This podcast is brought to you and made possible by generous financial aid from Peter kanzler K. Ay n z l-- e-- r-- you can buy his Amazon books at your favorite Amazon Branch, for example, the original texts of lock Hobbs and the US Constitution of Pennsylvania put together into one book for only $15. Thanks for listening. So I'm going to read something that the teacher wrote. In the first part of Beyond Good and Evil, which is a section called the prejudices of philosophers. and it's a really good example of the density of this book one of the ways of conceptualizing Beyond Good and Evil and I think this is true for most great works of it's true. Most great works is that the author of the work collects unconsciously collects patterns from his or her interaction with the world. And then gives them initial formulation. and the patterns can be deep and multi-level and the initial formulation translates them into not so much ideas as into the seeds of future ideas. And the more poetically author happens to be the more the case that his or her ratings contain within it the seeds of future ideas. And where the Romantic philosophers are authors and I think nee-chan. Dostoyevsky are in some sense foremost among them are particularly. notable further ability to do exactly that now in this particular paragraph this particular paragraph not only serves as an example of that but it also serves as a self conscious reflection on that because Nietzsche is writing a paragraph here that is full of the seeds of of ideas that will actually Bloom and flour to a great degree in the 20th century, but well, he symbol taneous Lee revealing these those ideas. He's also telling you exactly how he's doing it and how it is. The Philosopher's do it. So it's a it's a spectacular accomplishment. I'm going to read it probably phrase by phrase and then take it apart because it's so dense and Beyond Good and Evil is like that it's neat you when Nature is already Beyond Good and Evil. He wasn't very well. And because of that he had to spend a lot of time thinking and not very much time writing and because he was also brilliant Beyond Comprehension his ability to distill what he was thinking into incredibly Rich phrases. It's I think it's some sense. It's beyond parallel mean often if I'm reading a book if it has any utility at all market. Usually I fold over the top of the page or sometimes put a yellow sticky. Want to do if I find a place where there's an idea that's worth returning to that. That's it's particularly worth understanding and you can't do that with a book like Beyond Good and Evil because what happens up happening is you have to mark every sentence and obviously marking. Every sentence isn't any better than not marking any sentences at all. So I guess I also might as well tell you why it is worth bothering with a book like this at all because it's a very difficult book and it it's also the sort of book that will rattle you up. So neat you is very interested in the problem of value. And the problem of value fundamentally is not the problem of what is the world made of or even how does the world function which are more In some sense more specifically scientific questions, but how is it that you should conduct yourself in the world how should you act and people act towards AIMS in a sense because we're active creatures and we're moving from one point to another were moving towards things that we want and that means that we're Guided by our desires and we're not only Guided by desires insofar as we have individual desires were guided. I like the structure that consists of how those desires are related to one another. So for example, if you have a room full of people. Say a room full of children. They're active and they're each pursuing their individual desires. But at some point they may choose to organize themselves into a game and if they organized themselves into a game what they're doing for all intents and purposes is producing a little Society little micro Society within that MicroSociety. They're deciding what desires will be currently expressed and how they'll exist in relationship to one another and that means that they can cooperate without too much conflict and that Can jointly move towards a joint aim. without and and and gather all the benefits that might be associated with that and that might be the accomplishment of the aim whatever it is, but it also might be just the enjoyment that's to be had in the pursuit of that activity. Now people do that. socially because we have to do that in order to get along with other people because our desires have to be melded with those of other people but we also do in psychologically and those two things exist in a dance because as I'm interacting with other people The demands of the fact that we're interacting make require each of us to arrange our desires in a way that's acceptable to everyone else. But at the same time while we're doing that, we're also observing the process by which those desires are ordered and then we internalize that process and use that to order our own desires and this so there's a constant mutually informative dance between the individual and the group and the culmination of that is the organization of society and the Civil taneous organization of the psyche and it's that process that Nietzsche is talking about in these paragraphs. Now you might ask yourself. Well, what's the utility of articulating such things and conceptualizing them and understanding them and the answer in some ways is straightforward. If you don't want to run a foul of your own desires, you have to organize