Template:Nietzsche zwei

Choose from the Philosophy Menu Bar ▼ HOME INDEX Justice 6.v.25 The Good Life 20.v.25 Hume & Testimony 3.vi.25 1H25 Reflections 17.vi.25 Nietzsche 1 24.ii.25 Nietzsche 2 11.iii.25 Universal Basic Income 25.iii.25 Hegel 22.iv.25 2024 Wrap-Up 10.x.24 Democracy 14.i.25 Civilisation? 28.i.25 Compulsory Voting? 11.ii.25 Berlin and Freedom 15.x.24 Nussbaum, Sen and Capability 29.x.24 Slavery Reparations 12.xi.24 Rawls 26.xi.24 Assisted Suicide 11.vi.24 Popper and Evolution 20.viii.24 Popper continued 17.ix.24 Berlin and Romanticism 1.x.24 Marx 19.iii.24 Kant and Knowledge 16.iv.24 Kant and Morality 30.iv.24 Education and Religion 14.v.24 Hobbes & Security 23.i.24 From Locke to Mill 6.ii.24 Rousseau: Social Contract 20.ii.24 Rousseau and Education 5.iii.24 AI and Ethics 31.x.23 Aristotle and AI 14.xi.23 Autumn 2023 Review 28.xi.23 Democracy 9.i.24 Private Education 5.ix.23 The Very Elderly 19.ix.23 Justifiable Law-breaking 3.x.23 Moral Authority 17.x.23 The Wells School of Philosophy Roll Call 11th March 2024, Hare Lane, 1000-1200 hrs: Tutors: Linda (L), Steve (S) Pupils: Alexis (A), Howard (H), Patricia (P), Ray (R), Viki (V), Scribe: Gavin (G) Apologies: Colin (C), David (D), John (J), Margie (M), The homework set As preparation for next Tuesday we would ask everyone to address, say, three of the questions raised in our first discussion which particularly interest you, to do some digging, and come ready to prompt more debate. They were: Is it evil if you steal a bun because you are hungry? The Southport killings: an act of evil? Can evil actions only be described thus when their perpetrator is evil? How should we view the Holocaust? Evil conducted by evil people. Does society determine what is good and evil? Is there such a thing as good per se? Or evil per se? Can evil only exist between humans? Does the thought of the slate being wiped clean help the perpetrator? One particularly fertile area could be the way Nietzsche conflates philosophy and psychology; is this helpful? To what extent do we need to dig into psychology to understand the nature of the human condition and what makes humans different from other animal species. (This is related to our discussion of the nature of evil, and the role of forgiveness in human relationships.) We could endeavour to wrap up our discussion by comparing the relevance of insights generated by Nietzsche with the overall philosophies of say Kant, Rousseau, Marx and Hume. Introduction(S) Nietzsche's ideas can be hard to grasp. He had insights into the human condition. Was he a nihilist? A pessimist? How did he consider evil? Could only humans perpetrate evil? What was his moral framework? How did he view suffering? Was he reckless? Why did he support the peasantry? Why did he not like capitalists? What would he think of Trump? He sought truth through art and science. He thought language was not up to the job. In a post-Christian era, did he have anything to fill the vacuum? * He could be very spirited. He was anti-meek. Adderndum(L) Setting out to be a disruptor. To create new values. Christianity’s focus on afterlife bad. Overcoming existing values. Step back: how have you got these values? Doubting universal validity of everything. Heuristic of suspicion. One must still have chaos in oneself. One should not accept situation we find Utah ourselves in. Ubermensch, not superman; change process of valuing. Marx did it with his class struggle dialectic. Psychoanalysis looks at will to meaning. Discussion He provided an important step in the evolution of modern philosophy.(C) Bentham: the idea of the rights of Man is 'nonsense on stilts'.(S) Hobbes seemed not to rely on other people.(V) Hobbes didn't address the underlying problems behind the English Civil war.(V) Hobbes sidelined rationality; he believed we are driven by appetites rather than the will.(L) Hobbes seemed to reduce people to machines. He was dismissive of many of our emotions.(V) We need to check our understanding of the definitions of liberty and security.(L) The dictatorships of China and Russia seem Hobbesian, frightening their people into submission.(A) Hobbes was an early empiricist, who believed in the iron fist of the law to ensure our security. Did this actually confer greater freedom upon us?(S) If our contract is with the current sovereign, what happens when he or she dies? And do my children automatically inherit that contract with the sovereign?(J) Planning Some people seem determined not to change their minds, no matter what arises.(V) But the future is always trumpet-shaped.(C) Bayes' Theorem provides the justification for changing one's mind in the light of subsequent events.(S) Many organisations use scenario planning to examine possible futures and identify common occurrences across those scenarios.(J) Brainstorming seems a less common technique today; perhaps because totalitarian regimes don't like creativity.(L) The basic four questions recommended to analyse any situation in Getting to Yes[6] are: What happened? How do we feel about it? What are the things we could do? What should we do?(S) Lack of Progress Today Do we need a shared enemy to bring us together?(V) Today the driving force seems to be whom you're hating, not whom you're loving.(S) This attitude seems to have spread from Parliament.(V) Too many of our systems are adversarial. Very few people are aware of what goes on in Parliament. The big driver of hatred is anonymity on the Internet.(G) There should be much more emphasis on face-to-face communications.(L) Times are different today. So often both parents are working full-time: no wonder there has been a shift to social media. The right solutions to many problems seem obvious today. So why aren't they being implemented?(L) The Southern US states seem determinedly anti-intellectual.(C) This attitude can be found everywhere—e.g. in anti-vax thinking.(L) Other topics touched on Alcoholic parents as a driver of ambition.(L) The working day in Norway.(S) References [1] The "Remember Preston?" ad starts at 2 mins 53 secs in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQtxKRAJz00 [2] Books Suggested: [6]: Roger Fisher and William Ury (1981). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Houghton Mifflin. [7]: Richard Dawkins (1976). The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.