Hello, everyone.I'm Stephen West.This is Philosophize This.So this episode's building off the last two episodes on Nietzsche and affirming life as it is.
And if you're someone that hears what Nietzsche has to say and goes, wow, wow, checkmate philosophy.I mean, this guy, Frederick, just destroyed all of you.Go grab your herd membership cards.Get together.
find a place to moo at each other in a field for the rest of your lives, and let the cultural elites like Frederick take over from now on.Well, if that's how you're feeling, then, unfortunately, it's gonna be a very short-lived party for you.
But that's a good thing, I think, ultimately.I mean, you could probably see it coming.
Like, if you're Nietzsche, and you say the kind of things we've been talking about, dunking on the entire history of philosophy, even if you're right about some of these things, you're just unleashing the hounds on yourself when you talk like this.
Future philosophers are gonna come after you. And when they do, they're going to be very smart and find where you made all your mistakes.Which Nietzsche no doubt would have appreciated, by the way.
But the point is, there are a ton of people disagreeing with him, even just a few years after his work.One of which we talked about last time was Martin Heidegger.
You know, to Heidegger, despite Nietzsche seeing himself as someone that despised Plato's work, as someone that had moved beyond the metaphysics of the ideal versus the real, to Heidegger, Nietzsche and his work had really just created the inversion of Platonism.
where he makes the same kind of mistake that Plato does and needlessly favors the real over the ideal.
I mean, to Heidegger, whenever Nietzsche brings up the concept of the will to power in his work, by doing that, he's embedding himself in the same metaphysical tradition that he was claiming to try to move past.
He was still operating on the assumption, in other words, that being itself always needs to be viewed from the dualistic perspective of being a subject that's navigating a realm of objects.
And it's building on this that Heidegger comes up with what would eventually become a highly important question in his own work, definitely with Nietzsche in mind.The question is, is it possible to think without the will?
This is a classic Heidegger-style question. And I mean, you want to talk about a philosopher that smashes the idols that came before him.Heidegger in his work thought he was rebuilding all of human thought from the ground up.
I mean, he even refuses to use terms or categories that former philosophers had used, because to him, all their work has to be called into question, because it's all built on top of a bunch of faulty ontological assumptions.
How do you trust any of it then? Anyway, Heidegger's response to Nietzsche, his critique of the technological way that we view each other in the modern world, that's for another day.Let me know if it's something that you'd be interested in.
I've always promised to do an episode on his later work and how it shapes a lot of the conversations that are going on today in philosophy.Let me know if that's something you want.
But that said, today's episode is another one of these people that responded to Nietzsche's work.It's just as exciting, but it's someone who responded to it in a very different way than Heidegger did.
I'm talking about interpretation of Nietzsche's work that many people out there believe to be the best interpretation of his work that's ever been done.
People say it's the one that reflects the direction Nietzsche probably would have been headed in had he not gotten sick and died as early as he did.
It's a book written in the year 1962 called Nietzsche and Philosophy by the now world famous philosopher named Gilles Deleuze.
And whether you're a fan of Nietzsche, or whether you're someone that's getting tired of the whole act he's got going on, I think you'll get a lot from hearing about another layer to Nietzsche's work.
That's one of the privileges of being alive, you know?Still able to learn.There's always another layer you can peel back of the world and find a different perspective in.And that's what we're going for here today with the work of Nietzsche.
See, to Gilles Deleuze, yes, Nietzsche was in many ways a product of his time.Hyper-individualism, all the herd mentality stuff.
We'll talk about why these ideas don't necessarily hold up as concepts when you take the implications of his work seriously.But Deleuze is not going to spend a second dwelling on any of these things.
Because to him, the real interesting piece of Nietzsche, ironically, is what we can affirm about his work, not what we can critique about it. See, Deleuze is always in the business of getting away from just critiquing things.
He's always interested in constructing something new when he writes something.
And what he said about Nietzsche is that he's a philosopher that managed to lay the groundwork for an entirely different way of thinking about affirmation and difference as concepts.
Where the most important thing about Nietzsche's work is that by truly affirming difference at this radical new level that he introduces,
It not only allows us to escape the dialectic of Hegel and most of his admirers, but it also allows us to escape from the narrow boxes that philosophers have had us thinking in for basically the entire history of Western philosophical thought.
