everyone in this video what I'd like to
do is spend a little bit of time talking
about Nietzsche's on the utility liability of
history for life as well as his human
all too human
so to start here what I'd like to do is
take a look at all the utility and
liability of history for life which as
you can see 1874 fairly early on nature
would be about 30 at this point and so
he's past his collegiate experience and
he's starting to form his own ideas this
is still fairly early on in his career
keep in mind that he lives all the way
to 1900 but I want to look specifically
at what he says here because a lot of
the terms that we associate with
Nietzsche
we heard mentality we talked about in
the prologue AMA of the notion of
subscribe in Modoc
here this is where he really gets
started utilizing that terminology that
we're going to see him bounce around a
little bit in on the utility and
liability of history for life other
translations have translated it in
English as on the use and misuse of
history so I spent a lot of time talking
about how we use history to kind of
construct our own identities last time I
want you to pay attention to what he
says here this is on the bottom of page
125 and I've put it up on the screen as
well just in case that's a that's an
issue or you have your book left
somewhere else here it is up on the
screen I'll try and do that for the
remainder of stuff that I do on here he
says observe the herd as it grazes past
you the picture heard of any kind of
animals
it cannot distinguish yesterday from
today leaps about eats sleeps digest
sleeps some more and carries on like
this from morning tonight and from day
to day tethered by the short leash of
its pleasures and displeasures to the
stake of the moment and thus at night it
is not a melancholy nor bored it is hard
on the human being to observe this
because he boasts about the superiority
of his humanity over animals and yet
looks enviously upon their happiness for
the one and only thing he desires is to
live like an animal neither bored nor in
pain and yet he desires this in vain
because he does not desire it in the
same way as does the animal the human
being might ask the animal why do you
just look at me like that instead of
telling me about your happiness the
animal wanted to answer because I always
immediately forget what I wanted to say
but it had already forgotten this answer
and hence said nothing so that the human
being was left to wonder so already
I need you here is telling us this about
history we use history and our own
notions of narrative to construct
ourselves we think of our identity as
really what we remember what we've done
who we are is what we've done in this
and the things that we remember it's not
merely our bodies it's not merely our
personalities what we are are sort of
David Hume once said that we are bundles
of perceptions and each is really saying
here were bundles of experiences things
that happen to us our memories
alright what things have happened where
were I was on a certain day think about
we identify ourselves but the day we're
born or you know wasn't zodiac signs
like the month of the year or something
like that we identify ourselves by what
place we were born in all these features
and facts we say determined
who we are and also we indict others in
this way we say someone had some
particular kind of a some one killed
somebody else a person is a murderer we
vide even if that person somehow had
amnesia forgot all their memories we
would still say it's still that that
that experience happened in this person
another thing we should do that but that
the often people would alright
saying this this flesh has a particular
kind of historical experience that's
bundled into this corporate real space
that is your body and Nietzsche saying
we that's the case well that's at least
how we go about doing things but also we
as humans constantly count our
superiority to other animals look how
advanced we are often when we want to
say that another group of people is
uncivilized we call them savage
literally from a French expression
meaning they live in the woods are there
like animals beasts stuff like that you
know wild but uh we're kind of jealous
of animals at the same time because
we're superior in fact in the same
century John Stuart Mill English
philosopher once said talking about you
know he's a utilitarian saying you know
they should be the greatest happiness
for the greatest number and that the
notion of pleasure helps us determine
what is good at what is right
nevertheless he says fairly early on in
his book utilitarianism better to be
Socrates dissatisfied than a pig
satisfied because Oh a a human beings
dissatisfaction and getting after truth
and being disappointed it's still better
than an animal's happiness I got like a
pig's butt
Nietzsche saying here know what now
think about it we wish we could be as
happy as an animal he ever seen a dog
play and be super super happy or come
home to see you you know waiting at the
door super excited ready to jump up on
you have you ever been that happy to see
someone else as much as one's dog might
be happy to see its owner I'm gonna
venture probably not and also the wasn't
me just says here that at the top of 126
tell me about your happiness the an
animal couldn't really come up with a
verbal construction about here's why I'm
happy here's what's going on and even if
it could it would forget about it
immediately because an animal unlike
humans don't have the same sense of
history
now I'm inclined to believe the 21st
century animals do have memories I think
they do have conscious experiences to
some to some degree I don't think it's
as sophisticated as human experiences I
think they're capable of emotional
experiences as well but an animal has no
really spatio-temporal linguistic
experience an animal doesn't have a
history in the same sense an animal
doesn't remember or a you know notions
of its childhood are not part of its
self constructed identity so things
might have happened to a dog didn't
remember you know it's been trained to
do certain things conditioned to do
certain things it's gonna it's gonna do
those things because it was taught it's
not I could forget forgets all those
kinds of things but a dog does not self
reflect about where it was born nor a
cat or something like that
it's not part of that self-constructed
identity in the same way and so
therefore a dog has no history a cat has
no history a bird a fish has no history
that is not to say we couldn't look at a
series of events that happened over
their lives and chart them that an
observer could do that it's not
Nietzsche's not dismissing that fact or
that facticity what he is dismissing is
that that that involves anything in
one's self experience all right our self
constituted experience because animals
don't have that your dog is not thinking
about what it's going to do next summer
because it probably doesn't have a
concept of summer because it doesn't
have like whereas it doesn't mean that
summer doesn't exist for the dog it's
still gonna get sweaty when it gets hot
out all right he's going to recognize
that it's hot breathe things like that
but it doesn't have that same
recognition of here's how I fit in in
this larger framework and that's for
Nietzsche what history is and wouldn't
it be great if we could forget animal
forgets it gets over things quite easily
sir I think animals can hold fears if
someone was abusive to an animal I've
seen I think animals can respond in a
timid way there's a memory there but
there's not the same existential kind of
memory we wish we could forget sometimes
if you've ever been through something
painful loss of a loved one a breakup or
something like that it can the pain can
feel overwhelming and but what if we
could just delete that pain by deleting
the experience from our memories
wouldn't that be beneficial and that's
what Nietzsche's getting out of here is
this notion of identity being connected
to memory he continues further on but he
also wondered about himself the human
that is but he also wondered about
himself
and how he was unable to learn to forge
and always clung to what was past no
matter how far our faster runs that
chain runs with him it is cause for
wonder the moment here in a flash gone
in a flash before it nothing after it
nothing right here on the page does
after all returned as a ghost once more
and disturbs the Peace of a later moment
over and over a leaf is loosened from
the scroll of time falls out flutters
away and suddenly flutters back into the
human beings lap so often Nietzsche is
saying here what happens to us is when
we have especially painful experiences
are things that we've grown past we want
to get away from those experiences and
we do things throughout our lives to
distract ourselves from that good thing
we put our mind on other things but our
focus our energies elsewhere but like a
leaf blowing away in the wind and then
coming back it lands in our lap
then the human being says I remember and
he envies the animal that immediately
forgets and that sees how every moment
actually dies sinks back into fog and
night it is extinguished forever so as
much as we want to get away from
especially painful memories todd has a
way of just these things resurfacing
reappearing when we get to Freud later
on and we talk about the notion of
repressed memories this will come up
this is not exactly what Freud is saying
but something not about repression or
suppression but about this notion that
just being historical beings conscious
that we have experience in space and
time these notions come back to us these
memories will come back to us and it's
back where as a dog or a cat it's not
gonna wake up one day and think ah yes I
remember the you know spring of 1972 and
that's not going to happen that's why it
Nietzsche says on the left on the next
line thus the animal lives on historic
Lee you'll notice it's not a
historically but on historically in
German that would be a historic right
that is the animal doesn't have an
identity that takes place in a
historical sense in time in history
there is no internal narrative going on
or disappears entirely into the present
like a number that leaves no remainder
it does not know how to dissemble it
conceals nothing and appears in each and
every moment as exactly what it is and
so cannot help but be honest
an animal simply is you animal can't be
vacant Simon later said animal can't
exactly be sincere but it can't be
sincere because it can't really be
deceptive really in a conscious way I'm
sure we talk about things that I
camouflage and whatnot in nature being a
kind of deception but at least in terms
of internal identity a dog can't lie a
cat can't deceive the human being
by contrast braces himself against the
great and ever greater burden of the
past it weighs and down or bends him
over happens hampers his gait as an
invisible and obscure load that he can
pretend to disown and that he's only too
happy to sound when he's among his
fellow human beings in order to arouse
their Envy we're very upset a lot of the
time and things weighed down on us and
we're constantly trying to forget
suffering that is why says Nietzsche the
site of a grazing herd or even closer to
home of a child which not yet having a
pasture to sound plays in blissful
blindness between the fences of the past
and the future moves him as though it
were the vision of a lost paradise so
Nietzsche saying here sometimes when we
look at especially young children we
think sometimes of children as innocent
now if you've ever met young children
you know that they can be some of the
cruelest human beings you've ever met
but they're still kind of not naive in
the general sense of the word a naive
innocence about children where they're
oblivious they have no sense of despair
in the same way that adults do it was I
sure when something happens you know
they get like a cutter they fall down
and you know
maybe some of the worst crying you've
ever heard in your life I've ruined my
own children just then Oh
especially my youngest crying just
trying to get him to sleep look you fell
asleep I'm hungry like young young
babies cry really any kind of desires
expressed as crying but there's a sense
in which we adult humans often look at
children with the kind of Wonder and awe
but also a kind of jealousy where I wish
I could go back to a life that was not
as complicated doesn't mean that we'd
have to go doesn't mean that we desire
to go back and time and experience all
our childhood over again but that
especially the best parts of childhood
the fact that children seem to be kind
of oblivious from the big issues of the
world and the major kind of anxieties
that we have it instills some kind of
all that it does from the animals but it
says this meat just says but yet here's
the thing about childhood - no matter
how you look at it you know there's a
kind of dread in that for a child you
know one day they're gonna grow up no
matter how happy a child seems now
playing with its little toy a child's
going to grow up and experience all
kinds of despair Nietzsche's not gonna
use that word despair but all kinds of
we'll just say all kinds of bits of
sorrow that we'd rather not have that
things are gonna happen that's what he
says and yet the child's play must be
disturbed all too soon we'll be summoned
out of its obliviousness you're gonna
get to a point where a child goes
sometimes we call this eye today really
kind of adolescence and we don't have an
exact moment we remember becoming
ourselves but Nietzsche is implying here
we go from a moment to where we're kind
of innocuous as we're just we're in the
world we have self-concepts you might
have memories from your childhood but
you'd go from having memories to all of
a sudden there's a you with a distinct
personality
with a distinct in particular set of
experiences and right when that happens
is when the self-conscious suffering
begins then it will come to understand
the phrase it was the watchword that
brings the human being strife suffering
and boredom that's another problem so
that he has reminded what his existence
basically is a never to be perfected
imperfect that is perfect in the sense
of being in incomplete will never be
done no matter what you do no matter how
much money you make no matter how much
stuff that you have no matter how much
you get done there will always be a
sense in which there's more to do or at
least feel as though there's more to do
even if you say you've accomplished a
bunch of goals that you set out for
yourself then finally when death finally
brings him the much longed for Oblivion
it simultaneously also suppresses the
present and with this existence places
its seal on the knowledge that existence
itself is nothing but an uninterrupted
having been something that lives by
negating consuming and contradicting
so that's what it seems well like what
it is to exist then therefore to me
check going against something
consumption in contradiction putting it
odd with what's there at least it's the
knowledge living is knowledge of that of
and it seems like it conscious existence
is suppressing the present it seems I
think it just to put this in simpler
terms even though we can only be in the
now or the present think about how often
our thought experiences dwell on either
aspects of the future what we want to
happen doles things we'd like to achieve
in the future perhaps things down the
road that you said like maybe like
milestones things that you set out for
yourself some people dwell a lot on
those and on the other hand Nietzsche
would say there's also a lot of dwelling
on the past things have happened maybe
good things maybe bad things but a lot
of dwelling on the past
in my experience so this is a verse ISM
but in my experience usually someone
dwells on one or the other either
aspects about the future what were
aspects about the past and that's kind
of their home ground but we spend so
much time in the past in the future that
we neglect the present now and that's
where life is lived and that's what
Nietzsche is going to end up concluding
through much of his career that what
he's going to end up saying is that
really living is about thinking here and
here now not dwelling on the past too
much not dwelling on the future too much
he does talked about those things and he
thinks our benefits do them but a lot of
living is where are you now and here and
thinking about
the present so what I want to do I want
to move forward a little bit here and
we're talking about history here and
then we'll move on to some stuff on
human all too human I think I want to do
