I studied philosophy as an undergraduate but want to study things fresh again now that I have more life experience. You are one of the best resources available to an autodidact wanting to study the great but intimidating subject of philosophy, and I say that after having spent a fair amount of time looking for value creators similar to you. Thank you very much for sharing your time and expertise with all of us! You have done us all a great service
"Ascetic" -- not "aesthetic" (I realize I'm saying the wrong one at the start at times, but it's on written correctly the chalkboard behind me). Can it be escaped? Sure. One just rejects it, seeks out pleasure, most likely through imposing one's will on others. . . but that's not much of an advance, just a return to the old archaic master type. Later on in the video, you hear me recounting Nietzsche's actual position, namely that one has to overcome the ascetic ideal, i.e. to surpass it
I finally made it to the end of your Geneology lectures. Definitely mind expanding. I should have gone to University and studied philosophy, I would have done well...Even though I never read Heideggar, I'll check out that lecture next. Thanks again for uploading these videos Professor.
must say this is the best sumarization and analysis of the Geneology of Morals (or on nietzsche as a whole for that matter) i have read, heard, or seen. excellently done! and i might add the same about your series on the Birth of Tragedy.
I think all philosophical qualms in life can be attenuated or even completely nullified by just being confident and focused in pursuing what makes you happy. I think because so many people doubt themselves, are told that they can't really achieve greatness, or convince themselves that life can't be what they want it to be, that it's too hard, that they are too easily disillusioned, they suffer. No one is quoting schopenhauer or sarte when they living a passionate and exuberant life.
Yes, I've been asked before to shoot some videos on Stirner. I might do that down the line, as part of a series on post-Hegel dialectical philosophy, which is where Stirner belongs, historically
Preparing for a final and this four part lecture has been fantastic to watch and take notes on. Thank you for all you choose to share with all of us ones and zeros out here on the interwebz.
Yes, Nietzsche's view is that the men of science (who would include our "new atheists, about whom, there's nothing really new) are actually worse, duller, more likely to pose the problem of nihilism without seeing it than the religious.
In this at least, I couldn't agree more with Nietzsche! Atheism is simply a modern (and increasingly post-modern) form of religious thinking in new clothing - I mean the clue is in the term itself: 'a theism'. Dead giveaway! Objective scientific fact is the new 'God is truth' (one most atheists don't even understand, just go along with, like in most religions), and like a religious understanding of God, that truth can change and evolve as new ideas emerge from a primarily empirical rather than metaphysical realm (though quantum physics and theoretical astrophysics have already moved beyond such traditional naturalistic science). The main reason atheism suffers from nihilism compared to other more traditional religions is the fact it is, by definition, dissenting rather than affirmative, though most religions certainly have their fare share of both! Still, atheism is built on the bedrock of what it is not, much more so than most traditional religions, who at least due to their long history and or institutionalisation have built up a canon of self-made meaning, whereas atheism is still in its relative infancy and lacks such centralised direction and affirmative value. Great lecture by the way - really helped crystalise the books ideas for me. I don't always agree with Nietzsche, but his thinking is always highly provocative in the best way possible.
so basically, one only truly overcomes guilt, depression, blaming others when I myself is as honest with myself as possible, in all apsects of life? honest with my own failures, my own weakness, my own anger? ie- self reflection bring true freedom in becoming a better person?
Excellent series of lectues on N. ~ I am looking forward to your other talks on N. as well. Thanks so much for taking the effort of sharing educational information! Much appreciated.
Have you thought about doing some videos on Foucault? "Discipline and Punish" explores the relationship between certain exercises of power and the formation of subjectivity in a way that really complements the themes of Nietzsche's "Genealogy." Whereas Nietzsche diagnoses modern subjectivity as still being bewitched by the ascetic ideal, Foucault's diagnosis is that we are ensnared in a network of power and knowledge relations that enforce a norm of maximal productivity and obedience. I think a comparison of these diagnoses would be really fruitful.
Yes, I've though of doing some videos on Foucault -- but it'll be some time. First, I need to finish out the Existentialism series. Then, there's Hegel's Phenomenology to do
I'm wondering if the Nietzsche concepts of geneaology of morals isn't now smashed by evolutioniary biology, I mean a lot of our behaviour like sympathy, support, cooperation came naturally from evolution isn't it? That nietzschean concept sounds to me strangly, he see most of the people as a full of hatred, envy and jealousy which I think may be in conflict witch our present knowledge. What do you think professor @Gregory B.Sadler?
