1 00:00:07,650 --> 00:00:18,130 So I'd like to start out by thanking Peter not just for inviting people, organising and finding really spectacular. 2 00:00:18,130 --> 00:00:24,490 I don't know that I've ever been to one as large as this, which has run as smoothly as this has. 3 00:00:24,490 --> 00:00:31,090 And the quality of the sessions has been wonderful. 4 00:00:31,090 --> 00:00:33,890 Thank you. Thank you very much. 5 00:00:33,890 --> 00:00:42,940 OK, so I've taken the topics of the conference mind in nature as an opportunity to reflect on Nietzsche's attacks on dualism. 6 00:00:42,940 --> 00:00:49,640 My nature, after all, two of the familiar terms in which the traditional dualism has been stated. 7 00:00:49,640 --> 00:00:54,400 And I think every reader and nature quickly sees that he's a vigorous opponent of such 8 00:00:54,400 --> 00:01:00,640 dualism and that he insists to the country that might be understood as a part of nature. 9 00:01:00,640 --> 00:01:08,590 So he embraces some version of this. This is most vividly expressed in a famous passage from South Australia. 10 00:01:08,590 --> 00:01:14,650 But the awakened one, the one who knows, says Body am I through and through. 11 00:01:14,650 --> 00:01:20,200 And nothing besides. And soul is merely a word for something about the body. 12 00:01:20,200 --> 00:01:25,360 By the way, I haven't. There's an end out there which has a kind of outline of a tough rhythm. 13 00:01:25,360 --> 00:01:34,420 Some of the quotations I want to show, though, the issue is much more complex and I hope more interesting than it might have for a scene. 14 00:01:34,420 --> 00:01:41,410 I want to show that on the one hand, Nietzsche's attack on dualism carries him very far, much further than we initially expected. 15 00:01:41,410 --> 00:01:48,760 It carries him indeed to a radical feminism that is, however, very hard to square with this other strong commitments. 16 00:01:48,760 --> 00:01:55,660 And so Nietzsche has repeatedly pulled back from this modernism to duellist abuse at seeming odds with it. 17 00:01:55,660 --> 00:02:05,680 This opens up a great tension, an apparent contradiction in his thinking and poses the question what philosophical means he has for addressing it. 18 00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:11,060 This tension is aligned with certain others in his thought, in particular without advising from his perspective. 19 00:02:11,060 --> 00:02:20,270 As I think examining this issue over monism versus dualism throws helpful light on some of these other basic issues as well. 20 00:02:20,270 --> 00:02:25,210 And let me just insert quickly here. This is a new topic for me. 21 00:02:25,210 --> 00:02:30,850 This is a topic on which my thinking has in many ways not quite crystallised yet. 22 00:02:30,850 --> 00:02:41,650 So I hope you'll bear with me for a certain. And I may be shifting and uncertain character in some of what I have to say. 23 00:02:41,650 --> 00:02:46,990 Now, as I said, I think our first reaction is that he rejects dualism altogether. 24 00:02:46,990 --> 00:02:55,780 Let me start with a sketch of some pretty familiar elements of this critique of dualism and of the view nature offers in its place. 25 00:02:55,780 --> 00:03:00,850 Nature doesn't especially identify this dualism with Descartes. But he clearly has a focus, 26 00:03:00,850 --> 00:03:12,550 I think a view we ourselves call Cartesian distinguishing immaterial mind a thinking thing from body defined as entirely as extended thinking 27 00:03:12,550 --> 00:03:23,800 and extension matter in mind out of such utterly different ontological categories that they support completely different sets of properties. 28 00:03:23,800 --> 00:03:31,830 It's nonsense to suppose that mind could have a weight or a shape or that matter could have feelings or views. 29 00:03:31,830 --> 00:03:37,390 Nietzsche's attack runs mainly against the mind side of this dualism. 30 00:03:37,390 --> 00:03:42,370 So Antichrist 14 says that Descartes boldly viewed animals as machines. 31 00:03:42,370 --> 00:03:46,660 But we go further and view humans as such, too. 32 00:03:46,660 --> 00:03:53,050 We see consciousness as a symptom of, quote, the relative imperfection of the organism. 33 00:03:53,050 --> 00:03:59,680 Pure spirit is a pure stupidity. When we discount the nervous system and the senses, the mortal shroud. 34 00:03:59,680 --> 00:04:06,610 We miscount nothing more. But really, I think nature rejects both sides of the duality. 35 00:04:06,610 --> 00:04:11,860 There's no merely material body anymore than there is an incorporeal mind. 36 00:04:11,860 --> 00:04:18,130 If he absorbs mind and the body, it is into a body with very different properties than Descartes smatter. 37 00:04:18,130 --> 00:04:23,290 Indeed, each argues that Cartesian extension is something we interpret into the world. 38 00:04:23,290 --> 00:04:31,810 It's not real, much less essential. Instead, he thinks a body is essentially a capacity definiteness. 39 00:04:31,810 --> 00:04:40,000 Moreover, he crucially thinks that this capacity as intentional in the sense that it means and aims at things. 40 00:04:40,000 --> 00:04:45,370 So body the one substance there is has as its most important properties, 41 00:04:45,370 --> 00:04:53,080 not extension for weight or shape, but in attending's that Descartes would have restricted to mind. 42 00:04:53,080 --> 00:04:59,680 Thus, nature promotes against that dualism of mind in nature an ontological bonus. 43 00:04:59,680 --> 00:05:05,050 Ultimately, there is only one kind of entity, one basic way of being an entity. 44 00:05:05,050 --> 00:05:10,630 Everything is of the same sort. I'll call this being Monas. 45 00:05:10,630 --> 00:05:16,600 Each associates this monism and many of the related views will examine with Heraclitus. 46 00:05:16,600 --> 00:05:22,030 So from a philosophy of a tragic age of the Greeks, Nietzsche says that Heraclitus, quote, 47 00:05:22,030 --> 00:05:29,290 denied the duality of totally diverse worlds, a position which the next commander had been compelled to assume. 48 00:05:29,290 --> 00:05:33,760 He no longer distinguished a physical world from a metaphysical one. 49 00:05:33,760 --> 00:05:39,940 I'll point out these connexions at various points. These connexions to Heraclitus at various points as we go. 50 00:05:39,940 --> 00:05:43,970 So there is one kind of entity, and for it each has one term. 51 00:05:43,970 --> 00:05:48,880 He overwhelmingly prefers life. This is his crucial notion. 52 00:05:48,880 --> 00:05:57,760 I think much more important to him, the nature and also or basic and will to power, which is offered as an hypothesis about life. 53 00:05:57,760 --> 00:06:08,980 Accordingly, we can understand life as capacities that aim or mean everything that is according to nature is such a directness. 54 00:06:08,980 --> 00:06:14,890 However, we also know that values are much more important to nature than facts. 55 00:06:14,890 --> 00:06:24,520 Even more important than very basic ontological facts. So more important than his attack amounts, a logical dualism is a parallel campaign. 56 00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:30,880 He fights against valuated dualism. And this is going to be the real focus of my cock. 57 00:06:30,880 --> 00:06:38,440 Indeed, I think his main objection to being dualism is it serves as a prop for value dualism. 58 00:06:38,440 --> 00:06:44,650 People have needed to believe that being is doable and supported their belief that values are true. 59 00:06:44,650 --> 00:06:51,610 This is why nature cares about the Cartesian dualism so much. It's associated with a sickness in our values, 60 00:06:51,610 --> 00:07:00,520 and this sickness is more directly expressed in our tendency towards a value dualism, our faith in opposite values. 61 00:07:00,520 --> 00:07:04,510 This attack of value dualism plays a major role in this thought. 62 00:07:04,510 --> 00:07:11,350 It's not too much to say. I suggest that this rejection is his main reply to morality. 63 00:07:11,350 --> 00:07:17,820 His main motive for replacing moral with aesthetic values, or, to put it another way, 64 00:07:17,820 --> 00:07:26,260 gets his main motive for replacing a morality of good versus evil with values of good versus bad. 65 00:07:26,260 --> 00:07:29,440 This attack on opposite values has been widely noticed, 66 00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:37,600 but it may be more controversial to claim that nature intends to replace it with a modernism about values and others. 67 00:07:37,600 --> 00:07:42,660 I mean this differently than a common. There is a common use of humanism, 68 00:07:42,660 --> 00:07:52,230 but the use that I've been able to find is a view that makes a view that claims that all intrinsic value lies in a single property. 69 00:07:52,230 --> 00:07:59,610 For example, happiness. I need something more radical and I think difficult than that view. 70 00:07:59,610 --> 00:08:07,230 I mean, instead, the claim that everything has the same kind of value or indeed is maybe going a little too far. 71 00:08:07,230 --> 00:08:11,310 Everything has the same value in furniture. 