Nietzsche's genealogical method
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 06. 2024
- Professor Ellie Anderson, co-host of Overthink philosophy podcast, offers tips for how to read Nietzsche, focusing on his work On the Genealogy of Morals. She discusses his aphoristic style, genealogical commitments, and rejection of utility-based psychological approaches to morality.
This video was created for Professor Anderson's Fall 2020 Existentialism course at Pomona College (before she got a bit fancier with the recording setup!).
For more from Ellie, check out Overthink podcast!
Overthinkpodcast.com
Some of the best philosophical content ive come across on y.t. Many thanks and looking forward to more videos. 😁
Ellie, thank you for creating these videos! They have become a part of my routine after work, very reassuring. Love the work!
How much of Nieztche's seemingly strong expressions are merely German culture? I am of German descent and English descent, and also have read a lot of Martin Luther. German is a lot more direct and "in your face" than English culture. Might this be why English speakers tend to interpret Nieztche as forceful or passionate when it is really the style of the cultural difference of the reader?
Interesting, very interesting…
Its not cultural difference in the first place, its certainly not merely about German culture, its about Nietzsche himself. He is the big one, not German culture or some other abstraction
@@babelbabel2298 man that sentence structure did not make sense whatsoever. I want to understand your position,
When we take for granted that values are “good” we soon forget that we are using a value to evaluate values. 📚
The good is" the greatest happiness of the greatest number". Democracy is better than fascism. Love is better than hate. Jesus was better than Hitler (and Nietzeche). "It is stranger than we can think" so "Just be kind". (Bentham, Mill, JBS Haldane, Kurt Vonnegut ).en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
You’re the best. Thank you for this video. Very helpful.
I love your lectures
Such a great point about condemnation, I've surely made that mistake myself.
Waiting for the second part of the Genealogy. Above all that part in which Nietzsche cites the third book of Spinoza's Ethics.
Why am I interested in this part? Because I want to understand, with your help, how Nietzsche dialogues with Spinoza. I also want to relate what I have learned to the following:
At the end of the fourth book of the Ethics, Spinoza recommends to Homo Liber the importance of not accepting, as far as possible, the favors offered by the ignorant (slaves, according to the Genealogy, in my opinion), in such a way that the former is not forced to have to reciprocate or respond to them with a similar gesture, which implies an equal or greater affection immanent in it, that forces the Homo Liber to reproduce the slave morality. How does Nietzsche understand the possibility or impossibility of (not) being part of the Slave Morality? Is it only by isolating/hiding man of great health from the sick? Are the psychologists the new Priests, who keep the sick impotent so that men of great health can continue to relate to each other without hindrance? Is psychology a path towards the generation of Adequate Ideas (In Spinozean) or, on the contrary, creative machinery of mutilated and, therefore, Inadequate Ideas? Can we know if Nietzsche had the former in mind when he presented a genealogical method?
Anyway. It is a great pleasure and privilege to be able to learn with the content exposed here. Greetings to all and, please, excuse my English.
Interesting dichotomies possibles.
Awesome 😇
Ive been interested in Nietzsches thought my whole life. First read him as a teen ager.. and Im heading to retiremwnt age now. This is by far the clearest, best contextualized, discussion of Genealogy of Morals I've ever encountered. Just fantastic. Thank you.
recently read an essay on N's "muse" Lou Andreas-Salome and the contretemps with Rilke
brilliant. what about a more detailed look at the seperate essays of the genealogy?
I can't see a video 2 for this one.. Has it been removed? Helpppp
Nietzche's genealogical analysis and game theory.
Is there a link?
Amazing... an ardent knowledge seeker such as me who is still just too lazy and unfocused to read heavily really needs a great teacher such as you to guide me to the key concepts of major philosophical thoughts. You are my synthesis guide and Martin Butler is my nihilist guide, both of u are superb!
Why do all her videos sound like it's been cut off suddenly? Where is the full version?
Will there be more upcoming material on Nietzsche's GM?
None planned for now, but we'll keep in mind that you're interested!
Yes, more Nietzche please.
im also interested
Would you please publish your full course on existentialism?
If he were writing today, he would have called it the "Evolution" of morals. I found his analysis to be very straightforward and scientific way. And after all, this is one of the few works he wrote while sane.
I read this book ! This book isn’t just a book used as a story . When you read his book and read others philosophy, you’ll find his sense on text from the book . Morality has value from what basis you grow , an example if you grow as a christian morality of your life is bases on moral of the scripture seeing the basis good! But if you grow without elementary school, your morality is developing from morality of what you see and live day by day experience.. bad is value in common for those people who believe themselves as good. But they don’t know what is evil !