them. Because some of them are short term and some of them are medium term and some of them are long-term and some of the mainman this and some of the main meant that it isn't necessarily the case that those desires allow for Mutual fulfillment. So for example, maybe you're very interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with someone but you're also very interested in having a family and some stability in your life, or maybe you're interested in pursuing a sexual relationship with a whole sequence of people, but you're also interested in having Family and stabilizing your life. It's not obvious that those desires can exist in the same universe without producing what you might think about as war and some of that might be a psychological War but some of it's also going to be a war that actually occurs in the existence. Well, you're fighting through the contradictory consequences of wanting to pursue many people at 4 million a stable relationship with one person. Now part of the reason that you want to think about these sorts of things is because if you think about them and get your thoughts. And your value system. Intelligently and coherently and cogently laid out. Then when you act out that value system the world you're going to run into less conflict and less uncertainty and less misery and you're going to have a higher probability of getting what it is that you want. But you're also going to have a higher probability of getting what you want in a way that allows you to cooperate with other people without entering into too much conflict with them. And so in some sense the purpose that you think the reason that you think are the purpose of thinking is so that you can sort out how you're going to move forward in the world without having to directly run headlong into all the obstacles that you might run into if you were doing such a thing blindly. And so then you might ask yourself. Why would you bother reading philosophy or if the philosophy written by someone who's great and the answer that is that they can help you think these things through in a manner that you would not be capable of doing on your own, you know, because need shh, I mean it's difficult to estimate how intelligent Nietzsche was but I suspect he was perhaps one in a billion which would put him far beyond the 99.999% I'll and There's a massive difference between the ability of people to think as you move farther and farther out into the extremes of intelligence. And when you have the writings of someone who's one in a billion, then you can interact with those writings in the way that enables you if you put the time into benefit from the spectacular fact of that intelligence Nietzsche was a full Professor by the time he was 24 at the time and now he didn't even have to write his dissertation. They just made him a full professor at a time where that was that never happened. So this is what he has to say in the prejudices of philosophers that just the first chapter of the book Beyond Good and Evil. It is gradually become clear to me. What every great philosophy up till now has consisted of namely the confession of its originator and the species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography. Well, that's deceptive. That's a deceptively simple sentence even though it's not a particularly simple sentence because it stands on its head what people generally assume about the process of thinking. You generally think that when you're thinking you're thinking about as I mentioned before the structure of the object of world Nietzsche is is making an entirely different point here and what he's fundamentally doing is treating the philosopher not as a rational being but as a living being and there's a big difference between being a rational being and being a living being because if you're a living being your primary goal is to do whatever it is that furthers your life. And if you're a rational being then your primary goal is to do whatever it is that A rational being might do and you could say that a living being should first and foremost be a rational being and in some sense. That's the message of the of the western Enlightenment, but it's by no means self evident that that's the case and it's certainly not something that Nietzsche need. She doesn't believe that people are rational beings as certainly not primarily and more importantly. He isn't exactly convinced that they should be so so for example, one of Nature's most famous Maxim's is that Truth serves life and that's a very difficult different idea than the purpose of Truth. Say is the accurate representation of the objective World. Those aren't the same thing at all. Now you can ask. Well, what does it mean for truth to serve life? And if you construe truth that way what would truth look like and you know the mere statement that truth should serve life doesn't offer you the answers to those questions, but But it's the beginning of a different metaphysics and in some sense of metaphysics, which is say the universe within which a philosopher might offer eight. A metaphysics is the initial structure of presuppositions within which view of the world is organized. one presupposition might be human beings are rational and that were attempting to Formulate and improve our sense of the objective World our formulation of the objective world and another would be that he would beings aren't rational or irrational and that were what were motivated to do is to live whatever that means and that the purpose of our thinking and our philosophy should be to facilitate our living and that's Nietzsche's that's