There can be little doubt i think that
the two 19th century philosophers have
had the widest influence outside
philosophy are marx and nietzsche in
continental Europe especially the
influence of nature on philosophers
since his there has been predictors but
he's also influenced creative writers
including some of the most eminent in
the English language for instance but
Shaw WB Yeats and D H Lawrence the
quality of his own pros is simply
dazzling and this second nobody is
Friedrich Nietzsche was born in saxony
in 1844 he had an academic career of
extraordinary brilliance is a classic
scholar and became a full professor in
his mid-twenties and almost unheard of
thing but then he threw over his
university career went into isolation
and became a philosopher the 16 years he
poured out his writings mostly either
short books or ebooks the best days and
aphorisms some of the best-known titles
are the birth of tragedy human all too
human
the gay science beyond good and evil and
most famous of all thus spoke
zarathustra at first he was deeply
influenced by the ideas of Schopenhauer
and partner but he rebelled against both
and went on to produce some notorious
antiviral polemics until the last four
years of his creative life he made no
attempt to build a system of any kind
but then he began to think of drawing
all his main themes together into one
single comprehensive work first to be
called the will to power then the
revaluation of all values but it was not
to be always plagued by ill health in
january $MONTH 1889 he collapsed into
mental illness or condition almost
certainly caused by tertiary syphilis
and he was helplessly in the same until
his death in 1900 with me to discuss his
work is JP stern professor of German in
the university of london the author of
one of the best known of the many books
on nature professor Stern i think one
can say that nature was the first
philosophy really to face up to Western
man
and loss of faith in religion loss of
belief in god or in the existence of any
world outside this one and if there's no
God and no transcendental world then all
values all truth rationality standards
of any kind are not given to them from
some agency outside himself but are
created buying presumably these their
needs we choose our that at least we
create our that now this is an
extraordinary disruptive and disturbing
thing to confront and meet your new that
can we start the story from there
yes I think that this is a perfectly
fair wheel starting in addition to what
you said about his life i think when i
mention that he was the son of the men's
that he himself had his father was a
minister of the lutheran church and
therefore his attack on Christianity is
not a neutral not it is interested not
specific thing at all but his violent
dramatic melodramatic in many ways it's
an attack on Christianity rather than on
Christ and i think the point that you
made that he envisages 19th century man
to have to stand on his own feet without
the support of faith or dogma of any
kind is centrally as a central kind of
starting point to his philosophy i think
we want to see him as somebody who does
not simply profess a flat kind of
atheism but who is personally intimately
involved in the denial of divine justice
and divine messy and all that but this
kitchen starting point did launch him
didn't it into a revaluation of all
value yes' to use the title of his book
and one thing he was saying was that in
a way we are basing our lives on false
premises because we adopt attitudes and
values and standards which when we
actually examine the premises of them we
reject the Tennessee yellow traditional
his reminisces what she believed in what
she tried to show
who was at the whole edifice both of
Christian very was and of idealism which
he saw derivative from those values was
false had to be thrown over and
something else to be put instead the
questions to want us to be putting
instead is not quite so simple but that
was the basic premise from which he
began and that i think makes for the
middle drop the extraordinary melodrama
of the person of the style of the whole
phenomenon of nature
now this revaluation of all values of
course a colossal task and I think it'll
make our discussion of it clear that if
we divide our consideration of it up a
little bit yes there are four main
traditions within Western civilization
to which nature addressed himself in
which he attacked the tradition of
Christian morality the tradition of
secular morality the hard values as he
called the ordinary morality of the mass
of mankind and some at least of the
traditions deriving from ancient
convention series a trifle properties
now let's have a look at each of those
four injures can use a little bit more
about his fundamental criticism of
Christian value but I think to see to
start with on the christian i think the
attack is a very simple 10 very
straightforward one or the positive
values of Christianity turning your road
you turning the other cheek loving your
neighbor as you love yourself having
compassion for those suffering all these
are ruled out of court
I'm not absolutely because as we shall
see later i think i want to make that
point very clearly Nietzsche is
constantly making special rules for
special people and she's very much
against the notion of generalizing
simply rules in money in the way in
which count had done in the categorical
imperative
so yes the first thing then is the
attack on non Christ but on christianity
as really furthering the underdog
furthering the person who killed stand
on his own feet and requires compassion
requires city requires illicitly
requires sympathy from the outside and
why was he against
compassion and against city why did he
despise those he's not against him he
does not despise them and they come from
the strong person
what he despises is the support of the
weak person from outside himself
whatever that sources the outside source
may be whether it's another person his
compassion or rules or regulations laws
or whatever and the reason to being
against this was one reason for being
against it was his fundamental appeal is
to authenticity to Salford to the LOV
diet to the life within the person live
to the full now what about his criticism
of secular morality and the great moral
philosophers like contouring here
thursday the utilitarian yourself that
wasn't Christian morality quite good
numbers against that to yell why I think
the main reason there is this that all
systems of secular moralities are based
on an abstraction from the individual
case they're based on energy you to a
generality for nature the word general
is the same as common and by common he
means common in the nasty sense of the
word and therefore innocence all rules
and regulations one might always go as
far as saying all laws are for him
matters for the common herd and no more
and now we're of course already on the
third point that you made the point
about the common herd here he's most
emphatically not a democratic
philosopher he's a philosopher of the
great and the noble people the header
Eric kind of philosophy and therefore
for him
the appeal of Democratic ideology is
very very low indeed he thought that the
the nobleman the great man the hero
should be a law unto himself and
shouldn't be hamstrung yeah precisely
Yeti yet whose regulation yes that's the
best phrase you can use a law unto
himself
yeah it's not the center to use but it's
very very precise what she meant
now what about the last of the four
traditions that i mentioned that of
ancient Greece he is
it's worth remembering in this context
that he did start out life as a classic
scholar yes is cleansing he knew
asian please and became deeply critical
that you have the whole tradition
deriving from Socrates yes but his
classic work and I think it's one of the
most remarkable works have a written on
the whole problem of tragedy is
concerned with pre-socratic greece with
piece of practice tragedy which for him
is a kind of golden age and the whole
thing
r goes flat at the point when Europe
ease and Stephanie's and and Socrates
come on the scene what happens there is
that strength and goodwill and warmth
and beauty are replaced by reason are
replaced by rationalizing things by the
Socratic rgrg he never forgave later so
to speak for bringing up a hero whose
main qualities are those of talking
everybody else into the ground now this
concern with the origins of culture
which he displayed in such a rich way we
have to say and with all bound up with
his notion that we remade that we make
our values because if we if human values
and human culture are made by us not
given to us by God or authority outside
ourselves from the whole question so we
get them where they come from becomes a
fundamental one here and it's also a
fundamental 19th century concern whole
concerned with origins
yes things of the origin of species down
is so on with nature influenced by
Darwin yes where he said there was
entered our Indian and I think the idea
is that he didn't really understand very
clearly want the whole theory of the
origin of the species came to like so
many 19th century figures he was always