some stuff on use and abuse of history
for life as well so we move forward here
to page from 127 and here he's talking
again about consciousness consciousness
in terms of our conscious experience not
not simply phenomenology and so he says
this is about the middle page 127 I want
to consider what he says here and then
we'll all move on to looking at human
all too human he says in order to
determine the degree degree of what he
says above here this is his theme to
express my theme even more simply there
is a degree of sleeplessness of
rumination of historical sensibility
that injures and ultimately destroys all
living things whether human being people
or a culture and so here here what me
just saying is exactly this this is his
diagnosis of what our predicament is as
modern people well first of all here are
the symptoms sleeplessness rumination
people are tired and exhausted and have
all kinds of issues and a rumination or
constantly thinking room it to ruminate
is when you think about all the mistakes
you've made I shouldn't have done that
why do they do that
that's rumination but
that ends up becoming injurious and
destructive injures and ultimately
destroys all living things we spent so
much time thinking about our mistakes
that we ended up getting really almost
individually we end up getting depressed
and feeling sad about all the mistakes
we've made and that prevents us from
doing things that we want to do that we
should be doing to enjoy things if
you've ever been really sad sometimes
when you're really sad you don't want to
do anything you don't want to eat you
don't want to sleep or maybe you don't
want to sleep but that's when you want
to go to sleep you can't and when you
can't when you're can't go to sleep
you're too tired like just it ends up
being instructive for an individual
there are things where as a people
things that we remember you might in
mind it would be bad things like our
people did this thousands of years ago
that was terribly good things they give
you too much pride they get in the way
of living a life because you might be
thinking oh we've done it this way for
hundreds of years we're fine we don't
need to do anything with the best people
in the world and that prevents you from
doing things that you should be doing
either because of rumination in the
sense of oh we did something negative or
in the sense of positive everything
Goods already happened we don't need to
worry about anything ever or even a
culture itself and I think he has German
culture in mind in particular there now
a little bit further down he's going to
say this I want to look at this sentence
here
consider this the stronger the roots of
a human beings innermost nature the more
of the past he will assimilate or
forcibly appropriate and the most
powerful most mighty nature would be
characterized by the fact that there
would be no limit at which its
historical sensibility would have a
stifling and harmful effect it would
appropriate and incorporate into itself
all that is passed
what is its own as well as what is alien
transforming as it were into its own
blood this is different
first of all he talks about strength
here what happens is when we get when
history commands us we end up becoming
victim of sorts of our own circumstances
so to be terrible things happen to me
because other people maybe I was
something happened to to me passively as
a child okay and that all that ruined my
life or maybe I actively made mistakes
when I was younger and that ruined my
life if we talk about circumstances
dictating who we are that's problematic
for nature and that's kind of a weakness
but on the other hand a sign of strength
is to take things that happen and they
used if it innate if we use those
experiences in defense for whatever
means or whatever helps us that is
strength that is power okay it's not and
that's what Nietzsche's gonna go for it
if if having historical sense about your
own people or your own individuality
ends up being helpful for you and ends
up enabling you to live your life and to
do the things that you want to do fine
but if it ends up being a hindrance to
you in causing that sleeplessness and
rumination and decay stop it
that's what Nietzsche is telling us here
let's take a look now I'm gonna move on
to page 128 where he gives us now yeah
he give us a little bit of a diagnosis
previously now he's gonna give us a
prescription so here top of page 128
this is the proposition the read the
reader you is invited to consider the
unhistorical and the historical are
equally necessary for the health of an
individual of people in a culture so we
can't have all of what we're doing
wrapped up in our own history that is
you cannot be like say let's say you
were born in the United States of
America you consider yourself an
American your Americanists is not the
totality of who you are okay so that's
putting this in you know cultural and
political terms of your one's identity
but even if you identify something
happened you know let's say you were
talking about being an American that's
that's a culture but even if we like in
we're Americans we have that shared
experience but if we talk about specific
place I'm from here or I lived in this
house and if you if you ever go by the
house again that you don't live in
anymore
crying I remember living there that
individual aspect if that ends up being
overwhelming for you and causing you
sort of nostalgic melancholy stop it
there's a time and a place for having
that historical idea he doesn't think
it's all bad there's a time and a place
where we can't wrap ourselves and mesh
ourselves and the totality of a
historical experience
so that's why he continues everyone has
made at least this one simple
observation human beings historical
knowledge and sensitivity can be very
limited his horizon as narrow as that of
the inhabitant of an isolated alpine
valley each of his judgments may contain
an injustice each experience may be
marked by the misconception that he's
the first to experience it yet in spite
of all these in justices and all these
misconceptions he stands there
vigorously healthy and robust enjoy to
look at at the same time someone's
standing close behind beside him who is
far more just and learned grow sick and
collapses because the lines of his
horizon are restlessly redraw it again
and again because he cannot extricate
himself from the much more fragile web
of his justice and his truths and find
his way back to the crude wanting and
desiring by contrast we saw that the
animal which is wholly unhistorical and
dwells within horizon almost no larger
than a mere point yet still lives in a
certain kind of happiness at the very
least without boredom and dissimulation
so here he compared to individuals
consider this and then to the animal
someone that looks happy so the first
person is someone that looks happy but
is involved mentally in justices and
misconceptions you in other words you
ignorant scan be bliss you can have meat
stupid people that are super happy have
no idea that you know think that the
earth is flat that the moon's made of
green cheese whatever like someone could
be super happy and be wrong about
everything obviously not an optimal
scenario but also you can have someone
who mentally like they they know all the
right things and then be super upset
about it
I think if hear the words of
ecclesiastes come to mind in much wisdom
there is much sorrow it seems like the
more you know the more upset you're
going to be because of the more the more
you know the more tragic the world seems
to become this is why I get back to the
naivete of children they don't know much
it seemed pretty happy go-lucky animals
on the other hand
listen if they're getting fed that very
very easy to keep an animal happy you
don't need all kinds of we don't need to
invent new kinds of entertainment for
animals pretty straightforward so he
says when we compare these three
scenarios the blissful idiot the
melancholic person of learning and then
the animal the three of those are not
optimal but let's let's get to some kind
of blend where we can live a human life
that is not filled with melancholy
neither filled with ignorance neither
where are we merely pigs something
different
something that is about the middle of
the page right here we will therefore
have to consider the capacity to live a
certain degree
unhhhh historically to be more
significant and more original insofar as
it lays the foundation upon us which
something just healthy and great
something that is truly human is able to
grow at all the unhistorical is like
enveloping atmosphere in which life is
engendered and it disappears again with
the destruction of this asset atmosphere
it is true only when the human being is
by thinking reflecting comparing
analyzing and synthesizing limits the
unhistorical element only when a bright
flashing iridescent light is generated
within that enveloping cloud of mist
that is only by means of the power to
utilized the past for life and to Risha
reshape past events into history no he
is the German Kista once more does the
human being become a human being does
the human being become a human being I
want you to think about that I've become
a human being what does that mean like
he's saying here the most human thing
that we can do it's not to simply be I
really think nature to here in English
would use the word victims of our
circumstances he's saying that we
shouldn't be victims of our
circumstances to say I think that I oh I
did things I should have done in the
past or things happen to be in the past
they were out of my control what are you
gonna do simply this whatever things
happen in your life use them to your
advantage whatever it wasn't occurred
use it to your advantage now and if you
can incorporate that don't be don't let
the circumstances dictate you but you
not that you dictate the circumstances
but you dictate their utility or their
use that's what it means
so has nature to be a human being don't
get over absorbed in identities of your
individual cultural or political
construction because when you do that
you're not he saying you're being really
inhuman
you're just kind of trapped really more
like the animal in the herd that just
goes just I know we be talking about
animals but wherever the herd goes bad
you go to know to be human is to fashion
things in a particular kind of way in
fact that's what he says makes humans
human I know some other animals make
tools I can think of chimpanzees make
little sticks to get ants out of ant
hills and other other animals building
spiders build webs beavers build dams
but human beings are animals that we
take things that are out there and we
fashion them for our use more than any
other animal
at least that we know of and he's saying
so that we could do the same thing
existentially as well the things that
happened to us in our lives we can take
them and make them into what we want to
use them for these are things in the
past potentially also for things in the
future but he's not quite there yet so
there's a little bit more to this piece
but I think that's good here I'm going
to transition into taking a look at
human all too human here in this next
segment
okay before we move on to a little bit
of human all too human and I just want
to do a little bit in there too I'm
actually gonna go back a year so we were
looking at on the utility and liability
of history for life 1874 I'm not gonna
go back and take a look just a little
bit of on truth and lies in a non moral
sense from 1873 and here need to this is
still early nature of matter it would be
29 at this point here he's coming to an
early definition of sorts of what truth
is but before he gets the truth he talks
about how we use words and I don't want
to get too much into epistemological
notions or notions of philosophy or
language I really just want to follow
Nietzsche's argument here so consider he
says this let's think about how do we
form concepts so if I say the word tree
in English you hear those you see those
letters TR EE or you hear the word tree
or tree as some people say it and you're
probably thinking or something made of
wood with some leaves but if I just say
the word tree like you get it if you're
an English speaker if you're not an
English speaker that word might be
meaningless to you but if I say that
word you have a concept in your mind
it's associated with both the the the
sounds of the of the word and also the
letters when they're written and the
phonics of course is the combining of
those two things but that letters stand
for sounds and so forth if we were
speaking another language for example I
think in German the word for tree is bow
that bomb I believe but that even though
it's a different language it represents
a similar concept so often when we're
learning languages for the first time if
you know this if you've ever done
anything with that owl on duolingo a lot
of early language learning is simply
learning what is the vocabulary
equivalent for this object so you know
if I'm looking I'm for example my
computer right now is on a table if
you're going to learn German I think the
word for table is T SH and if I'm not
mistaken it's in German has to be a
masculine noun get dich if memory
service whereas in say Spanish I believe
it's a feminine noun for some reason La
Mesa if memory serves and so you're like
either way you know okay when you're
trying to get foreign language the
concept is still the same thing
regardless of the language okay sort of
because again in German and has a
masculine component in Spanish it has a
feminine command in English all our
nouns are neuter for the most part
sometimes we have some holdovers from
those languages that have gendered
objects so for example often the word
for say ship in Latin na when or we get
our word Navy is feminine which is why
often boats and ships are referred to as
she in English is part of the concept
all right she's a good ship or something
like that you might have seen it like a
pirates movie or something that's where
that comes from but for the most part we
think of concepts as here's a word that
corresponds to some kind of object
object that's why you continue saying
every word instantly becomes a concept
precisely insofar as it's not supposed
to serve as a reminder of the unique an
entirely individual original experience
to which it owes its origin but rather a
word becomes a concept in so far as it
has simultaneously has to fit countless
more
or less similar cases which means purely
in simply cases which are never equal
unless altogether unequal okay yeah well
I said I talked about the notion of
Correspondence here's a word whether
it's written out or it's spoken and
here's an object and sometimes we can
point to specific objects and say you
know this thing here but like with a
concept say of tree when I say tree what
does it refer to okay thing made of wood
with leaves picture a tree in your head
no they're about ten people in this
class if I ask each of you to picture a
tree there's no way you're picturing the
same thing you're all picturing similar
sightings I'm sure branches but are you
picturing a pine tree gum tree oak tree
well those are all different kinds of
trees but even if we went and talked
about only pine trees we talked about
long needle plants or short needle pods
and we could further divided into sub
concepts now think about this with music
no look I'm using do you like Oh rock
rap hip-hop country classical those
terms are meaningless
hopefully that's why we get down before
their subdivisions or like oh I listen
to like you know post hardcore punk
infused trap rap rock cunt like we have
these notions but even if you zoom in on
those you could even go down even
further to the point where really almost
every individual chord melody beat
Tambor ends up being its own thing
really but what we do with concept is
basically saying alright fine these
things are close enough that you can
bundle them together but they're not
identical just like if I said with you
know trees aren't fun I guess what if I
said you know think of a dog like with
the word dog what does it bring to mind
and everybody's picturing a different
dog
I'm sure they've all got four legs but
maybe they don't you might have a dog
that doesn't have four legs you might
have a dog that lost its leg in which
case that's you dogs are typically
four-legged but it's not a four-legged
animal doesn't fit the criteria it's a
big small I mean our Great Dane is not a
chihuahua you'd say yeah they all
descend from wolves sure but not in the
same way very different kinds of breeds
