power was channelled in different ways?
emile235 No, I wouldn't say it was on a "purely intellectual level". I've got to say, I'm not even sure what that means, for serious philosophical work
Yes, I get that. Though, you might want to read closer, and see whether "admired" is the way you'd want to characterize his position. Again, no idea what the term "purely intellectual level" really means, for serious philosophical work -- which does involve considerable actual work.
Gregory B. Sadler Thanks. I should clarify I mean "only on an intellectual level" like a white man who writes and discusses how racism is bad but when it comes to the crunch he won't have a black man in his house. He can explain how bad racism is, intellectually but on an emotional level the reality is, he is racist. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.I see what you mean about the term "admired." Thanks.
So according to Nietzsche in the "master morality" there is no intrinsic morals, stealing and killing would be quite all right, the only problem is when exploiting other masters they will take revenge and he will suffer in result. Thus the consequences are what holds his actions back. ps I think there are a lot of parallels between N work and psychoanalysis.
I've been reading Beyond Good and Evil in public, now a little more self conscious... wait now I can't depend my emotions on your judgement! Ha, nice try, lesser man!
I find it verry easy to find people who pay lip service to a kind of slave morality, like equality or equity, but even then it's still too much of a master morality. Because equality as morality is still about being a haver and not a have not. It's just that the pseudo slave morality wants everyone to be equally a haver and have not. I'm all for a slave rebellion against master morality though, and a continuous slave rebellion against all assumed slave moralities until morality is grounded in having nothing. And that's just my cheeky way of saying grounded in the knowledge of nothing, further in the knowledge of the knowledge of nothing, and further that nothing contradicts knowledge. From nothing I argue the Christian religion is the best religion that describes God as a try-unity of co-equal absolute authority from a single mind. Christ asserts a trinity of authority that matches perfectly with the rational structure of the mind. Logic. Isn't, Is, Opposite. Three relations of one word, "contradiction", each with co-equal and absolute authority. All from "nothing", "isn't", or "contradiction". Because noncontradiction is just two contradictions joined together in contradiction with contradiction. In short i want to drive home that we are intrinsiclly valuable and good according to our design, we are designed to know, knowledge of nothing is the principleless principle of knowing. Knowers knowing is good.
good=right=correct=true bad=wrong=incorrect=false=evil the golden rule maps to the golden spiral. morality is as old as existence itself. it is intuitive.
Thanks for the excellent lecture Dr. Sadler. It is extremely generous of you to post these.
sr2joker You're welcome
This was a great video. You are the first person that I've listened to who didn't try to sugar coat Nietzsche's philosophy. Many people try to paint him as some liberal, progressive moral cookie-cutter or as someone who's thoughts were so mysterious as to be incapable of comprehension. I've read some books of his and you didn't hold anything back or misinterpret anything. I will, definitely, watch more videos of yours.
This lecture really helped me understand Genealogy of Morals, and ultimately aided me in writing a paper about it. Thank you so much for posting!
You're welcome. I have to say that its actually one of the things I do find attractive about Nietzsche's thought, his critique of the science/rationalism/progress kind of line.
One of the few lectures I'll be recording in full from my Ethics class this semester -- though I'll hopefully shoot a lot of Core Concept videos in that class
My girlfriend sent me a link to this particular lecture, as she knows my love of Nietzsche.
I thank you for the clarity of your explications. I've read most of Nietzsche's books several times each, but the ressentiment part always confused me a little.
This lecture really helped. :)
Glad it was useful for you. Yes, Ressentiment is one of those concepts which Nietzsche, upon first glance, seems to be using just one way, and then upon closer reading, actually sees as much more widespread. It's what one might call an "analogical" term
I have a sort of counter-experience. I was tempted to switch from Philosophy to English, since I saw myself becoming a writer eventually. The Poetry guy whose classes I was attending sat me down and told me that he strongly advised against it -- a real surprise to me -- his reasoning being that I would become a stronger writer by staying in Philosophy.
I think you need to actually read the works you're engaging in discussing here in these comments section.
Nietzsche considered feminism to be one (out of many) forms of ressentiment -- that involves asserting power, but in a reactive way.
Thanks! Well, I'd say that Ayn Rand's objectivism is to some degree inspired by a certain reading of Nietzsche. There's quite a few differences, but I'll just mention two here.