72 00:08:11,310 --> 00:08:20,310 That value is good. So the idea valuable is value voters and I suggest is that everything is good. 73 00:08:20,310 --> 00:08:29,250 So values are discrepant kinds. They aren't opposite or indeed ultimately different from one another. 74 00:08:29,250 --> 00:08:36,840 Now, initially, this doesn't seem like an appealing or even a coherent position, nor something that we might recognise in nature yet. 75 00:08:36,840 --> 00:08:44,520 I think it's one of the views that he holds, dearest. It finds expression in many places in different degrees of completeness. 76 00:08:44,520 --> 00:08:52,740 And I want to remind you of this value Mon ISM's ultimate form, where it's expressed in several of his most famous ideas. 77 00:08:52,740 --> 00:09:00,500 All of them are entangled with one another, as these photos show. These views aren't saying yes, you turtle return. 78 00:09:00,500 --> 00:09:08,790 I'm awful empty and the DI Nicaea. So first Nature most prides himself as someone who says yes. 79 00:09:08,790 --> 00:09:17,610 He says yes to everything, even what seems most unsatisfactory in or about life, both his own life and life in general. 80 00:09:17,610 --> 00:09:24,760 He commands or indeed preaches this attitude to us. This is our ancestors identity to be the ultimate yes. 81 00:09:24,760 --> 00:09:30,060 Sayer quote, the opposite of a no same spirit. That's from Mecca. 82 00:09:30,060 --> 00:09:35,040 And each of presents himself. So in gay science, two, seven six. 83 00:09:35,040 --> 00:09:40,320 He presents this as his New Year's ambition as a New Year's resolution. 84 00:09:40,320 --> 00:09:45,780 I want to learn more and more how to see what is necessary in things because what is beautiful in them. 85 00:09:45,780 --> 00:09:50,370 Thus, I will I will be one of those who make things beautiful. 86 00:09:50,370 --> 00:09:54,750 Then there's a sentence about on 40. I do not want to accuse. 87 00:09:54,750 --> 00:10:00,180 I do not even want to accuse the accusers. Let walking away be my only negation. 88 00:10:00,180 --> 00:10:05,820 And all in all, I know the whole. Someday I want only to be a yes sayer. 89 00:10:05,820 --> 00:10:11,790 Now I agree with Bernard in his recent book on the importance of this, Bernard says that, 90 00:10:11,790 --> 00:10:17,580 quote, Nature regards the affirmation of life as his defining philosophical achievement. 91 00:10:17,580 --> 00:10:21,450 So I take the paper to explore as a word. 92 00:10:21,450 --> 00:10:28,350 At least one radical form that this affirmation of life takes a second set of passages of concern. 93 00:10:28,350 --> 00:10:34,200 Of course, the thought of eternal return gets entangled with this, saying yes, 94 00:10:34,200 --> 00:10:44,700 so echa homo won't get the full reference introduces a total return as the highest possible formula of affirmation. 95 00:10:44,700 --> 00:10:51,810 One's ability to embrace eternal return is telling precisely because it shows that one can say yes to everything, 96 00:10:51,810 --> 00:10:55,050 even the most repellent features of life. 97 00:10:55,050 --> 00:11:06,180 So the thought of eternal return serves are stre as quote, one more reason for himself to be the eternal yes to all things the incredible boundless. 98 00:11:06,180 --> 00:11:15,570 Yes, saying a menacing third set of passages concern more far to one example again from Eickhout Homo. 99 00:11:15,570 --> 00:11:19,800 Both a formula for greatness in a human being is off or phonte. 100 00:11:19,800 --> 00:11:29,400 That one wants nothing to be different. Not forward, not backward, not an all eternity, not merely bare what is necessary, but love. 101 00:11:29,400 --> 00:11:33,690 And then fourthly, the die. Nicaea also, of course, involves this. 102 00:11:33,690 --> 00:11:37,260 Yes. Saying passage from God to power. 103 00:11:37,260 --> 00:11:44,880 Ten forty one quote a diet Nicaea. An affirmation of the world as it is without subtraction, exception or selection. 104 00:11:44,880 --> 00:11:51,180 The highest state a philosopher can attain to stand in a diet ICN relationship to existence. 105 00:11:51,180 --> 00:11:58,260 My formula for this is 14 and then go to PowerGen 52. 106 00:11:58,260 --> 00:12:09,600 The note says that in the nine ICN state quote, being is counted as wholly enough to justify even a monstrous amount of suffering. 107 00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:15,480 Now, it might be doubted, though, that this saying yes, even saying yes to everything, 108 00:12:15,480 --> 00:12:22,980 really involves a value moaners that is saying that each thing is good. 109 00:12:22,980 --> 00:12:30,870 So Miten, Nietzsche's point instead, B, that the sum or totality of life is good. 110 00:12:30,870 --> 00:12:40,500 Not that every single instance of it is. So like his idea B, that there are a lot of bad things in the totality. 111 00:12:40,500 --> 00:12:47,790 But that they're outweighed by the good things. So the affirmation, as it were, applies to the totality. 112 00:12:47,790 --> 00:12:59,880 But it's not distributed down to each member. All of the individual entities in this case, the affirmation would be only a yes to the song. 113 00:12:59,880 --> 00:13:04,080 And often it seems that that's what nature is indeed saying. 114 00:13:04,080 --> 00:13:12,210 It seems that he's judge in the aggregate and that he's not inclined in some passages to say that the weak or the sick or the herd, 115 00:13:12,210 --> 00:13:18,570 like, for example, are good. But I'm going to argue that nature means, 116 00:13:18,570 --> 00:13:26,970 at least at these moments when he thinks ultimate thoughts about eternal return and so on, that we must say yes to each thing. 117 00:13:26,970 --> 00:13:34,260 That is, we have to recognise each thing as good. So the affirmation, I'm going to say is also at least. 118 00:13:34,260 --> 00:13:44,010 Yes. To each. We've seen that willing a turtle return requires saying yes to even the most repellent parts or aspects of life. 119 00:13:44,010 --> 00:13:49,350 The drama of South Australia, in fact, hinges on the difficulty of this last step, too. 120 00:13:49,350 --> 00:13:59,790 Will the recurrence of even the most loathsome Zarit history marks how it is easy to turn eternal return into a Mires song, pretty dirty song. 121 00:13:59,790 --> 00:14:06,210 It's also translated depicting the cyclical character of everything beautifully. 122 00:14:06,210 --> 00:14:13,140 What's hard is to think this thought with respect to what one dislikes the most in Zarit distress case, 123 00:14:13,140 --> 00:14:19,530 the small man to the tawdry in, I think himself and in others. 124 00:14:19,530 --> 00:14:29,520 The challenge is not just to say yes to a world that contains this, I suggest, but to say yes to this particular detested thing itself. 125 00:14:29,520 --> 00:14:37,830 Also notice in this regard how homo develops the indispensability of the small and the sick in nature himself. 126 00:14:37,830 --> 00:14:41,820 He loves even this about himself. 127 00:14:41,820 --> 00:14:50,850 This distribution of intrinsic value down to every individual bit of life is buttressed by nature's metaphysical claim that everything is essential. 128 00:14:50,850 --> 00:14:55,970 Nothing in the world and all its history could be different without everything being different. 129 00:14:55,970 --> 00:15:02,790 Inasmuch as everything is essential, to say yes to anything requires saying yes to everything. 130 00:15:02,790 --> 00:15:07,680 This is a passage from our first drug. Did you ever say yes to a single joy? 131 00:15:07,680 --> 00:15:14,070 All my friends. Then you said yes to all well as well. All things are chained together, entwined in love. 132 00:15:14,070 --> 00:15:18,150 If you ever wanted one time. A second time. If you ever said you please me. 133 00:15:18,150 --> 00:15:22,620 Happiness quick moment. Then you wanted it all back. 134 00:15:22,620 --> 00:15:27,810 Nevertheless, I think even this isn't as strong as nature sometimes makes the point, 135 00:15:27,810 --> 00:15:39,840 for it still allows that many things could be good only instrumentally, only because they are necessary for other things that are good. 136 00:15:39,840 --> 00:15:42,540 It allows that although we say yes to each thing, 137 00:15:42,540 --> 00:15:49,860 we say yes to some of these things only because there are a means to necessary for other things that are intrinsically good. 138 00:15:49,860 --> 00:15:55,920 But I claim to each other at least sometimes wants the point to be that they are also good intrinsically. 139 00:15:55,920 --> 00:16:03,810 That is good in their own right or for themselves. So I suggest the affirmation of least sometimes is even stronger. 140 00:16:03,810 --> 00:16:13,650 It's a yes to each for itself. So it's not enough to value the weak for the use they serve to the strong or to the economy of the whole. 141 00:16:13,650 --> 00:16:18,570 We must somehow value weakness for itself. 142 00:16:18,570 --> 00:16:25,800 Now, as we'll see, one main argument he makes is that weakness, for example, is not just causally necessary for certain goods, 143 00:16:25,800 --> 00:16:34,330 but essential or logically necessary in such a way that it is a constituent element of those goods. 