even breeds don't really breathe oh
that's a that's a story for another day
but when I say the word dog or hunt as
nature would use so that concept we all
grasp if I say the word dog you're not
completely what do you mean what is that
like you you get you get it and even
though if I say picture a dog we might
not be picturing the same thing it still
works as kind of a bundled
generalization that allows us to at
least basically communicate this gets it
a further problem as Nietzsche said it
samuel simultaneously has to fit more or
less similar cases so we both understand
what the word dog means if we're English
speakers but we also have to recognize
it a Great Dane is not a chihuahua if I
said you know all I hear birds outside
you probably are not thinking hard you
would you have ostriches outside
penguins they're Birds yeah but neither
do they fly south for the winter because
they can't fly okay so weird thing with
words and concepts but that means things
are never equal every concept arises for
the equation of from the equation of
unequal things so when we talk about a
word as a capper as a generalization it
always ends up putting things in there
that it can't
okay and he goes into a little bit about
what Elise means but so that means when
we're talking about various kinds of
terms like honesty what is honesty mean
it ends up being difficult to define
those concepts because their level of
abstractions they always end up being
including equal and unequal components
so especially with abstract terms like
abstract terms like honesty justice
goodness and another one truth so this
question that we see on the you know
towards the bottom of 117 here what is
truth
or what then is truth and there's a
certain sense in which he might be
channeling a little bit of Pontius
Pilate in the Gospel of John here asking
the question ts tin Alafaya or in Latin
quid quid asked where eat us so what is
it define if we're talking about the the
the liquid or fluid nature of concepts
what then is truth on this diagram well
here we go or on this model of concepts
being including notions that end up
having to exclude themselves or
including equal and unequal things he
says it's a movable host of metaphors
autonomies and anthropomorphisms in
short a sum of human relations which has
been poetically and rhetorically
intensified transferred and embellished
and which after a long usage seems to a
people to be fixed canonical and binding
well let's break that down so far so
metaphors metonymy z-- and for morphisms
truth is a generalization it's and it's
a generalization or it's almost kind of
when we're saying something's
metaphorical there's almost an a it's
where it's symbolic but not actually the
case and he says when these and that
these notions have been poetically and
rhetorically intensified transferred and
embellished okay so they've been added
to significantly and today end up being
fixed canonical and binding well this
word have gotten bigger today it like
they're taken as canon for the world you
know we talked about people you know
whether reading comic books or watching
a movie or TV show like hey did that
thing that happen is i canon or is that
something that fanfiction
well these truth is something where it's
taken as canon it's taken as it's part
of it it's fixed that it's unchanged as
binding it's all wrapped up and ready to
go and that's the way people take truth
so when it comes to historical truths
this thing happened in this way it's
taken this is what happened it's we take
we often think of historical events as
offence and even interpretation of
events as the facts themselves so for
example July 4th 1776 we could say based
on documentary evidence it seems to be
the case that's when some the early
framers of the not the framers but the
the founders the signers of the
Declaration of Independence got together
and signed the Declaration of
Independence that seems to be
indisputable
but in and of itself that's that has
really no consequence so what does it
mean so when people say things like
that's America's birthday that's when
people got together and declared their
freedom against the King of England
right now that now that's an
interpretation which is taken as tan and
this is what happened it's America's
birthday people get out and we're gonna
blow up fireworks and we're gonna you
know eat all kinds of grilled food hot
dogs and hamburgers we're gonna
celebrate being an American because
that's not what happened on July 4th
1776 no-one was grilling hot dogs then
what we do and blowing up fireworks
nevertheless that interpretation it gets
it taking this binding and cannon and it
gets passed down here after you're an
embellished to what it means it's
freedom and it means we're gonna have a
fourth of July sale at the mattress
store come on down today get 50% off
when you buy one get to or something
like that
I get be it becomes almost the the
significance that it has is taken as
canon and is weightier than what
actually transpired hey when we when you
look at 20th century theology and I'm
thinking especially or say someone like
Karl Rahner or panin Berg or Baltimore
in malta mont karl barth to some degree
to a lot of say a lot of Christian
concepts become not so much what
actually happened to say Jesus of
Nazareth but what does it what is its
significance
what does what are the entailments and
those entailments are more binding and
have more to do with notions of truth
than what actually transpired okay in
terms of their significance what does it
mean that meaning ends up becoming more
important than facticity so what then he
continues what then are truths truths
are illusions which we have forgotten
our illusions
there are metaphors that have become
worn out and have been strained of
sensuous force coins which have lost
their embossing and are now considered
as metal and no longer as coins have you
ever seen like an old word coin like an
ancient Roman coin truth truths or
illusions which we have forgotten our
illusions there are metaphors that
become worn out and drained of sensuous
for us so if you're somebody that likes
the notion of truth when you first read
this this sounds preposterous ridiculous
how could someone be you know especially
if someone's other minds that God is
truth and you're saying truth or
illusions that how can that be
well I can't report we're post-fire back
here for sure but what does it mean when
he says truth or illusions well well
Nietzsche is that true yeah well cause
if it is then it's an illusion to need
you doesn't care if you say that's an
illusion he would say yeah sure that's
exactly the point it's not so much that
he we can't make affirmations that's not
the problem with saying especially truth
with a capital T but this is what the
way the world really is that this is the
can and understanding of the world say
when it comes to science okay so when
you say things like um you know
Nietzsche wouldn't have this motion okay
a little bit when it comes to the
positivists but let's say you end up
saying something like the earth goes
around the Sun that's right a
heliocentric model the earth goes around
the Sun and so and you believe that as
canon okay then you do this Terrace that
where you make fun of people that
believe something you believe people
used to think the Sun goes around the
earth earth goes around the Sun it
orbits it exactly like that
that's true and that's probably what you
were taught when you're in elementary
school it's just that's that's not true
scientifically okay with greater studies
and measurements you find out that the
earth texture doesn't go around the Sun
it goes around the barycentre of the
solar system which is a center of
gravity between the Sun and the earth
it's more like not exactly the Sun but
somewhere outside the center of the Sun
so because of gravity works both ways
the the Sun is pulling the Earth around
but the earth is also pulling towards
the Sun just like the earth in the moon
do this and create tides something
similar is going on we don't go around
the earth doesn't go around the Sun it
goes around the barycenter based on
models that we have now is that true
well it works for now but we might find
data later that actually ends up
superseding that or supervening that
make us realize that we used to thing
this based on measurements that we had
maybe people used to think that the the
Earth or the Sun was going around the
earth because if you look outside it
looks like the sun's going around the
earth so that's not a rational
conclusion just based on the data that
you have the conclusions that you make
are limited but they're subject to
revision and so sometimes people say the
scientists are after truth really
scientific different scientific models
end up supplanting each other over time
this doesn't happen often but when they
do they end up supplanting each other
we're not talking about what it's true
we're talking about what's the best
measurement or model to explain reality
that then enables us to do stuff with it
so that's why for example people who
believe that the earth is flat good for
them and let's say just for the sake of
argument let's say it even it's true
that the earth is flat let's just roll
with that for a second
all right great the earth is flat what
does what does that now enable you to do
what can you do with that information
now does that change the way that we use
satellites even if people think it's a
globe and they're wrong
satellites are up in the air doing
whatever it is they're doing what can
you do with that now it's a change
the way you're going to map airplanes
across the woolsack of the Mercator
projection from planes getting from
point A to point B is it going to change
anything what can you do with that new
information that now everybody agrees
with you that the earth is flat nothing
it has no efficacy so the function of
truth in each is getting out here is not
so much does it constitute reality but
how is it used just like what he was
saying in the utility and liability of
history for life if it's like things
happen to you all right
are you letting them rule you are you
going to use them is it is it something
that's a utility that you're going to
use or is it a liability that is going
to destroy you same thing with truth
truth is it's an illusion it has uses
theirs ends up being a notion of some
kinds of pragmatism but people have
forgotten that it's an illusion that's
why people get wrapped up in their
little truth fan clubs and those true
fan clubs I would say can't can't use
the word vote on shelling but I think we
can use what Weltanschauung world view
life view world and life view what Marx
called ideology and for Marx remember
ideology meant sort of a mistaken world
conception I think world conception
works to all these notions like the way
that we constitute the world if we're
taking it as true we end up becoming
again are kind of fanatics for our world
construction so those world concerns
they could be materialistic world
constructions you could be in materials
like Werbach you could be a modern
scientist and you get really into know
this stuff is true the earth is 4.5
billion years old the universe is 13
billion years old
that's that's the way it is humans
evolved X amount of time and you get so
much wrapped up into the notion of its
truth that you'd recognize of scientific
truth or subject to revision based on
further evidence look at models of say
dinosaurs that were discovered 150 years
ago
and then look at the same models today
like when I always a kid you know
Jurassic Park dinosaurs were scary they
were giant lizard things lost you know
I'm thinking was like Jurassic Park Alan
Grant that's an interpretation okay but
you know dinosaurs were like these big
scary lizard things now if you look at
most scientists today paleontologists
talk about dinosaurs much more like
birds they probably had very fatty
bodies and they probably had feathers
and they were probably like a t-rex
might look more like a giant fat chicken
then it looked like a big you know
terrifying lizard despite its name to
demonstrate this look at how look at
like look at the skeleton of a dinosaur
and then say look at a model of what
dinosaur looks like then compare that
say just google a skeleton of a penguin
and then try after looking at like a
dinosaur skeleton look at the skeleton
look like a penguin and then think how a
dinosaur scientists would render that
just looking at the skeleton alone
because it has a penguin has a super
long neck and looks like it's a cell
body but if you look just look at the
penguin skeleton looks like it has this
long neck it'd probably be made into a
terrifying dinosaur if a paleontologist
were discovered but even like I said if
you look at like the dinosaur
constructions from a hundred years ago
same bones same fossils the way things
have the way that models constitute them
is quite different why because science
is subject to revisions for saying it
was this way even when it's about
science stuff is missing kind of the
point
same thing with religious explanations
Nietzsche would say you know - when you
get into fan clubs where you say you
know Jesus did X Y & Z Muhammad did this
Muhammad didn't exist or if you end up
being a Muslim there's no there's Allah
Allah muhammadun Rasulullah there's no
god but Allah and Muhammad is this
prophet you do that you say now the
Christians are wrong they're their texts
are corrupted yes sure they're Allah
could tell they're people of the book
but their texts are corrupted they don't
know what they're doing
you got a religious take all right and
you say this is true and you're really
narrowing that kind of like this history
of Christianity is true Islam as false
it is Lamas true than Christianity is
false now such you once you get into
that truth fanclub you can you end up
buying in to an interpretation that you
take up as canon even where that that's
where it comes into play when it comes
to that that word comes from notions of
Scripture like what books are canon do
you count the book of Genesis for
example to Jews that only the only that
Torah is considered scripture or Canon
whereas the rest of the time arctica to
them and then of you they're great books
but they're not considered Scripture in
the same way that the Torah is load the
books of Moses for Christians most of
them the old the whole Old Testament
what they call it it's Canon Psalms is
just as much Scripture as Isaiah which
is just as much Scripture as Genesis
that's not Judaism that's Christianity
and in Islam of course the quran is
canon but only in arabic if you're
reading in english it's not the quran
anymore and then we can talk about had
various kinds of hadith and things like
that notions of can like what fits in
what doesn't fit in but as soon as you
buy into a particular take so like
Protestants know the Apocrypha should
not be in your Bible okay
this scripture means this and we're
gonna we're gonna have this particular
Creed whether it be the London Baptist
confession of 1689 the Westminster
Confession of faith you can go even
further back the Nicene Creed versus the
you know which does have the full oak
way clause or doesn't if you go back to
a split between the eastern and western
churches what's can and what's not and
once you get into a particular take you
become a defender of the take and think
how much we do this I think think how
sometimes this looks when we do it with
things that are more innocuous if you've
ever been like a fan of a sports team
like you know go
this this team whatever it is like we're
here we see this between say Clemson and
South Carolina a lot University South
Carolina Clemson University we're gonna
be orange and purple and the garnet and
black almost look red you know where
people just whoohoo you know go go team
and become so embellished in like you
have to if you grew up like liking a
certain teen you have to like that team
and if you like another team like how
dare you what's wrong with you how could
you again
look you've it's something which is been
taken up poetically and rhetorically
intensified you know you gotta be you
gotta be a Gamecocks fan all right you
got to be a Tigers fan transferred
embellished you might have pillows with
game clock game clock paraphernalia or
you know that Clemson looks like to me
it looks like a blues clue but orange
all throughout everywhere for such a
long usage seem to people to be fixed
canonical and binding if you grow up and
an intense fandom you think to others
how could it be otherwise now sports is
not your thing it might be like this is
true and nerd demo okay like you know