What it be somewhat right to say that the Priest exercises a will to power through his valuation of the Noble class as a way of controlling the commoner 'herd' class?
Dr. Gregory I am interested in Nietzsche method what does he mean in your explanation at 20:00. You got a bit technical there so sorry did not understand.
I would expect that when your channel is named Friedrich Nietzsche, you must already have a solid understanding of his thought. No idea what you're asking about at that time-point in the video
I do not. There's plenty of criticisms of Nietzsche out there. You've got your choice of a number of them - just search and start reading, and see what you think
I can recommend the chapter on Nietzsche in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Russell argues choosing a moral philosophy is not a matter of pure scientific logic but a question of sympathy. The chapter ends with Nietzsche and the Buddha advising God on what world to create and the reader should decide what he finds most convincing. It is a very stylish critique.
If the priest extols the virtue of the warrior does He gain virtue or become a warrior? F.N. Seems more the priestly type. To preach against preaching as a transcendent vector. In a certain sense I must agree against "preaching". It takes a stronger character and sense of identity to allow or be indifferent to what others may think, feel or do by themselves, for themselves.
Your lecture series on Nietzsche was easy to follow and to understand. Were you influenced by Paulo Freire? Teachers like you and Jason J. Campbell make philosophy much more accessible to the lay masses, like me. Thanks.
Do you think my previous comment, actually reflects a purely naturalistic perspectivism, that Nietzsche would agree with, that atheism needs to head into, to be really atheistic?
I think the men of science can be enthusiastic about nothing. It is just lonely in this perspective. I see these themes dramatized in the enthusiastic nihilistic music I listen to. Have you heard any good philosophical music lately?
what is the 'will to truth' in me? I never cared to know. I'm not so sure it matters. so Nietzsche says that our problem is that we have no meaning. I'm fine with that, I don't need a meaning. at some point in the chain of logical connections you arrive at the beginning, that must be an 'because I said so'. If you can divide an amount of time by half, and that amount then you divide again. continue this process until you arrive at the minimal amount of time, then it must just skip. make a jump in time. the truth is that I don't know that, I'm just guessing. but then again I cannot know that, it is beyond me.
;D but is it so interesting to think about. never mind the philosophy classics and the nature of beauty or truth. never mind boring Foucault. Nietzsche is interesting. good video, I liked it.
I wonder, at the end, you mention the "Will-to-truth." Religion obviously has this "platonic," notion of truth. Politics, I have no idea, frankly, why anyone "should," be a conservative or liberal, (where is the ought in politics coming from) but in science why do they continue to use the word, "truth?" If one is really an atheist it seems like they would have to completely scratch the notion of truth or any "ought," but by positing a "truth," someone is tacitly being theological.
it is by finding the notion of truth wanting that one gets closer to the real truth. why did I threw out the idea of 'truth'? my will to truth drove me to it. I must find the truth, it's like hunger.
Thanks for your lectures. Do you think that trying to disaffiliate Nietzsche from Nazism leaves unacknowledged the fact that there are certain aspects of his thought that we’re easily appropriated by Nazis?
Couldn't it be said that Nietzsche is himself pointing the finger in his work at those he calls the weak and the sick, in his sense because they have overpowered the strong and made the strong weak? Couldn't it be said in this sense that Nietzsche displays a ressentiment against his "weak" characters for the levelled egalitarian society that he rails against? Is Nietzsche perhaps the embodiment of the priest role? Telling the "herd" that it is not just that they haven't stood up to the strong but that they have a "moral" defect in his new valuation of values, and so are "sick", and they are irremediably so? It also seems as though his recommendation comes nearer the orgy of feeling in a few ways, because he admires strength he would see the power as a positive sensation to experience... and besides that he often considers himself Dionysian, from the god Dionysus, the god of wine and ritual madness... Just after the 55:00 minute mark you read from the book where Nietzsche says that the immoralists and anti-christians haven't escaped the ascetic ideal, they are just another form of it... might not this be Nietzsche's way of hinting at this reality? Another hint would be that Nietzsche made this "great" character, in the "most profound book" something like a priest or a preacher of a new faith, the superman... which he also says, in the chapter of that book on the poets, is just another figure like the gods which is light enough to sit atop the clouds.
