The Nietzsche Podcast

My friend Quinn and I discuss whether Deleuze is an accurate interpreter of Nietzsche. What are the faults of Deleuze's interpretation, and what are its merits? We discuss the eternal return, the anti-Hegelian attitude of Deleuze, ressentiment and bad conscience, and the Deleuzian understanding of will to power. More broadly, we discuss what it is that makes an interpretation correct, and how there are different mindsets behind the left and right interpretations of Nietzsche.

Carl Jung contributed to psychoanalysis in an important way, but that contribution to the field is inseparable from his engagement with Nietzsche. Jung derived a wealth of insights from Nietzsche’s work, and his psychological state that deteriorated into madness. Jung’s central hypothesis is that Nietzsche was possessed by an archetype. Such archetypal inflation was the result of a deep imbalance within Nietzsche’s psyche, springing from his rejection of the spiritual.

Carl Gustave Jung was a student of Freud, but broke from his mentor in a dramatic way. Jung acquired the reputation of being a mystic, and put forward ideas that pushed the boundaries of psychoanalysis. This is a crash course in Jung’s most important ideas: projection, archetypes, and the collective unconscious. In this episode, we go in-depth on the major archetypes that Jung describes. These are subpersonalities that exist in every human unconsciousness, which will manifest insensibly in one’s desires, and find themselves projected by the subject into the external world.

Daniel Tutt is the author of How to Read Like a Parasite, a new book which warns leftist thinkers about the power and danger of Nietzsche. Daniel has a long history of engaging with Nietzsche’s philosophy, and argues for a pugilistic relationship with him. In his view, the French leftists who utilized Nietzsche’s work sometimes centered Nietzsche to their own detriment. Daniel’s project aims not at canceling Nietzsche, but in reading him with a sober understanding of his political perspective and the ways in which it informs all of his ideas.

Stephen Hicks is a Canadian-American philosopher, and the author of numerous books, including Understanding Postmodernism, and Nietzsche & the Nazis. As Professor Hicks is a critic of postmodernism, I decided to ask him about Nietzsche's connection to postmodern thought. Is Nietzsche a postmodernist, and to what extent did he influence them? How do we explain the moral differences between Nietzsche and the postmodernists? We also discussed some topics related to objectivism and Ayn Rand. How does Nietzsche's epistemology and ethics differ from that of Ayn Rand? Professor Hicks articulates the case for the foundationalist view, and we finished the conversation by discussing the state of the academy as he sees it, and the future of philosophy.

In this episode, we continue our discussion of the Pre-Platonics, and cover the ideas of Parmenides, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus. The episode begins with a brief recap of the previous philosophers and the dialogue up to this point. After considering the remaining Pre-Platonics, I have some brief concluding remarks in which I attempt to make sense of the entire picture as Nietzsche lays it out in this unfinished essay.

Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks is one of the more obscure texts in Friedrich Nietzsche’s corpus. There are many good reasons for this: it is unfinished, and ends abruptly; it was never published; and it concerns subject matter that is not as immediately accessible as Nietzsche’s more popular writings. You will not find his major concepts in this work – such as the will to power, or the critique of metaphysics - except insofar as those ideas appear in the background, inchoate, unnamed… not yet fully formed. In Nietzsche’s interpretation of the Pre-Platonic philosophers of Ancient Greece, we find the starting place for his later philosophical career. The inspiration for many of those great ideas, can arguably be found in his exegesis of these extraordinary figures from the Hellenic world, from the 6th to the 4th century BC. In today's episode, I'll introduce the text, then we'll cover the first three figures who I've classed as "the first cosmologists": Thales, Anaximander, and Heraclitus. While I'm mostly sticking to the text of the essay, I fill in some details using Nietzsche's lectures on the Pre-Platonics, on which this essay was based. Episode art: photo of the Temple of Poseidon

I answered questions from the Patrons. Enjoy!

Nietzsche said of this work that it was “the best German book”. For the last nine years of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s life, Johann Peter Eckermann journaled about their conversations together. Goethe was a celebrity at the time, and destined to be remembered as perhaps the greatest writer of the German language, certainly of the 19th century. Eckermann, on the other hand, was a farmboy with a talent for copying - whether it was the artwork of Ramberg or the poetic style of Korner. When he met Goethe, who was in his seventies at the time, the young Eckermann looked up to him as the greatest of poets, and wanted nothing more than to record all of his wonderful memories with Goethe. In this work we find no narrative arc or rigorous structure, but simply a series of thoughts and feelings. It is a portrait of Goethe rather than a story about him, and offers a fascinating view into a different time and place.

In the tradition of the great theistic philosophers, Baruch Spinoza presents us with a metaphysical vision of the cosmos, as ordered by God. But in sharp contrast with thinkers such as Pascal, Spinoza's arguments for God are crafted with an attempt of logical precision. In fact, Spinoza structures his arguments as geometric proofs, and considers the only serious philosophy to be a truly mathematized philosophy. In his Ethics, Spinoza gives us a comprehensive system that describes God, Nature, everything. Nietzsche says of Spinoza, "I have a precursor! And what a precursor!" While he was critical of Spinoza, Nietzsche acknowledged the ideas of Spinoza as profoundly influential on his thought. And yet, Spinoza's work remains famously difficult. Where he fits in to the Western philosophical canon is not readily apparent. Rarely is he portrayed as a great opponent of any one philosopher or school, and it seems that he lacks true antipodes. He is grouped among the three great rationalists, along with Descartes and Leibniz - even though these three come to radically different metaphysical conclusions, and bear little resemblance to one another aside from this one classification of their epistemological stance. And since Spinoza's philosophy is so voluminous, its ideas interrelated and comprehensive, approaching Spinoza and having some idea of where he stands within the discourse is difficult for the average reader. In this episode, we'll consider Spinoza's life and work, and then consider the ways in which his life parallels Nietzsche, and the ways in which his life influenced Nietzsche. Episode Art: Samuel Hirszenberg - Excommunicated Spinoza

Important announcement.

Pascal and Nietzsche are two names of monumental importance in the Western philosophical tradition, but rarely are their names mentioned together. At a glance, there is a wide gulf that separates the two, and seems to place them at irreconcilable odds. Pascal was a devout Christian, whose philosophical works concern the Christian faith: his most famous argument is the wager, which is a kind of apologetic device for bringing people into the faith. Nietzsche, on the other hand, carries out a philosophical project which is anti-Christian. He says he has no taste for faith in God, and that this faith is an indelicacy among thinkers. Today, we will examine Pascal's life, and the basics of his philosophy. Then, we will compare these two malcontents of the Enlightenment. Both question the supremacy of human reason, and offer an alternative to the materialistic concerns of a secular society. Both were men afflicted with ill health, and who struggled with mental illness. But they come to completely contrasting views in their assessment of life. In spite of this, there are ways in which Pascal's influence may have lasting importance for understanding Nietzsche. In Daybreak, Pascal is a stand-in for Christian hatred of mankind, who may have shaped Nietzsche's psychological analysis of Christianity. And in the eternal recurrence, we arguably find a variation on Pascal's Wager. While Pascal urges us to bet on God, Nietzsche's invitation is to bet on the world. “The Only Logical Christian”: Nietzsche’s Critique of Pascal by Brendan Donnellan, available on JSTOR: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9781469656557_oflaherty.12?seq=10

Nietzsche listed Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592) among the best French writers of the Renaissance, and called him a link to classical antiquity. The personal seal of Montaigne read, “What do I know?” For Montaigne, doubting was no less pleasing than knowing, and he exemplified the philosopher’s proclivity to inquire about every proposition. In his work we find the forerunner of not only skepticism, but Descartes’ methodology of doubt and empiricist bent of Bacon. He is the inventor of the essay, a man who called his own mind “wandering and diverse”, and who wrote candidly about life, ethics, and the classics. He is a man of contradictions, who disparaged book-learning but whose works are abundant with quotations. In this episode, we’ll consider his essays, Of the Education of Children, Defense of Raymond Sebond, Of Friendship, and That Philosophy is to Learn to Die, as well as take a brief peek into a handful of others. Join me in exploring the man Saint-Beauve called, “the wisest Frenchman who ever lived.”