Now, that's a big claim he's making.And what did Deleuze mean when he said this?And didn't we already talk about Nietzsche smashing the idealism from the history of Western society?Is this Deleuze just repeating something we've already heard here?
Well, no, if you're coming at it from this perspective, then the implications of Nietzsche's work, if you really take him seriously, actually go farther than even Nietzsche himself realized as he was writing them.
Which brings me to the first part of this episode, one of people's favorite segments on this podcast over the years.The title of the segment is Dismantling Philosophical Assumptions That Have Been Going On For Over 2,000 Years Or So.
Honestly, it could use a better title if I'm thinking about it.
One of the most world-shifting points that Deleuze brings up in his own work is his critique of Western philosophy and what he calls the image of thought that's gone on all throughout it.
Classic example to start explaining the image of thought and what he means by it is to look at Plato's world of forms.How does it generally go when we talk about it?
There's an ideal version of a tree, for example, that all particular trees are just imperfect copies of.
Meaning when you're walking through the garden section of the Home Depot and you see that line of flower pots with the trees coming out of them, to Plato, those things are trees only because they resemble or represent the more ideal form of a tree that we can arrive at the reason if we just think about stuff well enough.
This is what Deleuze calls an example of representational thinking.
And just for the sake of full clarity here, the same thing goes for the ideal form of justice that you can reason to versus a particular representation of justice when a judge bangs a gavel in a courtroom somewhere.
Same thing goes for the ideal form of courage versus a particular representation of courage if you push past your fears with something.Point is, particular things are representations of an ideal.
Now, one of the assumptions that comes out of this representational thinking that you'll notice if you read any of Plato's dialogues, is that say you have a theory about what a tree is, or what justice is for that matter.
Well, that theory you have about justice, when you argue for it, is only made valid to the degree that it corresponds to that ideal form of justice that's been previously established by philosophers.
The move here for Deleuze, it's going to be important to notice, is that in this representational thinking, how valid someone's thoughts are always comes down to how well they correspond to some pre-existing set of criteria.
And this hasn't just happened in Plato's work.You can notice the same exact thing going on in the work of Descartes, where thoughts are valid only if they're clear and distinct, as defined by the criteria Descartes lays out.
You can notice this in the work of Kant, where knowledge is only valid if it can conform to the categories of our understanding, as laid out by Kant.
But real quick, just for a second, remember how Nietzsche viewed the work of all these philosophers and what he thought about their attempts at arriving at the truth, quote-unquote.
When a philosopher or anyone has a worldview, that worldview says a whole lot more about them personally, their own bias, history, or personality, than it does anything about the truth of the universe.
So think of the kind of situation this creates in the history of philosophy for Deleuze.
We have a history of thinking about stuff where philosophers have come up with a set of rigid protocols for what valid thinking is, an image of thought, as it's called, where along with these protocols come a bunch of other assumptions philosophers have made, lots of them, from the fact that everybody has a natural ability to think clearly, where if only they work on their thinking, they'll be less prone to error,
Or how about the assumption that it's error about the facts that's usually the problem that's leading to bad thinking, not the rigid protocols that everything's being filtered through.
A lot of assumptions philosophers have been making about what thinking even is. But to him, one of the main problems he would want to point out about this whole setup is that it's always, by design, a reactive process.
Meaning it's always trying to take new states of affairs that we've never seen before, or new ways of chopping up and making sense of the world, and we're always supposed to measure the worth of these things based on how well they represent some previous standard arrived at by another philosopher in a different state of things using their own criteria.
But if everything is always understood in terms of how well it matches up to some former snapshot of the world, in a world that's always moving and in a state of becoming, then aren't we severely limiting our ability to construct new, valuable ways of looking at things arrived at from an entirely different perspective?
If it's confusing as to why this would ever be a problem, just think of this applied to the realm of movies, to give a relatable example.Imagine someone saying, hey, I'm something like the Plato of the movie industry.
And unless a movie conforms to this ideal standard I've set up, unless if it's got three acts, a hero, a climax, and a resolution, well, then that's not really a movie, then, now is it?
Similar to that, imagine someone saying, you know, unless if the plot of this movie is written in a way that is clear and distinct, and who decides that?I decide what's clear and distinct.What would you say to someone who said something like that?