one of the foundation. blocks of Nietzsche's philosophy, so he's a moral philosopher fundamentally because morality is about values and values essentially values are You could say values are what you aim for but it's more complicated than that values actually constitute the lens through which you view the world. So it's partly what you're aiming at but it's also partly your conception of who you are now and where you are and it's also partly your conception of how you're going to get to where it is that you want to be and it's also partly the Psychological system that you use to parse up the world so that it reveals to you the pathway that you can take to get to what you want value is all of that and then it's more than that because you could say that you have a value. Which contains all of that, but then you can say that you have a set of values which is the arrangement of all of that and then you could say that you have a set of values. That's the range bit of all that that you have to arrange with other people and then you could say that you have all that and you have to arrange it with other people and you have to arrange it across different spans of time because what you want today and what you want next week and what you want next month are not necessarily the same thing and one does not necessarily lead into the other. So to be a moral philosophers to How that what that system is and how it operates and how it came about. Now. One of the things that need you says is it is gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of namely the confession of its originator and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography. So his claim fundamentally is that no matter what the philosopher thinks he's doing. Well, he's reading philosophy what he's actually doing is revealing and articulating his being And then you might say well where did that being come from? And the answer to that is well partly. It's you could consider it a biological function in so far as that, we have value structures that are built into us that are the process. We would say the process of a very long evolutionary history, but because you're also a cultural phenomena and because the manner in which you've arranged your values and your desires has been conditioned to the last degree by the process of enculturation. that you were subjected to when you confess in an autobiographical Manner and articulate that what you're also doing is we capitulating the entire structure of your culture. It's in you and you might say well, where is it in you and that and what does in you mean part of it means is that you act out a pattern of behavior and that pattern of behavior is like a dance that someone is manifesting to a symphonic score. It's unbelievably complicated and it has its psychological. And some of those are conscious and some of them aren't some of them are just implicit and embedded in the way you act and the way you perceive and what the philosopher is attempting to do is to reveal those to himself and to articulate them so that the entire structure can be analyzed. Also Nietzsche's first proposition is that when philosopher is thinking that what he's doing is not thinking it's revealing himself in an autobiographical sense under the guise of rational thinking and so then it becomes something more like a story. three and Well, and he covers all about in the first. Two phrases so that gives you some example some indication of what this book is like. a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography Well, that's a more complicated idea to because you might say well, why would someone be driven in a number of involuntary way and an unconscious way to describe their autobiography and that's a very complicated question. It might be that one of the reasons that people value one. Another is because we Engage in the process of sharing deeply autobiographical information. You tell me your story and I tell you my story and you might say well, why do we even bother with such things in the answer to that as well? If you can tell me about the pain and tragedy that you've encountered then that gives me a better way of that gives me a better vision of the dangers of the world without actually having to expose myself to those dangers except in simulation. I might feel sorry for you. I might feel bad about your tragic. Riches, but I'm not bleeding for them. And then there's always the possibility that you'll also tell me how you solved your problem. In which case I can either avoid that problem entirely or if I do encounter. I can solve it without having to go through maybe it took you decades to formulate Your solution to that problem and you can tell me your story and then I have the information and so that's part of what human beings are always trading. That's why we talk to each other. That's why we can communicate and so Nietzsche would say well it's involuntary unconscious. Terry and unconscious, he's alluding to the fact that that proclivity is so deeply embedded in people that desire to to make an autobiographical recounting that It serves as the kind of motivation that we don't question for doing almost everything that we do so, you know, I mean people do such things as a 10 movies and plays and they usually do that happily, especially if the movie or the play is of high quality and the same thing happens when people are reading novels. They're attracted to such things. They have a built-in value and it's very rarely the case that people will ever question why it is that they're doing such things. In fact, you see this quite commonly with