Dostoevsky and Nietzsche

Lecture 3, Dostoevsky and Nietzsche, of UGS 303, Ideas of the Twentieth Century, at the University of Texas at Austin, Fall 2013
00:01
today we’re going to be talking about
00:04
relativism and in two particular
00:07
incarnations one person who is a
00:10
proponent of relativism the other an
00:12
ardent folk relativism these are two of
00:14
the most important thinkers of the
00:16
latter part of the 19th century stay in
00:18
some way set up the problematic of the
00:20
20th century their ideas have a huge
00:23
impact on thinkers throughout the 20th
00:25
century and so looking at the contrast
00:27
between them I think can help us to
00:28
understand the kinds of issues that
00:30
people are wrestling with as the 20th
00:32
century dawned before we get to those
00:34
thinkers themselves let’s think about
00:36
relativism all by itself I’ve been
00:38
talking about these two level theories
00:39
where there’s a manifest image of the
00:42
world more or less as we find it and of
00:44
ourselves as we find ourselves it’s one
00:46
that’s characterized by a conception of
00:48
ourselves as rational beings governed by
00:50
some kind of moral law taking
00:52
responsibility for actions because we
00:54
see ourselves as causally responsible
00:56
for those actions we see ourselves as
00:58
doing things we are so we see ourselves
01:00
as acting freely we think of ourselves
01:03
as using practical reason figuring out
01:05
what means to take in order to attain
01:07
our goals however according to the
01:09
scientific image we’re really just
01:11
beings governed by causal laws that
01:13
seems to be a completely value-free
01:15
image it doesn’t make any sense to ask
01:17
whether it’s basic laws or conditions
01:19
are right or wrong and it looks as if
01:20
things are either purely determined or
01:22
at best determined to some degree and
01:25
then affected with some degree of
01:26
randomness well it’s easy for theories
01:30
like that to lead to relevance where one
01:32
looks at the manifest image the values
01:34
that are expressed there the conceptions
01:35
of rationality and you say look really
01:38
that might be right only given a certain
01:41
way in which things are working at the
01:43
base level and so in content one to
01:45
think that truth itself is relative to
01:48
something or other now there are a lot
01:50
of different forms of relativism you
01:51
might think that what is true is
01:53
relative to an individual person that
01:55
certain things could be true for you but
01:57
not true for me you might think things
01:59
are relative to a society so what is
02:01
true depends on a certain particular
02:03
society and its concepts you might think
02:06
it’s dependent on a culture or what some
02:09
authors have referred to as
02:10
interpretive community a community may
02:12
be much smaller than a given society may
02:15
be much larger than it that adopts a
02:17
certain conceptual framework and so you
02:19
can think of things as relative to a set
02:21
of concepts that we use for
02:22
understanding the world finally you
02:24
might think of things as relative to a
02:26
certain historical period a certain
02:29
certain historical epic or era and that
02:31
particular version as we’ll see you is
02:33
called historicism but in any case the
02:35
idea here is that things aren’t really
02:37
universally and absolutely true they’re
02:40
only true relative to something or other
02:42
now certain things people often think
02:45
are relative to individual people and
02:48
it’s relatively uncontroversial that
02:50
they are for example if I say mushrooms
02:52
are yummy I think that’s true but you
02:56
might disagree right you might hate
02:57
mushrooms and so in fact when I was in
03:01
elementary school I used to trade kids
03:03
for mushrooms and for peas they would
03:05
often serve peas and was like I love
03:07
peas peas are awesome and so I have
03:10
trade people deserts and rolls and other
03:12
things like that to get pee so I do peas
03:13
and then people say why don’t we use pee
03:15
so I just get lots of free peas so I
03:17
just have a big mound of peas I thought
03:19
that was fantastic
03:20
okay now I spill my guts about testing I
03:23
love you but in any event up you know so
03:27
peas are yummy mushrooms are yummy those
03:29
things are true for be on the other end
03:30
they might not be true for you or it
03:32
might be that you love other kinds of
03:34
things that I despise like what um those
03:37
rubbery horrible things that calamari
03:42
what yeah I don’t see a long eating like
03:44
calamari to meet calamari are disgusting
03:47
you might as well just eat rubber bands
03:49
and so in any event things like that we
03:52
certainly yeah all right this is yummy
03:54
that’s not me that’s relative to an
03:56
individual person we ordinarily think
03:58
but there are lots of things we don’t
04:00
think are relative to a given person or
04:02
to a given society what are some things
04:04
that are candidates for real absolute
04:05
truth not dependent on you or me not
04:08
dependent on a historical era not
04:11
dependent on a particular set of
04:13
concepts or a certain culture or its
04:15
framework one of the things that might
04:17
be absolute truth yeah good the law of
04:21
gravitation you might think that’s
04:22
something that’s really true at all
04:23
times that
04:24
places it’s not like what gravity is
04:26
true for you but it’s not true for me I
04:27
just find myself rising into the air I
04:29
put glue on my shoes right it’s not like
04:32
that no it applies across the board or
04:34
at least we ordinarily think so yeah
04:36
mathematics good two plus two is four
04:39
that’s something it seems to be true no
04:41
matter who you are it’s not like well
04:42
two plus two is four in Austin but the
04:44
closer you get to Waco the more it
04:46
starts shading on no it’s not like that
04:49
right it’s true all over the place other
04:51
cabinets yeah good the laws of physics
04:55
in general it’s not just gravitation
04:57
force is mass times acceleration for
04:59
example that seems to be true across the
05:01
board right we don’t say well you know
05:03
forces now mass times acceleration but
05:05
if you go back to the 19th century it
05:06
was something else
05:07
no we tend to think that’s something
05:09
that applies at all times and places in
05:11
all cultures in all historical epochs
05:13
are there other things yeah you saw oh
05:16
you sucks we’ve talked about that one
05:18
that might be although already kept
05:23
thing a counterexample oh yeah okay I
05:30
think therefore I am that’s when we
05:31
talked about earlier too and that’s
05:33
something you might take to be universal
05:35
as we mentioned it’s really not
05:36
necessarily true at all times in all
05:38
places but every time I can say it right
05:41
every time it’s thought or uttered it’s
05:42
true
05:43
so the relativist has a tough row to hoe
05:45
the relatives has to say look I’m not
05:47
