“This is not cappuccino+pussy vitalism— which to be clear I also love”
lol
Great podcast. If you have any book recommendations that dig into the immediate, visceral reactions to Darwin over the following years and decades— anything extensively quoting newspapers or private letters from the time— I’m all ears!
Nietzsche’s contention with Darwin is in the idea that “living things adapt to their circumstances and do what is required to survive.” There’s a perspective here of the lower type being expressed, the type for which life is something done to him, to which he must change his ways or be exterminated. This contrasts with the idea of master morality for Nietzsche, which exposes the middling type of morality embodied in the type of person who merely changes themself to conform to their surroundings. This is inherently reactive and a prey-like perspective. He doesn’t mean that the higher types are incapable of change, but rather that they are not ones who experience life merely as adapting to what their environment rewards, molding themselves into the background noise of the herd.
Where is that quote from? Doesn't sound like Darwin or darwinism which is about the survival of the fittest not about the adaptation of the individual.
It wasn’t literally a quote but it’s the line of thinking I specifically remember Nietzsche railing against about Darwinism. The idea that the “fittest” are the ones who survive contains in it the idea that what endures is inherently better than what dies, which contains a value judgment that in my opinion is base. For example, was Jesus unfit because he was killed? Or Socrates? What persists may be what drives evolution, but in my view that just reveals survival and replication being smuggled in beneath a disinterested fact, which is very interested in self-preservation.
I initially skipped the first radiocast since I'm not really interested in religion, but your discussion of animism in this episode (which significantly redefined it for me) made me want to return to it, which I will. I also already had a printed piece from Kunstformen der Natur.
Really enjoyed this one, another banger. My church explicitly doesn’t make a statement on evolution, but some officials have treated it with derision in the past while others encouraged it. Idk if atp evolution needs to (or Christianity) directly be against one or the other. There has to be a response though, I agree with that sentiment. It’s the same with Nietzsche.
Gemmy and nice music. I'm interested in a synthesis between the Darwinian (man as part of nature) and the "Adornian" (man as conqueror of nature). Civilization and culture as the project of inhumanity. Previous answers, as you mentioned, are unsatisfying.
This was an interesting listen. Although I agree that Darwin one-shotted christianity and the christian degradation of Platonism which was the common form in the middle ages, I'm very hesitant to say that he and the scientific method have proven Neoplatonism wrong (although maybe you weren't really even saying that idk). When it comes to the very advanced sciences it seems that the Neoplatonic theory of the forms is being vindicated. It's becoming a meme but it seems that when you start with science you lose Plato but when you go deep enough into science you get him back
I’m not sure about the Neoplatonic distinction vs. just Plato; however I do know that Gregory Shaw has good book (Hellenic Tantra) outlining how Iamblichus forced Platonism to return to a very immanent, world-accepting expression (ie, iirc, belief that soul fully descended into body and did not separate upon death). This would’ve fit nicely with modern scientific theory as does Buddhism. But it was specifically Plato, and the Christian interpretation of Plato, that remained influential - not the academy itself. So who knows how that 2500 year counterfactual plays out!
The Neoplatonists have argued since day one that their interpretation of Plato is the strongest. Iamblicus, Proclus, Plotinus, etc all quote Plato to prove their stance. I fully agree that the other, much weaker and arguably corrupt, schools of Plato became the norm in the West and I am fully in revolution against them and the Christian corruption of Plato. The early Neoplatonists recognised this and wrote polemics against this too. I've read Gregory Shaw and although it's a great book I strongly disagree that Iamblicus represents a break from Plato but rather the best interpretation of Plato. Eric Claussen has a substack called Platonic Path where he argues, as do I, that Neoplatonism is just Platonic fundamentalism and that what we call Platonism in the western secular science is demystified Christian Platonism i.e. a corruption of a corruption. I'm not the most educated when it comes to very esoteric sciences like quantum physics or parapsychology etc but from what I can understand they seem to confirm the theory of the forms i.e. information is ontologically prior to matter. Great podcast either way, I learnt a lot of new names and eagerly look forward to more of your work
Great episode! So you suggested that we compare Christian stewardship of nature with Aldo Leopold's land ethics: I did, and Chrstian stewardship wins every time. The idea of equality between us and others living beings is nonsense and this entire Gaia-friendly ecology sounds like a luxury belief disconnected urbanites would hold. I love wolves and dolphins too, but if you don't manage the wolf population through hunting, they will eat your sheep and in the winter you will STARVE. For centuries this was not an option, it's only in our age of overabundance that these types of beliefs can grow stronger. Jim Morrison walking into the city with tigers means Jimmy turned into breakfast. Humans must always be the priority - yes, even if many humans are worse than animals - as a matter of principle. And obviously, there is no contradiction between human stewardship over nature - a perfectly reasonable and even beauty-oriented ideal, just see the Gardens of Versailles for peak human stewardship - and conserving parts of wild nature for leisure activities and wild beauty.
