The Nietzsche Podcast: Recent Episodes
Untimely Reflections
A podcast about Nietzsche's ideas, his influences, and those he influenced. Philosophy and cultural commentary through a Nietzschean lens.
Support the show at Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
A few collected essays and thoughts: https://untimely-reflections.blogspot.com/
Michel Foucault is one of the most influential philosophical thinkers of the 20th century. He remains a controversial figure, but undoubtedly he had a profound impact on the way we think about mental health and mental illness up to the present day. In this episode, we take a deep dive into his work, Madness & Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, based on his dissertation. In this work, Foucault charts a history of how madness was perceived and experienced in the western world, exploring the changes in understanding of insanity from the Middles Ages, to the Renaissance, to the Classical period (17th & 18th centuries), to the 19th century creation of the mental asylum, and finally to the foundation of psychoanalysis.
Aeschylus' Oresteia is the only extant trilogy of Greek drama. Alongside the Parthenon, the Oresteia is considered one of the two greatest 'monuments' to the Golden Age of Athens. In this trilogy - The Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides - Aeschylus dramatizes a rite of passage from savagery to civilization. Over the course of the narrative, the ancient law of blood is overcome by a new civic law, sanctioned by the gods. The word "justice" (Dikê) is used more often in the Oresteia than in any other Greek tragedy. Through these verses, we witness a struggle from the hazy, mysterious world of archaic Greece, governed by gods who behaved capriciously and unpredictably, into the clarity of civic life, in which human beings are empowered to make the contextual decisions of governance.
Michael D. Davis, lectures on Philosophy of Tragedy: https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiyEzRZtxXGU_Q5-jFqhIHJYbsahnQBNd&si=7o-LZMjQfX5Mb657
Episode art: John Singer Sergeant - Orestes Pursued by the Furies
Welcome to the ONE HUNDREDTH EPISODE of The Nietzsche Podcast. Today we're examining the speech of Peter Sloterdijk, given on the centennial of Nietzsche's death, and transcribed into the essay entitled, "Nietzsche Apostle". Sloterdijk puts forward the theory that languages are fundamentally an instrument of 'group narcissism' by which the group recognizes one another and celebrates themselves. However, with the Reversal effected by St. Paul, the function of language becomes self-lowering rather than self-celebrating. Nietzsche's radical use of language is to reclaim the prideful and self-celebratory use of language, and provide us with a 'Fifth Gospel'.
In 1956, Jung wrote the essay entitled, "Past and Future" in German, but we know it in English as "The Undiscovered Self". Having witnessed the horror of the world wars, and the ongoing apocalyptic danger of the Cold War, Jung attempted to explain why it was that societies sometimes went mad. This is how Europe experienced the outbreak of The Great War: as mass insanity. Why would free people gravitate towards cult-like tyrannies? How could ordinarily moral and reasonable people perpetrate acts of unthinkable violence? And how could our constitutional democracies remain susceptible to these outbursts, if we are so committed to principles such as freedom and human dignity? For Jung, the only answer is self-knowledge, but that is the one thing that modern society is making impossible
Yukio Mishima (born Kimitake Hiraoka, 1925-1970) wrote dozens of stories, including famous works such as Confessions of a Mask, and Patriotism. He was considered for a Nobel Prize in literature about half a dozen times, through he never won it. His works were adapted into films, which received international acclaim. He wrote modern No plays which were performed all over the world, in Europe and America. He is known for his provocative style, his romanticization of death and of warrior culture, and for his political radicalism. Mishima desired to return Japan to a pre-WWII samurai culture, ruled under the absolute authority of a divine emperor – and yet, his writing incorporates influences not only from traditional Japanese literature, but from writers from the west: Rilke, Wilde, Batailles, Klossowski, and, of course, Friedrich Nietzsche. From the time he was 19, when he first picked up a copy of Birth of Tragedy, Mishima had a lifelong fascination with Nietzsche. In this episode, we consider the major philosophical ideas in his combination of confession and criticism, Sun and Steel: the unity of art and action, the corrosive nature of words, and necessity of a 'beautiful death' to truly affirm one's existence.
Welcome to season five of The Nietzsche Podcast! First of all, a warm thank you to all of my listeners and patrons who have helped to make this show such a phenomenal success. For our first episode in this new collection of episodes, we're diving headfirst into the Oedipus plays of Sophocles: Oedipus Rex & Oedipus at Colonus. Sophocles triumphed with the best tragedy at the Dionysia more than any other playwright, and Aristotle named Oedipus Rex the model tragedy. We will fully explore the tragic downfall of Oedipus, his redemptive last days at Colonus, and Friedrich Nietzsche's interpretation of the significance of Oedipus in Birth of Tragedy.
Episode Art: Jean-Antoine-Theodore Giroust, Oedipus at Colonus (1788), Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Concluding with our readthrough of book I of The Gay Science! We'll return with book II in a short while. In the meantime, we're going back to regular episodes of the podcast in the immediate future, covering a variety of topics. Cheers!
Join me for the next installment of our readthrough of The Gay Science. Here, we cover a number of aphorisms concerning: fame and its effect on friendship; the dying words of Roman emperors; the hidden significance of all historical events; the desacrelizing effects of market forces upon society; and the value in knowing the supposed motives of human behavior, if the professed motives happen to be 'false'.
In this episode, we discuss the way in which selfishness is the root of all selfless morality, how corruption produces greatness, why the ascetic is driven by ambition, and the age old question, "What is Life?"
Join me this week, for a discussion of significant aphorisms from The Gay Science, including Consciousness, Evil, and The Feeling of Power.
We begin our walkthrough + analysis of The Gay Science today, starting with some brief remarks on the background context of the work, a loose examination of the preface, and an intense exegesis of the first nine aphorisms. Excited to dive into this one with all of you1
Answering questions from Patrons for our tenth Q&A episode! Thank you everyone, first episode analyzing The Gay Science next week.
Updates on my life, the new direction for the podcast, revealing the next book that we’re analyzing, and general thoughts on the spirit of the show, what binds the community together, and self celebration about the release of my book.
A summary of Nietzsche's teachings, examined by considering the parallel of Schopenhauer's influence on Nietzsche with how the modern person could adopt Nietzsche as a similar type of influence. I attempt to distill the central message of Nietzsche's philosophy, and explain how this interpretative framework helps elucidate new angles to many of his important ideas. This episode is my final word on Nietzsche's philosophy, considered in its totality, as the podcast transitions away from our focus on the primary sources in Nietzsche and into interpretations of Nietzsche and Nietzsche-adjacent material. A love letter to the fans and a last hurrah into exegesizing Nietzsche, incorporating topics from throughout the season and with callbacks to the earliest episodes. Celebrating three years of The Nietzsche Podcast as of this month!
Episode art: Maxfield Parish - Jason and His Teacher, Chiron the Centaur
In the aphorism, "Journey to Hades" in Human All Too Human Vol 2, Nietzsche lists eight thinkers who helped to shape his thought. Each of these eight is paired with another thinker, a choice which is intentional and intended to reveal something about each pair. These eight are: Epicurus and Montaigne; Goethe and Spinoza; Plato and Rousseau; Pascal and Schopenhauer. In this episode, we will examine each one of these pairs in order to determine what similarities and what differences Nietzsche is attempting to elucidate in counterposing them. In comprehending each of these pairs, we can come to a full understanding of the early development of Nietzsche's thought, and see the way in which he was in dialogue with the ancients. The method of this passage hints at the way in which all of us can orm a relationship to Nietzsche in a similar fashion. Episode art is Johannes Stradanus - Ulysses in Hades
The second part of a two-parter we began near the beginning of this season. The completion of our analysis of Ecce Homo. In this episode, we consider Nietzsche's reviews of his own books, and argue that it presents a creative narrative of Nietzsche's life: Nietzsche as a tragic figure. Nietzsche mythologizes himself and the circumstances of his great works, dabbling in exaggerations and lacunae - but nevertheless providing an invaluable interpretation the significance of his entire career, and commentary on the development of his thought. With Nietzsche's comments, we can construe his life's work into an early period, an affirmative period that begins with his middle works and culminates with Zarathustra, and a critical period that characterizes his later work.
The Twilight of Idols is described by Nietzsche as a work of leisure: a leap sideways, a bit of sunshine, a form of play rather than work. The laboriousness of 'notebook psychology', in which one strains and squints and spies on reality, could not be further from this natural discernment based on what one is given. In this episode, we explore exactly what Nietzsche means by this distinction. Once again, it is tied in with his differentiation between the artistic and the theoretic. Through Twilight of Idols, Nietzsche remarks on psychology and his approach to it, suggests that it is found in literature, and suggests that some men who claim to be psychologists are really just head cases. Join me as we consider these ideas at a leisurely pace. Episode art is Satan Resting on the Mountain by Gustave Dore.
A deep dive into one of the most important passages in Twilight of Idols. We’ll explore Nietzsche’s critique of our erroneous habits of thought: mistaking the effect for the cause, false causality, creating imaginary causes, creating a doer of the deed, and free will. We explore Nietzsche’s explanation for how these errors take hold of our thought, the psychological need for these errors, and why they persist. Episode art is The Billiard’s Player by William Bastiaan Tholen
My friend Quinn and I discuss whether Deleuze is an accurate interpreter of Nietzsche. What are the faults of Deleuze's interpretation, and what are its merits? We discuss the eternal return, the anti-Hegelian attitude of Deleuze, ressentiment and bad conscience, and the Deleuzian understanding of will to power. More broadly, we discuss what it is that makes an interpretation correct, and how there are different mindsets behind the left and right interpretations of Nietzsche.
Carl Jung contributed to psychoanalysis in an important way, but that contribution to the field is inseparable from his engagement with Nietzsche. Jung derived a wealth of insights from Nietzsche’s work, and his psychological state that deteriorated into madness. Jung’s central hypothesis is that Nietzsche was possessed by an archetype. Such archetypal inflation was the result of a deep imbalance within Nietzsche’s psyche, springing from his rejection of the spiritual.
Carl Gustave Jung was a student of Freud, but broke from his mentor in a dramatic way. Jung acquired the reputation of being a mystic, and put forward ideas that pushed the boundaries of psychoanalysis. This is a crash course in Jung’s most important ideas: projection, archetypes, and the collective unconscious. In this episode, we go in-depth on the major archetypes that Jung describes. These are subpersonalities that exist in every human unconsciousness, which will manifest insensibly in one’s desires, and find themselves projected by the subject into the external world.
Weltgeist x The Nietzsche Podcast.
A long-awaited conversation. We discuss: the aesthetics of Schopenhauer v/s Nietzsche, the Schopenhauerian influence on Wagner's music, The Pale Blue Dot, the Eros as discussed in Plato's Symposium, philosophy and art as luxuries of civilization, and what Nietzsche describes as the asceticism of the scientific worldview.
Daniel Tutt is the author of How to Read Like a Parasite, a new book which warns leftist thinkers about the power and danger of Nietzsche. Daniel has a long history of engaging with Nietzsche’s philosophy, and argues for a pugilistic relationship with him. In his view, the French leftists who utilized Nietzsche’s work sometimes centered Nietzsche to their own detriment. Daniel’s project aims not at canceling Nietzsche, but in reading him with a sober understanding of his political perspective and the ways in which it informs all of his ideas.
Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher, and the author of numerous books, including Understanding Postmodernism, and Nietzsche & the Nazis. As Professor Hicks is a critic of postmodernism, I decided to ask him about Nietzsche's connection to postmodern thought. Is Nietzsche a postmodernist, and to what extent did he influence them? How do we explain the moral differences between Nietzsche and the postmodernists? We also discussed some topics related to objectivism and Ayn Rand. How does Nietzsche's epistemology and ethics differ from that of Ayn Rand? Professor Hicks articulates the case for the foundationalist view, and we finished the conversation by discussing the state of the academy as he sees it, and the future of philosophy.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) said of Nietzsche that he had "more penetrating knowledge of himself than any man who ever lived or was likely to live." In spite of this, Freud always denied that Nietzsche was an influence on his thought, in spite of his multiple references to Nietzsche in his early work. While Freud certainly drew from Nietzsche's ideas, he was an original thinker in his own right, who followed on the same path of inquiry as Nietzsche, but with the tools of empirical research and the within the scientific spirit of psycho-analysis. Freud comes to believe that the driving force of human life is libido, a sexual impulse, and that the stages of psychosexual development determine the health or pathology of one's adult life. Central to his analysis of human psychology is the Oedipus Complex, and his notion that the superego emerges to suppress it. In this episode, we also discuss the Id (Unconsciousness), the faculty of repression, the concept of cathexis, and the meaning of dreams. In spite of the ways in which Freud has been marginalized in recent years, in his work we find an extraordinary thinker who built upon Nietzsche's ideas, and truly managed to change the entire paradigm of psychological thinking.
Among Nietzsche's critics, René Girard is perhaps unique. Girard's understanding of human civilization and the origins of human culture is that it is based on ritual, collective violence against a scapegoated individual - and he argues that Nietzsche is one of the only thinkers hitherto who understood this. Nietzsche's famous formula - Dionysus versus the Crucified - is the title of Girard's critical essay on Nietzsche. He does not quibble with Nietzsche's framing of the situation, but rather with Nietzsche's conclusions. While Nietzsche takes up for the side of Dionysus, Girard stands on the side of the Crucified, arguing that Nietzsche was fundamentally wrong to lament the ascendance of Christianity and to yearn for a return to the Dionysian. In the course of Nietzsche's defense of Dionysus, he put forward moral theories that were "untenable", and become increasingly "inhuman". Among the many commenters of Nietzsche, both disciples and critics, it is rare to find a figure like Girard, who recognizes Nietzsche's brilliance, but totally condemns his legacy. Join me today to learn about the life of Rene Girard, his theories of mimetic desire and scapegoating, and the impassioned case he puts forward for The Crucified.
Today we examine an 1875 Fragment, entitled "Science and Wisdom in Battle". Not only does this fragment contain one of my favorite quotations of Nietzsche's, it represents his continual grappling with the meaning of Ancient Greek culture. In particular, we discuss the importance of "relations of tension" in Nietzsche's earlier work: art versus science, culture versus the state, history versus forgetting, and of course, science and wisdom. Both are drives to knowledge, and the tension between them created philosophy in the tragic age of the Hellenes. Science is characterized by logical, objective, specialized knowledge, whereas Wisdom is defined by Nietzsche as a tendency for illogical generalization, leaping to one's ultimate goal, and an artistic desire to reflect the world in one's own mirror.
Episode art: Sofia & Athena
In this episode, we continue our discussion of the Pre-Platonics, and cover the ideas of Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus. The episode begins with a brief recap of the previous philosophers and the dialogue up to this point. After considering the remaining Pre-Platonics, I have some brief concluding remarks in which I attempt to make sense of the entire picture as Nietzsche lays it out in this unfinished essay.
Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks is one of the more obscure texts in Friedrich Nietzsche’s corpus. There are many good reasons for this: it is unfinished, and ends abruptly; it was never published; and it concerns subject matter that is not as immediately accessible as Nietzsche’s more popular writings. You will not find his major concepts in this work – such as the will to power, or the critique of metaphysics - except insofar as thoseideas appear in the background, inchoate, unnamed… not yet fully formed. In Nietzsche’s interpretation of the Pre-Platonic philosophers of Ancient Greece, we find the starting place for his later philosophical career. The inspiration for many of those great ideas, can arguably be found in his exegesis of these extraordinary figures from the Hellenic world, from the 6th to the 4th century BC.In today's episode, I'll introduce the text, then we'll cover the first three figures who I've classed as "the first cosmologists": Thales, Anaximander, and Heraclitus. While I'm mostly sticking to the text of the essay, I fill in some details using Nietzsche's lectures on the Pre-Platonics, on which this essay was based. Episode art: photo of the Temple of Poseidon
Nietzsche said of this work that it was “the best German book”. For the last nine years of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s life, Johann Peter Eckermann journaled about their conversations together. Goethe was a celebrity at the time, and destined to be remembered as perhaps the greatest writer of the German language, certainly of the 19th century. Eckermann, on the other hand, was a farmboy with a talent for copying - whether it was the artwork of Ramberg or the poetic style of Korner. When he met Goethe, who was in his seventies at the time, the young Eckermann looked up to him as the greatest of poets, and wanted nothing more than to record all of his wonderful memories with Goethe. In this work we find no narrative arc or rigorous structure, but simply a series of thoughts and feelings. It is a portrait of Goethe rather than a story about him, and offers a fascinating view into a different time and place.
In the tradition of the great theistic philosophers, Baruch Spinoza presents us with a metaphysical vision of the cosmos, as ordered by God. But in sharp contrast with thinkers such as Pascal, Spinoza's arguments for God are crafted with an attempt of logical precision. In fact, Spinoza structures his arguments as geometric proofs, and considers the only serious philosophy to be a truly mathematized philosophy. In his Ethics, Spinoza gives us a comprehensive system that describes God, Nature, everything. Nietzsche says of Spinoza, "I have a precursor! And what a precursor!" While he was critical of Spinoza, Nietzsche acknowledged the ideas of Spinoza as profoundly influential on his thought. And yet, Spinoza's work remains famously difficult. Where he fits in to the Western philosophical canon is not readily apparent. Rarely is he portrayed as a great opponent of any one philosopher or school, and it seems that he lacks true antipodes. He is grouped among the three great rationalists, along with Descartes and Leibniz - even though these three come to radically different metaphysical conclusions, and bear little resemblance to one another aside from this one classification of their epistemological stance. And since Spinoza's philosophy is so voluminous, its ideas interrelated and comprehensive, approaching Spinoza and having some idea of where he stands within the discourse is difficult for the average reader. In this episode, we'll consider Spinoza's life and work, and then consider the ways in which his life parallels Nietzsche, and the ways in which his life influenced Nietzsche. Episode Art: Samuel Hirszenberg - Excommunicated Spinoza
Pascal and Nietzsche are two names of monumental importance in the Western philosophical tradition, but rarely are their names mentioned together. At a glance, there is a wide gulf that separates the two, and seems to place them at irreconcilable odds. Pascal was a devout Christian, whose philosophical works concern the Christian faith: his most famous argument is the wager, which is a kind of apologetic device for bringing people into the faith. Nietzsche, on the other hand, carries out a philosophical project which is anti-Christian. He says he has no taste for faith in God, and that this faith is an indelicacy among thinkers. Today, we will examine Pascal's life, and the basics of his philosophy. Then, we will compare these two malcontents of the Enlightenment. Both question the supremacy of human reason, and offer an alternative to the materialistic concerns of a secular society. Both were men afflicted with ill health, and who struggled with mental illness. But they come to completely contrasting views in their assessment of life. In spite of this, there are ways in which Pascal's influence may have lasting importance for understanding Nietzsche. In Daybreak, Pascal is a stand-in for Christian hatred of mankind, who may have shaped Nietzsche's psychological analysis of Christianity. And in the eternal recurrence, we arguably find a variation on Pascal's Wager. While Pascal urges us to bet on God, Nietzsche's invitation is to bet on the world. “The Only Logical Christian”: Nietzsche’s Critique of Pascal by Brendan Donnellan, available on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469656557_oflaherty.12?seq=10
Nietzsche listed Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) among the best French writers of the Renaissance, and called him a link to classical antiquity. The personal seal of Montaigne read, “What do I know?” For Montaigne, doubting was no less pleasing than knowing, and he exemplified the philosopher’s proclivity to inquire about every proposition. In his work we find the forerunner of not only skepticism, but Descartes’ methodology of doubt and empiricist bent of Bacon. He is the inventor of the essay, a man who called his own mind “wandering and diverse”, and who wrote candidly about life, ethics, and the classics. He is a man of contradictions, who disparaged book-learning but whose works are abundant with quotations. In this episode, we’ll consider his essays, Of the Education of Children, Defense of Raymond Sebond, Of Friendship, and That Philosophy is to Learn to Die, as well as take a brief peek into a handful of others. Join me in exploring the man Saint-Beauve called, “the wisest Frenchman who ever lived.”