There's a big difference between their notions about the individual and "creating values" -- what goes on with this, what resistances or dangers there are to face.
There's also a huge difference in the way they work out their thoughts. Rand is rather crude, dogmatic. Nietzsche is really like a virtuouso and fencer
Might makes right: what about Ahab in Moby Dick? "Who's over me?" Or "I'd strike the sun if it insulted me." He calls his first mate, Starbuck, "Underling" and his obsession with power is expressed in many ways many times. I would love to hear you do a lecture on Moby Dick~! which just happens to be my favorite book.
No, you might think Nietzsche is for something like a meritocracy, where those who are measurably "better" should therefore rule. But, that's one of the issues -- to be strong for Nietzsche means to dominate, to impose one's will upon others, even one's own standards as opposed to theirs,
So, given a bunch of Nietzschean strong people, you're not actually going to have a common standard for all of them
Yes, his point was not actually that one cannot become a writer in any field -- just that his experience was that studying Philosophy seemed to make for better writers than the kind of study of his own field.
I'd say there's nothing wrong with dabbling -- or with entirely crossing boundaries between disciplines, which historically, turn out to be somewhat arbitrary. There's a kind of institutional requirement to choose, to be sure -- but that need not actually confine one in studies
When I was watching There will be Blood for the 3rd time, I thought the main character Daniel Plainview extraordinarily played by Daniel Day-Lewis was a nietzschean character. And I think this movie portrays Neitzsche's philosophy pretty well.
Yes, I'd say that's dead-on
I love your vids, I listen to them every morning as I cycle to work. My passing vague interest in philosophy is becoming a passion partly because of these vids. Just saying thanks
You're welcome -- that's a great way to connect up the physical, the purposive, and the philosophical -- listening to them as you bike to work
Well, perhaps down the line. I will be shooting one Rand video this semester, though -- next week in Ethics class.
Well, I didn't have that in mind so much in agreeing that Nietzsche exerted some influence on psychoanalysis.
Freud, along with Nietzsche and Marx, gets called one of the great "masters of suspicion" -- all of them focusing on undoing and critiquing various forms of "false consciousness"
Later on, Adler and his school end up focusing quite a bit on the will-to-power, exclusively enough for Jung to criticize them precisely on those grounds
This is fantastic. I'm (Hopefully) re-entering Education this year to follow through with a Philosophy university course, so its great to watch these sorts of video's, thanks again and keep up the great work!
You're welcome -- glad they're helpful
I just re-watched it. It's interesting. I just came across a quote by Rich Eisner in my Intro to Mass Communications class that went something like, "We have no obligation to make art. We have no moral obligations. We have no obligation to be original. All we have an obligation to do is to make money." Not an exact quote. But it opened my eyes to the truth of the status quo. For years, I've had this fascination with the Renaissance. I see this is flawed. The Medicis are dead. Cash is king.
Not exactly. Like I said in my previous response, good-bad is a kind of valuation, and it's opposed to the good-evil valuation. It has a connection with the Might-Makes-Right view, but is not identical to it. I'd suggest actually watching my 4-video series on the Genealogy
You can say you want to use an expression to mean whatever you like -- but nobody is obliged to follow your usage. If you're using technical terms associated a particular philosopher, it's best to stick with their usage
I am glad you liken Nietzsche to Thrasymachus, perhaps Callicles as well.
It seems appropriate to remember that Glaucon was spirited (thymos) and that it was the spirited person who valued honour who was closer to a philosopher than Adiminatus who was closer to Cephalus in his approach to communal norms and business. Thank you.
Priests and philosophy teachers would be the ones to create and impose values. They are the creators of the ends of the earth.
Well, I like Kohlberg myself. His theory is pretty good, particularly in dealing with the lower levels of his scale. When you get to the higher levels, it seems a bit more reflective of his own particular moral commitments -- and he's been criticized for that by some big "heavy-hitters": Alasdair MacIntyre, Jurgen Habermas, and Carol Gilligan (one of his own students)
Interestingly, some of the early work Kohlberg did had to do with prisons and prisoners -- I talk a bit about that in a video
It would be the stuff about the Ethics of Care -- Virginia Held and Rosemarie Tong are working off of Carol Gilligan, who in turn is criticizing Kohlberg
Raskilnikov from Crime and Punishment stands out as a character who explicitly justifies his actions on the basis of the idea that might == right, his moral conversion at the end of the book aside. The other character who exemplifies this idea is Frodo from Lord of the Rings. It might not seem that way at face value but a deeper reading of the movie clearly show this.