Yep, these sorts of "well, isn't Nietzsche himself. . . ." speculations can be -- and pretty have been -- spun out indefinitely. I did a bit of that myself back in grad school. He is indeed indicting the sick and the weak. He's not really writing to them, though
Interesting, thanks for the response. Are you interested in sharing who you feel Nietzsche is writing to? I might hazard, under this train of thought, the philosophers/priests... it wouldn't seem as though the strong would need to be confirmed or directed as per their "natural" character. Or perhaps another type entirely not here present? Anyway, I will keep this in mind and do some contemplating on it. I can't say it strikes me immediately (if it be the philosophers) what exactly his goal would be.
I think he's writing to the conflicted type he mentions in the third essay - the person who has partly the valuation and mindset of the strong, and partly that of the weak
Appreciate you taking the time to add that, in reality I don't know why it slipped my mind (Beyond Good and Evil, part 6, We Scholars- form of self-designation and address) maybe it was the lateness of the time, or the excitement. Are you familiar with the writing of Leo Strauss and/or Laurence Lampert? I think they give an interesting interpretation on the role of philosophers - the philosopher-legislator, which is really a rewording of when you pointed out that the role of the "priest-figure" is to dominate life itself, although "legislator" has a more spacio-temporal quality in its relation to being. I know this is probably a crude interpretation, and I will forwith return to studies, but tentatively I might think that the goal of Nietzsche's address would be something (again crudely put) like legislating the legislators - the expression of his will to power... I really have to rivisit Twilight of the Idols and Antichrist. Have you ever considered doing a lecture on those? Here's my interpretation so far. By teaching the "priest-type" what strength is, Nietzsche can pave the way for self-overcoming, the priest abandoning ressentiment and loving the "battle", the battle now of depth, not the shallow thoughtlessness of the original warrior. The priest can reach beyond the ascetic ideal and teach the herd strength, thus vanquishing weakness, and humanity can experience joy in the struggle, the struggle being life itself. Anyway, much appreciate you making these lectures available, your guidance is insightful.
, it seems like his "perspectivism" is criticism of common sense views, groupthink and life abnegating philosophies in the name of a strong and viable life affirming possibilities... but It's like he's using the common sense perspectives to attack the life abnegating ones and using life affirming perspectives that are similar in essence to attack the common perspective... It's like man in a constant state of creating, becoming and acting... living fully and dangerously...
+deus ex nihil There's definitely some using things in a subversive way involved. Not sure I'd say Nietzsche is using "common sense" perspectives in the process
Lastly I would like to add you can't have a meaningful "philosophical conversation" unless you understand the science or workings behind that which you are discussing. So when people muse and bombast over "life" and how one should live it, it would be wise to discount their credibility, they are an authority on THEIR life, not yours. So long as life remains pointless and purely hedonistic at the heart of all things, there is nothing to life beyond the desire to satisfy desires.
This video made me understand more of wat I am rather than who. I am not the cattle nor am I the dog that herds the cattle itself, you may ask who am i, like I have questioned myself. I am the farmer that owns the dog, the same as I own the sheep however not more so then the dog himself, but the question arises who owns the farmer, yet I thot to myself a wife. Who owns the wife in which inbodies man? God in the Devine form. Yet who owns god, I wonder if he to is yet just a farmer, or maybe he is the dog. But if he is the dog does this mean the dog thinks he is the form of a farmer, whom owns the sheep, cows and cattle. Am I the dog or the farmer? This question itself makes me just as much cattle As the next sheep. For a sheep may see its trough as the cattle and the sheep the dog or the farmer yet somehow it can't see itself as god, for it cannot command food and water nor a warm winter. Although a dog does not have this power either yet superiority is still in a higher form to keep the sheep in its cage. After watching this I started to think maybe the dog is a priest in his head, yet the question remains if I the farmer is the priest wat stops me from being a dog, and how does a dog know he is not a farmer, how do I know I the farmer am not simply a dog. Yet I'm sure I'm not the sheep. As high self proclaimed as this may sound I say out of curiousity, if the sheep can think he is the farmer, does that mean I the farmer/priest can think I am the Devine god that rules over me and the cattle or dogs that surround me, wat truly tells me what I am ? I also apologize for any grammatical imperfections. Aslong as I got the message across to someone who might understand the pantheon of mindset I've been running my whole life I feel as if neitchz and I are quiet alike in thought and theory just now witnessing his work is intresting to say the least. Thank you for reading this far, respond if u will, or simply ponder at the thought at the center of ur person..
