The Congenital Defect of All Philosophers

[@gingerbreadzak]

00:01 🧠 Philosophers often start with present-day humans and analyze them, assuming they are unchanging, which is a fundamental defect. 02:36 🌍 Philosophers lack a historical sense, failing to recognize that all recorded history is recent and that both humanity and the world are evolving. 04:26 🔄 Philosophers tend to explore the same philosophical territory due to linguistic and cognitive limitations, leading to repeated errors and prejudices. 12:08 🤔 Philosophers often believe what feels good to believe, leading them to start with conclusions or effects and work backward to justify them, ignoring the provisional nature of their thoughts. 17:56 ⚖ Nietzsche points out the confusion between predicates like "good" and "legitimate," which can refer to both what is gladdening and what is logically valid. 22:07 🤯 Nietzsche challenges Schopenhauer's idea of intelligible freedom, criticizing the notion that displeasure after immoral deeds proves human freedom over nature. 23:05 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes philosophers like Schopenhauer for their "philosophical birth defect," which includes the habit of drawing conclusions based on the assumption that a feeling of guilt or displeasure is legitimate when it may not be logically valid. 24:45 🧠 Nietzsche argues that the feeling of guilt and displeasure is not experienced universally across different times and cultures, highlighting the perspectival nature of moral universes. 26:20 🤯 Nietzsche points out that people often believe in ideas because they find them pleasurable and personally beneficial, even if the ideas lack intellectual certainty and substantiation. 31:10 💡 Nietzsche warns against mistaking the effect for the cause, as it can lead to the corruption of reason and a misunderstanding of the true nature of causality. 35:12 🧐 Nietzsche explains that knowledge is linked to pleasure because it provides a sense of power and superiority, making us feel unique and in control. 41:46 🌌 Nietzsche highlights the human tendency to invent imaginary causes, such as dreams, to explain sensations and feelings, driven by the desire to eliminate discomfort and uncertainty. 44:19 😇 Nietzsche suggests that the human instinct to explain the unknown as familiar and pleasurable contributes to the creation of moral and religious concepts, even if they lack a solid basis in reality. 45:44 🤔 Nietzsche critiques the conventional wisdom that agreeable feelings result from trust in God, faith, or a good conscience as translations of pleasurable or unpleasurable feelings into a false dialect. 47:23 😡 Nietzsche suggests that the belief in free will is driven by the instinct to judge, punish, and impute guilt, making people responsible for punishment, which satisfies the will to power. 49:15 🤯 Nietzsche explores Kant's notion of synthetic judgments a priori and criticizes it as an example of starting with conclusions and then reasoning backward to justify them, rather than deriving knowledge from experience or logic. 50:53 🧐 Nietzsche highlights the inherent error in philosophers' thinking due to their lack of a historical sense, leading them to believe in eternal truths and invest their own time's beliefs into their philosophical concepts. 53:01 🔍 Kant's distinctions between analytic and synthetic judgments, as well as a priori and a posteriori judgments, play a significant role in his philosophy, particularly regarding the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori. 56:08 🤔 Kant's argument centers on the possibility of synthetic judgments a priori, which are judgments that expand knowledge without relying on sense data or logical deduction, leading to Kant's conclusion that they are possible due to some human reasoning faculty. 01:03:03 😆 Nietzsche humorously criticizes Kant's explanation of synthetic judgments a priori as being a mere repetition of the question and suggests replacing it with the question of why belief in such judgments is necessary for the preservation of creatures like us. 01:08:29 🧐 Kant's complex philosophical texts had an ultimate aim: validating the moral and metaphysical prejudices of common people, particularly in Christian Europe and Germany, amidst the threat of secularism. 01:09:12 😲 Nietzsche suggests that at the core of Kant's philosophy lies a psychological need or demand rather than purely logical reasoning. These judgments may be valid or false, but they remain necessary for beings like us. 01:10:08 🤔 Nietzsche employs a psychological approach to critique philosophers, focusing on the psychological needs and demands driving their philosophies. He questions whether Nietzsche himself is subject to the congenital defect of philosophers and whether he sometimes reasons backward from his irrational demands or biases.

[@wandereroftheabyss-w2h]

However you are, if you can still read this. Thank you so much your effort to make these micro notes; it has proven me extremely useful.

[@samuelinauen1038]

10 points out of 10! Great work as always!!

[@CD-kl1dn]

Man, this was a particularly interesting episode, thanks

[@kaleidoscopicvoid]

There are no absolute truths, except that one.

[@untimelyreflections]

There's not even that one! ;)

[@romek7]

​@@untimelyreflectionsand that is also true

[@untimelyreflections]

@@romek7 I guess we'll have to agree to disagree

[@romek7]

​@@untimelyreflectionsikik Im just joking around. Cant wait to listen to more of these videos.

[@untimelyreflections]

@@romek7 I was too :)

[@alexanderkuruvilla1707]

Your videos are excellent!