students who are first introduced to the study of literature the the introduction of the idea that you should Analyze what it is that you're engaged in when you're reading actually comes as unwelcome news to most people who are inclined towards fiction because they don't want to interfere with the process of Engagement, you know, automatic unconscious engagement with the material by detaching themselves at having to think about what they're doing. So that's why it's a nun involuntary an unconscious. It's it's it's one of the things within which thought operates rather than one of the things on which thought operates Then he says the moral or immoral purpose in which every philosophy has constituted. Sorry the moral or immoral purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Well, that's a hell of a thing to say to because what each is alluding to there in some sense is that The philosopher can't help and that would be in some sense. Also the person who's recounting their autobiography can't help but tell you what, they're up to even though they might not know and this is something that you own because you know was a Carl you'll know the site a psychoanalyst was a great student of Nietzsche and you own came to Believe that we all inhabited Stories the stories were the stories. We inhabit a garage Lee the structures of value within which we live and that those stories essentially have an ethic or a moral and then you can start thinking about what the ethics and the morals might be and you kind of have some sense of that because there's there's comedic stories and tragic stories and there's evil characters and good characters and so forth. Those are architect characters, but part of the point that Nietzsche's attempting to make here is that the philosopher is in fact, Aiming at something with his life with all of his actions. He might not even know what it is, but partly what he's doing in his attempt to philosophize is to articulate that in reveal it to himself and other people so then the question becomes well, what is it that the person is up to and I would say in some sense. That's the ultimate question. So meet you here in this paragraph. It is also dealing with the with the ultimate question in life, which might be well to what is your life aimed and you might say well it's not aimed at anything. It's I don't know. I don't seem to have any coherent set of beliefs. I don't know what I believe. I don't believe in anything even but that's not the case because if you didn't believe in anything you couldn't see You have to believe in something to be able to see because you point your eyes and things and you can't organize your vision without having a name. And so the very Act of interacting with the world presupposes an ethic and then all those micro ethics that you contained within you are organized into some sort of structure either badly or well and that structure roughly has a name and you might know it and you might not but that doesn't mean it isn't there. So, so another thing that needs he is alluding to is that you believe things. Whether or not you think you believe them in fact believing them and knowing you believe them aren't even the same thing. And so that people believe all sorts of things that they don't know about and that partly what they're doing when they're doing philosophy is to try to figure out what those things are. You know when you can also ask yourself. Well, where did they come from? Well, they partly came from you, but you you're an old thing. Your physical form is three and a half billion years old and you're the process of all that all the death and struggling that went along the entire course of that three and a half billion years is you carry that with you and then on top of that inside you is the consequence of the entire cultural history of complex life. That's all inside you too. And then on top of that some of that's articulated more or less some of its acted out dramatized. And infection and that sort of thing and then some of its articulated but there's way more at the bottom than is fully articulate. And so God only knows what you're up to and then you might say well who cares? Well, the problem with that is that you care because first of all, that's the definition of caring and second of all that determines the way that you'll move through your life and everything that happens to you that's good or evil or good or bad is going to be a consequence of the station of that ethic in the world So now Nietzsche's saying something else do what he says the moral or immoral purpose in whichever in the moral or immoral purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. He's saying that the philosopher can't help but reveal his a team in his writings and then he's saying something else which is that Ian might be malevolent. And you know modern people aren't very comfortable with ideas like malevolence because malevolence is an idea that's related to evil and modern people think of themselves as Beyond Good and Evil to some degree. They don't believe in the reality of those Concepts. And of course in this book teaches also questioning are at least already Prairie presuppositions about what good and evil are but that doesn't mean that he doesn't believe that they don't exist. That doesn't mean that he doesn't believe that they don't exist. Yes, I guess that's I guess that's right. You know, this is one of the things I thought about when I was thinking about when I thought about how Hitler died now Hitler died. Hitler committed suicide in a bunker underneath Berlin when Europe was in flames and