Devin Goure is a scholar with a background in philosophy, an interest in psychology, mental health & neurodivergence. He holds a PhD in political theory. He's known as Left Nietzschean on X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/DevinGoureYou can find Devin's substack here: https://devingour.substack.com/In this conversation, Devin and I discuss the meaning of leftism in modernity. I asked him a number of questions concerning how the ideas of Nietzsche can be used for the left. How does Nietzsche compliment a Marxist philosophy? Where does Nietzsche conflict with Marx? Or with Hegel? How can we square an anarchist reading of Nietzsche? And what are the errors in interpretation of figures like B.A.P.?
In this second part of our exploration of Deleuze, we go straight into the Deleuzian understanding of ressentiment, and the significance of Nietzsche's distinction between ressentiment and the bad conscience. Deleuze's interpretation is predominantly psychological/physiological, and he sees the origins of ressentiment in the "inverted image" produced by reactive forces. Ressentiment therefore does not emerge from a historical power relationship, but from the disruption, degeneration or failures of the active force of memory to regulate the reactive consciousness and unconsciousness. Deleuze describes four forms of nihilism in Nietzsche: negative, reactive, passive and active, and we'll examine how they progress and relate to one another. Towards the end of the talk, we'll consider the camel, lion and child but with fresh eyes, given all that Deleuze has established. Of chief concern is how the triumph of reactive forces can be reversed, and the great becoming-reactive that characterizes human history turned into a becoming-active. This episode will not make much sense unless you've listened to the first part, in episode #79, as the concepts contained here depend on an understanding of active and reactive, sense and value, genealogy, and differential metaphysics, all of which are covered in that episode.
Multiple discourses on birth, death & resurrection. Featuring Andrei Georgescu, Vivienne Magdalen, Mynaa Miesnowan. Includes a segment of where my wife and I read Youtube comments. Here's to another year of the podcast! Episode art: Dionysian Ghost of Christmas by John Leech
Giles Deleuze is one of the most significant figures of French postmodernism, famous for his work with psychoanalyst Felix Guattari. In this episode, we're going to consider Deleuze's work, Nietzsche and Philosophy. In the words of Deleuze, the opposition to Hegel runs through the entirety of Nietzsche's work as its cutting edge. Nietzsche's philosophy is truly 'against the dialectic': as Nietzsche's work is perspectival and pluralistic, which represents the only significant challenge to the dialectical mode of thought. In contrast to dialectical labor and seriousness, Nietzsche's way of thinking affirms difference. Nietzsche asserts that being is not premised on negation, but affirmation, in which each force asserts its difference and enjoys that difference. In Deleuze, we find a new systemization of Nietzsche, in which Nietzsche's critique of morality, religion and the sciences can be reconceptualized as part of a struggle on Nietzsche's part against the triumph of reactive forces. Deleuze offers us a new language for discussing and understanding Nietzsche's work, and a radical re-evaluation of the eternal recurrence and the will to power. In this first part of our two-part series on Deleuze, we're going to consider Nietzsche's anti-Hegelianism, Deleuze's interpretation of sense, value & genealogy, the concepts of active and reactive, Nietzsche's typology, the metaphor the dicethrow, and the eternal return considered as a Nietzschean theory of time.
I'd originally planned to launch into Deleuze this week, but I'm busy playing shows all weekend and decided to release this instead. I think this was a great episode, perhaps one of the best Untimely Reflections yet.
Andrei Georgescu is an old friend of the show. He's a writer, a graphic designer, and a podcaster. A few months ago, he published an essay called, "Seedless Flowers: Artificial Intelligence and Creativity Fetishism", in which he analyzes the public reaction to art created by artificial intelligence, and the popular prejudices about creativity. Artists tend to believe that creativity is something which has to come from a being with a soul, treating it as a magical happening that is somehow beyond the material reality. A.I. art challenges that viewpoint, demonstrating the possibility of creativity coming from a collection of metal and wires. We discuss the "ugly duckling" theory of art, in which we value the effort that went into the piece over the final product or the quality of the piece. Such ideas compel us to dismiss beautiful works that were produced or aided by artificial intelligence, while holding up sub-par works as 'true art'. Our conversation about art takes us into my theories about art as communication, the origins of linguistic communication, the possibility of mapping the logical structures of languages. Towards the end of the episode, we take a look at the passage of Nietzsche's from The Gay Science, entitled, "The Genius of the Species", and argue over the importance of consciousness.
We originally recorded a discussion about the article a couple of months ago. Unfortunately, fate was unkind and our first conversation about it was lost. I really kicked myself over that one, since it was my fault. Nevertheless, the timing was right to attempt it again, and I think we had a fascinating conversation.
You can find some excellent video essays on his Youtube Channel, @Artiexus: https://www.youtube.com/@artiexus
Andrei's article, the jumping-off point for this conversation: https://andreigeorgescu.ca/seedless-flowers-artificial-intelligence-and-creativity-fetishism/
Episode art: Prayer by Andrei Georgescu
GWF Hegel is one of the most difficult philosophers in the western canon, but today we’ attempt to demystify him. In this episode, we’ll break down Hegel’s phenomenology, the dialectic, and the Hegelian understanding of desire. Our concrete entrypoint into the thought of Hegel is his famous chapter, The Master-Slave Dialectic. Deleuze argued that Nietzsche’s work constitutes a rejection of Hegel: his master and slave morality can be read as a direct rebuke to Hegel’s interpretation of this very same power relation. In order to prepare for our reading of Deleuze, we’re going to first tangle with Hegel on his own terms, and understand the very different way in which he approaches the questions of consciousness, morality and perspective. In researching this episode, Nathan Widder’s lectures on Hegel and Deleuze were very helpful, as was Justin Burke’s.
Today we continue with our inquiry into rhetoric and dialectic, with Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirsig, like Nietzsche, saw himself as a modern-day Sophist, and part of his work was the rescue of the Sophistic school from the ill repute visited upon them by the Socratics. Perhaps more expansively, Pirsig devotes his philosophical work to the question, “What is quality?”, drawing on the Greek concept of arete, or excellence. His philosophical ideas do not come to us through a dispassionate treatise, however, but through an autobiographical novel. Pirsig was treated with electroshock therapy, leaving him with a new personality, and the feeling that the person he once was is dead: he merely happens to carry the blurry memories of another man. While on a motorcycle trip with his son, Pirsig struggles to unify the dichotomy between classical and romantic, between substance and form, between the two personalities within himself, and between himself and his son. This work remains one of the most important philosophical contributions to American literature in the 20th century, and hopefully today I can show all of you why this work of “pop philosophy” is one of my favorite books, and one to which I regularly return.
In my second conversation with William, we discuss the possibilities for language-learning models, the coming of artificial general intelligence, why the writers may be striking against creative destruction in the economy, and the legitimacy of A.I. art and writing.
This episode concerns the autobiographical essays in Ecce Homo, which Kaufmann has called, Nietzsche’s Apology. Similarly to Socrates, Nietzsche gives a defense of himself and his career: a defense against being “mistaken”, or “misunderstood”. Like Socrates, who came with a special mission for Athens, Nietzsche comes with the greatest demand ever made of mankind. Central to our analysis is the physiologism of Nietzsche, and the rejection of idealism in favor of brute reality. The physiological is reinterpreted as the root cause of the psychological, and Nietzsche uses his life as the basis and the chief example of how the body determines who one is fated to become. Nietzsche expresses a profound gratitude even for his illness: that which allowed him to gain a subtler eye, to overcome pity, to recognize pathologies.
Socrates was a famous opponent of the Sophists, the teachers of rhetoric instead of truth - and yet, in his legal defense, he employs the techniques of rhetoric and displays a mastery of oratory. In a society that distrusted irony and regarded it as a form of dishonesty, Socrates uses the art of persuasion in a manner that is anti-persuasive: a brilliant irony that few of his judges would have understood, and resented if they had. While Nietzsche’s later period is characterized by savage criticism of Socrates, Nietzsche describes Socrates as a heroic conqueror of death, in his lectures at Basel. Today we’re going to dissect the rhetoric, the irony, and the deeper significance of Socrates’ famous defense at his trial: the act of commitment to virtue in spite of the consequences, in defiance of the conventions of society and the sentiments of the majority. Episode art: Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David
In this episode, I attempt to give a fresh biographical account of Nietzsche's life, by examining his life in light of his Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit, found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In the course of this biography, using Nietzsche as our concrete example, we discuss the abstract meaning of the Camel, the Lion & the Child, and where I see these transformations appearing in the course of Nietzsche's life and thought. We've covered Nietzsche's biography in many previous episodes, often focusing in on a particular time or event in Nietzsche's life: Nietzsche's wandering throughout Europe (episode 2), the headstone he bought for his father (episode 4), the departure of academia and break with his friends (episode 24), the complex relationship with Wagner (episodes 36-37). Rather than examining any one part of his biography in granular detail, we're going to try and take in the entire picture, and see to what degree we can say that the Camel, the Lion & the Child are stages in Nietzsche's own story. Central to this analysis is Nietzsche's great struggle with the "problem of life", as put forward by Christianity, Schopenhauer, and the Socratics. Their solutions always incline towards a rejection of our nature and the submission of life to reason, virtue, or asceticism. Nietzsche's long quest is to discover an affirmation of life and desire, in contrast to the need to 'redeem' life from suffering. This mirrors his long struggle with an illness that tormented him throughout his life. Nietzsche's project culminates not in a condemnation of life on these grounds, but in his embrace of a life of agony.
A Merry All Hallow’s Eve to Ye All! There will be a regular episode this Friday, but I can’t resist the opportunity to release an episode on the day of Halloween. Mynaa and I discuss a Persian novel concerning Nietzschean existential horror! Sadegh Hedayat grew up in the Iran of the Shah, and was influenced by western writers such as Kafka & Hesse. The urban legends surrounding this text in Iran were oft-repeated from parents to children: "Don't read this book; those who read it commit suicide." The Blind Owl is the story of an unnamed narrator who is haunted by an elusive, metaphysical scene that he witnesses by happenstance. The narrative is unreliable, and the recursive loops of his madness are woven into the repetitive phrases and descriptions; the characters are all copies of one another; the events of the novel are, in effect, the same narrative repeated ad nauseum. Central to the plot is the long illness and drug abuse of the narrator, and an endless downward spiral of insanity. Hedayat's writing often reflects existential horror, and could be compared to H.P. Lovecraft. Mynaa even suggested that certain passages resemble those in Ecce Homo. We do a review with minimal spoilers for the first fifteen minutes or so, then what follows is a very spoilery review where we analyze, speculate, and ramble about the imagery of this mysterious novel.
Welcome to all free spirits, wanderers, madmen and godless anti-metaphysicians! It is high time to drink from the waters of Lethe, and forget all that came before in this podcast. Today, we embark on a new phase of our voyage of inquiry, concerning Nietzsche's views on the origins of self-consciousness. We'll consider his remarks on memory and forgetfulness, found in his early essay Use and Abuse of History for Life, in the second essay of Genealogy of Morality, as well as some passages in Human, All Too Human & Wanderer and His Shadow. The expansion of self-consciousness is linked with punishment, revenge, debt, and the demands of civilization upon mankind.
Episode art: Gustave Dore - The River of Lethe
Update on my life and the podcast, some random musings and stories. NO EPISODE NEXT WEEK. We’re taking a short break before season 4. Cheers
Nietzsche concludes the book with the suggestion that cognition itself is “common”, insofar as communicability is more effective the more common the experience that is communicated. Language facilitates the “abbreviation” of the most common sentiments and experiences, which is part of the process of joining a people together as one. The person whose experiences, thoughts or feelings are individual & peculiar will necessarily find himself unable to communicate them to others, and will be thrust into solitude. Much of the final aphorisms concern this eternal struggle between the rule and the exception, one of the themes of the work. Nietzsche ultimately muses that even the precious, wicked thoughts he has offered us throughout the work are but a pale imitation of the thoughts during their spring: for all thoughts are events, fleeting experiences, a physiological process within a living being. All the philosopher can do is catalogue their aftermath, or display the frozen remnants that linger in their memory. This section also contains multiple remarks on pity, and the prose poem, “The Genius of the Heart”. An exegesis of this poem can be found in episode 39.Episode art: Bacchus and Ariadne by Titian (detail)
The first half of the final chapter, “What is Noble”. We cover the concepts of the order of rank, pathos of distance, the origins of civilization and morality. The master/slave morality is formally introduced, and Nietzsche gives several remarks supporting his aristocratic radicalism. But, shortly thereafter, he pivots and begins describing nobility and plebeianism as states of the soul rather than a matter of inheritance. Nietzsche challenges us to overcome the simplicity of Rousseau’s view of nature, or the Lockean/Kantian optimism about civilization. In Nietzsche's words, truth is hard - and whatever our idealism, we should be honest with ourselves, at least up to the point of admitting what the essence of life truly is: in his estimation, will to power. Episode art - Karl Bryullov - Sacking of Rome (Wikimedia Commons)
This episode covers the entirety of Peoples and Fatherlands, chapter eight of Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche considers the character of the Germans, that of the French and the English, and the Jews. He attacks nationalism and anti-semitism, and reiterates his vision for a new European future in which all nationalities give way to a single Europe. Patriotism, or “fatherlandishness”, even though it is something Nietzsche finds understandable, is analyzed as a symptom of weakness and a thing to be overcome. Episode art is Portrait of Chancellor Otto von Bismark by Franz von Lenbach
A fascinating discussion with someone with an unusual perspective for modern times. Vivienne joins me while we go over the remainder of aphorisms from Beyond Good & Evil, section 7, Our Virtues: the ones concerning women. This is a topic that is incredibly complex and has often been handled without nuance by modern readers: either by those who criticize Nietzsche as a misogynist, or those who celebrate him as a representative of chauvinistic masculinity. I have always treated this issue as something on the peripheries of my concern with Nietzsche, first and foremost because his ideas never resonated with me, he says they are only "his" truths, and finally because I think it will divide and alienate people. Nevertheless, we have never shied away from the reactionary ideas of Nietzsche's, and have never tried to hide the truth when it comes to Nietzsche's uncomfortable beliefs. Perhaps that very discomfort is something beneficial, as the willingness to explore these strange, wicked, questionable questions can help us to learn a great deal about ourselves, and why we believe in the unchallenged values of modern life. Even for those who are stalwartly in the camp of the equality of the sexes, perhaps there is something to be gained from exploring Nietzsche's arguments. In this episode, Vivienne helps me with something I've always striven for: to be to articulate the perspective of those from ages and moralities that are not my own. I think she goes a good job of providing a steelman for Nietzsche's views on women here, in terms I hadn't heard before. Vivienne's podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/vivienne-magdalen Episode art: Nicholas Roerich - The Mother Of The World, 1924
This part of the text is a re-evaluation of what morality is, or can be, for the philosopher of the future. Nietzsche is a bit sneaky here, by implying the free spirit, or philosopher of the future, to be admirable from the perspective of our own moral intuition. Nevertheless, he throws us some curveballs here and there as the chapter continues, and Nietzsche attempts to lyrically portray the paradoxical task of both accepting fate, and actively shaping one’s character. Episode art is Narcissus (1594–1596) by Caravaggio.
Today, we cover the entirety of part six - We Scholars. This chapter is of particular importance for understanding Nietzsche’s reconceptualization of the philosopher, and how such a figure stands in relation to the academic. The philosopher’s essential character is not that he employs reason, but that he exercises the value-creating power of mankind, whereas the scholar is merely a “philosophical laborer” who exists in service of the dominant values structure. Nietzsche critiques the modern worldview of positivism (“scientism“) for its misunderstanding of the primacy of values, leading to its failure to examine its underlying value judgments. Episode art: Domenico Fetti - Portrait of a Scholar
Much of the second half of the Natural History of Morals is a meditation on the common morality as one of prudence, stupidity, and fear. In one word: timidity. Nietzsche draws upon ideas he’s explored in Human all too Human, Daybreak & The Gay Science: man as animal/natural being, morality as a means of dealing with vehement drives, and the wicked person as being just as indispensable as the moral person. Episode art: John Maler Collier - Fire
A question and answer session just from the patrons, though I figured the public would enjoy some of the topics covered. Enjoy!
Finally getting into part five, The Natural History of Morals. We’re more than halfway through the text, and Nietzsche applies his psychological method to morality. Episode art is Satan overlooking Paradise by Gustave Dore.
A whirlwind tour through the epigrams and interludes of Beyond Good & Evil. A relatively free spirited and brief segment of our analysis before we dive into some of the denser divisions of the work - albeit with a bit easier time in terms of the intellectual labor, given that the major premises of Nietzsche's project have already been outlined in the first half of the work. This part is placed as a 'bridge' between BGE's first and second half, and serves as an example of how one applies Nietzsche's approach to psychology, and his anti-metaphysics.
Episode art: Miranda by John William Waterhouse
Apologies on the late upload! There were technical difficulties that have since been resolved. We’re back on track and next week’s release will be on Tuesday again. The ascetic values of the saint are premised on self-denial. It was this self-denial that caused the saint to become a great mystery, who stood in judgment of the powerful people of the world. They suspected that the saint knew something they didn’t, as this miraculous being who transformed from evil to good. Good became synonymous with the otherworldly and the unsensual, and this image became most powerful in the hands of the extraordinary person who has turned out a failure in life. The person with great creative potential who is taken over by the power of self-denial becomes the most dangerous among the ascetics, and over centuries of this religious neurosis dominating the European mind, the result has been the modern man.
Nietzsche finishes sketching his vision of a philosophy of the future. True free spiritedness represents a fundamental commitment to hardness and independence of spirit. This makes the philosopher opposite the scholar in terms of his virtues. This total individuality necessitates that there are some truths that are inexpressible or peculiar to the point that they cannot be shared: they must be ”masked”. We finish by looking at the first two sections of part three, “What is Religious”. We consider how N’s method so far brings him to regard religion as another field of study regarding the human soul (its knowledge and conscience), and how this section is an application of his psychological method. He considers what is meant by the religious pathology as part of his ongoing critique of Christianity. Episode art: Henri Lievens - The Wild Hunt of Odin
WARNING: It seems my microphone was not fully plugged in during this exchange, and the computer defaulted to the internal microphone... which is, well, garbage. So, my audio quality sounds pretty dreadful here, but it's at least listenable, and there's no way we were re-doing this entire conversation. As mentioned towards the end, however, I may do a regular series episode concerning Burnham's Machiavellians at a later
time, if there is further interest in the topic.
My friend Karl Nord and I discuss James Burnham, one of the intellectual forebears of modern conservative thought in the United States. Remarkably, upon a closer look into his life, we find that Burnham is an iconoclast who could have been called a socialist, a nationalist, a conservative, a Trotskyist, a neoliberal, a centrist or a social democrat at various times in his life - and yet, he repudiates and attacks all of these ideologies at various times as well. This is a thinker who once thought a communist revolution was inevitable for America, who wrote briefs for the CIA, who supported McCarthy, and who shaped the worldview of generations of conservatives. In the end, the only label that suits him is "Machiavellian", which is fittingly the title of one of his books, which we take a cursory look at during this episode.
In this section, Nietzsche describes the truth-seeker as an exception among the rule, and emphasizes the difference between esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Nietzsche explores differences in tempo of thinking between individuals and cultures, which he sources to physiological realities. This portion of the text also concerns Nietzsche’s natural history of morality in three stages (pre-, moral, post-) and an experimental portrait of the world as will to power. Does this mean God is refuted and the devil is not? On the contrary, friends, on the contrary! And who forces you to speak with the vulgar? Episode art is John William Waterhouse - The Magic Circle.