Devin Goure is a scholar with a background in philosophy, an interest in psychology, mental health & neurodivergence. He holds a PhD in political theory. He's known as Left Nietzschean on X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/DevinGoure You can find Devin's substack here: https://devingour.substack.com/ In this conversation, Devin and I discuss the meaning of leftism in modernity. I asked him a number of questions concerning how the ideas of Nietzsche can be used for the left. How does Nietzsche compliment a Marxist philosophy? Where does Nietzsche conflict with Marx? Or with Hegel? How can we square an anarchist reading of Nietzsche? And what are the errors in interpretation of figures like B.A.P.?

In this second part of our exploration of Deleuze, we go straight into the Deleuzian understanding of ressentiment, and the significance of Nietzsche's distinction between ressentiment and the bad conscience. Deleuze's interpretation is predominantly psychological/physiological, and he sees the origins of ressentiment in the "inverted image" produced by reactive forces. Ressentiment therefore does not emerge from a historical power relationship, but from the disruption, degeneration or failures of the active force of memory to regulate the reactive consciousness and unconsciousness. Deleuze describes four forms of nihilism in Nietzsche: negative, reactive, passive and active, and we'll examine how they progress and relate to one another. Towards the end of the talk, we'll consider the camel, lion and child but with fresh eyes, given all that Deleuze has established. Of chief concern is how the triumph of reactive forces can be reversed, and the great becoming-reactive that characterizes human history turned into a becoming-active. This episode will not make much sense unless you've listened to the first part, in episode #79, as the concepts contained here depend on an understanding of active and reactive, sense and value, genealogy, and differential metaphysics, all of which are covered in that episode.

Multiple discourses on birth, death & resurrection. Featuring Andrei Georgescu, Vivienne Magdalen, Mynaa Miesnowan. Includes a segment of where my wife and I read Youtube comments. Here's to another year of the podcast! Episode art: Dionysian Ghost of Christmas by John Leech

Giles Deleuze is one of the most significant figures of French postmodernism, famous for his work with psychoanalyst Felix Guattari. In this episode, we're going to consider Deleuze's work, Nietzsche and Philosophy. In the words of Deleuze, the opposition to Hegel runs through the entirety of Nietzsche's work as its cutting edge. Nietzsche's philosophy is truly 'against the dialectic': as Nietzsche's work is perspectival and pluralistic, which represents the only significant challenge to the dialectical mode of thought. In contrast to dialectical labor and seriousness, Nietzsche's way of thinking affirms difference. Nietzsche asserts that being is not premised on negation, but affirmation, in which each force asserts its difference and enjoys that difference. In Deleuze, we find a new systemization of Nietzsche, in which Nietzsche's critique of morality, religion and the sciences can be reconceptualized as part of a struggle on Nietzsche's part against the triumph of reactive forces. Deleuze offers us a new language for discussing and understanding Nietzsche's work, and a radical re-evaluation of the eternal recurrence and the will to power. In this first part of our two-part series on Deleuze, we're going to consider Nietzsche's anti-Hegelianism, Deleuze's interpretation of sense, value & genealogy, the concepts of active and reactive, Nietzsche's typology, the metaphor the dicethrow, and the eternal return considered as a Nietzschean theory of time.

GWF Hegel is one of the most difficult philosophers in the western canon, but today we’ attempt to demystify him. In this episode, we’ll break down Hegel’s phenomenology, the dialectic, and the Hegelian understanding of desire. Our concrete entrypoint into the thought of Hegel is his famous chapter, The Master-Slave Dialectic. Deleuze argued that Nietzsche’s work constitutes a rejection of Hegel: his master and slave morality can be read as a direct rebuke to Hegel’s interpretation of this very same power relation. In order to prepare for our reading of Deleuze, we’re going to first tangle with Hegel on his own terms, and understand the very different way in which he approaches the questions of consciousness, morality and perspective. In researching this episode, Nathan Widder’s lectures on Hegel and Deleuze were very helpful, as was Justin Burke’s.

Today we continue with our inquiry into rhetoric and dialectic, with Robert Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Pirsig, like Nietzsche, saw himself as a modern-day Sophist, and part of his work was the rescue of the Sophistic school from the ill repute visited upon them by the Socratics. Perhaps more expansively, Pirsig devotes his philosophical work to the question, “What is quality?”, drawing on the Greek concept of arete, or excellence. His philosophical ideas do not come to us through a dispassionate treatise, however, but through an autobiographical novel. Pirsig was treated with electroshock therapy, leaving him with a new personality, and the feeling that the person he once was is dead: he merely happens to carry the blurry memories of another man. While on a motorcycle trip with his son, Pirsig struggles to unify the dichotomy between classical and romantic, between substance and form, between the two personalities within himself, and between himself and his son. This work remains one of the most important philosophical contributions to American literature in the 20th century, and hopefully today I can show all of you why this work of “pop philosophy” is one of my favorite books, and one to which I regularly return.

In my second conversation with William, we discuss the possibilities for language-learning models, the coming of artificial general intelligence, why the writers may be striking against creative destruction in the economy, and the legitimacy of A.I. art and writing.

This episode concerns the autobiographical essays in Ecce Homo, which Kaufmann has called, Nietzsche’s Apology. Similarly to Socrates, Nietzsche gives a defense of himself and his career: a defense against being “mistaken”, or “misunderstood”. Like Socrates, who came with a special mission for Athens, Nietzsche comes with the greatest demand ever made of mankind. Central to our analysis is the physiologism of Nietzsche, and the rejection of idealism in favor of brute reality. The physiological is reinterpreted as the root cause of the psychological, and Nietzsche uses his life as the basis and the chief example of how the body determines who one is fated to become. Nietzsche expresses a profound gratitude even for his illness: that which allowed him to gain a subtler eye, to overcome pity, to recognize pathologies.

Socrates was a famous opponent of the Sophists, the teachers of rhetoric instead of truth - and yet, in his legal defense, he employs the techniques of rhetoric and displays a mastery of oratory. In a society that distrusted irony and regarded it as a form of dishonesty, Socrates uses the art of persuasion in a manner that is anti-persuasive: a brilliant irony that few of his judges would have understood, and resented if they had. While Nietzsche’s later period is characterized by savage criticism of Socrates, Nietzsche describes Socrates as a heroic conqueror of death, in his lectures at Basel. Today we’re going to dissect the rhetoric, the irony, and the deeper significance of Socrates’ famous defense at his trial: the act of commitment to virtue in spite of the consequences, in defiance of the conventions of society and the sentiments of the majority. Episode art: Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David

In this episode, I attempt to give a fresh biographical account of Nietzsche's life, by examining his life in light of his Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit, found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. In the course of this biography, using Nietzsche as our concrete example, we discuss the abstract meaning of the Camel, the Lion & the Child, and where I see these transformations appearing in the course of Nietzsche's life and thought. We've covered Nietzsche's biography in many previous episodes, often focusing in on a particular time or event in Nietzsche's life: Nietzsche's wandering throughout Europe (episode 2), the headstone he bought for his father (episode 4), the departure of academia and break with his friends (episode 24), the complex relationship with Wagner (episodes 36-37). Rather than examining any one part of his biography in granular detail, we're going to try and take in the entire picture, and see to what degree we can say that the Camel, the Lion & the Child are stages in Nietzsche's own story. Central to this analysis is Nietzsche's great struggle with the "problem of life", as put forward by Christianity, Schopenhauer, and the Socratics. Their solutions always incline towards a rejection of our nature and the submission of life to reason, virtue, or asceticism. Nietzsche's long quest is to discover an affirmation of life and desire, in contrast to the need to 'redeem' life from suffering. This mirrors his long struggle with an illness that tormented him throughout his life. Nietzsche's project culminates not in a condemnation of life on these grounds, but in his embrace of a life of agony.