just talking about things like peas or
05:49
yummy I’m talking about all of that
05:51
everything truth itself is relative and
05:54
that’s something that at least doesn’t
05:56
seem to be true in our common sense
05:58
appreciation of the world so what kinds
06:00
of arguments to relativists give what
06:02
can they say ultimately this position
06:04
goes back to the thought of Derek Hale
06:07
who wrote at the beginning of the 19th
06:09
century he’s very influential and we
06:11
would read him if his writing was
06:13
intelligible but it’s very very
06:16
difficult in any case he lays out a
06:19
series of arguments that increasingly
06:21
tempered evil toward relativism
06:23
throughout the later part of the 19th
06:24
century and then the 20th century now
06:26
what are some of these arguments the
06:29
first is that he rejects what he refers
06:31
to and later authors like Sellars
06:33
referred to as the myth of the Gibbon he
06:35
calls it in medias
06:36
he says there is no such thing as
06:38
immediacy there is no such thing that is
06:40
simply given to us an experience now
06:43
what does he mean by that
06:44
well cut earlier had drawn a sharp line
06:47
between sensibility and understanding
06:49
between what we perceive and then the
06:51
concepts we use to analyze what we
06:53
perceive you might say what am i
06:54
proceeding right now well a classroom
06:57
full of people and so you could
06:58
characterize that maybe in terms of
07:01
things that have concepts in them like a
07:03
classroom full of people right I’m using
07:05
concepts classroom people but I might
07:07
think look I could characterize this in
07:10
a way that has nothing to do with that I
07:11
might just for example take a photograph
07:13
and then I could say here’s what I’m
07:15
looking at here’s what I’m perceiving
07:16
and that would be something that seems
07:18
to be free of concepts however Hegel
07:21
says there isn’t such a sharp line to be
07:24
drawn when I perceive all of you I don’t
07:26
just see this swirling mass I don’t just
07:28
see a bunch of pixels or something like
07:30
that it’s not just a bunch of rods and
07:32
cones on the retina being activated my
07:34
mind immediately sorts things into
07:36
objects I see people I see desks and
07:39
tables I see a camera I see a variety of
07:41
things in front of me and I immediately
07:43
categorize those in terms of concepts I
07:45
have so this claim is there really isn’t
07:48
a sharp line between sensation and
07:50
cognition in sensing the world in
07:53
perceiving the world
07:54
I am already categorizing it he says
07:56
I’ve already classifying things using
07:58
concepts so there’s a sense in which
07:59
people who have totally different sense
08:01
of concepts actually perceive things
08:04
differently they see things differently
08:06
because one is seen let’s say just
08:08
shapes another is seeing people and
08:10
that’s a fundamental difference so he
08:12
argues that our perception of the world
08:14
is concept Laden even the most basic
08:16
levels there is no level he thinks we’re
08:19
we’re just perceiving things before we
08:20
get to conceptually analyzing it or
08:22
before we think wait what am I seeing
08:24
now there’s an obvious argument on the
08:27
other side wait sometimes I do right
08:29
sometimes I perceive something and I
08:30
don’t know what to think about it so I
08:32
looked at a scene I say what is that or
08:34
I look at a Jackson Pollock painting and
08:36
I say what is that my father for years
08:40
had what a lot of people thought was a
08:42
print of a Jackson Pollock painting
08:43
behind his desk in his office at work in
08:47
fact the painter in the bill
08:49
had just had this table and he had
08:51
spilled paint on it over the years and
08:53
finally decided to get a new table
08:55
my father said kind of that tabletop
08:56
hung on the wall people thought it was a
08:58
Jackson Pollock never Oh
09:01
and so you might say yeah you know what
09:03
is that well it might just be drips of
09:04
paint maybe it’s something else in any
09:06
case you might think I can look at it
09:08
and analyze it pet it in terms of well
09:10
yeah I don’t want to see analyze it even
09:13
I can just tell you what I is I’m seeing
09:14
before I have any idea of how to
09:18
categorize what I’m seeing but Hegel
09:20
says no even the most basic levels my
09:22
concepts are already involved so he says
09:25
the concepts we have shaped the way we
09:27
perceive the world but of course what we
09:30
perceived is the world so it follows
09:32
that our concepts shape what the world
09:35
is there is no way to really separate
09:37
the world as it is from the world as it
09:40
seems to us there’s no sharp separation
09:42
between two terms the comp use
09:44
appearances and things in themselves
09:46
yeah to go from the way we perceive the
09:51
world to that is the way the world is
09:54
because you may not receive there as
09:56
being any gravity but there still is
09:58
gravity I feel that he makes a couple
10:00
jumps oh that don’t have any sort of
10:02
logic to just what he wants me to be
10:05
okay good yes how good is this as an
10:08
argument actually Hegel is advancing it
10:10
kind of as an argument
10:12
um I say kind of as an argument because
10:14
sometimes I think he’s giving you
10:16
arguments sometimes I think he’s really
10:17
trying to get you to undergo a Gestalt
10:20
shift he’s trying to say you’ve been
10:21
seeing the world this way I want you to
10:23
see it this world way think about it
10:24
this way instead and the arguments don’t
10:27
actually leave much of anywhere if we go
10:29
carefully here we can say well all right
10:31
there’s the first sort of argument that
10:33
really we can’t perceive things in a
10:35
family of concepts the concepts do shape
10:37
what we proceed and we can ask whether
10:39
that’s true or false right is that true
10:41
or is it false that’s a complicated sort
10:44
of question um you might think it’s sort
10:48
of obviously false because we can after
10:50
all take photographs and say there
10:51
that’s what I’m seeing um on the other
10:54
hand you might think well if you analyze
10:56
what the brain is doing maybe there
10:58
really isn’t a very
10:59
it may be the moment information is
11:02
transferred from the retina for example
11:04
my conceptual apparatus and parts of the
11:06
brain that involved that are already
11:08
operating on and so from that point of
11:10
view it seems like a complicated neuro
11:12
physiological problem whether these are
11:14
different components in the brain or
11:15
whether they get all mixed up and it’s
11:18
not obvious which way it goes one would
11:19
really have to know a lot about the
11:21
brain and how it works to be able to
11:23
tell that there is some evidence that
11:25
actually these things are at certain
11:27
levels intertwined a good example is a
11:29
kind of case where people show words
11:35
that denote colors like the word orange
11:38
but it’s in blue and they ask you to
11:41