so one conclusion that a psycho analytically minded historian could derive from that is that's what he wanted. right and then that opens up an entire vast nest of snakes because one of the things that you might ask is well, how is it that someone would desire the first of all could that even be desired is that actually something that anyone could even desire Then you might ask. Well, why is it that someone would desire that and then the next thing you might ask is if a human being could desire that and hit there was a human being then exactly. What does that say about you? And you might say well I could never desire such a thing but following along the train of the argument that we've been laying out just like what makes you think you're a reliable judge of what it is that you're up to. So, okay. So now we've unpacked three sentences and we'll continue on with the same paragraph. indeed to understand how the most abstract metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at it is always well and wise to first ask oneself. What morality do they or does he aim at so what the question is? What's the person up to? well There's an entire nest of snakes underneath that sentence that's sequence of propositions as well. And one of them is well, what does it mean that people are up to something? What does it mean that they're aiming at something? Accordingly I do not believe that an Impulse to knowledge is the father of philosophy, but that another impulse here as elsewhere has only made use of knowledge and mistaken knowledge as an instrument. But whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they have here acted as inspiring now. This is why this is going to require editing you would so complicated to go through. Accordingly I do not believe that an Impulse to knowledge is the father of philosophy. But that another impulse here is elsewhere has only made use of knowledge and mistaken knowledge as an instrument. All right. So let's take that apart accordingly. I do not believe that an Impulse to knowledge is the father of philosophy. So one of the claims I suppose this would be an Enlightenment claim is that people do have a drive to knowledge and that that drive is in fact what underlies the production of such things as philosophy? but need to questions that because he's trying to bring us back to consideration of the fact that you can't separate the Philosopher's mind from the Philosopher's being is first and foremost a living creature and the he's up to something and the question is what is it that he's up to and so you can see the earliest manifestations in a paragraph like this of what later developed into deconstructionist thought and that that was The French Continental philosophers who pursued that particular line of reasoning and it is derived exactly from this kind of statement by Nature. So for example, someone like Derrida would say It doesn't matter what the content of the text is. What matters is that the text can be used as tool for power and that whether the person who wrote the text knew it or not. That's what they were doing and they were doing it in the weight of privilege themselves above other people and that's really I would say the fundamental deconstructionist claim and it's a powerful claimants and utterly corrupt claim, but it's a really powerful claim and it's related directly to the sorts of things that need you was referring to in this paragraph. What is The person's truly up to now the problem with the deconstructionist claim is that it's an it's an open invitation to cynicism to thoughtless cynicism. I can just make the presupposition that whatever it is that you're telling me. You're you're telling me merely to dominate regardless of what it is that you claim to be do it. Well the problem with that approach is that It's predicated on the implicit assumption that the only value that people actually have is the value 2 is the desire to dominate and of course that's a purely like that could be the case. And I also think that it's even reasonable to posit that to some degree that it is the case but to take that from a contributing factor and to make that the highest God because that's essentially what the deconstruction is. They're doing those are entirely different things and you have to beware of people. take a single causal element and elevated to the stature of single comprehensive cause you know, it's more reasonable to assume that people are complex in their motivations and that many different strands of biological and cultural motivation are in some sense primary. And then what happens is that they come together to we the kind of tapestry rather than to make the automatic assumption that you can reduce the entire set of human motivations to a single principle like that of power. Now, you know, I would say neech is also responsible to some degree for the She was claimed that its power because one of his most famous utterances was that the fundamental motivating force in life is the will to power but he wasn't so much because nature is a subtle thinker. He wasn't so much attempting to reduce human motivation to power. He was attempting to redefine what it was that we conceptualized as power. Whereas that isn't what the deconstructionist certainly get all because fundamentally their marxists and they leave that, you know, they've ensconced themselves within an economic Viewpoint where within a philosophical Viewpoint where economics is Paramount and we're all that matters is power construed as socio economic domination fundamental, you know, and that's in turn is embedded in metaphysics that's