In this next episode on Beyond Good & Evil, we discuss the simplification of the world out of a psychological need, and the ways in which we have sought for “Being” in the soul, the ego, the will, and in the materialistic atom. All were expressions of the ”one ruling thought” of the drive doing the philosophizing. Nietzsche reconceptualizes thinking and willing as inseparable, and declares psychology to be the route to the deepest questions. We conclude with a look at the first two passages of part two, The Free Spirit, in which Nietzsche advocates a departure from solemn seriousness and martyrdom for the sake of truth, in exchange for love of uncertainty and a sense of humor.
Episode art: Jean Delville - The God-Man
My conversation with horror author John Hunt, an Amazon bestseller in his genre and veteran of the homicide division in the Canadian police. John and I cover a range of topics in this discussion, from why he loves Nietzsche, to the role of revenge and justice in his stories as well as horror and suspenseful writing more broadly. John and I gush over our mutual love of Tarantino, and his pick for his favorite among Tarantino's films may surprise you. Other topics include the best ways to show rather than tell about a character's inner turmoil, the theory of drives and how it plays out in John's stories, and what it is that makes Stephen King so damn good. I included quite a bit of banter at the end where we continued talking long after I'd planned on ending the conversation, but most of it was interesting and genuine so I left it in. John's overarching commitment in his work is to realism: in honestly portraying the brute reality as he sees it, without trying to sugarcoat or hide the truth. So glad to have had John on the show, and we can add him to a number of interesting characters with very different life paths who have joined us on Untimely Reflections.
John's website: https://johnhuntfiction.ca/
John on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Hunt/author/B01MUHIIOA?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true
John on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@johnhuntfiction2537
We continue our exegesis of Beyond Good and Evil, and cover the bulk of On the Prejudices of Philosophers. This section involves Nietzsche’s analysis of various philosophers for whom he has admiration or which exercised a great influence on the philosophical world, but he approaches them with the method of treating their philosophy as an involuntary, unconscious memoir. Episode art: An artistic representation of Epictetus, courtesy of Wikimedia Common.
Today we begin our analysis of Beyond Good & Evil. This episode concerns the preface, which is perhaps my favorite of Nietzsche’s, and the first five sections of chapter one: On the Prejudices of Philosophers. As always I move incredibly slowly during the opening sections because of their incredible importance for understanding the entirety of the work, but promise to move more quickly as we proceed. I’m not sure how many parts this series will require; we’re going to make it up as we go along. Episode art: Giovanni di Paolo -- The Creation of the World and the Expulsion from Paradise
Update about my life, and some musings on AI, aliens, the supernatural, and why I don’t get involved in contemporary politics.
In this episode, I attempt to sum up the relevance of Nietzsche's political insights to the modern day, insofar as his challenge to our values becomes an entrypoint for us to begin the work of revaluating our values. In this piece, I argue that Nietzsche's goal for his readership is for them to find freedom in the unity of their beliefs and actions, and acceptance of humanity and the natural world for what they are rather than what we'd like them to be. Nietzsche invites us to a trusting acceptance of all that is necessary in the world, such that we may not live with the burden of having to morally condemn mankind, nor the human condition. He stands forever with the realism of Thucydides against Plato. Whether accept Nietzsche's prescriptive statements or not is irrelevant to whether we have taken seriously his contentions in the realm of values, and whether we can discover any motivating principles for humanity outside of the will to power. Nietzsche's challenge to us spurs us to consider what consequences such a shift in values might entail. At the end, we return to some of the concepts from the very beginning of the podcast, and examine how Nietzsche's view of politics and history is another manifestation of this same 'world acceptance' (or, 'amor fati') that is demanded by the abolition of the true world. Or, how Nietzsche characterizes his free spirits as 'tempters and attempters', those who experiment with the strange, wicked, and questionable questions. This is the path he lays out for the philosophers of the future, and as we are now in the time when the crisis of nihilism seems to be coming to a head, I assert that we ourselves are the philosophers he was speaking to. However you answer these questions of value, Nietzsche demands that we follow our own path, and adopt only those truths to which we have a right. The philosophers of the future will therefore be accustomed to solitude, and to a sense of distance from his fellow men. We are the types who enjoy "wandering in forbidden country", which is the way Nietzsche defines his understanding of philosophy in Ecce Homo. Every philosopher who takes it on themselves to be a creator and self-legislator is already their own revaluation of values. The time is noon.Thank you to everyone for supporting the podcast! Here's to a wonderful season three! A very special thank you to all of my patrons. I wish to express the deepest love and gratitude to you, and my delight that so many have connected in such a deep way with the podcast. I can't wait to explore so many fascinating topics in the future with all of you!Episode art - A Futurescape by Robert McCall (1981)
What does eternal recurrence mean in the historical sense? Nietzsche invites us to explore that question in his raising of the Problem of Science, and the notion of conflict as central to life. Today, in the penultimate episode of the season, we'll take a look into a section from Will to Power called "The History of European Nihilism", in which Nietzsche takes on the history of Europe from the perspective of his cultural/moral analysis, and charts the history of the descent into materialism as it played out in Enlightenment Europe. In his Pre-Platonic lectures, Nietzsche suggests a parallel between the project of Greek philosophy, and the progression that played out in the centuries of the Enlightenment. The Pre-Platonic Greeks experimented with materialist philosophy, eventually culminating in the atomism of Democritus and the arrival of Socrates, the ultimate logician - soon, the values of their traditions, and their long-held superstitions came to be questionable. The values of the society were undermined, and a crisis of nihilism set it. Nietzsche believes that this played out over the course of several centuries in Europe: in the form of the Reformation, then the scientific dawning of the Enlightenment rationalism with Descartes at the forefront. He comments on many of the figures we have covered this season, such as Kant, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and others, as manifestations of the spirit of their times, who signified shifts or turning points in the European psyche. He reimagines Kant as a sentimentalist towards the concept of duty, a twin spirit with the moralistic Rousseau, who rebelled against the self-legislating rationalism of the 17th century and instead opted to be guided by feeling. Now, in Nietzsche's 19th century, he sees the ascendance of a more honest yet more gloomy period of European thought. The animalian in man is fully uncovered and embraced, and man becomes understood as a historical creature. This has dire consequences, bringing on the dissolution of society and the disbelief in all past metaphysical and moral comforts. But, as a result, the European psyche has the opportunity to enter a period of "Active Nihilism", and overcome the previous dogmas as part of a revaluation of all values. In spite of his predictions of coming great wars, Nietzsche is hopeful that the conditions of decay will lay infinite possibilities before us for the future. Contrary to many who warn of degeneration or decadence, Nietzsche cleaves to the conviction that with decay comes new growth, and that periods of dissolution are always periods of great creativity. This is, somewhat paradoxically, one of the more hopeful passages of Nietzsche, which acquiesces both to his belief in eternal recurrence, as much to the hope for something new in the future.Episode art: George Frederic Watts - Hope
We all know that Nietzsche said, "What does not kill me makes me stronger", but it is less often remembered that he began that aphorism with the caveat, "From the military school of life". We find, in fact, that many of Nietzsche's powerful insights on self-knowledge, self-control, and the search for truth come from this same military school of life. Nietzsche celebrates war and warriors throughout his work, most notably in passages of book one of Thus Spoke Zarathustra which often beguile first time readers coming at Nietzsche's work from a humanist or existentialist bent. How could a philosopher of intellectual freedom and independence tell his audience to "die in battle and squander a great soul"? How could he say that a war is not made just by the cause, but the cause made just by the war? Could Nietzsche actually have been pro-war? As a matter of fact, views on war that were on the whole positive were not uncommon in the 19th century, and Nietzsche is no exception to this. Of course, with Nietzsche, it goes deeper, insofar as the influence of Heraclitus and his conception of strife as a creative force inspired Nietzsche. In his view, all the world is war, and every aspect of existence is a manifestation of this unceasing conflict. This war exists on the physical level, on the social level, within our ideas, and within ourselves. Life itself is a bella omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. With this war as the revealed character of the phenomenal world, Nietzsche argues for accepting war as a fact of life: even as its fundamental character. Episode art: Nietzsche in his military uniform, circa 1864
Nietzsche described Napoleon as "a type of atavism" - a throwback to an earlier age, and quipped that he, not unlike Rousseau, also sought after a “return to nature”. Nietzsche and Rousseau have mutually opposed perspectives on what nature is, however, and Nietzsche is quick to note that Napoleon was not simply a 'going back', but a 'going up'. To understand why Nietzsche thought the way he did about the figure of a Napoleon or a Caesar, we will recapitulate to the entire Nietzschean understanding of the cycles of history, consider aphorisms from across his career, and examine how Goethe's conversations with Eckermann influenced Nietzsche in this respect. I intend to argue that Nietzsche meant the Caesar figure, the 'non-theoretical genius', to be a replacement for the Messiah figure in Christianity. Rather than salvation in the spiritual, abstract sense, the redeemer of man is an individual who exercises power in the physical world. All of the ideas considered this season culminate in order to explain this aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy, commonly dismissed as 'great man worship'. What we find instead is a phenomenon that Nietzsche believes to be natural, objective, and unavoidable. While this is one of the most difficult ideas of Nietzsche's to tangle with, I think we're better off for comprehending his position in this respect. Episode art: Battle of Wagram by Horace Vernet, 1836
Jeff Henson is a producer, audio engineer and touring musician in the band Duel. He's worked with acts such as Clutch, Spirit Adrift, Down, The Sword and others in both live and studio recording. As Jeff and I are both about to embark on tours of the United States, and we'd often talked about doing a podcast together, we finally sat down to talk about what the touring experience is like, the principles behind capturing a band's sound, and some light philosophical discussion on the role of art in revealing a human being's soul. We also discussed the differences between the music scene in Europe v/s America, which country "gets it right" in terms of the balance between freedom and social cohesion, and whether things have gotten better for humanity in the course of these endlessly turning cycles of history. Jeff is one of my good friends and this was one of my favorite conversations, even if the topic is orthogonal to the overall ideas of the show.
Duel's New live album: https://heavypsychsoundsrecords.bandcamp.com/album/duel-live-at-hellfest
Red Nova Ranch: https://www.rednovaranch.com/
The Clutch album we couldn't remember the name of was Psychic Warfare.
"He who says organization says oligarchy." With these words, Robert Michels advances his sociological theory of what is called the iron law of oligarchy. Whenever human beings arrange themselves into a social group, the structural realities of organizing human beings for coordinated action result in minority rule. Far from asserting this as a reality that we have overcome with democracy, this pattern obtains just as strongly in democratic structures of power as in others. Robert Michels lived from 1876 to 1936, wrote several books, and taught sociology and economics at university - including at Basel, where Nietzsche also taught. Michels' arguments are particularly compelling because he began his political career as a socialist and worked within the socialist parties in Germany to advocate for economic reform. However, he soon began to perceive that the structure of the party itself had created another oligarchy within it, and that the leaders of the party seemed to naturally drift from the interests and perspectives of the workers at large. While we might expect such dynamics within monarchist or conservative parties, it was the revelation of this tendency within the leftist parties that disturbed Michels and compelled him to change his approach to politics. If even the avowedly socialistic and revolutionary political parties were destined to become oligarchic in their structure, then this surely points to something inherent to the human social structure that inevitably produces oligarchic rule. Today we're diving into his work, Political Parties, and exploring whether there is good evidence for the iron law of oligarchy.
Today I'm speaking with Mark Levine, a professor, touring musician, and author of several books, including Heavy Metal Islam, a book on the metal scene in the Muslim world. Mark has traveled throughout the world to explore musical styles and scenes outside of the Western mainstream. He became a rock musician at a young age, and spent his twenties reading Nietzsche in graduate school during the day, and gigging in New York City at night. In the course of his career, he's set up concerts in Cairo and Baghdad, discovered artists from Indonesia and Togo, and brought musical acts from around the world to perform in the United States. Mark and I share many interests as we both have a deep connection with Nietzsche and heavy metal, and both see a connection between aggressive, challenging styles of musical expression and Nietzsche's philosophy. In the course of the conversation we venture into the Frankfurt School and Nietzsche's influence there, consider how the different generations of that tradition approached Nietzsche, and discuss how Nietzsche's project differed from that of Adorno, Horkheimer, or Fromm. In spite of their critiques of him, Nietzsche remains indispensable for understanding the social critique that came out of the Frankfurt School, both because of his attack on the Enlightenment, but also through his influence on Freud. Heavy Metal Islam on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Metal-Islam-Resistance-Struggle/dp/0307353397Mark also offered some suggestions for Heavy Metal from the Muslim world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZnQlkC-VQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNav2lzd-TQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iak5NDINSPQhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhQ-99Qqj_whttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P82dJIwi4Qc
We've now heard Fustel de Coulanges' understanding of the disturbances in Ancient Rome as revolutions brought on by changes to their religious belief structure. We've considered Machiavelli's fawning historical interpretation of Rome, through Livy, as a people who were more virtuous than any other, and maintained that virtue by subjecting themselves to privation and hardship, and who fell into unrest when they strayed from virtue. And we've now heard Turchin's view, that the unrest of the Roman Republic was created by structural-demographic factors. Now, we hear the people's history of Ancient Rome, from Marxist-Leninist Michael Parenti, whose view I wanted to include because it was so different from any other in how he views Julius Caesar and his role in Roman history: as a reformer and liberator of the people, killed by an entrenched oligarchy who wished for nothing other than to hold on to their wealth. Parenti walks through the history of the Late Republic as a history of increasing excesses of the nobility, which was then challenged by people's tribunes and other attempts at reform. In all cases, the nobility put down the reformer, but Caesar was different because he was only assassinated after he'd managed to succeed, and to redistribute the land and the wealth. The legitimacy of the senate was forever shaken, for Caesar was forever the people's champion, and it was thus that it required a civil war afterwards, and only the man who most successfully presented himself as Caesar's heir was able to win and secure order once again - even if he was not revolutionary that Caesar was. Parenti attacks the view of the 'gentleman historians' of Great Britain, and throughout history, who have viewed Rome as a true republic, with democratic representation. Instead, Parenti makes the case that Rome was ruled by a closed-off patriciate who cared for nothing other than their own wealth, and were even willing to undermine the health and stability of their empire in order to extract more. Caesar was the incarnation of this popular uprising into one man, who was willing to break all of the limitations and decorum the nobility had put into place as a means of ensuring that nothing ever changed. Caesar, rather than a tyrannical villain who was justly killed by Brutus, the "noblest Roman of them all", Parenti portrays Caesar as a tragic hero, who was the only hope for saving the republic and achieving justice.
You have questions, I might have answers. Khajiit has wares, if you have coin. I was originally planning on doubling up episodes this week, but with the approaching tour, I’m going to have to set aside a couple weeks to just release an interview or Q&A in order to have steady releases. Hope this episode satisfies! Cheers.
Peter Turchin has continued the work of Ibn Khaldun, by elaborating upon Khaldun's hypotheses and testing them against the wealth of historical data that we now possess. By means of a structural demographic analysis of historical empires, Turchin has worked for years to generate mathematical models in order to explain the trends that seem to recur in every complex society. Now, with the data of 10,000 years of human activity on the group level, it may be possible to finally move beyond the preliminary, pseudo-scientific steps of the discipline of history, and proceed into a truly mathematized phase. This is the discipline that Turchin calls "Cliodynamics", after the Muse of history of Ancient Greece. His intention to leave behind the anthropological and archaeological studies that characterized history in the past, and bring mathematics into the field so that we can begin to make predictions. The reason why many have been so resistant to this development is our belief in free will, and the unpredictability of human action. Turchin thinks that this is a mistake, because while individual decisions are often unpredictable at the individual, granular level, at the level of entire populations or demographics, human beings become rather predictable. Quite in line with the cyclical view of history postulated by Plato, Thucydides, or Nietzsche, Turchin brings the math to demonstrate the truth of their ideas: that, in the realm of human history, all returns eternally.For our sources today, we're primarily using Turchin's books: War and Peace and War, Ultrasociety, and a brief dip at the end into the overall idea of Ages of Discord, as well as some references to Secular Cycles by Turchin and Nefedov. We'll also include a number of quotes from Roman historians Livy, Plutarch and others, as we examine the period of the Roman Republic, the chaos of the Late Republic and the transition to the Principate, as explained by Turchin's structural-demographic theory. This should be fun, given that we've already considered these events somewhat through the eyes of Machiavelli. Now, we can approach the subject with more rigor. In my view, Turchin is following in the traditions of these thinkers, but developing their work further.Episode art is Thomas Cole's now famous "Destruction" piece of his cycle, "The Course of Empire".
From all accounts, Nietzsche did not read nor comment upon the work of Ibn Khaldun, outside of a few remarks from Schopenhauer in one of his essays that Nietzsche might have read. But what we find in his Muqaddimah is a theory of cyclical history, in which many of the key principles of Nietzsche's political philosophy would find agreement. Ibn Khaldun was a historian from North Africa whose work sought to explain why it was that the same pattern seemed to repeat ad infinitum. The Bedouin desert tribes would overwhelm one of the settled cities of the Mediterranean, from time to time, then establish a new city there. For a time, the culture of the new city would be like that of the Bedouins in the desert. But, eventually, a sedentary culture set in, over the course of several generations, and the inhabitants grew complacent, became incompetent, and eventually found themselves overthrown by another desert tribe, and the process would then repeat. In his studies, Khaldun arrives at the concept of asabiya, or the capacity for collective power, which can be very useful for a Nietzschean perspective on social power structures. This concept of asabiya means, literally, 'group feeling', and describes the extent to which the individuals feel themselves to part of a unified, coherent group, and are thus able to act as instruments of the group, and coordinate their actions as a team. Asabiya increases in harsh conditions, and declines in conditions of luxury, and thus the cycle of empires is set into motion - "This is how God proceeds with His creatures." Just as Nietzsche suggests the idea of all things returning eternally, Khaldun's writing brings this idea into the historical and political sphere. But Ibn Khaldun is significant because he presents this not only as a poetical idea, but as a pattern based on observable facts. There are many, many observations and anecdotes in the Muqaddimah, and we will not be able to cover it all, so we shall focus on the points most relevant to the ideas covered this season. This will be our first journey into a work outside the Western Canon, into one of the most important thinkers of the Near East. Join me in exploring the dynamics of history, as we jump into the basic ideas of the Muqaddimah.