Batman's the best hero what you think
Superman's better how could you look
like Marvel vs. DC you know video games
you various you know I don't know halo
vs. Borderlands all these kinds of
things you can make a little clown with
coke versus Pepsi like if you grow up in
a household where everybody drinks coke
and that happens in the South sometimes
not Pepsi like it becomes fixed
canonical inviting to the floor what do
you think how could someone think
otherwise how could they be so stupid
but we have failed to recognize the
truth or illusions which we have
forgotten our illusions their metaphors
that have become worn out and have been
drained of sensuous force
okay on to a little bit of human all
teach human here in a moment
okay everyone what I want to do in this
segment is move on to a little bit of
the next book and this is started this
we're moving out of inches early period
now into his middle period and this is
on page 161 of your text we're starting
to look at human all too human men see
also men's Esha okay a book for free
spirits and on this one I'm gonna jump
around quite a bit because I have found
as Nietzsche's thought develops the more
kind of sporadic his thought processes
so if you want to grasp me truly well
the best thing to do is just read
everything he ever wrote but we see here
he starts talking about an ocean of
knowledge there's a lot of early pieces
that we didn't go into entirely on
Schopenhauer educator which I fully
recommend I fully recommend looking at
more of truth and lies in a non-normal
sense but here this is the beginning of
his middle period which will culminate
in the frohliche of this in chapter that
what's usually translated as the gay
science the merry wisdom I think is
probably how I would translate it like
just the we used Mary very much more
either but something like like the
sounds like gay or merriment in the
sense of like yeah this is great this
feels good for example the way you say
Merry Christmas and Germans freely have
I knocked in that sense of merry like I
hope you have a happy time like a happy
knowledge knowledge that makes you happy
that's what that's that's what's gonna
culminate in but we're not quite there
yet we're still in the beginning of the
middle period with human all too human
so like I said I'm going to jump jump
around a bit so first of all he starts
this work by talking about almost the
stagnation of philosophy let's get right
into it
here the BA vidya this is on 161 in
almost all respects philosophical
problems today are again formulated as
they we're 2,000 years ago how can
something arise from its opposite
for example reason from unreason
sensation from lifeless so he's the big
philosophical question logic from the
illogical disinterested contemplation
from cavitus desire altruism from egoism
truth from error so he's saying so far
like look at philosophy now and look
look at philosophy thousands of years
ago and you'll notice that the same
problems have come up whereas you know
when we look at the problems and
scientists deal with today rich is what
science do it 200 years ago we're doing
something different philosophy doesn't
seem like it's really aged or matured in
any kind of way the questions are still
the same questions they might be put
they might have new input from
contemporary information but the basic
questions are still identical it
continues until now a metaphysical
philosophy has overcome this difficulty
by denying the origin of one from the
other and by assuming for the more
highly valued thing some miraculous
origin directly out of the heart and
essence of the thing in itself that's a
quote from Kant's like we can't to
saying you know now there's a phenomenal
numeral distinction we don't need to
worry about these old things anymore mm
not so much
that is to say Nietzsche's doubtful of
that historical philosophy on the other
hand is the youngest branch of all
philosophical methods which can no
longer even be conceived of as separate
from the Natural Sciences has the sermon
has determined in isolated cases and
will probably conclude in all of them
that they are not opposites only
exaggerated to be so by the popular or
metaphysical view and that this
opposition is based on an error of
Reason as historical philosophy explains
it there exist strictly considered
neither a selfless act nor a completely
disinterested observation both are
merely sublimation
so here now really what we're doing is
Hegel so everything's part of the
dialectic now as you can tell he's
criticizing we're Hegel's notion of the
dial
that then marks so that's what and
that's what he means by historical
philosophy here really hails notion of
philosophy of history that you know
everything's part of the whole going
towards the absolute even things that
seem like they're opposed to each other
or all part of the you know a thesis and
antithesis they're all part of the same
synthesis to being in the non being or
all part of becoming to which
Nietzsche's going okay okay now this has
his nature is going to conclude is not
helpful but he concludes by looking at
this mankind loves to put questions of
origin and beginnings out of mind one
must not be almost inhuman to feel
himself the opposite inclination and
then he moves on to talking about the
congenital defect of all philosophers
and consider this all philosophers
suffer from the same defect and that
they start with present-day man and
think they can arrive at their goal by
analyzing him instinctively they let man
hover before them as and I turn a weary
toss that should be eternal truth let's
see how your book footnotes it yeah
eternal truth
it's just something obvious that's why
people say like you know I well when we
look at you know like things in the
future we have to think about what human
nature is like well there's human nature
warmer to be static it's based on
conditions people keep looking at the
now saying this is how things are like
this is really this is it
Francis Fukuyama did this years ago in
economics where he described sort of the
you know the posts the end of the Soviet
Union and the ascent of the post Cold
War United States is the end of history
not to say that the you know history
stops now the eschaton is fully arrived
but
that that's basically it we kind of
stopped there now really you're not
gonna see much go on past that well stop
looking at the now as this is how it
obviously is this is how humans have
always been they always will be
that's a defect of Falah philosophers
and as such they will not understand
that man has evolved and that the
Faculty of knowledge has also evolved
well some of them even permit themselves
to spend the whole world out from the
Faculty of knowledge so notice here what
he says at the end to everything is
evolved the problem is looking at the
last thousands of years of history of
humankind has always been the same as
not evolving not just in the sense that
it's like going from like Homo erectus
to homo sapiens but the way that we have
changed in our societies the way that we
evolved as societies cultures countries
kingdoms and peoples when it comes to
humans there are no eternal facts there
are no absolute truths
thus historical philosophizing is
necessary henceforth and the virtue of
modesty as well so philosophers
Nietzsche is saying here stop
overextending your definitions of
humanity saying that it is this way
people do this often where they from
their limited experience nature saying
they say this is how all people must be
this is how all people just are all
people like saying something like no
yeah no we'll never have a peaceful
society in the future because humans are
just selfish that's how they aren't
that's particular that's taking humans
as an eternal truth like that's just how
they are and they always will be the
case it just says those things are those
things are dynamic those features which
we think are the most human are
constantly changing and that's really
there's no one definition of humanity
and I want you to think how this
Nietzschean ism is going to extend into
modern categories there's not just one
you can't just say there's simply
something like masculinity or femininity
you know hard lines of gender or
sexuality they're simply like human
beings are simply this way there's
countless modalities of human existence
and that's what Nietzsche's get it yet
there's not one that you point to and
say mmm
that's it that's the normative one
there's far too many to make that claim
so going on from here like I said I'm
gonna jump around quite a bit and
because a lot of the things that he says
here he says in rudimentary form that
he's gonna say a lot more clearly later
in some of the later books so I want to
let's take a look at section 25 going to
page 168 I don't want you to see because
he's gonna say this better later but I
want you to look at what he says here
about private morality and world
morality so his fullest take on morality
is going to come in on the genealogy of
morality when we get there we're not
quite there yet but so now he's again
now he's sort of turning to in the
middle period or in his middle period
about coming up with a happiness of
going after knowledge like let it like
it let it be something this is what we
should do we should we should search for
you know a making-of knowledge of making
of ourselves that should be cherished
but he also turns to a critique of
traditional notions of morality is
getting in the way of that quite often
for of her happy pursuits so let's look
what he says here um and when I say he's
he's happy about knowledge and he just
skeptical about knowledge but he's happy
about our the way that we live our lives
if I didn't say that clearly it may
become more clear as we go through this
so here's section 25 this is again on
page 168 private morality world morality
since man no longer believes that God is
guiding the destinies of the world as a
whole or that despite all apparent twist
the path of mankind is leading somewhere
glorious men must set themselves
ecumenical goals embracing the whole
earth a couple things in there
there's this is this sentence here is
doing quite a bit excuse me
one that's where the sentiment of God is
dead is no no this is not the quotation
that you're familiar with we'll get to
that eventually but here since man no
longer believes in God or that God is
guiding the world that is what he means
elsewhere when he says god is dead like
God like even even if there's a God up
there he's he's not doing anything he's
not in charge of anything no one no one
really believes that okay
and people that do are there the
nihilists Nietzsche's going to conclude
when we get to the Antichrist you'll see
where he says that people no longer
believe that God's directing this maybe
some people do but you press them enough
and don't do something otherwise okay
people still take precautions you might
believe that God has a plan for your
life but you probably still buckle your
seat belt in your car
that's Nietzsche's point like you might
think oh everything will be fine I will
be impervious to everything
press someone far enough they take
precautions so as a result human being
except themselves ecumenical goals
embracing the whole earth so what is
ecumenical so this word ecumenical
basically means bringing disparate
things together
so in Kant's critique team practicing
finished or the critique of practical
reason he sets forth he also does some
on the groundwork for the metaphysics of
morals as well he talks about the
categorical imperative like what are you
and beings must do and the first one's
the most famous where he says act only
on that subjective maxim that you can at
the same time well that we should
becoming universal law you've heard me
say that before I know the second
formulation is always act in such a way
that you treat another human being not
impaired and paraphrase these more and
more as I go through it but always make
sure that you treat another human being
as an end in themselves and never merely
as a means
especially don't abuse I'll be like you
we all use people all the time you're
using me right now to get your college
credits I'm using you to get a paycheck
and even our most friendly relationships
like if your parents can help you out
with something you have a friend and
kill you you're using them but you're
not merely using them Khan says never
merely used people that's a problem
never merely never merely use them so
that means you can't really be abusive
or treat other people as not in humans
that would be that would be a violation
of that but then the third categorical
imperative says always act as though
you're a legislating member of the
kingdom event and this is the one where
the funnels I think most people the
other two are I think a bit easier to
grasp but on this one basically if I can
put it in simple terms as possible
Humanity is a team sport this is a
collective project and whatever morality
we do we're all working together that's
why as the world whether you have the
more common same in politics the
communistic take or the neoliberal take
or even the conservative take you know
where you often hear the conservative
use anti-globalist no we don't want a
one-world government that would be
terrible the United Nations is terrible
or in Britain right now with the post
brexit the European Union is a monolith
that we need to be disbanded from
there's still in spite of that wanting
to be isolationist take and potentially
nationalistic even in those
circumstances there is still a ravenous
hunger for the for the for the notion of
a world market and trade agreements
we're often so neither either sense it's
not globalist but it's still global this
is to say that the domain of humanity
seems to be today at morality that we're
all in this together do you not see this
right now of what we're going on you're
watching this video right now if you are
because it was here what are the
students in this class because we're
basically all having to stay at home but
it's not just here is it and you know
it's not just here in Aiken South
Carolina I guess the Georgia it's not
just Georgia and South Carolina saw just
the United States it's not just North
America it's like the whole planet Earth
is doing
right now in some places it's worth
worse than others and you see some
cooperation between countries on this
and we're all in this together that kind
of attitude that comes from Conte it's
not reducible to Conte but like if the
notion is this if God is no longer in
charge of the world well then humanity
will have to come together it's kind of
like Gene Roddenberry Star Trek morality
ok human beings will just have to unite
like though now that we don't believe in
God anymore but we have to have a new
goal and what's that new goal humanity
is one think of the song I'm a Jinnah
ghin you may say I'm a dreamer but I'm
not the only world I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us and the
world will be as one okay that we're all
sharing all the world and thinking of
John Lennon again that's the new
morality it's not Christian but the new
morality is we're all in this together
and that's according to Nietzsche
that's Kant's morality in fact the
footnote there thirteen critiqued a
practitioner with a group particular
practical reason that's exactly where
directly to go and it says here's what
it demands that those actions one
desires from all men a nice naive idea
as if everyone without further ado would
know which manner of action would
benefit the whole of mankind that is
which actions were desirable by all at
all is a theory like that of a free
trade we talked about a moment go which
assumes that a general harmony would
have to result of itself according to
innate laws of melioration perhaps a
future survey of the needs of mankind
will reveal it to be thoroughly
undesirable that all men act identically
rather in the interest of ecumenical
goals for a whole stretches of human
time special tasks perhaps in some
circumstances and even evil tasks would
have to be set in any event if mankind
is to keep from destroying itself by
such a conscious overall government we
must discover first a knowledge of the
conditions of culture a knowledge
surpassing all previous knowledge as a
scientific standard for ecumenical goals
this is an enormous task of the great
minds of the next century
so their nature did a lot here so first
of all this they're sort of new content
morality like let's just all be humans
all together especially when it comes
from Europeans not that Nietzsche can be
kind of very ethnocentric at times
