welcome to the newest episode of the emigre humanist
today, Daemon and I return to
the Genealogy of Morals
this time, book II
and
book II
is, well, this kind of
very good example
as to why the method which Nietzsche
recommends to us
that is
chewing on his works like a cow
is a method
proper to us
if for no other reason, then that now when
we are to say
something about the second book of the Genealogy
of morals
then personally, I feel
like a cow on a field
with my mouth full of
grass
which is chewing and just now
it's time to open that mouth and say something
you can very well imagine
how grotesque
this would be
and I hope it won't be that grotesque
in this same recommendation, and I recall it because
of course we have a whole episode about chewing like
cows
I remind you that this recommendation was written
in the introduction to the Genealogy of morals
and so it is most certainly pertinent
to this book
and
abreast this recommendation
mention was made
that
one ought to be a cow, and not
a modern person
and perhaps indeed the second
above all leads us to
conclude that in spite of my best efforts
I am struck by just how modern I am
perhaps this is
intentional
that this is meant to teach us that
there is no escape
from
the modernity in which we are stuck
nevertheless
we shall try
and let's see what the result will be
only that
things will be different from the usual, that is to say
I will not consolidate
in chronological order
the argument
which Nietzsche builds
but rather I shall make known my impressions
and my first impression is a question of sorts
namely: is it possibly
not the case that
even the most careful of philosophers
by which I understand someone
aware
of the deep limits
compelled by intellectual life
over perspectives
of a person
does even someone of this kind
not find themselves endangered
by a longing for an ideal
which in fact never existed
and will not exist because
I begin somewhat from the end of book II, but
this calling of Nietzsche
this hope that
although not now, perhaps in the future
there will appear
a type of human
which
will rescue humanity
from this swamp
is this hope
not something which cover his eyes
to the fact that the thing which he
perceives as a swamp is simply
human? (human - yes)
and therefore, although
it is often ugly and stupid, it is also
nevertheless capable
of attaining some beauty
but very well, let us give the author
his due
and let us describe this swamp somewhat
above all it seems to me that
in the second book, Nietzsche
shows us in what way
the animal known as Man
has lost its self
at the moment when
the natural instinct which accompanies
each species
of animals
was - on account of Man -
perceived - or rather Man began to perceive
that which is his natural
instinct as a burden for
his own conscience
Nietzsche
very precisely here
contrary to the facade
because of course Nietzsche's facade is very chaotic
but Nietzsche appears to
indicate that
Man
as
the only
species
in
the animal kingdom
out of his instincts
his natural instincts
has made
a burden
which his conscience must carry
and of course contrary to the facade
the facades in Nietzsche are always chaotic
in the second book there is
a thread
which
links the whole
and one could say that
the second book is
a history of the development of conscience
in a sense
in the beginning Nietzsche calls this
a paradox of nature
that
in nature there arose an animal
capable of making promises
and here, in fact
this is a problem more for the world
of English speakers, not for Poles, because
the source of conscience according to Nietzsche
is found
in transaction, that is
humans
exchange with one another
one can talk about economic exchange here
commerce, which has existed since
forever
from the time when humans existed, trade existed
commerce - we are interdependent
and this
even on the most primitive level, trade
is something
to which
the animal known as man was always capable of
and through trade arises the concept of
debt
or guilt
someone has done something for another person so
he is
he owes him something
and of course in Polish, as in German
thus this is a problem for English speakers
not for us
the word "guilt" in the moral sense (wina)
or the word "guilty" (winny)
or guilty party (winowajca) in the moral sense
has the same root as the word
debt (wina) in the economic or financial sense
in German, guilt is
debt is
not guilty is
someone who owes something is
in English this does not work, so
I am not laughing
again
at
the great philosophical dilemmas of the English
speaking world, which
is trying to understand what Nietzsche is thinking
because in English
which is wina in the moral sense
which is wina in the
or
in the economic sense are completely different words
unconnected to one another
thankfully their problems are not ours
we perfectly understand
what Nietzsche is talking about
and slowly
from this simple fact that
through the relation of exchange
the concept of the guilty party (who owes) arose
and the concept arose
of morality and conscience
and of course the concept of punishment
because indeed when someone
was incapable - that is...