going to study physiology going to study
chemistry going to study physics but
never got around to it so I don't think
that there's an awful lot of interesting
things to be said about his attitude to
that but i think the main point about
origins is that again like some
philosophers
like marks for instance he believes that
you can determine the quality of the
product by the nature and quality of the
origin this after all is very much what
r I didn't I suspect the tried but very
largely from nature
well he does isn't very ready to
acknowledge it now what that means is
really that the background the the
genealogy of morals for instance you
created one of the titles is in fact
indicative of the quality of models let
me say I don't believe this is too but I
mean that is very much the 19th century
of you over and over again that you can
determine the quality of a mental
product by the nature by the origin of
that is at the back of it
yes and we are knowing plant sometimes
they call that the genetic fallacy
that's right i don't want to go into
your settings very close yes no mention
of Floyd players another question that I
get to put to this program of
reevaluating values and seeing values or
something that we create to meet our
needs
let nature to a psychological analysis
of values in terms of the individual and
social medias didn't expect it becomes
an essentially psychological it is a way
of cycle cycle psychologizing a lot of
phenomenon this is perfectly correct and
indeed i think he was a very remarkable
psychologist in many ways and she puts
he does not produce a system either in
psychology or anything else and in that
sense he is different from fraud but
he's very very similar in fact much of
an antecedent to fraud because he places
a very great your emphasis upon the
unconscious there is a myth about to the
effect that fried invented the
unconscious nothing could be further
from the truth the unconscious has been
about since the end of the 18th century
and each is one of those who use the
term and put remember synthesis on it
but he does not have a layer theory of
the self the way that fri did as I say
he is very very much less systematic he
disgusts systems he thinks there's
something indecent
about trying to encapsulate a human
being a human psyche within a systematic
account
another aspect of that is is his notion
that but different modalities a
different are appropriate for different
PPS that she certainly had to manage
that wouldn't be true to say well in
fact you have said it is that he
distrusted rules see you thought they
have strongly strongly limited the
creative yes yes he does believe that
individual people are entitled to
individual things of behavior and to
individual bits of knowledge this is the
most astonishing thing and also i think
it was very prophetic kind of thing that
she believed that knowledge was not
absolute that you that the acquisition
the pursuit of knowledge was not to be
taking absolutely but that a given
civilization had its own particular
implement to the kind of knowledge that
you could bear to see the emphasis and
it could bear it
he didn't receive situations where
knowledge would destroy the NOAA our
knowledge of nuclear missiles has become
a lethal threat to asses and that is
something that needs you would raise
easily and very well have a yes and he
did in fact say so we have enough about
nuclear physics of course but in about
but knowledge generally you see we only
have really one other theory of
knowledge apart from our own our own is
that all knowledge is worth pursuing
regardless isn't yeah where the other
one is the Soviet idea which goes on
know in which simply creates a system by
which knowledge is socially useful and
then pursued and not pursued if it's not
socially used for niches view is
somewhat similar to this he does believe
that didn't civilizations destroyed in
cells and the basic the bone which all
this is directed is in fact we're coming
back now to Socrates subtracted in for
knowledge this this endless of this
driving force which pushes on up to this
point in our discussion we've talked
about nature's critical interpretation
this basic view that up to this point in
our history the models and values and
standards of Western yes have all been
historically based on belief in god or
gods who gave us these values gave us
these moral standards and so on would
judge us by our failure to live up to
them or successively answer them and so
now he comes along he says we've lost
believe in god we've lost belief in
religion that means we've lost belief in
the whole foundation of our value system
and if we're to have a valid value
system we've got to reevaluate it and
refund it from the bottom up and we've
not really talked to some of the various
critiques individual pratiques into
which this let him I now want us to move
on from this to the next stage of the
discussion incense it's the obvious
question too high what where his
positive values having as it were swept
everything away all the Lhasa scale
what does he know advocating that we put
in its place where the answer to that is
a very simple and very complicated on
both at the same time the simple answer
is B your self at the top of everything
that you are too took to the hilt live
your life fully live it adventurously
and all the other things which later on
come under the under the heading of in
all the dial that in the humans here I
mean that essentially the be thou
thyself is the major elements from it
she begins also the go-to with will
towards which ethics or or to the goal
towards which ethics ought to be
directed now you may ask because if
everybody is himself in himself alone
how is this to be done in a wider sphere
houses to be Daniel political system and
so on the answers to that question are
I'm afraid very unsatisfactory as far as
he's concerned as indeed his whole
attitude towards social questions never
does get very far
now I said also that this is very very
complicated precisely for this reason
because it makes
living together are living together in
some kind of harmony extremely difficult
if you add to this the view that laws
are after all there simply to make z
make things easy for the weak person you
can see there's not very much purchase
to be got out of that breather so it is
on the face of it a simple system but
basically i think that is a great deal
of difficulty facing anyone who's going
to put this forward in a sense I think
we can say that some of them all some of
the fascist our antics early of of the
early part of this century is based to
some extent among the intellectuals at
any rate on this you that you must
create your own values are but it hasn't
gotten very far as you can see this
notion that you must say as he would say
yes to life
yes a firm Lions be untraveled to the
top of your Bend uninhibited also led
him to the view that that of course this
is going to lead you into conflict with
other people but you must simply sweep
the massage you must sweep away the weak
and the unable to all those who as it
were getting your way
yes that of course is absolutely flat
head on in conflict with Christian yes
it has but then you see you only
mentioned one hopefully the other part
of it is you must also cold or it is
comfortable all that is currently or
that is less than adventures within your
self and if you've done that that is the
view that he puts forward inside mr. for
instance if you've done that you won't
really want to be so very aggressive
towards the others you will have some
understanding of their weaknesses though
the understanding of the positive but
torrent understanding of weaknesses is
not precisely nature's very strongly
that is based failure or yeah i mean and
people of course have always been
shocked by his say they thought that
what he was advocating this country to
model stand against oh yes that is . of
course was that that in fact model
standards thought to be derived life to
be subordinate to
yes that our nation's of truth
rationality and all the rest want to
derive from my fiancé's home from the
great man yet from the great man and by
the great man he meant as i already
mentioned it would be one Napoleon would
be another sometimes Luther sometimes
even some of the great blowjob boats
would figure is that and sometimes even
subsidies would because he had the
strength of mine to carry through his
own project
this supremacy of life associate
self-assertion is that even truth truth
itself be subjugated to get see if there
are truths which damages that in in
other words would manage our lives then
we don't want yes you see we're back
again at the question of the entitlement
to truth or of at what he once called
the hygiene of knowledge there ought to
be some kind of Hygiene that would tell
us what kind of knowledge we may face in
what kind of knowledge AR 0 we should
reject and you're quite right that truth
itself in that way is subjected to this
kind of embargo to this kind of this
kind of sanction that he puts forward
but she is absolutely how this is that
contrary to all morality is that it
actually existed would it be true to say
