Howdy all. This is my first interview so would love to hear some feedback. What do you think of this format? How can I improve? Let me know in the comments! Some links to further guide your study: * Join my email list to be notified of future episodes: johnathanbi.com * Full transcript: open.substack.com/pub/johnathanbi/p/transcript-for-brian-leiter-interview?r=l66v& Companion lectures & interviews: * Nietzsche's On the Genealogy of Morality Explained: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M0w2eQ-FcEA.html Professor Leiter's books relevant to this interview (affiliate): * Nietzsche on Morality: amzn.to/3x4QQMc * My book notes: www.johnathanbi.com/p/nietzsche-on-morality-by-brian-leiter * Moral Psychology with Nietzsche: amzn.to/3yL9fy3 * My book notes: www.johnathanbi.com/p/moral-psychology-with-nietzsche-by TIMESTAMPS 00:00:00 1. Introduction 00:02:16 1.1 Introduction: Nietzsche’s Position on Free Will 00:05:16 1.2 Introduction: Contemporary Positions on Free Will 00:12:31 2.1 Arguments Against Free Will: Psychology & Language 00:18:13 2.2 Arguments Against Free Will: Phenomenology 00:29:10 2.3 Arguments Against Free Will: Genetics & the Unconscious 00:40:18 2.4 Arguments Against Free Will: My (Naive) Position on Free Will 00:44:23 3.1 Prescriptions: Implications in Legal Philosophy 00:48:15 3.2 Prescriptions: Is Free Will a Noble Lie? 00:50:34 3.3 Prescriptions: “Become Who You Are”
I think this is a rare format: You seldomly see someone talking about a topic without trying to tell a narrative or trying to contextualize it into justifying their own philosophy. You are just here to learn.
Love the way you frame these talks in your introductions, especially when you bring in the personal element of how the works influenced your own choices. Really helps turn the material from abstract theory into actionable meaning.
Props to Jonathan for the interview and inviting thinkers to talk on these fundamental ideas from geniuses like Nietzche. Although bro often got ahead of himself and promptly schooled by dr Leiter 😂
I just found you on RU-vid, probably my philosophy algorithm. I was fascinated by your Girard lectures. These interviews seem to be amazing as well. I can't wait to watch you grow to a million subscribers.
@Jonathan, Congratulations on the successful launch of your interview series! I love the impeccable production, fascinating topic, and captivating conversation. I look forward to watching many more enlightening interviews like this one!
I'm always baffled when someone says that even though they understand that free will doesn't exist (and can't exist even in principle), they still claim to feel as though they have free will. I don't feel that way at all, and it's clear as day I dont have free will. Lucky them.
@18:47 Dr. Leiter took your question to be about "introspection," but phenomenology and introspection are definitely not the same. Given the way he didn't say anything substantial in the "Implications in Legal Philosophy" section, I'm inclined to think he dodged your phenomenology question with a canned criticism of introspection. Great camera work, sound quality, and lighting!
I think we are confusing self-awareness/consciousness for free will. Humans are not free from anything, every part of our bodies are dependent on something. Developing consciousness and the identity is a curse because we gained the knowledge of non-existence and that gives us our core anxiety that is characteristic of humans
Thank you so much for the great discussion. I realize how Nietzsche perhaps accepted amor fati- by giving up free will and the inevitable greatness or uniqueness as an individual.
Jonathan! I have been agreeably drawn into your world by your series on Girard, whose work arrested me upon first meeting and continues to reveal aspects of the reality that presents itself to me. Thank you for that rich gift! I recently took in your Nietzsche lecture and interview with Leiter and have this feeling that you are teetering on your own leap of faith in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. I sense this because of your understandable focus on Christianity--the ideas and acts of the disciples from the day of New Testament Pentecost to the present--as opposed to Christ himself. Understandable because the opportunities for critique are far more rich than on that divine figure whose teaching and example stop us in every track we make, requiring everything of ourselves in order to participate in his redemptive project. Seriously, I thank God for you and pray that a-mazing grace will always be there for you as you continue to unpack this gift of life.