himself but let's just think of what
he's saying here that especially people
in well-to-do positions you know with
this haughty morality looking around
saying well here's what we should do for
those poor poor people as though they
know better
Nietzsche saying that's audacious and
inept how could you possibly know what's
best for everyone
what special knowledge do you have to be
able to do that you don't have any so if
we're going to do this thing where we're
working together as human being so we're
gonna try not to kill all ourselves we
at least need to have really a
transcendental question and answer what
are the conditions of culture we need we
need to have a knowledge and we need to
have a standard of knowledge at least of
this task now notice are you are
getting.you sometimes people say
Nietzsche's critical of knowledge
knowledge is capital T truth here's a
knowledge that has a purpose first not
to destroy ourselves like how are we
gonna get through this so that's not
that Nietzsche's against knowledge or
truth he is against truth of the capital
T when people get behind it and we end
up serving it rather than its serving us
here it is with a purpose here's the
task usually saying is the task of the
20th century and I could think I think
this is what Nietzsche ins I think
really one of the best nations I think
of the 20th century is some people get
angry for angry for me for saying this
I'm sure but would be Foucault his
genealogical project he's not the only
one but I think Michel Foucault French
thinker I'll be putting some other stuff
up on blackboard and he's probably one
of the best but that's that's that's the
that's the problem
hand okay let's move forward a little
bit more so or I want to go
let's do 174 to 175 is where I want to
go next
he's on some historical notions
so first of all what you see here on the
bottom of page 174 is where is one of
the one of the times where Nietzsche
starts talking about good and evil again
more specifically at about the the way
the terms flipped okay we're good used
to mean strength and weakness used to
mean cowardness and then somehow those
got remember he's going to talk about
how those things got flipped about good
means to be meek and mild in a week and
and strength is bad you don't want to be
that would be rude he starts to talk
about this here in human all too human
which get in 1878 you see that right
there
the double prehistory of good and evil
he says this the concept of good and
evil but again Goethe and Boza has a
double prehistory namely first of all in
the soul of the ruling clans and castes
the man who has the power to requite
goodness with goodness evil with evil
and really does practice for quiet 'el
acquittal excuse me by being grateful
and vengeful is called good that's what
goodness was in the classical world in
the ancient world before Socrates before
Moses the man who is unpowered and
cannot requite yeah for quite Sartre is
taken for bad as a as a good man one
belongs to good a community that has
communal feeling because all the
individuals are entwined together by
their feeling for requital as a bad man
one belonging to the bad to a mass of
abject powerless men who have no
communal feeling the good men are a cast
the bad men are a multitude like
particles of dust good and bad or for a
time equivalent to noble and base master
and slave conversely one does not regard
the enemy as evil that he can require in
Homer both the Trojan and the Greek are
good well think about that because I
know I've talked about this already
about the notions of good and bad
flippin but when you look at the story
of the the Iliad there that he's
referring to who is the bad guy
who's the villain who are the
protagonists and the antagonists and you
can get into it to a point where you say
well
you know the Trojans the people of ilium
has ciliate like Paris took I can't
remember the Kings day I want to say it
some in allows wife Paris took the life
of the I want to say it's King men
allowance but that isn't that doesn't
seem right back to Troy and so the the
Greeks are trying to recover you know
are on venj Montano mission to avenge
the theft of the wife of one of their
kings and the Trojans are defined trying
to defend their city and you know in
terms of the heroes the Greek hero is
Achilles and the the main Trojan hero is
Hector but they both die in the story by
the way
spoilers who's the bad guys Achilles a
villain is Hector a villain are they
both heroes what he's telling us here is
that it for homer in the ancient Greeks
everybody here who has the ability is
strong and fighting for their Assad
whatever it is in the situation those
are the good guys ok so when you ask the
question you know are the Trojans the
good guys are the Greeks of good guys
the answer is yes that's why he says in
homer both the Trojan degree are good
not the man who inflict harm on us but
the man who is contemptible is bad so
here we are again we usually try and
think in terms of conflicts that one
sides good one sides bad that's really a
manichaean way of looking at things two
people on two different sides here
they're both good guys the bad person
would be the person who's either a
coward or a traitor those would be your
villains
so if we were transpose us to American
history you know the British versus the
Americans who are the good guys yes
they're all good guys now you might be
thinking no no we're Americans whipped
so the British were bad here
well we could say this too like well
alright you know they were people do
this with the Civil War - they pick
aside the Union was right the
Confederacy was wrong and when we pick
aside and their I think the Confederacy
was morally wrong but in the moment like
people fighting for themselves and she's
just saying that's what makes something
good the coward would be the coward or
the traitor would be the villain so back
to the American Revolution for example
in the American war for independence
you've got say you say oh yeah the
British they're doing their thing we
disagree with them but they're doing
their thing they're good guys the
Americans are good guys Benedict Arnold
Benedict Arnold on the other hand is a
traitorous bastard okay because he
because he's a traitor that's why he
ends up being villainous character like
it like a Judas Iscariot that's what
made that's what made Judas bad - all
right because he was one of the apostles
right now maybe he wasn't he was
constantly trying to get money for
himself and cheat everybody else out and
maybe he was destined to betray maybe
that was something that was preordained
but nevertheless his villainy was that
he was a traitor and potentially a
coward that's the problem and that's
that's weakness even there so here on
this point she's one of the good men
nevertheless do something unworthy of
good men one resorts to excuses one
blames God saying that he struck the
good man with blindness had madness then
and the souls of powerless men every
other man is taken for a hostile
inconsiderate exploitive cruel sly
whether it be Noble or base evil is
their epithet for man so for the person
that's weak and actually bad there are
the ones that says well everybody else
is the problem that's how they had to go
so it's God's fall wise God doing this
to me or they blame literally everyone
else for just existing
and as a result signs of goodness
helpfulness pity are taken anxiously for
malice the prelude to a terrible outcome
bewilderment and deception and short for
refined evil this is the problem
actually so he's identifying the problem
here with this switches switcher look at
look at that they are ancient
conceptions of morality where we can
look at people as really good guys or
good guys they're the ones with strength
that's the thing I want to stress for an
aging he's saying that the ancient
conception was goodness is strength and
we somewhere we lost that he's not
really talking about the prescription as
to why yet we've already talked about it
in the prologue ah mana but that's what
he's getting it
the next section this is again towards
the bottom of page 175 morality is man's
dividing himself so consider this think
of morality as a division a good author
who really cares about a subject who
wishes that someone would come and
destroy him by representing the same
subject more clearly and by answering
every last question contained in it the
girl in love wishes that she might prove
the devoted faithfulness of her love
through her level lovers faithlessness
the soldier wishes that he might fall in
the battle field for his victorious
fatherland for in the victory of his
fatherland his greatest desire is also
victorious the mother gives her child
when she takes from herself sleep the
best food and some instances even her
health her wealth
okay so already saying here like think
of all these where someone gives
themself up for something okay
impassioned devoting oneself to someone
else in love sacrificing oneself for
one's country or even really sacrificing
a health and wealth you know having
children and putting your energies into
taking care of your children
these are these are altruistic notions
surely like we're putting authors above
ourselves and Nietzsche
are they really though this question are
all these really selfless states however
where I'm putting someone else above
myself he says stop let's think about
this are these acts of morality
Mirek again the German there I'll eat
ate as you see at the bottom are they
miracles because they are to you
Schopenhauer's phrase impossible and yet
real isn't it clear that in all these
cases man's loving something of himself
I thought a longing and offspring more
than something else of himself that he
is thus dividing up his being and
sacrificing one part for the other is it
something essentially different when a
pigheaded man says I would rather be
shot at once then move an inch to get
out of that man's way the inclination
toward something a wish drive a longing
a villa is present in all the
above-mentioned cases to yield that with
all its consequences in any case not
selfless in morality man treats himself
not as and in do we do all but as a do
we do them so what are you saying here
is this people when we think of people
being selfless this is something that
he's going to reconstitute as he gets to
the notion of the village of macht are
the will to power that there when we get
there really there's no selfless acts so
even if you think you're doing something
sacrificial I'm doing something for
somebody else I'm gonna sacrifice myself
for my country I'd not that I'd go out
of my way to do it but that's um it's a
sacrifice I'm willing to make I'm
willing to make it whatever sacrifices I
need to for someone else's love I will
make sacrifices for my children I'm
gonna put them above myself well but
your idea of putting them above yourself
is itself something that you've
constituted yourself it's a desire that
you have so you end up in serving others
still being self-serving not egotistical
mind you but self-serving you're still
doing what you want to do that's a
desire that you have so even if you
think of yourself as sacrificial which
is a strange word anyway in English
sacrificial literally from Socceroos
which means holy and ficarra which means
to like make or do like a factory so
sacrifice together like to make
holy is what it means all right now we
usually think of sacrifices giving up
something but literally the word means
to make holy often by giving up
something releasing the in the English
there but when we give up to serve
something else often we're being
self-serving the sacrifice is something
you're willing to do even if it's a
struggle for you you're dividing
yourself by taking a part of you that
you that's something that you don't want
and going against it by another set or
another conflicting desire so as we do
this and we deny ourselves in one sense
and not in another
you know dividing ourselves up and
compartmentalizing ourselves this is
going to result in to in some result MO
later to remember conscious arm not
count but Marx said that we experience
various kinds of alienation and this
resort results in various kinds of
compartmentalization to that's the
nature of and friend or alienation or
there's there's home you there's work
you there is you trying to get to sleep
you need the same thing here there's
different versions of us which end up
competing with ourselves this ends up
being a problem - I want to move on to a
little bit more where he talks about
morality there's a little bit on the
notion of justice where he channels the
Citadis I would encourage you to read it
but I'm gonna skip on to the next one
because I think it's more important for
our purposes here mores and morality I
might come back to that earlier bit in a
second we are on page 176 to be moral
correct ethical means to obey an age-old
law or condition when we talk about
having morals usually that's what we
mean if someone doing the things that
we've established for a long time are
good and we say someone's immoral
they're doing something wrong we mean
they're doing something that we haven't
that's not traditional it might be
something that's established for a while
because I think as we get to the 21st
century and things get faster there are
lot of things today that are considered
immoral positions that
years ago would have been considered
completely normal that now are
considered immoral but it's still the
same kind of thing like do you fit in
with the big model typically it's been
for the past 2,000 years at least in the
West and at least notions of Christian
morality generally construed recently we
have that mixing with kind of what I'll
call a come in at least in the United
States a kind of neoliberal morality as
well where there's a lot of social
Liberty our Liberty on social issues
where people can marry who they want
loves what they want protect themselves
how they want identify as they want
that's perfectly fine whereas I say ten
years ago that was not considered
something good and twenty years ago a
lot of people were downright opposed to
it now that stuff is taken is fairly
normal and sometimes in conjunction with
those previous values but if you go
against that today you're probably going
to be ostracized for it and that's where
mores fit in I'll just say that so are
you fitting in are you doubting the
Orthodox line so but nevertheless
whether one submits to a gladly or with
difficulty makes no difference
enough that one submits and that's how
we take goodness to be so here's the
deal
like so let's say something like um you
say something like mmm let's say
something like abortion is good all
right now you might disagree with that
proposition and someone may many people
disagree with that proposition that's
fine uh and really we could actually
take either side of the spectrum here in
fact let's do that for a moment let's
say we have someone of a more liberal
persuasion they say abortion is good
someone can believe that passionately
you should shout your abortions you
should be proud of it you should go out
like it's something it's it's a good
they're very loud and vocal about it
great let's say someone says I'm not
really a fan of it but I support it it
doesn't matter you got the right beliefs
you're good
on the other hand you could have someone
that's that believes abortion is a moral
evil it's terrible and they're going to
show up at clinics and protests they're
going to lobby their Congress persons
and Senators to vote against bills that
allow abortion they're going to go
against roe v wade they're gonna or
support justices that would be against
row v Wade and Doe v Bolton be very very
passionate about it and in their
construed morality that's good that's
the right way to think as long as
someone else affirms it yeah I think
abortion is bad and it's that like they
don't even like I mean I don't really
want to say that but I want to fit into
my social group it's good like listen
whether you're progressing or not often
we think of goodness as did you are you
checking the right box and in our own
groups that's the way goodness works now
of course Nietzsche wouldn't have that
in mind that's often how mores work like
whether you're super passionate about a
particular belief or it's kind of you're
indifferent about it as long as you
subscribe in the right way that's what
how we often think of morals and mores
and morality again we call good the man
who does the moral thing is if by nature
after a long history of inheritance that
is easily and gladly whatever it is he
will for example practice revenge when