My band Slumbering Sun releases The Ever-Living Fire today, on 2/24! This is a project composed with the themes of amor fati and embracing a world of eternal change. I wanted to tell all of you the story of how this band came into existence, how it fits into my story, and what it means to me. This is perhaps one of my most philosophical outings in music, about the choice to say Yes to life, live the tragic worldview, and fall in love with the world again. I included a song from the album at the end of this short, special episode. Cheers! Here’s our linktree: https://linktr.ee/slumberingsun?fbclid=PAAaauPYoaUrAzAghu407YOWXhDouGvvmBZB47bluZ-LFQItv7uAeR9sZUCUU
We've considered two out of the three main strands of 20th century political thought: capitalism and socialism. Fascism is the third, and it is both the most and the least important of the three to consider. I consider it the least important because fascism was defeated, and relegated to the fringes, and honoring its existence with a critique seems like a waste of time. On the other hand, when it comes to Nietzsche, it becomes particularly important to address because of how Nietzsche was tarred with the associations with the fascists, and blamed for their crimes. In this episode, we explore the reasons for this, including his sister Elisabeth, Nietzsche's association with Wagner, Nazi philosophers like Baumler who tried to reshape Nietzsche's ideas to his fit own, and critics like Ernest Newman who took the Nazi claims on Nietzsche uncritically. In fact, when we look to Nietzsche's letters, and many statements he'd made over the years about his break with Wagner, that the ideas of German nationalism and anti-semitism were repugnant to him - he goes so far as to say that it is opposed to his entire way of life. As such, we take a particular focus in this episode on addressing anti-semitism. Even though anti-semitism is not essential to all forms of fascism, the same patterns of harnessing the envy and resentment of the average, precarious person and giving him an evil enemy to fight can be seen in its example. We find that Nietzsche's philosophy is opposed to any essential idea of race, and that those who believed in such things often appealed to mystical or metaphysical claims about the races as descended from pure, separate species from an ancient Golden Age - such as the occult beliefs of the Thule Society. And finally, even against Mussolinian ideas of state-worship, Nietzsche exists in stark contrast, as we call to mind his concern of the state becoming the ends rather than a means, and the "iron-clamp" crushing down and stopping all productions of culture. For Nietzsche, the state is "the coldest of all monsters", and it is a lie when it claims to represent or stand for the people. This episode is unique among these three excursions into 20th century political thought in that it is the only one of the three where we'll seriously examine Nietzsche's life, yet again, and his personal relationships, since none of this can be understood without the story of Elisabeth Nietzsche. As sources, I've used Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism essay in order to ground what we're talking about as regards fascism, and we'll look at some ways in which Nietzsche and he agree in condemning fascism, but some ways in which Nietzsche's ideas run astray of Eco's standards.I've also used Stephen Hicks' book, "Nietzsche and the Nazis", and some of the materials available on his website. We look at five ways that Hicks sees Nietzsche as opposed to the Nazis, and five ways they could be seen as similar. I disagree with Hicks on many points, though I feel his work to be valuable. I also cite Kaufmann's biography of Nietzsche at many points (albeit without providing page numbers), and even use Rob Solomon's introduction to Nietzsche, "What Nietzsche Really Said", for one quote.
After getting several suggestions in our comments sections, Stef and I touched based and decided to have a conversation. I asked him about his attempt to harness both the philosophy of Nietzsche with that of Carl Jung, since there are some contradictions between their thought that keep them from being easily reconciled. We discuss Jordan Peterson, why we both liked him once upon a time, but why he has, perhaps, 'lost it'. And throughout the conversation, Stef gives his vision of the "Promethean West" - that European civilization is fundamentally based on aiming for the stars, unlocking the secrets of the universe, inventing and innovating, stealing the fire from the gods. His thesis is that many young people have lost this fire, and his goal is to kindle it again. I understand from reading some of the comments that Uberboyo might be a controversial figure for whatever reason. I actually found him to be a compelling speaker and to have a good grasp of Nietzsche's ideas, and much of what he said didn't seem divisive or intentionally controversial, at least to me. Hopefully we're all mature enough to tolerate opposing viewpoints on this podcast, especially given that the next guest will bring some critical theory into the mix, and I don't want to hear any (bad faith) griping from the other side either. Some of the patrons have said this was one of the best conversations so far, so I hope the audience at large will enjoy it also.
Today, we look at the other side of the coin. Nietzsche's critique of capitalism is in fact inextricably bound to his critique of socialism. What he finds beneath both approaches to managing human economic affairs is the utilitarian value structure and the view of the human being as homo economicus. Socialism, rather than the solution to capitalism, is the necessary end of the same internal logic, and further seeks to cut off avenues for man's will to power as we labor under the mistaken assumption that by reducing suffering we will maximize pleasure. The closer we proceed to an idealized, painless society, the more our individuality is smoothed over. Increasingly, the only avenue for the expression of power is through the only remaining hierarchical structure: the state. Originally created by mankind to be a means, the state becomes the ends. In a twisted irony, the likes of the socialists and anarchists - who desire above all for a classless, stateless society - bring forth an all-powerful state as the means of doing this, and become consumed by it.
A neat aspect of the episode order here is that we're covering Nietzsche's political thought in a rough chronology - meaning that, while we might jump around from place to place, and occasionally grab a quote from Beyond Good & Evil, we're moving from the second and third book of Human, All Too Human into covering a lot more material from Daybreak, while still drawing on sources from elsewhere in the middle period. The next episode - Nietzsche's critique of fascism - covers around the same period, in terms of the letters and statements he made about Wagner and Elisabeth during his breaks with them, in addition to drawing on passages from throughout his work.
Ian Wright's article, "Capital as a Real God": https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/marx-on-capital-as-a-real-god-2/
Thomas Brobjer's studies showing that Nietzsche knew Marx: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110170740.298/html
My essay on Star Trek: https://untimely-reflections.blogspot.com/2021/05/neverending-frontier-star-treks.html
Join me, and my friend Mynaa Miesnowan, for a discussion inspired by the work of Alan Watts, and his "Wisdom of Insecurity". We compare Watts' own approach to the insecurity of life to that of Nietzsche's, and generally analyze Watts' ideas from a Nietzschean framework. Ultimately, we diverge wildly from the topics covered in Watts' work, and the starting topic is really more a guidepost for the various directions that our thought takes us. However, contained in this are a couple of fun and fascinating looks at the contrast between Watts and Nietzsche, as regards their thought on leisure v/s productivity, and sobreity v/s intoxication. We also touch upon the critiques both men made of language, and the metaphysical assumptions of our society in its materialistic atomism, and how the human perspective inevitably delimits the boundaries of thought.
Our economy, comrade! Silly cover images and slogans aside, this week we'll consider one of the most peculiar aspects of Nietzsche's political thought: his non-Marxist critique of capitalism, which is mostly found in Human, All Too Human, Books II and III. Since Nietzsche is writing during an experimental period in his thought, he's willing here to entertain thoughts which might not have interested him during his later career. He's willing to give advice to democrats on the best ways to preserve their system against the excesses of capital, for example, or to explain to the rich how their lack of virtue is the very thing that will bring on the revolution against them. Ultimately, Nietzsche's argument centers on the idea that capitalism implies socialism, as both ideologies are founded on utilitarian principles which will drive them towards this end, so long as the value of utility is unmoored from any other concerns: moral, spiritual, national, or individual. I begin the episode with an overall criticism of capitalism based on Nietzschean principles, then we study the textual evidence for these positions and the ways in which Nietzsche considers 'the property question' to be the most dangerous of his time - for remedying it is itself dangerous. The only paths he sees open for society to continue, and survive what he believes to be a cataclysmic movement towards socialism or anarchy, are the following surprising measures: for the wealthy to rediscover virtue, for the institutions of democracy to ban the parties and expel the rich and the destitute from governance, to nationalize the financial sector, and for mass production to yield to a guild or trade union system.
I'm sure this episode will anger most extremists: i.e., the Marxists and the libertarian capitalists. To those free spirits who haven't a care for orthodox opinions, for whom this episode really belongs, join me, and explore the Nietzschean criticisms of capitalism.
Stream my new song on CvltNation: https://cvltnation.com/experience-the-doomy-grunge-melodies-of-slumbering-sun-dream-snake/ This episode gets us back into reading Nietzsche, and here I think our prolonged focus on influences and previous thinkers will bear fruit. We’re picking back up with Nietzsche’s middle period, starting from his work in Human, All Too Human. In a chapter from this work, Nietzsche addresses himself to the ideas of Rousseau, Machiavelli, Thucydides, and Plato. He attacks democracy and egalitarianism, but treats them ambivalently, as a resistless force that cannot be stopped and with which the free spirit must make his peace. He treats war as essential for mankind, but acknowledges the ways in which a European peace would advance civilization. Above all, he rejects the Kantian notions that free expression of all would improve society, and equally so rejects the Rousseauian notions of abandoning the Enlightenment advances in art and culture. While this chapter lays the groundwork for Nietzsche’s later politics, it is a fascinating time of experimentation that is difficult to contextualize without seeing the entire picture of his development. Join me this week for A Glance at The State.
This episode concerns the least celebrated aspect of one of the most celebrated philosophers of the European Enlightenment: Kant’s politics. Immanuel Kant is responsible for launching the thread of philosophic inquiry known as German Idealism. At the time, perhaps Kant was merely trying to address the skepticism of those such as Hume. Nevertheless, his philosophical attempt to delimit the bounds of reason - to reveal to humanity what we can, in fact, know by use of our reason - launched a revolution in philosophy. It continues through Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer, and, yes, Nietzsche. We have avoided a comprehensive episode on Kant’s philosophy because that would require not an episode, but a podcast, and have limited our inclusion of Kant to a few important aspects insofar as they’ve related to past topics. While Kant’s politics are generally considered among his lesser contributions to the philosophical world, I will advance the case here that we see his ideas reflected in the political ideologies of the modern world: his political optimism, his belief in reason as a governing principle, and his belief in perpetual peace. While Rousseau may have been about as far apart from Nietzsche as possible while sharing his romantic orientation towards history, Kant and Nietzsche are diametrically opposed in terms of their starting principles. Kant is arguably a match for Rousseau in terms of Nietzschean antipodes, but as to which is more opposed to Nietzsche than the other, I’ll leave that to the audience to decide.
In this conversation, my friend Quinn and I dare to journey into one of the most labyrinthine passages ever to come from Nietzsche's hand: the 1873 fragment, Zeitatomenlehre, usually translated as the "Time-Atom" or "Time-Atomism" Fragment. Providing a description of this passage in any concise way will be about as impossible as summarizing this conversation, and our interpretations of it, but at the very least, I will offer that this essay is a radical re-evaluation of how we could consider reality, in which the underlying spatial nature of our thought is challenged. Nietzsche follows philosophically in the footsteps of the Pre-Platonic figures, and makes a daring attempt at a metaphysics so outlandish that there is nothing else like it in western thought. We approached this conversation knowing that figuring out the passage is very difficult, and decided to work through it as best as possible - although I think Quinn had it down more solidly than I did. While this conversation bears no relation to the overarching topic of this season, that's perfectly fine, since I've wanted to do this episode for a long time, and it makes sense for it to be "out of time" or "out of tempo" with the rest of the season anyway. I would actually put a warning label on this conversation to suggest that if you're new to the podcast, this might be too much to follow. For previous episodes that may help in approaching this one, check out episode 5 in season one and episodes 45 & 46 in season two.
In Rousseau, we find the mirror image of Nietzsche’s politics. While both have been called romantics, we find enough nuance to consider both something beyond this - and yet, Rousseau & Nietzsche agree in finding problematic the supposed “progress” of the modern world, and both turn their gaze back to the time before civilization to contrast with modern life. But where Nietzsche sees a war of all against all, Rousseau sees a state of natural happiness. Rather than a “going back” to this natural utopia, as Rousseau’s philosophy is sometimes described, instead Rousseau’s project is an indictment of the injustice of civilization and the goal of remedying this injustice. For Rousseau, man can only be made free once again if society is brought into accord with the general will - the underlying will of the populace at large. In this, harmony between the individual and society is achieved, and true democracy realized. There is hardly any figure who receives more scorn from Nietzsche than Rousseau, but because Rousseau is eerily similar to Nietzsche in many respects, learning the basics of his politics is essential to understanding Nietzsche. Join us while we cover Nietzsche’s opposite in political philosophy.
Join me and the friends of the podcast in our last episode of the year, a light-hearted variety show! This episode has a focus on gift-giving, and several guests have given me the gift of their time and effort - Andrei Georgescu, Karl Nord, Mynaa Miesnowaan, and Quinn Williams. Join each of them as they present their own meditation on giving and how it relates to Nietzsche's philosophy. I've also got a little audio novella for you about Nietzsche's Christmas with the Wagners, and we'll conclude the episode by reading fan mail. Topics range from the Buddha's magic milkshake, to the Franco-Prussian War to It's a Wonderful Life. There will be no new episode on Tuesday. I'm out of town and taking a well-needed holiday break. We'll resume the regular Nietzsche Podcast episodes in the New Year. Join us to celebrate everything we've done this year and to reflect before pushing forward into 2023. Slumbering Sun - Liminal Bridges (New Single Dec. 2022)https://youtu.be/AqOWuuOP980
Today, we discuss one of the most important works of political philosophy of all time, Machiavelli's Il Principe - The Prince. This book was composed while Machiavelli was in exile, after having served the city of Florence for thirteen years as a diplomatic official, but by the time of its authorship reduced to the role of an obscure private citizen. In this work, as Nietzsche characterizes it, Machiavelli takes us along at a brisk allegrissimo through matters of the most grave seriousness, maintaining sobriety and good humor the whole way through. His intended audience is a leader who could found an Italian nation-state. Accordingly, he makes a distinction between republics, hereditary monarchies, and the kind of monarchy that such a unifier of Italy would inevitably have to create: the new monarchy. He writes without concern for the questions of legitimacy, natural rights, or the progress towards a political ideal. Machiavelli instead concerns himself with the practical challenges of establishing a new state. He looks not to the future, but wishes to emulate the example that lies in the distant past, in the form of Rome. His hero, Cesare Borgia - a tragic figure who played the game of thrones rather well, but still lost - was similarly held by Nietzsche as an example of a great individual. In our examination of why Machiavelli admired Borgia, we find an important key to Nietzsche's understanding of Europe's moral-psychological past, and the revaluation of values that took place during the Italian Renaissance, only to be thwarted by the arising of Luther and the Protestant Reformation.
Introduction to Machiavelli’s political philosophy. We will consider Machiavelli’s legacy, and the enduring debate as to the significance of Machiavelli’s work. Is he strictly an amoralist, concerned with political power as solely a “force” to be considered in the scientific sense, or does he have a political project of his own that must inform our interpretation of him? To answer these questions, we will take the unorthodox step of beginning with his Discourses on Livy. As always, there is some truth to both these approaches, as Machiavelli holds republics above monarchies, and seeks for the means of achieving a state with liberty for its citizens. But he attains his greatness in political theory insofar as his own political concerns are always approached within a sober, realistic theory of power. In the Discourses, Machiavelli comments on the history of the Roman Republic, in his view the greatest state ever to have existed, since it endured the longest while allowing its citizens the most liberty. For Friedrich Nietzsche, heavily influenced by Machiavelli, the important lessons to be learned from him are his realism, his attention to longevity, his critique of the church and of the Christian religion, and the need for the ruler to profess and foster the religion of the people even if he does not believe it himself. In Machiavelli, Nietzsche finds a political theory so laudable that he would suggest in his noted that “pure Machiavellianism” is transcendent and superhuman - a path to elevating humanity.
Watch our livestream tomorrow (12/7/22), at 9:00 PM central time, on this channel: https://www.youtube.com/@StudioERecording
Show flyer: https://www.instagram.com/p/ClzsytPMNrg/
Today we summarize the ways in which Nietzsche's politics was influenced by the Ancient Greeks. Nietzsche derives from the Sophists, such as Thucydides, his preference for realism over idealism in geopolitics, and the "practical justice" of examining every viewpoint on its own terms, and according to what would serve the advantage or disadvantage to that perspective. From Epicurus, he derives the "anti-politics" of praising withdrawal from the world, and the intellectual or philosophical class acting based on a pathos of distance in which they remove themselves from mass politics and from quotidian concerns. Finally, he inherits from figures such as Theognis a desire to way a cultural battle against democratic or egalitarian values. Rather than becoming political in terms of practical political action in his own time, Nietzsche sets his sights to the long-term, beyond any one regime, country, or people, and attempts to provide a timeless argument for hierarchy and aristocracy. This is "Nietzsche's Contest" in the philosophical arena: the war for his ideals, which he feels to be the most powerful, most life-enhancing, and thus most deserving in the political sphere, to triumph over the zeitgeist of democratic moralism. Our main sources today are the fragment, "The Greek State", and the essay, "Homer's Contest". This will serve as a kind of recap and conclusion to our focus on the Greeks, bringing an end to this antiquarian section of the season. Next week will serve as a bridge into the political concerns of the Enlightenment, by examining the ways in which one author of Enlightenment Europe, dear to Nietzsche, was influenced greatly by the political history of Rome.
Episode art is Johann Köler - Hercules Removes Cerberus from the Gates of Hell, 1855. Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
The word “Epicurean” is a wonderful example of the linguistic phenomenon of a word coming to signify the opposite of its original meaning. Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic in that it holds pleasure to be the highest good, but Epicurus drew completely different conclusions than that of blind pleasure-seeking. In truth, Epicurus views the most important task of life to be the removal of pain or distress, and concludes in the ideal of an austere, simple, hidden life: the life in “The Garden”.Nietzsche made numerous interesting remarks about Epicurus throughout his literary canon. After studying the basic outline of his life and ideas through Diogenes Laertius, we’ll read some of Nietzsche’s interpretations and critiques of Epicurus. Even though Epicurus can be seen as a forerunner to utilitarianism, in him Nietzsche finds a great man and a precursor: a man who loved life, dealt with the world in real terms, and who “created the heroic-idyllic way to philosophize”.
“My cure for Platonism has always been Thucydides.” Nietzsche saw in the first historian of Ancient Greece the will to adhere to realism, and to learn the lessons of the “harsh teacher” of war. Where he sees cowardice in Plato, Nietzsche sees courage in Thucydides, as well as the “practical justice” of allowing all the parties a fair representation of their viewpoint. Thucydides, for Nietzsche, is the epitome of the Sophist tradition, which he contrasts with the moralism of Socrates and Plato. In this episode, we discuss The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides’ great contribution to world literature and history.
Here we examine Nietzsche's political philosophy by considering one of his antipodes. Plato’s Republic is one of the most important works of classical philosophy, and also one of the most infamous. In this episode we examine a series of questions concerning Plato: is the Republic a work of ethical philosophy only, or must we read political implications in it?; is it a utopian work?; is Plato responsible, as Popper charges, for the horrors of the 20th century?; finally, what was Nietzsche’s response to the politics of Plato? While the episode involves an introductory discussion of the major ideas of the work, our focus is primarily on the issues that would have interested Nietzsche and which would concern us in studying the politics of antiquity.
Nietzsche graduated Schulpforta with a dissertation on the topic of Theognis of Megara. Theognis was a Greek aristocrat from a Dorian city-state, famous for his poetry which survives only in fragments. For millennia, he was regarded as a gnomic poet, whose works were intended to impart moral lessons. In his study of Theognis, Nietzsche combats this view, and argues instead that Theognis was only perceived as a moralist in the post-Socratic zeitgeist. What Nietzsche finds instead is a passionate man who wrote poetry at all seasons and occasions of life, and who spoke for an aristocratic ethos that was collapsing during the democratic revolutions of Greece. In this essay, among the earliest works of Nietzsche, we find the beginnings of his own identification with the old social order of Greece, and even his implicit criticisms thereof. Episode art - Statue of Janus, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Having discussed the ancient foundations of the religion that governed the minds of the Hellenes and the Romans, we now discuss how life in the city developed. The social order and the laws governing the cities were rooted in religious beliefs that were so old that they were now already modified and subsumed within other, newer beliefs. Since the belief is the foundation of the social order, Coulanges asserts that it was the transformation of the religious beliefs that began to demand the changes which would occur in the cities. As the beliefs continued to be modified, a series of revolutions rippled through the Ancient Greek world. Centuries later, the same happened in Italy. First, the aristocracies revolted against the kings. Then, the people against the aristocracies - often installing tyrants (dictatorships which were supported by force and bribery). The struggle between oligarchies, tyrannies, and democracies then continued for hundreds of years, and the ancient writers began to see these forms of government as in a cycle of revolution against one another. However, the transformation of the social life brought with it new developments which in turn perpetuated the changes: the rise of Greek philosophy, the imperialism of the Roman empire and the spreading of its beliefs and temples to many lands and peoples, and finally the emergence of Christianity, which proclaimed the universal equality of man, one god over all the peoples of the world, and no secret or private worships. The social order could not survive this complete revaluation of values, and it disappeared in the centuries that followed.