@@bi.johnathan You should have a conversation with John Vervaeke. That would definitely be beneficial to everyone involved including the audience and viewers. Loving your content, I'm about to call you Philosophy Zaddy.
There's something overlapping here with reconciling oneself to God's determination of all things, and how this frees one to become who one is as an image of God, in the branch of Christendom I come from (broadly Protestant Calvinism). Do you have any resources on whether Nietzche is critiquing a particular kind of Christian theism, or Christian theism writ large, as he critiques the freedom of the will?
I don't think free will is necessary to make choices or to live one's life. When I am choosing, I deliberate because I have to. I want the best outcome, so it's in my own interest to deliberate as much and as well as I can. Because I am the kind of being that wants the best outcome, it's inevitable that I will deliberate as I do. I do not choose my knowledge or intelligence; if I could I would will my knowledge and intelligence to be greater than they are. So I am forced to deliberate as I do, and thus my choice is fated. Knowing my choice is fated does not change how I choose. I was always going to try to make the best choice I could with what I had.
Yikes, your jumping in at 11:04 was a little clunky. It didn't sound like you actually thought was Professor Leiter was saying was fascinating and that you just wanted to say your thing.
A gunslinger said: “Be who you are, because if you ain’t who you are, then you are who you ain’t.” Maybe it would be better for the gunslinger if he wasn’t a gunslinger. Maybe he could have been s sherif instead and put gunslingers in the slammer where they belonged. There is good and bad in our dual system, it is better to choose the good, as choosing the bad is going with the weak force which is operating from a position of weakness rather than from a position of strength and ultimately peters out as does the person who chooses it. There is also the Middle Way which Religion, Philosophy, and Psychology recommend which is negotiating a path between the opposites; the dualities of our dual system, as aligning with one of the dualities or the other is likely to constellate its opposite. As in our dual system opposites exist and operate in tandem. We are truly are between the devil and the deep blue sea.
I’m currently at 29:43 in arguments against free will. Smell or taste etc don’t have the capacity for storytelling, one of the most important methods of guaranteeing social cohesion across time. One can’t smell Alexander the Great now yet we can read about the rise of Macedonia, amor fati and recurrence if taken the route of naturalism through the lense of narrative shows is the pattern recognition we see in ethical conduct. Philosophies at once find the language to encapsulate the reasons for eachother and at the same time critique its ability to do. A sentence like this can’t be smelled
Thank you for this. I learned a lot from Leiter's Nietzsche's articles on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. As for feedback, just keep doing what you are doing here and follow the Bryan Magee model. Find interesting guests and let them speak.
I just found you this my second video you are a modern day profit life is absolutely wonderful thank you God as I get closer to you and my true powers.
Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions - Epictetus
@@bi.johnathan I was quoting Epictetus, not Epicurus...and Epictetus would say Nietzsche is straying too far into not having almost no control whatsoever
I like the free will topic for example Im not going into an environment with my girl whos a 10. Surrounded by vultures to hit on her while I'm only 5'8 140 lbs I physically cannot destroy the men larger then me if needed physically. Therfore I dont have the free will to go to said environment wit my 10 to be able to defend her/us in case of bigger male threats or disrespect.
Some action are emotionally based or influenced,emotions take over you are not in control,that's when angry and do something bad when come down you regret you won't do it on your right mind.when calm down come to your natural state you regret because was not you was your emotions. Emotions is a thing of the body ego (i identify the ego as body because can be a driver of action and emotions)not will.emotion are perspectives weather you consider something bad or good.there are people who sell drugs in their minds is good in someones mind is bad .good of bad is morality above is understanding,bad or good perspective.The core word colour Grey.black and white merged. Grey is understanding instead of judging if we go a extra mile you can put compassion.