144 00:16:34,330 --> 00:16:44,300 Now, notice that even that still leaves these things goodness dependent on an argument from the goodness of the more encompassing things. 145 00:16:44,300 --> 00:16:48,180 And I don't think the media is always content even with that. 146 00:16:48,180 --> 00:16:55,740 It's not clear that weakness would be intrinsically good in this case, where it's good as an element in a larger situation. 147 00:16:55,740 --> 00:17:06,230 So look it w will to power two nine three. Nothing that happened at all can be in itself reprehensible for one should not want to eliminate it, 148 00:17:06,230 --> 00:17:12,090 for everything is so bound up with everything else that to want to exclude something means to exclude everything. 149 00:17:12,090 --> 00:17:19,290 Reprehensible action means of representing the world. And sometimes the point is that everything, 150 00:17:19,290 --> 00:17:29,190 at least everything alive is in and by itself wholly and in some sense of equal value as our illustrious animals put it. 151 00:17:29,190 --> 00:17:39,180 The centre is everywhere that that seems to me to articulate the idea that everything is of equal value. 152 00:17:39,180 --> 00:17:49,180 Now, these ideas. Nature into harmony with certain mysticism and Cathy isms, Heraclitus passage, the God. 153 00:17:49,180 --> 00:17:53,570 Day, night. Winter. Summer war. Peace. Satiety. 154 00:17:53,570 --> 00:17:59,210 Hunger and philosophy. The tragic age of the Greeks says about Heraclitus. 155 00:17:59,210 --> 00:18:05,050 But before the gods fire gaze, not a crop of injustice remains in the world. 156 00:18:05,050 --> 00:18:11,680 For all around him. For each, too. The views associated with the day of vacation of all life. 157 00:18:11,680 --> 00:18:16,480 It's not just good, but holy wield power. 1005, says the children. 158 00:18:16,480 --> 00:18:20,530 Howard, quote, did not understand how to deify the will. 159 00:18:20,530 --> 00:18:26,170 He failed to grasp that there can be an infinite variety of ways of being different. 160 00:18:26,170 --> 00:18:32,620 Even a being God will to power 10 50, says the God at the nine ICN means quote, 161 00:18:32,620 --> 00:18:37,690 the great pantheistic sharing of joy and sorrow that sanctifies and calls good. 162 00:18:37,690 --> 00:18:43,760 Even the most terrible and questionable qualities of life and to power tend to be too, says the Duyen. 163 00:18:43,760 --> 00:18:52,300 ICN, is the religious affirmation of life like whole and not denied, or in part now. 164 00:18:52,300 --> 00:19:01,870 One way to put the puzzle behind eventually going to come back to is mysticism is commonly promote a non willing or selflessness. 165 00:19:01,870 --> 00:19:13,000 So how can this value Moate ism that I'm attributing to Nicha be consistent with in nature, with the promotion of willing and selfishness? 166 00:19:13,000 --> 00:19:19,900 Now, as mysticism as must be, this is both very hard to spell out and very hard to adhere to. 167 00:19:19,900 --> 00:19:25,810 It's difficult to state this value mon ism in a way that seems coherent. 168 00:19:25,810 --> 00:19:31,240 It seems to issue in various contradictions. Does saying that everything is good. 169 00:19:31,240 --> 00:19:36,400 And so denying opposite values mean that nothing is bad? 170 00:19:36,400 --> 00:19:43,780 Or if we say that some things are bad. How is this consistent with also saying yes to that? 171 00:19:43,780 --> 00:19:49,720 And don't values need to come with opposites? To say that X is good requires some. 172 00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:54,280 Supposing that something else is, by contrast, bad, it seems. 173 00:19:54,280 --> 00:19:58,030 What sense can there be in saying that everything is good? 174 00:19:58,030 --> 00:20:05,980 It seems that nature must be pulled to a value dualism by the very need to make judgements, pro and con. 175 00:20:05,980 --> 00:20:14,350 This difficulty is compounded if we take the view to be that everything is not just good but equally good centres everywhere. 176 00:20:14,350 --> 00:20:23,910 For this case, not only can we distinguish some is good and others as bad, but we can't even make distinctions amongst. 177 00:20:23,910 --> 00:20:28,960 Yes, right. But we can't even make distinctions amongst the good. We can't frank the good. 178 00:20:28,960 --> 00:20:34,120 We can't make up for the loss of the contrast turned bad by shifting to the idea. 179 00:20:34,120 --> 00:20:35,530 That's good. 180 00:20:35,530 --> 00:20:44,890 This makes it harder to see how the all affirming stance is consistent with valuing at all, since valuing, it seems, involves making distinctions. 181 00:20:44,890 --> 00:20:52,480 Moreover, further complication. Some bits of life are themselves cases of say no. 182 00:20:52,480 --> 00:20:58,840 So when we say yes to everything, it seems we are also saying yes to say no. 183 00:20:58,840 --> 00:21:05,830 This calls into question in what sense nature can be commending to us saying yes rather than saying no. 184 00:21:05,830 --> 00:21:13,900 Isn't he in effect saying sorry? Isn't he in effect saying yes to saying yes, but saying no to saying no? 185 00:21:13,900 --> 00:21:23,500 Hence not universally affirming after all. So there are these various puzzles, I think, that are wrapped up in this idea. 186 00:21:23,500 --> 00:21:30,460 Moreover, Nietzsche will be the first to say that living requires not just saying yes, but also saying no. 187 00:21:30,460 --> 00:21:36,700 Sometimes he seems to make this very point in reply to the most ideas that we've just looked at. 188 00:21:36,700 --> 00:21:37,980 So we'll to power three, three, 189 00:21:37,980 --> 00:21:44,890 three to desire that something should be different from what it is means to desire that everything should be different. 190 00:21:44,890 --> 00:21:53,510 It involves a condemnatory critique of the whole. But life itself is such a desire. 191 00:21:53,510 --> 00:21:58,720 So life involves desiring the desiring is itself a wanting to be other. 192 00:21:58,720 --> 00:22:06,400 That is strictly a rejecting of the whole life indeed requires us not just to say no, 193 00:22:06,400 --> 00:22:12,310 but even to hate and fight against some things, as Nietzsche himself obviously did. 194 00:22:12,310 --> 00:22:16,060 And so to say, a very emphatic and vehement no. 195 00:22:16,060 --> 00:22:24,310 Indeed, when the Diane Isy instance loves destruction, it loves the most violently practical way of saying no. 196 00:22:24,310 --> 00:22:29,320 So how can that value monism be liveable or even coherent? 197 00:22:29,320 --> 00:22:38,050 Once nature makes value, monism require so very much as he does in those thoughts about universal affirmation. 198 00:22:38,050 --> 00:22:48,270 He sets a lower standard. For a value dualism, which is very difficult then for him to avoid falling into now, 199 00:22:48,270 --> 00:22:52,430 Nietzsche himself is well aware of the apparent discrepancy between his claimed 200 00:22:52,430 --> 00:22:59,200 identity as the ultimate yes sayer and his constant devastating attacks and critiques. 201 00:22:59,200 --> 00:23:08,630 Hello. I obey my day and I see a nature which does not know how to separate doing no from saying yes nature more 202 00:23:08,630 --> 00:23:15,050 acutely and aggressively than any of us wants to bring out evaluative differences and distinctions, 203 00:23:15,050 --> 00:23:19,700 ways that some things fail and fall short of ways they might and should be. 204 00:23:19,700 --> 00:23:24,680 Indeed, one of these, as noted, this is very attack on value dualism. 205 00:23:24,680 --> 00:23:30,230 But this makes him prone to certain value judgements after all. 206 00:23:30,230 --> 00:23:38,060 Moreover, the need to say no, so it radically overriding or suspending the monism in his values leads nature to temperate. 207 00:23:38,060 --> 00:23:48,800 I suggest in his ontology as well, he's pulled towards a by frication of organisms or persons who are drives into two opposite kinds, 208 00:23:48,800 --> 00:23:54,050 reflecting their sharply different intrinsic value. Everything is life. 209 00:23:54,050 --> 00:23:58,370 Indeed, but life comes into antithetic all kinds. 210 00:23:58,370 --> 00:24:04,610 One of which has lost part of what is essential to life. It not only takes a position against life, 211 00:24:04,610 --> 00:24:15,370 it's a. like it falls away from the full nature of life and nature especially tends to view mine or reason in. 212 00:24:15,370 --> 00:24:20,180 In particular in this way. So that he reproduces. 213 00:24:20,180 --> 00:24:24,270 Started out with the seeming dualism of mind in nature. 214 00:24:24,270 --> 00:24:31,570 I'm suggesting now is that he replaces he, as it were, repeats this dualism in some of his thoughts in the Valley. 215 00:24:31,570 --> 00:24:43,670 Which of realm? He reproduces a version of the mind nature dualism, after all, by making mine a principle contrary to life. 216 00:24:43,670 --> 00:24:55,110 So he bifurcates into active, reactive, healthy, sick, weak, strong, as if they are distinct kinds of persons or organisms. 