Surely you do not consider Versailles as “conserved nature”? Beautiful, sure, but hardly conserved, hardly natural. This, I think, is the essential flaw of stewardship—it confuses transformation for pruning. The steward necessarily stands outside of the ecological community, seeing himself as a heavenly other, and imparts his will upon the landscape to fundamentally alter its character into something else.
You may consider Versailles as more beautiful than anything in nature. I don’t think that’s an insane position. But re ecology, how man is supposed to relate to nature, the problem is still there
But thank for liking episode. I may come back to stewardship debate soon. Most of it occurs after Leopold in 1960s/70s, some interkeksting debates about “paganism” there too
We are already separated from nature, we cannot relate to it in anything other than an 'unnatural' way., all the more when we consciously try to go back to it. Versailles is just an example of peak French rationalism applied to landscaping and in general of a temporary triumph of human spirit over natural chaos. Which is to say that man can also have a positive impact on his surroundings, even when he radically transforms them. It's a different kind of beauty from the beauty of wilderness, but still pleasant to the soul.
Sure, if you develop this subject further I'll try to come up with a better response/challenge myself. In any case I'm really enjoying this current Klages path, learning alot, it's a great podcast either way!
It's a delight to listen to your content, Gildhelm. Fascinating observations
Regarding Darwinist animism, are you familiar with Joscha Bach's cyber-animism and Michael Levin's groundbreaking work in biology? I find both highly relevant to this topic
Tropical German Übermensch. Very powerful image. Suck a great and terrible being of leisure and violence was simple too beautiful for this Earth.
“This is not cappuccino+pussy vitalism— which to be clear I also love”
lol
Great podcast. If you have any book recommendations that dig into the immediate, visceral reactions to Darwin over the following years and decades— anything extensively quoting newspapers or private letters from the time— I’m all ears!
I was not familiar w the deep history of the goonchamber
Nietzsche’s contention with Darwin is in the idea that “living things adapt to their circumstances and do what is required to survive.” There’s a perspective here of the lower type being expressed, the type for which life is something done to him, to which he must change his ways or be exterminated. This contrasts with the idea of master morality for Nietzsche, which exposes the middling type of morality embodied in the type of person who merely changes themself to conform to their surroundings. This is inherently reactive and a prey-like perspective. He doesn’t mean that the higher types are incapable of change, but rather that they are not ones who experience life merely as adapting to what their environment rewards, molding themselves into the background noise of the herd.
Where is that quote from? Doesn't sound like Darwin or darwinism which is about the survival of the fittest not about the adaptation of the individual.
It wasn’t literally a quote but it’s the line of thinking I specifically remember Nietzsche railing against about Darwinism. The idea that the “fittest” are the ones who survive contains in it the idea that what endures is inherently better than what dies, which contains a value judgment that in my opinion is base. For example, was Jesus unfit because he was killed? Or Socrates? What persists may be what drives evolution, but in my view that just reveals survival and replication being smuggled in beneath a disinterested fact, which is very interested in self-preservation.
Strap me into the goon chamber
I initially skipped the first radiocast since I'm not really interested in religion, but your discussion of animism in this episode (which significantly redefined it for me) made me want to return to it, which I will. I also already had a printed piece from Kunstformen der Natur.
Really enjoyed this one, another banger. My church explicitly doesn’t make a statement on evolution, but some officials have treated it with derision in the past while others encouraged it. Idk if atp evolution needs to (or Christianity) directly be against one or the other. There has to be a response though, I agree with that sentiment. It’s the same with Nietzsche.
I also loved these documentaries, it's nice to be reminded of them. They probably shaped my worldview in a very subconscious way
Gemmy and nice music. I'm interested in a synthesis between the Darwinian (man as part of nature) and the "Adornian" (man as conqueror of nature). Civilization and culture as the project of inhumanity. Previous answers, as you mentioned, are unsatisfying.