I was thoroughly entertained. I believe in science and worship absolute 0 or -273.15 celsius. I would lable me as atheist or if there is a God it is absolute 0. I fear death but I feel motivated to not want to pay taxes because of 9/11/2001. Ressentiment.
THIS WAS the most clear and coherent presentation I have ever seen on postmodern thought. badass!
I studied philosophy as an undergraduate but want to study things fresh again now that I have more life experience. You are one of the best resources available to an autodidact wanting to study the great but intimidating subject of philosophy, and I say that after having spent a fair amount of time looking for value creators similar to you.
Thank you very much for sharing your time and expertise with all of us! You have done us all a great service
You're very welcome!
From the distant Cyprus where I happened to settle down, thank you for explaining Nietzsche to "All and None".❣️
You're very welcome!
new video in the Existentialism series, bringing a 4-part discussion of the Genealogy of Morals to a close
"Ascetic" -- not "aesthetic" (I realize I'm saying the wrong one at the start at times, but it's on written correctly the chalkboard behind me).
Can it be escaped? Sure. One just rejects it, seeks out pleasure, most likely through imposing one's will on others. . . but that's not much of an advance, just a return to the old archaic master type. Later on in the video, you hear me recounting Nietzsche's actual position, namely that one has to overcome the ascetic ideal, i.e. to surpass it
I finally made it to the end of your Geneology lectures. Definitely mind expanding. I should have gone to University and studied philosophy, I would have done well...Even though I never read Heideggar, I'll check out that lecture next. Thanks again for uploading these videos Professor.
You're very welcome! Glad you enjoyed the series
Excellent job on all four videos.
Thanks!
must say this is the best sumarization and analysis of the Geneology of Morals (or on nietzsche as a whole for that matter) i have read, heard, or seen. excellently done! and i might add the same about your series on the Birth of Tragedy.
Its in the third essay. And, yes, he does speak about that before Sartre. Not an uncommon sentiment for Nietzsche -- not just coming up in this book
I think all philosophical qualms in life can be attenuated or even completely nullified by just being confident and focused in pursuing what makes you happy. I think because so many people doubt themselves, are told that they can't really achieve greatness, or convince themselves that life can't be what they want it to be, that it's too hard, that they are too easily disillusioned, they suffer. No one is quoting schopenhauer or sarte when they living a passionate and exuberant life.
Brilliant. Excellent. 4 of 4. Challenged my understandings and gave direction to writing a paper on F.N works.
Thanks.
Glad the videos were helpful for you!
Great analysis!
thanks!
Thanks for sharing these classes, professor. Regards from Brazil.
You're quite welcome!
Nietzsche has got to be one of the most depressing philosophers who ever lived. Particularly because his ideas make so much sense.
That's a quip worthy of Nietzsche
Yes, I've been asked before to shoot some videos on Stirner. I might do that down the line, as part of a series on post-Hegel dialectical philosophy, which is where Stirner belongs, historically
Preparing for a final and this four part lecture has been fantastic to watch and take notes on. Thank you for all you choose to share with all of us ones and zeros out here on the interwebz.
Glad the series was so useful for you!
Yes, Nietzsche's view is that the men of science (who would include our "new atheists, about whom, there's nothing really new) are actually worse, duller, more likely to pose the problem of nihilism without seeing it than the religious.
In this at least, I couldn't agree more with Nietzsche! Atheism is simply a modern (and increasingly post-modern) form of religious thinking in new clothing - I mean the clue is in the term itself: 'a theism'. Dead giveaway! Objective scientific fact is the new 'God is truth' (one most atheists don't even understand, just go along with, like in most religions), and like a religious understanding of God, that truth can change and evolve as new ideas emerge from a primarily empirical rather than metaphysical realm (though quantum physics and theoretical astrophysics have already moved beyond such traditional naturalistic science).