217 00:24:55,110 --> 00:24:59,880 Of course, we find this tendency of leeches to bifurcates and many other places as well, 218 00:24:59,880 --> 00:25:07,210 you know, beginning with the Apollonian diet ICN distinction also in The Master Slave. 219 00:25:07,210 --> 00:25:10,520 And so on. OK. 220 00:25:10,520 --> 00:25:13,750 Now, in many cases, in many such cases, 221 00:25:13,750 --> 00:25:22,060 he uses by Frication to express a kind of fervour or even fury that's comparable to the moral denunciations he criticises. 222 00:25:22,060 --> 00:25:29,670 This doonas tendency is most active where nature offers his values most truly, which is in the Antichrist longboat. 223 00:25:29,670 --> 00:25:37,870 I think I won't read, but if it's from Antichrist 18 condemning the Christian idea of God. 224 00:25:37,870 --> 00:25:40,360 The problem, man, is to explain how nature can be at once. 225 00:25:40,360 --> 00:25:50,980 The person who says yes to life in general and in each particular, and the one who is relentlessly and harshly negative in most of his appraiser's. 226 00:25:50,980 --> 00:25:54,850 And what's a value noticed and a value duellist? 227 00:25:54,850 --> 00:26:01,990 Now, I think a first reaction to my sketch of this problem is that his real allegiance is to neither Votizen nor dualism, 228 00:26:01,990 --> 00:26:07,510 and that we should really see him as a pluralist with respect to being or what is. 229 00:26:07,510 --> 00:26:15,190 We remark his emphasis on the great diversity of different kinds of life and persons and social and historical settings. 230 00:26:15,190 --> 00:26:23,620 Similarly, with respect to values, Nietzsche thinks that the value of people comes in a great hierarchy of degrees, all the steps up the ladder. 231 00:26:23,620 --> 00:26:33,040 He so often imagines, however, I think these pluralism is about being a value, are really consistent with his mannerisms here. 232 00:26:33,040 --> 00:26:40,480 The great diversity of forms of life, after all. All forms of life, the one fundamental kind of thing there is. 233 00:26:40,480 --> 00:26:50,650 And similarly, I'll try to show for the great hierarchy or ladder of values, they are all ways of having the goodness that belongs to life. 234 00:26:50,650 --> 00:26:55,480 So the pluralism by itself, I think, doesn't pose a threat to my account of beaches. 235 00:26:55,480 --> 00:27:02,680 Monas. However, the pluralism may be associated with another doctrine that raises greater problems. 236 00:27:02,680 --> 00:27:05,860 And this is nature's so-called perspective. 237 00:27:05,860 --> 00:27:15,760 Sometimes it seems he gives authority concerning being concerning values to all, or at least to a great plurality of perspectives. 238 00:27:15,760 --> 00:27:18,520 He makes being an value person at times. 239 00:27:18,520 --> 00:27:29,950 It seems we might take into exemplify this perspective ism in his own freewheeling way of articulating a great scatter of perspectives all by himself. 240 00:27:29,950 --> 00:27:37,480 So he sometimes expresses phoniest sympathy sentiments, other times duellist, other times pluralist. 241 00:27:37,480 --> 00:27:46,120 But the last suggestion maybe is also the view of the pluralist is also the view that he holds at the metal level. 242 00:27:46,120 --> 00:27:54,100 And so there's a kind of perspective of pluralism which embeds Môn ism and dualism within it. 243 00:27:54,100 --> 00:28:02,450 Now, for these and other reasons, it may well seem that there isn't a serious question here as to whether each is an honest or. 244 00:28:02,450 --> 00:28:07,450 But I want to persuade you that these are indeed two powerful tendencies or inclinations 245 00:28:07,450 --> 00:28:13,350 in one or the other of which finds expression in most of his most famous views. 246 00:28:13,350 --> 00:28:28,060 I'm not going to skip the section which which I compact's on the topic of the conference and discuss the being monas teeth to this kind of nature. 247 00:28:28,060 --> 00:28:38,890 And I'm going to turn to I want to focus now on one famous way that each of states has value modernism as an attack on opposite values. 248 00:28:38,890 --> 00:28:45,090 The most prominent locus for this is his critique of metaphysics and beyond good and evil, too. 249 00:28:45,090 --> 00:28:56,600 There's a famous passage for the fundamental faith of the metaphysicians is the eighth in opposite values and beyond good and evil, too. 250 00:28:56,600 --> 00:29:02,640 It goes on to say that no one may doubt first whether there are any opposites at all. 251 00:29:02,640 --> 00:29:08,290 Moreover, it's possible that both what constitutes the value of these good and revered things is 252 00:29:08,290 --> 00:29:14,650 precisely that they are insidiously related to a related tie to an involved with these wicked, 253 00:29:14,650 --> 00:29:18,070 seemingly opposite things. Maybe even one with them. 254 00:29:18,070 --> 00:29:25,540 In essence, this line of thought is developed in many other places, both later and beyond, good and evil and elsewhere. 255 00:29:25,540 --> 00:29:29,830 So beyond good and evil 47 quote The dominion of morals. 256 00:29:29,830 --> 00:29:39,090 It believed in opposite moral values and saw read interpreted these opposites into the text and the facts zoref. 257 00:29:39,090 --> 00:29:49,630 Thus draw the historical zah at this try. Nature's conception was in the adventure of the good evil opposition of the value of dualism. 258 00:29:49,630 --> 00:29:55,630 And so the spokes are the story is the story of his recantation of that dualism. 259 00:29:55,630 --> 00:29:58,880 This is a point that we find Meachem make it from very early on, 260 00:29:58,880 --> 00:30:07,140 read a passage from human to human, the very first section of it, which I am going to skip over. 261 00:30:07,140 --> 00:30:14,600 I think it's clear that this rejection of opposite values is part of the complaint against the values of good versus evil, 262 00:30:14,600 --> 00:30:21,990 the kind of values he often calls just slave morality and sometimes just morality. 263 00:30:21,990 --> 00:30:27,810 I think it's clear this rejection of opposite values that that part of his 264 00:30:27,810 --> 00:30:32,240 criticism of these values is directed against what they value their content, 265 00:30:32,240 --> 00:30:37,740 but that some of it is also directed against how they value his contents. 266 00:30:37,740 --> 00:30:50,190 And of that formal part of his criticism of good, evil, morality part is against the way good and evil polarises or bifurcates the world. 267 00:30:50,190 --> 00:31:00,990 So when Nicha offers his own valuations of things healthy or sick, as strong or weak, as high or low, I'm going to sum these as simply good and bad. 268 00:31:00,990 --> 00:31:07,710 He presumably means those contrasts not as opposite values. 269 00:31:07,710 --> 00:31:16,760 So I think we can take it that the sense in which nature denies that values are opposite is a key to the sense in which he rejects value dualism. 270 00:31:16,760 --> 00:31:25,740 Hence to the way he's a value, honest. So just what does nature mean by his denial of obvious about? 271 00:31:25,740 --> 00:31:31,860 It seems a natural and obvious distinction in Nietzsche's voice. But what does a really consistent. 272 00:31:31,860 --> 00:31:39,450 What is it to have one's values as opposites? In what sense are good and evil meant as opposites? 273 00:31:39,450 --> 00:31:44,490 But each his own values of good. Bad. Not now. 274 00:31:44,490 --> 00:31:49,650 Not surprisingly, analysis shows. I think that nature means a variety of things. 275 00:31:49,650 --> 00:31:58,290 In his critiques of opposite values, in the various passages in which he treats this theme, I want to try to organise some of this variety. 276 00:31:58,290 --> 00:32:02,280 I'm going to arrange it from weakest to strongest, 277 00:32:02,280 --> 00:32:09,870 starting with the more obvious in ordinary things he means and building to the more radical and difficult. 278 00:32:09,870 --> 00:32:19,790 These weaker points, I think, are, as it were, the steps by which he tries to help us and himself up to the ultimate lesson. 279 00:32:19,790 --> 00:32:27,270 And we when we get to the most radical sense, we will have arrived back at the strong value voters in my survey before. 280 00:32:27,270 --> 00:32:36,450 And I'm then going to return to the question how nature can consistently or coherently hold it now before proceeding to this catwalk. 281 00:32:36,450 --> 00:32:39,210 I need to make a few background orienting points. 282 00:32:39,210 --> 00:32:45,840 I want to set it aside a couple of special issues that cut against the grain of the senses that distinguish. 283 00:32:45,840 --> 00:32:52,060 So first, background point, these senses that all distinguish of having opposite values, 284 00:32:52,060 --> 00:32:57,210 the value dualism are all ways of thinking about one's values. 