pay their debts is too advanced
as a concept because then we speak of a society
in which a medium of exchange existed
however even if
we take this in a more primitive form, of course
if someone
does a favour for someone else
then we say do not
thank you, there's no need to mention it
forget about it
we don't want anything in return
but indeed within the person
who receives the favour
there arises a sense of debt (guilt)
a sense that they owe someone (are guilty)
for this favour
and the conscience awakens, that is
here in Nietzsche's teaching conscience
begins as consciousness
that I owe someone something (I am guilty)
and not because I have taken out a loan
in a bank, but because someone has
altruistically
made themselves useful
helped me
hence the punishment does not need to be
though Nietzsche of course writes about
a punishment enforced against those who owed others
literally - but this punishment
does not necessarily have to relate to
simply the punishment that is meted out
by the person whom we owe (are guilty towards)
it can be our own punishment
against ourselves
which later Nietzsche also
describes this as, in a sense,
the next stage
of the development of our moral imagination
and this stage
is connected to a certain self-flagellation of mankind
because of course
developed to its limits
we quickly arrive at the conclusion
that human beings
as such
have a debt which they are incapable
of paying on their own
the guilt or debt of humanity
is so great that
humans by themselves are incapable
of making amends
from this, claims Nietzsche
there arises within humans
this deep yearning
which gives birth to religion
which gives birth to the ideal
of God
and
of course
initially
and here Nietzsche praises
the Greek gods or indeed Greek
idols
for resembling to a fuller extent
manliness
adventure
and the last remains
of the natural instincts
of the animal kind
and this is not about just any kind of...because...
this is not clearly stated but the manner in which
I understand
the natural or animal instinct
of mankind of which Nietzsche writes
this is not bestiality
because
the fact that humans are
animals does not mean that humans are
dogs, wolves,
but - why?
it just doesn't mean he is a beast?
yes, what I am getting as is that just as
each animal has an instinct
proper to itself
so too with humans
they have animal instincts proper to humans
and this instinct is not necessarily
as for wolves they have a supreme caring instinct
for one another
they take care of not-their-children even
that is an "aunt" takes care of
or an "uncle" takes care of others in the pack
I am not, at this point, going into the matter
I understand, the point is that men are not beasts
yes, men are not beasts and
though he can act in a beastly manner
this does not therefore mean the identical thing as
having a beast's instincts
in man is not identical to beastiality as such
but I think no one identifies the two, in fact quite often
people say
"even an animal wouldn't behave that way" when people
do something
yes, but Nietzsche would say that people
should behave like an animal
and that humans are the strange
animals who turn their backs on their animality
even in the matter of pain and cruelty
Nietzsche claims that
the times when there was more pain
and cruelty in the world amongst humans
were times which paradoxically...
when was there more pain and suffering?
and when was there less?
this is a very good question - Nietzsche compares
the ancient prehistorical
populations of the African continent
to modern men
in Europe
and claims that
pain
physical pain understood
in the European sense
would be as
something unnoticed
for this prehistorical man
our ancestors from Africa
and
this is the imagination of
Nietzsche on the subject of
life then, but I bet people managed thanks to
various plants
fermentation and a few other things, but indeed before
the discovery of
the entire area of medicine called
anaesthesiology, things we tough
with all due respect to Daemon
I think we do not even have to
go so far back in time
to notice that there is indeed
much truth in what Nietzsche writes, namely
the softening of
European man
ah - well this is another matter
yes, yes, softening
but this is the story Nietzsche is telling
again, writing about
pain, one should not immediately
imagine that everyone is a cannibal
and eating one another (no, no I wasn't talking)
about that, but about routine things such as
now, when you need to remove
a tooth, you get anaesthetic
back then
you had to do things differently
in different
let us say that Nietzsche has an imagination
of let us call them mythical times
he has this imagine of them in which
back then, just as today
life was
relatively short, at least relative to
the existence of the universe
and
yes, but since people ran around barefoot
it's not the same as running in shoes, ok, fine
it is more about the idea that back then
there wasn't
today we have this sense that we must
defend life at any cost
and we define life as
a physiological state, literally we just continue
to respire, our blood circulates, heart beats and teeth
don't hurt
and this is in a sense
completely senseless because it will all come to a stop
I am not even speaking of accident here
we are constantly preoccupied by this
desire to preserve life and make it last longer
rather than enjoy it
and
this mythical pre-historic man
of which Nietzsche makes mention in various
situations, in various contexts
it is not a matter of only one allusion
fully aware that his life is
delicate, that at each moment
it may end or it may
this is not even about death, but rather
things like breaking a leg,
today as opposed to breaking a leg
100,000 years ago
this was a very different scale of danger
but this is unimportant