The main reason atheism suffers from nihilism compared to other more traditional religions is the fact it is, by definition, dissenting rather than affirmative, though most religions certainly have their fare share of both! Still, atheism is built on the bedrock of what it is not, much more so than most traditional religions, who at least due to their long history and or institutionalisation have built up a canon of self-made meaning, whereas atheism is still in its relative infancy and lacks such centralised direction and affirmative value. Great lecture by the way - really helped crystalise the books ideas for me. I don't always agree with Nietzsche, but his thinking is always highly provocative in the best way possible.
Thank you for this series.
You're welcome!
so basically, one only truly overcomes guilt, depression, blaming others when I myself is as honest with myself as possible, in all apsects of life? honest with my own failures, my own weakness, my own anger? ie- self reflection bring true freedom in becoming a better person?
Excellent series of lectues on N. ~ I am looking forward to your other talks on N. as well.
Thanks so much for taking the effort of sharing educational information! Much appreciated.
That's very nice to read! Glad you found the videos so useful and on-point
Thank you for spending so much time making these videos of high quality.
At the beginning I started wandering if this was a lecture on RPGs (warrior, priest, etc.)
:P
Nice videos bro, thank you!
You're very welcome!
Yep, I sure am! -- I imagine it would be confusing -- though you do have it on the chalkboard, and presumably you're following along with the text
Brilliant lectures! Thank you :)
You're welcome
I love these videos. Thank you so much
You're very welcome!
Have you thought about doing some videos on Foucault? "Discipline and Punish" explores the relationship between certain exercises of power and the formation of subjectivity in a way that really complements the themes of Nietzsche's "Genealogy." Whereas Nietzsche diagnoses modern subjectivity as still being bewitched by the ascetic ideal, Foucault's diagnosis is that we are ensnared in a network of power and knowledge relations that enforce a norm of maximal productivity and obedience. I think a comparison of these diagnoses would be really fruitful.
Yes, I've though of doing some videos on Foucault -- but it'll be some time.
First, I need to finish out the Existentialism series. Then, there's Hegel's Phenomenology to do
Yes, that's certainly part of what is going on.
wonderful. Thank you !
You're welcome!
We're in process of developing some online courses -- it's going to be several months, though, before we start offering them
I'm wondering if the Nietzsche concepts of geneaology of morals isn't now smashed by evolutioniary biology, I mean a lot of our behaviour like sympathy, support, cooperation came naturally from evolution isn't it? That nietzschean concept sounds to me strangly, he see most of the people as a full of hatred, envy and jealousy which I think may be in conflict witch our present knowledge. What do you think professor @Gregory B.Sadler?
Nothing is "smashed by" that incredibly speculative field evolutionary biology.
So No
Great job this help me tremendously,
Glad to read it!
I'm glad the lectures were accessible. Friere? No, not at all.
What it be somewhat right to say that the Priest exercises a will to power through his valuation of the Noble class as a way of controlling the commoner 'herd' class?
What a peculiar ending,
How so?
let's will some paradoxes!
Dr. Gregory I am interested in Nietzsche method what does he mean in your explanation at 20:00. You got a bit technical there so sorry did not understand.
I would expect that when your channel is named Friedrich Nietzsche, you must already have a solid understanding of his thought.
No idea what you're asking about at that time-point in the video
What? You see any d12s and 20s anywhere!?
Do you have a video where you make a critique of this works? Or do you have any good recommendations on a critique of this works?
I do not. There's plenty of criticisms of Nietzsche out there. You've got your choice of a number of them - just search and start reading, and see what you think
I can recommend the chapter on Nietzsche in Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. Russell argues choosing a moral philosophy is not a matter of pure scientific logic but a question of sympathy. The chapter ends with Nietzsche and the Buddha advising God on what world to create and the reader should decide what he finds most convincing. It is a very stylish critique.
@@joasbakker281 cheers man, much appreciated = ) ill check that out!
If the priest extols the virtue of the warrior does He gain virtue or become a warrior?
F.N. Seems more the priestly type. To preach against preaching as a transcendent vector.
In a certain sense I must agree against "preaching". It takes a stronger character and sense of identity to allow or be indifferent to what others may think, feel or do by themselves, for themselves.
No, just doing an action doesn't change one's type.