+djkramnik1 I don't see it with Frodo
You're very welcome
You are great; very knowledgeable, down to earth, and your lectures are very useful.
+Rasha Goher Thanks!
Yep -- in fact, from the "master morality" perspective, it is good to exploit the weak.
There are indeed connections between Nietzsche's work and psychoanalysis.
Dr Sadler is a wizard!
Maximizing economic freedom empowers the weak and favors the strong simultaneously. Nietzsche would've liked it. In that case, all actions are "good" unless they are an act of coercion or fraud, which diminish economic freedom. Unfortunately, people have some preoccupation with "helping" the weak via government, which in turn restricts their freedom. It's difficult to reconcile.
btw, The Walking Dead TV show has a good example for nearly every question you asked your class. Good lecture!
Thanks. Yes, I think that when you're teaching non-major classes, it needs to be relevant to the students
Thanks. I think the 'Weak' resonate with Freud's 'oral phase' which includes identification, internalization, and interjection. Being imposed on by external substances. The 'Master' resonate with the 'anal phase' of exerting, controlling (ones feces) and having power. And perhaps the genital-Oedipus complex resonates with N uberhuman.
Really appreciate your vids, Professor.
Thanks!
How hard is it to earn a Masters and Ph.D.? Well, that depends on a lot of factors. It's certainly not impossible, or I wouldn't have done it! I've actually got a video I shot a while back about what's involved in becoming a philosophy prof.
The linguistic/entomological stuff you aren't boring the students with has always been interesting to me. I think Nietzsche has something to say about the psychology of language as it relates to groups of people...fitting for a German right?
It was Michael Eisner, actually. He used to work for Disney. Steve Jobs also had qualms with this guy when Steve worked at Pixar. What is the value of philosophy? I used to tell my friends that I was majoring in Philosophy and they would scoff. So I switched to English and kept it a secret.
I see. I believe we can become writers in any field. The thing for me is to pick one field and stick with it. I'm sort of a polymath and do not have the patience for one subject and one subject alone. I have to dabble in all the fields. While this may detract from my academic career, I feel more useful as a dabbler. However, I've come to the conclusion that the writers I like best write literature, so I will try to emulate them the most. A close second are the philosophers.
Are you actually understanding what is meant by a "good-bad" valuation? It does not mean that the same thing is both good and bad. It means that those are the two main values applied to things.
Well, that's a rather ambiguous one -- I don't think N. would actually be all that keen on unregulated capitalism as such, precisely because what it does is makes the market, economic imperatives, and (in late capitalism) consumer tastes, determinants of human culture.
On the side of the capitalist -- the ones who form companies, engage in economic competition and conflict, develop new products, techniques, forms of organization -- he might be for quite a few of those kind of people
Thanks
Very interesting. Been watching Samurai X and the first few minutes remind me of Shishio. Also a bit of Thanos in there too.
Thank you for uploading !
Well. . . you'd have to look at it in two ways -- through what he calls "master morality" and what he calls "slave morality".
So, for master morality, stealing and killing against the weak are going to be quite all right. Against someone who actually is "master caliber," not so much, but they'll defend themselves, take revenge, or demand justice.
For slave morality, stealing and killing are simply evil -- the sorts of things masters do, that slaves don't do
Well, it made me angrier as well -- at the teacher, at my mother, in general!
I recently conceived the idea that only in a completely anarchist society can one have a fair opportunity to be happy, because there is nothing inhibiting them achieving/attaning whatever they desire except their personal weakness. Am I off by thinking this correlates to the Nietzchean theories expressed in this video? (I have no background in philosophy)
That's unfortunate -- that you didn't get to take philosophy in a classroom setting. The good news is that one can certainly study it on one's own
I did a video discussing my Nietzschean phase a while back
Since you brought up movies...Connan the Barbarian is entire movie about Nietzche's crusade against nihilism ..sort of.