then, humanity was, according to Nietzsche, more
bold - like the animals -
indeed, there it is
the point is that in the kingdom of
when we observe animals
then
we as observers see that nature is
as we would say cruel
because animals hunt one another
indeed, there is this
idea that nature is cruel
but from the point of view of the animals, they
are living life to the fullest
they are unaware that - you see Nietzsche
with the birth of religion
and the ideal of gods
and of God, there Nietzsche
connects this
this is the first step to nihilism
because our modern
sickness that leads us to claim life is meaningless
in Nietzsche's view originates
from our first having claimed life had meaning
well, yes, in order to say something is meaningless
you must first lay claim to meaning
and no other animal
doesn't even undertake
the problem of meaning or meaninglessness, it lives life
exactly - and Nietzsche hopes
that a day will come when humanity will once again
begin to live - yes
rather than living longer
yes, and here, again because immediately
so to speak
Nietzsche is not postulating that we should stop
practicing medicine
yes, yes, but rather to stop thinking about
living longer and just start really living
yes, really living - and
the conscience is that construction
which gets in the way of this because
in the end
conscience leads to
the self-destruction of humanity, so says Nietzsche
because as soon as
we have built the concept of this God
who is, as the only being
capable of redeeming the guilt of mankind
because our conscience tells us that we are
so nightmarish
that we ourselves cannot pay our moral debt
because we have fallen so low
then
what happens? God dies
today, currently
when
faith has died
we now have new gods
in the form of
our saying that life is a riddle
Nietzsche points out that today, suffering
is raised to the level of
the principle accusation against meaning
in existence, and in a sense we even
saw this in the previous episodes  of
the Humanist Emigre
in which we discussed the works of
Camus, but not only, also Levinas
there was quite a lot of
the question was often raised
with regard to the evil
of suffering and
it is not only in their works, even today
it is very popular
to ask, to throw this question at
the cosmos - the question of
why is there so much evil and suffering?
and this is so senseless
we answered this question already
in the sense that
in this dimension that
animals - nonhuman animals
do not make an accusation of
nature being
an unjust eco-system
this is our
our rather sad
property
and
I am wavering a bit here because
between two
important extremes
in the second book - on the one hand
a very interesting
map
which
points to the path which
the human animal journeyed from
life in accord with
its instinct
an instinct which Nietzsche understands as
fundamentally identical
amongst
all
species
amongst all living beings
that is the will to power
here again, to avoid confusion,
power in Nietzsche's view
ought to be understood as a kind of vitality
a full life
all living beings
develop - of course they also decay
but
they never decay - unless they are human -
out of choice
it never
desires
self-annihilation
not even subconsciously
unless it is a human, and
we have replaced this natural instinct
of the will to power
with this gradual
immersion into
conscience and morality
which Nietzsche
considers to be
the anti-theses
relative to a healthy life
because they give birth to the deepest
possible suffering
and paradoxically we complain that the world is
full of suffering, but we have
constructed for ourselves
this elaborate
at a certain moment Nietzsche calls it
a festival of suffering, yes?
of course he refers to the Greeks
if we look to Greek mythology, then
what happens there? The gods observe as humans
harm one another
but the gods are the audience
within the play
who is the true audience? humanity.
we very much enjoy
art which imitates
suffering
which
we cause one another
in life
there is also a fragment about resentment here
Nietzsche gives - that is...because...
as is always the case with Nietzsche
he gives two examples
he believes that if someone wishes
to make a zoological observation
of the inner-workings of resentment
then please look at the anti-Semites
and the anarchists
these examples are of course
a slap in the face - one of many which
Nietzsche routinely dishes out to everyone around
but we can understand these examples
as
in a sense
a shot
fired in the direction of all who
see conspiracies everywhere
or, also,
are utterly in rebellion
righteously outraged
and eternally unhappy
for Nietzsche
the law
which arises
on account of
strength
of those who are useful for those
who are
guilty
the law is in a way like a gag relative to
resentment
because
guilt birthed
resentment
in is always
there is this level
on the surface, and another
level below the surface
and so on the surface
consciousness
as it functions within the human person
reaches at some point a certain stage
as to cancel your debt (guilt)
that is
it gives birth to mercy
the highest form of magnanimity
but under the surface
there is something of the sort that
I am capable of showing mercy
because
I am superior to some degree
I am better
I am more developed
there is a dualism here we must keep in mind
in the common phrase about
the last being the first
this saying actually
distinguishes between states
it does not abolish them
and
this state
of mercy
relative to the guilty (those who owe us)
is a state of the highest distinction
ergo he who
aims for this state
according to Nietzsche
deep down
he cannot achieve this state
but he is capable of attaining its facade
what happens deep within him is
disgust
disgusted distance towards other people