A Merry All Hallow’s Eve to Ye All! There will be a regular episode this Friday, but I can’t resist the opportunity to release an episode on the day of Halloween. Mynaa and I discuss a Persian novel concerning Nietzschean existential horror! Sadegh Hedayat grew up in the Iran of the Shah, and was influenced by western writers such as Kafka & Hesse. The urban legends surrounding this text in Iran were oft-repeated from parents to children: "Don't read this book; those who read it commit suicide."  The Blind Owl is the story of an unnamed narrator who is haunted by an elusive, metaphysical scene that he witnesses by happenstance. The narrative is unreliable, and the recursive loops of his madness are woven into the repetitive phrases and descriptions; the characters are all copies of one another; the events of the novel are, in effect, the same narrative repeated ad nauseum. Central to the plot is the long illness and drug abuse of the narrator, and an endless downward spiral of insanity. Hedayat's writing often reflects existential horror, and could be compared to H.P. Lovecraft. Mynaa even suggested that certain passages resemble those in Ecce Homo. We do a review with minimal spoilers for the first fifteen minutes or so, then what follows is a very spoilery review where we analyze, speculate, and ramble about the imagery of this mysterious novel.

Update on my life and the podcast, some random musings and stories. NO EPISODE NEXT WEEK. We’re taking a short break before season 4. Cheers

Nietzsche concludes the book with the suggestion that cognition itself is “common”, insofar as communicability is more effective the more common the experience that is communicated. Language facilitates the “abbreviation” of the most common sentiments and experiences, which is part of the process of joining a people together as one. The person whose experiences, thoughts or feelings are individual & peculiar will necessarily find himself unable to communicate them to others, and will be thrust into solitude. Much of the final aphorisms concern this eternal struggle between the rule and the exception, one of the themes of the work. Nietzsche ultimately muses that even the precious, wicked thoughts he has offered us throughout the work are but a pale imitation of the thoughts during their spring: for all thoughts are events, fleeting experiences, a physiological process within a living being. All the philosopher can do is catalogue their aftermath, or display the frozen remnants that linger in their memory. This section also contains multiple remarks on pity, and the prose poem, “The Genius of the Heart”. An exegesis of this poem can be found in episode 39. Episode art: Bacchus and Ariadne by Titian (detail)

This episode covers the entirety of Peoples and Fatherlands, chapter eight of Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche considers the character of the Germans, that of the French and the English, and the Jews. He attacks nationalism and anti-semitism, and reiterates his vision for a new European future in which all nationalities give way to a single Europe. Patriotism, or “fatherlandishness”, even though it is something Nietzsche finds understandable, is analyzed as a symptom of weakness and a thing to be overcome. Episode art is Portrait of Chancellor Otto von Bismark by Franz von Lenbach

A fascinating discussion with someone with an unusual perspective for modern times. Vivienne joins me while we go over the remainder of aphorisms from Beyond Good & Evil, section 7, Our Virtues: the ones concerning women. This is a topic that is incredibly complex and has often been handled without nuance by modern readers: either by those who criticize Nietzsche as a misogynist, or those who celebrate him as a representative of chauvinistic masculinity. I have always treated this issue as something on the peripheries of my concern with Nietzsche, first and foremost because his ideas never resonated with me, he says they are only "his" truths, and finally because I think it will divide and alienate people. Nevertheless, we have never shied away from the reactionary ideas of Nietzsche's, and have never tried to hide the truth when it comes to Nietzsche's uncomfortable beliefs. Perhaps that very discomfort is something beneficial, as the willingness to explore these strange, wicked, questionable questions can help us to learn a great deal about ourselves, and why we believe in the unchallenged values of modern life. Even for those who are stalwartly in the camp of the equality of the sexes, perhaps there is something to be gained from exploring Nietzsche's arguments. In this episode, Vivienne helps me with something I've always striven for: to be to articulate the perspective of those from ages and moralities that are not my own. I think she goes a good job of providing a steelman for Nietzsche's views on women here, in terms I hadn't heard before. Vivienne's podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/vivienne-magdalen Episode art: Nicholas Roerich - The Mother Of The World, 1924

My unnecessarily long review of the cultural meaning of Barbenheimer.

This part of the text is a re-evaluation of what morality is, or can be, for the philosopher of the future. Nietzsche is a bit sneaky here, by implying the free spirit, or philosopher of the future, to be admirable from the perspective of our own moral intuition. Nevertheless, he throws us some curveballs here and there as the chapter continues, and Nietzsche attempts to lyrically portray the paradoxical task of both accepting fate, and actively shaping one’s character. Episode art is Narcissus (1594–1596) by Caravaggio.

Today, we cover the entirety of part six - We Scholars. This chapter is of particular importance for understanding Nietzsche’s reconceptualization of the philosopher, and how such a figure stands in relation to the academic. The philosopher’s essential character is not that he employs reason, but that he exercises the value-creating power of mankind, whereas the scholar is merely a “philosophical laborer” who exists in service of the dominant values structure. Nietzsche critiques the modern worldview of positivism (“scientism“) for its misunderstanding of the primacy of values, leading to its failure to examine its underlying value judgments. Episode art: Domenico Fetti - Portrait of a Scholar

Much of the second half of the Natural History of Morals is a meditation on the common morality as one of prudence, stupidity, and fear. In one word: timidity. Nietzsche draws upon ideas he’s explored in Human all too Human, Daybreak & The Gay Science: man as animal/natural being, morality as a means of dealing with vehement drives, and the wicked person as being just as indispensable as the moral person. Episode art: John Maler Collier - Fire

A question and answer session just from the patrons, though I figured the public would enjoy some of the topics covered. Enjoy!

Finally getting into part five, The Natural History of Morals. We’re more than halfway through the text, and Nietzsche applies his psychological method to morality. Episode art is Satan overlooking Paradise by Gustave Dore.

A whirlwind tour through the epigrams and interludes of Beyond Good & Evil. A relatively free spirited and brief segment of our analysis before we dive into some of the denser divisions of the work - albeit with a bit easier time in terms of the intellectual labor, given that the major premises of Nietzsche's project have already been outlined in the first half of the work. This part is placed as a 'bridge' between BGE's first and second half, and serves as an example of how one applies Nietzsche's approach to psychology, and his anti-metaphysics. Episode art: Miranda by John William Waterhouse

Apologies on the late upload! There were technical difficulties that have since been resolved. We’re back on track and next week’s release will be on Tuesday again. The ascetic values of the saint are premised on self-denial. It was this self-denial that caused the saint to become a great mystery, who stood in judgment of the powerful people of the world. They suspected that the saint knew something they didn’t, as this miraculous being who transformed from evil to good. Good became synonymous with the otherworldly and the unsensual, and this image became most powerful in the hands of the extraordinary person who has turned out a failure in life. The person with great creative potential who is taken over by the power of self-denial becomes the most dangerous among the ascetics, and over centuries of this religious neurosis dominating the European mind, the result has been the modern man.

Nietzsche finishes sketching his vision of a philosophy of the future. True free spiritedness represents a fundamental commitment to hardness and independence of spirit. This makes the philosopher opposite the scholar in terms of his virtues. This total individuality necessitates that there are some truths that are inexpressible or peculiar to the point that they cannot be shared: they must be ”masked”. We finish by looking at the first two sections of part three, “What is Religious”. We consider how N’s method so far brings him to regard religion as another field of study regarding the human soul (its knowledge and conscience), and how this section is an application of his psychological method. He considers what is meant by the religious pathology as part of his ongoing critique of Christianity. Episode art: Henri Lievens - The Wild Hunt of Odin

In this section, Nietzsche describes the truth-seeker as an exception among the rule, and emphasizes the difference between esoteric and exoteric knowledge. Nietzsche explores differences in tempo of thinking between individuals and cultures, which he sources to physiological realities. This portion of the text also concerns Nietzsche’s natural history of morality in three stages (pre-, moral, post-) and an experimental portrait of the world as will to power. Does this mean God is refuted and the devil is not? On the contrary, friends, on the contrary! And who forces you to speak with the vulgar? Episode art is John William Waterhouse - The Magic Circle.

