Nietzsche was the greatest psychologist of all time... pure dynamite to believe systems. I'm not quite sure that he told us properly what to do about the failure of our belief systems… But he certainly took them apart like no other
Brilliant lecture! Such insight, of which kind is ABSOLUTELY necessary to truly comprehend Nietzsche; he is far too brilliant and subtle a philosopher to attempt to define or categorize from the surface. Nietzsche was the master of complexity, he himself understood the danger and illusory nature in categorical abstraction better than anybody. Nietzsche gets a bad wrap because people misunderstand him, they don't read him correctly or carefully enough. He was perhaps the most brilliant philosopher that ever existed, or at least he soundly represented the most-brilliant ideal! He had an astounding ability to acquire knowledge through consulting his own subconscious mind. He really was a psychologist as much as a philosopher--one who performed psychology upon himself! Beautiful; thank you Professor Raymond.
First of all, emile235 that's total speculation, we don't know how "at odds" Nietzsche was with his surroundings in his personal life. However, from his writings, we know that he was very critical of society in his day, and he probably was psychologically disturbed. Does that mean he cant be a great philosopher? No. It doesn't at all. I don't see the contradiction.
Well we actually do know about him and his personal life; his inability to form a relationship with a woman. The fact that he took rejection from women quite badly and his total lack of friends. This man was not atypical of a healthy human being and that's well , well before his breakdown. Nietzsche's behaviour is TYPICAL of a boy brought up by women; it's text book misfitism
fair enough! I certainly won't disagree with that, I am aware of all the history with Nietzsche. I was talking more in terms of his personal *experience. But that's ok, I think we we were just on different wavelengths there. My main point was simply that we shouldn't let conceptions or misconceptions about Nietzsche's personal life get in the way of reading his philosophy, his real genius can be found right there in front of us, in the pages of his writing. ;)
In the story of Patroclus no one survives, not even Achilles who was nearly a god. Patroclus resembled him; they wore the same armor. Always in these friendships one serves the other, one is less than the other: the hierarchy is always apparant, though the legends cannot be trusted-- their source is the survivor, the one who has been abandoned. What were the Greek ships on fire compared to this loss? In his tent, Achilles grieved with his whole being and the gods saw he was a man already dead, a victim of the part that loved, the part that was mortal. Paul Celan
@@larsentranslation6393 "The notes which accompany the text were prepared by Raymond Geuss" p. viii philosophy.ucsc.edu/news-events/colloquia-conferences/GeneologyofMorals.pdf Might not be exactly what you would like but there is the book, "On the Genealogy of Morality," with at least some input by Raymond Guess.
- masters use a positive word to describe their life (good), and describe the life of the poor as bad - slaves describe the masters as evil and themselves as good (slave rebellion). They confront the masters indirectly (conceptually) by creating a new concept (evil) - the concept of good has a duality (bad and evil) because of the two groups (masters and slaves). This isn’t just grammatical, but metaphysical. Masters are morally responsible for being evil, they’ve decided not to do otherwise (free will holds you responsible for your choices)
My understanding from reading Nietzsche is that the slaves are never creative, that the priestly class, a part of the master's, generates the slave revolt of morality & then informs the slave herd of how to operate. As such, the slaves never have a conception of originality.
