Greg Detre
9/2/01
ER as ethical ideal
WTP moral psychology of that vs natural processes
anthropomorphised but not centric � ethics
can it be vindicated rational
WTP as interpretation vs meta-perspective
Nietzsche vs Zarathustra
1. Nietzsche sees self as last rationalist philosophy, asking the last questions
some of his claims (e.g. WTP) are on the rationalist side
those won't be necessary for the philosophers of the future
2. harbingers vs future = oversimplified
Zarathustra �my audacious son�
like a hero in the tragic
part personification, not intended to be real
stylised protagonists
Nietzsche projecting onto Zarathustra the characteristics he wishes for
ER vs Kant�s CI
ER is at least a test that we can apply
but without psychological continuity, why do I care?
can be replied: even without memory, still have to live through it
Nietzsche ER vs Stoic ER
Stoics: universe as inexorable huge repetitious machinne
humans should amor fati � love of fate, resignation/fatalism
determinism � everything is determined
fatalism � nothing I do makes any difference
that�s not to say that there�s no significance in our actions, but no significance from the point of view of the universe
reconcile humans to (the universe) the fulity of struggle
so we should just appreciate the order and beauty
Stoic ER vs Nietzsche ER
Nietzsche is trying the opposite, is trying to �� the care we take and the significance of our actions
Kant�s CI = algorithm of choice
so ER has to be either a psychological doctrine or failed metaphysical one
how can he talk about a metaphysics without there being a metaphysics
certain doctrines are truer than others , by familiar internalist criteria � consistency etc.
Schopenhauer has a problem with Humean attack on causality
but Schopenhauer says that there is one access we have to the causal nexus = human action
our bodies are phenomena, but our wills are causes and we can see from inside
and that�s how we can see that the thing in itself is WILL
cf inner will of force
WTP as the best hypothesis for explaining, = a causal explanation for agents beneath physical laws + forces
Nehamas: edifying simply for us to believe
tentative commitment to metaphysical objectivity
his metaphysics is methodologically superior and fits better
ethics vs moral
philosophers vs OM � Free Spirits may exist at the time = his ideal audience
whereas the OM is different � FS = last of the Stoics, still choose old value
OM discard Nietzsche + patronising, perhaps incomprehending/risible???
signal Nachlass
Ecce Homo � here is the man
Schopenhauer reading