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Thanks for this one: this is a hugely important point, and is ironically enough not only endemic to philosophy. Gotta love Nietzschean irony!

[@abcrane]

In Veblen's Instinct of Workmanship, chapter two titled "CONTAMINATION OF INSTINCTS IN PRIMITIVE TECHNOLOGY," parallels this theme very well. "A lack of historical sense" is exactly what Veblen solves for in his great work. I believe Veblen's self-employed (yet not profit-obsessed) crafts-person, in their great skill and as independent "owner of the means" is an embodiment of Nietzsche's overman. This congenital defect applies to economists on both extremes of the spectrum. If you are new to econ, I recommend starting with Veblen, and specifically this book. It will save you time in the future weeding out the "defects" as herein outlined. Thank you for this extraordinary lecture series.

[@winniethuo9736]

54.05, 😮. 🤝 Keegan the host of Nietzsche's poscast. Nice to meet you 😊.

[@MsJavaWolf]

Just a very minor point: I've already heard about Nietzsche's view on Cornaro's diet and I get the overall point but I'm not sure if he was right about this. I think there's some decent evidence that eating less is good for longevity, I think Nietzsche was mistaken about an empirical fact here.

[@ili626]

9:30 Was Wittgenstein influenced specifically by this writing?

[@Baczkowa78]

Every philosopher after Nietzsche was, so yes

[@AlanCarter-s2k]

9:00 Proto-Indo-European led to Indo-European, Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan. DNA analysis has confirmed Greco-Roman and Chinese accounts of pale skinned people with various hair and eye colors unique to Europeans ventured into Asian parts of the world.

[@longcastle4863]

The quote about all that the young theologians going into the bushes looking for new faculties created an association in my mind of the time in physics when all the young (well, or not so young) quantum physicists went looking for new part particles. To make their bones, so to speak. For what it's worth : )

[@EthanNoble]

Def think it applies to Nietzsche in his view of the state

[@TPQ1980]

4:05 "there are no eternal facts," therefore the fact that "there are no eternal facts" is also not an eternal fact & as such, it is dependant upon temporal, geographic, ethnolinguistic & cultural context, just as the Philosopher's "defect" must be. The same can be said for "eternal truths." Nietzsche clearly loved his contradictions and paradoxes; he clearly loved irony. The more I study Nietzsche, the more humor I find in him, the more he seems like he was, in part, a troll of his time, the more I can see the irony of his commentary and the more I see why his commentary expressed the irony it did. History is very important, especially in examining the ideological systems and structures of human societies and where they come from. Nietzsche was obviously far too intelligent and studious to express fallacies of reasoning by error. The fallacies he expresses seem to me to be deliberate, designed to provoke critical thinking and to express a kind of meta-narrative. All philosophers are "X" is an assertion that be can easily refuted by finding one philosopher who deviates from "X." Nietzsche knows this. Another reason for believing that Nietzsche is part troll, or is engaged in the formation of meta-narrative, or is trying to stimulate critical thinking by expressing obvious and basic fallacies of reasoning, is that he combines this with such obviously true assertions and sound reasoning. It's almost like some of his work is a test of perception and discernment. As for cause and effect, specifically with regards to decadence, it's entirely possible, and in my view likely, that any kind of physiological element can be both the cause and effect, in that decadence feeds the degeneration which feeds the decadence which feeds the degeneration and so on. Both are a cause and effect for the other; both catalyze each other. If we enhance the physiological, the decadence begins to lose its appeal and we begin to seek and find satisfaction in more productive and creative pursuits. If we diminish the decadence, we begin to make better physiological choices that better serve the health and strength of our physiology, which in tern diminishes the attraction and satisfaction of decadence. As for free will and guilt, that man is made free so as to be made guilty, if I have free will and somebody, some group or some system tries to use that to make me feel guilty for an act of free will, I can simply use my free will to not feel guilty. If I don't have free will I cannot control my feeling of guilt, if I do, I can, so it doesn't work as a manipulative tool of control. If free will doesn't exist then the person, group or manmade system attempting to make me feel guilty as a form of control is doing so not as an act of free will, but as a slave of their nature, their controlling drive is not of their volition, but of their nature and my susceptibility to control, my captivity to their control, is also a product of my nature and not my volition. I agree that we all have a nature, that all people-groups have a people-group nature with conformity to that nature distributed on a Bell curve of strength of conformity, but we, as self-aware beings, can recognise our natures and choose to modify the impulses to thought and action that they produce. We certainly have some free will, as a product of self-aware minds. I don't believe for a moment that every human has the same degree of free will, as not every human is equal in the capacity for self-awareness and self-control through the intellect and impulse control. Many people struggle against their nature and some people are almost entirely captive to their nature. If free will exists, it is gradated and not a binary absolute.

[@MaryLee-k6t]

after all, one repays a teacher badly - if he remains a student only!... profound!! I'm convinced

[@mat7083]

Daniel Larusso

[@JavierBonillaC]

Not only in time, but across cultures. For Gypsies tricking and misleading people is no sin, but almost a quality.

