THIS WAS the most clear and coherent presentation I have ever seen on postmodern thought. badass!

new video in the Existentialism series, bringing a 4-part discussion of the Genealogy of Morals to a close

I finally made it to the end of your Geneology lectures. Definitely mind expanding. I should have gone to University and studied philosophy, I would have done well...Even though I never read Heideggar, I'll check out that lecture next. Thanks again for uploading these videos Professor.

From the distant Cyprus where I happened to settle down, thank you for explaining Nietzsche to "All and None".❣️

I studied philosophy as an undergraduate but want to study things fresh again now that I have more life experience. You are one of the best resources available to an autodidact wanting to study the great but intimidating subject of philosophy, and I say that after having spent a fair amount of time looking for value creators similar to you. Thank you very much for sharing your time and expertise with all of us! You have done us all a great service

Excellent job on all four videos.

Nietzsche has got to be one of the most depressing philosophers who ever lived. Particularly because his ideas make so much sense.

Great analysis!

I think all philosophical qualms in life can be attenuated or even completely nullified by just being confident and focused in pursuing what makes you happy. I think because so many people doubt themselves, are told that they can't really achieve greatness, or convince themselves that life can't be what they want it to be, that it's too hard, that they are too easily disillusioned, they suffer. No one is quoting schopenhauer or sarte when they living a passionate and exuberant life.

Its in the third essay. And, yes, he does speak about that before Sartre. Not an uncommon sentiment for Nietzsche -- not just coming up in this book

"Ascetic" -- not "aesthetic" (I realize I'm saying the wrong one at the start at times, but it's on written correctly the chalkboard behind me). Can it be escaped? Sure. One just rejects it, seeks out pleasure, most likely through imposing one's will on others. . . but that's not much of an advance, just a return to the old archaic master type. Later on in the video, you hear me recounting Nietzsche's actual position, namely that one has to overcome the ascetic ideal, i.e. to surpass it

Yes, I've been asked before to shoot some videos on Stirner. I might do that down the line, as part of a series on post-Hegel dialectical philosophy, which is where Stirner belongs, historically

must say this is the best sumarization and analysis of the Geneology of Morals (or on nietzsche as a whole for that matter) i have read, heard, or seen. excellently done! and i might add the same about your series on the Birth of Tragedy.

That's very nice to read! Glad you found the videos so useful and on-point

Thank you for spending so much time making these videos of high quality.

Excellent series of lectues on N. ~ I am looking forward to your other talks on N. as well. Thanks so much for taking the effort of sharing educational information! Much appreciated.

Preparing for a final and this four part lecture has been fantastic to watch and take notes on. Thank you for all you choose to share with all of us ones and zeros out here on the interwebz.

Brilliant. Excellent. 4 of 4. Challenged my understandings and gave direction to writing a paper on F.N works. Thanks.

Thanks for sharing these classes, professor. Regards from Brazil.

Thank you for this series.

I love these videos. Thank you so much

Brilliant lectures! Thank you :)

You're very welcome!

wonderful. Thank you !

Great job this help me tremendously,

At the beginning I started wandering if this was a lecture on RPGs (warrior, priest, etc.) :P Nice videos bro, thank you!

Yes, Nietzsche's view is that the men of science (who would include our "new atheists, about whom, there's nothing really new) are actually worse, duller, more likely to pose the problem of nihilism without seeing it than the religious.

so basically, one only truly overcomes guilt, depression, blaming others when I myself is as honest with myself as possible, in all apsects of life? honest with my own failures, my own weakness, my own anger? ie- self reflection bring true freedom in becoming a better person?

Yep, I sure am! -- I imagine it would be confusing -- though you do have it on the chalkboard, and presumably you're following along with the text

Yes, that's certainly part of what is going on.

We're in process of developing some online courses -- it's going to be several months, though, before we start offering them

let's will some paradoxes!