You'd say, get over yourself, you weirdo.
A movie is a lot more than whether it follows some protocol you've set up, and for the sake of ever having anything truly new to watch, we need to remain open to more than just your standard you've come up with.
And for Deleuze, maybe the more important thing here is to consider how this process goes in the other direction as well.
When people sit down to write a movie, and they're always thinking in this representational way, they're thinking, OK, well, if I'm going to write a movie, then it's going to need three acts.It's going to need a hero.
It's got to be clear and distinct, like that guy said.Point is, always needing to conform to a set of protocols limits the creativity of the artist as well.It limits people's ability to arrive at new forms of what life even looks like.
This is why Deleuze would later go on in his work to critique things like psychoanalysis.Same sort of relationship.
Imagine living your life, having a psychological experience of the world, and then you go to see a psychoanalyst whose whole bag of tricks is to find ways to explain the experience you're having through how it corresponds to or represents the terminology and theory that they're educated in.
In other words, to some pre-existing, overly rational framework of how human psychology operates.
Point is, if you were always primed to understand your experience through a framework that somebody else arrived at, it may give you a rigid way to think about it, no question.
But it might also prevent you from coming up with new psychological tracings for navigating the changing world that you're actually living in, with a changing psychology that's a part of it.
Now if you're noticing a pattern here, that Deleuze is concerned about the reactive ways that we organize our thinking, and how they may prevent people from a more active approach where they're involved in the creation of the new, well then you're definitely on the right track towards understanding him.
And you can see the comparison here to the Ubermensch of Nietzsche that we've been talking about, where it's a person that doesn't conform to one of these passive, reactive approaches to life given to them by other people.
No, instead they embrace the fact that the world's always changing, emerging into the future,
and that when a person engages with that chaos head-on and then creates new projects and values out of what they find there, this is a type of active approach to life that affirms things at a level that the more reactive approaches are usually trying to run away from.
Well, this ubermensch becomes a nice macroscopic human-level example that we can relate to to start explaining a process that's going on for Deleuze practically everywhere, all the time, and at every different level.
What I mean is, Gilles Deleuze is a process philosopher.He describes himself in his work sometimes as just a metaphysician, meaning he sees himself as primarily someone that's doing metaphysics.He's not giving particle analysis.He's not a biologist.
He's talking about what's going on within or beyond physics, metaphysics, so that it may give one explanation as to what's going on in the world.And to him, the fundamental component of our reality is difference.
This is the thing earlier philosophers have missed in their work because they've always been trying to distill reality down into something fixed and stable.
We got seven episodes we did on Deleuze, not going to go into all of it here, but the short version of this is that if you're one of these people that go throughout your life thinking of yourself as a static identity, you know, I am Frederick Nietzsche, for example,
And Nietzsche is a human being, and that there's an essence to what a human being is, and I can think about that essence and arrive at a definition of it.
And Friedrich Nietzsche is a rational creature, where I am presented with certain options up in my head, and then I pick and choose what the best decision is after weighing out all those options, if that's the way you're thinking.
Well, this might be a nice, pragmatic way for you to operate as you go throughout your life, but Deleuze's entire picture of the universe would pull basically every one of these assumptions we just made completely apart at the seams.
If you wanted to think more along the lines of the picture Deleuze lays out in his work, instead of thinking of the world like there's a bunch of fixed essences to things, like a tree is a thing, a person's a thing, rock is a thing, think instead of reality as being made up by a collection of forces that are defined by their interactions with each other.
Trillions of different forces that are all vying for expression in each moment as the world unfolds into the future.Well, in that kind of world then, Friedrich Nietzsche is not a static identity.
What we think of as Nietzsche, when he was alive at least, was the interaction between a collection of forces at a specific location.He was ultimately a site of becoming.
He was many different forces, all vying for expression, overcoming each other, gaining expression.In other words, think of Nietzsche not as a person with an essence, like we might typically think of him,
Nietzsche is a historical collection of forces that are still having impacts on forces in the world to this day.And when you look at him in that way, again, Nietzsche is not a static identity.
To deluse what we call Nietzsche in any given moment is a temporary formation of just a repetition of certain similar forces that gained expression during this particular moment, but haven't changed drastically enough for the illusion of a static identity to go away.