And don't assume that these classifications hold for late modern times, which are far more complex
Your lecture series on Nietzsche was easy to follow and to understand. Were you influenced by Paulo Freire? Teachers like you and Jason J. Campbell make philosophy much more accessible to the lay masses, like me. Thanks.
Cool thanks. :)
Do you offer any online or snail mail coures
so there is no way to escape the aesthetic Ideal?
Do you think my previous comment, actually reflects a purely naturalistic perspectivism, that Nietzsche would agree with, that atheism needs to head into, to be really atheistic?
I think the men of science can be enthusiastic about nothing. It is just lonely in this perspective. I see these themes dramatized in the enthusiastic nihilistic music I listen to. Have you heard any good philosophical music lately?
what is the 'will to truth' in me? I never cared to know. I'm not so sure it matters. so Nietzsche says that our problem is that we have no meaning. I'm fine with that, I don't need a meaning. at some point in the chain of logical connections you arrive at the beginning, that must be an 'because I said so'.
If you can divide an amount of time by half, and that amount then you divide again. continue this process until you arrive at the minimal amount of time, then it must just skip. make a jump in time.
the truth is that I don't know that, I'm just guessing. but then again I cannot know that, it is beyond me.
Sounds like you're just fine. Nietzsche and the video probably aren't for you
;D but is it so interesting to think about. never mind the philosophy classics and the nature of beauty or truth. never mind boring Foucault. Nietzsche is interesting. good video, I liked it.
Glad you enjoyed it
You kept on saying "aesthetic" ideal at first. Confusing.
I wonder, at the end, you mention the "Will-to-truth." Religion obviously has this "platonic," notion of truth. Politics, I have no idea, frankly, why anyone "should," be a conservative or liberal, (where is the ought in politics coming from) but in science why do they continue to use the word, "truth?" If one is really an atheist it seems like they would have to completely scratch the notion of truth or any "ought," but by positing a "truth," someone is tacitly being theological.
it is by finding the notion of truth wanting that one gets closer to the real truth. why did I threw out the idea of 'truth'? my will to truth drove me to it. I must find the truth, it's like hunger.
Thanks for your lectures. Do you think that trying to disaffiliate Nietzsche from Nazism leaves unacknowledged the fact that there are certain aspects of his thought that we’re easily appropriated by Nazis?
No, I don't. People ought to be smart enough to be able to make distinctions
Couldn't it be said that Nietzsche is himself pointing the finger in his work at those he calls the weak and the sick, in his sense because they have overpowered the strong and made the strong weak? Couldn't it be said in this sense that Nietzsche displays a ressentiment against his "weak" characters for the levelled egalitarian society that he rails against? Is Nietzsche perhaps the embodiment of the priest role? Telling the "herd" that it is not just that they haven't stood up to the strong but that they have a "moral" defect in his new valuation of values, and so are "sick", and they are irremediably so?
It also seems as though his recommendation comes nearer the orgy of feeling in a few ways, because he admires strength he would see the power as a positive sensation to experience... and besides that he often considers himself Dionysian, from the god Dionysus, the god of wine and ritual madness...
Just after the 55:00 minute mark you read from the book where Nietzsche says that the immoralists and anti-christians haven't escaped the ascetic ideal, they are just another form of it... might not this be Nietzsche's way of hinting at this reality?
Another hint would be that Nietzsche made this "great" character, in the "most profound book" something like a priest or a preacher of a new faith, the superman... which he also says, in the chapter of that book on the poets, is just another figure like the gods which is light enough to sit atop the clouds.
Yep, these sorts of "well, isn't Nietzsche himself. . . ." speculations can be -- and pretty have been -- spun out indefinitely. I did a bit of that myself back in grad school.
He is indeed indicting the sick and the weak. He's not really writing to them, though
Interesting, thanks for the response. Are you interested in sharing who you feel Nietzsche is writing to?
I might hazard, under this train of thought, the philosophers/priests... it wouldn't seem as though the strong would need to be confirmed or directed as per their "natural" character. Or perhaps another type entirely not here present?
Anyway, I will keep this in mind and do some contemplating on it. I can't say it strikes me immediately (if it be the philosophers) what exactly his goal would be.