While Coulanges and Nietzsche did not comment on one another's work at all - in spite of being contemporaries - they both shed light on the insights of the other. Here we have a historical analysis which is in line with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, and his account of the Christian revolt against the pagan, Greek master morality. Coulanges, rather than present the case in terms of moral philosophy, examines the underlying religious beliefs as primary.
If you've been listening for a year or more, you know that Halloween is a very special holiday for me. To be honest, finding "spooky" Nietzsche content was a bit difficult last year, such that I probably covered just about everything you could say about Nietzsche's thoughts on ghosts, witches, the fear of the dark, or why we celebrate scary or morose holidays such as Halloween. So, this year, for our Halloween special, I decided to take a detour to an author who came along shortly after Friedrich Nietzsche, and addressed many of the same themes that concerned Nietzsche: H.P. Lovecraft. In celebration of the spookiest time of year, Mynaa & I discuss the philosophical meaning behind H.P. Lovecraft's fiction and the cosmic horror that underlies his work, and the connections we see to Friedrich Nietzsche and Peter Zappfe. Like Nietzsche, Lovecraft perceived the end of the our metaphysical and moral faith, murdered by a rising scientific materialism that left no room for concepts like the salvation of mankind or the centrality of the earth in the grand scale of the cosmos. Mankind instead confronted an increasingly meaningless world - a world which Lovecraft depicted in fantastical terms: in which human beings who were largely impotent in the story were torn asunder by entities who are entirely indifferent towards them.
After the discussion, I included some readings of Lovecraft's stories. I picked "The Tree" because it is underrated, a perfectly paced campfire-story-type tale, and one set in Ancient Greece! Then, "From Beyond", a story that encapsulates the Lovecraftian angst about the progress of scientific knowledge. I figured this could be a fun departure from the normal scholarly rigor to get into the spirit of the season. Happy Halloween!
Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges (1830-1889) provides us with the most in-depth account of the ancient religion upon which the city-states of Greece and Rome were founded. While the Hellenes later believed in concepts such as reincarnation, the division of body and soul, and gods that ruled over whole empires, Coulanges asserts that in their earliest days - hundreds or thousands of years before the periods for which we have written documentation - the Indo-Europeans believed that the dead continued to live on in the same body, underground. These dead ancestors became gods in the imaginations of the early Hellenes, bound to the land and the object of a secret worship carried out only by their descendants. Alongside these peculiar beliefs was the practice of keeping a sacred hearthfire in the center of the home - the home being the temple of the domestic religion. This fire was regarded as a literal god, real and living, who blessed the household so long as they kept the fire burning and pure, and would curse them if they did otherwise. Coulanges builds his case by following the clues remaining from the days of this worship - such as strange contradictions in the holy books, and rituals and hymns which did not reflect the beliefs but pointed to something more ancient. It is from these beliefs - alien and incomprehensible to us today - that the social order of the city was formed, and the laws that governed the cities written. Thus, we paradoxically find that the ancients were both completely foreign to us - and yet even we today preserve odd relics of this old belief.
While Coulanges' seminal work, The Ancient City, is nowhere found in Nietzsche's library, and thus it is likely that Nietzsche never read it, it is indispensable for understanding the perspective of the ancient Hellenes. Since we're going to be covering a great deal of Hellenic thought in the coming episodes, we're going to preface all of it with a crash course in the development of their religious beliefs - for, as Coulanges argues, it is according to these beliefs that the political reality was shaped.
Episode art: Dedication of a new Vestal Virgin, by Alessandro Marchesini (1663–1738), courtesy of Creative Commons
Introduction to the politics of Nietzsche. In this episode, we give an unvarnished look at the aristocratic radicalism that forms up the foundation of Nietzsche's political philosophy. While many interpreters and commenters on Nietzsche have dealt with his radical politics by ignoring it altogether, by regarding Nietzsche as anti-political, or by interpreting it all away, we will instead begin by taking a hard look at Nietzsche's politics and see if we can come to an understanding of why he held this perspective. As with all things Nietzsche, his political views begin with Hellenic Greece. What we discover, in the course of this examination, is that Nietzsche's political philosophy, antithetical to our modern morality though it may be, is intertwined with his broader philosophical ideas. In this episode, we will cover the concepts of the order of rank, and the pathos of distance - as well as the devilish metaphor that Nietzsche employs in order to describe the aristocratic social order: that of the Sipo Matador vine, a parasite that strangles the trees of the Brazilian rainforest so that it might ascend above the canopies and unfold its flowery crown.
Nietzsche recapitulates and summarizes his positions, and provides us with a few relatively simple formulas for understanding the interaction of the two art-forces. He hopes for a rebirth of tragic art in Europe. We conclude with my distillation of the main philosophical concepts, the significance of which can be expanded beyond the work.
Here we find the idea of cultures as admixtures of the Apollinian, Dionysian, or Socratic approaches to life. The Socratic is distinguished from the Apollinian, and modern art and culture is assessed as theoretic parasitism on art.
Socrates, having been introduced in the last chapter we studied in the previous section, appears now to threaten all art, with a worldview described as "the theoretic", which is fundamentally opposed to the tragic. The theoretical worldview is, by nature, optimistic, moralistic, and against all illusion and ignorance. Nietzsche first raises the prospect of "an artistic Socrates", and rails against the New Attic Comedy as a degenerated artform in comparison to Attic Tragedy.
Now we turn to the effect of Euripedes, and Nietzsche’s charge that this tragedian came under the influence of Socrates, and the new form of drama, New Attic Comedy, that followed.
Let’s talk about the evolution of the Attic Tragedy: from solo dithyrambic poet, to dithyrambic chorus, to chorus plus the ritualized portrayal of a masked Dionysus, to an entire tragedy performed on stage behind the “magic wall” of the chorus.
We continue our analysis of Birth of Tragedy, and enter one of the most byzantine sections of the text. Don’t worry, I shall be your Ariadne.
Today we cover the first three sections of Birth of Tragedy. Slow going, I know- but things will begin to move at a faster clip as we continue. In this episode the core concepts of the Apollinian and Dionysian art forces are explained, their relation to one another, and their origin in dreams and intoxication.
In the name of Lord Dionysus, it with great joy and solemnity that we commence this, the first of our Nietzschean bookclubs. This series will see me undertake an in-depth analysis, moving section-by-section, through Nietzsche’s first book: The Birth of Tragedy. In the first episode, we’ll look at Nietzsche’s masterful second preface, written in 1886 and attached to the beginning of the work. This episode will therefore serve as a sort of introduction to the text, contextualizing it within Nietzsche’s own understanding of his early text and how it laid the foundations for many of his later ideas.
This is the first conversation on the podcast between more than two people. Given that the episodes involving a dialogue are often the least popular compared to the lecture series, perhaps this simply shows that I have not learned my lesson and refuse to appease the audience gods. We discuss several quotations from Nietzsche during the Untimely Meditations period. The topic is culture - Nietzsche's view of culture and how it informs us about our situation today. We strayed into many other topics as well, too many to recount in the description here - including Mormonism, arguing online, insect behavior, hyper-individualism, and much more.
The final episode of season two.
We discuss some of my favorite passages from Nietzsche, concerning the feeling of liberation one has upon finally and fully accepting the Nietzschean affirmative philosophy, and what this means for our future. Nietzsche urges us not to interpret him as giving us a definitive way of life to follow, but furthermore does not wish us to seek for a state of finality, rest, or utopia. The great experience of noontide is the perception that one is truly halfway between animal and that which is super-human, and that transformation into something greater is possible: that we can overcome our previous limitations that we believed once were set in stone. The episode concludes with a thank you to the fans, a teaser of what is to come in the podcast, and a reading of Nietzsche's Aftersong for Beyond Good and Evil, "From High Mountains."
Episode art: Zoroaster Clavis -- Alchemist Who Has Achieved Illumination
A synthesis of all ideas of Nietzsche’s affirmative philosophy as we have discussed it this season. Join me as I dare to embark on the challenge of answering, on Nietzsche’s behalf, that age-old question… What is the meaning of life? Episode art: Joseph Werner - Diana of Ephesus as allegory of Nature, c. 1680
This time, I'm answering questions just from patrons. If it sounds cool to you to get to ask me additional Q&A questions in between the public Q&As, you can become a patron. Honestly, I know I say this every time, but every time it's true: this is my favorite question and answer session yet! Got into some very deep and very fun territory. Love it. When this goes up on reddit, I'll ask the public for more questions so we can follow up with another episode, this time with an opportunity for everyone to have their queries answered.
On our second excursion into Nietzschean science, we’re studying Nietzsche’s two most celebrated figures in science: one from Ancient Greece and another from Enlightenment Europe. In Democritus, Nietzsche sees the zenith of the materialist project in Greek philosophy, opening the way for a mathematical atomist description of the world, carried on by the Pythagoreans. In Boscovich, he finds a continuation of this project, centuries later - to describe the world by one force or law, and account for the problem of motion in a way that rejects Kantian or Newtonian appeals to God, or Spinozistic teleology. What comes out of this inquiry is an understanding that Nietzsche may have construed the will to power as a physical reality from the very beginning. From this perspective, will to power is the answer to the problem of motion; it is the inner, “intelligible character” of matter; it is the qualitative expression of what Boscovich’s unified field theory offers us in quantitative terms. This episode culminates in a look at some of Nietzsche’s more extreme or puzzling statements in his notes where will to power is discussed as a very real physical principle. Pictured in the episode art are Democritus and Boscovich.
In this episode, we revisit the Pre-Platonic lecture series given by Nietzsche at Basel, the notes for which were assembled and translated by Gregory Whitlock. These lectures detail Nietzsche’s views on the first philosophers of Ancient Greece, and how they demonstrated that the spirit of scientific investigation is a manifestation of will to power: to bound the boundless within the understanding of reason, by appeal to as few possible starting principles. Nietzsche believes that the Pre-Platonic philosophers - Thales, Heraclitus, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Democritus and others - represented the descent from an understanding of the world as controlled by a personified heaven, into something explained by natural forces. The end result is materialism: matter as explained by matter itself and its properties or laws. This is powerful and dangerous as an innovation. Materialism offers the greatest utility, but precedes a slide into nihilism. Many of Nietzsche’s insights in his interpretation were influenced by the philosopher of science, Friedrich Albert Lange. In this episode, we examine the relation of Nietzsche to Lange, their view of the Pre-Platonics, and then analyze each figure individually to see how each fits in to Nietzsche’s narrative of the unfolding of scientific thought in Greece. Rather than a mere historical curiosity, Nietzsche finds the Greeks to express the same driving tendency that underlies science in our own time.
In this episode, I'm reading a chapter of my book, Unconscious Correspondences. I considered an episode on Cartesian Dualism, but realized I'd already said everything I needed to say, in a chapter in this book. Rather than repurposing the same content into a new form, why not just read directly from the book? As Nietzsche tended to do when introducing his own earlier works, I shall do the same. I will introduce this essay: "Body and Mind: The Life and Meditations of Rene Descartes - A Polemic" with, "An attempt at self-criticism".
This essay has its flaws, and belabors the point a bit too stringently at places. In retrospect, I made some very overgeneralized claims about academia and modern attitudes towards Descartes that one could easily challenge. I should also say that these claims derived from personal experience with my own professors, and the professors of many of my friends. Descartes was always taught as being "basically a secret atheist who didn't believe the religious stuff at all and included it just to please the church." Not only did one of my own professors say some version of this, I heard this from others, attending different universities. This always struck me as odd, because the central premises of his Meditations on First Philosophy are completely derived from Christian presuppositions, which are simply taken from theology and put into philosophical language. Thus, I challenged: whether Descartes was truly a departure from past philosophy (Plato, of course, sets up figures to raise assertions and Socrates to raise skeptical objections/doubts); whether Descartes was actually an atheist or a deist (or whether we could understand him within the assumption he was a Christian, perhaps a Rosicrucian); whether our own interpretations of Descartes have to do with our embrace of the "mind as self" ego-consciousness (thus leading us to be confused and embarrassed by Descartes' invocation of God as the ultimate certainty). While I wrote in a way that was somewhat clumsy in my eyes now, and while I may have spent too much time in a detour talking about the background historical context in which Descartes emerged, I feel these challenges are raised in a forceful and meaningful enough way to be useful for people to think about. https://app.thebookpatch.com/BookStore/unconscious-correspondences/3fe82dc3-d4ac-4d61-81c3-9ce9a7abe483
Much had been made of Nietzsche’s predictions of the coming nihilism. As a result of the death of the Christian God, Europe is bound for a crisis of values, in which nothing can any longer give us a goal beyond ourselves and our own happiness, and people search for this meaning or justification in all sorts of other spheres of human life: morality, reason, history, and utility. Ultimately, however, since we have so thoroughly devalued the physical world of experience, we find no such meaningful answer to the problem of life. That we have devalued life in order to justify life was a masterstroke of Christianity, so long as we had a transcendent authority to look to: a higher sphere to justify the material sphere. But now, we are left only with the burdens, the curse on existence, the “in vain”. As the will cannot aim at nothing, the ultimate consequence is the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number. Rather than this passive, incomplete nihilism, Nietzsche dreams of an active nihilism, and a strength of will to cut through the meaninglessness into a true revaluation. Come explore the meaning, causes and consequences of nihilism with me! Episode art: Gustave Dore - Satan’s Fall to Earth
After the wager is agreed upon between Faust and Mephisto, the two set off to explore the world. Mephisto takes Faust out drinking in Leipzig. Then, Mephisto procures for him a youth potion from one of his earthly servants - a witch - that takes thirty years off of Faust's life, restoring him to perfect youth. Then, while on their travels, Faust meets a young girl named Gretchen, by happenstance, and decides he must have her, forcing Mephisto to help him in this endeavor. Most of the rest of part one then deals with this storyline as it unfolds: the "Gretchen Tragedy", in which an innocent, devout young woman falls in love with a charming, mysterious stranger - only to have her heart broken, her family destroyed, and her life ruined. In his endless quest for new experiences, Faust is willing to take on all pain, all pleasure, all triumph, all calamity. But what about when Faust brings tragedy onto others? And what if it is the very woman he loves who suffers the most because of his actions?
While part two of Faust is impossible to summarize, we'll then do our best of covering that material, and then, of course, the masterful final scene of the play, written more than fifty years after the first lines were first put to parchment. Goethe's Faust ultimately reveals to us the story of Faust's entire life, and thus could only be written over the course of a lifetime by Goethe. Join me in exploring this great work of world literature, which seeks to redeem the dissatisfied, wayward aspect within the Enlightened mind.
Goethe is perhaps the most widely-celebrated author of German literature, and Faust is his most famous tale. While the historical Doctor Faustus had always been portrayed as an essentially evil man, who sold his soul to the devil in exchange for greater power, Goethe reinterpreted the story into a wager between Faust and Mephistopheles, and set it against the backdrop of a metaphysical wager between God and Satan. Faust, as protagonist, stands not for evil, but for the spirit of ceaseless striving. Having mastered all the faculties of the university, and attained the zenith of knowledge available to mankind, Faust feels his lifelong quest has been for naught. He declares: "...for all our science and art / we can know nothing, it burns my heart". His restless heart sees Faust turning to magic and conjuration in order to break past the boundaries of science, morality, or even common decency - in his neverending quest to pursue knowledge and achievement. This path leads him straight to Mephisto, who offers Faust a deal that he cannot refuse.
In part one, we'll discuss the philosophical themes of Faust, and how they influenced the thought of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Then, Goethe's place in literature and a brief summary of his life and work, as well as the background of the work in question, Faust. We'll then examine in detail some of the scenes and monologues from the first scenes of the play: from Heaven's Prologue to the scene in Faust's study where the deal is struck. I'm very excited for this one!
Episode art: Philipp Winterwerb - Faust in his Study
"Emerson – Never have I felt so much at home in a book, and in my home, as – I may not praise it… it is too close to me... The author who has been richest in ideas in this century so far, has been an American..." (Nietzsche)
Ralph Waldo Emerson is one of the most influential minds in America, as a leading figure in the Transcendentalist movement that emerged during the mid-1800s, a personal friend and strong influence on Thoreau, and a preacher outside of any church or dogma. Emerson believed that what he called "Historical Christianity" had rendered the Christian religion a dead faith. Rather than educating men's spirits as to the meaning of their individual strivings and sufferings, or relating the wisdom of the Bible to their actual lives, preachers merely uttered moral sentiments and taught their flocks by rote. After departing the Harvard Divinity School, Emerson lectured all around America for 25 years. He was part of the Lyceum movement, which aimed to bring such philosophical lectures to general audiences - transmitting philosophy to the people, rather than just those within academia. While Emerson has sometimes been portrayed as an 'easy optimist' with a positive message, he was a man of intense feeling whose life was marred by tragedy. His answer to the suffering of his life was to transmute it into a sincerely personal and individual spirituality, and an understanding of all life as expressions of one divinity: The Over-Soul.
The link between Emerson and Nietzsche is one that is oft-overlooked, even now. Some have called this a kind of perennial oversight, an absurdly repeating blind spot in approaching Nietzsche. Perhaps this is because the two men have as many differences as they do similarities. And yet, when we look within Nietzsche's journals and letters, and even within his published works, the influence of Emerson is made stunningly clear. Throughout the episode, we examine how concepts such as the personal v/s the impersonal, the use and abuse of history, the celebration and acceptance of all life's circumstances, the use of a monistic principle to explain all life - were all part of Emerson's philosophy as much as Nietzsche's. Both men were, in Emerson's coinage, "children of the fire": the souls who perceive the beauty of the divine fire underlying all life and existence, and give it voice in poetry, philosophy, and song.
Interview with Robert Richardson D. Richardson: https://youtu.be/ebDLjy3ARQ4
Mind Like Fire Unbound by Thanissaro Bhikku: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/1.html
Richardson's Emerson, The Mind on Fire: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EMWJKY8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1&asin=B01EMWJKY8&revisionId=40826a6b&format=1&depth=1
Episode art: Joseph Wright of Derby, Vesuvius from Portici, 1774 (composited with a portrait of Emerson)
In a second episode with my wife, Amberly, we talk about another movie. This time it's not a movie about Nietzsche, the man, but a film that I argue approximates some of Nietzsche's ideas about the decline of society, the weakness of modernity, and the need to rediscover the barbarian within us all. That film, of course, is Demolition Man (1993) by Paul Verhoeven, starring Sylvester Stallone, Wesley Snipes, and Sandra Bullock. In the film, the reanimation of a super-criminal from a cryogenic prison sees the law enforcement of a dystopian, future "San Angeles" unable to cope with the threat. Society has been transformed into what Sandra Bullock's character describes as a place of peace, comfort, and understanding. Everything potentially harmful, offensive, or disturbing to the public morality has been made illegal, and basic human drives such as sexuality have either been eliminated or translated into a virtual form. We discuss the relationship of this society to the values of the Last Man, argue over whether it is better to live in a soft, dying society or a hard, barbaric one, and get into the weeds on Star Trek a couple times (trust me, it's all related). I hope you all enjoy it, this was a lot of fun for us. This is the Trek episode we were talking about: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Apple_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series)
William Kaiser is a sociologist, a pupil of Peter Berger, a student of the philosophy of Wittgenstein, and an autodidact in all things Freud, Nietzsche & Kaufmann. His dissertation on the topic of Wittgenstein was entitled, "A Wittgensteinian Critique of Realism in Social Science Methodology", and to this day, Kaiser maintains his skepticism towards what he characterizes as "naive realism". He expresses the common thread he sees in many philosophers, from Nietzsche, to Rorty, to Wittgenstein himself: rejection of the idea of obtaining some sort of objective knowledge and the re-centering of our philosophical orientation on the human psyche. All these figures cut through abstruse confusions to reach concrete insights about history and the human condition. Central to this project for Wittgenstein (especially Later Wittgenstein, aka "Wittgenstein II", who was Kaiser's focus in his work) is the way in which language shapes human thought. Through this conversation, we discuss the commonality between Nietzsche's ideas and Wittgensteins, on the issues of language, on memory and forgetting, self-identity, and what it means to learn and live an enriching life. We also spend some time discussing Freud and the influence Nietzsche had on the famous Viennese psychoanalyst.
