The Nietzschean Self

A talk given by Paul Katsafanas (Boston University) on Nietzsche at Amherst College back in 2015.
00:00 Talk
40:27 Q&A
#philosophy #nietzsche

[@divertissementmonas]

This lecture seems to be the same as the essay he wrote 'Value, Affect, Drive' in the book - Nietzsche On Mind & Nature' also published in 2015.

[@wesduvall]

37:04 He summarizes. An agent values a thing if he has "a drive-induced affective orientation to it which he does not dissaprove of."

[@jackeasling3294]

Do you have audio/video about Katsafanas on Nietzschean Constitutivism??

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

What reveals our values are not so much our words, as our actions. If a person says he values hard-work, but is lazy and sluggish in his actions (or non-actions), he actually values rest and relaxation over working hard. On the other hand, if his actions match his words, and he almost always works hard to accomplish his work and to carry-out his duties and responsibilities in a prompt and efficient manner, then it clearly indicates that he does indeed value hard-work. Of course, it might be claimed that what he possibly values is something else -- like a fine reputation as a hard-worker, to please others by working hard for them, to get the work done and not procrastinate, so that he can rest and relax without worry, to quickly advance in his career by getting promoted, to make lots of money and get ahead in life, etc.. However, even if his ultimate motivation (or value) is not hard-work itself, but rather what results from his working hard, he still values hard-work as a means to one or more of these ends. Thus, we can say that hard-work has an instrumental value for him, rather an intrinsic value. Nonetheless, hard-work is still a value for him -- whether instrumentally or intrinsically. So, our values are indeed revealed to some extent by our actions. Of course, it can be argued that we can never be certain by means of our actions alone whether or not the values indicated by our actions are intrinsically valuable for us, or whether they have only instrumental value. (And, I suppose this is Nietzsche's point.) But does any of this really indicate that we can never become aware of our ultimate values (or motivations) ? Is the Socratic dictum 'Know thyself' nothing more than another philosophical delusion ? What has Nietzsche provided as real evidence or sound argument to prove that knowing our ultimate values, drives, and motivations is impossible ? Sure, the man has a theory... But where is the proof ?

[@jungefrau]

You put that so perfectly.

[@ghamessmona]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@phillipchavez1321]

📝 00:00-40:27

[@ottaviocolombo5805]

By values and drives does Nietzsche mean biological impulses such as hunger, safety, bodily functions and so on or does he mean specific things we want, like a specific food, person, job, car, etc? By the fact that he distinguishes the end and the drive and the fact that he remarks the periodical resurfacing of drives one may think he considers drives the main categories of goals, the general concepts to which one can trace back each end and one can link with biological characteristics. But how can this be considered a self if it has a general nature, sort of tipical of the human kind (if not of other species)? And of course, culturally induced habits can hardly be considered a self for a similar reason. Now, isn't this self thing a little bit burdened with too heavy a request? Is it really the self something that answers such requirements and questions? Isn't it just the fact that we are able (versus when we are not) to make a connection between those two big conceptual domains in our own individual, everyday experience of life? I also think that the whole reflective vs unreflective/pre-reflective distinction is irrelevant, fueled by a poor understanding of split personality phenomena. Valuing or evaluating something means, to me, exactly to make the aforementioned connection.

[@marekvodicka]

By drives Nietzsche means not only the innate biological impulses that we share with animals (hunger, safety, reproduction) but also impulses typical for certain types of people: for example, he writes that the drives of a philosopher-type person include "his drive to doubt, his drive to deny, his drive to prevaricate (...) his drive to analyse, his drive to research, investigate, dare, his drive to compare and counterbalance, his will to neutrality and objectivity (...)." (GM:III,9) So they don't seem to be directed at concrete things but rather at certain actions - they are inclinations that animate a certain type of person most strongly and thus define them as that type. Whether he believes these drives are innate (inherited) or acquired ("incorporated" [einverleibt]) during life, is unclear, but it's probably both. Hope that helps a bit.

[@jacobh82]

This talk is a good example of when analytic philosophy really tanks. The first 9 minutes are spent pinning down a definition of the notion of a psychological "drive" that is utterly useless because it is so familiar to any adult human. It sounds like he's mansplaining human psychology to an AI training algorithm.

[@Pun116]

This guy needs to get rid of his California accent; it's grating.

[@elgatofelix8917]

You misspelled Commiefornia

[@hannahsmith807]

don’t say that. just keep it to yourself because it can hurt people’s feelings, and i bet you don’t sound any bettetr

[@raginbakin1430]

Great talk but his voice is unbearable

[@menzisaclown]

Why you mention such? that rude Edit: I spoke too soon, I hear it now. Why is he speaking at different paces, hard to concentrate on whats being said. Irregardless great ideas are mentioned

[@Pun116]

It's a rather strong California accent. It's horrible.

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@Pun116 Commiefornia accent

[@EchelonNL]

Ever heard Zizek talk? Let's just say... things could be a lot worse

[@TheAnnoyingRyan]

​@@elgatofelix8917you know you can just say gay

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

Nobody can lack a self. You can lack a clear identity, in that you might not know who you are -- in terms of what your fundamental values are, what you really want out of life, what are your goals and dreams, and so forth. Thus, your behavior might be inconsistent and contradictory, and very often confused. You can doubt yourself and question yourself -- as, I suppose, most people do occasionally to some extent. But none this means you aren't yourself -- or, that there is no self that is behaving in these various ways. Of course, there is a self ! Indeed, philosophers who say there is no self -- like Nietzsche and Hume -- , or, those who think the self is something that has to be proven -- like Descartes -- are simply being absurd ! Whosoever sincerely doubted their own existence ? Or, whosoever needed to prove to themselves that they existed in the first place ? Your existence is the most immediate and obvious thing to you ! So, how would you discover anything more obvious or fundamental by means of which to prove to yourself your existence ? If you say your thoughts, or your perceptions, or your doubts, then you already saying you exist because you are asserting from the beginning that these thoughts, perceptions, and doubts that you are aware of belong to you. That's not a proof because it begs the question. But, indeed, it is the question itself that is absurd ! If there is no self that is you, then you are not now reading this message. But, of course, you are !

[@StMichaelCell]

tell the Buddhists there is a "Self". They are big on "no self".

[@laxave1767]

No, they are big on overcoming the self, thus affirming that, at least, every person starts with a self.

[@dikkie2913]

I think Decartes actually believed he existed, but overall, good point

[@alwaysgreatusa223]

@@dikkie2913 yeah, that was one of my points. Descartes never actually doubted his own existence -- except theoretically. But even in theory, he is always there doubting, affirming, reasoning, thinking .. He later tries to use these facts which he asserts to prove his existence -- his famous, I think, therefore I am. But, of course, the premise is already asserting the conclusion -- as it begins with the 'I' that is supposedly in question.

[@supergamesgaming5677]

You are still presupposing a unity of selfhood, there is a real question at the limit or definition of being self. Is the body part of this self? Are the arms or legs parts of the self? Or is it purely intellectual. Can there be multiple selves? What is even constituted as a one self. The definition of self is not obvious. And also asking absurd questions is kind of part of philosophy.

[@bilinguru]

I definitely don't want a gay millenial to tell me about the self

[@Pun116]

I think his California accent is tough on the ears, but you need to get off the Internet and reevaluate yourself. Or, you just might be struggling with a deep desire to deep-throat another man. Either way, you need to figure it out.

[@hannahsmith807]

there’s no need to say that so please stop hating on people for no reason and keep it to yourself.

[@whateverwhatever7210]

Lol