So on that same note, think of what you are along these same lines.
Any identity where it seems like it's what you are right now is really just a temporary pattern of forces that have found expression that through repetition can seem to you like they're a stable identity.
But I mean, obviously, we also recognize that if other forces that are a part of you found expression, then you would be a different person.
And if enough of them changed and had repetition in another direction for a long enough period of time, then your whole identity would feel like it was something different to people.
But never was there a static essence or identity to what you were, and always was there the ability for you to become something totally different and explore new modes of existence.
Now this is just a totally different way of looking at what a person is.Classic subjective identity just doesn't apply here.And to take this back to Plato, you can understand this as a totally different way of looking at what a tree is as well.
I mean, you go into the Home Depot and you see all those trees.And on one hand, yes, it's all very pragmatic to call all these trees the same genus and species.They look kind of similar.
But on a different level, this denies the true level of difference that's going on here.
Every single one of these trees is a different repetition of forces that are all constantly shifting and adapting within a world and universe that is always shifting and adapting.
And this view of reality, in terms of it being an interaction between different forces, is one of the things Deleuze thinks Nietzsche's work lays the foundation for.
So, if it's not entirely clear yet, under this view of reality, any attempt at making identity or reality into something fixed and static, while it's undeniably useful when you're checking out at the Home Depot, which is nothing to gloss over, by the way,
It's at another level always in denial of the true state of change that the world is always in.So you can see here where the critique starts to make sense for the history of philosophy and the supposed image of thought put forward by philosophers.
To Deleuze, even our concept of thinking is always subject to change. And why wouldn't it be?
There are no static categories of thought, there are an infinite number of ways the universe could be conceptually framed and mapped out by philosophers, and thinking in this limited way sabotages our ability to arrive at new ways of thinking or new forms of what life is.
You can also start to see how when you're affirming your place as one small piece of this constant unfolding of reality into the future, how always looking to the past to verify the present starts to deny something very important about what existence is altogether.
In other words, you can start to see the similarities we're building to here, between the tendencies in our philosophy and the tendencies in the way people live their lives.
And just so we don't kind of interrupt the show at any point beyond this, I want to thank everyone that goes through the sponsors of the show today.For an ad-free experience, sub at any level at patreon.com slash philosophizethis.
First up, this episode is sponsored by BetterHelp.You know, October's usually the season that we're wearing masks and costumes. But sometimes it can feel like we're wearing masks all year round.
I mean, how often do you feel like you have to hide parts of yourself at work or when you're talking to new people, even around family?And if you can't be yourself around family, where can you be yourself?
Therapy can help us try to learn to accept all the sides of who we are so we can take off that mask and show people the real scary stuff that lies underneath. It's not just for those who experience major trauma.
Therapy is a valuable tool for learning positive coping skills, setting boundaries, and empowering ourselves to be the best versions of ourselves.If you're thinking of starting therapy, give BetterHelp a try.
It's entirely online, designed to be convenient, flexible, and suited to your schedule.Just fill out a brief questionnaire and get matched with a licensed therapist, and you can switch therapists at any time for no additional charge.
Take off the mask with BetterHelp.Visit betterhelp.com slash fill this today to get 10% off your first month.That's betterhelp, H-E-L-P dot com slash fill this.Next up is AG1.Sometimes you got to tighten some things up in your life.
That's where I've been the last couple of months. Part of that is drinking my AG-1 every single morning.AG-1 is a foundational nutrition supplement that delivers daily nutrients and gut health support.
It's also backed by multiple research studies, so you can trust what you're putting into your body.I trust AG-1 because unlike so many other products, the entire formula is backed by research studies, not just the ingredients.
It's nice having one less thing to research in my life.Look, good nutrition starts in the gut.
In a recent research study, AG1 was shown to double the amount of healthy bacteria in the gut, specifically the two most prominent species known to support gut and whole body health.
If I had to recommend one product to support whole body health, it's AG1. And that's why I'm excited to welcome them as a new partner.
Try AG1 and get a free one-year supply of vitamin D3K2 and five free AG1 travel packs with their first purchase at drinkag1.com slash phyllo.That's drinkag1.com slash phyllo.Check it out.Last up today is Mando.