I think he's writing to the conflicted type he mentions in the third essay - the person who has partly the valuation and mindset of the strong, and partly that of the weak
Appreciate you taking the time to add that, in reality I don't know why it slipped my mind (Beyond Good and Evil, part 6, We Scholars- form of self-designation and address) maybe it was the lateness of the time, or the excitement.
Are you familiar with the writing of Leo Strauss and/or Laurence Lampert? I think they give an interesting interpretation on the role of philosophers - the philosopher-legislator, which is really a rewording of when you pointed out that the role of the "priest-figure" is to dominate life itself, although "legislator" has a more spacio-temporal quality in its relation to being.
I know this is probably a crude interpretation, and I will forwith return to studies, but tentatively I might think that the goal of Nietzsche's address would be something (again crudely put) like legislating the legislators - the expression of his will to power...
I really have to rivisit Twilight of the Idols and Antichrist. Have you ever considered doing a lecture on those?
Here's my interpretation so far. By teaching the "priest-type" what strength is, Nietzsche can pave the way for self-overcoming, the priest abandoning ressentiment and loving the "battle", the battle now of depth, not the shallow thoughtlessness of the original warrior. The priest can reach beyond the ascetic ideal and teach the herd strength, thus vanquishing weakness, and humanity can experience joy in the struggle, the struggle being life itself.
Anyway, much appreciate you making these lectures available, your guidance is insightful.
, it seems like his "perspectivism" is criticism of common sense views, groupthink and life abnegating philosophies in the name of a strong and viable life affirming possibilities... but It's like he's using the common sense perspectives to attack the life abnegating ones and using life affirming perspectives that are similar in essence to attack the common perspective... It's like man in a constant state of creating, becoming and acting... living fully and dangerously...
+deus ex nihil There's definitely some using things in a subversive way involved. Not sure I'd say Nietzsche is using "common sense" perspectives in the process
common sense is the wrong way to put it... maybe realistic? hedonistic? naturalistic? idk...
Lastly I would like to add you can't have a meaningful "philosophical conversation" unless you understand the science or workings behind that which you are discussing. So when people muse and bombast over "life" and how one should live it, it would be wise to discount their credibility, they are an authority on THEIR life, not yours. So long as life remains pointless and purely hedonistic at the heart of all things, there is nothing to life beyond the desire to satisfy desires.
Politicians are the priests, no?
I wouldn't try to conflate an entire class- which itself is complex - with another one
This video made me understand more of wat I am rather than who. I am not the cattle nor am I the dog that herds the cattle itself, you may ask who am i, like I have questioned myself. I am the farmer that owns the dog, the same as I own the sheep however not more so then the dog himself, but the question arises who owns the farmer, yet I thot to myself a wife. Who owns the wife in which inbodies man? God in the Devine form. Yet who owns god, I wonder if he to is yet just a farmer, or maybe he is the dog. But if he is the dog does this mean the dog thinks he is the form of a farmer, whom owns the sheep, cows and cattle. Am I the dog or the farmer? This question itself makes me just as much cattle As the next sheep. For a sheep may see its trough as the cattle and the sheep the dog or the farmer yet somehow it can't see itself as god, for it cannot command food and water nor a warm winter. Although a dog does not have this power either yet superiority is still in a higher form to keep the sheep in its cage.
After watching this I started to think maybe the dog is a priest in his head, yet the question remains if I the farmer is the priest wat stops me from being a dog, and how does a dog know he is not a farmer, how do I know I the farmer am not simply a dog. Yet I'm sure I'm not the sheep. As high self proclaimed as this may sound I say out of curiousity, if the sheep can think he is the farmer, does that mean I the farmer/priest can think I am the Devine god that rules over me and the cattle or dogs that surround me, wat truly tells me what I am ?
I also apologize for any grammatical imperfections. Aslong as I got the message across to someone who might understand the pantheon of mindset I've been running my whole life I feel as if neitchz and I are quiet alike in thought and theory just now witnessing his work is intresting to say the least.
Thank you for reading this far, respond if u will, or simply ponder at the thought at the center of ur person..
XD
I was thoroughly entertained. I believe in science and worship absolute 0 or -273.15 celsius. I would lable me as atheist or if there is a God it is absolute 0. I fear death but I feel motivated to not want to pay taxes because of 9/11/2001. Ressentiment.