Good stuff guys! I enjoyed listening to the first episode. One thing that came to mind during y'alls discussion of "truth as a woman"- Machiavelli's discussion of fortune as a woman. I wonder if Nietzsche would agree with that second analogy as well
I think about that quite a bit. Machiavelli clearly inaugurated a renewal of interest in female chicanery. A lot of that in Mandragola!
As for prince 25, the river versus the woman Fortuna, it's a fascinating personification, rehearsing , if you will, Achilles! That's done ironically, so there's something suggested there about the young man's view of woman versus another truer view.
Strauss’s weakest moment seems to be in taking Nietzsche so seriously. By the time Western thought winds its way back to Nietzsche, we are back to presuppositional claims.
Now why would an ancient rationalist like Strauss ever take this seriously?
It’s interesting. If one looks at how dismissive Strauss is of Aquinas, never mind Augustine, and watch him get the full vapors over Nietzsche—who is doing pure theology—you have to wonder what in the hell is going on.
Titus and Hadar, why are you so easy on N's dismissal of philosophic psychology, and of the very idea of the soul? He isn't merely mocking the Enlightenment types and today's scientists. He's laughing every kind of Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Platonic exploration of the soul out of the room in advance. Ditto any exploration which excepts any degree of scriptural authority regarding the soul. He's like Hume, consigning all that to the flames, but he does it with a more subtle "style," though his too partakes of quite a bit of derision. I think the proper response to him on something like this is bemusement in turn: "Oh, you think you can just rhetorically bully all that out of the room, do you?"
Cc. Peter Augustine Lawler, who spoke in his Modern and American Dignity, of our need for "the Science of Technology," (137) or that "The Socratic way--the only way that respects the mystery of human freedom--is to proceed one soul at a time." (210)
It's a book, Carl, one has to read it first, then respond! We're just going through it now. Of course, one can read the preface, reject Nietzsche's rejection of soul & close it! It's not the Bible... But to keep reading, on the other hand, one has to consider his rejection & look to see what's it all about.
The thematic discussion--analyzing soul as drives--is in part 1, we'll get through his various claims & suggestions there, hopefully satisfying some of your demand.
Oops, that quote from Lawler should read "science of theology," not, "of technology." And it should be "accepts," not "excepts!"
But to your comment--I did not mean to suggest not studying the book! I did study BGE fairly closely once, and have returned to sections and parts of it now and then. More generally, a number of scholarly friends--Peter Paik comes to mind--have made the possible gains from studying Nietzsche, even when one rejects his core teachings, quite apparent.
The heart of what I said is, "beware the power of his rhetoric." Its power is such that I don't think a procedure of "let's proceed as if we take everything an author says on trust, and initially posit its truth for the sake of letting the argument flow, since we'll examination its implications later on" is entirely responsible in his case. As a teacher, I think one would do one's job poorly, at least with most kinds of students, to allow Nietzsche to bowl them over with his mockery/feigned-certainty, and his particular framings, without any sort of push-back.
I'm not sure if our disagreement is about how teaching is to be done or about learning, or on the other hand, it's about judging what the audience is.
I think if you were to offer a class in a university, you'd have to accept the responsibilities of that institution; so with other cases; but it's much trickier to judge what the audience of my podcast series of talks is. I suppose in the given case, it doesn't really matter--I'm not a popular figure, I don't have that responsibility, the privilege of being unimportant, whereas as an unpopular figure I have some grasp of the small audience that's interested in what I say. In that sense, I'm quite sure the guys who will be listening will not become a Nietzschean cult.
I hope people who take morality seriously & the soul will be smart enough to notice what Nietzsche is actually saying as we comment on it; & people who don't will be smart enough to notice the many difficulties, say, with the theory of drives.
Some mix of the two is the actual audience, but I'm not quite sure which mix. I believe if one were to look over the college audience in America, one would have to reverse your judgment -- be bewitched by Nietzsche's rhetoric (at least in BGE), because that collegiate class is quite thoughtless & vapid. Even if you wanted everyone to come out a decent Christian who is shocked by Nietzsche -- they'd have to learn to be shocked & care about decency...
Good stuff guys! I enjoyed listening to the first episode. One thing that came to mind during y'alls discussion of "truth as a woman"- Machiavelli's discussion of fortune as a woman. I wonder if Nietzsche would agree with that second analogy as well
Thanks, CJ!