My conversation with horror author John Hunt, an Amazon bestseller in his genre and veteran of the homicide division in the Canadian police. John and I cover a range of topics in this discussion, from why he loves Nietzsche, to the role of revenge and justice in his stories as well as horror and suspenseful writing more broadly. John and I gush over our mutual love of Tarantino, and his pick for his favorite among Tarantino's films may surprise you. Other topics include the best ways to show rather than tell about a character's inner turmoil, the theory of drives and how it plays out in John's stories, and what it is that makes Stephen King so damn good. I included quite a bit of banter at the end where we continued talking long after I'd planned on ending the conversation, but most of it was interesting and genuine so I left it in. John's overarching commitment in his work is to realism: in honestly portraying the brute reality as he sees it, without trying to sugarcoat or hide the truth. So glad to have had John on the show, and we can add him to a number of interesting characters with very different life paths who have joined us on Untimely Reflections. John's website: https://johnhuntfiction.ca/ John on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/stores/John-Hunt/author/B01MUHIIOA?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true John on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@johnhuntfiction2537

We continue our exegesis of Beyond Good and Evil, and cover the bulk of On the Prejudices of Philosophers. This section involves Nietzsche’s analysis of various philosophers for whom he has admiration or which exercised a great influence on the philosophical world, but he approaches them with the method of treating their philosophy as an involuntary, unconscious memoir. Episode art: An artistic representation of Epictetus, courtesy of Wikimedia Common.

Today we begin our analysis of Beyond Good & Evil. This episode concerns the preface, which is perhaps my favorite of Nietzsche’s, and the first five sections of chapter one: On the Prejudices of Philosophers. As always I move incredibly slowly during the opening sections because of their incredible importance for understanding the entirety of the work, but promise to move more quickly as we proceed. I’m not sure how many parts this series will require; we’re going to make it up as we go along. Episode art: Giovanni di Paolo -- The Creation of the World and the Expulsion from Paradise

Update about my life, and some musings on AI, aliens, the supernatural, and why I don’t get involved in contemporary politics.

In this episode, I attempt to sum up the relevance of Nietzsche's political insights to the modern day, insofar as his challenge to our values becomes an entrypoint for us to begin the work of revaluating our values. In this piece, I argue that Nietzsche's goal for his readership is for them to find freedom in the unity of their beliefs and actions, and acceptance of humanity and the natural world for what they are rather than what we'd like them to be. Nietzsche invites us to a trusting acceptance of all that is necessary in the world, such that we may not live with the burden of having to morally condemn mankind, nor the human condition. He stands forever with the realism of Thucydides against Plato. Whether accept Nietzsche's prescriptive statements or not is irrelevant to whether we have taken seriously his contentions in the realm of values, and whether we can discover any motivating principles for humanity outside of the will to power. Nietzsche's challenge to us spurs us to consider what consequences such a shift in values might entail. At the end, we return to some of the concepts from the very beginning of the podcast, and examine how Nietzsche's view of politics and history is another manifestation of this same 'world acceptance' (or, 'amor fati') that is demanded by the abolition of the true world. Or, how Nietzsche characterizes his free spirits as 'tempters and attempters', those who experiment with the strange, wicked, and questionable questions. This is the path he lays out for the philosophers of the future, and as we are now in the time when the crisis of nihilism seems to be coming to a head, I assert that we ourselves are the philosophers he was speaking to. However you answer these questions of value, Nietzsche demands that we follow our own path, and adopt only those truths to which we have a right. The philosophers of the future will therefore be accustomed to solitude, and to a sense of distance from his fellow men. We are the types who enjoy "wandering in forbidden country", which is the way Nietzsche defines his understanding of philosophy in Ecce Homo. Every philosopher who takes it on themselves to be a creator and self-legislator is already their own revaluation of values. The time is noon. Thank you to everyone for supporting the podcast! Here's to a wonderful season three! A very special thank you to all of my patrons. I wish to express the deepest love and gratitude to you, and my delight that so many have connected in such a deep way with the podcast. I can't wait to explore so many fascinating topics in the future with all of you! Episode art - A Futurescape by Robert McCall (1981)

What does eternal recurrence mean in the historical sense? Nietzsche invites us to explore that question in his raising of the Problem of Science, and the notion of conflict as central to life. Today, in the penultimate episode of the season, we'll take a look into a section from Will to Power called "The History of European Nihilism", in which Nietzsche takes on the history of Europe from the perspective of his cultural/moral analysis, and charts the history of the descent into materialism as it played out in Enlightenment Europe. In his Pre-Platonic lectures, Nietzsche suggests a parallel between the project of Greek philosophy, and the progression that played out in the centuries of the Enlightenment. The Pre-Platonic Greeks experimented with materialist philosophy, eventually culminating in the atomism of Democritus and the arrival of Socrates, the ultimate logician - soon, the values of their traditions, and their long-held superstitions came to be questionable. The values of the society were undermined, and a crisis of nihilism set it. Nietzsche believes that this played out over the course of several centuries in Europe: in the form of the Reformation, then the scientific dawning of the Enlightenment rationalism with Descartes at the forefront. He comments on many of the figures we have covered this season, such as Kant, Rousseau, Schopenhauer, and others, as manifestations of the spirit of their times, who signified shifts or turning points in the European psyche. He reimagines Kant as a sentimentalist towards the concept of duty, a twin spirit with the moralistic Rousseau, who rebelled against the self-legislating rationalism of the 17th century and instead opted to be guided by feeling. Now, in Nietzsche's 19th century, he sees the ascendance of a more honest yet more gloomy period of European thought. The animalian in man is fully uncovered and embraced, and man becomes understood as a historical creature. This has dire consequences, bringing on the dissolution of society and the disbelief in all past metaphysical and moral comforts. But, as a result, the European psyche has the opportunity to enter a period of "Active Nihilism", and overcome the previous dogmas as part of a revaluation of all values. In spite of his predictions of coming great wars, Nietzsche is hopeful that the conditions of decay will lay infinite possibilities before us for the future. Contrary to many who warn of degeneration or decadence, Nietzsche cleaves to the conviction that with decay comes new growth, and that periods of dissolution are always periods of great creativity. This is, somewhat paradoxically, one of the more hopeful passages of Nietzsche, which acquiesces both to his belief in eternal recurrence, as much to the hope for something new in the future. Episode art: George Frederic Watts - Hope

We all know that Nietzsche said, "What does not kill me makes me stronger", but it is less often remembered that he began that aphorism with the caveat, "From the military school of life". We find, in fact, that many of Nietzsche's powerful insights on self-knowledge, self-control, and the search for truth come from this same military school of life. Nietzsche celebrates war and warriors throughout his work, most notably in passages of book one of Thus Spoke Zarathustra which often beguile first time readers coming at Nietzsche's work from a humanist or existentialist bent. How could a philosopher of intellectual freedom and independence tell his audience to "die in battle and squander a great soul"? How could he say that a war is not made just by the cause, but the cause made just by the war? Could Nietzsche actually have been pro-war? As a matter of fact, views on war that were on the whole positive were not uncommon in the 19th century, and Nietzsche is no exception to this. Of course, with Nietzsche, it goes deeper, insofar as the influence of Heraclitus and his conception of strife as a creative force inspired Nietzsche. In his view, all the world is war, and every aspect of existence is a manifestation of this unceasing conflict. This war exists on the physical level, on the social level, within our ideas, and within ourselves. Life itself is a bella omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. With this war as the revealed character of the phenomenal world, Nietzsche argues for accepting war as a fact of life: even as its fundamental character. Episode art: Nietzsche in his military uniform, circa 1864

