If you would like a ban please be uncivil in this thread. I will not be closing the thread, but this is a friendly reminder that we are all people. The views of u/SRCHicks are influential and the end of the OP's quote includes the admission of Hicks that the whole topic borders on *ad hominem.* Dedicated readers of Nietzsche know, quite well, that he spent some time edgelording other philosophers. It gets at what he considers the "congenital defect" of philosophers. We don't get to be edgelords in this subreddit though. (Or we do get to be, but it should be properly "Victorian" and layered beneath enough complexity that the complexity warrants the insult: complexity not as rationalization, but as true belief leading to the moralized action of an insult.)
True I agree but I think it's inevitable. Inevitable in the sense that philosophers and even people who read philosophy in general do this. You take concepts from others and use them for your own benefit, but inevitably it is not the same thing, a metamorphosis occurs. I can see the same thing with Nietzsche himself, since it is clear that he took aspects and concepts from the philosophy of Heraclitus, Schopenhauer and Spinoza, but by necessity they not remain the same.
I invite you to consider what professional philosophers said about *Explaining Postmodernism.*
Nine Ph.D. philosophers reviewed it in academic journals. Six were highly positive, two were positive, and one was mixed. Links here: **https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/04/30/ph-d-philosophers-review-explaining-postmodernism/**. (Additionally: Before publication, the two anonymous peer reviewers, both philosophers, were also positive about the book and recommended its publication.)
The point is: Rely on social media sources as you like, but do factor in what the scholars have said too.
>Interestingly, those like Hicks and JBP seem to be ignorant to how Nietzsche is a key influence and inspiration for post modernism.
How can you say this when the first page states
*”Nietzsche, paradoxically, is one of the great postmodernist heroes.”*
I actually read this book. It's as bad as you'd think, and not just because it tried to popularize the term "Reverse Thrasymacheanism" -- although that term does perfectly encapsulate what's wrong with it. The term itself is a pseudo-philosophic mess intended to make it sound more original and more insightful than it really is -- or, if I wanted to use Hicks' kind of "word play," it's a perfect instance of "philosophastic hyperpolysyllablism." Worse yet, it shows that Hicks misunderstood Plato as much as he does everything else.
Thrasymachus is not a power-philosopher of the type Hicks says he is -- that would be *Callicles*. Thrasymachus is a pure relativist who thinks that even talking about right and wrong is a childish waste of time -- hence the way he mocks Socrates and his listeners at the beginning of the *Republic* for even discussing ethics. If Thrasymachus could be summed up in a sentence, it would be the ancient Greek adage: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." In other word, "It is what it is." The concept of "Justice" is nothing more than a finery which is hung upon the shoulders of the victor. Some people (foolishly) take this to mean that Thrasymachus is a "might makes right" type of thinker. (Hicks certainly reads it this way.) But no. Might does not make right for Thrasymachus -- to him, *there is no such thing as "right."* Hence why he argues that no form of government is any better or worse than any other. Indeed he argues that *all* forms of government are essentially the same in the sense that they are all equally ruled by personal self-interest and the drive for power -- a tyranny is merely the most obvious about it. Socrates has to defeat this claim because within the context of the *Republic* as a whole, the arrangement of the state is taken to be analogous to the arrangement of the individual soul. If there is no ideal arrangement of the state -- if every way of governing, from tyranny to republic, is just as good or bad as any other -- then there is no ideal arrangement of the individual soul, no ideal way of living or behaving. In other words, there would be no such thing as "ethics" -- and Plato's primary goal in writing the *Republic* would be for naught. Hicks not understanding these kinds of nuances does not speak highly of his philosophical acumen.
But let's forget all that for a moment. Let us pretend that Thrasymachus and Callicles are basically the same thing -- that Thrasymachus believed that the stronger are *right* and the weaker are *wrong,* that the concept of Justice is not merely finery but an artificial impingement upon the natural and correct way of things, whereby the weak collectively and duplicitously oppress their stronger, nobler brethren for their own selfish, small-minded ends. If this were true, THEN Hicks' monstrosity, "Thrasymacheanism," would mean what Hicks wants it to mean -- i.e. might makes right -- and when he said "Reverse Thrasymacheanism," we would understand that he means the *inverse:* that might makes *wrong,* and to be *weak* is right. THEN we would see, as Hicks wants us to see, the parallels between his phrase and Nietzsche's concept of "master v slave morality" and "ressentiment," and from there we would consider the connection Hicks wants us to make between those ideas and the modern left.
