An overview of Friedrich Nietzsche's book The Use and Abuse of History. I am using a Dover Thrift edition for the quotations. Visit millermanschool.com for more courses.
As someone who has studied Nietzsche intensely, and written my master’s thesis on the exact work in question here, I feel very qualified to say that this resume and analysis is absolutely spot on. Excellent work, mr. Millerman. I love your channel!
I was almost sheading a tear when reading the final passage of this book; I had no idea why, as I was only partially understanding the message of the book, only seeing it as a criticism of the use of history, rather than both the benefit and critique. Now watching this, I understand the sorrow I felt; I see this overuse of history, yet instead I also see my current culture, being put forth by my peers as simply denying history in its entirety, becoming no different from the animal. I saw the message of the Youth being able to break from the reliance of history, but instead taking an antithetical approach of simply defining themselves against it, ignoring history's uses. With this complete denial, they deny humanity within themselves, and thus lead hollow lives, just like the described 'objective' critics of Nietzsche. Some part of me understood that, and wept.
Thank you for this sir. As a beginner to philosophy, Nietzsche has always intimidated me, but I found this video very understandable and interesting. It has also been a while since I enjoyed a lecture.
I can see why you are visiting this at this time 👍 Very relevant. I have so much to say in response ( i.e.: Humility leads to Will and Judgement, Discernment, in the seeking of Truth).
My professor recommended I read this to help me work through my very confusing/conflicting ideas as I write my dissertation about the history of my own community/people. It is dense and I'm sure I'll spend much of my life trying to understand it, but I really appreciate your help!
Bruh, i got recommended this as an introduction to learning Nietzsche because it's short, easier to grasp, and is much more understandable than his more popular works. I can definitely agree that this book feels easier to read, but not as much easier to understand. His later works, though, just sound like absolute gibberish. I'm amazed at how high a level he's thinking. I'm not at college or anything but I'm hoping to plow through at least 10 of his books next year. I'm only worried about whether spending time on his books are going to be exactly what this book is warning against, where it is like consuming knowledge for the sake of having it, but not using it to transform and serve life: example, consuming these books for the sake of increasing my book count. I hope it helps with your dissertation. Maybe there are secrets within which could help my people, too.
thanks Michael this was great. i'll be re-reading the essay. i wonder what Nietzsche would think of our current cultural attitude toward the past. i'm not sure he'd be especially pleased - but I'd have to think a little deeper as to why. a not quite harmonious admixture of historical science, Critical History and Ressentement? :D
Great video. I am currently working through Nietzsche's ouvre so this is very "timely". Could you do a video on aphorism 23 from The Wanderer and His Shadow: have the adherents of the theory of freewill the right to punish?. There is a lot in that one paragraph that's worthy of unpacking
People now oft only remember their pasts if they support their class pretentions thus most of the everyday which is material for the fertile creative mind is forgotten or just disguarded.
Funny how much bad ideas came from Nietzsche, as all his prescriptions to fight against modernity had been the very thing that fuels its folly. Yet he still made some great points.
Great summary. Thank you so much. Could you elaborate on why he didn’t like Von Hartman? Those passages lost me, mainly because I’m not familiar with his work.
Thank you for your work! I wanted to ask whether Dugin would be in favour of democracy, as his general viewpoint seems to be that various cultures and traditions have a right to self determination, meaning that the people within a given area should decide how to live, implying that the people should have that choice, effectively meaning democracy?
It's more complicated than that. It depends on part on the interpretation of "people." For him, it is a technical term, which is why I usually transliterate from the Russian as "narod." Peoples play a part in his ethnosociology book and he also offers an existential interpretation of peoples (Volk/narod) using Heideggerian methodologies. I mean, he has separate books on each of this approaches. I have a paper called The Ethnosociological and Existential Dimensions of Alexander Dugin's Populism that you can find online if you're looking for an introduction to the topic. I also believe you can find on 4pt.su an article about "laocracy," which distinguishes laos/narod/people in the sense of peoples from demos/people in the sense of persons. Another way of looking at it: who is the "self" in self-determination in the context of Dugin's theory of multipolarity? So here, too, he has a theory of "self" - which you can find in the essay called (off the top of my mind): the existential theory of society! Good luck
Great presentation, very informative. But try not to rest your guitar with the weight on the headstock. Turn it around to face the wall or use a stand. ;)
It seems to me that so many people I know go out of the way to forget their pasts . The Ancestry phenomena is actually proof of this . People don't seem willing to remember their own past; of course unless it is posited in terms of trauma ... what is that?
"Bring the past to the bar of judgment...Every past is worth condemning." This approach seems to have influenced the advocates of CRT, Critical Race Theory, which condemns the USA's past, or rather, wants to reconstruct it, after Deconstructing the "white supremacy" aspects of our past, with its male-oriented, white-oriented, property-owners-oriented POWERS. The so-called 1619 Project would also seem to have been influenced by certain things in Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault and others. On these matters I tend to lean towards the Center, so as to avoid extremes, which can cause violence. In his discussion of "political philosophy," Leo Strauss exhorts people towards the virtue of MODERATION. In the same breath, so to speak, he mentions theorists Marx and Nietzsche as examples of how to NOT BE MODERATE. But puzzles over, and puzzles us, by the fact that both Marx and Nietzsche's "liberal educations" were both so utterly extraordinary by today's standards, as to be utterly beyond the reach of most people nowadays. The Strauss School aims to remedy this defect in America, and may be succeeding. One excellent example of this success happens to be a Canadian, Michael Millerman.
Glorious but then what ? Anything actually change. The only thing to care about is the principles of life and follow them, discarding everything else. And what are they? They are Contained in old books like the Tao Te Ching. Without them living free and carefree does not seem to work. Such principles are not innate, at least not to man as he is, and without strong clear principles embodied you will simply succumb to the black sludge everywhere around you. Talk is cheap, big words are cheap, they feel good for 5 minutes, and then once again you are lost.