Today, it's an examination of a single aphorism: Beyond Good & Evil, 295, "The Genius of the Heart":
"...the genius of the heart,
who silences all that is loud and self-satisfied,
teaching it to listen;
who smooths rough souls and lets them taste a new desire -
to lie still as a mirror, that the deep sky may mirror itself in them -..."
In this passage - essentially a prose poem by Nietzsche - he expresses praise for Dionysus, and describes himself as his last initiate and disciple. The poem encapsulates the spiritual message of Nietzsche's mature philosophy: the spiritualization of human feelings, the longing for something greater, and the demand for the absolute love of life.
Episode Art: John Collier - The Priestess of Bacchus (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Another episode on a single passage: The Gay Science, book V, aphorism 354: “The Genius of the Species”. One of the most thought-provoking passages in Nietzsche’s work, he expounds on his hypothesis that all consciousness is a product of human sociality, and was only necessary as a net of communication between human beings. This has dire implications for Nietzsche’s aspirations to individualism, and makes suspect everything to him which enters into consciousness. He believes that the deeper, more profound aspects of human life remain, ultimately, untranslatable.
Episode art: Alphonse Maria Mucha - La Pater (1899)
In part two, we shift from the friendship - at first strong, and later, a bit troubled - to the break that happened in 1878/9. Nietzsche writes, in his personal correspondence, and in his reflections in Ecce Homo, of the liberating freedom he felt when he left Bayreuth and moved up to the Alps, and how this turning away from Wagner represented a completely new chapter in his life. Indeed, the break corresponds with Nietzsche's departure from academia, and his uprooting of his entire established life, up to that point. Where Wagner was once a trusted friend, mentor, and likely surrogate father-figure for Nietzsche, he begins to write with utter scorn against the old composer. For the first third of the episode, we examine the biographical aspect of the break. For the remainder, we consider Nietzsche's charges in The Case of Wagner, and Nietzsche Contra Wagner - essays written in 1888, a time of retrospection for Nietzsche - that Wagner capitulated to everything that Nietzsche despised, that he was ultimately a world-despairing Christian, and that maybe Wagner's transformation was not even genuine. That he was, at heart, nothing more than an actor. As a man with an immense artistic power, he debased music by using it simply as a means of moving people's feelings, while never truly challenging or subverting German culture. Music became sick - yet another form of mere entertainment, another enhanced, rarefied sense pleasure of the late-stage of a society. Whereas once Nietzsche believed Wagner to be perhaps the opponent of modernity, he now writes of him as modernity personified: the epitome of the decadent artist who loses himself in the crowd.
UPDATE: Yesterday, when the episode went live, it had the wrong audio uploaded and simply contained a repeat of Q&A #1. Sorry everyone. This has been fixed.
Better late than never! I answer fan questions for a third time. I want to start doing this more frequently, so if you have a question you want answered, let me know on reddit, or send a voice message to the podcast on Anchor.
It's finally time to talk about Richard Wagner. After meeting Wagner by happenstance in 1868, Nietzsche began a ten-year friendship with the older man, who was a rising star in the music world, on track to becoming one of the most famous living composers. Nietzsche was himself a fan, and described the chain of events leading to his friendship with Wagner as a kind of "fairytale". Soon, Wagner embarked upon the idea of a music festival that would serve as a cultural spearhead for the movement Wagner wished to create in Germany. The town was settled upon: Bayreuth. Construction began on a new theater house to accommodate the festival. Nietzsche aided Wagner in founding it. The first year was a financial disaster but an artistic success, reverberating throughout Europe. But the young Nietzsche left the festival troubled, reporting in a letter that it was then he decided to retreat into the mountains of Interlaken, where he composed the first third of Human, All Too Human.
In this episode, we'll discuss the early friendship between Nietzsche and Wagner, what Nietzsche was looking for, and why he thought he found it in Wagner. We'll draw on quotations from the Untimely Meditations essay, Richard Wagner in Bayreuth, as well as Nietzsche's letters.
Episode art is a depiction of the Bayreuth Opera House, as of 1895.
"Without music, life would be a mistake." It's commonly known that Nietzsche was a sort of 'musical philosopher' - in fact, it was a feat he aspired to quite openly - but a glance at Nietzsche's thoughts on music reveals that he was so enamored with this form of artistic expression as to have once suggested that music lays at the very heart of reality. Only through music, Nietzsche argues in Birth of Tragedy, can we directly experience the primordial pain and contradiction of reality. Here we will touch on the major points of Nietzsche's engagement with music: his love of Wagner and eventual break from him, the cultural problem he wished to solve, and the perception that music was not just another type of art or entertainment but a geist that could reshape hearts and minds, or even whole societies. Even as his admiration for Schopenhauer and Wagner waned, the love of music - and exaltation of music to the highest importance in his philosophy - remained consistent, even to the bitter end of his life. BONUS SEGMENT: I also set aside a half hour to talk about my experiences returning to the world of underground touring. In the latter part of the episode, I recount the events of my recent outing with my band, Destroyer of Light, on the West Coast of the United States.
Episode art: Francis Coates Jones, "Music"
Yunus Tuncel's Lecture Notes, "Nietzsche, Music and Silent Suffering": https://www.nietzschecircle.com/Silent_Suffering.html
Charlie Huenemann's book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002EL4T2I/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Join me in a discussion of passage 109 of Daybreak: "Self-Control and Moderation and Their Final Motive". In this passage that we've oft referenced but not yet attempted a deep dive of, Nietzsche outlines six ways of dealing with the "vehemence of a drive". As Nietzsche considers the self to be governed by impulses, some of which are competing, we should not expect that we can simply command ourselves with a voluntarily governing ego, or somehow will ourselves into having willpower. He also rejects the Christian abdication of responsibility: i.e., that every person is inherently sinful and shall only find perfection in the next life, and therefore all men must simply yield to the grace of God. For Nietzsche, the picture of the human condition is akin to that of William James: we are bundles of habits, and every little nourishment or denial of a habit either enhances or diminishes it. This is the way that drives make war against one another within the psyche: by drawing in more nourishment for themselves at the expense of the others. The question of self-control then becomes a question of how to consciously bring about the nourishment or diminishment of one's impulses. Today's episode covers the practical question of "giving style to one's character".
Art: Napoleon Crossing the Saint-Bernard Pass, 20 May 1800/Musee de l'Histoire de France
In the second of our examination of the Overman, we'll examine a passage I'd originally planned to look at in respect to the eternal recurrence of the same events: The Convalescent. This chapter of Thus Spoke Zarathustra deals with both of these grand doctrines of Nietzsche - the Overman and the eternal return - and provides, in some sense, the means for understanding both in relationship to one another. It may seem, from a surface reading of Nietzsche's ideas, that the Overman represents some goal in a literal future, which would seem to contradict with the doctrine that "all returns, eternally" and every life repeats endlessly, contained forever within itself. How can the value in life be cast off into a distant future, while at the same time invested within this life? This is the contradiction Nietzsche faced because it is a contradiction in the very essence of the quest for meaning: we find meaning only in spending our lives in the service of something greater than ourselves, in the very quest to bring forth that "something greater"; and yet, at the same time, the brute fact of mortality and the sole existence of this world and this life as the total reality necessitates that we must be able to find value in our lives as they are, never to see that "something greater" that they may or may not give rise to. We must therefore live in such a way that we recognize becoming, and seek to overcome ourselves, but must also simultaneously find eudaimonia within ourselves as we are. This paradox of finding meaning in an atheistic universe is overcome with the resurrection story of Zarathustra himself, who lies dead for many days before rising again to gain a realization of the secret, underlying harmony of the eternal return and Overman ideals.
Join me in making "The Convalescent" a new passion play for we philosophers of the future!
A review of Rohit Sharma's book that covers the major points discussed in the episode, with citations: http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/jns/reviews/rohit-sharma-on-the-seventh-solitude.-endless-becoming-and-eternal-return-in-the-poetry-of-friedrich-nietzsche
This is the last great concept of Nietzsche's that we have not yet covered on the podcast. With all of the background context that we've collected over the first season and the first part of this one, I feel we're now ready to confront the pinnacle of Nietzsche's philosophy, the highest ideal, and the most sacred value: the Overman. Contrary to popular belief, the Overman is not a figure that has ever existed within recorded history: Zarathustra says that Caesar, Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Goethe, Socrates, Jesus, or whoever else you may have had in mind as a candidate for Overman, were all found to be, in the end, "human, all-too-human". Zarathustra is also, according to his own sermons, not the Overman himself, but merely his prophet (which would seem to rule out Nietzsche himself as an Overman, in spite of what some have claimed). Zarathustra insists: "Never has there yet been an Overman" - the concept is an ideal image that must ever recede into the future, in order to spur us on to greater and greater things. Lest one take this for a biological concept, or a literal race of future super-humans which Nietzsche is prophecying,even here, we must say that the text defies this interpretation: Zarathustra only speaks of the Overman in the singular, individual form, and speaks of its meaning in terms of creating value in our own lives, today. The meaning, apparently, is not in literally bringing forth overmen, but in living our lives in such a way as to "prepare the earth" for the Overman.
How do we square the circle of the future-arriving Overman with the non-progressive view of history? How do we understand the Overman in relation to his opposition, the Last Man? What do both represent? Is the Overman an answer to Nietzsche's quest to elevate man? And if so, how? Is it to be taken as a symbol, a metaphor, an allegory, or what? Join me in this long awaited episode when we tackle all of these difficult questions by diving deeply into the text itself. Today we concern ourselves mostly with the first two books of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and especially the prologue.
The philosopher is a misunderstood figure - perhaps most of all by philosophers themselves. This is Nietzsche’s charge, in his later work: what we imagine drives the philosopher, the “will to truth“, is instead a sublimation of the will to power. The philosopher seeks to experience his power in an abstract realm of the intellect, where he can seek for higher and higher goals. But where does this assessment leave the philosopher? If a pure, disinterested drive to knowledge is not what is behind the goals of philosophy, then can we really credit the philosopher with attempting to render a picture of universal existence? Is it a paradox to say that relativism is universal? Is it still truth-seeking if we question the very activity of truth-seeking? Join me in exploring Nietzsche’s nuanced analysis of the philosophical type.
Who is the artist? Where does art come from? What is the future of art? Doing a comprehensive view of Nietzsche’s take on artists is probably too big a topic for any one episode, so here we will concern ourselves primarily with these questions, the answers to which all involve the idea that the artist is a sort of alchemist of the psyche, who works with the raw material of the soul in order to channel, redirect, heighten or deaden one’s inner feelings. The artist thus emerges from the type of the priest or the saint, who worked with the feelings of guilt and resentment. The artist is the type who emerges from the restrictions of a given religious mindset and dares to work his artistic magic outside of any institution or dogma. Is the artist therefore a benefit to society and culture, and a rebel against the rigidness of religion? For Nietzsche, it’s not that simple, because of the fundamental problem that art deceives. It draws its power from its incompleteness, its willingness to represent reality in accordance with drives or passions instead of facts, and ultimately dwells within the realm of deception. As Nietzsche himself is both an artist and a philosopher, he feels this contradiction therefore within him. Alas, the great philosopher, Nietzsche, is only fool, only poet! Lecture on the scientific contributions of alchemy by Walter F. Rowe: https://youtu.be/L6hTS3ajCBk
Episode art: Joseph Wright of Derby - The Alchemist Discovering Phosphorus (1771/1795)
It seems that there is a twofold trend among modern Nietzscheans. On the one hand, we have those influenced by French thinkers such as Deleuze or Foucault, who saw no essential contradiction in adopting some of the ideas of Nietzsche while simultaneously striving for goals which were explicitly or implicitly Marxist oriented. On the other, there are those for whom the mere mention of the name "Marx" is met with revulsion, and for whom there is a serious allergy for anything having to do with talk of revolution, the working class, or seizing the means of production. For my part, I've never really been in either camp. I think the post-modernist and post-structuralist retconning of Nietzsche is just that: interesting as a later development in philosophy, but not an accurate representation of Nietzsche's political thought, which was reactionary and pro-aristocracy. On the other hand, the type of reactionary politics that Nietzsche advocated should not be taken as gospel. All too often, his ideas are transmuted into Randian worship of great individuals, who would solve all of the problems of society if only they were not constrained by government regulations; Nietzsche becomes an excuse for people to look away from the pressing problems of society and culture.
Whatever your position on Marxism, I think it is the height of ignorance to hold to a political stance without hearing out the arguments for the opposing position in good faith. In this conversation with invalid_arg_, a Marxist-Leninist streamer, we discuss the philosophical origins of Marxism, the application of Marxism in the Soviet Union, how China looks today in light of Marxist thought, what Marxist-Leninists think about anarchists, and much more. I hope that my audience will set aside any preconceived biases they have to examine ideas which are beyond the pale of liberal-democratic thought, but from the opposite perspective that Nietzsche provides.
invalid's Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/invalid_arg_
on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCkfULrQdHWMPy1GZjm8oI8g
Back in season one, we teased the idea of Nietzsche looking for some way to elevate mankind beyond the natural world. While Nietzsche is celebrated for his uncompromising critique of Christian values and otherworldly metaphysics, the advantage of these ideas was that they showed man an ideal which was beyond the cynical view that human beings are simply "clever animals who invented knowledge". Nietzsche floats the idea of the saint, the artist, and the philosopher in the essay, "Schopenhauer as Educator", as figures that showed forward a way beyond nature: a leap into something above mankind.
Perhaps the most complex figure to examine in this formulation is the saint. Those of you who have been listening along since the beginning of the podcast, or who have read The Antichrist, may wonder how it is that Nietzsche ever offered a positive assessment of the life-denying holy men of the world at all. But Nietzsche, in his early writings, expresses an admiration for the power of the saint - the ascetic priest, the sage, the arahant, or whomever we might consider from world-history - as one in whom the "I" has melted away and power over the desires has been obtained. Unfortunately, all great things in the world, it seems, come from prolongued spiritual and physical torture, and the saint is no different. Beneath his power is a dark desire to set himself above the world by refuting the physical in favor of the abstract. Even though the priest offered the ideal to mankind, it was the ideal of nihilism - of seeking after nothingness. Why was this type tolerated among ancient societies at all, Nietzsche wonders? Because of the saint's remarkable power to strike fear into the hearts of men, and his utility for redirecting the destructive drives of the weak and the botched of every society. Join us for the first of several episodes examining these candidates Nietzsche entertained throughout his career for "higher people" - the type who is "too good for this world", the saint.
Andrei Georgescu is a writer, a poet, an artist, and an insightful mind. He has grappled with the complexities of the human physiology for years, out of necessity if for no other reason, and it was because of an essay on the topic of diet that I first ran across Andrei's work. Our discussion centers around this topic, which was a concern shared by Friedrich Nietzsche: how diet affects one's mood, mental state, and overall emotional and physical health; how to fine-tune one's diet to their own needs; how to assess the effect of a given diet. Andrei reflects on how this became a central issue for him, how he felt abandoned by the health system in his quest, and how writing about the many attempts - ancient and modern - to solve the deep questions of "Belly Alchemy". Of course, we could not limit our discussion to just this topic, and ended up discussing other complex systems - such as political and economic systems, another topic that Andrei has written about in his essay on "Romanian Communism and American Capitalism". And, of course, those old questions about the meaning of life always come up. First episode of Andrei's new podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XssA7Ta1DMI Andrei Georgescu's website: https://andreigeorgescu.ca/ On Behance: https://www.behance.net/georgescu
The ugliest man of Athens? Or the most beautiful soul of all? A mere intellectual? Or the finest fencing-master? The central focus of our episode today, in part two of our analysis of Plato's Symposium, is Nietzsche's interpretation of the text. Nietzsche argues that Socrates rounds off the discussion on the attributes of love in his speech, and that the image he gives of the power of love is then demonstrated to be manifested by Socrates himself, in his living character, by the final, drunken speech of Alcibiades.
In today's lecture, we will examine the final three speeches of the symposium, including those of Agathon, Socrates, as well as the impromptu, drunken praise of Socrates that Alcibiades gives.
Episode art: Marcello Bacciarelli - Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates (1776-77)
You don't need money, don't take fame Don't need no credit card to ride this train It's strong and it's sudden and it's cruel sometimes But it might just save your life That's the power of love Today, we discuss Nietzsche's lieblingsdichtung, or favorite work, from the time of his graduation at Schulpforta: Plato's Symposium. The Symposium is one of the most popular Platonic dialogues, which considers the topic of love, and the nature of the god Eros, who represents love as a metaphysical or divine force. While those who have only a passing familiarity with Nietzsche may be surprised to hear that the pitiless philosopher was enamored with a conversation about the finer points of love and romance, in fact, Plato's Symposium is rich with insights that had a profound impact on Nietzsche. Central to the conversation in the Symposium is the understanding of the power of love - for love, as with all things the Greeks perceived as forces within the psyche that pushed or motivated mankind, is evidence of a divine influence that grips human beings and makes its will upon us felt.
In part one, we'll consider the background of the work, why Nietzsche would have read such a work, and the importance of Plato to the classicists at that time. We'll also briefly discuss the social institution of the symposium as a place for competition, or intellectual "sparring" - or else, for the prominent men to outdrink one another. Then, we'll break down the first three speeches of the work: Phaedrus, Pausianus, Eryximachus. Next week we'll consider the final four speeches, and Nietzsche's interpretation of the work.
Was Nietzsche influenced by the Lutheran idea of pietism? Is there a clear parallel between the ideas of Ecclesiastes and the idea of Nietzsche? Did Nietzsche intend a degree of comedy to his work? Are some of his ideas even to be taken as 'tongue-in-cheek', as not entirely serious, as mere thought experiments, as something to be taken with a dash of irony & a wink and maybe even a complementary nod? And can we perhaps dare to suggest that in Nietzsche, the most Anti-Christian of all philosophers, there sits at the center of his ideas a recapitulation to the Biblical idea of providence? Karl & I discuss all of these fascinating questions which he raises, as well as the Roman pagan origins of the concept of providence, and how the great writers of antiquity conceived of virtue and fortune. We consider how our view of ourselves and our own luck can be affected by the underlying worldview we hold. Machiavelli, Seneca, Turchin, and many more of your favorite writers from antiquity and modernity make appearances in the discourse. Amor Fati - let that be my love henceforth!
In part two, we look at eternal return in its full implications - the eternity of all that is low and contemptible in human beings, contrasted with the eternity of all that is great and has great potential in human beings. The depressing fact that mankind's smallness and Christian weakness is written into infinity is what Zarathustra calls his "most abysmal thought". He is also tormented by his own faults, his own human-all-too-human nature, and taunted by the "Spirit of Gravity" - who tells Zarathustra that whatever goes up must come down, and that his own downfall is inevitable, even from the great heights into which he has cast himself... perhaps even especially so. Zarathustra's answer to this is courage and the Nietzschean demand for life-affirmation. After exploring Zarathustra's many visions, and his need to return to solitude in order to "ripen" and prepare himself to preach the terrible doctrine of eternal recurrence, we conclude this in-depth analysis of eternal recurrence with a reading of two sections (or perhaps "verses") of The Drunken Song, which is a cheerful celebration of eternity and of the willingness to take all of life with all its joys and sorrows, set near the very end of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In a nice parallel to season one, after our inaugural episode - which focused on a central idea of Nietzsche's upon which the entire next season is an elaboration - this second episode returns to the mythos of Nietzsche (or in this case Zarathustra) as a "Wanderer", with the mountains to himself. This episode is about taking the eternal return idea and taking it to higher and more deadly vistas. From the edge of this cliff, looming over the great depths of human experience whilst glimpsing the highest and farthest things, Zarathustra must learn to overcome his nauseau, and dare to still carry out the task of elevating our individual human lives.
