The Nietzsche Podcast

We've now heard Fustel de Coulanges' understanding of the disturbances in Ancient Rome as revolutions brought on by changes to their religious belief structure. We've considered Machiavelli's fawning historical interpretation of Rome, through Livy, as a people who were more virtuous than any other, and maintained that virtue by subjecting themselves to privation and hardship, and who fell into unrest when they strayed from virtue. And we've now heard Turchin's view, that the unrest of the Roman Republic was created by structural-demographic factors. Now, we hear the people's history of Ancient Rome, from Marxist-Leninist Michael Parenti, whose view I wanted to include because it was so different from any other in how he views Julius Caesar and his role in Roman history: as a reformer and liberator of the people, killed by an entrenched oligarchy who wished for nothing other than to hold on to their wealth. Parenti walks through the history of the Late Republic as a history of increasing excesses of the nobility, which was then challenged by people's tribunes and other attempts at reform. In all cases, the nobility put down the reformer, but Caesar was different because he was only assassinated after he'd managed to succeed, and to redistribute the land and the wealth. The legitimacy of the senate was forever shaken, for Caesar was forever the people's champion, and it was thus that it required a civil war afterwards, and only the man who most successfully presented himself as Caesar's heir was able to win and secure order once again - even if he was not revolutionary that Caesar was. Parenti attacks the view of the 'gentleman historians' of Great Britain, and throughout history, who have viewed Rome as a true republic, with democratic representation. Instead, Parenti makes the case that Rome was ruled by a closed-off patriciate who cared for nothing other than their own wealth, and were even willing to undermine the health and stability of their empire in order to extract more. Caesar was the incarnation of this popular uprising into one man, who was willing to break all of the limitations and decorum the nobility had put into place as a means of ensuring that nothing ever changed. Caesar, rather than a tyrannical villain who was justly killed by Brutus, the "noblest Roman of them all", Parenti portrays Caesar as a tragic hero, who was the only hope for saving the republic and achieving justice. 

You have questions, I might have answers. Khajiit has wares, if you have coin. I was originally planning on doubling up episodes this week, but with the approaching tour, I’m going to have to set aside a couple weeks to just release an interview or Q&A in order to have steady releases. Hope this episode satisfies! Cheers.

Peter Turchin has continued the work of Ibn Khaldun, by elaborating upon Khaldun's hypotheses and testing them against the wealth of historical data that we now possess. By means of a structural demographic analysis of historical empires, Turchin has worked for years to generate mathematical models in order to explain the trends that seem to recur in every complex society. Now, with the data of 10,000 years of human activity on the group level, it may be possible to finally move beyond the preliminary, pseudo-scientific steps of the discipline of history, and proceed into a truly mathematized phase. This is the discipline that Turchin calls "Cliodynamics", after the Muse of history of Ancient Greece. His intention to leave behind the anthropological and archaeological studies that characterized history in the past, and bring mathematics into the field so that we can begin to make predictions. The reason why many have been so resistant to this development is our belief in free will, and the unpredictability of human action. Turchin thinks that this is a mistake, because while individual decisions are often unpredictable at the individual, granular level, at the level of entire populations or demographics, human beings become rather predictable. Quite in line with the cyclical view of history postulated by Plato, Thucydides, or Nietzsche, Turchin brings the math to demonstrate the truth of their ideas: that, in the realm of human history, all returns eternally. For our sources today, we're primarily using Turchin's books: War and Peace and War, Ultrasociety, and a brief dip at the end into the overall idea of Ages of Discord, as well as some references to Secular Cycles by Turchin and Nefedov. We'll also include a number of quotes from Roman historians Livy, Plutarch and others, as we examine the period of the Roman Republic, the chaos of the Late Republic and the transition to the Principate, as explained by Turchin's structural-demographic theory. This should be fun, given that we've already considered these events somewhat through the eyes of Machiavelli. Now, we can approach the subject with more rigor. In my view, Turchin is following in the traditions of these thinkers, but developing their work further. Episode art is Thomas Cole's now famous "Destruction" piece of his cycle, "The Course of Empire".