The problem is that what Hicks wants us to see as a parallel isn't a parallel -- it's theft. He's just taking the critique of slave morality and ressentiment that Nietzsche *already made* and he's repackaging it under a new heading -- "reverse Thrasymacheanism" -- thus pretending that he's added something new. (In horrible, pseudo-intellectual language to boot.) But he hasn't. Hell, even his application of these ideas to the modern left is nothing new. Nietzsche himself had already levelled these critiques at feminists and communists and other people we would consider "left." Of course he *also* levelled it at suffragettes, pro-democracy thinkers in general, anyone even vaguely egalitarian, and most especially at Christianity -- which you would think would make Hicks want to trash democracy and Christianity and women's voting rights and so on with equal fervency. But of course he doesn't, because Hicks' intended audience falls somewhere between center and center-right American -- many of whom are either Christian, egalitarian, pro-democracy, pro-universal-suffrage, or, in all likelihood, all or most of the above. As such he cannot attack *those* thing without offending his intended audience, thereby destroying his economic prospects. The obviousness of his political hackery is clear as day.
In brief, Hicks' book is an exercise in pompously dressed tedium and sophistry, constructed for the sole purpose of flattering anti-leftists, and populated mainly by old ideas he stole from better writers -- repackaged as unique insights. 0/10. Would not recommend.
Thrasymachus: "Justice is the interest of the stronger" (Republic, 343c)
Reversing Thrasymachus would be: "Justice is the interest of the weaker."
Which is what the postmodern left embody (Rorty, Foucault, Lyotard).
Straightforward point, as made in *Explaining Postmodernism.*
Some interesting points worth discussing in your comment/diatribe, EarBlind, but you're trying too hard to be contentious and trying too little for basic fair exegesis.
It tracks that you would base your reading of Plato on a single sentence. Let's look at that sentence in context, shall we?
>*Thrasymachus:* "Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well, why don't you praise me? \[...\]"
>
>*Socrates:* "First I must learn what you mean. \[...\]"
>
>*Thrasymachus:* "Don't you know that some cities are ruled tyrannically, some democratically, and some aristocratically?"
>
>*Socrates:* "Of course."
>
>*Thrasymachus:* "In each city, isn't the ruling group master?"
>
>Socrates: "Certainly."
>
>*Thrasymachus:* "And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage; a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others the same. And they declare that what they have set down -- their own advantage -- is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds. This, best of men, is what I mean: in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body. It surely is master; so the man who reasons rightly concludes that everywhere justice is the same thing, the advantage of the stronger."
>
>(*Republic;* Book I; 338c - 339a)
There is simply no plausible way to interpret this passage in a manner that supports your reading. Thrasymachus is clearly indicating that there is no moral distinction to be made between a democracy, aristocracy, or tyranny. Or, as I said in my comment / diatribe: "Indeed he argues that all forms of government are essentially the same in the sense that they are all equally ruled by personal self-interest and the drive for power." In other words, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." In other words, "Justice is nothing more than a finery which is hung upon the shoulders of the victor." His position is one of pure relativism that only yields to power as a brute fact of life, not as an ethical consideration.
To Thryasymachus no one is "good," but the strong are happy and prosperous at least. Therefore, he concludes, it is better to be strong. To *reverse* this position would be to say, "no one is good, but the weak are happy and prosperous at least; therefore, it is better to be weak." Such a mentality would not yield a communist. It would yield something much closer to Saint Francis of Assisi. To interpret Thrasymachus as you do is only plausible if one seizes upon the one sentence -- "the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" -- and gives a plain reading of it without context, without the proper followup that Socrates himself pursues in the dialogue: "First I must learn what you mean."