Nietzsche described Napoleon as "a type of atavism" - a throwback to an earlier age, and quipped that he, not unlike Rousseau, also sought after a “return to nature”. Nietzsche and Rousseau have mutually opposed perspectives on what nature is, however, and Nietzsche is quick to note that Napoleon was not simply a 'going back', but a 'going up'. To understand why Nietzsche thought the way he did about the figure of a Napoleon or a Caesar, we will recapitulate to the entire Nietzschean understanding of the cycles of history, consider aphorisms from across his career, and examine how Goethe's conversations with Eckermann influenced Nietzsche in this respect. I intend to argue that Nietzsche meant the Caesar figure, the 'non-theoretical genius', to be a replacement for the Messiah figure in Christianity. Rather than salvation in the spiritual, abstract sense, the redeemer of man is an individual who exercises power in the physical world. All of the ideas considered this season culminate in order to explain this aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy, commonly dismissed as 'great man worship'. What we find instead is a phenomenon that Nietzsche believes to be natural, objective, and unavoidable. While this is one of the most difficult ideas of Nietzsche's to tangle with, I think we're better off for comprehending his position in this respect. Episode art: Battle of Wagram by Horace Vernet, 1836

"He who says organization says oligarchy." With these words, Robert Michels advances his sociological theory of what is called the iron law of oligarchy. Whenever human beings arrange themselves into a social group, the structural realities of organizing human beings for coordinated action result in minority rule. Far from asserting this as a reality that we have overcome with democracy, this pattern obtains just as strongly in democratic structures of power as in others. Robert Michels lived from 1876 to 1936, wrote several books, and taught sociology and economics at university - including at Basel, where Nietzsche also taught. Michels' arguments are particularly compelling because he began his political career as a socialist and worked within the socialist parties in Germany to advocate for economic reform. However, he soon began to perceive that the structure of the party itself had created another oligarchy within it, and that the leaders of the party seemed to naturally drift from the interests and perspectives of the workers at large. While we might expect such dynamics within monarchist or conservative parties, it was the revelation of this tendency within the leftist parties that disturbed Michels and compelled him to change his approach to politics. If even the avowedly socialistic and revolutionary political parties were destined to become oligarchic in their structure, then this surely points to something inherent to the human social structure that inevitably produces oligarchic rule. Today we're diving into his work, Political Parties, and exploring whether there is good evidence for the iron law of oligarchy.

Today I'm speaking with Mark LeVine, a professor, touring musician, and author of several books, including Heavy Metal Islam, a book on the metal scene in the Muslim world. Mark has traveled throughout the world to explore musical styles and scenes outside of the Western mainstream. He became a rock musician at a young age, and spent his twenties reading Nietzsche in graduate school during the day, and gigging in New York City at night. In the course of his career, he's set up concerts in Cairo and Baghdad, discovered artists from Indonesia and Togo, and brought musical acts from around the world to perform in the United States. Mark and I share many interests as we both have a deep connection with Nietzsche and heavy metal, and both see a connection between aggressive, challenging styles of musical expression and Nietzsche's philosophy. In the course of the conversation we venture into the Frankfurt School and Nietzsche's influence there, consider how the different generations of that tradition approached Nietzsche, and discuss how Nietzsche's project differed from that of Adorno, Horkheimer, or Fromm. In spite of their critiques of him, Nietzsche remains indispensable for understanding the social critique that came out of the Frankfurt School, both because of his attack on the Enlightenment, but also through his influence on Freud. Heavy Metal Islam on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Metal-Islam-Resistance-Struggle/dp/0307353397 Mark also offered some suggestions for Heavy Metal from the Muslim world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZnQlkC-VQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNav2lzd-TQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iak5NDINSPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhQ-99Qqj_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P82dJIwi4Qc

You have questions, I might have answers. Khajiit has wares, if you have coin. I was originally planning on doubling up episodes this week, but with the approaching tour, I’m going to have to set aside a couple weeks to just release an interview or Q&A in order to have steady releases. Hope this episode satisfies! Cheers.

Peter Turchin has continued the work of Ibn Khaldun, by elaborating upon Khaldun's hypotheses and testing them against the wealth of historical data that we now possess. By means of a structural demographic analysis of historical empires, Turchin has worked for years to generate mathematical models in order to explain the trends that seem to recur in every complex society. Now, with the data of 10,000 years of human activity on the group level, it may be possible to finally move beyond the preliminary, pseudo-scientific steps of the discipline of history, and proceed into a truly mathematized phase. This is the discipline that Turchin calls "Cliodynamics", after the Muse of history of Ancient Greece. His intention to leave behind the anthropological and archaeological studies that characterized history in the past, and bring mathematics into the field so that we can begin to make predictions. The reason why many have been so resistant to this development is our belief in free will, and the unpredictability of human action. Turchin thinks that this is a mistake, because while individual decisions are often unpredictable at the individual, granular level, at the level of entire populations or demographics, human beings become rather predictable. Quite in line with the cyclical view of history postulated by Plato, Thucydides, or Nietzsche, Turchin brings the math to demonstrate the truth of their ideas: that, in the realm of human history, all returns eternally. For our sources today, we're primarily using Turchin's books: War and Peace and War, Ultrasociety, and a brief dip at the end into the overall idea of Ages of Discord, as well as some references to Secular Cycles by Turchin and Nefedov. We'll also include a number of quotes from Roman historians Livy, Plutarch and others, as we examine the period of the Roman Republic, the chaos of the Late Republic and the transition to the Principate, as explained by Turchin's structural-demographic theory. This should be fun, given that we've already considered these events somewhat through the eyes of Machiavelli. Now, we can approach the subject with more rigor. In my view, Turchin is following in the traditions of these thinkers, but developing their work further. Episode art is Thomas Cole's now famous "Destruction" piece of his cycle, "The Course of Empire".

From all accounts, Nietzsche did not read nor comment upon the work of Ibn Khaldun, outside of a few remarks from Schopenhauer in one of his essays that Nietzsche might have read. But what we find in his Muqaddimah is a theory of cyclical history, in which many of the key principles of Nietzsche's political philosophy would find agreement. Ibn Khaldun was a historian from North Africa whose work sought to explain why it was that the same pattern seemed to repeat ad infinitum. The Bedouin desert tribes would overwhelm one of the settled cities of the Mediterranean, from time to time, then establish a new city there. For a time, the culture of the new city would be like that of the Bedouins in the desert. But, eventually, a sedentary culture set in, over the course of several generations, and the inhabitants grew complacent, became incompetent, and eventually found themselves overthrown by another desert tribe, and the process would then repeat. In his studies, Khaldun arrives at the concept of asabiya, or the capacity for collective power, which can be very useful for a Nietzschean perspective on social power structures. This concept of asabiya means, literally, 'group feeling', and describes the extent to which the individuals feel themselves to part of a unified, coherent group, and are thus able to act as instruments of the group, and coordinate their actions as a team. Asabiya increases in harsh conditions, and declines in conditions of luxury, and thus the cycle of empires is set into motion - "This is how God proceeds with His creatures." Just as Nietzsche suggests the idea of all things returning eternally, Khaldun's writing brings this idea into the historical and political sphere. But Ibn Khaldun is significant because he presents this not only as a poetical idea, but as a pattern based on observable facts. There are many, many observations and anecdotes in the Muqaddimah, and we will not be able to cover it all, so we shall focus on the points most relevant to the ideas covered this season. This will be our first journey into a work outside the Western Canon, into one of the most important thinkers of the Near East. Join me in exploring the dynamics of history, as we jump into the basic ideas of the Muqaddimah.