Packing for a trip where you're traveling can be a real hassle sometimes.Do you bring a bunch of different tiny bottles of shampoo, face wash, body wash, deodorant? Do you try to pour all those things into little travel-sized containers?
Who has time for any of this stuff, really?No.Simplify your travel and your life with Mando's 4-in-1 Assified Cleansing Bar.Listen to this.It's a 5-ounce bar that works as a shampoo, face wash, body wash, and deodorant.
You can even use it for shaving, so technically it's a 5-in-1.It's clinically proven to control bad smells for a long, long time.It's formulated with a gentle alpha-hydroxy acid.It stops odor at the source.
Regular soap can't do that because the pH is way too high.That's just reality, folks.This bar simplifies your hygiene routine. It's the only thing you really need to pack.It's also aluminum-free, baking soda-free, cruelty-free, dye-free, and vegan.
You can get it in three different cologne quality scents.You got Mt.Fuji, fresh and woodsy flavor.You got Bourbon Leather, that's more sweet and sophisticated.And then there's Pro Sport.You smell like a clean citrus fruit.
Personally, I really like the Mt.Fuji.Actually, if I'm being honest, it's the one my wife liked. I gave her that small victory, so that I can use the remote control whenever I want to.Who's laughing now?
Mando's Starter Pack is perfect for new customers.It comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorant, two free products of your choice, like mini body wash and deodorant wipes, and free shipping.
Luckily, I have a discount code to help you get hooked on my favorite smelling whole body deodorant on the market. New customers get $5 off a starter pack with our exclusive code.That's over 40% off your starter pack.Use code PT at shopmando.com.
S-H-O-P-M-A-N-D-O.com.Use code PT.And now, back to the podcast.
More on that in a second, but for now, since we have a basic picture here of the universe in Deleuze's interpretation of Nietzsche, this is a good place to start to make a case for why he thinks Nietzsche's work is actually the enemy of Hegel in dialectics.
He's going to say that the dialectic is making too many assumptions to try to eliminate difference.
And it's interesting, because usually people will think of the dialectic, and they'll see it as something you use if you're actually acknowledging the true complexity of reality.
You know, justice isn't something out there with an essence, they'll say.It's just one piece of an opposition within a more complex network of oppositions.
In the more Marxist type of dialectics, when it comes to social relations, like we talked about in that Žižek episode we did, one very simple way of looking at the world is to see something like a school and to think, well, a school is just a school.
It's a place where kids go, you send them there to get an education. But as we talked about, somebody thinking more dialectically might look at that and say, that's an oversimplification.
That when you truly dig into what a school is to anyone in a particular structure of meaning, a school is something that has the meaning it does to us only because of its relationship to all the other things around it in a given society or in a network of oppositions.
For example, the meaning of a school requires how it relates to what a company is in that society, or what the government is, or what the economic setup is, or the faculty of the school.
These things are not as separate as an essence-driven view of reality might suggest they are.And as it's said in dialectics, what this means is that the form of what something is becomes an important piece of what the content of the thing is.
Now, as I was just saying, this is typically seen as moving away from oversimplifying things.But if we take the ideas of Nietzsche seriously, through this interpretation by Deleuze,
then the dialectic becomes yet another example of one of these needless rational scaffoldings that we're projecting onto a reality that's actually more complicated and dynamic than the dialectic can allow for.Let me give an example.
One of the ones Deleuze uses is the dialectic between master and slave. Now, in dialectics, these two seemingly different things of being a master or being a slave are in reality two sides of the same coin.They are oppositions to each other.
The meaning of them is unified.You can't understand the meaning of one of them without presuming the existence and the meaning of the other.
But under Nietzsche's worldview, he says, there's no reason to chop up reality into these oppositions that need to be resolved.Because difference, to Nietzsche, accounts for all of these things.
For example, master and slave, to Nietzsche, are not two sides of the same coin.Masters and slaves come from two completely different genealogies.They're explained by two completely different histories.
They often come from two completely different moral approaches to reality.So if each one of these forces are distinct and very different from each other, why do we got to make them the same thing?
What, just to remove difference and replace it with negation?See, to Nietzsche, in the actual world, when a master overcomes a slave, or slaves rise up and overthrow a master, that's not an opposition that's being resolved.
