I really do admire Keegan enabling other thinkers to have perspectives on the podcast and to using Nietzsche's aristocratic radicalism to play devil's advocate rather than making it the sine non qua of the show. It shows engagement on their own terms to compare and contrast Nietzsche to other thinkers both past and present rather than devolving into a echo chamber.

“‘Equality for equals, inequality for unequals’ - THAT would be the true voice of justice: and, what follows from it, ‘Never make equal what is unequal’” (Twilight of the Idols, section 48: PROGRESS IN MY SENSE).

He cleverly avoided justifying the possibility of his Marxists politics 3-4 times & the challenge posed by Robert Michels against socialist parties. When the modern Leftist invokes Marx, it’s only used to vaguely gesture at some empathy for the “masses”.

Great episode. You should get this guy back for more focussed discussions, for example, "on Foucault/Badiou/Lacan and Nietzsche with Daniel Tutt". Even if you've done episodes on those thinkers before. Great to hear Nietzchean takes from someone so well versed in leftwing philosophy.

One of my basic criticisms of this discussion is that it is framed in the all-too-stupid familiar duality of "Left" and "Right". --as if the world, and all the positions within it, can be boiled down to two separate points of view. I think the "Left" is too conservative for Nietzsche because there are many things within the Left that are resistant to change (the fierce opposition to war being one of the most obvious). At the same time the Right is not conservative enough for Nietzsche because of its ignorance of history and lack or deep roots. So Nietzsche is more left than the Left and more right than the Right, which destroys the dumb idea that there are two poles and one is simply fit into the spectrum between absolutes.

I still think Nietzsche despised Marxists & communism as resentful Tarantula's. Does not mean cannot have guests on the show that may hold opposing positions and interpretations. Also does give subtle nuances to Nietzsche that cannot box him up in a particular "left vs right" but beyond categories. Saying that, I think Keegan could have grilled Daniel Tutt more on the notion of utopian "equality" - something I think Nietzsche was opposed to on multiple levels. (psychological, political, economic, pragmatic, sociological & cultural)

I really like the phrase, which was coined in this episode: "The Bronze Age perverts of this world..."

loving these interviews coming in!

Most of us know that left and right are passé concepts, and that such blockheaded distinctions do not help to further us. It must be noted that many people still are ‘left and right’ minded, enough so that the discussions within the two realms will remain for many years to come. This observation is only for those who’ve criticised the many ‘left and right’ references in this talk. As Deleuze said in the 60’s, whilst criticising ‘systems’, he had to note that, “systems have lost none of their power.”

looking forward to this!

would be cool to have Devin Goure on again at some point down the road. Really enjoyed his talk here and his on-going criticisms of Tutt

Great conversation. I remember listening to Bloom talking about his students in that anecdote, I think it was in his lectures on Machiavelli or Nietzsche. I mention it because I felt the same way. Lost, in a deconstructed frame work. No meta narrative to hold me. Anyways the answer to this disorder was Homers Iliad.

I am convinced that marxism and its derivatives are probably the worst things that have ever happened to mankind. I am opposed to basically every word that this man has stated but I have to admit that the idea of a parasitical reading did intrigue me quite a bit. Props to Keegan for being such a great host

Could the romans and the jews stop fighting already... this alphabet soup masking ancient religions is annoying...