read it aloud okay and they keep doing
11:44
this there’s the word read re D but it’s
11:46
in green and so on and it freaks people
11:48
out they find it hard to do that’s some
11:51
evidence that perception and cognition
11:52
are kind of mixed up together at some
11:54
level but in the end you’re right as an
11:56
argument that’s not much of an argument
11:58
would really have to get into the
12:00
neurophysiology I understand how this
12:01
works but now let’s look at this step
12:03
suppose it’s true that the concepts we
12:05
have shaped the way we perceive the
12:07
world does it follow that there’s no
12:10
difference between the world as it is in
12:12
the world as we perceive it well it
12:15
doesn’t seem to pong right that is to
12:18
say I might say and in fact here’s the
12:21
skeptical argument that I think
12:22
underlies this position the skeptical
12:24
argument is this I can’t really tell to
12:27
what extent the way I’m perceiving the
12:28
world reflects the way the world really
12:29
is and to what extent it reflects the
12:32
contributions of my own cognitive
12:34
apparatus how much is what I’m seeing
12:37
really a matter of the way the world is
12:39
and how much of it is really being
12:41
contributed by my mind by my brain in
12:44
reconstructing data and then projecting
12:46
something that may or may not actually
12:48
reflect the way reality is well the
12:51
skeptics worried I can’t tell I can’t
12:53
tell what is really my own contribution
12:55
and what is really there in the world
12:57
and so they said the best thing to do is
12:59
to spend judgment who knows what the
13:01
world is really like Hegel is trying to
13:03
respond to that but he’s saying hey the
13:05
world is as I perceive it
13:06
he’s what is known as an idealist he
13:09
thinks everything in the world is mine
13:11
dependent the whole world it’s just a
13:12
projection of the mind so that’s the
13:14
underlying view that we’re going to be
13:16
getting to and that in a nutshell is his
13:18
argument for it he thinks that’s the
13:19
only way to avoid that skeptical
13:21
argument now most philosophers have
13:23
thought that can’t be righted but a
13:26
consistent theme in the course as we go
13:28
along will be precisely that question
13:30
the question of realism versus idealism
13:33
the realist says the world really is a
13:36
certain way we’ll talk about this much
13:37
more next week but the realist says the
13:40
world is a way a certain way
13:41
independently of how the mind goes
13:43
things are as they are independently of
13:45
what we think about and so there are at
13:48
least some mind independent facts the
13:50
idealist says no actually everything
13:53
depends on the mind and so there’s no
13:54
such thing as a mind-independent world a
13:56
mind independent fact Hegel is an
13:59
idealist so he’s trying to say actually
14:01
the only way I can beat the skeptic it
14:03
is to think appearances and things in
14:05
themselves are just the same forget
14:07
about the worlds it might be
14:08
independently of our ways of perceiving
14:09
it because actually there’s no such
14:11
thing the world is just what we can
14:13
struck through our minds now most people
14:16
think look there’s something deeply
14:18
wrong with that and so we’re going to be
14:20
considering the battle between the
14:21
realists an idealist throughout the 20th
14:23
century but it does become a major focus
14:26
and not just in philosophy but also in
14:28
literature in the arts to what extent is
14:31
the job of the artist for example to
14:32
reflect the way the world is and to what
14:34
extent is it just to project some idea
14:36
out of the world and it can become
14:37
reality just by being thought up by
14:39
being projected we’ll see all sorts of
14:41
people taking different attitudes about
14:43
that fight but I think your various oops
14:45
I’ve gone on too long the iPad says
14:48
bored now um but no I think it’s a very
14:51
insightful point to say look there is a
14:52
kind of argument here for this but
14:54
there’s also a huge jump and it’s not at
14:57
all to your how we’re supposed to get
14:58
from babby but if it’s true to that
15:00
so we’ll be fighting throughout the term
15:03
I mean not you and I but the various
15:05
thinkers we read about will be fighting
15:07
about whether that kind of job makes
15:08
sense or whether it doesn’t
15:11
now Hegel has a supplementary argument
15:14
which is this idea about the social
15:17
character of thought he thinks human
15:19
thought is
15:19
essentially social why go because I
15:22
learn my concepts from the people around
15:26
me I learned it by learning my language
15:28
and I get that set of concepts in other
15:30
words by learning a certain language
15:32
that is taught to me by other people so
15:34
how did I learn English well I just grew
15:37
up in a household that spoke English
15:39
really some rough approximations there
15:41
too I grew up in Pittsburgh so it was
15:44
only a rough approximation we said all
15:45
sorts of weird things but anyway that’s
15:48
something that is crucial we’ve learned
15:50
our concepts from other people that’s
15:52
not to say we can’t then start doing
15:54
things ourselves to some extent but we
15:56
do it with the raw material thought
15:57
that’s given to us in a certain social
15:59
context he says so in learning our
16:02
language we learn basic categories of
16:04
thought and we learn them from other
16:06
people at a particular time in the
16:08
context of a particular society so what
16:11
call it an earlier philosophers
16:13
generally from as stemming from our very
16:15
nature as knowers and in that respect as
16:17
being universal as applying across the
16:19
board to all of us as beings who were
16:21
rational beings capable of knowledge
16:22
heygo sees as reflecting a specific
16:25
social background and again we’ve got a
16:27
contrast here between people who say
16:29
look there are certain things that are
16:30
just true about human nature no matter
16:32
what true about human perception true
16:35
about human cognition no matter what and
16:38
others say well it depends maybe people
16:40
in ancient China really perceive things
16:41
differently maybe they really thought
16:43
about things differently maybe they
16:45
reason differently and so on and so one
16:47
group is going to say look all of these
16:49
things stem from human nature that’s
16:51
pretty much constant over time at least
16:53
within local time maybe in geologic
16:55
evolutionary time it’s different
16:57
but others are going to say no no it can
17:00
change from place to place from decade
17:02
to decade and so what one group is going
17:05
to see is Universal another group will
17:07
see is variable and relative well one
17:11
last point then he calls his own view
17:12
historicism
17:13
he says philosophy is its own time
17:15
raised to the level of thought what any
17:17
thinker is doing is really just giving
17:19
you a picture of how things look at that
17:21