In Nietzsche's view, this is the affirmation of difference.This is one will to power overcoming another will to power.
And subordinating difference to it simply being a negation of a more unified thing is, again, a needless rational scaffolding that denies how dynamic the reality of difference truly is. So picture that world.
It's not a bunch of essences that are all competing with things that have other essences.It's not a bunch of oppositions seeking resolution and clarification.
It's just a near infinite collection of wills that are all competing for and striving for differentiation.The dialectic in that kind of world then, the argument is, it becomes unnecessary and quite distorting.
Now, the takeaway from this, in a more practical sense, will lead people to call the end result of Nietzsche's philosophy an approach to life that's based on a type of joy, lightness, or playfulness.
The reason for this is because if we take what Nietzsche has to say seriously, then the picture of life is not one where you have this rigid set of protocols, like a moral code from a god your entire life.
It's not a picture of life where there are these countless dialectical oppositions that need to be worked out, so you better go get to work on them.
No, the picture of life to Nietzsche becomes almost like a game you're playing, where through affirmation of what life is, you're essentially rolling the dice over and over again, hoping to roll a seven one of these times.
But even if you don't ever get a seven, you're still at least playing the game.
In other words, there's a seriousness and an expectation to what life is that just gets lifted, and instead it starts to make more sense to just affirm difference in each moment of your life heading into the future, whether it lines up with a set of protocols that you've created in the past or not.
And this recurring affirmation of difference in each moment as it unfolds in the universe is what Deleuze believed was the true significance of Nietzsche's eternal recurrence.It was the affirmation of difference in each moment.
Now for Nietzsche, getting back to these forces, the trillions of forces going on in the universe, if you were to analyze them, they can be broken down into categories of either active forces or reactive forces.
And one of the first things you might think there is, isn't he just creating a dialectic there?But no, again, these active and reactive forces are not negations of each other.Each is a new expression for Nietzsche of their own will to power.
And you'll of course recognize the terms active and reactive from discussion we had around the active or reactive approaches to life.
The active being the ubermensch who creatively differentiates their existence, the reactive being the approach of the herd mentality that critiques, moralizes, more or less sits around and seeks recognition in external events.
But it should be said that to Nietzsche, this goes beyond just how this shows up in our actions.You can also see these active and reactive forces all over the place in other scales of reality.So what are some examples of what these might be?
We'll take an example at the level of microbiology.Think of a virus that attacks a body and then spreads all around the body, attacking different pieces of it.
That would be the result of a collection of active forces asserting a type of will on the forces of the body. Now, on the other hand, in response to this, there are often reactive forces, like, say, the immune system of the body.
These are forces that mitigate or govern the active forces by trying to fight off the virus, trying to return the body back to a level of stasis.Now, of course, we know that all of this is a metaphor.There is no stasis.
The body's always in a state of flux, as are the other active forces in the world looking to impose themselves on the body next.
But nonetheless, this is an example we can use of active and reactive forces in their constant interplay at the level of microbiology.And we can see this dynamic all over the universe. Let's look at another example of this on a bigger scale.
Let's look at this at the level of political action.Say there's a revolution going down somewhere.What are the active forces in that revolution?
Well, you have the revolutionaries who are spreading the word, the rallying, the fighting, creating new forms of order on the fly as the situation develops.These are the people that are asserting their will and actively creating something new.
Now, on the other hand, you have the reactive forces and things like the existing government.You have the institutions, the military of the governing body, the laws designed to maintain the existing order of things.
These are not forces that are creating anything.They're reacting to external events, trying to govern them, trying to return things back to the way they were before.
And it's through seeing the forces as either active or reactive that Nietzsche starts to look at aspects of our everyday lives as active or reactive.For example, criticism, to him, is a reactive thing to do.
If someone else is actively trying to do something or create something new, and your whole contribution is to sit around and offer criticisms about it, you are engaging in a reactive sort of tendency there.
You're just looking at external things that are happening and trying to mitigate them or govern them down.
Moral judgment is another one of these things that falls into the reactive category because what do you do when you aren't doing much yourself to be morally judged for?
You call out other people for not living up to some rigid set of protocols for their behavior. you can start to see the picture that's being painted for Nietzsche through the interpretation of Deleuze.