even deeper which is a metaphysics that presumes that people are fundamentally materialist and all of those things are quick, you know, all of those things are questionable So I'm going to skip ahead a little bit of the paragraph. when Nature talks about the motivations of you might consider them. People who are working in the middle ranks of bureaucracies, whether their scientific or otherwise, so they're in some sense acting as cogs in a particular machine. And so that's what he's describing here and says, In the case of Scholars or in the case of really scientific men. It may be there may really be such a thing as an Impulse to knowledge some kind of small independent Clockwork which when well wound up Works away industriously to that end without the rest of the scholarly impulses taking any material part there in the actual interests of the scholar. Therefore are generally in quite another Direction. It is the family or in money-making or in politics. It is in fact almost indifferent at what point of research This little machine is place and whether the hopeful young worker becomes a good philologist. Someone who studied the origin of words a mushroom Specialist or a chemist. He's not characterized becoming this by this. He's not characterized by becoming this or that Nietzsche's point they're fundamentally. Is that even when you do analyze people who in whom? The will to knowledge might actually be offered even though he would be willing to granted the status of highest motivating power that even in those people where that Wilton always does exist. The probability that that is in turn subordinated to some other principle that's higher in the value hierarchy is very very high and it's hard to tell exactly what that additional principle might be. But he points out such things as well. Maybe they're primarily interested in serving the interests of their family. Or they're probably only interested in making money or maybe they're primarily interested in status and maybe they're interested in status status becomes it because it makes them more sexually attractive and that sort of thing. So, but the The question of what is it? That's lurking in the background is always Paramount. So another detour in this particular paragraph Whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as inspiring Gene. I Or as demons will find that they have all practiced philosophy at one time or another and that each of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate Lord over all of the other impulses. That's a another like Beyond Good and Evil to think of it as a book is a really foolish. Framework because this is what a book. Is when people think about a book no, it's like a material entities. It's 8 inches high and 6 inches wide and 2 inches thick and weighs a pound and it's made out of paper and it's between two two covers, you know, and that's a materialist. That's the a priori sort of axiomatic view of a book Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil isn't a book at all. It's a series of bombs. And each sentence is a ball and each sentence blows things up that people don't even know exist. And so one of the things that this sentence for example, here's how he's conceptualizing you and being so the first thing he talks about is that the fuck there are fundamental impulses of human beings. Okay, so that thing's a questions. Well, what do you mean by impulse? And what do you mean by fundamental? And both of those are extraordinary complicated problems. So an Impulse you can think of an Impulse. Is it drive you could think about it as biological Instinct. You could think about it as a name or a goal you could think about it as an act of will like there's there's endless. Questions that hang off that question, but we can start with the idea that we perhaps can't Define it, but we are willing to go with the proposition that people do have impulses and I think maybe that's manifest to you more most particularly when you're attempting to do something voluntarily and something involuntarily interferes with that, you know, so maybe you're sitting down too. To try to get some work done in the work is not of any particular intrinsic interest, but you regarded as necessary, you know necessary element in some higher order scheme. And so you're attempting to organize yourself. So you will in fact concentrate on that particular relatively mundane activity, but what you find when you sit down to actually engage in that is you can't do it. You have to go do the dishes or you have to clean under the bed or you have to have a sexual fantasy or you or there's some other Anything that you could do this useful, but that you would normally do that. You'll go do instead or that you fall asleep or that you get hungry or like there's an endless number. Let's call them impulses that might arise to interfere with your conscious movement forward. Well exactly. What are those things? While nature certainly conceptualizes the human being as a place where those things live. And he does be lived to because it wouldn't refer to them as deep demons or or Genies without introducing the metaphorical conception of something that lives and so partly what needs to reveals in those senses is that he conceptualized as a human being as the dwelling place of spirits. And some of them are Genie. Let's say that's the root word of genius. That's the terribly powerful thing that exists in the terribly small compartment right that you have to call forth and some of them are demons and demons are things that have their own autonomous will and the generally aren't aiming