that nietzsche's defense if he came to
defend against criticism has been to say
something like this but look the whole
civilization humanity itself if you like
the Holy evolutionary process has
consisted of the strong eliminating the
week able eliminating the unable the
intelligent eliminating stupid and it's
only because these processes of garment
perpetually over millions of years that
we have any civilization at all that we
have any humanity at all these things
have create years value
yes I think that is precisely what she
says and I want you would say a number
of occasions different contexts and his
worry about the future is precisely that
this kind of thing will not go on that
the Democratic spirit the spirit of the
bed so the of the rubberman will take
over and will annihilate are all is
value but we'll put into reverse the
very process that has actually created
civilization and markets but in addition
to that I think we have to bear in mind
that he has a view of history which is
really rather different from the view on
which your analysis was based he sees
history as repeating itself
now what it means we should talk about
that a little later but essentially
means is this that any historical
situation
she can create and absorb and make you
solve a the highest that man is capable
of creating there aren't any privileged
situations that are published arrows and
and therefore any era that sees itself
as capable of fully understanding or
fully creating these values should be
should allow shoes should be allowed to
do that and the travelers late 19th
century the early 20th century may very
well be what he calls areas of decadence
in which this strength cannot be fully
realize now you mention of his doctrine
that history repeats itself brings me to
what I would like to think of it the
next day yes discussion and in one
country regarding his later work there
are four big themes and again i think
four characters say it will help if we
take them one of the time yes Ronnie is
what you might summarize under the
phrase the will to power phrase which he
has popularized one is the government or
translated as the Superman again an
invention of his that into our language
and Runyon's this doctor new invention
of the eternal recurrence time and the
fourth i would say is his notion of the
East critic understanding of life
yeah let's do with those in order that
Scott let's talk first about the will to
power which one's I'm he was going to
give it a title to the summation of his
life's work
yes what was this notion of his the will
to power where he did solution the world
from your own special and philosopher
Schopenhauer of course and he reverses
the the evaluation of that we're short
my regarded the will as the source of
all evil in the world and as the source
of men's unhappiness he regards it as
the strength of our of men's men
strength the source of men strength and
the the
motivation are the admission to the
wheel to enact watch it can act is part
of a healthy culture now the the
difficulty that I think is that this
obviously brings you in conflict with
other people and therefore this stage
the willpower becomes it becomes a world
to self-assertion or willow two years at
user patient of the other but that's all
there is to the well I think it's to be
emphasized is not overemphasize some
some critics have done but it to be
emphasized that the will to power also
turns itself in word that is to say it
destroys within the central or that is
weak or that is comfortable or that is
are simply arm
yes part of a mans selfie nurture kind
of drastic bring of oneself out to the
bar after up to up to the mud which one
has created oneself in this differently
about Mark birth to my son so that their
yes yes well now let's move on to the
the next of the four years the themes of
his later where's Superman everybody
knows the way Sam and it was in fact
nature we rented it
it's been a very much misunderstood
concept being associated it with the
blonde beast of Lyrian holidays Nazi
caricature because that's not what he
meant to talk more i think that is not
what he meant at all
I'm i think the Superman is the man the
production mean who can be produced by
any civilization
remember I said that any e any error is
capable of bringing forth the maximum
values that men are capable of Superman
is the man who lives all that the world
to power will secure for him lives it to
the floor are is capable of are
repeating his own willing ad infinitum
will already arriving at the doctrine
and the most controversial of all things
the most
design your life of these use the the
eternal recurrence
yes then let's get that know yet because
i want us unpack the addition of the
Superman yes which has played such an
enormous role and in and support in the
last hundred years
yes it's been so abused and misused by
the Nazis example and it wouldn't be
true to say that what nature was
actually trying to get at was the notion
of an unrepresented man
yes and if you like the fragrance and
yes a man who has reevaluated his
Yahoo's yet he's not living his life
according to first values was being to
the top of his bears in an interview
uninhibited untraveled free spirit isn't
natural yes I think that is sales and
but it would be a man who without as it
were restricting himself would naturally
instinctively not do any of the things
that need to regards as evil are for
instance the one category that he comes
out are unequivocally that comes out
unequivocally in his system is bread
genus is what she calls his auntie mo is
the original is the graduating admission
of warmth the graduate admission of our
success and all these kind of things now
the Superman is one who naturally does
not feel any of these things you know
the story generous spirit it is a
generator is a generous spirit are yes
and I that again you see the whole
notion of the christian jr a generous
spirit is not all that far from nature's
purview
now let's move on to the third floor
main themes and you've touched on it
already it's this notion of the eternal
recurrence now i would say that if
anything of all the doctrines of nature
this is the hardest not just the people
to is there but even to take seriously
having and the face it he appears to be
saying that the home of history moves in
epicycles last eposide so that
everything comes around again and again
and again forever so that you
my have actually sat in this studio
having this conversation an humble times
before and will do so and lovable times
hear about you
he merely saying that what he's really
saying that and he is playing out what
might happen if you took that you
seriously and I think we want to say all
to give up in our whole discussion but a
great deal on his thinking is of this
experimental time and and by that I
don't mean it's not serious i don't be
meted is not responsible
I don't mean that it is trivial but I do
mean that hear somebody who's facing the
whole of human thought and is trying to
make some simple shift with almost any
area in it and is trying out again and
again with reviews out there is a saying
of his I think of it tragic saying of
his in a letter where he writes I feel
as though I were in be a new in equipped
as you would be being tried out by some
superior power on a little people so
that is strange thing to be feeling for
somebody who's advocating the world to
par and the Superman yet I think he did
genuinely feel led now he does then try
out this thought and it seems to me not
so much a theory of being not so much a
theory of the cosmos it seems to be a
moral theory that is to say I'm or
actions are really our intentions our
thoughts should be of sexual superior
kind of such a grand kind have such
generosity and Brennus about them that
we should not flinch to a and be able to
be willing to repeat them over and over
again
ad nauseam ad infinitum oh
so in other words you're really only
saying yes tonight
yes embracing light is always says we
should if you would be willing to do
that again that's what you're doing that
job you had only at this
yes I think to go on very much further
than that and try to produce geometrical
or mathematical equations in order to
prove either the possibility or the
impossibility of the issues which has
been tried has been done doesn't seem to
me to be terribly sensible apologies a
huge metaphor is a huge metaphor and of
course agreed to you must be said about
neech's uses of metaphors so there's
just something about it because it's
very relevant
yes I think I'm we iive think we we are
in the habit of taking things literally
in a way in which which doesn't make
sense as far as a great many of his
taken targets and you spoke to begin
with about his grand style and i think
it is an extraordinary powerful
effective style ask myself ready to ride
strong i think it derives from a strange
inventions strange discovery he seems to
have made of placing his discourse his
language somewhere halfway between
metaphorical and literal meaning and
this is something which really very few
people certainly very true german
writers and have done before him he