Cool thanks. :)

What a peculiar ending,

Have you thought about doing some videos on Foucault? "Discipline and Punish" explores the relationship between certain exercises of power and the formation of subjectivity in a way that really complements the themes of Nietzsche's "Genealogy." Whereas Nietzsche diagnoses modern subjectivity as still being bewitched by the ascetic ideal, Foucault's diagnosis is that we are ensnared in a network of power and knowledge relations that enforce a norm of maximal productivity and obedience. I think a comparison of these diagnoses would be really fruitful.

I'm glad the lectures were accessible. Friere? No, not at all.

What? You see any d12s and 20s anywhere!?

What it be somewhat right to say that the Priest exercises a will to power through his valuation of the Noble class as a way of controlling the commoner 'herd' class?

so there is no way to escape the aesthetic Ideal?

Dr. Gregory I am interested in Nietzsche method what does he mean in your explanation at 20:00. You got a bit technical there so sorry did not understand.

I'm wondering if the Nietzsche concepts of geneaology of morals isn't now smashed by evolutioniary biology, I mean a lot of our behaviour like sympathy, support, cooperation came naturally from evolution isn't it? That nietzschean concept sounds to me strangly, he see most of the people as a full of hatred, envy and jealousy which I think may be in conflict witch our present knowledge. What do you think professor @Gregory B.Sadler?

Do you have a video where you make a critique of this works? Or do you have any good recommendations on a critique of this works?

Your lecture series on Nietzsche was easy to follow and to understand. Were you influenced by Paulo Freire? Teachers like you and Jason J. Campbell make philosophy much more accessible to the lay masses, like me. Thanks.

Do you offer any online or snail mail coures

Do you think my previous comment, actually reflects a purely naturalistic perspectivism, that Nietzsche would agree with, that atheism needs to head into, to be really atheistic?

You kept on saying "aesthetic" ideal at first. Confusing.

I think the men of science can be enthusiastic about nothing. It is just lonely in this perspective. I see these themes dramatized in the enthusiastic nihilistic music I listen to. Have you heard any good philosophical music lately?

If the priest extols the virtue of the warrior does He gain virtue or become a warrior? F.N. Seems more the priestly type. To preach against preaching as a transcendent vector. In a certain sense I must agree against "preaching". It takes a stronger character and sense of identity to allow or be indifferent to what others may think, feel or do by themselves, for themselves.

Later on, did Wilhelm Reich draw upon this nausea (sickness) with his (Reich's) psycho-biological character/posture armoring? Herd--the oral/masochist/schizoid character, Warrior--the psychopath character / Priest--the rigid (*loosely, roughly, categorized tendencies)...if anyone knows a book specifically on Nietzsche and Reich 's connection please post here. I have found many interesting tidbits in FN that seemed to be breadcrumbs leading to Reich...and Reich, in turn, reflecting back: "You had your choice between soaring to superhuman heights with Nietzsche and sinking into subhuman depths with Hitler. You shouted Heil! Heil! and chose the subhuman." (Reich, "Listen, Little Man!")

what is the 'will to truth' in me? I never cared to know. I'm not so sure it matters. so Nietzsche says that our problem is that we have no meaning. I'm fine with that, I don't need a meaning. at some point in the chain of logical connections you arrive at the beginning, that must be an 'because I said so'. If you can divide an amount of time by half, and that amount then you divide again. continue this process until you arrive at the minimal amount of time, then it must just skip. make a jump in time. the truth is that I don't know that, I'm just guessing. but then again I cannot know that, it is beyond me.

I wonder, at the end, you mention the "Will-to-truth." Religion obviously has this "platonic," notion of truth. Politics, I have no idea, frankly, why anyone "should," be a conservative or liberal, (where is the ought in politics coming from) but in science why do they continue to use the word, "truth?" If one is really an atheist it seems like they would have to completely scratch the notion of truth or any "ought," but by positing a "truth," someone is tacitly being theological.