particular time from the point of view
17:23
of that particular society or culture
17:25
so he says philosophy combines the
17:27
fiight in the infant the relative and
17:29
the absolute he does think actually at
17:32
some level you can
17:33
absolute truth but it’s not at the level
17:35
of describing what the world is like
17:37
it’s describing the way these historical
17:39
progressions of thought go and so he
17:41
thinks he could actually give you laws
17:43
that are universal and absolute but one
17:46
level up they sort of meta laws but
17:48
we’ll get to that more in a moment well
17:52
the ancient relativist was protagonist
17:56
he was the person who introduced this
17:58
into Western philosophy and he said very
18:00
famously man is the measure of all
18:01
things of things we talk about they are
18:03
the things which are not that they are
18:05
not he meant by the way each individual
18:08
person not mankind although many
18:10
relatives have taken it that way but he
18:12
really meant no each individual person
18:14
is the measure of what is and what is
18:17
not so is it warm or cool in this room
18:22
depends right some of you might say
18:24
actually I’m kind of warm others might
18:25
say I know I think it’s cool well he
18:27
says yeah you’re the measure of that so
18:29
it might be warm for you and cool for
18:31
that person and that’s just the way it
18:33
is there’s no such thing as the way
18:34
things truly are so for tigris argue
18:37
well oh yes I repeat that I said we’re
18:41
going to concentrate on the thought of
18:42
two figures of the later 19th century
18:45
the first of them is Fyodor Dostoevsky
18:47
pictured there he is one of the greatest
18:50
Russian novelists indeed one of the
18:51
greatest novelists in any place in time
18:55
Friedrich Nietzsche who will be our
18:57
second thinker rated reading Gustav C
18:59
among the most beautiful strikes of
19:01
fortune in his life and so does this he
19:03
actually had a significant impact on
19:05
Nietzsche and we’ll see some specific
19:07
ways in which that’s true they do
19:09
however come to completely opposite
19:11
conclusions Dostoyevsky’s works were
19:15
banned in Russia after the communist
19:17
revolution they are great works are in
19:21
some ways the pride of Russian
19:22
literature in Russian culture but in
19:24
another way they were taken to be highly
19:26
subversive to Lenin and Stalin x’
19:28
paradigm why well does TF ski is a
19:31
concern what do I mean by a conservative
19:33
I mean somebody who believes in order
19:36
delivery what does that mean well they
19:38
believe in Liberty they believe in
19:40
freedom that is a fundamental pull it
19:41
in human value and so there should be
19:44
liberty for people to follow their own
19:46
conceptions of the good however that has
19:49
to take place within a framework of
19:51
order within a framework of the rule of
19:53
law for example in terms of formal
19:55
institutional structures but also in
19:58
terms of an informal structure of social
20:00
institutions and Ben Burke unknown in
20:03
conservative called these little
20:04
platoons so things like families
20:06
churches clubs other voluntary
20:09
organizations as well as more formal
20:11
institutions like universities companies
20:13
and so forth all create a kind of social
20:16
structure that is important to the
20:18
maintenance of social order so the idea
20:20
is roughly that liberty freedom is a
20:22
fundamental human value but not really a
20:25
sort of license in fact john locke
20:26
expresses this very nicely he says the
20:28
state of nature is a state liberty but
20:30
not a state of license and what he means
20:32
is liberty but I don’t just mean do
20:35
whatever you want I mean do whatever you
20:37
want within a certain structure that
20:39
keeps people from colliding with other
20:41
people and harming so that’s roughly
20:44
what will mean in this course anyway by
20:46
being a conservative and thus vfc
20:48
clearly is what he is not conservative
20:51
in another sense sometimes people use
20:53
that term just to mean don’t make any
20:54
changes where I keep things as they are
20:56
and that wasn’t his view at all in fact
20:58
he was a social reformer young when he
21:00
was young he was a socialist and a sort
21:02
of liberal utopian he was arrested by
21:04
the Tsar and sentenced to death he was
21:06
in front of a firing squad when suddenly
21:08
a note came from that is bizarre
21:10
commuting his sentence to four years
21:11
hard labor in Siberia that destroyed his
21:14
health and really for the rest of his
21:15
life he was sick most of the time as a
21:17
result of his experiences there suffered
21:20
greatly from malnutrition and other
21:22
kinds of problems he was chained the
21:23
entire four years when he wasn’t
21:25
actually physically working the only
21:27
thing he was permitted to read was the
21:28
New Testament which ended up having a
21:30
huge impact on his fall in any case he
21:33
did attack feudalism
21:34
he attacked Russian society at the time
21:36
he tried to break down barriers between
21:38
social classes and that sense was viewed
21:41
as an enemy of the Czar well what’s the
21:45
positive side he argues that
21:47
Christianity actually is essential to
21:49
ordered liberty and so what we get here
21:50
is an argue
21:51
in favor of religious values his version
21:55
is really Orthodox Christianity that is
21:57
to say the Russian Orthodox Church but I
21:59
think a lot of what he says applies just
22:01
a religion per se he thinks it is vital
22:03
that you have some basis for thinking
22:06
that people have dignity that people are
22:08
valued and in fact they are equally
22:10
valuable as children of God he thinks if
22:12
you don’t have that you’re in big
22:14
trouble
22:14
now as well see when we get to Nietzsche
22:16
he says no no you’re better off without
22:18
it
22:18
however the CFC is going to say that is
22:22
the foundation for you might say
22:25
enlightenment conceptions of humanity
22:28
and of human dignity and human liberty
22:30
and human equality all of that depends
22:32
on a certain kind of foundation and if
22:34
it’s not there then he sees that there
22:37
will be a major source of social trouble
22:39
in fact he saw Christianity at this time
22:41
as in decline and he thought that
22:43
presented a serious danger
22:44
precisely because without it there isn’t
22:47
any foundation for a belief in human
22:48
dignity or equality so we’re going to
22:52
look at one chapter of one of his
22:54
greatest novels The Brothers Karamazov
22:57
there’s a page of it if you want to read
22:59
it in the original ok this chapter is
23:06
known as the Grand Inquisitor chapter
23:08
and here’s the basic set Jesus comes
23:10
back to earth during the most intense
23:12
period of the Spanish Inquisition the
23:14
crowd recognizes and he starts
23:16
performing miracles he cures a blind man
23:18
he raises a girl from the dead
23:20
here’s a famous painting of Jesus
23:22
healing the blind man it’s the Spanish