285 00:32:57,210 --> 00:33:01,800 They're matters of the status one attributes to them. 286 00:33:01,800 --> 00:33:06,990 Now, it might be argued against us that having opposite values is really for nature, 287 00:33:06,990 --> 00:33:16,120 not a matter of how you think or as a word cognise your values, but a matter of the emotive force with which you hold them. 288 00:33:16,120 --> 00:33:24,270 So in the receptors, no, there's a special intensity of animosity towards his enemies. 289 00:33:24,270 --> 00:33:30,660 And this strength or ship shape of feeling might be thought to be the really crucial element in the judgement. 290 00:33:30,660 --> 00:33:38,190 Evil nature does indeed emphasise this difference in feeling that the strong birds of prey, 291 00:33:38,190 --> 00:33:43,350 as he once memorably puts it, are a lot more favourably disposed towards those. 292 00:33:43,350 --> 00:33:50,010 They judge bad lambs than a ladder out towards them. 293 00:33:50,010 --> 00:33:59,190 But I think Nietzsche clearly believes that this emotive force is fuelled and justified by certain beliefs about the status of one's values. 294 00:33:59,190 --> 00:34:04,110 Good and evil are meant are thought to be values of a particular kind. 295 00:34:04,110 --> 00:34:09,560 Not just felt with a certain intensity or from certain ulterior motives. 296 00:34:09,560 --> 00:34:15,420 And Nietzsche's own way of altering the feeling is by altering those beliefs, 297 00:34:15,420 --> 00:34:20,460 the senses of having opposite values all distinguish second second background point. 298 00:34:20,460 --> 00:34:29,190 The senses of having opposite values that are distinguish are all meant as general points about how any values are held. 299 00:34:29,190 --> 00:34:36,850 So I'm taking them as not directed against and limited to particular value contents. 300 00:34:36,850 --> 00:34:44,730 Now sometimes we'll see when we look at the passages that nature's complaint is not against having opposite values per say, 301 00:34:44,730 --> 00:34:49,580 but against valuing certain particular things as opposites. 302 00:34:49,580 --> 00:35:02,810 Viewing certain things as an opposite. It's sometimes that seems to be more a critique of the good evil opposition as it is widely held today. 303 00:35:02,810 --> 00:35:06,830 But these particular things called evil are in fact a better. 304 00:35:06,830 --> 00:35:17,120 More valuable than those called. Good. So aggressiveness or suffering were taken as evil, but are in fact value. 305 00:35:17,120 --> 00:35:24,680 And the Diane ICN embraces these. In particular, it might be thought, but not other things. 306 00:35:24,680 --> 00:35:27,170 So go to power. Ten, forty one. 307 00:35:27,170 --> 00:35:35,430 It is part of this by an icy and state to perceive not merely the necessity of those sides of existence hitherto denied, 308 00:35:35,430 --> 00:35:41,530 but their desirability and not their desirability merely in relation to the sides hitherto affirmed, 309 00:35:41,530 --> 00:35:45,750 perhaps as a compliment, a precondition, but for their own sake, as the more powerful, 310 00:35:45,750 --> 00:35:51,370 more fruitful, truer sides of existence in which its we'll find clearer expression. 311 00:35:51,370 --> 00:35:59,630 So note, if you will, side about just valuing the good side, and that seems to open an opposite kind of dualism. 312 00:35:59,630 --> 00:36:07,340 And that's in fact, the way that particular passage goes on, since nature very often makes his point against opposite values. 313 00:36:07,340 --> 00:36:15,020 With respect to good and evil, we have to consider whether he really would apply the point to his own values. 314 00:36:15,020 --> 00:36:20,990 Would he also say of the things he calls bad or sick or weak or hurt like that? 315 00:36:20,990 --> 00:36:24,950 They are also good. My claim is that he does. 316 00:36:24,950 --> 00:36:34,790 That he that he denies that dualism. He denies dualism and affirms a kind of monism also with respect to his own values. 317 00:36:34,790 --> 00:36:41,750 So my suggestion is that we need to separate out from his attacks on the evil, the good evil dichotomy. 318 00:36:41,750 --> 00:36:49,400 Those elements that are directed against or only value balut, given its content, the particular trade signals. 319 00:36:49,400 --> 00:36:57,470 Good. And the problem of value dualism is the question whether it turns out to be mostly a matter of context. 320 00:36:57,470 --> 00:37:03,380 So the neches on values are just about as dualistic as equal values. 321 00:37:03,380 --> 00:37:09,710 So in the following I'm going to preserve the Deach also means to deny that his good and bad are opposite values, 322 00:37:09,710 --> 00:37:14,060 that his arguments against opposite values militate against taking good and bad. 323 00:37:14,060 --> 00:37:27,290 So as well. Now, let's proceed now to the things that each a might and sometimes does, I think mean by his attack on having opposite values. 324 00:37:27,290 --> 00:37:32,750 So the first and weakest suggestion is those values. 325 00:37:32,750 --> 00:37:41,270 Good and bad don't originate. You aren't somehow rounded different ontological rules. 326 00:37:41,270 --> 00:37:48,980 So good in particular doesn't issue from an immaterial substance such as a free and rational soul. 327 00:37:48,980 --> 00:37:55,130 Sometimes the opposite, less of dualistic values seems to lie just in the claim. 328 00:37:55,130 --> 00:37:58,970 These values are grounded in such a dualism, 329 00:37:58,970 --> 00:38:06,590 so each often makes the point that good actions must be explained by the same naturalistic principles that apply to the bad. 330 00:38:06,590 --> 00:38:11,750 In particular, the same aggressive and sensual bodily drives that have long been blamed for bad 331 00:38:11,750 --> 00:38:18,110 behaviour are also the ultimate source of even our most altruistic and saintly acts. 332 00:38:18,110 --> 00:38:20,420 Will to power three seven five four. 333 00:38:20,420 --> 00:38:28,610 All the drives and powers that morality praises seem to me to be essentially the same as those in games and rejects. 334 00:38:28,610 --> 00:38:37,910 That is our Chief Justice, as world power will to truth, as a tool of the will to power and wield power to seven to vote. 335 00:38:37,910 --> 00:38:44,420 My purpose to demonstrate the absolute homogeneity of all events and the application of moral 336 00:38:44,420 --> 00:38:51,320 distinctions has occasioned my perspective to demonstrate how everything praised as moral is identical, 337 00:38:51,320 --> 00:38:55,700 in essence, with everything immoral and was made possible. 338 00:38:55,700 --> 00:39:01,460 As in every development of morality within moral means and Morgan moral ends. 339 00:39:01,460 --> 00:39:07,850 Similarly, he stresses how good and evil traits morph into one another. 340 00:39:07,850 --> 00:39:14,720 Here I have another Herek Titus passage. For comparison, Heraclitus says the same. 341 00:39:14,720 --> 00:39:25,970 Living and dead and waking and sleeping in young and old for these transposed are those and those transposed again are these. 342 00:39:25,970 --> 00:39:35,100 So on this reading, this first reading value dualism is defined by its metaphysical postulation of another world. 343 00:39:35,100 --> 00:39:40,490 Each year cleaves to a literal sense of metaphysics beyond nature. 344 00:39:40,490 --> 00:39:45,050 It's postulating something apart from nature, life. 345 00:39:45,050 --> 00:39:53,570 So this passage from genealogy of morality, the idea we are fighting about here is the valuation of our life on the part of the ascetic priest. 346 00:39:53,570 --> 00:39:56,360 He relates our life together with that to which it belongs. 347 00:39:56,360 --> 00:40:06,340 Nature, world, the entire sphere of becoming in a transitory ness to an entirely different kind of existence, which it opposes and excludes unless. 348 00:40:06,340 --> 00:40:15,100 Perhaps it worked to turn against itself, to negate itself. So understood, Leach's critique of value dualism would be straightforward. 349 00:40:15,100 --> 00:40:21,670 There is no such other world. No separate kind of cause will to power 786. 350 00:40:21,670 --> 00:40:27,790 One has invented an antithesis to the motivating forces and believes one has described another kind of force. 351 00:40:27,790 --> 00:40:33,520 One has imagined that premium will be light. That does not exist at all, according to the valuation. 352 00:40:33,520 --> 00:40:41,680 That ball the antithesis moral and immoral in general. One has to say there are only immoral intentions and actions later. 353 00:40:41,680 --> 00:40:46,030 Altruistic actions are only a species of egoistic actions. 354 00:40:46,030 --> 00:40:55,660 So here the value of dualism Sarte here, the fear that being here, the being monism, is used to refute value dualism. 355 00:40:55,660 --> 00:41:01,810 Understanding the latter as my definition, positing being dualism elsewhere. 356 00:41:01,810 --> 00:41:11,710 However, I think it's clear that nature doesn't just reduce value dualism to this view that hangs on being dualism, 357 00:41:11,710 --> 00:41:16,990 although being dualism is often used to support value. 358 00:41:16,990 --> 00:41:22,330 He thinks the value dualism has an independent motive and an independent identity. 