stands entirely on his own as far as
thinking is concerned you have mentioned
and we we've seen how he attacks every
tradition in the west where he does find
his his speaker says is in the style and
maintain and pascal and nashville for
his favorite authors and that whole
effortless style i think derives a
tremendous lot from them it's not only
me saying it is himself saying it and
this star which is pitched hole-free
between beautiful and literal statement
is something quite extraordinary and I
think unless we understand it for what
it is and we are going to mistreat him i
have a petition which i think is a an
example of what i have in mind
and really talked about the terrible
deprivation that she felt 19th century
people experience through what he called
lordly the death of God he wrote as
follows he says rather than put with the
unbearable unas of their condition men
will continue to see their shattered God
and for his sake they will love the very
seconds that will among his room now we
see this mixture of on the one hand
conceptual thinking I mean loneliness
and Russia are abstract terms belonging
to conceptual over on the other end you
got the sevens listening somewhere
through the ruins of the shattered board
well that and the refusal I think to go
beyond that
in other words to write out the theory
behind the metal phones i think
essentially constitutes what he's about
and it does give us the readers of
problems this mix this fusion of poetry
and metaphor on the one hand it is a
concept
yes hard conversations on the other yes
it's a problem about how to take him
that's really an exactly what you've
just been exactly this leads to the
fourth of the four years of the later
philosophy we've talked now briefly
about the water power about the Superman
and about his doctrine of the eternal
recurrence of time that you've just been
saying about his use of metaphor the
existence of north of the form name
themes in the laser which is his notion
that life is to be understood
aesthetically it and I suppose the point
here is that if there's nothing outside
this world no God no transcended realm
or anything then any meaning or
justification that life hands must be
meaning derived from inside itself yet
so that like a work of art and it's the
only meaning of work of art is what it
said he gives itself
yeah he doesn't drive its meaning from
outside is it is that
well that certainly is a very fair way
of of of coming close to what she's
after in the very first of his books the
best of it
look at the the battle tragedy he uses
this phrase three times it's only as an
aesthetic phenomenon that the being of
man in the world are eternally justified
it's a very complicated sentence I don't
think I want to go into all the details
of it but he's saying essentially is
this the greatness of the early groups
of the piece of track aids lay in that
tragedy that tragedy was a way of facing
the worst aspect of human life that is
its transitoriness its impermanence it's
productiveness its dependence upon
forces greater than yourself and to make
of these major tale story a wonderful
tragedy and this he applies in the
largest in the most cosmic possible
sense and he's asking is indeed I think
Shakespeare it occasionally is asking is
the whole world really to be taken
seriously or is it not a great game a
great play some kind of drama played out
by we do not know who are and if there
is to be a justification menu
justification is the phrase he uses
which is a very dicey where to use in
this context because of course it's a
judicial phrase isn't it
but if that is a justification for men
being here and being what he is
maybe it is simply as part of this huge
cosmic drama and a great deal of his
thought and I think of some of his most
interesting and greatest thought was
precisely into rehearsing and trying to
make sense of this justifies this
aesthetic justification of man now
you're talking about the way metafile
and he stated considerations are fused
in together substance of the report
itself and you spoke very interesting
the moment or two ago about his actual
style yes and the tradition to which is
created it in its turn has had invented
yes has did I instant some of the great
creative writers get that he has
influenced in my introduction to get
some years now
no particular field of expertise
family says is known to be in
comparative literature it would be
extremely interesting i think to end
this discussion with just a word or two
from you about the way nature and his
writing and his philosophy of influence
creative writers since years but simply
to take the three names that you
yourself mentioned wbhs the first one
and it's red nature for the first time
in a very brief little excerpts
translated by a man called John common
of all things it seems to be most
inappropriate name for a translator of
nature and from 19 to $TIME onwards when
he read him i think that is a very clear
change in the general tenor and in the
attitude of yates his poetry and that
slightly some trees like this
sentimental are yellow roses kind of
poetry or founders yet creates changes
very much and the great poetry which is
the poetry or as he has itself causes
the poetry of blood and Mama and he's
very strongly influenced by his reading
of the Jedi his attempts to grasp some
of the problems that we discussed
earlier on with the shorter than the
influence of any different one
it is very much in the biological spirit
is in the sphere of that little detail
which I mentioned it is in the sphere of
the ruthless life the life that
justifies itself
I'm and the would do drugs I think again
it is the question of authenticity
now the authenticity as long as
currencies it's a very different kind of
authenticity from the one that nature
had in mind
in other words its social and sexual
intercourse both of these are really
rather minor factors in nature but it is
certain from nature through his wife
freedoms that he acquired some knowledge
of me turn that he was deeply influenced
by in a very late and I think rather
dreadful cry story of Lawrence's seems
to me to derive straight out of nature
psychologizing of the price figure you
look on the continent of course and a
low dose me
our undermine all all these people not
only have been very strongly under his
influence but they acknowledged the
influence throughout a string bag had a
long correspondence through a common
trend with nature and so on
I think that there are immensely
powerful influences but we have to bear
in mind that the aphoristic style the
are tremendous attractiveness of the
metaverse the ability of the message and
literally persons don't like to read
heavy books they like to read effort
isms all these play very much into
reaches hand one last question professor
stand i don't think we can finish our
discussion without touching on it if you
say the name feature the most educated
people in the West nada is what they
need anything call is the Nazis and the
Nazis seem to have appropriated nature
as their philosophy in the same sort of
way as they appropriated valve is there
from exile and that's had the effect
ever since of contaminating the
reputation of those two genes is in the
minds of large numbers of people now is
it there or is it unfair associate
future with fascism
I think you must be associated with it
to some extent and fascism rather
National Socialism it was Mussolini who
read him extensively who received a copy
of the collected works from the future
on the burner in 1938 as a present it to
himself I think probably new phrases
mean certainly your faces like the world
to power but hadn't read anything of his
and I think in some ways is this is a
justifiable charge and I would put it
this way that to the extent that these
part is dependent upon the intellectuals
and to the extent that the intellectuals
depended upon some sort of Morris
ill-assorted ideology Nietzsche was part
of it but of course at the same time I
think it should be emphasized very
strong there are lots of things in him
much more important things in him which
are absolute anthem out to these people
do these gangsters let's put it quite
quite cleanly and
self-control and the the inward struggle
of the self and the attainment of valid
of of generosity for instance the end
and greatness of the kind that we have
described have nothing whatever to do
with the kind of murders ideologist that
came into being in the third rice and
among the and and early on
among the italian and it's quite plain
from the fact that you yourself have
devoted so much of your life to studying
nature and writing the bathroom that you
think this is a hugely valuable imitates
nevertheless yes I said they think it is
an immensely our brand are taking
providing we do not go to it with some
expectation of getting a panacea on how
to live right but provided we go to it
with a view to finding out what human
beings can do what the human possibility
is what the being of man is capable of
understanding and creating for within
itself
thank you very much professor step thank
you Andrew
http://www.yousubtitles.com/Bryan-Magee-J-P-Stern-Nietzsche-id-318445
