Comments on: Episode 11: Nietzsche’s Immoralism: What Is Ethics, Anyway?

By: dmf

dmf — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:31:56 +0000

for anyone wanting more on Dreyfus:
http://whooshup.blogspot.com/

By: dmf

dmf — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:30:58 +0000

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

By: Mark Linsenmayer

Mark Linsenmayer — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 06:01:11 +0000

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.

By: Kenneth Clune

Kenneth Clune — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 05:33:13 +0000

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.

By: dmf

dmf — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:35:53 +0000

http://terenceblake.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/babich-on-schroedinger-and-nietzsche/

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 09:16:29 +0000

Ok, you win this round! Very good indeed.

By: dmf

dmf — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 12:46:55 +0000

http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/philfac/nietzsche/p4leiter-medium-video.mp4?CAMEFROM=podcastsGET
Leiter on FN as a fatalist

By: Daniel Horne

Daniel Horne — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 22:36:50 +0000

Actually, it was a Yogi Berra quote.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:01:55 +0000

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.”

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:00:05 +0000

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.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 18:53:48 +0000

Well, that is the definition of observation, now isn’t it?

By: dmf

dmf — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:51:03 +0000

“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

By: Daniel Horne

Daniel Horne — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:45:40 +0000

Jeff, you can observe a lot just by watching.

By: Mark Linsenmayer

Mark Linsenmayer — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 17:23:35 +0000

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.

By: Mark Linsenmayer

Mark Linsenmayer — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:45:10 +0000

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.

By: Seth Paskin

Seth Paskin — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:42:33 +0000

Since we recorded that two years ago, maybe you can clarify and identify which one of us guys made the comment in question?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:17:23 +0000

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.

By: In Memoriam: Christopher Hitchens | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Sat, 17 Dec 2011 04:51:20 +0000

[...] his last article for Vanity Fair, you’ll find him ruminating on Nietzsche’s aphorism, “That which does not kill me makes me stronger,”a tenuous connection to [...]

By: Partially Examined Life Podcast Topic #49: Foucault | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 17:40:34 +0000

[...] Foucault says no. In his book, Discipline and Punish, he tells a story reminiscent in style of Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals about how techniques of punishment in Europe quickly changed from public torture and execution in [...]

By: Week 12: Nietzsche | Introduction to Philosophy

Week 12: Nietzsche | Introduction to Philosophy — Thu, 17 Nov 2011 13:51:55 +0000

[...] is only a part of what is a much longer discussion on the Genealogy of [...]

By: Sam Harris on the Is/Ought Distinction | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:12:38 +0000

[...] than Churchland’s (as I commented on the show, I think her main influence Hume presages Nietzsche in important [...]

By: “Softballs” on the Churchland Episode | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Sun, 24 Jul 2011 03:38:20 +0000

[...] see exceptionless, categorical moral rules as plausible, and what we did in this respect in our Nietzsche episode still needs further exploration on our [...]

By: Daniel Horne

Daniel Horne — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 22:25:26 +0000

Wasn’t that a chapter in Ecce Homo? “Why I Am So Willing to Liquidate Your Grandmother”?

By: Moesy Pittounikos

Moesy Pittounikos — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 20:52:40 +0000

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”

By: Karen Amstrong, Russ Douthat, and the Functions of Religion | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

Fri, 24 Sep 2010 16:25:40 +0000

[...] for evidence of this enlightened view in ancient thinkers. Now, we’ve seen in Rousseau and Nietzsche at least that trying to support a philosophical point through historical survey doesn’t [...]

By: The Partially Examined Life: A Philosophy Podcast | Open Culture

The Partially Examined Life: A Philosophy Podcast | Open Culture — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:07:30 +0000

[...] During that time we’ve covered topics ranging from Plato’s conception of the examined life to Nietzsche’s immoralism, God and faith to the philosophy of mind. Frankly I’m always amazed that there are people who [...]

By: Christian Realism and Holy War | The Partially Examined Life | A Philosophy Podcast

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:52:29 +0000

[...] war, but I wage it only out of love.” It’s almost a self-parodying confirmation of Nietzsche’s critique of the human capacity for turning aggression into “love,” with Christian love as his [...]