it's considered moral as an older Greek
culture today we would think revenge is
bad then Greek with the Greek the
ancient Greek notion when you've been
wrong to seek revenge but he is called
good because he is good for something
because as mores changed goodwill pity
and the like were always felt to be good
for something useful it is primarily the
man of goodwill the helpful man who is
called good this is part of that moral
switch to be evil is to be not moral
immoral to practice bad habits go
against tradition however reasonable or
stupid it may be so way even if you have
a point no it's going against the
framework that's been accepted now
Nietzsche thought about this in terms of
it being ancient frameworks I think we
have new frameworks that have the same
kind of
they've ossified or calcified in the
same kind of way where even though
they're very recent they have their own
structures which are pretty strong it's
stable in spite of being fairly recent
to go on to ha one's fellow heifer has
been felt primarily as injurious in all
moral codes at different times she very
few morality is just say you can start
just hitting other people without cause
so that when we hear the word bad now we
put think particularly a voluntary
injury to one's fellow when men
determined between moral and immoral
good and evil the basic opposition is
not egoism and selflessness we usually
think of it's either selfish or it's
putting others above but rather
adherence to tradition or law and
release from it the origin of the
tradition makes no difference at least
concerning good and evil or an imminent
categorical imperative can't but is
rather above all for the purpose of
maintaining a community people every
superstitious custom originating in a
coincidence that is interpreted falsely
forces a tradition that is moral to
follow to release oneself from it is
dangerous even more injurious for the
community than for the individual
because the divinity punishes the whole
community for sacrilege and violation of
Rights and the individual only as a part
of that community okay couple things
here what he's saying here is morality
typically works because we're it's a
group defense mechanism that's really
the function of morality so the reason
why we want people to agree with us
especially the people that are closest
around us and I think if you've ever
gotten into a political or ethical
argument with somebody it's probably
been the people closest to you that
you've had the fiercest debates with
okay like maybe a Thanksgiving dinner
why whereas someone that you don't know
as well yeah you might still get
passionate about it but you're much
likely to disagree is it feel it is
strongly and so the closer someone is to
you when you get into a stronger
disagreement about morality you're much
more passionate about it why
self-defense because really that the
function morality need to just said the
reason where no matter where it comes
from or where a particular traditional
practice or whatever came from whatever
the origins of it are it's real purpose
is for the maintaining of a community
that's its function so when people start
doing different realities we say how
it's destroying the fabric of our of our
values of our culture of our society it
does when when new values come around it
depreciates the old values this is often
a conservative critique of modern
morality or contemporary morality
especially read the ethical writings of
Elizabeth Anscombe where she thinks the
modern new sexual ethics are just
destroying destroying the world
destroying the country I happen to
disagree with her but I see I still
think she's worth reading on the point
because she's and there's a lot of
diagnostics of 20th century ethics
especially critical of say the sexual
revolution that this is the this is the
problem this is disruptive to the
community it's destroying our culture
it's destroying our society and we can't
let it persist in this way and it really
shows that the defense of morality is
often a defense mechanism for society
regardless of what it is so think about
like right now even again I've mentioned
the fact that were hopefully you're all
social distancing what's the point of
social distancing Melissa of us at least
in this class most of you are younger
I'm older than all of you and while
there are people that of this current
disease Cove in nineteen got infected
young ages and and died and and it's
been painful and terrible and it has
been young people to the people that are
most at risk are it looks like the
elderly and those who are
immunocompromised have other kinds of
infirmities like diet but like diabetes
and other things that leave them more
susceptible to the disease
so well if you go why I'm not I'm not
this way why should I have to stay at
home if I give to someone I'm not going
to get it so it's not going to affect me
well then we're not really staying at
home for you people are staying at home
to protect the community of people as a
whole especially here that's why we see
a lot of state states making different
proclamations and really not a lot of at
least me I have saved a lot of federal
federal leadership on this point at
least it seems so far they've been some
global aspects of everything going on
too but I think it's been very
interesting say like I live in Augusta
in Richmond County to said we're gonna
do this in this County we're gonna do it
this way regardless of what Columbia
County is doing or 18 counties doing
whereas the state of we're in a state of
South Carolina things are closed down
here in Georgia
things have not been closed down to the
same degree and then people are coming
up with how are we going to defend it
but most of it has been done as this is
to protect the community stopping this
Presidency's the economic stuff
notwithstanding that's that's another
matter entirely but even there we're
talking about well what's Congress going
to do about it or what our governments
gonna do about it to help people that
have lost their jobs or can't make their
mortgage payments the emphasis here has
been on the right thing to do is
whatever helps the community for some
people that's send individuals checks
for other people let's make sure that
various liquidity can be applied to
corporations say bailing out the air
airline industry or other industries
that are suffering as a result
regardless of the take like whether it's
big big business you get their money or
you know the poorest people people that
were waiting tables they can't now those
people need to get paid regardless of
who you think it is the notion is still
the same the community is what's
important and that's determines what we
ought to do and he's saying that's the
nature of morality right there it's just
it's community preservation 20 there's a
philosopher he still alive German
philosopher Peters floated eke he talks
about morality as itself a kind of
immunization system or sphere like a
bubble what we do is in our communities
we police our communities with our
morality people that are in our group
could be our
you know your parents my told you don't
do this they have morals in this family
don't do this do do that here's the
right thing to do here's the wrong thing
to do or in our community in our
political party in our religion we say
in the sphere here's what we do and when
someone doesn't do that we kick them out
historically not saying that we should
hurt we shouldn't but historically
that's what we do someone when people
are criminals in society we we either
execute them or put them somewhere else
where they can't bother us anymore
the ancient Greeks used and and the
ancient Hebrews used to kick people
outside the city Israelites I should say
put them out as the Jewish language
would be I mean English put people
outside the camp expulsion someone's in
your religious community and they're
saying things that go against the
orthodox standards of your community
you're going to excommunicate them ok
baruch spinoza
he got kicked out of two religions it's
pretty impressive we could look at
others you know someone who's a heretic
listen you're in the community you're
infecting us with your blasphemy or
whatever it is got to kick you out same
thing happen to socrates purportedly the
athenian said what you're doing right
now going around asking questions
disrupting society it's disrupting and
it's infecting us stop it you're not
gonna stop it
or you'd like free food in the food
court and the prytaneum no I'm sorry
we're gonna have to kill you to where
Socrates was like okay I still have to
you know I guess in cryto I still even
though it's on it's an unjust
application I still have to be a good
citizen for the sake of the community
here with with Socrates so that's the
thing I want you know they're here he's
getting at diagnoses that are going to
become very important and his later
works about here's where what morality
is and here's what doesn't consists of
he's making a few diagnostically Rand
there that are going to culminate like I
said really in later works especially in
on the genealogy of morality but
somebody's saying here to also comes up
in the Antichrist
so let's see I'm gonna go for it a
little bit more
I'm going to go - yeah look at a little
bit of this where he's talking about
science future of science this is on
page 182 he says this and science here
we're not just talking about people
wearing people in labs and lab coats but
knowledge okay listen shopped let's see
what he says here and then I think I
want to go on to looking at a little bit
of what he says in the next page about
dance I want to look at his critique of
socialism and then a few of his epigrams
says this to the man who works in
searches in it science gives much
pleasure to the man who learns it
results very little lorries its results
very little so to be to do science feels
great but to just learn about science
what good does that do you again
Nietzsche has this very I don't want to
call it pragmatist but we'll say
pragmatics it's view of knowledge if you
learn something and it helps you it's
awesome
if you're gonna use that knowledge it's
great if you're not going to use it why
bother
yeah I'm sure you thought this way about
some math classes where you were younger
you might even think about this but
about this class right now but each
would even say like philosophy we've
done rightly can help you hone this edge
and that's why that's why that should be
done that's my view on it too even if
you're not going to ever take a
philosophy class again or if even if
you're never gonna use philosophy in any
way if it can help you to think about
how can I take the things that I need
the most and get those those aspects and
sharpen my skills that's the benefit
right there
and here they're about science like
listen if you know various scientific
facts and you're not it's not doing
anything for you you just happen to know
it like right off the top my head I can
tell you I know the the stars in Orion's
belt on the talk on the Han and Mintaka
one two three those three stars in
Orion's belt I know that and what good
is that knowledge doing me there's no I
can go out and do trivia somewhere right
now it's not it's not and that my
question might not come up like what no
what good is that knowledge doing me
right now if it's just sitting there
it's like buying books and just sticking
them on a shelf
just taking up space that are of no
particular value it's not like you're
gonna resell them one day they have no
they're just sitting there taking up
space in the shelf not great um no
matter how happen you think about it but
since all important scientific truths
must have well I thought there was no
truth I thought those were just
illusions just taken for granted here
all right all right just just let it let
it slide for now but since all important
scientific truths must eventually become
everyday in commonplace even the small
amount of pleasure ceases just as we
have long ago ceased to enjoy learning
the admirable multiplication tables like
once everybody knows how to do something
it seems less fun this is true when
things become if you were into something
that was kind of nice and then it
becomes popular well now everybody's
into it like for example when I was a
kid in the when I was when I was like a
like an elementary school in the late
80s and early 90s comic book characters
were they were on a lot of stuff like
lunchboxes backpacks not as much as they
are today but they were not considered
cool in any way it was not something
that people celebrated like if you were
into comic books or Star Wars a science
fiction like you were a nerd and someone
was going to bully you and beat you up
or I could say that from experience
where like I was like a kindergarten I
had a Batman backpack that
people got ripped in half like a month
into kindergarten because Ubud stupid
I'm sure people still do I'm shopping
bullying still happens today
and people for whatever reason but the
last couple of decades stuff has been
coming cool all of a sudden once
everybody knows how to do it becomes
less exciting all right you might
connect with somebody in a certain way
over something that seems cool but once
I know how to do it your knowledge
becomes kind of worthless it's like you
know people people 10 years ago we're
studying how to become photographers
well no with the modern smartphone you
know everybody can take excellent
pictures a lot of photographers are out
of work
because I can't say because everybody
can do it now apparently everybody can
anybody can edit a video anybody can put
something up online everybody can
download some software and make music
anybody can do it it doesn't just have
to be professionals everybody and
everybody's learning how to code now how
to program stuff and maybe you don't but
I give it 10 years and I think most
everybody will know how to code or
program something in some kind of
programming language if they don't now
just because it becomes obvious you can
go back in time a hundred years a couple
of people knew how to drive a car now
everybody's I just had to do it it seems
like a mundane activity well just like
when you there might have been there
probably most of you didn't have joy and
learning your multiplication tables okay
when you were younger but now if I ask
you what's 12 times 12 144 10 times 10
109 times 9 anyone like that stuff just
pops into your head kind of immediately
don't really take any joy in it and
something everybody knows even though it
takes a minute like there's no there's
no joy in even though you've got that
knowledge there at the ready there's not
a joy in it and it lacks a through
frohliche ness full say for now for at
least height I suppose now if science
produces ever less joy in itself and
takes ever ever greater joy in casting
suspicion on the comforts of metaphysics
religion and are then the greatest
source of pleasure to which mankind owes
most of its humanity is impoverished so
it seems like no was this mean there's
science produces ever less joint itself
and takes ever greater joy in casting
suspicion on the comforts of metaphysics
it seems like the more science
progresses the more metaphysics is out
the line of what religion has boundaries
over decreases and even art right how
can what's more important learning about
a lot of work why should we put money
into why should it be like a National
Endowment for the Arts
why should artists get paid money when
science is more important because that's
what gets the work that science is
what's gonna let us cure cancer you
think someone painting a painting is
gonna help us with that no it's not
important
religion thoughts and prayers is that
really helping no sciences was gonna
help metaphysics speculating about
reality is that going to help us no
science is going to help us it seems
like part of the fun and science even if
it's not fun is taking the comforts of
these away like the more that we learn
in science it seems like the less
comfortable life get yeah we've got more
amenities yeah we've got more stuff
today Italy in the United States we've
got more stuff today than Kings had five
hundred years ago
kings and queens okay royalty like we've
got a maid but we're much more depressed
as a people why because the comforts of
metaphysics religion and art have
diminished significantly they no longer
consoled us in the same way and even eg
says but these are great sources of
pleasure to which mankind owes its whole
humanity that's impoverished what are we
gonna do then therefore a higher culture
must give man dimension a double brain