[@5kehhn]

Opinionated absolutism.

[@Ajajajjddjd1917]

Jordan Peterson should watch this video...

[@Existentialist-earthling52]

This is a huge problem with historians as well.

[@closingtheloop2593]

If I may give my thoughts on what is going on with humanity: 1. The goal of philosophy is to have a mind of one not in need of philosophy. 2. If absolute truth of human nature or on identity or existance escapes humananity, then philosophy only serves to meet ones need to outgrow ones limitations. 3. Philosophy does not need taleology, but the rational mind discerns and hopefully determines the new is by some measure better than the old. 4. In this sense philosophy is a the measure of a mans world and his guide, particularly when his instincts fail him. 5. Society necessitates philosophy. We are too intelligent and too pridefull to go about simple rules too long before we question them. Our better half, the animal, the shadow, in us know this venture is futile. Lets do away with this and return to nature and war. But society yeilds a special power over nature, a group of men can do nore than a single man. Thus the truth is subdued by the pragmatic. Yes, man is troubled by the evolution of the social contract to demand a balanace of power we lost as animals. Society makes some a slave and other tyrants. We seek philosophy because we are ill and unnatural. 6. The instability of intelligence and the failure of the state: the diligent philosopher seeks truth but its end is either delusion or awareness of mans irrational existence as intelligent beings. We are a snake eating its tail. The burden is too much to bare for many and so we devolve our philosophy and seek hedonism, we debate like sophists, romance over enlightened futures, reminance over simpler pasts, or fall into nhilistic realism and forget to enjoy living. What is the bleeding edge of society, is which force among these is dominant in power. Antinatalist bare no offspring and the fool doesnt plan for winter. Evolution judges the victor. A solution to fermis paradox is given in the suicidal exposure of intelligence itself, given the right circumstances. Else society will continue its cycles, and we will revisit our troubles, seek out truths and reinvent our philosophies. There is nothing new under the sun, but that which has been forgotten. We are bones and meat and move and think with lighting and chemical legos. Dont think any of this is supposed to make any sense. Let go of your godly status and be thankfull your faculties are more than an animal but know you are below a god. For me I will be a hypocrite and follow my madness until it either kills me or I give into a romance, just to blind myself for the sake of living, as a means of survival. Cheers Vie Ender

[@philalethes216]

I recommend you the poem The Keeper of Flocks by Alberto Caeiro (aka Fernando Pessoa).

[@ralphricart3177]

The grandmother language actually has it's place in Ireland.

[@almilligan7317]

Is it an eternal fact that there are no eternal facts?

[@untimelyreflections]

Yep.

[@emZee1994]

Gotta admit, this was a particularly difficult concept to understand. Somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, mostly don't understand lol

[@martinrea8548]

I agree. One of the more technical podcasts on here. Still a pleasure to listen too, but I get lost when philosophy gets too technical and itty bitty when it comes to definitions.

[@christopherhamilton3621]

Just shows how embedded Kant’s psychology has been under his tortured reasoning….

[@MsJavaWolf]

People believe what they want to believe.

[@tomato1040]

Man comes in the word Manu, meaning to work with your hands, tiling the Garden of someone else, instead of using your Mind🧠, your🗣️voice, then your🙌hands🙏, then your feet👣 in the🪂Leap🐸 of❤️‍🔥Faith, written📚on your😇Face!

[@ralphricart3177]

By abolishing religion what are people left with? Philosophy? This is beyond most people's reach. Hence postmodernity's debased society reigns supreme.

[@gamingandgunpla]

We live in a Nietzschian nightmare.

[@bryanutility9609]

The left is insanely religious. They worship equality. Fact is most people are too stupid to think for themselves and need to be treated like sheep.

[@bryanutility9609]

@@gamingandgunpla we live in the exact nightmare he predicted

[@ralphricart3177]

@@bryanutility9609 Sad but true. I grey rock them.

[@gamingandgunpla]

@@bryanutility9609 We sure do Bryan, we sure do. Now the weather.

[@sohrab_solheim]

Great podcast as always, I just wish you didn't butcher the German language, I teach German, I can write you a two page note on how to pronounce each letter. If you'd like that sir, send me an e-mail

[@ralphricart3177]

Western culture has the annoying habit of taking things at face value.

[@actaeonpress]

The irony being that Nietzsche is the most guilty.

[@solibra5608]

How so if you dont mind?

[@scoopjackson411]

17th century gave us Nietzsche: Our century gave us Jordan Peterson, fml.

[@winniethuo9736]

Well, I had to google fml?.😂. There is always some. I started with Jiddu Krishnamurti. He insists on freeing oneself from the known probably best if to understand the enquiry on this podcast. He is between Nietsche and J. Peterson. Try him if you have not.

[@noahmaatiihafa]

19th century