23:26
Inquisition he’s going to meet the Grand
23:28
Inquisitor who burned a hundred people
23:29
at the stake that day is going to burn
23:31
100 more the next day um that’s pretty
23:33
depressing and in general this is fairly
23:35
depressing so I thought maybe you would
23:37
like to be cheered up about that here’s
23:39
a famous view of the Spanish Inquisition
23:49
okay
24:22
Spanish Inquisition a surprise oh yeah
24:56
okay well in any case Jesus comes back
25:01
okay so we have the second cup Jesus
25:03
comes and starts healing people and so
25:05
on to the Grand Inquisitor who is the
25:07
head of the church here in the head of
25:08
the Inquisition sees this and he arrests
25:12
him he takes him to prison and tells him
25:14
that he’s going to be burned at the
25:16
stake the next day and then the very
25:17
people clamored to see him today will
25:19
throw logs on the fire tomorrow so this
25:23
is a pretty bleak situation now why does
25:26
he do this
25:26
there’s by the way an artistic rendering
25:28
of and being questioned by the Grand
25:30
Inquisitor well the Grand Inquisitor
25:34
says look you’re nothing but trouble and
25:37
here’s why you gave the people freedom
25:39
freedom to believe or not to believe
25:41
have faith or reject it but that has
25:45
brought the people nothing but torment
25:46
that was nothing but trouble because it
25:49
put responsibility in people’s hands so
25:52
the Inquisitor says what the church has
25:55
done much better the church is taken
25:57
freedom away assigning to the Pope all
25:59
authority to determine the Word of God
26:00
and not even Jesus himself now has the
26:03
right to change everything so he said
26:05
look the church is taken away freedom
26:07
but for the sake of happiness
26:08
people are happier we tell them what to
26:10
do they do it they’re like happy sheep
26:12
and so the contrast throughout this is
26:14
really freedom versus happiness to what
26:16
extent should you interfere with
26:18
people’s freedom for the sake of
26:19
happiness and the structure of this
26:21
really has to do it mirrors the
26:23
structure of the three temptations in
26:26
the best pictured here or here and so
26:29
there are three parts of the story as it
26:31
evolves Jesus is there in the wilderness
26:33
and Satan comes up to him and offers him
26:37
three temptations the first temptation
26:39
is if you’re the Son of God tell these
26:40
stones to become bread well in dusty s
26:43
keys rendering this Ivan is the
26:45
character who’s telling the story and
26:47
Ivan thinks that this is an offer to
26:48
look here’s a way of making people have
26:50
feed people okay you have the power to
26:52
actually turn stones into bread and give
26:54
the people all the food they want and
26:56
all the food baby jesus answered it is
26:59
written man shall not live on bread
27:01
alone but on every word that comes from
27:02
the mouth of God
27:04
now the inquisitor says look hey you
27:08
gave people too much credit in the end
27:10
people are going to lay their freedom in
27:12
our feet and say to us make us your
27:14
slaves but feed us now in Ivan’s view
27:17
he’s the one telling the story that’s
27:18
what people want they want to be fed
27:20
they want to be taken care of they are
27:22
what freedom they don’t want choices
27:24
they don’t want responsibility they just
27:26
want to be like children a child comes
27:29
into the room it says I’m hungry give me
27:31
food if you say well you want food go
27:34
get a job we don’t say that to children
27:36
right but we might say that to adults
27:39
and so his thought is what most people
27:41
want to be my children they just want to
27:43
be fed they just want to be taken care
27:44
of them Cara
27:45
they don’t want freedom they don’t want
27:46
responsibility here’s an ancient
27:50
Egyptian text that actually makes this
27:51
point rather nicely called the
27:53
instruction of any a father is giving
27:55
his son advice about how to live goes on
27:57
and on giving his son all this advice
27:58
the son says well all your sayings are
28:00
excellent but doing them requires
28:01
virtues like your makeup I’d have to be
28:04
a good person I’d have to actually work
28:05
at this this would be a pain in the butt
28:07
and the father goes on and says look son
28:10
here’s what you’re supposed to do do
28:12
this do that and someone gives all the
28:13
sensible advice and finally the son says
28:16
look you my father you were wise and
28:17
strong of hand the infinite is what
28:20
his wishes for what nurses him looks at
28:23
you when he finds his speech he says
28:25
give me bread and Ivan is basically
28:28
saying that’s what people are like
28:29
they’re like the son in the story and by
28:31
the way it just ends there you can
28:33
imagine the father thing oh but that’s
28:36
how it is give me bread so I’m it as in
28:39
effect saying look people are like the
28:40
son in this story they’re not like the
28:42
father they want to be taken care of
28:44
there’s a saint give me bread oh there
28:48
is an Egyptian thing or people
28:51
harvesting wheat why is that there
28:54
because actually it’s not a trivial
28:56
point what’s the first thing people do
28:58
when they become friends what’s the
29:00
first thing when a romantic relationship
29:01
starts what do people do they feed the
29:05
other person right you go out to dinner
29:06
or something like that no that’s not
29:09
what so what you said I’m going to
29:10
really good um and so you know feeding
29:14
someone is an important way of taking
29:15
care of them of establishing a certain
29:17
kind of relationship well in any case I
29:20
even think people are like the Sun they
29:21
just want to be taken care of they want
29:23
to be sheep they want to be children
29:25
they don’t want to grow up and as you
29:27
can see I found many wonderful paintings
29:29
of sheep well here’s the second
29:33
temptation pick yourself Satan takes
29:36
Jesus up to the roof of the temple and
29:37
says throw yourself off the angels will
29:39
save you if you’re the son of God throw
29:43
yourself down from the top of the temple
29:45
it’s written the Angels will save you
29:46
Jesus says it’s also written don’t put
29:47
the Lord your God to the test well
29:50
here’s how the Grand Inquisitor takes
29:52
that he says look you did expect too
29:54
much it’s not just that people want to
29:55
be fed they want to be led you had a
29:58
chance to become a great religious
29:59
leader instead of being crucified you
30:01
could actually shown people that perform
30:03
these miracles right in front of the
30:05
Pharisees for example you could have
30:07
done this in such a way you’d been
30:08
acclaimed universally as a great leader
30:10
but you wanted love given freely you
30:13
didn’t want adoration from slaves who
30:15
were just impressed by miracles you
30:17
wanted people to make a free choice
30:18
you wanted too much it was too much to
30:20
ask and so he says look people are
30:23
really slaves they want to be told what