the two 19th century philosophers have
had the widest influence outside
philosophy are marx and nietzsche in
continental Europe especially the
influence of nature on philosophers
since his there has been predictors but
he's also influenced creative writers
including some of the most eminent in
the English language for instance but
Shaw WB Yeats and D H Lawrence the
quality of his own pros is simply
dazzling and this second nobody is
Friedrich Nietzsche was born in saxony
in 1844 he had an academic career of
extraordinary brilliance is a classic
scholar and became a full professor in
his mid-twenties and almost unheard of
thing but then he threw over his
university career went into isolation
and became a philosopher the 16 years he
poured out his writings mostly either
short books or ebooks the best days and
aphorisms some of the best-known titles
are the birth of tragedy human all too
human
the gay science beyond good and evil and
most famous of all thus spoke
zarathustra at first he was deeply
influenced by the ideas of Schopenhauer
and partner but he rebelled against both
and went on to produce some notorious
antiviral polemics until the last four
years of his creative life he made no
attempt to build a system of any kind
but then he began to think of drawing
all his main themes together into one
single comprehensive work first to be
called the will to power then the
revaluation of all values but it was not
to be always plagued by ill health in
january $MONTH 1889 he collapsed into
mental illness or condition almost
certainly caused by tertiary syphilis
and he was helplessly in the same until
his death in 1900 with me to discuss his
work is JP stern professor of German in
the university of london the author of
one of the best known of the many books
on nature professor Stern i think one
can say that nature was the first
philosophy really to face up to Western
man
and loss of faith in religion loss of
belief in god or in the existence of any
world outside this one and if there's no
God and no transcendental world then all
values all truth rationality standards
of any kind are not given to them from
some agency outside himself but are
created buying presumably these their
needs we choose our that at least we
create our that now this is an
extraordinary disruptive and disturbing
thing to confront and meet your new that
can we start the story from there
yes I think that this is a perfectly
fair wheel starting in addition to what
you said about his life i think when i
mention that he was the son of the men's
that he himself had his father was a
minister of the lutheran church and
therefore his attack on Christianity is
not a neutral not it is interested not
specific thing at all but his violent
dramatic melodramatic in many ways it's
an attack on Christianity rather than on
Christ and i think the point that you
made that he envisages 19th century man
to have to stand on his own feet without
the support of faith or dogma of any
kind is centrally as a central kind of
starting point to his philosophy i think
we want to see him as somebody who does
not simply profess a flat kind of
atheism but who is personally intimately
involved in the denial of divine justice
and divine messy and all that but this
kitchen starting point did launch him
didn't it into a revaluation of all
value yes' to use the title of his book
and one thing he was saying was that in
a way we are basing our lives on false
premises because we adopt attitudes and
values and standards which when we
actually examine the premises of them we
reject the Tennessee yellow traditional
his reminisces what she believed in what
she tried to show
who was at the whole edifice both of
Christian very was and of idealism which
he saw derivative from those values was
false had to be thrown over and
something else to be put instead the
questions to want us to be putting
instead is not quite so simple but that
was the basic premise from which he
began and that i think makes for the
middle drop the extraordinary melodrama
of the person of the style of the whole
phenomenon of nature
now this revaluation of all values of
course a colossal task and I think it'll
make our discussion of it clear that if
we divide our consideration of it up a
little bit yes there are four main
traditions within Western civilization
to which nature addressed himself in
which he attacked the tradition of
Christian morality the tradition of
secular morality the hard values as he
called the ordinary morality of the mass
of mankind and some at least of the
traditions deriving from ancient
convention series a trifle properties
now let's have a look at each of those
four injures can use a little bit more
about his fundamental criticism of
Christian value but I think to see to
start with on the christian i think the
attack is a very simple 10 very
straightforward one or the positive
values of Christianity turning your road
you turning the other cheek loving your
neighbor as you love yourself having
compassion for those suffering all these
are ruled out of court
I'm not absolutely because as we shall
see later i think i want to make that
point very clearly Nietzsche is
constantly making special rules for
special people and she's very much
against the notion of generalizing
simply rules in money in the way in
which count had done in the categorical
imperative
so yes the first thing then is the
attack on non Christ but on christianity
as really furthering the underdog
furthering the person who killed stand
on his own feet and requires compassion
requires city requires illicitly
requires sympathy from the outside and
why was he against
compassion and against city why did he
despise those he's not against him he
does not despise them and they come from
the strong person
what he despises is the support of the
weak person from outside himself
whatever that sources the outside source
may be whether it's another person his
compassion or rules or regulations laws
or whatever and the reason to being
against this was one reason for being
against it was his fundamental appeal is
to authenticity to Salford to the LOV
diet to the life within the person live
to the full now what about his criticism
of secular morality and the great moral
philosophers like contouring here
thursday the utilitarian yourself that
wasn't Christian morality quite good
numbers against that to yell why I think
the main reason there is this that all
systems of secular moralities are based
on an abstraction from the individual
case they're based on energy you to a
generality for nature the word general
is the same as common and by common he
means common in the nasty sense of the
word and therefore innocence all rules
and regulations one might always go as
far as saying all laws are for him
matters for the common herd and no more
and now we're of course already on the
third point that you made the point
about the common herd here he's most
emphatically not a democratic
philosopher he's a philosopher of the
great and the noble people the header
Eric kind of philosophy and therefore
for him
the appeal of Democratic ideology is
very very low indeed he thought that the
the nobleman the great man the hero
should be a law unto himself and
shouldn't be hamstrung yeah precisely
Yeti yet whose regulation yes that's the
best phrase you can use a law unto
himself
yeah it's not the center to use but it's
very very precise what she meant
now what about the last of the four
traditions that i mentioned that of
ancient Greece he is
it's worth remembering in this context
that he did start out life as a classic
scholar yes is cleansing he knew
asian please and became deeply critical
that you have the whole tradition
deriving from Socrates yes but his
classic work and I think it's one of the
most remarkable works have a written on
the whole problem of tragedy is
concerned with pre-socratic greece with
piece of practice tragedy which for him
is a kind of golden age and the whole
thing
r goes flat at the point when Europe
ease and Stephanie's and and Socrates
come on the scene what happens there is
that strength and goodwill and warmth
and beauty are replaced by reason are
replaced by rationalizing things by the
Socratic rgrg he never forgave later so
to speak for bringing up a hero whose
main qualities are those of talking
everybody else into the ground now this
concern with the origins of culture
which he displayed in such a rich way we
have to say and with all bound up with
his notion that we remade that we make
our values because if we if human values
and human culture are made by us not
given to us by God or authority outside
ourselves from the whole question so we
get them where they come from becomes a
fundamental one here and it's also a
fundamental 19th century concern whole
concerned with origins
yes things of the origin of species down
is so on with nature influenced by
Darwin yes where he said there was
entered our Indian and I think the idea
is that he didn't really understand very
clearly want the whole theory of the
origin of the species came to like so
many 19th century figures he was always
going to study physiology going to study