Yep, sort of
Thank you so much professor, I try to related to my work though, and my Idea is a reverse osmosis artifice that philosophy is a key role in a day of ambiguous schemes. Unknown friends, unseen stories, and unreal power are all subjective that heavily put human underpressure. I'm a big fan anyway, thank heap Dr.
You're very welcome
Gregory B. Sadler this isn't really a college level course, is it??
Indeed it is. Perhaps not the college you're used to. But, this is a service class for non-majors at Marist College, which is a fairly selective liberal arts college in New York.
I actually like my students quite a bit, so I don't care too much for UA-camrs (who get this access to the classroom for free) complaining about my students
If you think the videos are too simple for you, I'd suggest not watching them, and moving on to more challenging ones
No, in the Genealogy, Nietzsche is pretty clearly against most of the understandings framing evolution in terms of "adaption". He thinks that's reactive, rather than active, and doesn't really capture what is going on with the will-to-power.
I think he'd also say of many people who seem to be what we might call "evangelicals of evolution" that they are basically just the flip side of the ascetic approach found earlier in Christianity, Platonism, etc. -- and that they're full of Ressentiment
Isn't it (the social-cultural emergent milieu) really more a product determined by "intelligence," and from intelligence a kind of perceived "merit?" Merit is the personal "confession" or "speech" after "self-realization" concludes something about the reality of one's self. Also, others perceive "merit" in us. I perceive something about myself. Others may agree or not. If they agree, this is me. I may force others to agree. This, too, is me (if I am successful). For instance, I'm a common man and I have very few natural abilities. This is perception. But, surely, the common people are kept "common" by sayings like, "In whatsoever state I find myself, therewith I've learned to be content." Which is good advice by any account, but nevertheless stifling to any idea of "reform." We are all interested in reform, but find we can do very little. M.L. King was certainly not willing to accept his own "common" estate. But, he knew and understood the New Testament. As a minister of the Christian Gospel, shouldn't King have settled for the Biblical idea, "In whatsoever state I find myself...?" But, then, through the process of self-realization, he learned that he was a person of merit, intelligence. And, so he was. Others agreed. So, he took down the whole system. We live in a multi-cultural, multiracial political-social-media State today because of King and his White allies. But, such, though misguided, is nevertheless the product of "intelligence." Nietzsche never really indicates an understanding of intelligence. Hobbes, too, seems never to conclude anything about political power being the outcome of intelligence. Perhaps it was too early (historically), then, for people to understand something taken, generally, for granted. In my reading I have only found Herrnstein and Murray, "The Bell Curve," to understand intelligence, its correct definition, description, and use. E.O. Wilson (the sociobiologist) and evolutionary psychology, as science, historically precede Herrnstein and Murray and seem to allow for human dominance as expressed by "intelligence." They would each seem to suggest, "The strong rule, but by intelligence and therefore merit." And, we all agree. There is good evidence to suggest that after the despair of Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard, the partial comprehension of "mind of man" offered by Wittgenstein, the deconstruction put forward by Foucault and Derrida, the reconstruction resulting from Rorty, Rawls,and Nozick, the future and conclusion to philosophy (just dessert) should be realized in neurophilosophy and "intelligence quotient" (statistical measurement). This could be something, you might say, like philosophical "alchemy." I'm sure you would agree, a "transmutative process," until (at last) Great Atlantis makes itself of rising red-red dust.
+Garundi P. McGrundy copy and paste
Nope! Wrote it myself. I'm a professional writer. You, on the other hand, are accustomed to "copy/paste." You are the idiosofreeinyomous. Ever been to college, dummogee? I think you are a "burger."
Thanks Dr Sadler for another great video. I was wondering where stealing and killing would fit in Nietzsche's scheme of morals and ethics?
Hello again DR Sadler,
What is the name of the video you are referring to? I am not familiar enough with your stuff yet to really know where to start looking. Thanks.
i've only watched the first twelve minutes but it's good as always. i would hope that you got paid for posting these on UA-cam. But charity is noble. You've inspired me to become a professor myself, though i currently seek a bachelor's in english literature. How hard is it to attain a master's and a Ph. D.?
15:30 “What I am not, that for me is God and virtue.”
