He touches on a lot but ultimately says very little of value, IMO.Keith has been quite for a while but is back with a bang
Is Nietzsche the Answer?No
For starters there are core themes of Nietzsche's philosophy that Keith , indeed most people, overlooks. Keith focuses on the iconoclastic rebelliousness for its own sake interpretation of Nietzsche. In this view, Nietzsche is misrepresented as advocating a sort of crude relativism, the idea that all falsehoods are created equal.
But this is way off. Ultimately, the core insight of Nietzsche was his perspectivism . He intuited, correctly, that moral value systems were an organic outgrowth of a particular people in a particular time and place. He most certainly saw values as being relative in nature, but he also saw them as being meaningful and indispensable for a civilisation's thriving and surviving.
On the other hand, the "Nietzscheanism" Keith critiques is more akin to a sort of whimsical iconoclasm.
But I agree with the modern left and "neoliberal" right up to a point.
Human institutions are transitory phenomena, the product of a time, people and place. Religions and ideologies have a limited shelf life by their very nature.
The Catholic church is a busted flush and isn't coming back. "Natural law" never existed in the first place.
Even the concept of the modern nation state will die a natural death.
Where traditionalists fail is that they assume we can somehow resuscitate the corpses of past eras and everything will be fine and dandy.
This won't and can't cut it. We need to create new value systems and new meaning.
In an ideal world, we'd be discussing the latest developments in the colonisation of the solar system, not whingeing about 'degeneracy' or debating whether an embryo should have legal rights (on the "right") or speculating over how many genders you can fit on the head of a pin (on the "left").