Couldn't it be said that Nietzsche is himself pointing the finger in his work at those he calls the weak and the sick, in his sense because they have overpowered the strong and made the strong weak? Couldn't it be said in this sense that Nietzsche displays a ressentiment against his "weak" characters for the levelled egalitarian society that he rails against? Is Nietzsche perhaps the embodiment of the priest role? Telling the "herd" that it is not just that they haven't stood up to the strong but that they have a "moral" defect in his new valuation of values, and so are "sick", and they are irremediably so? It also seems as though his recommendation comes nearer the orgy of feeling in a few ways, because he admires strength he would see the power as a positive sensation to experience... and besides that he often considers himself Dionysian, from the god Dionysus, the god of wine and ritual madness... Just after the 55:00 minute mark you read from the book where Nietzsche says that the immoralists and anti-christians haven't escaped the ascetic ideal, they are just another form of it... might not this be Nietzsche's way of hinting at this reality? Another hint would be that Nietzsche made this "great" character, in the "most profound book" something like a priest or a preacher of a new faith, the superman... which he also says, in the chapter of that book on the poets, is just another figure like the gods which is light enough to sit atop the clouds.

, it seems like his "perspectivism" is criticism of common sense views, groupthink and life abnegating philosophies in the name of a strong and viable life affirming possibilities... but It's like he's using the common sense perspectives to attack the life abnegating ones and using life affirming perspectives that are similar in essence to attack the common perspective... It's like man in a constant state of creating, becoming and acting... living fully and dangerously...

Politicians are the priests, no?

Lastly I would like to add you can't have a meaningful "philosophical conversation" unless you understand the science or workings behind that which you are discussing. So when people muse and bombast over "life" and how one should live it, it would be wise to discount their credibility, they are an authority on THEIR life, not yours. So long as life remains pointless and purely hedonistic at the heart of all things, there is nothing to life beyond the desire to satisfy desires.

Thanks for your lectures. Do you think that trying to disaffiliate Nietzsche from Nazism leaves unacknowledged the fact that there are certain aspects of his thought that we’re easily appropriated by Nazis?

XD

This video made me understand more of wat I am rather than who. I am not the cattle nor am I the dog that herds the cattle itself, you may ask who am i, like I have questioned myself. I am the farmer that owns the dog, the same as I own the sheep however not more so then the dog himself, but the question arises who owns the farmer, yet I thot to myself a wife. Who owns the wife in which inbodies man? God in the Devine form. Yet who owns god, I wonder if he to is yet just a farmer, or maybe he is the dog. But if he is the dog does this mean the dog thinks he is the form of a farmer, whom owns the sheep, cows and cattle. Am I the dog or the farmer? This question itself makes me just as much cattle As the next sheep. For a sheep may see its trough as the cattle and the sheep the dog or the farmer yet somehow it can't see itself as god, for it cannot command food and water nor a warm winter. Although a dog does not have this power either yet superiority is still in a higher form to keep the sheep in its cage. After watching this I started to think maybe the dog is a priest in his head, yet the question remains if I the farmer is the priest wat stops me from being a dog, and how does a dog know he is not a farmer, how do I know I the farmer am not simply a dog. Yet I'm sure I'm not the sheep. As high self proclaimed as this may sound I say out of curiousity, if the sheep can think he is the farmer, does that mean I the farmer/priest can think I am the Devine god that rules over me and the cattle or dogs that surround me, wat truly tells me what I am ? I also apologize for any grammatical imperfections. Aslong as I got the message across to someone who might understand the pantheon of mindset I've been running my whole life I feel as if neitchz and I are quiet alike in thought and theory just now witnessing his work is intresting to say the least. Thank you for reading this far, respond if u will, or simply ponder at the thought at the center of ur person..

I was thoroughly entertained. I believe in science and worship absolute 0 or -273.15 celsius. I would lable me as atheist or if there is a God it is absolute 0. I fear death but I feel motivated to not want to pay taxes because of 9/11/2001. Ressentiment.