to brain chambers as it were one to
experience science and one to experience
at non science lying next to one another
without confusion separable
self-contained our health demands this
and the one domain lies the source of
strength and the other the regulator
illusions biases passions must give Heat
and with the help of scientific
knowledge the pernicious and dangerous
consequences of overheating must be
prevented if this demand made by higher
culture is not satisfied we can almost
certainly predict the future course of
human development interest in truth will
cease the Lessig is pleasure illusion
error and fantasies because they are
linked with pleasure will recall curler
former territory step-by-step the ruin
of the sciences and relapse into
barbarism followed axe what's he saying
here well one if you over and be you
cyan't like first of all there has to be
the place for science and doing science
but then it has to be supplemented with
the Arts Nietzsche enjoys the arts and
really like listening to music enjoying
music
painting reading reading fiction mind
you're not just reading philosophy books
like taking pleasure and really in
certainly entertainment but literature
and things of that nature well I would
even Nietzsche I would have no idea
about it but like even a high-quality
forms of television or cinema Nietzsche
loved opera for example which was a
former zone day that I think most of us
don't like very much now but that's
because it's not really popular now
either for the most part we have our own
forms of entertainment I think a lot of
television today some of the best
storytelling that's ever been done
really I think there's stuff on TV today
a lot of it's terrible but I think
there's like I think there's some shows
that are out there that it didn't just
as good as some of the best literature
as classics even some of its forgettable
be gone nobody would remember what it is
in 20 years but some of it is timeless
Nietzsche is telling us you got to keep
these two things together there has to
be a place for arts and there has to be
a place for knowledge and science
because if you overdo the science too
much people are going to lose that that
rest and leisure and life that comes
from art and the arts and all work and
no play is not good
that's what Nietzsche's basically saying
here or if you'll permit me that so
there has to be a place for passion and
the arts and that's why he says what's
gonna happen like if you go to the stem
round there's only science technology or
engineering math math it's going and you
have like you're basically gonna have an
artistic defect or deficit where that is
going to end up being compensated for
the pendulum will swing back the other
way eventually and people will go want
to be full bohemian they want nothing to
do with science and knowledge and none
of that stuff matters we see this happen
sometimes to our history to show you an
analog at least in Europe after the at
the beginning of the Protestant
Reformation after Luther Calvin
answering after the initial Reformation
there then became were called scholastic
movements
so you had movements like I'll say in
the reformed tradition you had someone
like Francis Chariton who I believe was
northern Italian but reforms over part
of the Calvinist tradition he was a
scholastic which meant that much of the
way he described the Christian religion
was very formal it was notational like
here the or 'then the name of his
primary work is the Institute's of
electic theology a language meaning it's
kind of like polemic right here are the
things that you need to know okay even
philipp melanchthon x' loci communist
his big book on Lutheranism he was a
Lutheran I guess I was like proto
scholastic but that that work is much
more scholastic in nature talking about
here are the points that you need to
know these are the it's it's notational
that is it's all about here the things
that you need to know here's knowledge
but then after these scholastic
movements occurred there was then a
movement to get rid of all that's too
much thinking and there's not enough
feeling all right
there's too much reals thought on the
fields and there and the Scholastic
Reformation is immediately followed by
the way they were followed by what's
called a pie it just movement where
pietistic not the problem what you think
it's not about what Creed's are that you
follow even within these specific Cris
traditions to reform Lutheran traditions
Pietism was more about do you pray I do
they were much more mystical and let's
not get involved too much in the what's
Orthodox and what's not like it's there
but the every compensated for it you
also see this happen in with the you
know the of Clare room or the
Enlightenment what's the in life you
know what it can't say that the
Enlightenment was it is mankind's
ascendancy from his self-imposed
minority we've got brains now alright
we're not children anymore we think for
ourselves everything was about thinking
thinking things like how our minds are
the ultimate or just the the ultimate
machine but really what our mind can do
is what ultimately
rationalism wins in conjunction with
empiricism immediately followed by
romanticism as it movement okay they
overlapped you there's not like one
thing happened there the next thing
happened but romanticism was in very
many ways responding to the
Enlightenment okay where everything was
about again now with the romanticism
feels over reals okay it's more about my
passions so whether you're reading the
poetry of the time or even some of the
philosophy of the time political
writings you know what it was our
feelings are important too yeah we've
got great minds but that that's not
humanities also about passion as well
Nietzsche's telling us this - like we
can't just it's it's got to be you gotta
have a you have to have a mixture here
and a balance between the pursuit of
knowledge and and seeking after reality
and enjoyment and pleasure and the arts
and creativity and honestly I think a
lot of modern education we see that like
like in Dewey like following John
Dewey's thought we see a lot of this
like we have balance sound like there's
a time for we weren't children to be you
know thinking you know here's the thing
you know here's the things you have to
memorize for the test but we also want
them to be expressive that's why we have
our classes for children's when we have
music classes that's meant to be that's
why you had those things when you were
younger because they were meant to be a
balance so that's at least at this point
that's we saying that's the there has to
be a balance of the future or one
thing's gonna end up overcompensating
for the other and you're going to end up
throwing things out of equilibrium how I
want to look at this speaking of the
notion of talking about the artistic
which I don't think people value this in
Nietzsche enough personally consider how
next and now I'm on 183 he talks about
the analogy of a dance consider what he
says here today we should consider the
decisive sign of great culture if
someone possesses the strength and
flexibility to pursue knowledge purely
and rigorously and at other times to
give poetry religion and metaphysics or
handicap
as it were and appreciate their power
and beauty wait didn't you just say
religion has a beauty some things from
it yeah which is probably not what you
thought about Nietzsche he especially
does not like institutional Christianity
that will come up very clearly in the
Antichrist but there's still beauty
there you can be Nietzsche is even
telling you you can be a complete
non-christian and look at say a painting
or let's say a statue like let's say the
PIAT ah where Mary the mother of Jesus a
sculpture of Mary the mother of Jesus
holding the body of Jesus after being
brought down from the cross you can
still be the most militant
anti-christian atheist in the world and
still see beauty in that that's what
Nietzsche's telling you you can look at
the Pieta and get that there there's
there's agony there's grief in that and
it's it's it's beautiful and if you
can't see it you're not sound like
Squidward oh come on you can't
appreciate the beauty that's there
something's wrong with you but you you
need to appreciate those things so what
it ends up being like as it were a
position of this sort he says between
two such different claims is very
difficult this is not easy so it's not
easy to do this thing where we're going
to be after knowledge but we appreciate
beauty to me this is part of the this is
part of what it means for me to be a
philosopher today too is to pursue
knowledge but even when you even when
you don't like something you disagree
with it when it comes to arts to see the
beauty in something even if not
something that you subscribe to so how
does he just how does he describe this
he says well he goes on for science
urges the absolute dominion of this
method and if it's not granted there
exists the other danger of a feeble
vacillation between different impulses
well this way now I'm gonna go this way
meanwhile to open up a view to the
solution of this difficulty by means of
analogy at least one might remember
dancing is not the same thing as
staggering wearily back and forth
between different impulses
hi culture will resemble a daring dance
thus requiring as we said much strength
and flexibility now I'm sure Nietzschean
is own day when you think of a dance
might be thinking
of a waltz or ballet or something like
that but dancing is something that looks
very simple mr. you're just moving
around well moving around right now what
I'm doing is not dancing dancing takes
precision to be able to move around in a
particular kind of way and it takes
practice to be able to do it right and
it's not simply you know when someone's
dancing it's not just a complete random
their own now they're doing this way now
they're going this way now they're going
this way now they're going this way it's
it's a it's something that's well honed
and so high culture ease as in in the
future high culture was humble a daring
dance that's requiring as we said much
strength and flexibility just like it
the best answer is going to be nimble
yeah I sometimes I know sometimes we
talk about like a like a ballerina in a
diminutive way like a ballerina is weak
watch them walk on their toes not on the
tiptoes like you might do with your toes
are bent but on the very tips of the
toes that's not weakness that is a very
special kind of strength and be able to
move that way add Jaya Lee its strength
and flexibility that's what it takes to
be a dancer and in the same way to be
nimble in our movements physically as a
dancer we need to be nimble in our
movements of thought to be able to
pursue knowledge but also to be able to
get around and appreciate beauty and art
and poetry you should be able to pursue
knowledge and then sit down and enjoy
yourself not to get lost not to numb
yourself because that's a problem then
he'll address later on you don't want to
get involved in narcotics Nietzsche does
not like them but to enjoy it and to
appreciate it actively and passionately
that's a dance okay
let's go forward a little bit more this
stuff on religion the state he's gonna
say elsewhere I won't I do want to look
at what he says about socialism because
he Nietzsche says thinking again protect
Marx nation for I'd remember Marx is
critical of religion Nietzsche's gonna
be critical of religion Freud's gonna be
critical of religion but their critiques
of religion are very different from one
another
so here listen this is on the bottom of
page 185 listen to what Nietzsche says
about socialism where he would not be he
would not be remembered Marx has been
dead for quite some time from one Marx I
was off the top of my head I want to say
1880 I think he he still he's still
around but um they would not have gotten
along have they met I don't think so
what does need to say about socialism
the grander this is not communism as
such how is he defining how is nietzsche
defining socialism just the really the
the form where everybody's going to take
care of each other everybody shares
thanks together whether or not it has a
state apparatus doing that or not listen
what he says it but just the idea of
everybody working together nietzsche 185
but very bottom socialism and respect to
its means socialism is the visionary
younger brother of an almost decrepit
despotism whose air it wants to be thus
its efforts are reactionary in the
deepest sense so you might think of so
often people who are socialists get
called progressives Nietzsche says this
is not progressive this is just it is
reactionary that's not the really
regressive or backwards for why and
desires a wealth of executive power as
only despotism had it
indeed it out does everything in the
past by striving for the downright
destruction of the individual which it
sees as an unjustified luxury of nature
and which intends to improve
into an expedient organ of the community
so it the problem with socialism is like
the individual is completely their
support dissipated to the point where
the individual doesn't matter
and each doesn't like things that
detract from one living one's life and
so if socialism and that making these
kinds of declarations and and
limitations on what the individual can
do then that is detracting from my
liberty that's despotism really that's
like going like well even if it's you
know we talked about Vladimir Lenin that
mean wanting the you know the people are
so stupid they're not class conscious
they need a vanguard of the proletariat
to do the revolution for them so there's
going to be a dictatorship even mark
says this in the Communist Manifesto
there will be a dictatorship of the
proletariat it's gonna be not like a
king but the people the working people
are going to rule and it'll be a
dictatorship
I know that that word usually connotes
something unjust but a king is a
dictator you could say Britain right now
yes its parliamentary
its parliamentary but it still has a
king my king in some sense or a monarch
is still a dictator of some kind whether
or not their power is augmented or not
you could even really say whenever we
give up whenever someone has an injury
you'd say a president a president is a
dictator in some sense no matter what
President it is just in virtue of being
an individual power what are you saying
about socialism though is this whole
dictatorship thing like we're and of the
even if it's of the people like the
people owning everything that's it's
nothing new like people like just
because it's instead of one person
ruling its millions of people ruling
that doesn't make any difference
especially if it like it's not something
new it's not progressive it's the
ancient way of doing things just
reconstituted socialism right here about
four lines deep on page one he's active
socialism crops up in the vicinity of
all excessive displays of power because
of its relation to it like the typical
old socialist
Plato at the court of the Sicilian
tyrant he starting about Plato's notion
of the polity Oh
or the Republic where society if you
take a long time to read but but and I'm
not sure I call its socialist exactly in
the sense that we use in grant granted
the word socialist is a multi-faceted
term that is it can mean a lot of
different things depending on how the
context of it being employed but
definitely what Plato describes in the
Republic is where the society works all
together and there are strictures that
where the individual doesn't matter you
kind of fit into your class or your
caste and you're gonna do you're gonna
do that thing reminds me of the
bhagavad-gita just do your Dharma
whatever it is just yeah do that thing
for the sake of society not for the sake
of not for the sake of Dharma itself but
social somebody continues a little bit
further down but even this inheritance
would not suffice for its purposes it
needs the most submissive subjugation of
all citizens to the absolute state so
we're not talking about Marx as
communism here we're talking about state
socialism the like of which has never
existed so it's more it's more despotic
because it requires even more government
power like even if it's all the people
ruling together in the committee it
still actually ends up being more
centralized and even more authoritarian
as a result and since it cannot even
count any longer on the old religious
piety towards the state so if religion
is gone because you know God is dead uh
and you can't do that anymore where
people used to say you know like even
even Jesus said you know render unto
Caesar what is Caesar's Romans 14 says