359 00:41:22,330 --> 00:41:27,200 Then this reference to an other worldly source. Second thing, 360 00:41:27,200 --> 00:41:33,490 the second somewhat stronger thing that the denial of opposite values might mean values 361 00:41:33,490 --> 00:41:41,650 good that are never instantiated purely or completely to put the idea point abstractly. 362 00:41:41,650 --> 00:41:46,720 No ex is ever fully good or fully bad. 363 00:41:46,720 --> 00:41:56,350 But of course there are many different ways of understanding this, depending first on how we understand what replaces X in the claim as neutral means. 364 00:41:56,350 --> 00:42:04,850 So first, does the point apply to types of entities or does it apply to particulars? 365 00:42:04,850 --> 00:42:14,920 Is it, for example, suffering as a kind of human experience that nature claims is not fully back? 366 00:42:14,920 --> 00:42:19,780 But also in this case, 367 00:42:19,780 --> 00:42:33,400 nature's point might be that there are some cases in which suffering is good and he would allow it to be possible that in other cases it is just bad. 368 00:42:33,400 --> 00:42:40,360 So that would be to treat, you know, what it is that is never fully good or fully bad. 369 00:42:40,360 --> 00:42:44,860 As a type of of of property, 370 00:42:44,860 --> 00:43:00,840 or is it rather that suffering in each instance as undergone by a particular organism in some particular situation is always good as well as bad? 371 00:43:00,840 --> 00:43:07,570 Now, I encourage you to look at Nietzsche's arguments here. Many of them, I think, support only the former claim former. 372 00:43:07,570 --> 00:43:10,330 We can claim, for example, 373 00:43:10,330 --> 00:43:22,510 the argument that suffering is essential for growth or creativity seems to apply only to particular kinds of suffering of particular people. 374 00:43:22,510 --> 00:43:30,250 But the latter view the claim that suffering. In each case is always good as well as bad. 375 00:43:30,250 --> 00:43:34,400 That is obviously a much stronger view and much more difficult to argue or accept. 376 00:43:34,400 --> 00:43:43,960 It does need you think that even the bodily suffering of those quite unable to overcome it and to grow through it is also good. 377 00:43:43,960 --> 00:43:46,270 Nevertheless, harder to accept. 378 00:43:46,270 --> 00:43:54,310 It seems to me that nature does hold this stronger view, at least in these sort of transcendent moments in which he is a universal. 379 00:43:54,310 --> 00:44:04,120 Yes. Our second question that comes up about this this way of understanding the denial of opposite values. 380 00:44:04,120 --> 00:44:12,340 What is the range or level of entities that the ex applies to when he says that no ex has ever fully. 381 00:44:12,340 --> 00:44:19,420 Good or bad? Is it that no person is ever thoroughly good or bad? 382 00:44:19,420 --> 00:44:26,380 That would leave it open that some particular acts by a person could be thoroughly good or thoroughly bad? 383 00:44:26,380 --> 00:44:36,190 Or does the point apply also to particular acts such as acting from pity or experiences such as suffering a particular suffering? 384 00:44:36,190 --> 00:44:44,650 Again, it seems to me if you look at Peter's arguments, I think you'll see that many of them apply only to the weaker point. 385 00:44:44,650 --> 00:44:51,430 It seems to me he is trying to drive us, steer us towards the stronger point. 386 00:44:51,430 --> 00:44:59,070 He wants the stronger point. He, it seems to me, wants to deny value purity all the way down. 387 00:44:59,070 --> 00:45:03,760 Okay. Now why. And then I going actually skip over. 388 00:45:03,760 --> 00:45:15,730 I mean, there's a further. No distinctions about that, try to examine what that value purity might how it might be understood. 389 00:45:15,730 --> 00:45:23,100 You know, whether it's a matter of how the denial of the value of purity might get tested, 390 00:45:23,100 --> 00:45:29,610 whether it's a matter that everything has parts that are good as well as parts that are bad, 391 00:45:29,610 --> 00:45:34,500 whether it's a matter of having aspects that are good at aspects that are bad or 392 00:45:34,500 --> 00:45:40,510 whether it's a matter of having facts that are good as well as effects that are bad. 393 00:45:40,510 --> 00:45:50,880 If there are various ways, it seems to me that the argument gets put off by him, skip over this complexity. 394 00:45:50,880 --> 00:45:59,340 Why does nature think or how does he argue that there is no pure good or bad leaving out a prospective IST argument? 395 00:45:59,340 --> 00:46:03,420 I think there are two main reasons. First is an entity. 396 00:46:03,420 --> 00:46:13,110 The person the drive in act is never completely good or bad because each depends practically on being the other in some way. 397 00:46:13,110 --> 00:46:16,500 So will the power, 351 says, 398 00:46:16,500 --> 00:46:25,720 against what he calls the PGA of the good man who separates off one side of various dualisms and insists on just his quote, 399 00:46:25,720 --> 00:46:31,800 what is good on condition one also knows how to be evil. 400 00:46:31,800 --> 00:46:36,310 One is evil because otherwise one would not understand how to be good. 401 00:46:36,310 --> 00:46:44,670 Whence then comes the sickness, an ideological unnaturalness that rejects this doubleness, that teaches that it is a higher thing to be efficient. 402 00:46:44,670 --> 00:46:52,020 On only one side, whence comes the Hemas PGA, the virtue, the invention of the good man. 403 00:46:52,020 --> 00:46:59,280 This unnaturalness corresponds then to that dualistic conception of a merely good and a merely evil creature. 404 00:46:59,280 --> 00:47:12,000 And so the idea is that as a practically speaking, you can only be good if you also have bad grades, only be bad if you also are good at certain ways. 405 00:47:12,000 --> 00:47:18,390 You a good thief or bad idea and only be bad as a thief. 406 00:47:18,390 --> 00:47:23,580 Not sure just how, but let me let me skip that over. Okay. Second second kind of argument. 407 00:47:23,580 --> 00:47:31,740 I think you give nothing. No person driver act is ever completely good or bad because it inevitably has opposite effects on different 408 00:47:31,740 --> 00:47:39,420 organisms or people due to the immense differences in the different people in actions say effects, 409 00:47:39,420 --> 00:47:44,180 it will inevitably further some but inhibit others. 410 00:47:44,180 --> 00:47:49,290 OK, now, although nature does hold all of these points, I think it would fine. 411 00:47:49,290 --> 00:47:58,890 I think you'd recognise all of these as arguments that he makes in various places, makes all of these points rejecting value purity. 412 00:47:58,890 --> 00:48:03,150 I think this still isn't the gist of his point. And I think we should suspect this. 413 00:48:03,150 --> 00:48:10,800 When we see how easy it is to agree with most of these planes, we'll readily admit that nobody's perfect. 414 00:48:10,800 --> 00:48:15,510 Perhaps we'll also be happy to apply this even to particular acts or experiences. 415 00:48:15,510 --> 00:48:20,700 Isn't there always at least some tinge of the negative in any action? 416 00:48:20,700 --> 00:48:27,600 Perhaps we'll also agree that things effects are multifarious and that some of them are good, some of them are bad. 417 00:48:27,600 --> 00:48:31,530 In this way, this isn't very far from common sense. 418 00:48:31,530 --> 00:48:40,620 It seems quite consistent with ratter ordinary admonition to analyse and sum up the manifold goods and bads of a person or an act, 419 00:48:40,620 --> 00:48:45,630 and so arrive at judgements about its overall goodness or badness. 420 00:48:45,630 --> 00:48:49,950 It doesn't change, as it were, the logic of good and bad themselves. 421 00:48:49,950 --> 00:49:00,020 But only the conception of how they are distributed in the world, distributed in true intermittently, as it were, not concentrated or pure. 422 00:49:00,020 --> 00:49:10,350 So I want to go on now to more radical claims of a claim about the logic of good and bad, rather than about how they happen to show up in the world. 423 00:49:10,350 --> 00:49:15,180 So the third thing that he might mean by the denial about his account is, 424 00:49:15,180 --> 00:49:25,730 is that values good and bad are scalar or comparative rather than bifurcating or inherent. 425 00:49:25,730 --> 00:49:36,560 So the reasons that I talk about just now for thinking that good and bad must always be co instantiated are causal reasons and spiritual reasons. 426 00:49:36,560 --> 00:49:43,890 But each, I think, also has what you might call conceptual reasons, connecting good and bad by necessity. 427 00:49:43,890 --> 00:49:49,650 The simplest form of such an argument is to call something good requires that there be a bad. 428 00:49:49,650 --> 00:49:54,960 It's contrasted with so there's something incoherent about hoping for a world in which bad. 429 00:49:54,960 --> 00:50:02,700 The contrast case is eliminated. Again, a quote from Heraclitus for humans to get all they want is not better. 