From all accounts, Nietzsche did not read nor comment upon the work of Ibn Khaldun, outside of a few remarks from Schopenhauer in one of his essays that Nietzsche might have read. But what we find in his Muqaddimah is a theory of cyclical history, in which many of the key principles of Nietzsche's political philosophy would find agreement. Ibn Khaldun was a historian from North Africa whose work sought to explain why it was that the same pattern seemed to repeat ad infinitum. The Bedouin desert tribes would overwhelm one of the settled cities of the Mediterranean, from time to time, then establish a new city there. For a time, the culture of the new city would be like that of the Bedouins in the desert. But, eventually, a sedentary culture set in, over the course of several generations, and the inhabitants grew complacent, became incompetent, and eventually found themselves overthrown by another desert tribe, and the process would then repeat. In his studies, Khaldun arrives at the concept of asabiya, or the capacity for collective power, which can be very useful for a Nietzschean perspective on social power structures. This concept of asabiya means, literally, 'group feeling', and describes the extent to which the individuals feel themselves to part of a unified, coherent group, and are thus able to act as instruments of the group, and coordinate their actions as a team. Asabiya increases in harsh conditions, and declines in conditions of luxury, and thus the cycle of empires is set into motion - "This is how God proceeds with His creatures." Just as Nietzsche suggests the idea of all things returning eternally, Khaldun's writing brings this idea into the historical and political sphere. But Ibn Khaldun is significant because he presents this not only as a poetical idea, but as a pattern based on observable facts. There are many, many observations and anecdotes in the Muqaddimah, and we will not be able to cover it all, so we shall focus on the points most relevant to the ideas covered this season. This will be our first journey into a work outside the Western Canon, into one of the most important thinkers of the Near East. Join me in exploring the dynamics of history, as we jump into the basic ideas of the Muqaddimah.

My band Slumbering Sun releases The Ever-Living Fire today, on 2/24! This is a project composed with the themes of amor fati and embracing a world of eternal change. I wanted to tell all of you the story of how this band came into existence, how it fits into my story, and what it means to me. This is perhaps one of my most philosophical outings in music, about the choice to say Yes to life, live the tragic worldview, and fall in love with the world again. I included a song from the album at the end of this short, special episode. Cheers! Here’s our linktree: https://linktr.ee/slumberingsun?fbclid=PAAaauPYoaUrAzAghu407YOWXhDouGvvmBZB47bluZ-LFQItv7uAeR9sZUCUU

We've considered two out of the three main strands of 20th century political thought: capitalism and socialism. Fascism is the third, and it is both the most and the least important of the three to consider. I consider it the least important because fascism was defeated, and relegated to the fringes, and honoring its existence with a critique seems like a waste of time. On the other hand, when it comes to Nietzsche, it becomes particularly important to address because of how Nietzsche was tarred with the associations with the fascists, and blamed for their crimes. In this episode, we explore the reasons for this, including his sister Elisabeth, Nietzsche's association with Wagner, Nazi philosophers like Baumler who tried to reshape Nietzsche's ideas to his fit own, and critics like Ernest Newman who took the Nazi claims on Nietzsche uncritically. In fact, when we look to Nietzsche's letters, and many statements he'd made over the years about his break with Wagner, that the ideas of German nationalism and anti-semitism were repugnant to him - he goes so far as to say that it is opposed to his entire way of life. As such, we take a particular focus in this episode on addressing anti-semitism. Even though anti-semitism is not essential to all forms of fascism, the same patterns of harnessing the envy and resentment of the average, precarious person and giving him an evil enemy to fight can be seen in its example. We find that Nietzsche's philosophy is opposed to any essential idea of race, and that those who believed in such things often appealed to mystical or metaphysical claims about the races as descended from pure, separate species from an ancient Golden Age - such as the occult beliefs of the Thule Society. And finally, even against Mussolinian ideas of state-worship, Nietzsche exists in stark contrast, as we call to mind his concern of the state becoming the ends rather than a means, and the "iron-clamp" crushing down and stopping all productions of culture. For Nietzsche, the state is "the coldest of all monsters", and it is a lie when it claims to represent or stand for the people. This episode is unique among these three excursions into 20th century political thought in that it is the only one of the three where we'll seriously examine Nietzsche's life, yet again, and his personal relationships, since none of this can be understood without the story of Elisabeth Nietzsche. As sources, I've used Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism essay in order to ground what we're talking about as regards fascism, and we'll look at some ways in which Nietzsche and he agree in condemning fascism, but some ways in which Nietzsche's ideas run astray of Eco's standards. I've also used Stephen Hicks' book, "Nietzsche and the Nazis", and some of the materials available on his website. We look at five ways that Hicks sees Nietzsche as opposed to the Nazis, and five ways they could be seen as similar. I disagree with Hicks on many points, though I feel his work to be valuable. I also cite Kaufmann's biography of Nietzsche at many points (albeit without providing page numbers), and even use Rob Solomon's introduction to Nietzsche, "What Nietzsche Really Said", for one quote.