Isnt "free will" the ability to go against these biases and subconcious tendencies. If two twins are born introverted and raised completely different but still behave the same, then it is a subconcious behavior. but if one of these two becomes aware of this behavior and actively decides to go against it, then it becomes "free will". To actively go against nearly every single bias or subconcious behavior that one has (once it is known), that is free will to me. His idea of conciousness required to communicate better coordination is interesting and i largely agree. but for the "pure free will" (ability to go against ones biases) i dont see any biological benefit (in the early human societies). Therefore i think the "free will" is something else. Altohugh any explanation for the benefit of an animal to have the ability to actively go against its nature would be enough to discredit this. But for me its the same with the "questioning ones purpose". I dont see any biological benefit of these two that would explain why it developed in an animal by random mutation (homo sapiens) and added enough benefit to justify the ressources necessary.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video and have learned a great deal from it, even without reading Nietzsche. I conduct extensive research in the academic realm and have come to understand that the Christian religion was established by King James to distinguish it from the Catholic Church ("Vatican"), driven by a quest for power. I appreciate the presentation and your perspectives. However, I believe an important aspect is missing: the discussion on how technology now governs "free will." People often overlook that modern technology can influence others through light. Previously, influence was exerted through electric waves, but now it is through light. This video has inspired me to read Nietzsche's books most definitely.
You're very misinformed about the Christian religion... King James authorised the King James Version of the bible to be in opposition to the Catholic bible of the time, but it wasn't King James that "established Christianity"... that would be Jesus Christ. Catholicism IS Christianity; if you're using the term Christianity as a stand-in for "Protestantism" (as so many do under the false impression that Catholics aren't Christians) then you're still incorrect because Protestantism came about long before King James authorised the KJV with the Reformation. You may be getting confused with Henry VIII who formally created the Church of England and rejected papal authority after the Catholic Church refused to annul his marriage
Free will is everything, you make compromises often but it's not like your life is out of control. I am in control over my life and at least a big part. It is a very nice feeling, very satisfying and happy. Find your own balance people, that would be my advice if you look for one. To work out what really makes you feel happy sometimes takes time. Just be patient and go with the flow of life, without switching off. I lived in communism, be careful when you are talking about it or a similar ideology.
The no freewill argument is the last refuge of those who get on a track early in life. They start looking back at some point and can't fathom that it could have happened any other way. When you live a life full of mistakes, and manage to learn from some of them, it becomes apparent that freewill is part of learning and growth. This guy and Robert Saplowsky will be back to ride the wheel of samsara again.
@@gmw3083 Sapolsky's a joke pretty much. In any case, free will is a fundamental faculty of conscious life, so obvious and abundant that it requires no explanation or justification. And it doesn't matter how shitty your life goes, you have just as much free will as anyone else. There's no connection, no overlap whatsoever between one's lot in life and the existence and possession of free will. Absolute dead zero.
Your life is in control because of circumstances, not your free will. When I look back, almost everything (good or bad) that happened to me is not fundamentally due to my free will. Eerie.
I don’t understand this man; if he is against slaves morality as he calls it weak and degrading. How come then he went mad by witnessing a beaten horse ? If he denies free will - all the definitions of free will - then the salves will always be as they are and never upgrade to superman. ? There is a distinction between not having a truth of things beyond phenomenology and to deny any truth at all.
@@criticalthinker-ys7vt it is not. Social life should be equilibrium. If you steal you get punished. It is not your money it is somebody’s else’s money. Therefore, you should compensate.
What helped save free will for me, is thinking about how the divine will is the source, and it isn't a hypothetical willingness, as God is simple with no parts or potential, yet still free. In other words, free will isn't the power to choose between plurality, but to choose existence in-itself for-itself and by-itself, the divine essense.