430 00:50:02,700 --> 00:50:12,200 Disease makes health sweet and good hunger's. He weariness, last quote, from nature will to power three lives one. 431 00:50:12,200 --> 00:50:19,850 It takes good and evil for realities that contradict one another. Not as complimentary value concepts, which would be the truth. 432 00:50:19,850 --> 00:50:25,990 It advises taking the side of the good and desires. The good should renounce and oppose the evil down to its ultimate roots. 433 00:50:25,990 --> 00:50:32,420 Yet there with actually a life which has in all its instincts, both yes and no. 434 00:50:32,420 --> 00:50:37,490 But each, I think, makes us stronger and more interesting point than this. 435 00:50:37,490 --> 00:50:43,190 Good requires bad not just for contrast, but as an element in itself. 436 00:50:43,190 --> 00:50:50,340 Good is always an overcoming of a bad in one that way that nature argues this is with respect to suffering. 437 00:50:50,340 --> 00:50:55,850 And again, I refer to Bernhard's develops this point, I think, very well. 438 00:50:55,850 --> 00:51:02,390 He says that suffering is valued for its own sake because it is metaphysically necessary for creativity, 439 00:51:02,390 --> 00:51:08,870 as overcoming creativity is always an overcoming of suffering. 440 00:51:08,870 --> 00:51:13,670 More generally, it seems to me, we can find this logic in Nietzsche's idea of power. 441 00:51:13,670 --> 00:51:21,200 As a matter of overcoming power is a growth that rises above something it leaves behind as bad. 442 00:51:21,200 --> 00:51:29,660 This can be another organism that incorporates but more essentially, I think it's the inferior earlier condition itself. 443 00:51:29,660 --> 00:51:34,640 Power is precisely the transition from a good, from a bad to a good. 444 00:51:34,640 --> 00:51:38,000 And so depends on both elements. Hence good and bad. 445 00:51:38,000 --> 00:51:48,410 And in an asymmetric relation, Reachin says the latter is presupposed by even contained within the former as what it overcomes. 446 00:51:48,410 --> 00:51:56,750 But that doesn't in the same way contain good is not a dissent from the good nature draws the lesson from this applied not to good bad, 447 00:51:56,750 --> 00:52:01,280 but to pleasure pain that they are therefore not opposites. This is world power. 448 00:52:01,280 --> 00:52:05,420 Six, nine, nine. Pain is something different from pleasure. 449 00:52:05,420 --> 00:52:12,550 I mean to say it is not. Its opposite for unpleasant. And this is now not prote but sort of summary for unplayed here isn't it. 450 00:52:12,550 --> 00:52:14,720 Riedy Indian pleasure. 451 00:52:14,720 --> 00:52:25,070 As we see from tickling and sex, which nature thinks are pleasures composed of quote, a certain rhythmic succession of small and pleasurable stimuli. 452 00:52:25,070 --> 00:52:31,020 End quote. But pleasure is not simply contained within pain. 453 00:52:31,020 --> 00:52:38,500 Similarly, Southeaster says that creating requires destroying and quote thus does the highest evil belong to the highest good. 454 00:52:38,500 --> 00:52:41,150 But the latter is the creative. 455 00:52:41,150 --> 00:52:51,050 This idea is expressed, of course, in the way nature so commonly thinks of values in terms of a scale or ladder of which we aspire to ascend. 456 00:52:51,050 --> 00:52:57,440 Let's see. I think I'm going to have to skips things. 457 00:52:57,440 --> 00:53:06,530 Yes, I'm going to skip and I'm going to go on to the fourth thing that each year might mean by the dialogue's values. 458 00:53:06,530 --> 00:53:12,980 And that is what I want to say, is that each year goes an important step beyond this point that I just made, 459 00:53:12,980 --> 00:53:22,460 which is I'm suggesting a kind of scalar point that there is a lack of value 460 00:53:22,460 --> 00:53:28,880 and that things have value by their relative positions in this latter nature. 461 00:53:28,880 --> 00:53:39,500 Those are important step beyond the scale of point. He specifies the common value which fall of these positions are degrees of. 462 00:53:39,500 --> 00:53:45,020 He specifies the common value as good. So he takes the opposite stance. 463 00:53:45,020 --> 00:53:55,370 We might say from Shukman power, for whom all life is bad and all quote unquote goods are merely lesser degrees of bad. 464 00:53:55,370 --> 00:54:00,500 So escape from willing is, as it were, a zero degree of bad for children. 465 00:54:00,500 --> 00:54:03,850 How are the best thing to do? 466 00:54:03,850 --> 00:54:18,170 Now, let's say that this is really what the essay convinced to, that the common value which there are all of these degrees is good. 467 00:54:18,170 --> 00:54:26,030 To say yes to something is to judge it good and saying yes to everything is to judge everything is good 468 00:54:26,030 --> 00:54:37,250 is to place everything on a scale of values whose common character is that the common value is good now. 469 00:54:37,250 --> 00:54:41,840 So we'll cover ten, thirty five God conceived as an emancipation from morality, 470 00:54:41,840 --> 00:54:46,670 taking into himself the whole fullness of life's antithesis and in divine torment, 471 00:54:46,670 --> 00:54:54,920 redeeming and justifying God as the beyond and above the wretched Bofors morality of good evil. 472 00:54:54,920 --> 00:54:59,900 So if nature's ultimate judgement of things is that they are good, it seems that when he calls them bad. 473 00:54:59,900 --> 00:55:06,500 This must be kind of specification of their goodness. Their badness is their way of being good. 474 00:55:06,500 --> 00:55:10,460 That simply means less good at what they could do. So well. 475 00:55:10,460 --> 00:55:20,240 The bad. Occupy the same scale as the grid. By contrast, in the good evil morality, the evil are not treated as good. 476 00:55:20,240 --> 00:55:30,660 They don't have a common project with the good. It's not the case in that morality that their goodness is a way of being bad. 477 00:55:30,660 --> 00:55:37,940 Sorry. It's so great to meet you. Out of the goodness of things on the scale is not a way of being bad. 478 00:55:37,940 --> 00:55:43,130 Only the opposite poles. Now, of course we should ask, what grounds does nature have for this? 479 00:55:43,130 --> 00:55:48,470 Why believe that all bad is a form of good? 480 00:55:48,470 --> 00:56:03,200 Now, from God's eye point of view, why doesn't everything just become a location on this scale at once, both good to an extent and bad to an extent. 481 00:56:03,200 --> 00:56:10,460 Now, in the positive this period, I think nature accepts this lesson so that from an ultimate viewpoint, there aren't a certain sense, no values. 482 00:56:10,460 --> 00:56:19,030 They're just positions on a certain scale. I have a quote here from human to human one, one of seven, which I'm not going to read. 483 00:56:19,030 --> 00:56:27,960 But in his later writings, he throws himself back into value into valuing everything as good. 484 00:56:27,960 --> 00:56:35,720 OK. Now, why? So why do you think that's that's why I need you to think that all of the values on this scale. 485 00:56:35,720 --> 00:56:48,050 Good. I think that his his argument is ultimately the role that life plays in constituting all values. 486 00:56:48,050 --> 00:56:55,280 So there are values only by virtue of like value is only in life's value. 487 00:56:55,280 --> 00:57:01,640 Moreover, what life values as good is itself more of itself. 488 00:57:01,640 --> 00:57:05,990 So life as the transcendental condition of all values. 489 00:57:05,990 --> 00:57:11,330 And as the built in aim of all values is the ultimate good. 490 00:57:11,330 --> 00:57:17,990 So what we can say from the broadest perspective, the perspective of life, is that life is good. 491 00:57:17,990 --> 00:57:24,140 Any distinctions we go on to make? We'll speak of only one kind of life. 492 00:57:24,140 --> 00:57:29,030 This will find some life good and other life bad. So beyond. 493 00:57:29,030 --> 00:57:34,100 So. So below. The Monas perspective of life itself. There's a value of pluralism. 494 00:57:34,100 --> 00:57:43,310 They're different goods internally to the different perspectives. But from the transcendent point of view, point of view as a way of life itself. 495 00:57:43,310 --> 00:57:52,490 Life is simply the good. And I suggest that this is a key feature of the good, bad values nature promotes in place of the good, 496 00:57:52,490 --> 00:58:01,880 evil morality it operates with the orienting judgement that life itself, in general and in every instance is good. 497 00:58:01,880 --> 00:58:04,160 And nature's cheap argument against the good, evil, 498 00:58:04,160 --> 00:58:13,160 morality or Christianity or the ascetic ideal is that it operates with ultimately the opposite judgement that life is bad. 499 00:58:13,160 --> 00:58:13,740 Now, 500 00:58:13,740 --> 00:58:25,730 there is still a question of why this universal gas doesn't collapse the scale of values altogether and lead to a blanket or monochrome affirmation. 