you know God even the God of Israel is
the one that has instituted all
governments on the earth was put there
and they have their with their authority
derives from the one true God the
impulse says that well modern
governments can't depend on that anymore
so they can't say well god there's no
God you know God's not gonna punish me
for going against the government so I
don't need to worry about that anymore
well since they can't rely on that
having rather always to work
automatically to eliminate piety because
it works on elimination of all existing
states you can only hope to exist here
and there for short periods of time by
means of the most extreme terrorism
so socialism has to maintain itself by
being violent in order to sustain itself
therefore it secretly prepares for
reigns of terror and drives the word
justice like a nail into the heads of
semi educated masses to rob them
completely of their reason and after
this reason has already suffered a great
deal from its the semi education and to
give them a good conscience for the evil
game that they are supposed to play
socials and consumers are rather rather
brutal and forceful way to teach the
danger of all accumulations of state
power and to that extent instill one
with a mistrust of the state itself when
a rough when its rough voice chimes in
with the battle cry as much state as
possible well it first make the cry
noisier than ever but soon the opposite
cry will be heard with strength of the
greater as the little state as possible
as possible so he's saying here that
socialism when in the way that he's
talking about it especially state
socialism and keep mine this is before
this is before the Russian Revolution
that's going to be that that's going to
take place almost two decades after he
just death but he is talking about
socialist movements when they when they
come and state societies they he says
they're going to state socialism is
require violent means in order to defend
itself and it's also going to throw out
the word justice as a nebulous term
saying well it's in its repro creations
of society so that's not Marx that's not
Marx's critique that would put nietzsche
at odds with Martha I think they would
both agree on some criticisms of the
world and even criticisms of religion
and of particular States but Marx in
nature would not see eye to eye on this
you know sometimes they get lumped
together as the I think is the school of
suspicion is fair but sometimes they get
lumped together as these are people that
hate hate of the state and the church
and things like that
not exactly
their views are distinct finally let's
take a look at page 187 one things that
Nietzsche does is he has these portions
in a lot of his books where he writes
his little what did he sometimes he
calls them epigrams like these little
almost like tweets and they're very
quotable in fact probably if you've
heard anything by Nietzsche that's a
quote
you've probably heard when these little
epigrams and these are meant to be like
just these little bitty statements to
think on for a moment
you can you can read these fairly
quickly but I think it'd be a mistake to
gloss over them so one thing I'm going
to do is I'm just going to read a couple
of them and met it not meditate but
think on them for a moment so consider
the first one here and these have been
edited from the actual book sorry what
we have in here these are like clips
from the real book human all too human
let's take a look at this one
convictions are more dangerous enemies
of truth and lies convictions are more
dangerous enemies of truth and lies this
goes back to what he said earlier about
when you're really hard toward to the
fandom of something that makes you
liable to to do things in that pursuit
almost like a fan of a sports team
irrationally then deception and ends up
being more problematic
let's see
I'm just gonna go through some of these
let's see the demand to be loved is the
greatest kind of arrogance he's gonna
come back to that later I can't remember
if it's in off the top of my head I
can't remember it's gonna be in the will
to power or something else where he
talks about you know love is very
selfish when we talk about you know when
we were in love with someone else we
want to be in a monogamous relationship
well you're my even if it's not married
just you're mine now you don't belong
you don't belong to anyone else your
mind may be but if it is marriage like
that ring what it means you're my
property about no one else can touch you
and yeah there's different kinds of you
know we could talk about polyamory or
polygamy but at least in traditional
views like love is very especially
romantic love is very selfish you're
mine now or I want you to be be bi
Valentine but the demand to be loved
like you will love me I will make you
love me how more arrogant can you get
than that and that's think about how
that's so much of the way our culture
works I like this
okay and some of these seemed completely
random but it gets us Indonesia's mind
he who speaks a bit of a foreign
language as more delight in it than he
who speaks it well pleasure goes along
with superficial knowledge you're most
happy with something when you know a
little bit about it and not a lot
because what will happen is again this
is come up a lot today Ecclesiastes in
much wisdom there is much sorrow the
more you know about something the more
you realize that you don't know that's
part of the problem but like if you can
like if you're let's say you're learning
a little bit of German for the first
time and you go uh you know you can say
like some simple sentences like the ones
that you did in like you know like a
like a high school foreign language
class would be like aha and what sports
do you play oh I play tennis but I also
play guitar and on Tuesdays I go to the
history class
and also to the library and you and when
you can do that whether it's Spanish
French or German those are like the
conversational things you do I also like
apples or something like that when you
can do a little bit of it you feel
really happy about it but then if it
becomes like a normal thing that you can
just do you don't really think about it
with the same sense of you don't have
the same pride in it like if you speak
languages masterfully it's just again
it's part of that yeah it's it's like
those multiplication tables that were
Tom earlier no just got it yeah and so
it's whatevs
that ends up becoming our knowledge
about things so pleasure goes along with
superficial knowledge if you can know
how to do something a little bit you'll
actually be far happier with it then you
will if you if you master it that seems
counterintuitive you think the more you
know the happier would be you know and
we can be happy with progress but you'll
never be like thinking I'm sure that
likes a professional sports players
really enjoy what they do but let's
you'll never have the same kind of joy I
say a young child say they're playing
basketball making a basket for the first
time even if they don't remember it as
they get older the joy that they're
gonna have is that experience of get it
starting to get good initially that will
be a much more
profound experience a much more
pleasurable experience that even if we
become the best basketball player
football player when they get older it
won't be surpassed pleasure goes along
with superficial knowledge again
counterintuitive I like this one the
advantage of a bad memory is that
several times over one in two is the
same good things for the first time this
goes back to what he was saying in on
the utility and liability of history for
life if you think about it if you could
turn off your memory you experience
something for the first time again they
often the experiences that we have
whether it be sometimes with food
sometimes with music we're trying to
recreate the original experience that we
had when we first experienced something
Christianity's predicated on this think
about the sacrament or the Baptist would
call it an ordinance of the Lord's
Supper do you know break the bread drink
the wine or the grape juice again if
you're a Baptist in remembrance of me do
this in remembrance of me you when
people have communion they're trying to
recall this original moment in some
sense there's different sacrament
ologies is exactly what's going on there
they don't want to get into but that's
the idea let's recreate the experience
what we're doing when we listen to music
sometimes I want to think back to how I
felt the first time I heard this song
you know sometimes a sense of smell you
smell you might smell I know this is
having to mean this might seem silly but
I get a smell that reminds me of a smell
from my grandmother's house is
apparently smelling olfaction is a sense
that's very much tied to memory in some
way or at least I've heard that said but
I'll smell I know you know something
like I smelled like potpourri somewhere
might remind me of my grandmother's
house I remember that smell I like the
smell of slightly old books all right I
like even in a library like I like that
that smell makes me think of all things
like spending time in books when I was
younger but if you could have no memory
and you could do things for the first
time
bringing something for the first time
because we we talked like this nothing
nothing quite like the first time an
experience that in terms of there's
there's a sense in which sometimes the
mystery of experiencing something for
the first time is part of the pleasure
and once you've done something enough
time yeah yeah it's again it's whatever
but that's the advantage of a bad memory
usually thinking of good memory as being
a virtue I suppose
think about this now this this might
seem against what you think of his
Nietzsche but thing but this seems um
because Nietzsche often has I think the
interpretation of being just a mean / he
says God is dead and there should be
goober mentioned everybody should be
mean socialism's terrible and the
individual should do whatever he wants
consider this here the best way to begin
each day we're on page 189 now the best
way to begin each day well is to think
upon awakening whether we could not give
at least one person pleasure on this day
if this practice could be accepted as a
substitute for the religious habit of
Prayer our fellow men would benefit by
this change that doesn't sound very neat
chiyan does it Oh what you might think
Nietzsche would say the best way to
begin each day well is to think upon
awakening whether we could get can we
help someone else today okay like can we
make someone else happy you do that
instead of waking up and praying in the
morning because again the thoughts and
prayers mentality meet just criticizing
here is that you know people doing a lot
of talk about oh I wish I could help
dear lord help them I don't need to help
them but you help them please how can
you make someone else happy today work
on that
that's what Nietzsche's saying
okay
let's see
let's take a look at this one again
towards bottom page 180 I generally we
strive to acquire one emotional stance
one viewpoint for all life situations
and events we usually call that being at
a philosophical frame of mind but rather
than making oneself
uniform we may find great value from the
enrichment of knowledge by listening to
the soft voice of different life
situations each brings its own views
with it thus we acknowledge and share
the life of many by not treating
ourselves like rigid invariable single
individuals sometimes what do you think
here is sometimes we have that that
worldview and we make it singular that's
there's one way to view the world and
that's what I'm gonna do and I'm going
to put everything through that function
through that machine and everything's
gonna be interpreted in light of that
point of view and when you do that you
know sometimes the you know the the
square peg is not gonna fit in the
circular hole right you can't it cannot
compute and you're gonna end up being
very dissatisfied with life and you
can't Jam the way the world is into your
preconceived notions so Nietzsche saying
here be open to making yourself less
than uniform being able to apply
different mentalities in different
situations it doesn't have to be one
overarching worldview or ideology or
system that you have to impose on the
world that's one of Nietzsche's problems
is this imposition like like I'm like
Hegel of imposing a system on the wall
not gonna work we're gonna be very
frustrated so I think about philosopher
Cornel West talking about how
romanticism I was always going to lead
to disappointment if you have a big old
if you have a big system and you try to
put everything in it not everything is
gonna fit and you're gonna end up being
very upset and that's why that kind of
hyper romanticism you think of the
Romantic poets I think of like you know
Percy Shelley and
biron you know all being you know really
filled with a moat and saying this is
this is the way the world is it's
passion and all just unbelievably in
despair because that's what permits
isn't like whether it be the the
passionate time everything has to be
perceived in terms of passion or the
more philosophical version of
romanticism which is you know
systematization like Hegel trying to
make everything fit into a system you
find something doesn't fit you get
really frustrated you say this is the
way the world is and you find it anomaly
this doesn't fit into my experience I
don't know how to interpret this we get
from we get frustrated with it you just
saying here just be the opening to be
open to interpreting different different
things in different situations be open
to changing your mind this is in brief I
think a more constructive way of saying
have an open mind which which sometimes
can be a foolish expression I think the
sense of having an open mind as though
you just accept everything now just be
open to this to looking at things from a
different perspective nature's gonna
come up with something called
perspectivism a little bit later on but
here I think he's getting it that just
be just be willing to try and look at
things from a different point of view I
think ed to me this is one of the most
important aspects of philosophy of that
much of philosophy is can we look at
this thing from a different point of
view whether it be cultural and I look
at this from a different here's the way
you know Greek philosophy would look at
it what is Chinese philosophy have to
say are there questions the same no
their questions are different sometimes
they're about similar stuff but you know
looking things from a cultural lens look
at things through a gendered lens look
saying look at things through a sexed
lens to look at those kinds of things
and see how they are different and again
he's going to develop that into an ocean
of perspectivism but he's not quite
there yet and so at this point I think
that's conclude what I'm gonna say about
men's Lisa also men's to chef but what I
want to do now is I want to point you
where to look next so where we're gonna
look next and I'll be doing a video this
on Wednesday or will be up by Wednesday
probably and that is the gay science
which starts on page 207 that's deferral
Alicia listen shop and that's 1882 so
it's about four years later when I say
here
like I said I think the better
translation would be like the will say
that the joyous pursuit of knowledge is
the way I would translate differently
show efficient shop today but I want you
to take a look at that and what and this
one it's also got some epigrams in there
as well the selections are pretty short
so well I'll bounce around the epigram
start on page 225 you want to start with
those I think some of these might be a
little bit familiar to you and then
after we take a look at that one the
next thing that I'm going to do is I'm
gonna look at just pieces of Zarathustra
I'm not gonna have you read that before
cuz that one's I think too long to go
through I'll just point to the important
parts but then after that we're going to
spend some considerable time on the
insights to impose which is beyond good
and evil that starts on page three
eleven so they're on 3/11 we're gonna
slow down and start looking at beyond
good and evil and if you have any
questions again email me Thomas B at USC
a dot edu hopefully the emails not down
but again any questions email me there
and I'll be open through other means as
well like I said if we need to do if we
need to make some time or I can we can
do a conference we can't we can do that
as well and just expect more email
updates from me too all right everybody
that's it
