• Before posting anything about the COVID-19 virus, please read this first Click Here

Keith Woods Keith Woods (videos thread)

Tuco Salamanca

PI Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
528
Likes
317
Keith has been quite for a while but is back with a bang

Is Nietzsche the Answer?
No
He touches on a lot but ultimately says very little of value, IMO.

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").
 

DrPat2

PI Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2018
Messages
3,871
Likes
5,885
He touches on a lot but ultimately says very little of value, IMO.

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").
Can't say that I know a lot about Nietzsche but an interesting post. Of course, I don't agree with all of it especially the part highlighted - 'there be monsters'.
 

ShumanTheHuman

PI Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2018
Messages
2,080
Likes
3,684
Location
Bright Lights<Location>Far Unlit Unknown
He touches on a lot but ultimately says very little of value, IMO.

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").
Yeah? Woods is saying that objective truth, and yes "Natural Law" exists which you reject. I don't known why you are bringing a traditionalist, as in Catholic-like traditionalism, in relation to Woods. He is a Traditionalist which is something else entirely. Catholicism may have been a high example of the Traditionalist world view at one point, as Islam, Platonism etc all would have been at some stage but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that any more.
He is rejecting Nietzsche ultimately by framing Nietzsche as being of the modern/materialist paradigm. He's not saying that Nietzsche has no value but that his value is only useful up to a point whereas Nietzscheans obviously view Nietzsche as the be all and end all
I think Woods would argue that fantasies about conquering space, while dismissing issues about degeneracy and the right to life, are indicative of a modernist/materalist world view which is ultimately nihilist.
Unless morality aligns with Transcendent Truth, which has been revealed over millennia, then it's ultimately worthless to Woods I would say
I'm not arguing that he is correct - I just think this is a better summary of his point than your portrayal.
I doubt very much that Woods misunderstands or doesn't get Nietzsches perspectivism. At the end of the day this is a half hour, top of the head, direct to camera talk without notes. I'm sure he prepared for it but he's not saying this is the definitive critique of Nietzche's work
 

Tuco Salamanca

PI Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2020
Messages
528
Likes
317
Yeah? Woods is saying that objective truth, and yes "Natural Law" exists which you reject. I don't known why you are bringing a traditionalist, as in Catholic-like traditionalism, in relation to Woods. He is a Traditionalist which is something else entirely. Catholicism may have been a high example of the Traditionalist world view at one point, as Islam, Platonism etc all would have been at some stage but I don't think anyone would seriously argue that any more.
He is rejecting Nietzsche ultimately by framing Nietzsche as being of the modern/materialist paradigm. He's not saying that Nietzsche has no value but that his value is only useful up to a point whereas Nietzscheans obviously view Nietzsche as the be all and end all
I think Woods would argue that fantasies about conquering space, while dismissing issues about degeneracy and the right to life, are indicative of a modernist/materalist world view which is ultimately nihilist.
Unless morality aligns with Transcendent Truth, which has been revealed over millennia, then it's ultimately worthless to Woods I would say
I'm not arguing that he is correct - I just think this is a better summary of his point than your portrayal.
I doubt very much that Woods misunderstands or doesn't get Nietzsches perspectivism. At the end of the day this is a half hour, top of the head, direct to camera talk without notes. I'm sure he prepared for it but he's not saying this is the definitive critique of Nietzche's work
I'm aware that Keith himself is non Catholic, but many mainstream social conservatives, as supposed to the more esoteric traditionalists, are devoutly Catholic.

But one point in particular I'd like to quibble with is your portrayal of the Nietzschean philosophy as materialist.
While Nietzsche's worldliness could be interpreted this way, he doesn't exactly dovetail with modern secularists.

In fact, a Nietzschean critique could be leveled at modern philosophical materialism. This is afterall a worldview -- in its modern form -- that emerged out of the dualism of Decartes' philosophy; it's merely a perspective.
Personally, I'm not a materialist. In fact, I think a major avenue of future exploration for humanity's potential will be the study of anomalous cognition.
Parapsychology, a fascinating, though underappreciated field, has already made massive headway in this area.

Someone I have in mind who takes this anti-materialist approach to Nietzsche is Jason Reza Jorjani. While I don't agree with the man on everything, he certainly strikes a chord regards my own favoured direction for humanity.
 
Top Bottom