and in a sense nihilism which
is capable of forgiving everyone
for everything because now
there is nothing
which he cares about, nothing is important any more
and of course from the point of view
or moral philosophy or theology
we could deliberate
if Nietzsche were aiming for a deliberation
at the level of morality
because he constantly
here the anti-Semites and the anarchists get roasted
but else where for example
he points out that there is this
this beautiful quote:
even in Kant's categorical imperative
there is hidden
a dose of cruelty
Kant is an excellent example of a moral philosopher
who seriously approached
all of these matters
of good and evil
and here is not the place
well we might explain
in a simple way the
categorical imperative of Kant as being the idea that
everything that can be
raised
to the level of a
universally binding law
is a moral action, so for example if
you wonder whether something
falls into the category of a moral action
or not, then if
you were ready for this specific action to
become a universal law - then yes
so, to use a negative example
if I am wondering whether
it is moral for me to
kill and eat another person
well then if
I ask myself whether I want eating and
killing people to be
a general right for all people
a universal right - well, I will likely step back from this
and here I
this is not very just towards Kant
behavior wise
perhaps it is on purpose
but
Nietzsche does not wish to engage this type of
thinker in a serious way
because for Nietzsche
all moral philosophy is
a symptom of a certain illness
all philosophy is a symptom of a certain illness
the animal which possesses
healthy instincts does not philosophise
it does not wonder about meaningfulness
thanks to which it does not discover meaninglessness
and
it doesn't wonder which action is moral and which
isn't
if every animal
in the animal kingdom has
an instinct
which guides it through life
then this type of question
a question comes to my mind when
I wonder about the second book of the Genealogy
of Morals - the following question: and so
what is the animal instinct of the human animal?
what or who is this human animal?
Nietzsche of course
towards the end of the second book
as is often the case
he often does this - he points towards Zarathustra
his poem about
this
philosophy of the future, about
about the type of man who is coming
who is to
save...save is the wrong word here
but I admit - here I
we won't discuss Zarathustra, but
I consider the poem to be Nietzsche's weakest work
so...just because...
in every other work there is a tendency to
have Nietzsche point to Zarathustra
as coming to rescue humanity - well this
this doesn't make me too happy
because insofar as
I am full of respect for all of his other works
well
for me, Zarathustra is
not the best poetry - Nietzsche's aphorisms
were beautiful, but
the poem is
well, one day we shall discuss Zarathustra
although now I recall
that I once saw a fantastic play
a 4 hour play in the theatre
in Krakow - Zarathustra - for 4 hours
a theatrical interpretation
so not a literal presentation
again we will not posit a conclusion
because we still have
one book of the Genealogy of Morals
and I stop myself as I stopped myself
when discussing the first book, so here as well
I will refrain from conclusions until
we reach the third book
then we will attempt to summarise
and
discuss
wider thoughts and conclusions
however
I will end with this thought
which is a thought Nietzsche ends with
in the second book of the Genealogy
Nietzsche writes that
modern man is
the heir
of thousands of years of cruelty
towards animals
above all cruelty towards
human
animals
humans torture themselves
he curses
his own
biology in a sense
and
if
we accept
the genealogy of morality
as
the truth
then
we ought to therefore explore
the meaning of the instinct
of the animal instinct of human beings
and seek out a path in order to
remind ourselves of it
and
very often
Nietzsche's partisans stop at
rejoicing over the fact that he has just abolished
all moral systems which
humanity has up to now managed to create
discover or
receive from the gods
this is the tragedy of
Nietzsche against which I personally warn
insofar as our viewers
might wish to take my view into account
well then
if someone reads Nietzsche
for no other reason than to undermine morality
abolish God and then rejoice
then it would be better
then read it over again
you have to read it again because this is exactly
these are the lost places where
the illusion
of Nietzsche being easily accessible
of Nietzsche's books being so easy to read
will take so many people
in Beyond Good and Evil
Nietzsche writes at a certain point that he queen
of the sciences ought to be psychology
and not philosophy
and here, though he didn't write it, I have the impression
if it were left to me to write the point
the point is that the queen of moral philosophy
ought to be biology
if we wish to seek out
something which up to now we have called
the moral good
or the meaning of life
then perhaps the key is the science of life
biology
alright, so. thank you very much
Daemon and I both thank you
we invite you
to watch
the previous episode about the first book of
the Genealogy of Morals if
someone is watching us for the first time and
wondering or thinking that
this is the muddled middle, then yes indeed
this is the muddled middle because
the systematic and
good beginning was earlier
and we generally encourage you to watch
the other episodes on our channel and
to our returning viewers - we thank you
for watching us and being with us
we thank our subscribers
for subscribing
we are happy that there are more people subscribing
and traditionally I remind you please like us
and see you in the next episode
of the Humanist Emigre
