|
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.
Addendum(L)
- Nietzsche set out to be a disruptor, to enable the creation of new values. Christianity’s focus on afterlife was bad for mankind, he believed.
- In order to overcome existing values, he believed you had to step back and askhow have you got these values? He doubted the universal validity of everything.
- Nietzsche's influence on the "hermeneutics of suspicion," a term coined by Paul Ricoeur, lies in his critique of traditional knowledge and morality, arguing for a persistent questioning of underlying motivations and interpretations, exposing hidden interests and "illusory truths".
- You must still have chaos in yourself, he thought. We should not accept situation we find Utah ourselves in.
- The Übermensch is a philosophical concept by Friedrich Nietzsche that translates to "superman" or "overman". Nietzsche believed that the Übermensch was a goal for humanity to strive towards.
- Marx's dialectic was the class struggle.
- Psychoanalysis considers everything except the will to find meaning to one's life.
Discussion
- Zoroastrianism gives us good and evil and therefore the free will to make a choice. If you get get 'Beyond Good and Evil', you’re left with free will.(A)
- 🄽's focus seemed to be on the individual, but what about effect of his remedies on society?(V)
- High achievers often neglect their families.(V)
- In 🄽’s day, expectations often constrained your career. We are much freer today. But to some extent, society may have suffered.(V)
- 🄽 saw Christianity as a terrible affliction.(L)
- He had an unworldly view of people. Perhaps he was detached from reality. In his era, a lot of theories were developing in the field of psychology.(R)
- Did 🄽 have a strong view of free will? Do we control our instincts?(S)
- Was he influenced by Darwin?(R)
- 🄽 saw a more encompassing type of evolution.(L)
- 🄽 was incredibly bright, and perhaps unable to appreciate the lack of understanding of others.(V)
- His admiration was for people who have run roughshod over others.(A)
S: how was he brilliant?
V: architects or engineers?
L. Wittgenstein very scornful of other people who didn’t understand.
N A bit like Cassandra.
L so difficult to cover everything in a message, even face to face.
S. Rossiter. OXO cubes. Katie. 70s just before thatcher tapped into individualism. No not this way, say the respondents.
Parents talking over the heads of children in code.
Not Paris, Preston. Linda Bellingham.
R. Realism. Is man realistic in the way he lives his life?
H. Climate change. Man in Street doesn’t think about it.
V. What is point in doing anything when third runway.
S. Grim realism.
V. Not the first to think of self-improvement. Working men’s clubs.
L. Give children the tool of critical thinking.
R. Inertia in French academies. Conservatism.
S. Trump as great disruptor.
S. N believed in hierarchies. But fought against Marx.
L. N critical of Paul.
S. Jesus as Che Guevara. Didn’t agree with utilitarians.
S. Pursuit of excellence in Plato.
V. He lacks deep knowledge of social structures.
S. What would n say now about morality?
V. He would question anything that is taught.
A. Thought science is life denying.
P. Parsifal. Why did it split them? Searching for holy grail.
L. Wagner and he had been revolutionaries together.
W had to go cap in hand to capitalists to finance Bayreuth, which n hated.
S. Start the week yesterday. Neuroscience of ideologues. Why do people stick to ideas, despite evidence. Missed n’s idea of the will.
V. Quite a struggle to change your mind.
P. Grandchildren change your viewpoint. Power to know you knew their parents.
R. Putin still thinks about the Soviet Union.
R. More or less.
L. 20mph. 80% want a speed limiter.
V. Michael Sheen buying out debt. Tv programme last night.
A. Debt is sold on.
S. Moral dilemma. Universal basic income would be a good thing. Unpaid carers.
Other topics touched on
- Alcoholic parents as a driver of ambition.(L)
- The working day in Norway.(S)
References
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.
| 