Well. . . I'm not actually a Nietzschean myself. Not actually endorsing Nietzsche in his entirety. . . .
Hello DR Sadler,
I noticed your response on my page for submitting to your channel. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I must admit I do have a question. I am doing a project for class (I will not ask you for help with the project itself) and I am wondering what your thoughts are on Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development. I will be doing my own research but understanding the views of someone else can certainly help to broaden my horizons. Thank you sir.
He should be proud of modern feminism, since they asserted power. Bonus points for using Emotivist tactics.
Glad you enjoyed it.
"liberal, progressive moral cookie-cutter" -- that's a funny phrase!
You say you are not a Nietzschean- might I ask why not? Do you believe that his characterization is not useful? Is there a better explanation of political allegiances that I am missing?
Thank you! May I suggest a video topic? Nietzsche compared and contrasted with Ayn Rand.
What you have here is great, presenting philosophy clear and accurate, good job man I see this as an awesome way to expose people to philosophy.
I think morality has to do with social contracts, emotions, utility, and guidelines. Every modern philosophy I am aware of that advocates for these terms represents some kind of balance in the product of the ladder resulting in greater unification if you will, some kind of end that better than now. but I was curious if anybody puts all these philosophies together, that proves its better now, that things have progressed in a 'good' direction. Like quantum physics for the physics community, with all these separate functions can we come to a current series of logical philosophical conclusions? or are we skeptical to take it upon ourselves to progress these old ideas?
I'm curious how old philosophical traditions transition to a current philosophical model and how that affects the experiences of peoples today.
I think there's plenty of philosophers out there who think things are better now (or when they wrote) than earlier. Nietzsche, however, is not one of them. . . .
Do I need to watch this summary of The Genealogy of Morals or can I just skip to the lectures where you dissect it bit by bit? Is much repeated is my question or are they explained differently.
Well, some of the same themes will show up in this one single video -- which remember is for an Ethics class, composed entirely of non-majors -- as in the 4-video sequence. But, if you're up for the longer set, I'd suggest watching them, and of course, (re)reading the text
Bravo for the lecture, mr professor! However, for me it was intriguing that there are no references to Nietzche's anti-christian view; he strongly links the slave morality with christian values and principles. As I recall for him, to have compassion and pity and to "love thy neighbour" means to be weak and naive, to be a slave, a sheep. Out of curiosity, did you intentionally leave out the religious component of the book because you are not allowed to talk religion in class in the US or is it for some other reason ? Thanks in advance and good luck with your work.
This is a one-hour sessions for students in my Ethics class, none of whom are Philosophy majors. If you'd like to see more in-depth discussion of the Genealogy, you can watch my 4 1-hour lecture videos over in the Existentialism playlist.
Sir, I know that I'm talking to a very skilled Professor but I had no choice to choose another way. Though I had done B.Tech; I'm deeply interested to study Philosophy. But the problem is I'am an Indian for which I don't know how to approach whether they allow me to study in abroad or not(will I be qualified to do that)? By deep-downing to earth, kindly suggest me a solution...
I don't see why you would not be able to study abroad -- but the main issue for that is the money it takes to do so.
If I understand you rightly, you're saying that, because of the way the Indian post-secondary education system is set up, you would not be allowed to take Philosophy courses in Indian state schools?
One more comment question..
Is might makes right really what he was saying ?
Some one like Solgenitzyn who's moral slave revolt happened in his own mind as he was dominated by the soviet gulag..he came out of it a powerful person.
Had asceticism or Eastern thought been influencing hi at this point?
Yes, Nietzsche is at bottom saying that might makes right, at least with respect to the master class. He's taking it further than most committed to a similar stance do, even his heroes like Callicles.
The Gulag -- and indeed entire Soviet system -- of Solzhinitzen's experience would actually not fit into the "master" class as Nietzsche describes it. For Nietzsche, communism and the systems it produces are actually products of the slave revolt in morality
Gregory B. Sadler
Maybe I am missing the point or confusing concepts.
I was thinking of Solzhinitzen as an Ubermench type who was forged in the furnace of the gulag..He transcended the slave morality of the system albeit internally,like Nietzsche's Sisyphus as Noble even though he is chained to his fate.