My band Slumbering Sun releases The Ever-Living Fire today, on 2/24! This is a project composed with the themes of amor fati and embracing a world of eternal change. I wanted to tell all of you the story of how this band came into existence, how it fits into my story, and what it means to me. This is perhaps one of my most philosophical outings in music, about the choice to say Yes to life, live the tragic worldview, and fall in love with the world again. I included a song from the album at the end of this short, special episode. Cheers! Here’s our linktree: https://linktr.ee/slumberingsun?fbclid=PAAaauPYoaUrAzAghu407YOWXhDouGvvmBZB47bluZ-LFQItv7uAeR9sZUCUU

We've considered two out of the three main strands of 20th century political thought: capitalism and socialism. Fascism is the third, and it is both the most and the least important of the three to consider. I consider it the least important because fascism was defeated, and relegated to the fringes, and honoring its existence with a critique seems like a waste of time. On the other hand, when it comes to Nietzsche, it becomes particularly important to address because of how Nietzsche was tarred with the associations with the fascists, and blamed for their crimes. In this episode, we explore the reasons for this, including his sister Elisabeth, Nietzsche's association with Wagner, Nazi philosophers like Baumler who tried to reshape Nietzsche's ideas to his fit own, and critics like Ernest Newman who took the Nazi claims on Nietzsche uncritically. In fact, when we look to Nietzsche's letters, and many statements he'd made over the years about his break with Wagner, that the ideas of German nationalism and anti-semitism were repugnant to him - he goes so far as to say that it is opposed to his entire way of life. As such, we take a particular focus in this episode on addressing anti-semitism. Even though anti-semitism is not essential to all forms of fascism, the same patterns of harnessing the envy and resentment of the average, precarious person and giving him an evil enemy to fight can be seen in its example. We find that Nietzsche's philosophy is opposed to any essential idea of race, and that those who believed in such things often appealed to mystical or metaphysical claims about the races as descended from pure, separate species from an ancient Golden Age - such as the occult beliefs of the Thule Society. And finally, even against Mussolinian ideas of state-worship, Nietzsche exists in stark contrast, as we call to mind his concern of the state becoming the ends rather than a means, and the "iron-clamp" crushing down and stopping all productions of culture. For Nietzsche, the state is "the coldest of all monsters", and it is a lie when it claims to represent or stand for the people. This episode is unique among these three excursions into 20th century political thought in that it is the only one of the three where we'll seriously examine Nietzsche's life, yet again, and his personal relationships, since none of this can be understood without the story of Elisabeth Nietzsche. As sources, I've used Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism essay in order to ground what we're talking about as regards fascism, and we'll look at some ways in which Nietzsche and he agree in condemning fascism, but some ways in which Nietzsche's ideas run astray of Eco's standards. I've also used Stephen Hicks' book, "Nietzsche and the Nazis", and some of the materials available on his website. We look at five ways that Hicks sees Nietzsche as opposed to the Nazis, and five ways they could be seen as similar. I disagree with Hicks on many points, though I feel his work to be valuable. I also cite Kaufmann's biography of Nietzsche at many points (albeit without providing page numbers), and even use Rob Solomon's introduction to Nietzsche, "What Nietzsche Really Said", for one quote.

After getting several suggestions in our comments sections, Stef and I touched based and decided to have a conversation. I asked him about his attempt to harness both the philosophy of Nietzsche with that of Carl Jung, since there are some contradictions between their thought that keep them from being easily reconciled. We discuss Jordan Peterson, why we both liked him once upon a time, but why he has, perhaps, 'lost it'. And throughout the conversation, Stef gives his vision of the "Promethean West" - that European civilization is fundamentally based on aiming for the stars, unlocking the secrets of the universe, inventing and innovating, stealing the fire from the gods. His thesis is that many young people have lost this fire, and his goal is to kindle it again. I understand from reading some of the comments that Uberboyo might be a controversial figure for whatever reason. I actually found him to be a compelling speaker and to have a good grasp of Nietzsche's ideas, and much of what he said didn't seem divisive or intentionally controversial, at least to me. Hopefully we're all mature enough to tolerate opposing viewpoints on this podcast, especially given that the next guest will bring some critical theory into the mix, and I don't want to hear any (bad faith) griping from the other side either. Some of the patrons have said this was one of the best conversations so far, so I hope the audience at large will enjoy it also.

No episode this week! Here’s why.

Stream my new song on CvltNation: https://cvltnation.com/experience-the-doomy-grunge-melodies-of-slumbering-sun-dream-snake/ This episode gets us back into reading Nietzsche, and here I think our prolonged focus on influences and previous thinkers will bear fruit. We’re picking back up with Nietzsche’s middle period, starting from his work in Human, All Too Human. In a chapter from this work, Nietzsche addresses himself to the ideas of Rousseau, Machiavelli, Thucydides, and Plato. He attacks democracy and egalitarianism, but treats them ambivalently, as a resistless force that cannot be stopped and with which the free spirit must make his peace. He treats war as essential for mankind, but acknowledges the ways in which a European peace would advance civilization. Above all, he rejects the Kantian notions that free expression of all would improve society, and equally so rejects the Rousseauian notions of abandoning the Enlightenment advances in art and culture. While this chapter lays the groundwork for Nietzsche’s later politics, it is a fascinating time of experimentation that is difficult to contextualize without seeing the entire picture of his development. Join me this week for A Glance at The State.

This episode concerns the least celebrated aspect of one of the most celebrated philosophers of the European Enlightenment: Kant’s politics. Immanuel Kant is responsible for launching the thread of philosophic inquiry known as German Idealism. At the time, perhaps Kant was merely trying to address the skepticism of those such as Hume. Nevertheless, his philosophical attempt to delimit the bounds of reason - to reveal to humanity what we can, in fact, know by use of our reason - launched a revolution in philosophy. It continues through Hegel, Fichte, Schopenhauer, and, yes, Nietzsche. We have avoided a comprehensive episode on Kant’s philosophy because that would require not an episode, but a podcast, and have limited our inclusion of Kant to a few important aspects insofar as they’ve related to past topics. While Kant’s politics are generally considered among his lesser contributions to the philosophical world, I will advance the case here that we see his ideas reflected in the political ideologies of the modern world: his political optimism, his belief in reason as a governing principle, and his belief in perpetual peace. While Rousseau may have been about as far apart from Nietzsche as possible while sharing his romantic orientation towards history, Kant and Nietzsche are diametrically opposed in terms of their starting principles. Kant is arguably a match for Rousseau in terms of Nietzschean antipodes, but as to which is more opposed to Nietzsche than the other, I’ll leave that to the audience to decide.

In this conversation, my friend Quinn and I dare to journey into one of the most labyrinthine passages ever to come from Nietzsche's hand: the 1873 fragment, Zeitatomenlehre, usually translated as the "Time-Atom" or "Time-Atomism" Fragment. Providing a description of this passage in any concise way will be about as impossible as summarizing this conversation, and our interpretations of it, but at the very least, I will offer that this essay is a radical re-evaluation of how we could consider reality, in which the underlying spatial nature of our thought is challenged. Nietzsche follows philosophically in the footsteps of the Pre-Platonic figures, and makes a daring attempt at a metaphysics so outlandish that there is nothing else like it in western thought. We approached this conversation knowing that figuring out the passage is very difficult, and decided to work through it as best as possible - although I think Quinn had it down more solidly than I did. While this conversation bears no relation to the overarching topic of this season, that's perfectly fine, since I've wanted to do this episode for a long time, and it makes sense for it to be "out of time" or "out of tempo" with the rest of the season anyway. I would actually put a warning label on this conversation to suggest that if you're new to the podcast, this might be too much to follow. For previous episodes that may help in approaching this one, check out episode 5 in season one and episodes 45 & 46 in season two.

