While I would not presume to place my Nietzsche scholarship on the same plane as Voegelin, I have read all of N's books several times and many of his commentators, both pro (Kaufmann, Deleusze) and con (Schact, Danto) and I am not certain I fully agree with Voegelin's assessment, at least as presented here TH-cam comments are an inauspicious forum for long disquisitions, so suffice it to say that while N does not fully address the question of origins, he certainly goes much deeper than Marx. I see N much more as a prophet of the decline and overcoming of the First Axial Age (800 BC-400BC) and the dawn of a Second Axial Age, and, like Moses, a promised land he would not live to see. N's philosophy is not for "the people", it is exclusively for the "higher types of men" who are the harbingers of this age. He calls it the Transvaluation of all Values, which can only be understood in the context of his complicated relationship with Socratism. Socrates is a synedoche for the first Axial Age. Bottom line, Voegelin is interpreting Nietzsche from a perspective that is outside of N's intentions. As an aside, I'm also not convinced N was all that tormented except by his rather ill-health. My opinion, of course, as a humble amateur.
Excellent Doc, the great tango on the hot coals and broken glass of ultimate origins continues. You have graciously triggered many dormant brain cells; Thanks. The realities of the concept of conscious self deception is one sure to be marginalized by many these days at our own peril. Sadly, It seems increasingly few people are willing or able to do the hard work of self examination in the context of ultimate realities or consequences. Facing the Sun is not easy or fun
Excellent discussion! Prof. Marshall, Would you consider doing something on the contemporary post-liberal conservatives who draw heavily on Thomistic Natural Law ala "Integralism" (e.g. Adrian Vermeulle or Patrick Deneen)? I watched your series on Deneen's 2018 book, but he's become much more radical (or anyway, strident) since then, and with Vermeulle et al., has a substack, Post Liberal Order. He seems to have moved towards an authoritarian framework, though he denies it. It is hostile to both Progressive and Classical Liberalism, but thrives to some degree within MAGA Republican circles and the Fed Society. He, like others in those contexts, has warmed up to the likes of Viktor Orban, and speaks plainly about a kind of Vanguardism (he name-checks Lenin)in which current elites would be replaced by elites dedicated to insuring that our laws and cultural norms are consistent with Neo-Thomistic Natural Law. Given your expertise on Christian political theory, I would be interested in your thoughts in response to something like, say, Deneen's new book, Regime Change or Vermeulle's Common Good Constitutionalism, or anything else related to this movement.
Yes, that might be a good idea down the road--I'd be inclined to Deneen's book, just because I'd be able to clearly see the difference. It sounds like some folks are going down the road to irrelevancy, which would be a shame.
Just wonderful Professor!
I do look forward to the next chapter.
Stay well, and thank you very much.
I read the book referenced above, and expected to see Hegel's name pop up in the framing of Marx's thought process.
While I would not presume to place my Nietzsche scholarship on the same plane as Voegelin, I have read all of N's books several times and many of his commentators, both pro (Kaufmann, Deleusze) and con (Schact, Danto) and I am not certain I fully agree with Voegelin's assessment, at least as presented here
TH-cam comments are an inauspicious forum for long disquisitions, so suffice it to say that while N does not fully address the question of origins, he certainly goes much deeper than Marx. I see N much more as a prophet of the decline and overcoming of the First Axial Age (800 BC-400BC) and the dawn of a Second Axial Age, and, like Moses, a promised land he would not live to see. N's philosophy is not for "the people", it is exclusively for the "higher types of men" who are the harbingers of this age. He calls it the Transvaluation of all Values, which can only be understood in the context of his complicated relationship with Socratism. Socrates is a synedoche for the first Axial Age.
Bottom line, Voegelin is interpreting Nietzsche from a perspective that is outside of N's intentions. As an aside, I'm also not convinced N was all that tormented except by his rather ill-health. My opinion, of course, as a humble amateur.
❤
Excellent Doc, the great tango on the hot coals and broken glass of ultimate origins continues. You have graciously triggered many dormant brain cells; Thanks. The realities of the concept of conscious self deception is one sure to be marginalized by many these days at our own peril. Sadly, It seems increasingly few people are willing or able to do the hard work of self examination in the context of ultimate realities or consequences. Facing the Sun is not easy or fun
Excellent discussion!
Prof. Marshall, Would you consider doing something on the contemporary post-liberal conservatives who draw heavily on Thomistic Natural Law ala "Integralism" (e.g. Adrian Vermeulle or Patrick Deneen)? I watched your series on Deneen's 2018 book, but he's become much more radical (or anyway, strident) since then, and with Vermeulle et al., has a substack, Post Liberal Order. He seems to have moved towards an authoritarian framework, though he denies it. It is hostile to both Progressive and Classical Liberalism, but thrives to some degree within MAGA Republican circles and the Fed Society. He, like others in those contexts, has warmed up to the likes of Viktor Orban, and speaks plainly about a kind of Vanguardism (he name-checks Lenin)in which current elites would be replaced by elites dedicated to insuring that our laws and cultural norms are consistent with Neo-Thomistic Natural Law. Given your expertise on Christian political theory, I would be interested in your thoughts in response to something like, say, Deneen's new book, Regime Change or Vermeulle's Common Good Constitutionalism, or anything else related to this movement.
Yes, that might be a good idea down the road--I'd be inclined to Deneen's book, just because I'd be able to clearly see the difference. It sounds like some folks are going down the road to irrelevancy, which would be a shame.
Nah, he was right to critique marxism