And to add some commentary about the utility of Nietzsche and over lap with anarchism’s idea of equality and how to reconcile it with his idea of the will to power to a pro social light here’s my understanding. Lets take his notion of our baser predatory instincts to control and dominate, and that morality is the excess of guilt used to repress it and put it in a social setting of reciprocity, not adversarial but mutual. Where ones powers aren’t suppressed but amplified in a mutual exchange of ebs and flows, of appropriating and uplifting from each other. Where what one takes is immediately replaced by what’s given. The simplest way to imagine this is in a group setting of play. The best times of my life and easily the most communal is when I was in an environment where people are trying to make each other laugh, goof around, play, share ideas and passions and understandings. I’m sure everyone can relate to this experience at some stage of their lives. Your laughing and participation leads to bout of someone else’s. Its invigorating to all involved. You could argue that’s the same energy that makes this pod cast so engaging is that same spirit taking over between the host and guest. There might well be a competition to make others laugh and bring them happiness, and there might very well be egoistic and narcissistic drives at play. A drive to be seen, validated and distinguished. But it’s a setting where there’s a mutual up lifting and feeding off each others out put. A leveling and uplifting. The will to power, a passive one running in tandem with a social and egalitarian flair. This is how many capitalists imagine capitalism to work on the ground. But the reality is that there is no mutual uplifting, there is appropriation and weaponizing of what’s taken to maintain rank, wealth, power and status. Like hoarding joy from others makes you happy or something. A grinding into dust the life force of the working classes in that process. I guess the point is that he might invoke the will to power as just mans animal instinct trapped under the vices of Christian morality. Which is a dubious claim in of it self. But that doesn’t mean that there can’t be contexts where it can be put a be socially beneficial. And the task of socialism should be about creating and making the spaces where life isn’t a tragedy but a joy. In and outside of production. Where its not based on repression and resentment but mutual empowerment. That doesn’t mean absolute “equality”, or an end of struggle and development. It means no longer the wasted struggle and development to make dead objects from the flesh of our selves to sate the mammon fetishisms of the bourgeoise.

Great vid

I don't think Tutt answered a single question. He just spirals into an alphabet soup of philosophies. He states both that Nietzsche must be understood in his historical context, but then proceeds to do the exact opposite. He states that Nietzsche desires to stabilize the status quo, then states that Nietzsche must be viewed in light of political revolution. He talks about using a scalpel to delineate Marxism, then proceeds to throw around generic, undefined terms like "the Left". He has some interesting thoughts, but they're undercut by his contradictory statements.

Left? Right? A straight line,, a goal.

Good match up 🥊

I’m curious if there are any interpretations of Nietzsche that are consistent with a Christian worldview

I can't stress this enough but the overlap between proudhons social science and Nietzsche is striking. You should try and get the premier neo proudhonian on the pod cast Shawn P Wilbur who's done significant translation and genealogical work on proudhons thought and texts. There's a strong parallel between almost all the points hit on by Nietzsche. And Shawn could do a better job of explaining the over lap "progress is about releasing pressure of complex forces that make a totality, he calls such conflict / release "god"

I can see why many of these "philosophy" professors could never have a successful YT channel on Nietzsche. They are all one-trick ponies regurgitating a weak dissertation. Their are many ways to rhetorically cloak a conveniently-narrow framing of an otherwise expansive subject.

31:00 not really two different things lol

Hey, are you gonna talk about women philosophers influenced by Nietzsche?

I heavily dislike it when people base their philosophy of their politics. Activists are just as poisonous towards philosophy as any moralist. Nietzsches philosophy is too inspiring to be simply read for its politics anyways.

How does the left think about the attainability of equality, and in what form, at what cost etc... that is the question. They never seem to (want to) go there, which maybe isn't all that surprising as that maybe is the goal and also the motivation where the whole ideology hinges on.

2 minutes in and he’s a Marxist? Ok. Thanks, for saving us the time.

This guest sucked. Just an hour and a half of Daniel loving the smell of his own flatulence.

A Marxist??? LOL!

He is Marxist 😂😂😂😂 Whan someone like me born in eastern Europe hear that 😂😂

👎

after this misguided guest - I am unsubscribing

An interesting one for sure! And i really appreciate that you can bring people with diffrent views on here. I often find left nietzscheans disappointing, eventhough i see myself as one. A bit shallow in their thinking i guess, as if they didn’t truly learn any of the lessons that nietzsche could teach the left. The fact that they talk about equality so often is bizzare to me when even Marx wa not pro equality but for freedom. The guest even said that we can learn a lot from what nietzsche said about equality and then moves on and doesnt say what those things are. Well, what are those things that he learned?