chemistry going to study physics but
never got around to it so I don't think
that there's an awful lot of interesting
things to be said about his attitude to
that but i think the main point about
origins is that again like some
philosophers
like marks for instance he believes that
you can determine the quality of the
product by the nature and quality of the
origin this after all is very much what
r I didn't I suspect the tried but very
largely from nature
well he does isn't very ready to
acknowledge it now what that means is
really that the background the the
genealogy of morals for instance you
created one of the titles is in fact
indicative of the quality of models let
me say I don't believe this is too but I
mean that is very much the 19th century
of you over and over again that you can
determine the quality of a mental
product by the nature by the origin of
that is at the back of it
yes and we are knowing plant sometimes
they call that the genetic fallacy
that's right i don't want to go into
your settings very close yes no mention
of Floyd players another question that I
get to put to this program of
reevaluating values and seeing values or
something that we create to meet our
needs
let nature to a psychological analysis
of values in terms of the individual and
social medias didn't expect it becomes
an essentially psychological it is a way
of cycle cycle psychologizing a lot of
phenomenon this is perfectly correct and
indeed i think he was a very remarkable
psychologist in many ways and she puts
he does not produce a system either in
psychology or anything else and in that
sense he is different from fraud but
he's very very similar in fact much of
an antecedent to fraud because he places
a very great your emphasis upon the
unconscious there is a myth about to the
effect that fried invented the
unconscious nothing could be further
from the truth the unconscious has been
about since the end of the 18th century
and each is one of those who use the
term and put remember synthesis on it
but he does not have a layer theory of
the self the way that fri did as I say
he is very very much less systematic he
disgusts systems he thinks there's
something indecent
about trying to encapsulate a human
being a human psyche within a systematic
account
another aspect of that is is his notion
that but different modalities a
different are appropriate for different
PPS that she certainly had to manage
that wouldn't be true to say well in
fact you have said it is that he
distrusted rules see you thought they
have strongly strongly limited the
creative yes yes he does believe that
individual people are entitled to
individual things of behavior and to
individual bits of knowledge this is the
most astonishing thing and also i think
it was very prophetic kind of thing that
she believed that knowledge was not
absolute that you that the acquisition
the pursuit of knowledge was not to be
taking absolutely but that a given
civilization had its own particular
implement to the kind of knowledge that
you could bear to see the emphasis and
it could bear it
he didn't receive situations where
knowledge would destroy the NOAA our
knowledge of nuclear missiles has become
a lethal threat to asses and that is
something that needs you would raise
easily and very well have a yes and he
did in fact say so we have enough about
nuclear physics of course but in about
but knowledge generally you see we only
have really one other theory of
knowledge apart from our own our own is
that all knowledge is worth pursuing
regardless isn't yeah where the other
one is the Soviet idea which goes on
know in which simply creates a system by
which knowledge is socially useful and
then pursued and not pursued if it's not
socially used for niches view is
somewhat similar to this he does believe
that didn't civilizations destroyed in
cells and the basic the bone which all
this is directed is in fact we're coming
back now to Socrates subtracted in for
knowledge this this endless of this
driving force which pushes on up to this
point in our discussion we've talked
about nature's critical interpretation
this basic view that up to this point in
our history the models and values and
standards of Western yes have all been
historically based on belief in god or
gods who gave us these values gave us
these moral standards and so on would
judge us by our failure to live up to
them or successively answer them and so
now he comes along he says we've lost
believe in god we've lost belief in
religion that means we've lost belief in
the whole foundation of our value system
and if we're to have a valid value
system we've got to reevaluate it and
refund it from the bottom up and we've
not really talked to some of the various
critiques individual pratiques into
which this let him I now want us to move
on from this to the next stage of the
discussion incense it's the obvious
question too high what where his
positive values having as it were swept
everything away all the Lhasa scale
what does he know advocating that we put
in its place where the answer to that is
a very simple and very complicated on
both at the same time the simple answer
is B your self at the top of everything
that you are too took to the hilt live
your life fully live it adventurously
and all the other things which later on
come under the under the heading of in
all the dial that in the humans here I
mean that essentially the be thou
thyself is the major elements from it
she begins also the go-to with will
towards which ethics or or to the goal
towards which ethics ought to be
directed now you may ask because if
everybody is himself in himself alone
how is this to be done in a wider sphere
houses to be Daniel political system and
so on the answers to that question are
I'm afraid very unsatisfactory as far as
he's concerned as indeed his whole
attitude towards social questions never
does get very far
now I said also that this is very very
complicated precisely for this reason
because it makes
living together are living together in
some kind of harmony extremely difficult
if you add to this the view that laws
are after all there simply to make z
make things easy for the weak person you
can see there's not very much purchase
to be got out of that breather so it is
on the face of it a simple system but
basically i think that is a great deal
of difficulty facing anyone who's going
to put this forward in a sense I think
we can say that some of them all some of
the fascist our antics early of of the
early part of this century is based to
some extent among the intellectuals at
any rate on this you that you must
create your own values are but it hasn't
gotten very far as you can see this
notion that you must say as he would say
yes to life
yes a firm Lions be untraveled to the
top of your Bend uninhibited also led
him to the view that that of course this
is going to lead you into conflict with
other people but you must simply sweep
the massage you must sweep away the weak
and the unable to all those who as it
were getting your way
yes that of course is absolutely flat
head on in conflict with Christian yes
it has but then you see you only
mentioned one hopefully the other part
of it is you must also cold or it is
comfortable all that is currently or
that is less than adventures within your
self and if you've done that that is the
view that he puts forward inside mr. for
instance if you've done that you won't
really want to be so very aggressive
towards the others you will have some
understanding of their weaknesses though
the understanding of the positive but
torrent understanding of weaknesses is
not precisely nature's very strongly
that is based failure or yeah i mean and
people of course have always been
shocked by his say they thought that
what he was advocating this country to
model stand against oh yes that is . of
course was that that in fact model
standards thought to be derived life to
be subordinate to
yes that our nation's of truth
rationality and all the rest want to
derive from my fiancé's home from the
great man yet from the great man and by
the great man he meant as i already
mentioned it would be one Napoleon would
be another sometimes Luther sometimes
even some of the great blowjob boats
would figure is that and sometimes even
subsidies would because he had the
strength of mine to carry through his
own project
this supremacy of life associate
self-assertion is that even truth truth
itself be subjugated to get see if there
are truths which damages that in in
other words would manage our lives then
we don't want yes you see we're back
again at the question of the entitlement
to truth or of at what he once called
the hygiene of knowledge there ought to
be some kind of Hygiene that would tell
us what kind of knowledge we may face in
what kind of knowledge AR 0 we should
reject and you're quite right that truth
itself in that way is subjected to this
kind of embargo to this kind of this
kind of sanction that he puts forward
but she is absolutely how this is that
contrary to all morality is that it
actually existed would it be true to say
that nietzsche's defense if he came to