I never even got a notification this came out. Let’s get some hype!
This was an interesting listen. Although I agree that Darwin one-shotted christianity and the christian degradation of Platonism which was the common form in the middle ages, I'm very hesitant to say that he and the scientific method have proven Neoplatonism wrong (although maybe you weren't really even saying that idk). When it comes to the very advanced sciences it seems that the Neoplatonic theory of the forms is being vindicated. It's becoming a meme but it seems that when you start with science you lose Plato but when you go deep enough into science you get him back
I’m not sure about the Neoplatonic distinction vs. just Plato; however I do know that Gregory Shaw has good book (Hellenic Tantra) outlining how Iamblichus forced Platonism to return to a very immanent, world-accepting expression (ie, iirc, belief that soul fully descended into body and did not separate upon death). This would’ve fit nicely with modern scientific theory as does Buddhism. But it was specifically Plato, and the Christian interpretation of Plato, that remained influential - not the academy itself. So who knows how that 2500 year counterfactual plays out!
The Neoplatonists have argued since day one that their interpretation of Plato is the strongest. Iamblicus, Proclus, Plotinus, etc all quote Plato to prove their stance. I fully agree that the other, much weaker and arguably corrupt, schools of Plato became the norm in the West and I am fully in revolution against them and the Christian corruption of Plato. The early Neoplatonists recognised this and wrote polemics against this too. I've read Gregory Shaw and although it's a great book I strongly disagree that Iamblicus represents a break from Plato but rather the best interpretation of Plato. Eric Claussen has a substack called Platonic Path where he argues, as do I, that Neoplatonism is just Platonic fundamentalism and that what we call Platonism in the western secular science is demystified Christian Platonism i.e. a corruption of a corruption. I'm not the most educated when it comes to very esoteric sciences like quantum physics or parapsychology etc but from what I can understand they seem to confirm the theory of the forms i.e. information is ontologically prior to matter. Great podcast either way, I learnt a lot of new names and eagerly look forward to more of your work
Great episode! So you suggested that we compare Christian stewardship of nature with Aldo Leopold's land ethics: I did, and Chrstian stewardship wins every time. The idea of equality between us and others living beings is nonsense and this entire Gaia-friendly ecology sounds like a luxury belief disconnected urbanites would hold. I love wolves and dolphins too, but if you don't manage the wolf population through hunting, they will eat your sheep and in the winter you will STARVE. For centuries this was not an option, it's only in our age of overabundance that these types of beliefs can grow stronger. Jim Morrison walking into the city with tigers means Jimmy turned into breakfast. Humans must always be the priority - yes, even if many humans are worse than animals - as a matter of principle. And obviously, there is no contradiction between human stewardship over nature - a perfectly reasonable and even beauty-oriented ideal, just see the Gardens of Versailles for peak human stewardship - and conserving parts of wild nature for leisure activities and wild beauty.
Surely you do not consider Versailles as “conserved nature”? Beautiful, sure, but hardly conserved, hardly natural. This, I think, is the essential flaw of stewardship—it confuses transformation for pruning. The steward necessarily stands outside of the ecological community, seeing himself as a heavenly other, and imparts his will upon the landscape to fundamentally alter its character into something else.
You may consider Versailles as more beautiful than anything in nature. I don’t think that’s an insane position. But re ecology, how man is supposed to relate to nature, the problem is still there
But thank for liking episode. I may come back to stewardship debate soon. Most of it occurs after Leopold in 1960s/70s, some interkeksting debates about “paganism” there too
We are already separated from nature, we cannot relate to it in anything other than an 'unnatural' way., all the more when we consciously try to go back to it. Versailles is just an example of peak French rationalism applied to landscaping and in general of a temporary triumph of human spirit over natural chaos. Which is to say that man can also have a positive impact on his surroundings, even when he radically transforms them. It's a different kind of beauty from the beauty of wilderness, but still pleasant to the soul.
Sure, if you develop this subject further I'll try to come up with a better response/challenge myself. In any case I'm really enjoying this current Klages path, learning alot, it's a great podcast either way!
It's a delight to listen to your content, Gildhelm. Fascinating observations
Regarding Darwinist animism, are you familiar with Joscha Bach's cyber-animism and Michael Levin's groundbreaking work in biology? I find both highly relevant to this topic