True freedom is not the ability to choose but the inability do do anything other than one’s unique personal calling. Christ (for those who are Christian’s) has no gnomic (deliberative) will. He could not NOT do the truth, so never needed to decide. So plugged into the Source (God), he did the truth naturally, without remainder…
You guys go im circles, some thoughts influenced by environment what people think and talk program your mind.Which put people on autopilot.People think about things that happen around them that being said or done around them.But if one willfully do things if I tell you something you accept or do it immediately and think about it first that is free will.If i choose to put up your hand up you will then put it up then you access to your will if Brush yout teeth in the morning subconsciously then is not free will is what the body is used to.If willfully with consciously brush your teeth then is will.will and body can be separate you can brush you teeth and think about something else but if brush you teeth and think about brushing you teeth you you do it willfully.
agreed. the difference between a subconcious decision and an active decision against the subconcious tendency is for me free will. but the first step for that is to be aware of the subconcious tendency.
Ought one to "give up" the idea of free will? Impossible: either because there is no free will, in which case one couldn't truly "choose" to give it up (for all of our choices, including that one, would be illusory), or else because we do have free will, in which case there is no way to escape being free (we are, as Sartre would say, condemned to it).
I think, like with many things, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Each of us has a nature, it likely has an immutable aspect but is also influenced by our upbringing, environment, etc, but each of us has the freedom to deny our basic nature and make a different choice. This is the basis of many religious ideas; Christianity emphasises the fallen nature of humanity and our proclivity to sin but commands us to deny ourselves and aspire to the standard set by God, that humans cannot attain due to our fallen nature (hence the need for a saviour in Jesus Christ).
You mean soul agency isn't. Free will inertia Is the actor or action of person. You can measure free will . Niechtze gives up subjective properties and idealism for physicalism. Soul agency correlated with eternal cosmos, soul agency drives free will inertia frame of reference. Personal responses, action is not individual.. English is a triality German and catholic dualism. Their Is a soul individual They're are personal responses and measureable free will mobility Form and shape is there also Niechtze despised uk & America . But American founders choice of free will term Is because it's measured medium
Triangulated measure of thermodynamical systems. Kinda like realitivity, falling in gravity pictures you've seen a million times but in the more atomized realm of self & frame of reference. Lagrangian space is a primordial self made up of many topographical Astronomical energy density measured per scale cells in biology alignment with how hamiltonian split soul agency & occelating spirit feilds and waves z axis. Were einstein merged with x giving us f/x I think set theory calls it. Descartes dualism mind / body is also a dualistic hemisphere brain of matter y axis like the prenticiously clocklike view our eyes give us that's more uniform & ordered looking to us when really it's not..
What neitzche wanted is what we did in the 1900s until more recently math Is god emerging e =mc pretend it's pre 1500s when everyone thought the universe was a one way holograph shining back at us with a deterministic answer for every question .
@tyata.1999 The psychological results that were once mistaken as religious desputes have proven to be deeper through anthrosphy millions of cross-cultural ,multi generational, with no regard to socio-political or economic order just simply compute a certain old world macro micro taxonomical order and cateregory of mind in how they want the world to be and they're very hardheaded towards the evidence where millions of paper cuts Over many centuries has to be manipulated to fit their pre conceived order of affinity about how nature & universe should be.
@@dadsonworldwide3238 What you called soul agency, isn't that like a disposition we didn't choose that was bestowed upon us even if it's correlated with the eternal cosmos or even if we are just that?
I don’t agree with this. Animals operate entirely according to instinct. Humans have both instinct and reason. What is the purpose or reason if it is not to negotiate a path, or choice, between our instinctive and our rational or cognitive self? It is in error and downgrades the human to say we do not have free will. The scope of our free will is circumscribed. For example, we cannot cause a thunderstorm to end by our command but we have much within our scope where we can exercise our will and judgement. To suggest that as humans we are automatons is abhorrent.
Leiter argues that our conscious life is incredibly shallow and limited in perceiving what is “really” driving us. Ie. we aren’t conscious / reason cannot even access our deepest drives
@@bi.johnathan Reason is a function, it negotiates a path between opposites and helps us to maintain a balance between wants, needs, and the environment. It helps us negotiate a path between the rational and the non-rational.