A philosophical polemic. Just read parts one and two in Diethe’s trans. Although the connections are sometimes less than clear to me, taken as a whole, his situating the causes of the nihilism of the day as the legacy of the Judeo-Christian moral tradition was coherent and persuasive-not to mention how engaging it is to read!
can u please start online coures? with David?
low cost for latinoamericanos? pls?
love u and thanks so much
What do you mean GM is written in aphorisms? The structure consists of three unified essays, I get your point but I wouldn’t go so far as to call each section of the essays an aphorism
Thanks for your comment! This is how Nietzsche scholar Keith Ansell-Pearson puts it in his preface to the Cambridge edition of On the Genealogy of Morals:
"most of what are called Nietzsche’s ‘aphorisms’ are more substantial paragraphs which exhibit a unified train of thought (frequently encapsulated
in a paragraph heading indicating the subject matter), and it is from these building blocks that the other, larger structures are built in more or less extended sequences. Nietzsche’s style, then, is very different from standard academic writing, from that of the ‘philosophical workers’ he
describes so condescendingly in Beyond Good and Evil (BGE, 211). His aim is always to energize and enliven philosophical style through an
admixture of aphoristic and, broadly speaking, ‘literary’ forms."
Question, if you would. In Genealogy of Morals, regarding the Christians having that ah-ha moment in which they realize that the good guys, i.e., the strong, such as guys like Achilles, are actually evil: Did such happen due to a grammatical structure in their language in which this structure made it possible (or more likely) to have had that ah-ha moment? That is, did this ah-ha moment stem from a grammatical accident? Meaning if they had not spoken such a particular language 2000 years ago or so then they might not ever have had this ah-ha moment?
In spanish the term is "aristocrat morality", but I'd rather employ the term "Noble morality" instead, as Prof. Ellie states in this lecture.
También lo estoy leyendo en español. ¿Qué edición lees? La que tengo a mi alcance es una bosta, pero es lo que hay jajaja
Could we say that "aristocrat morality" is a class interpretation of morality whereas "noble morality" is a universal interpretation of a higher morality which we are all capable of expressing in thought and action.🌱
💎💎
Hello from Spain. If you are interested in a interpretation of Nietzsche's theory of presocratic philosophy is very recomendable to view the videos of Quintín Racionero on youtube about that , if you undertand spanish of course. I'm Universuty degree in Philosophy many year's ago and Quintín Racionero was the best teacher I has have. He was profesor of philosophy in the University of Madrid many years ago. His interpretation of Nietzsxhe or Hiedegger and their view of fist presocratic philosophy is one of the best things that you could learn about the fist steps of philosophy. All the philosophy that cames after that depends of this time, from Platon through Hegel to Hiedegger.
So where's part two🤷
The judgement of good versus evil is ultimately based on empathy, on vicariously experiencing the thing to be judged, it is the golden rule!! If you burned your hand on a fire before you would know that it isn’t a pleasant experience and would keep someone you love from doing the same thing, you would judge placing your hand on the fire as a bad thing!!
Have you ever read Dr Carey’s The God-Man?
I adore u
Describing history as genealogy is Nietzsche's dependence on the Old Testament; the Lutheran minister's son.
So good
So delicious
So enlightening
The world of thinking and thoughts.
Why Not?
N'ayez pas peur. Les fantasmes sont toujours un déguisement.
I think Nietzsche will never be understood . Not that he is “above” others rather he is writing out of a psychosis that challenges everything the human language understands.
Here in genealogy l feel he is trying to philosophically jump on the Darwinian bandwagon . ( the very collective thing he resists in favour of his individuality)
Thanks
Curious how someone can read Antichrist or any of his work for that matter and find themselves a Christian Nietzschean
Which translation did you read, or were you able to read the original German?
I know a couple, they are in a state of cognitive dissonance and cope so much.
nieeetzschah :D
Feeling a bit jealous of your students who got to see the following videos. 😊
Often arguments are based on other arguments which are themselves based on others, that would be arguing from premises already far removed from the basic root of the idea in question?? Judging morality one simply needs to consider the root origin of the idea of good and bad itself?? Some say sex is evil. Well that comes from the idea of sin which results in ultimate evil of Hell, all in between is a divergence from the judgement from empathy that if you end up in Hell that would hurt big time!!I wouldn’t want to hurt so I don’t want that for you!! Arguing from arguments derived from previous arguments is diverging far from the root of the problem!!
So you are saying that the "English Psychologists" are Utilitarians?
Bad conscience?
Nietzsche gets too much attention. He was a charlatan, an impish jester. I think the first criterion for judging a modern philosopher is: ARE THEY A NOMINALIST?
For example, you cannot get "beyond good and evil" if good and evil are not just names, but rather are created immaterial things, types in themselves. You cannot delete immaterial archetypes like 'table', (although you may as an autocrat and ban 'table' being used). You can only believe that 'good and bad values' are determined by us, if they do not exist beyond or prior to ourselves- if we created them. In the same way, Nietzsche said, God is dead because we killed him. We could only kill God, if 'God' was and is merely our construct, via our thinking and belief.
Nietzsche called into question Christian and Ancient values and morality by saying we have been trapped in a way of thinking, inferring that 'good' and 'bad' are and were created by us, by our thinking. This contrasts with Christian/Platonic realist belief, and this is why Nietzsche rejects it.
Nietzsche was a nominalist, atheist, idealist. He was very heady. It was all in the mind for Nietzsche, and this is probably why he got lost in it. He went down a rabbit hole. In reality, it is not all in the mind. In reality, there is an intelligence outside of the human mind.
This entre screed about Nietzsche supposedly taking his assumptions for granted... ironically is taking that for granted. You pose the question and immediately go on to assume that he is.