After getting several suggestions in our comments sections, Stef and I touched based and decided to have a conversation. I asked him about his attempt to harness both the philosophy of Nietzsche with that of Carl Jung, since there are some contradictions between their thought that keep them from being easily reconciled. We discuss Jordan Peterson, why we both liked him once upon a time, but why he has, perhaps, 'lost it'. And throughout the conversation, Stef gives his vision of the "Promethean West" - that European civilization is fundamentally based on aiming for the stars, unlocking the secrets of the universe, inventing and innovating, stealing the fire from the gods. His thesis is that many young people have lost this fire, and his goal is to kindle it again. I understand from reading some of the comments that Uberboyo might be a controversial figure for whatever reason. I actually found him to be a compelling speaker and to have a good grasp of Nietzsche's ideas, and much of what he said didn't seem divisive or intentionally controversial, at least to me. Hopefully we're all mature enough to tolerate opposing viewpoints on this podcast, especially given that the next guest will bring some critical theory into the mix, and I don't want to hear any (bad faith) griping from the other side either. Some of the patrons have said this was one of the best conversations so far, so I hope the audience at large will enjoy it also.

Today, we look at the other side of the coin. Nietzsche's critique of capitalism is in fact inextricably bound to his critique of socialism. What he finds beneath both approaches to managing human economic affairs is the utilitarian value structure and the view of the human being as homo economicus. Socialism, rather than the solution to capitalism, is the necessary end of the same internal logic, and further seeks to cut off avenues for man's will to power as we labor under the mistaken assumption that by reducing suffering we will maximize pleasure. The closer we proceed to an idealized, painless society, the more our individuality is smoothed over. Increasingly, the only avenue for the expression of power is through the only remaining hierarchical structure: the state. Originally created by mankind to be a means, the state becomes the ends. In a twisted irony, the likes of the socialists and anarchists - who desire above all for a classless, stateless society - bring forth an all-powerful state as the means of doing this, and become consumed by it. A neat aspect of the episode order here is that we're covering Nietzsche's political thought in a rough chronology - meaning that, while we might jump around from place to place, and occasionally grab a quote from Beyond Good & Evil, we're moving from the second and third book of Human, All Too Human into covering a lot more material from Daybreak, while still drawing on sources from elsewhere in the middle period. The next episode - Nietzsche's critique of fascism - covers around the same period, in terms of the letters and statements he made about Wagner and Elisabeth during his breaks with them, in addition to drawing on passages from throughout his work.  Ian Wright's article, "Capital as a Real God": https://ianwrightsite.wordpress.com/2020/09/03/marx-on-capital-as-a-real-god-2/ Thomas Brobjer's studies showing that Nietzsche knew Marx: https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110170740.298/html My essay on Star Trek: https://untimely-reflections.blogspot.com/2021/05/neverending-frontier-star-treks.html

No episode this week! Here’s why.

Join me, and my friend Mynaa Miesnowan, for a discussion inspired by the work of Alan Watts, and his "Wisdom of Insecurity". We compare Watts' own approach to the insecurity of life to that of Nietzsche's, and generally analyze Watts' ideas from a Nietzschean framework. Ultimately, we diverge wildly from the topics covered in Watts' work, and the starting topic is really more a guidepost for the various directions that our thought takes us. However, contained in this are a couple of fun and fascinating looks at the contrast between Watts and Nietzsche, as regards their thought on leisure v/s productivity, and sobreity v/s intoxication. We also touch upon the critiques both men made of language, and the metaphysical assumptions of our society in its materialistic atomism, and how the human perspective inevitably delimits the boundaries of thought.