Not only is he saying that there is a reactive bias to almost the entire history of human thought, remember with that representational thinking we're always looking to the protocols of the past to justify future thought, but then we also create entire societies out of this surplus of reactive energy that then go on to create very reactive tendencies in the people that make those societies up.
So this is a perfect time to bring up the comments about the herd mentality from Nietzsche. Is it right to call 99% of people out there members of the herd?
Now, of course, there's a reading of Nietzsche that says the only reason you'd ever refer to people as members of the herd is to inspire those that are trapped in chains they don't realize that they're in.
But what critics will say in the years following Nietzsche's work is, okay, let's take what you're saying here.
Let's say there's no good and evil written into the universe, and pretending as though there is is just distracting us from the real work we need to be doing of understanding the power dynamics that really determine what's going on.
And let's say most people fall into this herd-like mentality, where they're all adopting a reactive approach to life.Well, then the first question you got to ask is, why is that, Nietzsche?Is it because they were born weak or bad people?
Or is that because they're born into power dynamics that regularly expose them to forces that influence them to be passive and reactive?Like, let's say there's a child born into a Christian home.
And I use Christianity here because Nietzsche specifically calls it a slave morality. When that child grows up and favors the virtues of the weak, as Nietzsche calls them, was that because they were born weak?
Or because they grew up in an environment, a set of power dynamics, where those virtues are nurtured into them and rewarded from the moment they're born?
In other words, calling someone a member of the herd, short of this being a way of inspiring people, seems to be making the same mistake he's accusing people of, of not considering the power dynamics that really are determining people's worldviews.
Now, to many thinkers who comment on Nietzsche's work, it's obvious Nietzsche did understand that this was a matter of power dynamics, which is why he spent so much time engaging with power dynamics in his time.
I mean, much of his work is spent untangling things like morality and egalitarian politics, things that he thought were often used as tools to be able to control people in that reactive, governing sort of way.
And look, it's not like Nietzsche anyway had enough time to do all the work in this area himself.I mean, it would take many others coming after him, inspired by his work, to take this critique to the next level.
For example, Carl Jung, heavily influenced by Nietzsche's work.
I mean, if the categories of good and evil are not things that are written into the universe, then how can we begin to better explain what people are doing when they create these sort of categories?
Well, they're part of the symbolic way that we collectively orient ourselves towards the world.
Let's focus on that, let's understand the consequences of that, and develop something constructive out of this critique rather than just calling people members of a herd.
Or how about the work of Foucault, who, maybe more than anyone else, followed up on the work that Nietzsche was doing in untangling how power actually intersects with people's lives in ways that aren't immediately obvious.
We've talked about it a bunch on this podcast, about his take on disciplinary society, how the institutions funnel people into schools, prisons, hospitals, military barracks, and then control the very norms that people use to understand how they fit into a society.
That's an example of examining power dynamics. But it would take someone like Gilles Deleuze eventually to continue examining the power dynamics in play for what he called these societies of control that we live in now.
Because to Deleuze, now the best way to dominate people is not through moral judgment or by funneling them into schools or prisons, those are the more obvious ones.
Now the best way in these more technologically advanced societies is to control the very information that they receive that they construct their entire worldview out of. But hold on a second, there's a counterpoint to all this that needs to be said.
There's probably someone out there who's been thinking this since we started talking about active and reactive forces like five minutes ago.What is it exactly that Nietzsche's saying here with his active and reactive forces?
Is he saying that reactive forces are totally bad and that active forces are totally good?
I mean, if your example that you give is that a reactive force is like the immune system of the body, or laws and rules, or moral accountability, these things seem important to me.
I mean, I get just sitting around and critiquing things all the time can be insufferable, but isn't throwing this stuff out just missing a huge regulatory component of what our lives are, of how our societies function well?
These are great questions, and the answer to them is, of course we need reactive forces in the world, of course we need critique, and governance, and moral judgment, and all the rest of it.
The question that's more relevant here, Danica, is if you had to do an analysis of what kinds of forces are most prevalent in the world we live in,
Would you say the typical society is set up with an equal level of support for people choosing lives that are active versus reactive?Is it a 50-50 split exactly?No?Is it more likely to be reactive?