for the good So then so those are all things need she just lays out as implicit parts of the sentence. So we activates all those ideas whether you know it or not in your mind to the degree that you process the sentence and those things start to take on life of a row of their own those ideas. so then he adds another dimension of complexity did that by saying? Well, you're full of demons and and geez and they're all doing their own thing. Whatever that happens to be. But each of them if left to their own devices would attempt to remake the entire world in there. form and so I thought of this. from from a narrative point of view or from a symbolic point of view in Old stories and folk tales and fairy tales you often have cyclops one-eyed Giants and there's a sexual connotation to that. Which is which is our proposed that the psychoanalysts would would certainly point out. But the one I idea is that this thing is gigantic and wants one thing and so that's another way that Nietzsche is conceptualizing the fundamental. Structure of the human psyche. It's a Dwelling Place full of One-Eyed Giants and they're constantly while one thing one way of looking at is they're constantly at War one of them wants to be the largest one-eyed Giant and dominate everything else then one of the things that so need to take that argument further and he says not only is this always happening in human beings, but that if you look at philosophy what it is is it's a continual revelation of the attempt of some singular. minded psychic monster psychological monster to dominate the entire psychological structure than her for the entire cultural structure and therefore the entire world and then you can you can see in that the entire religious structure struggle of mankind to take this vast polytheistic vision of reality and to organize it into some sort of monotheistic and integrated structure, which Which you could also consider indistinguishable from the civilizing the impulse that operates in human beings to become civilized because on the one hand it might be a terrible thing that one one-eyed monster emerges to attempt to dominate all the others, but then on the other hand, there's no difference between that organizing something because to organize something is to bring it all into a hierarchical structure with some sort of singular value at the for. From and then the question might be what what should that singular value B and then Nietzsche would baptize of the whole argument back into the first census that he wrote at the beginning of the paragraph which is well. What is it that the Philosopher's up to? What is the force that he's serving? What is the unifying impulse? That's another way of looking at it if there's a unifying impulse and he's not only Fallen prey to some internal demon if there's a unifying impulse to bring all of this together into some sort of functional structure what exactly might that look like For every impulse is imperious and as such attempts to philosophize that's part of that sort of Nietzsche's idea of Will To Power in its nascent form all of these. Unconscious entities that inhabit the human psyche are all alive and they're trying to live they're trying to they're trying to climb up the dominance hierarchy and dominate because of course, that's partly what life does because let's say from an evolutionary perspective. And this is probably more true for males because they're less. effective in their attempts to replicate the distinction between climbing up a dominance hierarchy, whatever that might happen to be and success is there may be no distinction at all. And then you might say well that just shows that there's nothing but will to power but that still doesn't answer one of the most fundamental questions is that Power in relationship to what because that's the question. Okay, so you can shut that off. This podcast is brought to you and made possible by generous financial aid from Peter kanzler k --a n z l-- e-- r-- you can buy his Amazon books at your favorite Amazon Branch, for example, the original texts of lock Hobbs and the US Constitution of Here put together into one book for only $15. Thanks for listening.
Jordan B Peterson 45 minutes on a single paragraph of Nietzsche's Beyond Good & Evil - Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast TMJBP 🐸 MAPS OF MEANING PODCAST JORDAN B PETERSON PODCAST Jordan B Peterson is light on the horizon. He wants his message to be heard. The TOO MUCH JORDAN B PETERSON PODCAST uploads all of his (especially older) YouTube Content to make it available immediately to download or listen to without being "glued to a screen". We try to put the media back into immediate. https://www.bit.ly/JBPQUOTES Here's your chance to help the publishing endeavour sustain itself: Support the Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast that provides video free content for you by starting an own website with Siteground which is the Number One in Price and Speed: http://bit.ly/SITEGROUNDSALE or by getting a book by SC: http://bit.ly/SCHRIST If you really want to help out, get your free Audiobook via http://bit.ly/AUDIBLESALES (BTW: 1 Free audiobook for every country account!) Support the Too Much Jordan B Peterson Podcast that provides old good content for you by getting some #Bitcoin via Coinbase: https://www.bit.ly/COINBASESALE Or simply donate to or search for: 3AqWZuAE4VKRdS2k4v1zmAwn9pNkGY4rkd The Leviathan (1651), The Two Treatises of Government (1689), The Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776) in one Binding for 15.95$ by Peter Kanzler: https://amzn.to/2KQT8U1 