Nietzsche and Epicureanism (previous of a paper available on Academia.edu): https://www.academia.edu/49101903/Great_Politics_and_the_Unnoticed_Life_Nietzsche_and_Epicurus_on_the_Boundaries_of_Cultivation
Episode art: Lena Hades - Gemälde "Zarathustra und Zwerg" + An Oroborous (all courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Kevin Rogers is a musician, one of my old friends from the Zen forum & one of the co-hosts of the Knot Zen Podcast.
In this episode, we talk about Zen found in the corpus of literature produced during the middle ages in China, and the dialectical shift that happened when this Chinese movement was brought into Japan by Dogen. Kevin gives an explanation of Zen, which dovetails into discussions on the idea of lingering moments, the direct experience of reality, and the epistemic implications of reality as shaped by our own minds. We touched upon what the Zen realization is, and whether there are metaphysical implications to this, as well as to the practice of meditation, as well the Daoist influence on Zen. The conversation concludes with some of my own misgivings within the Zen tradition and why I no longer consider it a defining feature of my intellectual identity.
Kevin and I are both musicians, and we plan to do a second episode talking about music, or possibly even another episode on this same topic, depending on the audience reaction.
The Knot Zen Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/5GzOskDnm3IZIpHBHmUKIZ
Kevin's musical group, The Friction String Quartet: https://www.frictionquartet.com/
Welcome to Season Two, my beautiful, free spirits! We ended the last season on a "cliffhanger"... the lead-up to the new mythology forged within the pages of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Today, we discuss the basis of that new myth.
The eternal return, also known as the eternal recurrence, is one of the most famous ideas of Nietzsche, but one of the most difficult to comprehend. How could this philosopher who made it his business to attack every provisional truth, point out the perspectival nature of our world-picture, and dare to suggest that we abolish the metaphysical world beyond... make the proclamation that our lives, exactly as we live them, are eternal? There are many interpretations of this doctrine - ranging from the classification of eternal return as a thought experiment, all the way into mystical territory - but one thing is made crystal clear by Nietzsche's own words: he held that it was the hardest challenge one could put before themselves, akin to facing the greatest stress, or fighting the toughest opponent. Embracing eternal return means the ultimate revaluation of life and the natural world as imminently good and worthwhile. Those who are unable to do so will find this doctrine crippling, or so Nietzsche predicts. Thus, he puts this mysterious teaching into his work in the form of fables and in the teachings of his prophet, Zarathustra. Nietzsche founds his answer to the "problem of life" - that is to say, the problem of the value of a human life, within a mortal, human existence finding some kind of transcendental value - upon the basis of this central idea, of the eternal return. Forgive the couple of times my voice cracked, for I have a bit of a cold.
Episode art: George Bellows - Stag at Sharkey's (1909)
Season two is coming soon! This is the last episode in the interim - or what we might call the afterbirth of season one (if we wanted to be a little gross with our metaphors) - and I'm very excited to begin with some of the gargantuan topics of our next series of episodes. Truly, the episodes to follow are on the ideas that stand like magnificent, granite pillars, upholding the beautiful frescoes of Nietzsche's grand ideas.
This is the second time I’m answering questions from the audience. This was a patron Q&A that the small group of people who donate to the show got some time ago, so all the questions are from patrons. Nevertheless, I thought all of you might enjoy it. I retread a little ground from the first season, and cover some questions about issues I’ve delve more deeply into during season two. Please join me next week for the inaugural episode of season two!
By popular demand, I’ve finally had a conversation with an antinatalist. Gabriel and I discussed the arguments for antinatalism, the pessimistic assessment of life on which those arguments are based, and the difference between continuing life versus bringing it forth. I threw Gabriel some curveballs about transhumanism and suicide machines towards the end of the talk, and furthermore we brought in a few references to Twilight Zone and Black Mirror. Contrary to the stereotypical depiction of an antinatalist, I found my guest this week to be a pleasant conversation partner and overall a delightful guest. I’m not convinced of the truth of antinatalism, but the conversation was far more interesting than I’d anticipated. Hope you all enjoy it, and that this episode of Untimely Reflections makes your life just a little bit more worthwhile in the grand scheme of the cosmos. Cheers!
On a cold, rainy afternoon this past November, Mynaa Miesnowan and I met up at a little bar in Austin, Texas called Sagebrush. I'm a lifelong South Austinite and Sagebrush is a newer bar that exists within a very, very old building, that was a country & western dancehall back in the 1960's. The modern decor reminds of a Texas bar in a Rodriguez or Tarantino film, with a backlit landscape of a starry desert lining the walls. Mynaa and I grabbed a beer and made our way around back, even though everything was damp. We walked around and talked for awhile, beneath the gradiants of white and gray dimly hovering above the neighborhood that seemed at once sleepy and busy - as the bar had only just opened and there was literally no one else there, owing to the rain & the Thanksgiving holiday, but the traffic was picking up outside as everyone rushed to get home. Eventually, we dried off some chairs and began recording a podcast. Although we met up only for a brief time, it was great that we got to have this conversation. It was so neat to meet someone that I met through the podcast, in person this time.
We talked about the direction of our society & culture, and the separation of our cultural ideas from any kind of physical or biological reality, which happens to be Nietzsche's definition of decadence. We wondered whether Schopenhauer's dad really committed suicide, and whether Nietzsche sincerely believed in Christianity as a youth. We considered what it means to pass through many convictions, and talked about my own history with libertarian thought. We compared the current direction of society to both 1984 & Brave New World. We both wore our love of Nietzsche on our sleeve and mostly just let the conversation go wherever it took us. By far the least rigorous episode of the entire podcast, and one of my favorites.
We can pinpoint the end of an era in Nietzsche’s philosophy precisely at Book IV of the Gay Science. This is where Nietzsche marks off a new chapter in his life. He begins the book with the aphorism, "For the New Year", and there is a celebration of the month of January, as the beginning of the year – a celebration of newness, of rejuvenation. In a letter to Franz Overbeck, on September 9th, of that year, still in 1882, he wrote: "If you have read 'Sanctus Januarius', you will have noticed that I have already come to a turning point. Everything lies new before me, and it will not be long before I am able to see the frightening face of my life’s future task."
In this episode, the final show of season one, we examine this self-described turning point in Nietzsche's life & work, as a means of understanding Nietzsche's desire to eternally justify and elevate human life. While we have touched on this theme throughout the season, I think the best way to shift our focus from his moral project to his "life-problem" is to examine the period in his life where he felt he'd hit a breakthrough in confronting this task. It's been a crazy six months; thank you to all of our listeners!
Disputing the Lou Salome marriage proposal story: https://paradoxoftheday.com/friedrich-nietzsche-and-lou-von-salome-the-myth-of-marriage-proposals/
My own essay, "Disputing the Three Periods of Nietzsche's Writing", where I criticize the whole idea of Zarathustra being a "turning point" (it's worth noting that the sense in which Nietzsche means it's a turning point, relevant to this episode, I think is perfectly valid, but I just thought I'd include it here): https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/fefq8k/disputing_the_three_periods_of_nietzsches_writing/
INCIPIT TRAGOEDIA
In the second part of our deep dive into The Antichrist, we tear into the meat of the text: the scathing, uncompromising attack of Christianity. Unlike most critics of the Christian religion, Nietzsche devotes very little time to the refutation of the arguments for Christianity's truth, or the supposed evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Instead, Nietzsche is laser-focused on the effect of the Christian doctrine of pity, and its character as a totally life-denying force. Jesus, for Nietzsche, is the ultimate life-denying figure: the apotheosis of pity. Through his torture and death at teh hands of the Romans, which he does not resist, he became a mimetic example for the spread of this moral contagion. "Resist not evil" is, in Nietzsche's argument, the entire key to the doctrine of the gospels, and the explanation Jesus' profound difference from other gods - even from the God of the Old Testament. Because he was so extraordinary, even the later Christians never measured up to Jesus' complete defiance of the natural world.
"An instinctual hatred of reality" is how Nietzsche describes Jesus. Rather than a "hero", Jesus does not fight, resist, or oppose. He lives in the immanent knowledge of his salvation. "The kingdom of heaven is within you". The later message that was spread was a corruption of this way of life only ever attained to by Jesus. The effect that this religion of pity had on the hearts of the cruel, European barbarians, meanwhile, was to harness their cruelty and turn it inward. With the rejection of all value in the external world, only the internal has meaning. With no external fights, the only fight of any importance becomes the fight against one's own sin. This fight endlessly multiplies the suffering of the world and makes it ever more questionable and worthy of denial: the follower of Christ yearns for some release to this tension, some relief from the endless suffering he lives within. As bleak as all of this sounds, contained in this message, Nietzsche's own "gospel" as it were, or good news, is that if pity is only added on to life, ersatz - that means it is possible that it can be removed. Through this revaluation, maybe we can finally be free of the weakness that has crippled the once strong and beautiful psyche of humanity.
The Antichrist (1888) is one of the last books Nietzsche wrote before losing his sanity the next year. It serves as the culmination of a decade or more of Nietzsche's thoughts on morality, Christianity, and the need for a revaluation of values. This project - of finding or defining a new set of values by which man could live - was something about which Nietzsche was deeply ambivalent. On the one hand, some sort of moral direction is required for ascending life. It is essential that the philosophers of the future find some means of pushing their way through the stage of relativism, or "active nihilism". But such a project would be to ignore the contingency of all our moral beliefs; worse yet, by outlining a new values-structure, Nietzsche will have to think and work systematically. But Nietzsche's thinking is by its nature anti-systematic. As a result, numerous contradictions come to the forefront in his philosophical outlook, not all of which are neatly resolved.
However, what we find as key to understanding the work is the opposition we discussed in the previous episode: of Dionysus v/s The Crucified One. The opposition is between the Dionysian morality of which gives a rough sketch, based on life, overcoming and will to power, and the Christian morality which is defined negatively and as the decline of all of these things. He uses this opposition to illuminate the true nature of the Christian religion and to argue for the values that he finds to be badly needed by the modern man. In the course of this moral revaluation, Nietzsche gives a theory of decadence: how empires behave during their decline and collapse. His various considerations lead him to the conclusion that all of the most cherished productions of our society, our highest values, our human ideals, art, philosophy, music, education, and our whole morality - are products of decadence, and thus of weakness. He thus calls into question the value of abstract thinking, and indeed the value of our faculty for conscious thought.
Hilary Putnam on Quine and Ontology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhHIVEN839s
Carefree Wandering is my favorite Youtube channel that currently produces philosophical content, making Hans-Georg Moeller a very special guest on the Nietzsche Podcast. Our conversation involved many of the topics of his videos, which I of course wanted to ask him about. But overall, I think we presented a relatively coherent procession of ideas. We discuss Professor Moeller's background in Chinese philosophy, and the similarities between Heraclitus and some of the Daoist philosophers. As both Hegel and Nietzsche were influenced by Heraclitus, we can see a similar thread running through the ideas of both. Moeller credits this to Nietzsche writing in the wake of the Hegelian turn in philosophy, towards the emancipation of appearances. In German, the word erscheinung (appearance) has a more ambivalent meaning than its equivalent in English, because the German word includes the connotation of "shining". In the approach of Heraclitus, Hegel, and Nietzsche, it is through appearance that the world "comes into being".
The latter half of the discussion involves the concept of Profilicity, which Hans-Georg Moeller and Paul J. D'Ambrosio developed in their book, "You and Your Profile: Identity after Authenticity". The central idea is that there have been three ways throughout history that people have created identities for themselves: sincerity, authenticity, and profilicity, which is a relatively new innovation. Rather than forging an identity through being "authentic, true selves", people now forge identities by curating a public profile.
You can find the book here from Columbia University Press (or on Amazon): https://cup.columbia.edu/book/you-and-your-profile/9780231196017
Carefree Wandering youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnEuIogVV2Mv6Q1a3nHIRsQ
(There was some minor glitching, probably a combination of my connection not behaving, but it's minimal. I'm improving things all the time, figuring out how to cut down on this is just the next hurdle to get over.)
This is the final episode of our series on Schopenhauer, and the episode where we will finally draw some general conclusions, not merely about Schopenhauer’s philosophy or his life, or how he influenced Nietzsche - but rather about Nietzsche’s philosophical project itself and how Schopenhauer helped him discover the true opposition at the heart of his work. Nietzsche has been called a romantic during his early period, owing to the influence of Schopenhauer and Wagner. Nietzsche has also been called a pessimist, because of his cynicism about our will to truth, for example, his critiques of morality, and his predictions of the collapse of our values structures in the wake of the death of God and thus the rejection of a divine origin or teleology for man. In this episode, we’re looking at writings from 1886 and 1887, where Nietzsche looks back on his intellectual development , and tells us in his own words how he grew to differ from the romantic pessimism of his influences. Through this understanding of his fundamental differences with Wagner and Schopenhauer, Nietzsche gained a clear idea of that which he opposed in current society, and that which he felt was needed or lacking. His discovery is another useful skeleton key for his work: the Dionysian as the life-giving spirit of transformation that man can discover by again spiritualizing the animal drives, and all that is Christian as the symbol of the denial of life and the turn towards nihilism. Through the formula of Dionysus v/s the Crucified, Nietzsche discovered what Schopenhauer lacked, and what his own task was in philosophy: to search for “a pessimism of strength” that could harness the penetrating, heroic honesty that Schopenhauer modeled, and put it into the service of life.
This time, I'm having a conversation with Paul Katsafanas, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Boston University. He is the author of Nietzschean Constitutivism, an analytical approach to Nietzsche's ethics. This is the primary focus of our conversation, though I also talked to Professor Katfasanas about changes in the analytical/continental divide, his take on my own fictionalist approach to metaphysics, and the state of philosophy in 2021. I found Paul to have a wealth of insights into Nietzsche's work which were stated with utter clarity and directness.
Katsafanas' moral constitutivism, based on Nietzsche, stands in opposition to the work of Kantian constitutivists such as Christine Korsgaard and David Velleman. Katsafanas argues that the Nietzschean theory of meta-ethics, based on will to power, more coherently explains human action than the Kantian insistence on universalization and adherence to rational principles. Nietzschean constitutivism includes the unconscious and habitual side of man, not just his deliberating, rational side.
There was some glitching on his end but I think it was just my own poor connection. Or maybe this is just an inevitability of recording on Zoom from far-flung parts of the country.
We begin to answer the question as to what Nietzsche saw in Schopenhauer, mostly in Nietzsche's own words. But the answer is not so simple as Nietzsche simply listing off a few ideas or character traits that he liked. Rather, Schopenhauer is held up alongside Rousseau and Goethe as an "image of man" to reveal to mankind how we might be elevated beyond the merely animal. All three are among those who have channeled genius, the "rarest specimens" of mankind who make up the extraordinary examples of artists, saints and philosophers who have existed throughout the ages. Nietzsche finds, in Schopenhauer, the timeless symbol of the solitary thinker. Schopenhauer was independent and uncompromising in both his philosophical convictions and in his personality. Like Heraclitus, he looks deep within himself and rejects all that is superficial and external with a skepticism like an all-devouring fire. Unlike the "savants" - the scholars and intellectuals to whom knowledge is a series of techniques or a discipline, which is studied to advance oneself in a career - the solitary genius does not know what dispassionate knowledge is, and is compelled to live out his philosophy through action. How a philosopher's example might inform our life and actions - in other words, how it might be educative - is of key importance to Nietzsche. A true cultural and philosophical education is something he thinks is totally lacking in his own age (this holds true today as well).
The educative example of Schopenhauer was a personal inspiration to Nietzsche, in helping to motivate him to eventually pursue a life of solitude. But, more importantly, the genius who is the end and the advancement of culture solved a lingering problem in Nietzsche's philosophy: how to make mankind transcendentally valuable if mankind is no different from the rest of the animals. He writes that nature made its single leap in the great people who become artists, saints and philosophers. As to how Schopenhauer contrasts with Goethe and Rousseau... you'll just have to listen and find out!
Episode art: Viktor Vatnetsov, Knight at the Crossroads (detail)
Sigh. When I did the soundcheck my mic was plugged in. Then, I guess the cable slipped sometime before we started rolling. So, the crisp mic quality you got in the last couple episodes is not here and I was foolishly speaking into a mic while the computer mic is what actually recorded me. But, regardless of my own failures, my guest had a lot of fascinating things to say. Today I'm talking to Greg, from Into the Absurd. I appeared on Greg's podcast some time ago, and we talked about art & religion. Our selection of topics this time is just as heady: death & God. We discuss the importance of thinkers being honest with themselves, how popular religion is a form of death worship, the philosophical means of coping with death from an atheistic worldview, and the course of society as we see it following the decline of Christianity.
Check out Into the Absurd: https://open.spotify.com/show/6b6iTLzd74NhzdJkyaAjtb
My appearance on Greg's podcast: https://open.spotify.com/episode/47PEkTCVOwsOuy6BGUxUWT
In this episode, we’re exploring how Arthur Schopenhauer’s philosophy culminates in the idea that we must deny the will-to-live. This second part will take us through Schopenhauer's view of art, his idea of genius, and how the Platonic forms relate to aesthetics. Finally, we'll discuss the final end of Schopenhauer's philosophy: nothingness. Unlike other noted pessimists, who fixated on mortality, and the finitude of a human life, Schopenhauer insists that being itself is always indestructible. Death isn't even a way out of the horror of existence. Thus, it becomes imperative that the knowing subject discover through reason how to negate the will and to become free of the blind, ceaseless striving that creates his suffering.
For the episode image, I decided to go with young Schopenhauer. Since he wrote World as Will and Representation at 28 years old and never changed his mind about the contents of the book, young Schopenhauer and old Schopenhauer represent exactly the same Platonic Idea. And since time is simply an illusion of the phenomenal world, why not go from old to young?
Next week, we'll discuss Nietzsche's essay, Schopenhauer as Educator.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) is known today as the ultimate pessimist among philosophers. Among Nietzsche's influences, perhaps none can be said to be more significant than Schopenhauer. Given that Nietzsche promoted a life philosophy that was ultimately "yes-saying" and full of determination to embrace this world and all its suffering, it may be surprising to some who are not familiar with Schopenhauer to learn that Nietzsche was so enamored with him. As Charlie Huenemann says, the young Nietzsche was "lit afire" by the famous pessimist upon first discovering his work at Schulpforta. We can even perhaps credit Schopenhauer's writing with enticing Nietzsche to consider an academic path other than philology, and to eventually throw in his own contribution and critique of the German idealists and their movement.
The core ideas of Schopenhauer's that we'll cover in part one will be Schopenhauer's metaphysics, which is contained in books I and II of the first volume of the World as Will and Representation. Thus, the first episode will unravel the puzzle of what exactly the title means: what is it to say that the world is representation, or that the world is will? Or, as Schopenhauer claims - that it is both entirely, and that both perspectives on the world each elucidate some different aspect of it? This episode will provide a bridge from the byzantine, tortured Kantian metaphysics that had dominated German philosophy into the rebellious, anti-metaphysica stance of Nietzsche. Next week, we'll discuss the second aspects of will and representation, which involves a discussion of ethics and aesthetics.