In Rousseau, we find the mirror image of Nietzsche’s politics. While both have been called romantics, we find enough nuance to consider both something beyond this - and yet, Rousseau & Nietzsche agree in finding problematic the supposed “progress” of the modern world, and both turn their gaze back to the time before civilization to contrast with modern life. But where Nietzsche sees a war of all against all, Rousseau sees a state of natural happiness. Rather than a “going back” to this natural utopia, as Rousseau’s philosophy is sometimes described, instead Rousseau’s project is an indictment of the injustice of civilization and the goal of remedying this injustice. For Rousseau, man can only be made free once again if society is brought into accord with the general will - the underlying will of the populace at large. In this, harmony between the individual and society is achieved, and true democracy realized. There is hardly any figure who receives more scorn from Nietzsche than Rousseau, but because Rousseau is eerily similar to Nietzsche in many respects, learning the basics of his politics is essential to understanding Nietzsche. Join us while we cover Nietzsche’s opposite in political philosophy.

Join me and the friends of the podcast in our last episode of the year, a light-hearted variety show! This episode has a focus on gift-giving, and several guests have given me the gift of their time and effort - Andrei Georgescu, Karl Nord, Mynaa Miesnowaan, and Quinn Williams. Join each of them as they present their own meditation on giving and how it relates to Nietzsche's philosophy. I've also got a little audio novella for you about Nietzsche's Christmas with the Wagners, and we'll conclude the episode by reading fan mail. Topics range from the Buddha's magic milkshake, to the Franco-Prussian War to It's a Wonderful Life. There will be no new episode on Tuesday. I'm out of town and taking a well-needed holiday break. We'll resume the regular Nietzsche Podcast episodes in the New Year. Join us to celebrate everything we've done this year and to reflect before pushing forward into 2023. Slumbering Sun - Liminal Bridges (New Single Dec. 2022) https://youtu.be/AqOWuuOP980

Today, we discuss one of the most important works of political philosophy of all time, Machiavelli's Il Principe - The Prince. This book was composed while Machiavelli was in exile, after having served the city of Florence for thirteen years as a diplomatic official, but by the time of its authorship reduced to the role of an obscure private citizen. In this work, as Nietzsche characterizes it, Machiavelli takes us along at a brisk allegrissimo through matters of the most grave seriousness, maintaining sobriety and good humor the whole way through. His intended audience is a leader who could found an Italian nation-state. Accordingly, he makes a distinction between republics, hereditary monarchies, and the kind of monarchy that such a unifier of Italy would inevitably have to create: the new monarchy. He writes without concern for the questions of legitimacy, natural rights, or the progress towards a political ideal. Machiavelli instead concerns himself with the practical challenges of establishing a new state. He looks not to the future, but wishes to emulate the example that lies in the distant past, in the form of Rome. His hero, Cesare Borgia - a tragic figure who played the game of thrones rather well, but still lost - was similarly held by Nietzsche as an example of a great individual. In our examination of why Machiavelli admired Borgia, we find an important key to Nietzsche's understanding of Europe's moral-psychological past, and the revaluation of values that took place during the Italian Renaissance, only to be thwarted by the arising of Luther and the Protestant Reformation.

Introduction to Machiavelli’s political philosophy. We will consider Machiavelli’s legacy, and the enduring debate as to the significance of Machiavelli’s work. Is he strictly an amoralist, concerned with political power as solely a “force” to be considered in the scientific sense, or does he have a political project of his own that must inform our interpretation of him? To answer these questions, we will take the unorthodox step of beginning with his Discourses on Livy. As always, there is some truth to both these approaches, as Machiavelli holds republics above monarchies, and seeks for the means of achieving a state with liberty for its citizens. But he attains his greatness in political theory insofar as his own political concerns are always approached within a sober, realistic theory of power. In the Discourses, Machiavelli comments on the history of the Roman Republic, in his view the greatest state ever to have existed, since it endured the longest while allowing its citizens the most liberty. For Friedrich Nietzsche, heavily influenced by Machiavelli, the important lessons to be learned from him are his realism, his attention to longevity, his critique of the church and of the Christian religion, and the need for the ruler to profess and foster the religion of the people even if he does not believe it himself. In Machiavelli, Nietzsche finds a political theory so laudable that he would suggest in his noted that “pure Machiavellianism” is transcendent and superhuman - a path to elevating humanity.

The word “Epicurean” is a wonderful example of the linguistic phenomenon of a word coming to signify the opposite of its original meaning. Epicurean philosophy is hedonistic in that it holds pleasure to be the highest good, but Epicurus drew completely different conclusions than that of blind pleasure-seeking. In truth, Epicurus views the most important task of life to be the removal of pain or distress, and concludes in the ideal of an austere, simple, hidden life: the life in “The Garden”. Nietzsche made numerous interesting remarks about Epicurus throughout his literary canon. After studying the basic outline of his life and ideas through Diogenes Laertius, we’ll read some of Nietzsche’s interpretations and critiques of Epicurus. Even though Epicurus can be seen as a forerunner to utilitarianism, in him Nietzsche finds a great man and a precursor: a man who loved life, dealt with the world in real terms, and who “created the heroic-idyllic way to philosophize”.

“My cure for Platonism has always been Thucydides.” Nietzsche saw in the first historian of Ancient Greece the will to adhere to realism, and to learn the lessons of the “harsh teacher” of war. Where he sees cowardice in Plato, Nietzsche sees courage in Thucydides, as well as the “practical justice” of allowing all the parties a fair representation of their viewpoint. Thucydides, for Nietzsche, is the epitome of the Sophist tradition, which he contrasts with the moralism of Socrates and Plato. In this episode, we discuss The History of the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides’ great contribution to world literature and history.

Here we examine Nietzsche's political philosophy by considering one of his antipodes. Plato’s Republic is one of the most important works of classical philosophy, and also one of the most infamous. In this episode we examine a series of questions concerning Plato: is the Republic a work of ethical philosophy only, or must we read political implications in it?; is it a utopian work?; is Plato responsible, as Popper charges, for the horrors of the 20th century?; finally, what was Nietzsche’s response to the politics of Plato? While the episode involves an introductory discussion of the major ideas of the work, our focus is primarily on the issues that would have interested Nietzsche and which would concern us in studying the politics of antiquity.

Nietzsche graduated Schulpforta with a dissertation on the topic of Theognis of Megara. Theognis was a Greek aristocrat from a Dorian city-state, famous for his poetry which survives only in fragments. For millennia, he was regarded as a gnomic poet, whose works were intended to impart moral lessons. In his study of Theognis, Nietzsche combats this view, and argues instead that Theognis was only perceived as a moralist in the post-Socratic zeitgeist. What Nietzsche finds instead is a passionate man who wrote poetry at all seasons and occasions of life, and who spoke for an aristocratic ethos that was collapsing during the democratic revolutions of Greece. In this essay, among the earliest works of Nietzsche, we find the beginnings of his own identification with the old social order of Greece, and even his implicit criticisms thereof. Episode art - Statue of Janus, courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Having discussed the ancient foundations of the religion that governed the minds of the Hellenes and the Romans, we now discuss how life in the city developed. The social order and the laws governing the cities were rooted in religious beliefs that were so old that they were now already modified and subsumed within other, newer beliefs. Since the belief is the foundation of the social order, Coulanges asserts that it was the transformation of the religious beliefs that began to demand the changes which would occur in the cities. As the beliefs continued to be modified, a series of revolutions rippled through the Ancient Greek world. Centuries later, the same happened in Italy. First, the aristocracies revolted against the kings. Then, the people against the aristocracies - often installing tyrants (dictatorships which were supported by force and bribery). The struggle between oligarchies, tyrannies, and democracies then continued for hundreds of years, and the ancient writers began to see these forms of government as in a cycle of revolution against one another. However, the transformation of the social life brought with it new developments which in turn perpetuated the changes: the rise of Greek philosophy, the imperialism of the Roman empire and the spreading of its beliefs and temples to many lands and peoples, and finally the emergence of Christianity, which proclaimed the universal equality of man, one god over all the peoples of the world, and no secret or private worships. The social order could not survive this complete revaluation of values, and it disappeared in the centuries that followed. While Coulanges and Nietzsche did not comment on one another's work at all - in spite of being contemporaries - they both shed light on the insights of the other. Here we have a historical analysis which is in line with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morality, and his account of the Christian revolt  against the pagan, Greek master morality. Coulanges, rather than present the case in terms of moral philosophy, examines the underlying religious beliefs as primary.