30:25
to do they don’t – please you’ll be
30:27
kinder to them if you have less respect
30:29
for them the third temptation Satan
30:33
offers all
30:34
kingdoms of the world in their splendor
30:35
in other words you could be a great
30:37
political leader you can establish
30:39
utopia on earth and Jesus says away from
30:41
me Satan
30:42
now the Inquisitor says that’s a good
30:45
painting away vermin
30:48
well by the way I want to decided I
30:51
would grow a beard and I did I looked
30:54
like Satan I imagined that I would look
30:57
like a fluffy teddy bear and I did my
30:59
awful it was very very me Oh afraid
31:02
myself and changed it off
31:04
well anyway – yeah the quiz that are
31:08
saying look you could have done this you
31:09
could have established a utopia on earth
31:11
why didn’t you do it because that’s what
31:13
the church is for me to do now we’re
31:15
trying to make people happy we’ve taken
31:17
over your role the church tells people
31:19
what to do it makes them happy it
31:21
doesn’t respect and it treats them like
31:22
children but that’s what they want and
31:24
so everything works out very well the
31:26
church even lets its children sin it
31:29
tells them it’s okay we’ll all be
31:30
forgiven in the end and so people were
31:32
happy to give up the freedom to be fed
31:35
they oh they’re even allowed to sin what
31:37
more could you want they’re happy
31:38
children no well yeah that makes
31:42
everyone happy the Grand Inquisitor says
31:44
well almost everyone
31:45
there are those who actually have to
31:47
leave the Sheep there the Shepherd’s
31:49
they are the ones who have to act freely
31:51
they’re the ones who take responsibility
31:52
they are the ones who suffer so that the
31:55
rest don’t have to so they’re going to
31:57
be thousands of millions of happy babes
31:59
notice children again and 100,000
32:01
sufferers who have taken upon themselves
32:03
the curse what curse the curse of the
32:05
knowledge of good and evil so here we
32:08
see dust yes keep recognizing what I
32:09
called last time the vision will be
32:11
anointed this idea that there are a few
32:13
people who are actually capable of
32:15
exercising leadership of taking
32:17
responsibility of making decisions for
32:19
everyone else and that we’ll all be
32:20
better off if just a few people lead all
32:22
the rest well with all that is good and
32:25
evil you might recognize that that’s
32:27
what constitutes the fall of man no
32:31
vision of Illinois here’s the idea some
32:34
people are going to fall they’re going
32:35
to have this knowledge they’re going to
32:36
have the responsibility leave the rest
32:38
it’s gotta be tough for them but then
32:40
the others can remain in the garden only
32:41
a few people to leave the garden the
32:43
rest can be happy sheep back there in
32:45
the garden will follow the rules up
32:46
there do what belted with that old
32:48
though remain a flock of sheep and so he
32:50
says really that would be for the best
32:52
well as we mentioned last time there is
32:55
a kind of problem here I called the
32:57
paradox of the other the vision cuts the
33:00
anointed ones the leaders those who
33:01
actually fall from the knowledge they
33:03
need to take responsibility and make
33:05
people happy what’s going to guide their
33:07
decisions actually the Sheep it turns
33:09
out are going to be the only ones who
33:10
have the norms well the values are
33:12
capable of evaluating what’s good and
33:14
bad they’re the only ones with the norms
33:16
that could help to guide them so we’ve
33:18
got kind of paradox and the way
33:20
Dostoyevsky understands this is that
33:22
those who pride themselves on having the
33:24
knowledge of good and evil actually are
33:26
in the least position good to understand
33:28
what they really are they’re the least
33:30
equipped to make decisions they’re the
33:31
least equipped to guide others so the
33:33
people who think hey I could be a
33:35
shepherd I know what’s going on I
33:36
understand the world says they’re the
33:38
last ones you should trust they are in
33:40
fact in the worst position right yeah
33:42
good why because they’ve cut themselves
33:44
off from these values the idea is that
33:47
the values are part of the manifest
33:48
image they said forget the manifest
33:51
image that’s the realm of the sheep
33:52
that’s illusion look at the underlying
33:55
reality but in that underlying reality
33:57
there aren’t any valleys and so all of a
33:59
sudden how do you make choices you want
34:01
to lead the Sheep where do you lead them
34:03
well gosh actually that’s a matter
34:05
that’s only defined in terms of that
34:08
manifest image and the signs ever given
34:09
to there’s no you know go to the physics
34:12
class and say but where where should the
34:14
rocket go now in practical terms we can
34:17
say we’re for shooting this at bars so
34:18
it should go to Mars but that’s a matter
34:20
of this the manifest image our Bulls our
34:23
purposes if you look just at the science
34:25
you say to a physicist well where should
34:28
Rockets go I mean in general just tell
34:31
me about rockets like what should Roger
34:32
Tribby and where should go we can ask
34:35
where what human beings are right it
34:37
ought to be and what we shall we should
34:38
live our lives but if we just say where
34:40
should Rockets go that doesn’t make any
34:42
sense there’s no way of an answer
34:43
in terms of the scientific image so his
34:46
point is that really well as CS Lewis
34:49
puts it later the leaders those
34:51
self-styled leaders becomes men without
34:53
chess they cut themselves off from
34:55
everything that might have given them
34:56
some ability to tell good from evil so
34:59
the very people who want to lead are
35:01
those least equipped to lead now he
35:03
thinks it’s vital to hold yourself
35:05
accountable to something outside
35:06
yourself to find an anchor outside
35:07
yourself and again that means you either
35:10
have to take yourself as defining values
35:11
or think that something else defines
35:13
values there’s no other way so in the
35:16
entity are you yourself or it’s
35:17
something outside you whether it’s God
35:19
or something else there’s going to be
35:21
something outside you to which you’re
35:23
accountable the Socialists he says
35:26
thinks it could be mankind Ted thinks
35:28
you could set up heaven on earth but he
35:30
says that doesn’t ultimately work why
35:33
well he thinks really in the end either
35:37
it’s yourself or God you might think the
35:39
universe is about you or you might think
35:41
it’s about something else
35:42
higher than you why isn’t mankind that
35:46
sort of intermediate thing well he says
35:49
here’s the problem today if you think
35:51
most people are sheep what respect do
35:53
you have for man you could think this if
35:55
you really thought mankind had dignity
35:57
and was worthy of respect but if you cut
35:59
yourself off from God he thinks you have
36:01