Oh and thanks for this channel !
Well. . . Solzhinitzen is actually a Christian thinker, so that's not going to fit Nietzsche's conceptions all that well. . .
Keep in mind that in this video -- I've got a whole 4-part series on the Genealogy in my Existentialism playlist -- is meant to be a very bare bones introduction to Nietzsche in an Ethics class for non-majors
As to the channel, you're very welcome
Thank you for posting professor! How would Nietzsche value capitalism? I can only assume that his individualism and might makes right philosophy that he would be in favor of unregulated capitalism.
Well, it's 8 in the morning for one thing.
I suppose they might
Why are the students so sedated? You have more energy than them, are they on Valium? The topic is extremely interesting and provoking.
Nietzsche was very dismissive of the feminism of his times
Well, usually anarchists are against exploitation and domination of others, right? So no -- those are integral to Nietzsche's "master morality"
as should anyone in any time
Hahaha! Just an obligation to make money? Deciding on philosophy would definitely not be a good path for that!
@GBS ; Didn't Nietzsche just propose all this on a purely intellectual level? The evidence from his life shows that he was "socially awkward" which , frankly is another way of saying he was pretty ineffectual ie power-less? Now I understand it's easy to judge someone from afar as I am doing and I accept that it took big balls to stand up in the Victorian era and express controversial ideas, so in effect perhaps he actually was powerful but his power was channelled in different ways?
emile235 No, I wouldn't say it was on a "purely intellectual level". I've got to say, I'm not even sure what that means, for serious philosophical work
It means he admired the powerful and boisterous and analysed them but as a person he wasn't powerful and boisterous.
Yes, I get that. Though, you might want to read closer, and see whether "admired" is the way you'd want to characterize his position.
Again, no idea what the term "purely intellectual level" really means, for serious philosophical work -- which does involve considerable actual work.
Gregory B. Sadler Thanks. I should clarify I mean "only on an intellectual level" like a white man who writes and discusses how racism is bad but when it comes to the crunch he won't have a black man in his house. He can explain how bad racism is, intellectually but on an emotional level the reality is, he is racist. He talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.I see what you mean about the term "admired." Thanks.
So according to Nietzsche in the "master morality" there is no intrinsic morals, stealing and killing would be quite all right, the only problem is when exploiting other masters they will take revenge and he will suffer in result. Thus the consequences are what holds his actions back.
ps I think there are a lot of parallels between N work and psychoanalysis.
which, when applied with the good/bad dichotomy, is man? and which is woman?
Neither. Nietzsche theory isn't meant to divide up matters along gender lines
@ 44:47 sir... did you just call the coronavirus 7 years before it happened. This is insane hahahahahahaha
It could be any plague, I think
I've been reading Beyond Good and Evil in public, now a little more self conscious... wait now I can't depend my emotions on your judgement! Ha, nice try, lesser man!
I'm not claiming to know Nietzsche.
I find it verry easy to find people who pay lip service to a kind of slave morality, like equality or equity, but even then it's still too much of a master morality. Because equality as morality is still about being a haver and not a have not. It's just that the pseudo slave morality wants everyone to be equally a haver and have not. I'm all for a slave rebellion against master morality though, and a continuous slave rebellion against all assumed slave moralities until morality is grounded in having nothing. And that's just my cheeky way of saying grounded in the knowledge of nothing, further in the knowledge of the knowledge of nothing, and further that nothing contradicts knowledge. From nothing I argue the Christian religion is the best religion that describes God as a try-unity of co-equal absolute authority from a single mind. Christ asserts a trinity of authority that matches perfectly with the rational structure of the mind. Logic. Isn't, Is, Opposite. Three relations of one word, "contradiction", each with co-equal and absolute authority. All from "nothing", "isn't", or "contradiction". Because noncontradiction is just two contradictions joined together in contradiction with contradiction. In short i want to drive home that we are intrinsiclly valuable and good according to our design, we are designed to know, knowledge of nothing is the principleless principle of knowing. Knowers knowing is good.
ua-cam.com/video/GH5PhyPThpo/v-deo.html
good=right=correct=true
bad=wrong=incorrect=false=evil
the golden rule maps to the golden spiral. morality is as old as existence itself. it is intuitive.
Words.