4 ms·

I've read two books by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre that deal with many of the issues Nietzsche was interested in and point out some flaws in Nietzsche's

I've read two books by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre that deal with many of the issues Nietzsche was interested in and point out some flaws in Nietzsche's arguments. They are After Virtue and Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity. MacIntyre thinks that Nietzsche got a lot right, but overlooked some things and made some assumptions that put him down the wrong path. If you're going to use Nietzsche as a guide for how to live it's worth reading some criticism of him as well.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago
MacIntyre is very good. But I wouldn't so much say that he points out flaws in Nietzsche's arguments, as argues that Nietzsche is not the appropriate answer to the problem of modern thought as he sees it. But very few people agree with MacIntyre's 'problem': that because we have inherited the remnants of pre-modern moral and political thought, while rejecting the metaphysical beliefs with gave them their original coherence, we must either turn back (to Aristotelianism), or give up on moral philosophy. There are three obvious problems with this: (1) the historical story is only partially true; (2) it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs within a modern and secular framework; (3) this whole argument depends on a very particular view of what 'moral philosophy' is and can be. IMO the best introduction to Nietzsche is Christopher Janaway's 'Beyond Selflessness', though it concentrates on the Genealogy of Morality. It's also worth reading Walter Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' - the book that originally rehabilitated Nietzsche's image in the English-speaking world in the 1950s. Before that, Nietzsche was either ignored, or thought of as proto-fascistic (Nietzsche's sister, who controlled Nietzsche's papers after he fell into insanity, famously had an important role in this. Hitler helped her open a Nietzsche archive).
- jeffreyrogers 8y ago
  Yeah, that's probably a better summary of his attitude towards Nietzsche. Thanks for the recommendations. I have read most of Beyond Good and Evil, but am not too familiar with his thought except secondhand.
- hacknat 8y ago
  > it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs within a modern and secular framework; I don't know that I agree with you here. Are you arguing we can root morality in objectivity?
  - mockingbirdy 8y ago
    Evolutionary psychology and even game theory hint at the possibility that morality has objective qualities that are advantageous for (human) societies.
    - hacknat 8y ago
      I mean, what does advantageous mean (and who gets to decide what advantageous means)? The Chinese government was able to pull a ton of people out of poverty and into the middle class with a system of governance that most Westerners find, on balance, to be too costly to individual civil rights for the benefits it produces. Whatever side of the debate you are on you have to acknowledge that there are very real differences in foundational moral principals. While I don’t doubt that some moral principals can be derived from psychology, all things being equal, the problem is that our most fundamental moral disagreements are always very complicated and always involve placing valence on multiple projected outcomes. I don’t understand how people so easily dismiss Nietzche’s central philosophical claims when a good chunk of modern philosophy and indeed the terrible history of the first half of the 20th century has largely vindicated him. It’s not like it even matters as a point of debate though, as we will see who is right very soon. Look around: objective morality indeed! We are generating the worst negative externalities we have ever generated as a species and we placate ourselves because we have democratized the blame. If this is a moral generation then I would like to know whoever was immoral. We’re about to destroy each other at scales unheard of, but because it’s through the environment and not through war we have rendered ourselves inculpable. At least pre-Modern Aristolean morality forced people to think of their obligations to their community.
    - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
      That is very silly. How would a descriptive fact about the world (e.g. what is of evolutionary adaptive advantage for humans) ground an objective moral 'ought'? What you are really saying, I'm guessing, is that humans have certain altruistic or moral capacities, and that there are certain game-theoretic principles that suggest how we might act in our collective self-interest. Note that both of those things depend on false conditions: we are adapted to an environment which is not our present one; highly idealised game-theoretic situations tell us little about the complex realities of politics, history, economics, etc. And what is valuable is not what is in our evolutionary advantage hundreds of thousands of years ago, or what is game-theoretically in our collective self-interest. And again, neither of these things can possibly ground an 'objective' basis to morality. You are confusing the descriptive sense of morality (as a feature of animal systems) with its normative sense.

Emma_Goldman 8y ago

MacIntyre is very good. But I wouldn't so much say that he points out flaws in Nietzsche's arguments, as argues that Nietzsche is not the appropriate answer to the problem of modern thought as he sees it. But very few people agree with MacIntyre's 'problem': that because we have inherited the remnants of pre-modern moral and political thought, while rejecting the metaphysical beliefs with gave them their original coherence, we must either turn back (to Aristotelianism), or give up on moral philosophy. There are three obvious problems with this: (1) the historical story is only partially true; (2) it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs within a modern and secular framework; (3) this whole argument depends on a very particular view of what 'moral philosophy' is and can be. IMO the best introduction to Nietzsche is Christopher Janaway's 'Beyond Selflessness', though it concentrates on the Genealogy of Morality. It's also worth reading Walter Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' - the book that originally rehabilitated Nietzsche's image in the English-speaking world in the 1950s. Before that, Nietzsche was either ignored, or thought of as proto-fascistic (Nietzsche's sister, who controlled Nietzsche's papers after he fell into insanity, famously had an important role in this. Hitler helped her open a Nietzsche archive).

jeffreyrogers 8y ago
Yeah, that's probably a better summary of his attitude towards Nietzsche. Thanks for the recommendations. I have read most of Beyond Good and Evil, but am not too familiar with his thought except secondhand.
hacknat 8y ago
> it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs within a modern and secular framework; I don't know that I agree with you here. Are you arguing we can root morality in objectivity?
- mockingbirdy 8y ago
  Evolutionary psychology and even game theory hint at the possibility that morality has objective qualities that are advantageous for (human) societies.
  - hacknat 8y ago
    I mean, what does advantageous mean (and who gets to decide what advantageous means)? The Chinese government was able to pull a ton of people out of poverty and into the middle class with a system of governance that most Westerners find, on balance, to be too costly to individual civil rights for the benefits it produces. Whatever side of the debate you are on you have to acknowledge that there are very real differences in foundational moral principals. While I don’t doubt that some moral principals can be derived from psychology, all things being equal, the problem is that our most fundamental moral disagreements are always very complicated and always involve placing valence on multiple projected outcomes. I don’t understand how people so easily dismiss Nietzche’s central philosophical claims when a good chunk of modern philosophy and indeed the terrible history of the first half of the 20th century has largely vindicated him. It’s not like it even matters as a point of debate though, as we will see who is right very soon. Look around: objective morality indeed! We are generating the worst negative externalities we have ever generated as a species and we placate ourselves because we have democratized the blame. If this is a moral generation then I would like to know whoever was immoral. We’re about to destroy each other at scales unheard of, but because it’s through the environment and not through war we have rendered ourselves inculpable. At least pre-Modern Aristolean morality forced people to think of their obligations to their community.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    That is very silly. How would a descriptive fact about the world (e.g. what is of evolutionary adaptive advantage for humans) ground an objective moral 'ought'? What you are really saying, I'm guessing, is that humans have certain altruistic or moral capacities, and that there are certain game-theoretic principles that suggest how we might act in our collective self-interest. Note that both of those things depend on false conditions: we are adapted to an environment which is not our present one; highly idealised game-theoretic situations tell us little about the complex realities of politics, history, economics, etc. And what is valuable is not what is in our evolutionary advantage hundreds of thousands of years ago, or what is game-theoretically in our collective self-interest. And again, neither of these things can possibly ground an 'objective' basis to morality. You are confusing the descriptive sense of morality (as a feature of animal systems) with its normative sense.