no grounds for thinking that and so he
36:03
sees this as collapsing basically you
36:05
say I care about mankind but wait a
36:08
minute why should I care about bad guys
36:10
if mankind isn’t important because of
36:12
something else then he thinks in the end
36:14
that slips back into just valuing
36:17
yourself because you’re very vision is
36:19
one that disrespects mankind the things
36:22
of people is nothing generally so it’s
36:24
built on disrespect and therefore he
36:26
thinks it will in the end crumble so
36:28
that’s his argument for this sort of
36:29
conclusion so in the end he says all of
36:32
this collapses into narcissism in the
36:35
end your values can be rooted only in
36:37
yourself you’ll have nothing to guide
36:39
your decisions by your own impulses and
36:41
your own desires and so that’s the
36:45
position Network
36:47
now yeah well there’s lots of images of
36:50
that oh well one more thing I better not
36:53
skip over there is a place in the novel
36:55
earlier where Ivan is saying if God is
36:58
dead then everything is permitted he
37:01
does think God is dead so he concludes
37:03
that everything is permitted in other
37:05
words that there are no rules there’s no
37:06
such thing as morality there’s no such
37:08
thing as now that he can do anything he
37:10
likes that really exemplifies this
37:13
collapse into narcissism if there isn’t
37:15
any external anchor Dostoevsky thinks
37:17
then we just become the centres of our
37:19
own universes and there is no value
37:21
outside of ourselves our own impulses
37:23
our own desires so in the end he says
37:25
we’re in the sacrificing part of
37:28
humanity for the sake of the rest
37:29
so the Inquisition he thinks is actually
37:32
the natural result of that line of
37:34
thinking that says we’re doing it for
37:35
the sake of mankind for the sake of
37:37
happiness he says look that ends in the
37:39
Inquisition that ends in the gulag 100
37:43
years well not quite 50 years before the
37:45
gulag actually came into existence he
37:47
sees that’s where that line of thinking
37:48
goes so anyway I’ll skip the rest and
37:51
let’s talk about Nietzsche Nietzsche is
37:54
inspired by this and inspired by this
37:55
idea of the death of God but instead of
37:58
being deeply disturbed by it he’s
37:59
excited by he thinks this is both
38:01
dangerous but also thrilling and that we
38:03
are in a position like it or not of
38:05
having to reconstruct our own values
38:07
from the resources of ourselves
38:11
Nietzsche is explicitly a historian he
38:14
thinks that truth is relative to a
38:16
historical period and he goes much
38:18
beyond Hegel in thinking that even at
38:21
some higher level this is true there’s
38:23
no such thing as some higher level where
38:24
we can see the march of history and
38:26
understand it in anything like absolute
38:28
terms so here is a way of getting the
38:32
contrast Hegel as we’ve seen advocates a
38:34
historical relativism he thinks the
38:36
truth of the world relative to a time
38:38
and a place but who does claim to
38:40
uncover these absolute general and
38:42
dynamic meta-level laws he says look
38:45
thought does develop in certain ways the
38:47
way the Greeks for example precede the
38:49
world is different from the way that we
38:50
proceeded on the other hand I can tell
38:53
you a story about how thought progresses
38:55
and changes so he thinks that although
38:57
the truth of the world are relative to a
38:59
tie
38:59
place the truths of up thought he thinks
39:02
he can see from his Olympian height I
39:04
had described so we might describe it
39:07
this way there are all these theories we
39:08
have about the world they keep changing
39:10
and truth about the world is relative to
39:13
those on the other hand we can construct
39:15
theories about theories themselves ask
39:17
what is the nature of human knowledge
39:19
what is the nature of human history and
39:21
he thinks there we can actually come up
39:23
with some absolute theory some absolute
39:25
truths not about the world but about the
39:27
way we think about the world nietzsche
39:30
goes further oh yes there is this head
39:34
this idea of how is the logic progresses
39:36
we have a thesis then we realize it
39:39
doesn’t quite fit the facts we formulate
39:40
an antithesis and in the end it doesn’t
39:42
fit the facts either so if we synthesize
39:45
them into something new and then that
39:46
becomes a new thesis and it keeps
39:47
happening again and again on tables
39:50
picture of thought so that’s a very
39:52
quick picture of sort of what that
39:53
Universal progression looks like but
39:57
wait a minute what if thought doesn’t
39:59
change in rational law governed ways
40:01
what if there isn’t Absalom any absolute
40:03
way to characterize this progression of
40:05
thought that’s what Nietzsche thinks we
40:08
have theories about the world they keep
40:09
changing and truth about the world is
40:11
relative to those but actually our
40:13
theories of a theories keep changing too
40:15
and so even our thinking about thinking
40:17
even our thoughts about knowledge about
40:19
history those keep changing too was the
40:21
Greek conception of history the same as
40:23
the medieval conception was that the
40:25
same as our conception of history was
40:27
the Greek conception of the human mind
40:29
the same as a medieval conception or the
40:31
same as our consumption nature says no
40:33
in fact he starts out as a professor of
40:35
classics and so he’s concerned with that
40:37
contrast between his conception in the
40:39
19th century and ancient Greek
40:41
conceptions he says look it’s different
40:43
all the way down or all the way up if
40:45
you want to think of it that way it’s
40:46
not just that we had different physics
40:47
different theories of the world we had
40:49
different conceptions of humanity
40:50
different conceptions of knowledge
40:52
different conceptions of history so he
40:55
says we’re really forced to become a
40:58
relativist all the way through and in
41:01
fact he thinks that if we try to
41:03
understand how thought progresses will
41:05
not only be relevant we’ll recognize the
41:07
pattern is basically irrational he says
41:10
we don’t move from one conception
41:12
from one theory to another theory on the
41:14
basis of evidence reason we usually do
41:16
it on the basis of power and so history
41:20
is driven on his view by the will to
41:21
power but that’s an irrational force it
41:24
is not a rational one it’s not that we
41:26
formulate a hypothesis look at the
41:27
evidence say well that doesn’t quite
41:28
work out let’s think of the opposite
41:30
that’s Hegel’s picture Nietzsche says no
41:32
what happens is people in a theory and
41:35
eventually their students overthrow them
41:37
and say that’s nonsense
41:38
but that’s a power struggle that has
41:40
nothing to do with the reason so
41:44
Nietzsche starts from a kind of two
41:46
level theory he does say nearly all
41:48
philosophical problems once again raised
41:50
