Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:51:38 — 102.2MB)
Discussing The Genealogy of Morals (mostly the first two essays) and Beyond Good and Evil Ch. 1 (The Prejudices of Philosophers), 5 (Natural History of Morals), and 9 (What is Noble?).
We go through Nietzsche’s convoluted and historically improbable stories about about the transition from master to slave morality and the origin of bad conscience. Why does he diss Christianity? Is he an anti-semite? Was he a lazy, arrogant bastard? What does he actually recommend that we do?
Buy the text
End song: “The Greatest F’in Song in the World,” from 1998′s Mark Lint and the Fake Johnson Trio. Download the album.
Five Stars after 100+ iTunes Ratings.
#1 by Moesy Pittounikos on July 20, 2011 - 3:52 pm
There is an old Zen saying that goes something like this… before enlightenment, mountains look like mountains and rivers look like rivers, when seeking enlightenment, mountains no longer look like mountains and rivers no longer look like rivers; on achieving enlightenment, mountains again look like mountains and rivers look like rivers. I thought of this pseudo profundity when I finished my self inflicted pro-life Nietzschean frisby fetish.
You see, when I first read Friedrich Nietzsche, I thought “holy shit, this guy wants to liquidate my grandmother”! Then I read Walter Kaufmann’s lukewarm writings on herr Freddy and the subsequence ‘rehabilitated’ zeitgeist of todays academic, and I no longer thought that Friedrich Nietzsche wanted to liquidate my grandmother. But today, after reaching satori for myself, I again think “holy shit, this guy wants to liquidate my grandmother”
#2 by Daniel Horne on July 20, 2011 - 5:25 pm
Wasn’t that a chapter in Ecce Homo? “Why I Am So Willing to Liquidate Your Grandmother”?
#3 by Jeff on January 19, 2012 - 11:17 am
I think it’s cute that you guys think that an obscure off the cuff statement by Nietzsche can be applied to economic principles (the free rider problem associated with welfare) while flying in the face of all respected economists. Yeah… and when I have questions about morality, I read Yogi Berra quotes.
#4 by Seth Paskin on January 19, 2012 - 11:42 am
Since we recorded that two years ago, maybe you can clarify and identify which one of us guys made the comment in question?
#5 by Mark Linsenmayer on January 19, 2012 - 12:23 pm
I know what he’s talking about; it was my comment about the strength of a society being measured by how many parasites it can stand.
When N. says things like that, he’s making a value statement, not an economic analysis, and it’s a good quote to pull out to show that he would not have been down with the Nazi resentment against minorities and all that.
#6 by Mark Linsenmayer on January 19, 2012 - 11:45 am
The point is a question of values: the indignation at “welfare queens” (and invariably the gross exaggeration re. how much this phenomenon occurs and is actually a problem) is a form of resentment of the kind Nietzsche objects to. Whatever your actual policy outlook, the indignation itself is bullshit.
#7 by Jeff on January 21, 2012 - 2:00 pm
You mean according to Nietzsche it might be bullshit, but even that argument depends on either how much the phenomenon occurs and is actually a problem (the consequentialist argument) or about whether or not wealth redistribution itself is a rights-violation. Since Nietzsche was not an economist, how anything he said be used to make the first argument without first somehow showing that the consequences are small. And yes, I understand that welfare spending is a small amount of the budget, but that doesn’t include the lower productivity and higher unemployment that welfare benefits invariably cause. The question itself is much more convoluted when you consider the “unseen consequences.” I suppose I’m not arguing as much with what was said as much as I am with the tone. It was dismissive of the possibility that the incentive effects of welfare may actually be a problem without acknowledging the complexity of the (possible) problem.
#8 by Jeff on January 21, 2012 - 2:01 pm
I realize I wrote a nonsensical sentence. I meant to say “Since Nietzsche was not an economist, whatever he said cannot be used to make the first argument without first somehow showing that the consequences are small.”
#9 by Daniel Horne on January 19, 2012 - 12:45 pm
Jeff, you can observe a lot just by watching.
#10 by Jeff on January 21, 2012 - 1:53 pm
Well, that is the definition of observation, now isn’t it?
#11 by Daniel Horne on January 21, 2012 - 5:36 pm
Actually, it was a Yogi Berra quote.
#12 by Jeff on January 23, 2012 - 4:16 am
Ok, you win this round! Very good indeed.
#13 by dmf on January 19, 2012 - 6:51 pm
“Nietzsche’s Conception of the Self
R. Lanier Anderson (Stanford University)”
via new school philo dept:
http://www.newschoolphilosophy.com/audio/tnw/RA-03-24-11.mp3
#14 by dmf on January 22, 2012 - 7:46 am
http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/philfac/nietzsche/p4leiter-medium-video.mp4?CAMEFROM=podcastsGET
Leiter on FN as a fatalist
#15 by dmf on January 23, 2012 - 10:35 am
http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/babich-on-schroedinger-and-nietzsche/
#16 by Kenneth Clune on January 24, 2012 - 12:33 am
Love this podcast! It is great to see philosophy out of the ivory tower and brought to everyone. I wish you to bring more experts on each topic however. For example, call up Dreyfus and ask him to discuss “intentionality” with you during the heidegger podcast, he seems chill enough to do that. My only criticism is that you are often too critical of the continentals. Espicailly merleau ponty, you destroy him. I think its because continentals are in america are taken to be the less serious philosophers. if they werent so important, then why is a quarter of your podcasts on continentals. I am probably being bias considering I love kierkegaard and existentialism. job well done. I cant emphasis enough how great you all are though. I love listening and inspire me to re-read texts. your discussions are like a public discussion dialectical but with no answer being better than the other. just different ways of viewing the various philosophers.
#17 by Mark Linsenmayer on January 24, 2012 - 1:01 am
Thanks, Kenneth. I don’t think any ripping on the continentals (at least the ones we’ve covered) is because of American academic prejudice. I, for one, am very interested in them and want to read them, but you have to be honest re. what you actually get out of something even while admitting that you might get more out of it with further investigation.
I think we’ll have more “experts” as time goes on, but the down side of that is that it’s no longer a conversation then, but just a lecture, or an interview at best. We’ve got some ongoing internal debate re. how much effort to put into bringing such folks in. I think Dreyfus at some point talking about his own work would be great though. He’s definitely in my top 5 wish list.
#18 by dmf on January 24, 2012 - 9:30 am
ML, I don’t think that you all have been particularly hard on the continental philos, even your readings of MP seemed quite fair, I enjoyed the conversation with Pat Churchland but prefer just hearing you folks read these things thru, there are so many interviews with Dreyfus available that it’s hard to see how one more might really help so I would suggest someone like Alva Noe or Ian Thompson.
http://www.beingintheworldmovie.com/ph-thomson.html
#19 by dmf on January 24, 2012 - 9:31 am
for anyone wanting more on Dreyfus:
http://whooshup.blogspot.com/