Please support us on Patreon, anything helps, Zarathustra bless: https://www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
This is the first episode with my new mic set-up! Enjoy that crisp, crystal-clear vocal quality on my end, for the first time during one of my conversations with a guest. Apparently the bitrate was wreaking havoc on my normal mic setup, but thankfully the problem is finally solved. In this Untimely Reflections, I have a conversation with Matt Keck, the co-host of Beyond Talking Points. Matt is an anarcho-capitalist, who recommended the topic of archotropism, which is a theory of power set forward by youtuber/podcaster Popular Liberty. In the course of the conversation, we discuss how it is that economic wealth relates to power, why it is that the morality of the elites counter-intuitively tends towards leftism, the future of China, and how authoritarian modes of governance can create fragile systems. Even though Matt and I have very different views of government and the state, we share a lot of common insights on the nature of power and power relationships.
As you may have noticed, I spoke with Matt's co-host, who is also named Matt, in the second episode of Untimely Reflections: https://anchor.fm/dashboard/episode/e16slnt
You can listen to Beyond Talking Points here: https://open.spotify.com/show/5Hag3O3dJr64F6VNs7rF3w
In America, we celebrate Halloween with costumes and trick or treating. In Germany, Allerheiligen is a holiday of paying respects to the dead, and showing reverence for all the saints of the Catholic Church. In Mexico, Dia de los Muertos involves the building of shrines and offering of food to the deceased. Among the ancient Celts, there was Samhain, a time in which the veil between worlds became thinner. Where do all these death holidays come from, and why do so many cultures, with different religious traditions, set aside a day for the ritualized celebration of the dead? And, most importantly for the subject of this podcast... what can Nietzsche tell us that can help understand this anthropological puzzle?
Today, we're talking all things Halloween, from a Nietzschean lens. We discuss the effect of darkness and night upon the psyche, the overactive imagination and collective dream state of early man, how we never stop believing in fairytales, and why rituals help spiritualize the wicked thoughts and feelings of mankind. Join us for a special, creepy episode of The Nietzsche Podcast. Muahahahahaha!
Episode art: Hans Baldung — Die Hexen (“The Witches”, 1510), courtesy of Wikimedia Commons
Philosophers have a birth defect. They are cursed, destined to philosophize without a historical sense. Even without realizing it, we take for granted the moral prejudices of our own times. For better or worse, language and the cultural software we inherit both play a role in shaping our thought. For all these reasons, philosophers of all ages have fallen victim to habitual errors: of beginning from the conclusion, of inverting the effect and cause, in assuming that if something gladdens the heart, it must be true. In this episode, we’re doing a deep dive into the Nietzschean method for understanding habitual errors in philosophical thinking. With the toolkit Nietzsche provides, we can dissect the propositions of philosophers, religions and cultures. Our main targets in this episode will be Kant and Schopenhauer, Nietzsche’s influences and treasures of German philosophy — but after all, one repays a teacher badly if he remains a student only!
This is the twentieth episode of the podcast! Maybe the smallest of milestones, but we decided to celebrate. It's a bit unusual for me to do two Untimely Reflections in a row, but hopefully it'll be as fun for everyone else as it was for me. Today, I'm sitting down with my wife Amberly to talk about a movie we just watched, "When Nietzsche Wept" by director Pinchas Perry. Amberly knows very little about philosophy or Nietzsche, but knows a lot about movies, and especially what makes something a bad movie. Well, she's going to need those skills, because this film was disappointing in almost every respect. Based on a book by Irvin Yalom, the film unfortunately repeats a lot of myths about Nietzsche, some of underlay his entire portrayal in the story, and Nietzsche is mostly sidelined in lieu of Dr. Breuer, whose midlife crisis is the central narrative of the film. It really made me wish for a good film adaptation of Nietzsche's life. We'll return to our regularly scheduled lecture series next week. Special thanks to Amberly for being willing to watch this long-winded and tortured film with me, which, in her words, "has the production value of a Wishbone historical recreation!"
In this episode, I'm chatting with my friend Karl Nord about Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto, Nietzsche's Use and Abuse of History for Life, whether H.P. Lovecraft's characters have volition, the use of deus ex machina in Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn series, the depressing spirit of Von Trier films, morality in art and as art, and the alchemical power of aligning the artistic and the political.
What is the point of history? What is the point of our acquisition of knowledge? Is there a way for man to live unhistorically? And supposing that we cannot do without history, are there uses for it which are helpful? Are there uses which are harmful? Today we take a deep dive into the Untimely Meditations essay, On the Use and Abuse of History for Life. In this essay, Nietzsche reveals his love of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the famous German playwright and author of Faust. This essay is a statement of Nietzsche’s allegiance to one side of German culture - embodied in the likes of Goethe and Schopenhauer - against another thread spun out of the tradition of German Idealism, represented by Hegel. In Goethe, Nietzsche finds the all-important maxim that all learning must be in the service of quickening one’s activity and enriching one’s life. Episode art: Clio, by Gentileschi Artemisia (1632). Clio is the Greek Muse of History. (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
You know what it is. Questions from the subreddit, answers from me. Hope it is not too rambly!
This episode is the culmination of several weeks of episodes on the topic of morality, drives, the body, free will, reason v/s the passions, and the master and slave morality. With all that we've learned as a foundation, in this episode we will give a generic definition of the phenomenon of morality from the Nietzschean perspective, and explore Nietzsche's explanation for why man engages in morality-building. At the deepest foundations, Nietzsche believes that mankind moralizes from the same underlying, driving force that is behind all life: the will to power. We will explore just what the will to power means, which Zarathustra says is synonymous with the process of self-overcoming. We will then examine how it is that the will to power produces our second-order drives, such as the will to truth, or the drive to obey the community's morality. We'll conclude by examining the practical applications of Nietzsche's level of "moral meta-analysis", how we can use this analysis to turn a critical eye to different world-historical moral systems, and, finally, what this understanding will to power means for our lives. This episode draws on the arguments of Walter Kaufmann from his book, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist. I also recommend this very helpful post by Lebensmaler on the Nietzsche subreddit: Polysemy of the Word Morality in Nietzsche's Writing. Episode art: Rembrandt -- Moses with the Ten Commandments (Courtesy of Wikimedia commons)
It's another episode about a Nietzsche influence. This time, rather than talking about a philosopher from Ancient Greece, we found one from the Ancien Régime: Francois de La Rochefoucauld, the author of the Moral Maxims. Like fellow French philosopher Jean de La Bruyère, La Rochefoucauld is "a man of one book". The Maxims - a volume that is about sixty pages in length - is his sole contribution to the Western philosophical canon. Yet, solely on the basis of this work, Voltaire praised La Rochefoucauld as the greatest master of language since the revival of letters. We'll briefly consider Rochefoucauld's life as a background for his work, study a few central epigrams and his prefaratory essay on self-love in order to lay the groundwork of his thought, compare his ideas to those of Nietzsche's, then take a quick look at a selection of his epigrams of my own choosing. La Rochefoucauld's style was to write in very short epigrams, often merely a sentence-long. The content of his work is concerned with a number of themes, among them: self-love as the explanation of all human action; the rule of thumb that our true motives are usually concealed from ourselves; that our virtues are often merely our vices in a disguised form. Thus, La Rochefoucauld has the distinction among Nietzsche's influences, insofar as he influenced Nietzsche both in style and substance. Ironically, the author of the Moral Maxims may have been an immoralist to prefigure Nietzsche. After all, he was one of the first psychologists... and isn't psychology inherently a vice?
This time, I'm speaking with Matt Hazelwood. He is the co-host of the political podcast Beyond Talking Points, and also hosts his own podcast called The Philosopher's Guide to the Apocalypse. In this conversation, we talk about nationalism versus internationalism, how global economic forces have rendered the individual irrelevant, the prospect of Balkanizing the United States, political polarization, the Bronze Age Collapse, the French Revolution, and the unlikelihood of revolutions happening today. We're both weary of the technocratic revolution in governance that had taken hold in Western nation-states, and wonder whether a more localistic society and economy can even survive going forward.
Beyond Talking Points: https://open.spotify.com/show/5Hag3O3dJr64F6VNs7rF3w
The Philosopher's Guide to the Apocalypse: https://open.spotify.com/show/0022dxux6LS7t0NDJpQu6Q
NOTE: Please excuse my own audio quality on this particular episode. I didn't think it was too terrible to release, but it is a marked decline from my solo episodes, a problem I'm still working on fixing. I tried a new way of recording this time, and I unfortunately seem to have had some settings on that quashed my vocal quality down. Hopefully it's not too distracting and the conversation is interesting enough for you to stick through it.
Nietzsche's philosophy drove him mad, everyone knows that. If it wasn't his philosophy itself, then perhaps the syphilis did him in. He collapsed in the streets of Turin, throwing his arms around a beaten horse! He looked into the abyss, saw that nihilism was coming for society - and that's why we should all return to Christian values!
We've all heard these takes before. But, unfortunately for "the Nietzsche legend", many of the stories about Nietzsche and his collapse are little more than myths. When we search for the evidence to support them, we find they're all unfounded. This week, I'm going after eight myths pertaining Nietzsche's life and ideas. While most scholars have moved on from taking these stories uncritically, they still coalesce in the popular consciousness to form the "Nietzsche legend". Hopefully I can uproot some of these here, so that more people can study Nietzsche (the person) rather than "Nietzsche" (the legend). Thanks to lebensmaler for compiling his own list of misconceptions, two of which I address in this episode (read it here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/ogmf2e/top_5_misconceptions/)
This week, we approach one of the most infamous ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche: the dual-prehistory of the morality we follow today. Throughout his career, Nietzsche had an inkling that the origins of our moral ideas did not follow a clean, neat pattern -- a single course of development from a single origin. Rather, we have inherited moral ideas that come from different and competing values structures. Even within a single heart, Nietzsche writes, these two opposed origins sometimes make war with one another, which is Nietzsche's attempt at explaining one of the reasons why we experience states of dividedness and moral dilemmas. In this episode, we'll compare some of his earlier work towards answering this question, found in Human, All Too Human and Beyond Good & Evil, then proceed to tackle the first essay of Genealogy of Morality, which is his most rigorous and famous attempt at wrestling with this topic. This episode will further build upon the subject matter in episodes 9 & 10. If you’ve not listened to those episodes, it is highly recommended that you do so before diving in. As we keep going on the podcast, while we may occasionally divert to topics which require no background in Nietzsche’s thought, the ideas will only get more difficult as we keep going, and I will increasingly refer back to material we’ve covered in past episodes.
Returning to our regularly scheduled lectures on Nietzsche... this week, we're going to wade into a hornet's nest and tackle one of the most contentious topics: freedom of the will. This episode will draw heavily on the conclusions reached in "9: The Wisdom of the Body", so brush up on the material there is you haven't already.
It's not uncommon to encounter people who have no interest in talking about free will. Wherever one meets a philosopher who does want to talk about it, they usually have a very strong opinion on the matter. I think the fact that many are hesitant to discuss the issue owes to the fact that there are so many intractable opinions, which people are unwilling to change and which it is hard to imagine what kind of evidence could motivate people to move on the topic. In essence, we have a philosophical gridlock: and thus, like the issue of God's existence, or moral realism, or political ideologies, the debate ends up resembling something less like a competition of ideas, and more like two sides asserting, in the absence of reason, their own temperamental convictions. Hopefully, Nietzsche's perspective on this topic can help sear through these stale debates. While Nietzsche took a strong stand on free will vs. determinism, his position is not all that easy to summarize neatly. Furthermore, his views on free will are not as popular as many of his other ideas: partially because they are misunderstood, and partially because his position offends our sensibilities. Nietzsche attacks the heart of the free will debate: the issue of moral responsibility. He says that we have no moral responsibility for our actions, and no man chooses his own nature. An incendiary idea, to be certain!
Michael Puett talks about Confucianism & the Chinese idea of the self: https://youtu.be/MfnSTr6-1g4
A short pair of clips of Hitchens' ironic comments on free will (RIP Hitch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_TGNJfg0s
Episode art this week is courtesy of Friedrich Kuhlau (1786-1832)
Untimely Reflections is a podcast within a podcast! In this series, I’ll be having conversations with other people interested in Nietzsche, and in philosophy. This time, I’m talking to Mynaa Miesnowan. This conversation was largely freeform. We talk about art, politics and religion as related forces that direct the course of society. We consider mass movements, dictatorships, and revolutions as caused by sociological forces that consciousness and ideology then steps in to explain and justify. Central to our interest is the relationship of world historical forces to our political, religious and aesthetic situation today.
As of yet, I have no schedule for how frequently I'll produce these: it'll be limited to the availability of the people involved, but no more than one every two weeks or so. I plan on releasing these concurrently with the regular episodes of The Nietzsche Podcast (though if I'm particularly busy that won't always be the case), but I thought I'd put out he first one on our regular release day just to get your attention.
A note on something I'd forgotten in the show: in Genealogy of Morality, the Church fathers whom I was trying to think of were Tertullian, and Nietzsche also mentions Aquinas.
Visit Mynaa's website to keep up with his work in podcasting, and read his writing: https://www.bezabezar.com/
Thanks for listening, see you all for the regular Nietzsche podcast episode!
This week we’re going heavy on the source material, because this particular set of ideas was fleshed out (no pun intended) in passages spanning multiple works, and for the most part in unpublished notes. As Nietzsche was fond of saying, however, all the main points of his philosophy are covered at one point or another in his Zarathustra — and so this week’s episode takes its name from a passage in Zarathustra, wherein the titular character says “there is more wisdom in your body than in your deepest philosophy”. The Nietzschean view of the self is that the body and its instincts are primary, in contrast to the Enlightenment view of the mind as primary. For Nietzsche, the rational consciousness is a narrator which merely gives an after-the-fact explanation. The true person is the body and its unconscious, irrational drives. This view of the self subverts many of our presuppositions about the power of reason, and about man’s free will. Episode art: Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, courtesy of Wikimedia commons.
The topic for this week is... The Truth. The Nietzschean view of truth is one of the most difficult positions to convey, because the nature of the topic requires pushing language to its limits. To question the value of truth-seeking seems antithetical to the very activity of philosophy. Is Nietzsche just being obstinate? Is he an irrationalist? Is he a postmodernist? What about a Neo-Kantian? And what about Jordan Peterson's summation of his view of truth, that, "truth ought to serve life"? As I was expounding the wicked immoralisms of Nietzsche, towards the end of the episode, the rumbling of thunder was picked up by the microphone. This is either evidence that God himself was angered as I continued to challenge the sacred relationship between "the Good" and "the True", or else that I decided to record an episode during our rainy season. It recurs a few times, so I thought I'd clarify that it is not an added sound effect, but simply a random occurrence. Nevertheless, it makes the concluding section of the episode sound all that more forbidden and profound! This week we venture into one of the most fraught topics among the followers of Nietzsche. Ready your swords and your shields, my friends, for Truth Loves Only a Warrior! Episode art this week is Pallas Athene by Rembrandt, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.
I’m still out of town, wandering through the desert and the mountain-peaks (no, seriously). I’ll be home next week, but for now it’s still adaptations from my articles on Medium. This one also began as an essay on reddit and was eventually polished into the form you hear it in now: Nietzsche versus Socrates. Upon looking it over again, this essay is actually quite comprehensive in assessing Nietzsche’s view of The Old Gadfly of Athens. “Socrates, to confess is frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight a fight against him.” Nietzsche’s thoughts on Socrates are complex, but this is the closest one can get in a single sentence to Nietzsche’s relationship with him. In this episode, which consists of a reading of the essay, we’ll examine Socrates from various angles: as the philosopher of life, as the critic, as the martyr, as the decadent, and finally — as what Nietzsche calls, a “destiny”, as a great-souled individual who left his mark on the hearts and minds of men throughout time.
Since I’m out of town, I recorded some shorts for you! This one is a reading of a Medium Article I wrote, introducing the concept of resentment and will to power as a psychological phenomenon. Included is a bit of extra material I recorded off the cuff, drawing on material in The Antichrist.
Today, we’re going to delve for the first time into one of Nietzsche’s influences. Heraclitus is known for his sayings such as “Everything flows”, and “One cannot step into the same river twice.” Heraclitus lived during a time before philosophy was well-defined as a discipline, and before there were well-known philosophical schools in Greece. Nietzsche had his own fascinating theories about the philosophers who lived before Plato, and we cannot understand his inspiration from Heraclitus without understanding how he perceived the Pre-Platonics: as archetypal philosophers, who dared to uniquely define their own style of philosophical thought. This was the greatness of the figures Nietzsche called, somewhat controversially, the Pre-Platonics. They were the first Greek philosophers, at a time before philosophy, science and religion had split. Rather than seeing them as outdated or unimportant, Nietzsche sees a fascinating narrative about the rise of materialism and scientific thought, and in Heraclitus - perhaps the very model for Nietzsche’s own philosophical quest.
A mysterious illness. A headstone for Karl Ludwig. An enigmatic inscription. In today's episode, we pose the question of why Nietzsche would memorialize his dead father, a Lutheran pastor, with a verse from Corinthians. This unusual event in Nietzsche's life intersects with both his lifelong ailment and his most ambitious philosophical ideas. In order to answer this question, we'll go on the podcast's first deep dive into Nietzsche's personal life - particularly his early life, his romantic period, and his ill-fated friendships with Richard Wagner, Paul Ree, and Lou Salome.
This episode was partially inspired by an essay by Charlie Huennemann, a professor who has published many books worth checking out, including one on Nietzsche. You can find his blog here: https://huenemanniac.com/
Other sources utilized in the episode:
Leonard Sax, What was the cause of Nietzsche’s dementia? (pdf link: www.leonardsax.com/Nietzsche.pdf) Hemelsoet D1, Hemelsoet K, Devreese D., The neurological illness of Nietzsche (Abstract): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18575181 Information on CADASIL: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/cerebral-autosomal-dominant-arteriopathy-with-subcortical-infarcts-and-leukoencephalopathy
Today we'll study the words of a saint, a pope, a madman, the ugliest man, and Zarathustra himself - in order to find out what they all have to tell us about one of the most momentous events in world history, but one which is not yet perceived or understood by the great many. This event is the Death of God, one of Nietzsche's most important ideas and one which lays the groundwork for understanding his thought, and where he saw himself in the context of Western Philosophy. While it is often the case that great attention is given to the infamous passage entitled, "The Madman" - and we'll spend a good amount of time on this passage in this very episode - this particular story is only the first step into the many implication's of God's death. And, of course, we will not be able to get through the episode without addressing ourselves to the elephant in the room, one Dr. Jordan B. Peterson, who has suggested that the Death of God was a sorrowful event for Nietzsche. On the contrary, Nietzsche celebrated the myriad possibilities laid open for humanity, for all the dangers that this entailed, such as the civilizational descent into nihilism. This episode's art is Diogenes by Dutch painter Jan Victors (1619 – 1679)
In this episode, we discuss the character of The Wanderer. The Wanderer appeared in multiple Nietzsche works, mainly during the period from Human, All Too Human, through The Gay Science. Evidently Nietzsche identified himself with this character. The wandering that Nietzsche did throughout Europe, and while hiking the Alps, paralleled the metaphor of 'philosophical wandering' in Nietzsche's work. We'll also discuss a potential inspiration for Nietzsche, in the motif of "wanderers" in German culture. The significance of philosophical wandering as Nietzsche's approach to philosophy is that Nietzsche's project ends up looking very different from that of most other philosophers. Episode art is Caspar David Friedrich's Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer.
Welcome to The Nietzsche Podcast! In this first episode, we introduce Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), through the passage, "How the True World Finally Became a Fable", from his book, The Twilight of Idols. In this passage, Nietzsche sketches the history of a particular error in Western philosophy: the error of metaphysics. Nietzsche establishes himself as an anti-metaphysical philosopher, who is against all doctrines of a "True World" that lies beyond our own. In this episode, we touch upon the ideas and historical context of Plato, Descartes, Kant, Schopenhauer, and others. INCIPT ZARATHUSTRA!