the same for its own form of question
41:52
they did 2,000 years ago how can
41:54
something develop from autonomy for
41:56
example reason from the unreasonable
41:58
feeling from the dead logic from the
42:00
illogical disinterested gaze from covens
42:03
wanting altruism premio is some truth
42:05
from error what does he mean she’s
42:08
speaking at the manifest image at that
42:10
level we talk about truth we talk about
42:13
reason we talk about feeling we talk
42:15
about beauty we think about helping
42:18
others however at that base level none
42:20
of that is really there there are just
42:22
particles moving around according to
42:23
laws there’s no reason there’s no
42:25
evidence there’s nothing like that
42:27
there’s no appreciation for beauty all
42:28
there is at that level is just particles
42:30
bouncing off one another how does all of
42:32
that arise from that sort of foundation
42:36
he says well it doesn’t happen
42:38
rationally it doesn’t happen according
42:40
to any discernible laws it’s ultimately
42:42
irrational and what we view as
42:45
remarkable glorious colors of the
42:47
intellect really arise from despised
42:49
materials in other words just purely the
42:51
interaction of these material particles
42:54
so in the end he says we have to be a
42:56
historian but philosophers automatically
42:59
think of man as an eternal being as if
43:02
Humanity is always the same this is it’s
43:04
not true actually everything that
43:07
philosophers say is true only of a
43:08
limited period of time so he ends up
43:12
being a relativist says there are no
43:14
eternal facts there are no absolute
43:16
truths well the world as we perceive it
43:22
he says after all it’s nothing like this
43:24
right we think of it as containing
43:25
value is containing people who were free
43:27
agents but even apart from that we see
43:29
it as consisting of objects but actually
43:31
says according to our really scientific
43:33
picture in the world it’s not consisting
43:34
of objects there are these fields they
43:37
interact in complicated ways somehow we
43:39
see continuous objects out of all of
43:41
that but it’s not clear that the worlds
43:43
anything like what we perceive the world
43:45
we know it he says is really nothing but
43:47
a bunch of errors and fantasies so what
43:52
does this mean about science well he
43:53
says it has to become plain it has to
43:55
develop new ways of seeing and interpret
43:57
in the world but doesn’t really progress
43:59
rationally the best thing that an
44:01
intellectual of any sort scientist a
44:02
humanist can do is think of new ways of
44:05
seeing the world the world after all he
44:08
says is just a projection that goes back
44:10
to that point I made earlier about
44:11
idealism but now something he’s picking
44:14
up from Dostoyevsky directly he says God
44:17
is dead okay this is his most famous
44:20
pronouncement really after Buddha was
44:23
dead his shadow was still shown for
44:25
centuries in a cave a tremendous shiver
44:27
inducing shadow God is dead but given
44:30
humans that they are there may be caves
44:31
for thousands of years in which a shadow
44:33
is show and we we still have to defeat
44:35
his shadow now what does he mean by this
44:38
claim God is dead
44:42
by the way this high magazine finally in
44:48
the 60s picked up of us it only took
44:50
them about 80 years to read philosophy
44:53
but anyway he tells a story he says if
44:57
you not heard the madman a little
44:58
lantern the bright morning random
45:00
article cried incessantly I’m looking
45:01
for God I’m looking for gone this is
45:03
just like the story where Diogenes runs
45:05
looking for an honest man okay so this
45:08
madman runs into the square of looking
45:10
for God there’s a painting of him doing
45:12
that so try this Scott to the west wall
45:16
run out there
45:16
lunchtime chop I’m looking for God
45:18
actually there are people saying I found
45:19
a beauty
45:21
but okay what happens in this story well
45:25
there are many who stood together they
45:26
start making fun of the guys he lost did
45:28
he wander off like a child or does he
45:29
keep himself hidden is he afraid of us
45:31
did he go to see that he emigrate well
45:33
they laughed and yelling disorder
45:34
Nietzsche who was by the way the son of
45:37
a Lutheran
45:37
master is here echoing Elijah taunting
45:40
the priests of Baal first Kings Elijah
45:43
says much of the same thing before even
45:46
has the pillar of fire start on Mount
45:49
Carmel and then drives them off and
45:51
kills them but anyway the madman jumps
45:54
into their midst and Pierceton with his
45:56
gaze where is God he cried I will tell
45:58
you we killed him you and I we are all
46:01
his murderers now at this point they
46:04
come back and the madman goes on god is
46:07
dead god remains dead and we killed him
46:10
how can we comfort ourselves the murders
46:12
of all murderers is it the size of the
46:16
to large for us don’t we have to become
46:17
gods just to appear worthy of it now
46:21
notice what he’s saying does this idea
46:24
of God dying make any sense
46:25
well I’m a classical conception No right
46:27
God is an eternal being this idea that
46:29
God cannot doesn’t really make any
46:31
classical sense but what he’s saying
46:33
really is look religion is dying God as
46:36
a force in human life as a force in
46:38
human culture is dying he sees a belief
46:40
in God in Europe as fading out and so
46:43
he’s looking forward to a few days
46:45
without religion actually it’s in that
46:47
respect much like Dostoyevsky’s vision
46:50
of a future without religion dusty fcc’s
46:52
christianity and decline in russia and
46:54
says that’s big trouble
46:55
Nietzsche says I see Germany God also
46:59
done religion as a diminishing force in
47:02
culture and now what does it mean don’t
47:04
we have to become gods just to be worthy
47:07
and that’s a classical idea of sin
47:09
actually we try to become God but he
47:11
says we may have no other choice so is
47:13
God dead well Nietzsche’s saying yes
47:16
here’s a poster I like God is dead
47:19
the titanium proves he is dead God in
47:23
any case Nietzsche says so what do I
47:26
believe in the final analysis that the
47:28
weights of all things have to be
47:29
determined afresh in other thing we have
47:31
to start over again figuring out what is
47:33
valuable what is right what is wrong
47:34
what is just what is unjust all of that
47:37
has to be rethought from the very
47:38
foundation tough and how do we do it
47:41
what does my conscience say he says you
47:43
are to become the person you are here’s
47:45
how you are to reconstruct it not on the
47:47
basis of a God
47:48
religion upside you from yourself and so
47:51
the chief virtue of people who follow in
47:53
each in the 20th century is authenticity
47:55
but first us DFT would answer that’s
47:58
back to that head back to narcissus next
48:01
week we look at a variety of other
48:03
things and on Wednesday your first paper
48:04
when we do