the point being to pass on his understanding and Prof Geuss is achieving that . He even modifies his notes to align with his clearer thinking. He is an inspiring lecturer. These guys are not there to teach they are are measured on their publications. Clearly Prof Guess is not motivated that way here
@@richardcollins6769 I would agree that his elucidations of Nietzsche's ideas are clear and that he is a good lecturer. By the way, Nietzsche never figured out how moral values arise from within human being, by his own admission, and that is probably because Nietzsche did not have a moral bone in his body.
Rawls’s view is a reinforcement of what is overwhelmingly the status quo paradigm for modern western morality and political life, its called Liberalism, i.e. Enlightenment values, etc.
@@DilbertHernandez I agree, but not completely. It does build upon works of Kant and Rousseau, so in that sense he is a legacy of "Liberalism", but it also incorporates notions of self-doubt and political chaos that aren't the "status quo". For example, Rawl's "justice" involves the abandonment of egoism and truth, as opposed for things like justice as the teachings of Jesus, or as the collective good of society, or even as the justice that is derived from your own life experiences. I find this to be quite refreshing, and highly important in its own value.
46:30 LOL lecturer almost went thug life
The reason the slaves are suffering is because they're FUCKING LOSERS!
Lmaoooo love it I packed out laughing
I was sure there is going to be a comment about this LOL
Absolutely brilliant explanation of the priest and the ascetic ideal.
Absolutely ficking billiant. Good observation.
I found the switch from ascetic to aesthetic confusing personally.
At any moment, this gentleman is going to start screaming.
He is so passionate!
the point being to pass on his understanding and Prof Geuss is achieving that . He even modifies his notes to align with his clearer thinking. He is an inspiring lecturer. These guys are not there to teach they are are measured on their publications. Clearly Prof Guess is not motivated that way here
@@richardcollins6769 I would agree that his elucidations of Nietzsche's ideas are clear and that he is a good lecturer. By the way, Nietzsche never figured out how moral values arise from within human being, by his own admission, and that is probably because Nietzsche did not have a moral bone in his body.
Mind Blown. BEst prof ever
Nobody has ever believed that Freud didn't read Nietzsche
45:58
Amazing
Does anyone know the names of the essays he is refering to?
On the genealogy of morals
Did not Freud read Nietzsche? Is this a sure thing? I thought he did, based on some things I read.
He claims he didn't, but I think he was lying.
@@MacSmithVideo even if he didn't, he probably read other writers who read Nietzsche, so he'd have indirectly read Nietzsche
3:13
15:00
20:32 combining 1st and 2nd essay
22:45 Ascetic
33:37 Value more important than all other value
44:59 suffering because you are actually like the master
It's funny that he thinks Rawls is that popular.
Has the thought of Rawls become ingrained in our political moralities?
Rawls’s view is a reinforcement of what is overwhelmingly the status quo paradigm for modern western morality and political life, its called Liberalism, i.e. Enlightenment values, etc.
@@DilbertHernandez I agree, but not completely. It does build upon works of Kant and Rousseau, so in that sense he is a legacy of "Liberalism", but it also incorporates notions of self-doubt and political chaos that aren't the "status quo". For example, Rawl's "justice" involves the abandonment of egoism and truth, as opposed for things like justice as the teachings of Jesus, or as the collective good of society, or even as the justice that is derived from your own life experiences. I find this to be quite refreshing, and highly important in its own value.
In philosophy department and academia overall, Rawls is well recognized.
👍
lol re Tony Blair
sad sad sad...this is Cambridge? how awful....
Brand Gardner what do you find objectionable here? My perception as a neophyte is that this is a very good introductory lecture series
what exactly is so awful? i think these lectures are great