If you've been listening for a year or more, you know that Halloween is a very special holiday for me. To be honest, finding "spooky" Nietzsche content was a bit difficult last year, such that I probably covered just about everything you could say about Nietzsche's thoughts on ghosts, witches, the fear of the dark, or why we celebrate scary or morose holidays such as Halloween. So, this year, for our Halloween special, I decided to take a detour to an author who came along shortly after Friedrich Nietzsche, and addressed many of the same themes that concerned Nietzsche: H.P. Lovecraft. In celebration of the spookiest time of year, Mynaa & I discuss the philosophical meaning behind H.P. Lovecraft's fiction and the cosmic  horror that underlies his work, and the connections we see to Friedrich Nietzsche and Peter Zappfe. Like Nietzsche, Lovecraft perceived the end of the our metaphysical and moral faith, murdered by a rising scientific materialism that left no room for concepts like the salvation of mankind or the centrality of the earth in the grand scale of the cosmos. Mankind instead confronted an increasingly meaningless world - a world which Lovecraft depicted in fantastical terms: in which human beings who were largely impotent in the story were torn asunder by entities who are entirely indifferent towards them. After the discussion, I included some readings of Lovecraft's stories. I picked "The Tree" because it is underrated, a perfectly paced campfire-story-type tale, and one set in Ancient Greece! Then, "From Beyond", a story that encapsulates the Lovecraftian angst about the progress of scientific knowledge.  I figured this could be a fun departure from the normal scholarly rigor to get into the spirit of the season. Happy Halloween!

Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges (1830-1889) provides us with the most in-depth account of the ancient religion upon which the city-states of Greece and Rome were founded. While the Hellenes later believed in concepts such as reincarnation, the division of body and soul, and gods that ruled over whole empires, Coulanges asserts that in their earliest days - hundreds or thousands of years before the periods for which we have written documentation - the Indo-Europeans believed that the dead continued to live on in the same body, underground. These dead ancestors became gods in the imaginations of the early Hellenes, bound to the land and the object of a secret worship carried out only by their descendants. Alongside these peculiar beliefs was the practice of keeping a sacred hearthfire in the center of the home - the home being the temple of the domestic religion. This fire was regarded as a literal god, real and living, who blessed the household so long as they kept the fire burning and pure, and would curse them if they did otherwise. Coulanges builds his case by following the clues remaining from the days of this worship - such as strange contradictions in the holy books, and rituals and hymns which did not reflect the beliefs but pointed to something more ancient. It is from these beliefs - alien and incomprehensible to us today - that the social order of the city was formed, and the laws that governed the cities written. Thus, we paradoxically find that the ancients were both completely foreign to us - and yet even we today preserve odd relics of this old belief. While Coulanges' seminal work, The Ancient City, is nowhere found in Nietzsche's library, and thus it is likely that Nietzsche never read it, it is indispensable for understanding the perspective of the ancient Hellenes. Since we're going to be covering a great deal of Hellenic thought in the coming episodes, we're going to preface all of it with a crash course in the development of their religious beliefs - for, as Coulanges argues, it is according to these beliefs that the political reality was shaped. Episode art: Dedication of a new Vestal Virgin, by Alessandro Marchesini (1663–1738), courtesy of Creative Commons

Introduction to the politics of Nietzsche. In this episode, we give an unvarnished look at the aristocratic radicalism that forms up the foundation of Nietzsche's political philosophy. While many interpreters and commenters on Nietzsche have dealt with his radical politics  by ignoring it altogether, by regarding Nietzsche as anti-political, or by interpreting it all away, we will instead begin by taking a hard look at Nietzsche's politics and see if we can come to an understanding of why he held this perspective. As with all things Nietzsche, his political views begin with Hellenic Greece. What we discover, in the course of this examination, is that Nietzsche's political philosophy, antithetical to our modern morality though it may be, is intertwined with his broader philosophical ideas. In this episode, we will cover the concepts of the order of rank, and the pathos of distance - as well as the devilish metaphor that Nietzsche employs in order to describe the aristocratic social order: that of the Sipo Matador vine, a parasite that strangles the trees of the Brazilian rainforest so that it might ascend above the canopies and unfold its flowery crown.

You asked me anything. I answered most of it. Season Three begins next week!

Here we find the idea of cultures as admixtures of the Apollinian, Dionysian, or Socratic approaches to life. The Socratic is distinguished from the Apollinian, and modern art and culture is assessed as theoretic parasitism on art.

Now we turn to the effect of Euripedes, and Nietzsche’s charge that this tragedian came under the influence of Socrates, and the new form of drama, New Attic Comedy, that followed.

Let’s talk about the evolution of the Attic Tragedy: from solo dithyrambic poet, to dithyrambic chorus, to chorus plus the ritualized portrayal of a masked Dionysus, to an entire tragedy performed on stage behind the “magic wall” of the chorus.

We continue our analysis of Birth of Tragedy, and enter one of the most byzantine sections of the text. Don’t worry, I shall be your Ariadne.

Today we cover the first three sections of Birth of Tragedy. Slow going, I know- but things will begin to move at a faster clip as we continue. In this episode the core concepts of the Apollinian and Dionysian art forces are explained, their relation to one another, and their origin in dreams and intoxication.

In the name of Lord Dionysus, it with great joy and solemnity that we commence this, the first of our Nietzschean bookclubs. This series will see me undertake an in-depth analysis, moving section-by-section, through Nietzsche’s first book: The Birth of Tragedy. In the first episode, we’ll look at Nietzsche’s masterful second preface, written in 1886 and attached to the beginning of the work. This episode will therefore serve as a sort of introduction to the text, contextualizing it within Nietzsche’s own understanding of his early text and how it laid the foundations for many of his later ideas.

A synthesis of all ideas of Nietzsche’s affirmative philosophy as we have discussed it this season. Join me as I dare to embark on the challenge of answering, on Nietzsche’s behalf, that age-old question… What is the meaning of life? Episode art: Joseph Werner - Diana of Ephesus as allegory of Nature, c. 1680

This time, I'm answering questions just from patrons. If it sounds cool to you to get to ask me additional Q&A questions in between the public Q&As, you can become a patron. Honestly, I know I say this every time, but every time it's true: this is my favorite question and answer session yet! Got into some very deep and very fun territory. Love it. When this goes up on reddit, I'll ask the public for more questions so we can follow up with another episode, this time with an opportunity for everyone to have their queries answered.

On our second excursion into Nietzschean science, we’re studying Nietzsche’s two most celebrated figures in science: one from Ancient Greece and another from Enlightenment Europe. In Democritus, Nietzsche sees the zenith of the materialist project in Greek philosophy, opening the way for a mathematical atomist description of the world, carried on by the Pythagoreans. In Boscovich, he finds a continuation of this project, centuries later - to describe the world by one force or law, and account for the problem of motion in a way that rejects Kantian or Newtonian appeals to God, or Spinozistic teleology. What comes out of this inquiry is an understanding that Nietzsche may have construed the will to power as a physical reality from the very beginning. From this perspective, will to power is the answer to the problem of motion; it is the inner, “intelligible character” of matter; it is the qualitative expression of what Boscovich’s unified field theory offers us in quantitative terms. This episode culminates in a look at some of Nietzsche’s more extreme or puzzling statements in his notes where will to power is discussed as a very real physical principle. Pictured in the episode art are Democritus and Boscovich.