defend against criticism has been to say
something like this but look the whole
civilization humanity itself if you like
the Holy evolutionary process has
consisted of the strong eliminating the
week able eliminating the unable the
intelligent eliminating stupid and it's
only because these processes of garment
perpetually over millions of years that
we have any civilization at all that we
have any humanity at all these things
have create years value
yes I think that is precisely what she
says and I want you would say a number
of occasions different contexts and his
worry about the future is precisely that
this kind of thing will not go on that
the Democratic spirit the spirit of the
bed so the of the rubberman will take
over and will annihilate are all is
value but we'll put into reverse the
very process that has actually created
civilization and markets but in addition
to that I think we have to bear in mind
that he has a view of history which is
really rather different from the view on
which your analysis was based he sees
history as repeating itself
now what it means we should talk about
that a little later but essentially
means is this that any historical
situation
she can create and absorb and make you
solve a the highest that man is capable
of creating there aren't any privileged
situations that are published arrows and
and therefore any era that sees itself
as capable of fully understanding or
fully creating these values should be
should allow shoes should be allowed to
do that and the travelers late 19th
century the early 20th century may very
well be what he calls areas of decadence
in which this strength cannot be fully
realize now you mention of his doctrine
that history repeats itself brings me to
what I would like to think of it the
next day yes discussion and in one
country regarding his later work there
are four big themes and again i think
four characters say it will help if we
take them one of the time yes Ronnie is
what you might summarize under the
phrase the will to power phrase which he
has popularized one is the government or
translated as the Superman again an
invention of his that into our language
and Runyon's this doctor new invention
of the eternal recurrence time and the
fourth i would say is his notion of the
East critic understanding of life
yeah let's do with those in order that
Scott let's talk first about the will to
power which one's I'm he was going to
give it a title to the summation of his
life's work
yes what was this notion of his the will
to power where he did solution the world
from your own special and philosopher
Schopenhauer of course and he reverses
the the evaluation of that we're short
my regarded the will as the source of
all evil in the world and as the source
of men's unhappiness he regards it as
the strength of our of men's men
strength the source of men strength and
the the
motivation are the admission to the
wheel to enact watch it can act is part
of a healthy culture now the the
difficulty that I think is that this
obviously brings you in conflict with
other people and therefore this stage
the willpower becomes it becomes a world
to self-assertion or willow two years at
user patient of the other but that's all
there is to the well I think it's to be
emphasized is not overemphasize some
some critics have done but it to be
emphasized that the will to power also
turns itself in word that is to say it
destroys within the central or that is
weak or that is comfortable or that is
are simply arm
yes part of a mans selfie nurture kind
of drastic bring of oneself out to the
bar after up to up to the mud which one
has created oneself in this differently
about Mark birth to my son so that their
yes yes well now let's move on to the
the next of the four years the themes of
his later where's Superman everybody
knows the way Sam and it was in fact
nature we rented it
it's been a very much misunderstood
concept being associated it with the
blonde beast of Lyrian holidays Nazi
caricature because that's not what he
meant to talk more i think that is not
what he meant at all
I'm i think the Superman is the man the
production mean who can be produced by
any civilization
remember I said that any e any error is
capable of bringing forth the maximum
values that men are capable of Superman
is the man who lives all that the world
to power will secure for him lives it to
the floor are is capable of are
repeating his own willing ad infinitum
will already arriving at the doctrine
and the most controversial of all things
the most
design your life of these use the the
eternal recurrence
yes then let's get that know yet because
i want us unpack the addition of the
Superman yes which has played such an
enormous role and in and support in the
last hundred years
yes it's been so abused and misused by
the Nazis example and it wouldn't be
true to say that what nature was
actually trying to get at was the notion
of an unrepresented man
yes and if you like the fragrance and
yes a man who has reevaluated his
Yahoo's yet he's not living his life
according to first values was being to
the top of his bears in an interview
uninhibited untraveled free spirit isn't
natural yes I think that is sales and
but it would be a man who without as it
were restricting himself would naturally
instinctively not do any of the things
that need to regards as evil are for
instance the one category that he comes
out are unequivocally that comes out
unequivocally in his system is bread
genus is what she calls his auntie mo is
the original is the graduating admission
of warmth the graduate admission of our
success and all these kind of things now
the Superman is one who naturally does
not feel any of these things you know
the story generous spirit it is a
generator is a generous spirit are yes
and I that again you see the whole
notion of the christian jr a generous
spirit is not all that far from nature's
purview
now let's move on to the third floor
main themes and you've touched on it
already it's this notion of the eternal
recurrence now i would say that if
anything of all the doctrines of nature
this is the hardest not just the people
to is there but even to take seriously
having and the face it he appears to be
saying that the home of history moves in
epicycles last eposide so that
everything comes around again and again
and again forever so that you
my have actually sat in this studio
having this conversation an humble times
before and will do so and lovable times
hear about you
he merely saying that what he's really
saying that and he is playing out what
might happen if you took that you
seriously and I think we want to say all
to give up in our whole discussion but a
great deal on his thinking is of this
experimental time and and by that I
don't mean it's not serious i don't be
meted is not responsible
I don't mean that it is trivial but I do
mean that hear somebody who's facing the
whole of human thought and is trying to
make some simple shift with almost any
area in it and is trying out again and
again with reviews out there is a saying
of his I think of it tragic saying of
his in a letter where he writes I feel
as though I were in be a new in equipped
as you would be being tried out by some
superior power on a little people so
that is strange thing to be feeling for
somebody who's advocating the world to
par and the Superman yet I think he did
genuinely feel led now he does then try
out this thought and it seems to me not
so much a theory of being not so much a
theory of the cosmos it seems to be a
moral theory that is to say I'm or
actions are really our intentions our
thoughts should be of sexual superior
kind of such a grand kind have such
generosity and Brennus about them that
we should not flinch to a and be able to
be willing to repeat them over and over
again
ad nauseam ad infinitum oh
so in other words you're really only
saying yes tonight
yes embracing light is always says we
should if you would be willing to do
that again that's what you're doing that
job you had only at this
yes I think to go on very much further
than that and try to produce geometrical
or mathematical equations in order to
prove either the possibility or the
impossibility of the issues which has
been tried has been done doesn't seem to
me to be terribly sensible apologies a
huge metaphor is a huge metaphor and of
course agreed to you must be said about
neech's uses of metaphors so there's
just something about it because it's
very relevant
yes I think I'm we iive think we we are
in the habit of taking things literally
in a way in which which doesn't make
sense as far as a great many of his
taken targets and you spoke to begin
with about his grand style and i think
it is an extraordinary powerful
effective style ask myself ready to ride
strong i think it derives from a strange
inventions strange discovery he seems to
have made of placing his discourse his
language somewhere halfway between
metaphorical and literal meaning and
this is something which really very few
people certainly very true german
writers and have done before him he
stands entirely on his own as far as