Okay, well then how much more on the reactive side are we then? Well, Danica, we have a huge bias in the reactive direction.Society itself is a reactive force that's trying to govern people's behavior.
And if history is full of these people that are choosing more reactive ways of living, does that maybe have something to do with the way those societies have been set up?
Is it maybe easier to control people when they're encouraged to be passive and reactive?
And for Shield to Lose, one of the promising ways forward when it comes to all this we've been talking about today is going to be for us to emphasize art as opposed to information.
Let me explain, because hearing that you may be like, good God, is this guy really going to say we need to do more finger painting and that's going to free us from the bonds of the digital panopticon?
No, just think of what information truly is in the type of society we live in.We typically think that information is something that's liberating.
You know, if only people had the information, then they'd be able to make decisions that were better for them and their families.
But so often what happens in the information age is that whoever dominates the flows of information gets to dominate the limited worldview of the people that they're reaching.
So when you're given information in one of these modern control societies to deluse, it's obviously not about transmitting knowledge.It's most of the time hardly even verified.
So what this information becomes is a method of mass communicating the meanings, norms, and directives of the day that people are supposed to internalize and believe in and then go throughout their lives.
Information is like a police communication, he says.When you watch a news story or a political debate or whatever it is, this is not some neutral thing that's happening.Just take this information for what it's worth, guys.Here it is.
No, it's a prescription of the meaning of the events that are going on.Information in a controlled society, he says, is both a snapshot and a command at the exact same time.
It carries with it an implicit order that this is the view that polite society is going to believe in next.
And it's this, combined with the other ways that people are turned into bits of that information and then manipulated, information turns out to be a massively effective way of controlling people's behavior.
Turns out it's also very easy to convince people that they have a different sort of way of looking at things, a diverse perspective, even though they're just funneled into the same algorithmic channels that so many other people are given their information in.
It's fake difference to Deleuze. But if it's not obvious by this point in the episode, Deleuze is a philosopher that has as maybe his chief goal, above all others, to find ways to facilitate the creation of the new.Real difference, in other words.
Think about what we know about him so far.This constant unfolding of existence into the future. Difference and repetition to replace the traditional idea of a static identity.
The critique of philosophers being stuck in the image of thought from the past.Philosophy, to Deleuze, true thinking, is a creative activity.It's not prescriptive.It's not a set of protocols to determine how valid someone's thoughts are.
Philosophy is about the creation of a new tracing of concepts that can understand reality in a totally different way.And as important as what Nietzsche would call reactive forces may be,
We also need people who are not sitting back being reactive all the time.
Deleuze himself doesn't break these forces down into this kind of binary like Nietzsche does, but he's going to say that any activity that truly has as its goal to not sit around and repeat the traditions and the way that things have been done in the past, but one that actually genuinely aims to find new lines of escape from these traditions or new forms of what life can look like, that is an activity that he is deeply interested in finding better ways to facilitate, no matter what the context is.
And if you had to give a name to that sort of activity, whether it's in philosophy, science, painting, music, the only name that makes sense that we have, really, is art.Deleuze says that art is not a form of information.
It's not even a form of communication to him.True art, in the sense that it's about creating a new tracing of reality, in the sense that it's inspiring people to see life in a new way,
This is something fundamentally different than what information is, which, again, is only trying to give people a snapshot of the past that's loaded with a bunch of meanings and directives.
True art to Deleuze helps people think and feel beyond the prescribed limitations of the information they get on a day-to-day basis.
So if you hear Deleuze's philosophy and you feel a little disoriented, like, man, this is a truly bizarre picture of what our reality is.How am I ever going to use this way of thinking practically in my everyday life?
Well, that's actually part of his entire point.True art gets people thinking outside of these rigid boxes.So you know how they say there's a comedian's comedian, or a musician's musician?
This is why I think one way to describe Deleuze is that he's a philosopher's philosopher, or at the very least, an artist's philosopher.Because his work is designed to inspire someone to think different than they otherwise do.Truly different.
Anyway, hope you enjoyed this episode.Thank you for supporting an effort like this podcast.We have a Patreon.It's patreon.com slash philosophize this.Thank you for making my family's life possible.As always, thank you for listening.
I'll talk to you next time.