I think about that quite a bit. Machiavelli clearly inaugurated a renewal of interest in female chicanery. A lot of that in Mandragola!
As for prince 25, the river versus the woman Fortuna, it's a fascinating personification, rehearsing , if you will, Achilles! That's done ironically, so there's something suggested there about the young man's view of woman versus another truer view.
Outstanding.
Umm…. The preface. Nietzsche’s glaring lack of success with women might have been a better route toward his truth claims.
Strauss’s weakest moment seems to be in taking Nietzsche so seriously. By the time Western thought winds its way back to Nietzsche, we are back to presuppositional claims.
Now why would an ancient rationalist like Strauss ever take this seriously?
Let’s be esoteric about it, huh?
It’s interesting. If one looks at how dismissive Strauss is of Aquinas, never mind Augustine, and watch him get the full vapors over Nietzsche—who is doing pure theology—you have to wonder what in the hell is going on.
Motive?
Dionysus vs. The Crucified?
Please, keep doing this. Really great.
Titus and Hadar, why are you so easy on N's dismissal of philosophic psychology, and of the very idea of the soul? He isn't merely mocking the Enlightenment types and today's scientists. He's laughing every kind of Aristotelian, Thomistic, and Platonic exploration of the soul out of the room in advance. Ditto any exploration which excepts any degree of scriptural authority regarding the soul. He's like Hume, consigning all that to the flames, but he does it with a more subtle "style," though his too partakes of quite a bit of derision. I think the proper response to him on something like this is bemusement in turn: "Oh, you think you can just rhetorically bully all that out of the room, do you?"
Cc. Peter Augustine Lawler, who spoke in his Modern and American Dignity, of our need for "the Science of Technology," (137) or that "The Socratic way--the only way that respects the mystery of human freedom--is to proceed one soul at a time." (210)
It's a book, Carl, one has to read it first, then respond! We're just going through it now. Of course, one can read the preface, reject Nietzsche's rejection of soul & close it! It's not the Bible... But to keep reading, on the other hand, one has to consider his rejection & look to see what's it all about.
The thematic discussion--analyzing soul as drives--is in part 1, we'll get through his various claims & suggestions there, hopefully satisfying some of your demand.
Oops, that quote from Lawler should read "science of theology," not, "of technology." And it should be "accepts," not "excepts!"
But to your comment--I did not mean to suggest not studying the book! I did study BGE fairly closely once, and have returned to sections and parts of it now and then. More generally, a number of scholarly friends--Peter Paik comes to mind--have made the possible gains from studying Nietzsche, even when one rejects his core teachings, quite apparent.
The heart of what I said is, "beware the power of his rhetoric." Its power is such that I don't think a procedure of "let's proceed as if we take everything an author says on trust, and initially posit its truth for the sake of letting the argument flow, since we'll examination its implications later on" is entirely responsible in his case. As a teacher, I think one would do one's job poorly, at least with most kinds of students, to allow Nietzsche to bowl them over with his mockery/feigned-certainty, and his particular framings, without any sort of push-back.
I'm not sure if our disagreement is about how teaching is to be done or about learning, or on the other hand, it's about judging what the audience is.
I think if you were to offer a class in a university, you'd have to accept the responsibilities of that institution; so with other cases; but it's much trickier to judge what the audience of my podcast series of talks is. I suppose in the given case, it doesn't really matter--I'm not a popular figure, I don't have that responsibility, the privilege of being unimportant, whereas as an unpopular figure I have some grasp of the small audience that's interested in what I say. In that sense, I'm quite sure the guys who will be listening will not become a Nietzschean cult.
I hope people who take morality seriously & the soul will be smart enough to notice what Nietzsche is actually saying as we comment on it; & people who don't will be smart enough to notice the many difficulties, say, with the theory of drives.
Some mix of the two is the actual audience, but I'm not quite sure which mix. I believe if one were to look over the college audience in America, one would have to reverse your judgment -- be bewitched by Nietzsche's rhetoric (at least in BGE), because that collegiate class is quite thoughtless & vapid. Even if you wanted everyone to come out a decent Christian who is shocked by Nietzsche -- they'd have to learn to be shocked & care about decency...
Excellent response. Some of our differences remain, but I'll leave it at that for now.