thinking is concerned you have mentioned
and we we've seen how he attacks every
tradition in the west where he does find
his his speaker says is in the style and
maintain and pascal and nashville for
his favorite authors and that whole
effortless style i think derives a
tremendous lot from them it's not only
me saying it is himself saying it and
this star which is pitched hole-free
between beautiful and literal statement
is something quite extraordinary and I
think unless we understand it for what
it is and we are going to mistreat him i
have a petition which i think is a an
example of what i have in mind
and really talked about the terrible
deprivation that she felt 19th century
people experience through what he called
lordly the death of God he wrote as
follows he says rather than put with the
unbearable unas of their condition men
will continue to see their shattered God
and for his sake they will love the very
seconds that will among his room now we
see this mixture of on the one hand
conceptual thinking I mean loneliness
and Russia are abstract terms belonging
to conceptual over on the other end you
got the sevens listening somewhere
through the ruins of the shattered board
well that and the refusal I think to go
beyond that
in other words to write out the theory
behind the metal phones i think
essentially constitutes what he's about
and it does give us the readers of
problems this mix this fusion of poetry
and metaphor on the one hand it is a
concept
yes hard conversations on the other yes
it's a problem about how to take him
that's really an exactly what you've
just been exactly this leads to the
fourth of the four years of the later
philosophy we've talked now briefly
about the water power about the Superman
and about his doctrine of the eternal
recurrence of time that you've just been
saying about his use of metaphor the
existence of north of the form name
themes in the laser which is his notion
that life is to be understood
aesthetically it and I suppose the point
here is that if there's nothing outside
this world no God no transcended realm
or anything then any meaning or
justification that life hands must be
meaning derived from inside itself yet
so that like a work of art and it's the
only meaning of work of art is what it
said he gives itself
yeah he doesn't drive its meaning from
outside is it is that
well that certainly is a very fair way
of of of coming close to what she's
after in the very first of his books the
best of it
look at the the battle tragedy he uses
this phrase three times it's only as an
aesthetic phenomenon that the being of
man in the world are eternally justified
it's a very complicated sentence I don't
think I want to go into all the details
of it but he's saying essentially is
this the greatness of the early groups
of the piece of track aids lay in that
tragedy that tragedy was a way of facing
the worst aspect of human life that is
its transitoriness its impermanence it's
productiveness its dependence upon
forces greater than yourself and to make
of these major tale story a wonderful
tragedy and this he applies in the
largest in the most cosmic possible
sense and he's asking is indeed I think
Shakespeare it occasionally is asking is
the whole world really to be taken
seriously or is it not a great game a
great play some kind of drama played out
by we do not know who are and if there
is to be a justification menu
justification is the phrase he uses
which is a very dicey where to use in
this context because of course it's a
judicial phrase isn't it
but if that is a justification for men
being here and being what he is
maybe it is simply as part of this huge
cosmic drama and a great deal of his
thought and I think of some of his most
interesting and greatest thought was
precisely into rehearsing and trying to
make sense of this justifies this
aesthetic justification of man now
you're talking about the way metafile
and he stated considerations are fused
in together substance of the report
itself and you spoke very interesting
the moment or two ago about his actual
style yes and the tradition to which is
created it in its turn has had invented
yes has did I instant some of the great
creative writers get that he has
influenced in my introduction to get
some years now
no particular field of expertise
family says is known to be in
comparative literature it would be
extremely interesting i think to end
this discussion with just a word or two
from you about the way nature and his
writing and his philosophy of influence
creative writers since years but simply
to take the three names that you
yourself mentioned wbhs the first one
and it's red nature for the first time
in a very brief little excerpts
translated by a man called John common
of all things it seems to be most
inappropriate name for a translator of
nature and from 19 to $TIME onwards when
he read him i think that is a very clear
change in the general tenor and in the
attitude of yates his poetry and that
slightly some trees like this
sentimental are yellow roses kind of
poetry or founders yet creates changes
very much and the great poetry which is
the poetry or as he has itself causes
the poetry of blood and Mama and he's
very strongly influenced by his reading
of the Jedi his attempts to grasp some
of the problems that we discussed
earlier on with the shorter than the
influence of any different one
it is very much in the biological spirit
is in the sphere of that little detail
which I mentioned it is in the sphere of
the ruthless life the life that
justifies itself
I'm and the would do drugs I think again
it is the question of authenticity
now the authenticity as long as
currencies it's a very different kind of
authenticity from the one that nature
had in mind
in other words its social and sexual
intercourse both of these are really
rather minor factors in nature but it is
certain from nature through his wife
freedoms that he acquired some knowledge
of me turn that he was deeply influenced
by in a very late and I think rather
dreadful cry story of Lawrence's seems
to me to derive straight out of nature
psychologizing of the price figure you
look on the continent of course and a
low dose me
our undermine all all these people not
only have been very strongly under his
influence but they acknowledged the
influence throughout a string bag had a
long correspondence through a common
trend with nature and so on
I think that there are immensely
powerful influences but we have to bear
in mind that the aphoristic style the
are tremendous attractiveness of the
metaverse the ability of the message and
literally persons don't like to read
heavy books they like to read effort
isms all these play very much into
reaches hand one last question professor
stand i don't think we can finish our
discussion without touching on it if you
say the name feature the most educated
people in the West nada is what they
need anything call is the Nazis and the
Nazis seem to have appropriated nature
as their philosophy in the same sort of
way as they appropriated valve is there
from exile and that's had the effect
ever since of contaminating the
reputation of those two genes is in the
minds of large numbers of people now is
it there or is it unfair associate
future with fascism
I think you must be associated with it
to some extent and fascism rather
National Socialism it was Mussolini who
read him extensively who received a copy
of the collected works from the future
on the burner in 1938 as a present it to
himself I think probably new phrases
mean certainly your faces like the world
to power but hadn't read anything of his
and I think in some ways is this is a
justifiable charge and I would put it
this way that to the extent that these
part is dependent upon the intellectuals
and to the extent that the intellectuals
depended upon some sort of Morris
ill-assorted ideology Nietzsche was part
of it but of course at the same time I
think it should be emphasized very
strong there are lots of things in him
much more important things in him which
are absolute anthem out to these people
do these gangsters let's put it quite
quite cleanly and
self-control and the the inward struggle
of the self and the attainment of valid
of of generosity for instance the end
and greatness of the kind that we have
described have nothing whatever to do
with the kind of murders ideologist that
came into being in the third rice and
among the and and early on
among the italian and it's quite plain
from the fact that you yourself have
devoted so much of your life to studying
nature and writing the bathroom that you
think this is a hugely valuable imitates
nevertheless yes I said they think it is
an immensely our brand are taking
providing we do not go to it with some
expectation of getting a panacea on how
to live right but provided we go to it
with a view to finding out what human
beings can do what the human possibility
is what the being of man is capable of
understanding and creating for within
itself
thank you very much professor step thank
you Andrew
http://www.yousubtitles.com/Bryan-Magee-J-P-Stern-Nietzsche-id-318445
Posty
Brak komentarzy:
Prześlij komentarz