501 00:58:25,730 --> 00:58:28,130 Can nature really reconcile, 502 00:58:28,130 --> 00:58:36,710 harmonise this universal yes to the idea of on a comparative scale and its determination of one direction or relation as bad? 503 00:58:36,710 --> 00:58:40,610 How can we affirm universally yet still say no? 504 00:58:40,610 --> 00:58:46,940 How can that be a degree of good? We know that each is extremely ready to say no. 505 00:58:46,940 --> 00:58:53,620 His work is not a universal yes. And in fact, he explicitly rejects that. 506 00:58:53,620 --> 00:59:00,500 Make an affirmation. Certain passages. I have a quotation from Sir of those stre three A which I won't read. 507 00:59:00,500 --> 00:59:08,630 So the question is, how can you just say yes to life, not just in the aggregate, but also in every individual, but also go on to say no. 508 00:59:08,630 --> 00:59:15,290 That is disvalue evaluate as bad. So many things happening consistently, disvalue, anything. 509 00:59:15,290 --> 00:59:22,100 This is what I want to address in the last section, which I'm going to have to skate through very quickly. 510 00:59:22,100 --> 00:59:27,410 OK. So my suggestion is that each has two strategies for responding to this problem. 511 00:59:27,410 --> 00:59:32,690 The problem, how he can at once affirm everything as good. 512 00:59:32,690 --> 00:59:39,890 Yet on the other hand, a value which distinctions and say no to any particular things. 513 00:59:39,890 --> 00:59:44,570 Now, a first so first possible answer is this. 514 00:59:44,570 --> 00:59:51,140 The teacher simply passes back and forth in these different passages between two perspectives. 515 00:59:51,140 --> 00:59:56,690 On the one hand, a transcendental perspective that sees light has ultimate value. 516 00:59:56,690 --> 01:00:02,840 Secondly, a perspective within life, his own perspective. The disvalue is many kinds of life. 517 01:00:02,840 --> 01:00:10,610 So another passage from Heraclitus, a famous passage. I guess it's not supposed to be her classes of words, but an approximation for God. 518 01:00:10,610 --> 01:00:20,540 All things are beautiful. So valuing we occupy the transcendent perspective, but then we throw ourselves back into life and into the internal. 519 01:00:20,540 --> 01:00:25,800 Yes and no valuing required for living. OK. 520 01:00:25,800 --> 01:00:34,850 Now have passages to show that he does, in fact, think of that transcendent perspective as a perspective. 521 01:00:34,850 --> 01:00:40,100 And then he thinks of it. He sometimes describes it as a temporary perspective. OK. 522 01:00:40,100 --> 01:00:44,720 So one way to accommodate the dualism is to say that the moment is. 523 01:00:44,720 --> 01:00:56,530 Yeah. The monism is offered from a God's eye. Super. Earth perspective, I would position the dualism is offered from within Nietzsche's personal view. 524 01:00:56,530 --> 01:00:58,570 But as it stands, 525 01:00:58,570 --> 01:01:07,850 I think we have to notice that this reading of nature performs a fine frication of his position into two views that don't affect one another. 526 01:01:07,850 --> 01:01:13,420 The transcendental yes, saying approves of the within life saying no. 527 01:01:13,420 --> 01:01:18,280 But it doesn't affect how we say no or what we say no to. 528 01:01:18,280 --> 01:01:22,630 So it is in this respect, at least, podiums, it turns a wheel. 529 01:01:22,630 --> 01:01:27,790 The transcendental essay doesn't affect the way in which we sing within life. 530 01:01:27,790 --> 01:01:34,870 Surely that can't be so. Nature surely wants to improve the ways that we judge. 531 01:01:34,870 --> 01:01:41,540 Yes and no. Within life by virtue of that honest insight. 532 01:01:41,540 --> 01:01:51,660 Now, I think there are resources to begin to answer that challenge already within the perspective of position itself to really go fast here. 533 01:01:51,660 --> 01:01:56,200 But for nature can say that even though the divine perspective doesn't. 534 01:01:56,200 --> 01:02:02,620 Can't determine within like any particular values for us, it can affect how we hold those values. 535 01:02:02,620 --> 01:02:07,220 It can demand that we hold them just as our values. 536 01:02:07,220 --> 01:02:12,960 That is, recognising their perspectival status, recognising their containment within a divine value. 537 01:02:12,960 --> 01:02:22,120 In all of life. So we go back into differential valuing in a way that preserves in a certain sense that transcend transcendentally inside. 538 01:02:22,120 --> 01:02:26,020 In particular, we don't take values to come from some other world. 539 01:02:26,020 --> 01:02:31,180 We sometimes we somehow hold in the back of our minds the recognition that these values 540 01:02:31,180 --> 01:02:35,720 are just powers and that the values of others we oppose are also equally valid, 541 01:02:35,720 --> 01:02:40,090 the expressions of life and pro life. So is Arthus true? 542 01:02:40,090 --> 01:02:47,530 Three above. But he has discovered himself. Who can say this is by good and evil? 543 01:02:47,530 --> 01:02:55,660 OK. And we might think, by contrast, that the key point at holding opposite values is the refusal to step into the other viewpoint. 544 01:02:55,660 --> 01:03:06,280 The rejection of it altogether. I think there's a lot in favour of this perspective, first, 545 01:03:06,280 --> 01:03:18,490 as a resolution of the tension that I'm trying to bring out, but I think of nature often has a strong position. 546 01:03:18,490 --> 01:03:26,500 Nature often wants to draw from the transcendent affirmative perspective. 547 01:03:26,500 --> 01:03:30,160 He wants to draw not just, as it were, a way of having values. 548 01:03:30,160 --> 01:03:40,000 He wants to draw particular value content's conclusions about what we should value within life. 549 01:03:40,000 --> 01:03:48,040 And in order to get these value contents out of the value Mohsin, nature needs to specify life as well to power. 550 01:03:48,040 --> 01:03:54,400 This lets him specifying an ultimate point to life. An essential aim in its valuing. 551 01:03:54,400 --> 01:04:03,610 And this lets the monism deliver a value content that can be then be used as a standard in evaluating particular cases of life. 552 01:04:03,610 --> 01:04:08,380 So now particular values are not just my point of view. 553 01:04:08,380 --> 01:04:19,090 And the only virtue is not just recognising that status. Now values can be judged by how well they serve life's ultimate end, which is power. 554 01:04:19,090 --> 01:04:24,040 Life as well to power can be graded by the goal. Power. 555 01:04:24,040 --> 01:04:32,800 Does a particular organism wield power effectively? What degree of power does a particular organism achieve? 556 01:04:32,800 --> 01:04:44,270 So the individual Egypt is able to take the point of view of life and make differential values, differential judgements on its feet. 557 01:04:44,270 --> 01:04:52,480 OK, now. OK. 558 01:04:52,480 --> 01:05:03,660 So the last point that I have and I'm sorry that over the last point that I have is that Miccio taking this strong position, 559 01:05:03,660 --> 01:05:14,520 using this way of drawing out of the value monas, that God's perspective particular value, two conclusions. 560 01:05:14,520 --> 01:05:25,880 He does this in a way which strongly reintroduces bifurcating values. 561 01:05:25,880 --> 01:05:27,380 He does this in a way. 562 01:05:27,380 --> 01:05:34,990 See, the suggestion is one could do it in such a way that one gets them simply the kind of scalar values that I was talking about before. 563 01:05:34,990 --> 01:05:40,900 But that's not how nature often those are not often teaching extracts values from 564 01:05:40,900 --> 01:05:47,830 the value of Mormonism which have this or bifurcating and duellist character. 565 01:05:47,830 --> 01:05:56,890 And that is expressed in this argumentative how in Nietzsche's accusation that some life is anti life. 566 01:05:56,890 --> 01:06:01,480 I think it's very telling that his arguments often take this form. 567 01:06:01,480 --> 01:06:10,180 This is where he is duellist Virge gets its place closest to my heart, I think, of his system. 568 01:06:10,180 --> 01:06:17,290 He claims that not just that there are some people who are stronger than others, you know, relatively. 569 01:06:17,290 --> 01:06:28,000 He claims that some individuals are sick in the sense that they are directed contrary to the essential end of life. 570 01:06:28,000 --> 01:06:34,540 Moreover, he claims that some of the people are so sick that they are actually anti life. 571 01:06:34,540 --> 01:06:41,660 So the ascetic ideal is hostile to life. And this is, I think, the way in which he puts the, as it were, 572 01:06:41,660 --> 01:06:50,650 the lesson that he extracts from the value of feminism when he is most, as it were, value listed bifurcating. 573 01:06:50,650 --> 01:06:56,920 So, for example, I get home 047 But Christianity is criminality, par excellence. 574 01:06:56,920 --> 01:07:01,240 The crime against life. This is the only morality that has been taught so far. 575 01:07:01,240 --> 01:07:04,540 The morality of on salving demonstrates a will to the end. 576 01:07:04,540 --> 01:07:17,620 It negates life as the most basic level. OK, I have I have a last section which is going to show how even this value dualism, 577 01:07:17,620 --> 01:07:35,003 which has some at times extracts from value modernism, is itself sort of reconciled or harmonised with the monism.