tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post2750356484672655652..comments2023-11-30T06:32:59.453-06:00Comments on Brian Leiter's Nietzsche Blog: Riverside and 1st Annual Magnus Lecture by Maudemarie ClarkBrian Leiterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08749548844483929392noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-16731514192309774642009-07-06T10:40:26.601-06:002009-07-06T10:40:26.601-06:00One of those unstable elements, no doubt!One of those unstable elements, no doubt!Charlie Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735868132738977520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-386505808819490282009-06-30T02:17:49.230-06:002009-06-30T02:17:49.230-06:00! I really like the abbreviation of Nietzsche to N...! I really like the abbreviation of Nietzsche to Nz. It makes him seem like an element on the periodic table. :)Eliothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03833608478735259467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-88591458335930884002009-06-18T11:52:19.136-06:002009-06-18T11:52:19.136-06:00I look forward to reading the paper eventually. Bu...I look forward to reading the paper eventually. But, meanwhile, I'll confess I have a hard time thinking of Nz as considering himself as Kant's true successor. There's just too much in the way -- especially, the claim that we have apriori synthetic knowledge. When Nz claims we impose our causal notions on experience, it is not so that we can preserve the universal validity of those Charlie Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15735868132738977520noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-9949155434414226332009-06-11T23:49:29.865-06:002009-06-11T23:49:29.865-06:00Thanks, Michael. I guess I'd only heard the ph...Thanks, Michael. I guess I'd only heard the phrase "he got his just deserts" and seeing the word itself, that definition of it didn't occur to me. <br /><br />Looking back over the posts, I wonder if amrhima was onto something when he pointed out that Nietzsche doesn't believe in a thing-in-itself. This is pretty accepted in the secondary literature (Leiter and Clark have Eliothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03833608478735259467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-45012656316691417612009-06-06T22:32:09.333-06:002009-06-06T22:32:09.333-06:00Eliot, I was referring to 'this type of '...Eliot, I was referring to '<a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/desert/" rel="nofollow">this type of 'desert'</a>.<br /><br />Speaking of errors, I'd like to correct one of my own: "the view that determinism is compatible with desert" should have read "the view that the lack of free will is compatible with desert."Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-66299992176144083582009-06-06T21:46:37.038-06:002009-06-06T21:46:37.038-06:00Hi Brian,
Thanks for your comments on the event an...Hi Brian,<br />Thanks for your comments on the event and for your participation in it. I agree that it was a very serious and high-level discussion of Nietzsche, and I certainly learned a lot from it as well. The most important point that came out of it for me is the one you stress, that I had not taken account of N’s claim that sequence itself does not exist in the in itself. I think I can Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12824856702466267846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-14123399279931017402009-06-06T20:29:02.383-06:002009-06-06T20:29:02.383-06:00To Michael Drake: What do you mean by "is com...To Michael Drake: What do you mean by "is compatible with desert"? It must be an idiom I'm not familiar with.<br /><br />I don't suppose this would help Clark's compatibilist reading, but doesn't BGE 19 provide a pretty good idea of what Nietzsche could mean by "freedom of the will" in the non-"superlative metaphysical" sense? He says there that will Eliothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03833608478735259467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-64811918987487268402009-06-06T11:00:04.648-06:002009-06-06T11:00:04.648-06:00Really enjoyed your talk, Brian. Just wish I'd...Really enjoyed your talk, Brian. Just wish I'd been able to remain for the reception.<br /><br />I found the whole premise of Clark's argument a little strange (and I set aside the issue of whether the passage has Humean as opposed to Kantian overtones). On its face, BGE 21 rejects both determinism and free will, whereas compatibilism seeks a rapprochement between rather than a rejection Michael Drakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06141593700908475896noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-40790017823143330502009-06-04T12:26:35.675-06:002009-06-04T12:26:35.675-06:00See pages 9-10 of P. J. E. Kail's "Nietzs...See pages 9-10 of P. J. E. Kail's "Nietzsche and Hume:<br />Naturalism and Explanation", <i>Journal of Nietzsche Studies</i>, Issue 37, Spring 2009:<br /><br /><br />"Now, it is quite true that in earlier works [such as BGE 21] Nietzsche appears to reject the idea that there are any causal relations. [...] But, it seems to me, where Nietzsche does seem skeptical in the later Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10546265581296919974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-88875463036708598542009-06-04T10:49:50.168-06:002009-06-04T10:49:50.168-06:00I'm just a beginner, but I think the passage m...I'm just a beginner, but I think the passage means that causality is an interpretation and not text (which is, I think, what Kant said too about causality) and that free will is much like causa sui (since both involve an outcome coming from nothing) are both are contradictions. And un-freewill is also a false belief (perhaps because Nietzsche thinks it's not a life enhancing belief...not amrhimahttp://my-philosophy-diary.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4373556239088388790.post-10041942931807034742009-06-04T03:30:40.796-06:002009-06-04T03:30:40.796-06:00Are there reasons for rejecting the idea of the un...<i>Are</i> there reasons for rejecting the idea of the unfree will in the second half of the passage? It seems to me that he rejects it in the first half along with the idea of the "free will in the superlative metaphysical sense": since free will in this sense is absurd in that it relies on the self-contradictory idea of a causa sui, "unfree will", as its negation or oppositeEliothttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03833608478735259467noreply@blogger.com