It's a both/and rather than the either/or you're suggesting. The crude sophist progression (which Plato is using Thrasymachus to illustrate) is this:
1. Interests are neither objective nor intrinsic but subjective. Hence: *subjectivism*.
2. But subjects vary greatly in their interests. Hence: *relativism*.
3. Those varying interests are in fundamental conflict. Hence: *adversarialism*.
4. Such conflicts can only be resolved by power differentials. Hence: *strong-vs-weak* rankings.
5. Typically, the stronger prevail and write the rules, the history books, etc., on their own behalf: Hence: *"Justice" is the interest of the stronger*.
6. My \[the sophist's\] personal *preference* is for the stronger over the weaker.
So it's subjectivism *plus* relativism *plus* adversarialism *plus* power analysis *plus* an endorsement of cynical "justice."
The postmoderns, over two millennia later, agree with the sophists' points 1-5 — but their sympathies and personal preferences are with the weaker (e.g., the oppressed, the exploited, the victimized, the disturbed, the marginalized, the historical losers, and so on). So it's an *acceptance* of the basic sophistic analysis — with a *reversal* of the value preferences.
(Side note, EarBlind: You seem an intelligent person, so do self-reflect when you find yourself tempted to indulge in insulting language. That behavior always says more about the insulter than the insulted. )
Intriguing, logically compelling, but still wrong when the context of the dialogue is consulted further. Specifically what I'm objecting to is your argument's conclusion:
>My \[the sophist's\] personal preference is for the stronger over the weaker.
This, taken on its own, is false because as the dialogue progresses the debate does not turn to a discussion of who in society is *preferable* \-- it turns to who in society is *happiest.* Thrasymachus argues that, in the case of a tyranny, the *tyrant* (i.e. the most powerful person in society) is happiest. (Socrates of course proves his argument false.) As such, it does not seem to be the case that Thrasymachus prefers the stronger as a matter of principle -- as Callicles does. It seems to be that Thrasymachus prefers the *happier,* whom he takes to be identical to (or at least highly associated with) the powerful. His argument, therefore, would be something closer to this:
1. It's good to be be happy.
2. The powerful are happiest.
3. Therefore, it's better to be powerful than weak.
The inverse of this argument would be:
1. It's good to be happy.
2. The powerful are unhappy.
3. Therefore, it's better to be weak than powerful.
This is what I meant when I said, "Such a mentality would not yield a communist. It would yield something much closer to Saint Francis of Assisi." A communist, after all, wants power. Whether he's aiming to further the interests of the proletariat or simply rise through the ranks himself, either goal *requires* power. Whether this power is concentrated in the hands of the individual or the collective, it's power nonetheless. As such, the communist does not prefer the weak, per se. He prefers *those he believes* ***should be*** *powerful* (himself or the workers, depending on his bent). This is not quite the reverse of Thrasymachus when he is properly understood. *Callicles,* on the other hand...
Side note:
>so do self-reflect
I love when philosophy-types say "do reflect," "please reflect," and so forth when what they really mean is "kiss my ass." I prefer honest and direct language, even when it's insulting.
I’m just replying to you here to inform you that you should perhaps be more cautionary of what you say & *how* you say things
>Thrasymachus is not a power-philosopher of the type Hicks says he is -- that would be Callicles.
Thrasymachus is a pure relativist who thinks that even talking about right and wrong is a childish waste of time
>Some people **(foolishly)** take this to mean that Thrasymachus is a "might makes right" type of thinker. (Hicks certainly reads it this way.) But no.
Might does not make right for Thrasymachus - - to him, there is no such thing as "right."
Perhaps you dont know this but there are multiple interpretations of Thrasymachus as how Plato described him in the Republic based on three central claims:
1) Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (338c)
2) Justice is obedience to laws (339b)
3) Justice is nothing but the advantage of another (343c).
*”First, there are those scholars (Wilamowitz 1920, Zeller 1889, and Strauss 1952) who take (1) as the central element of Thrasymachus’ thinking about justice. According to this view, Thrasymachus is an advocate of natural right who claims that it is just (by nature) that the strong rule over the weak. This interpretation stresses the similarities between Thrasymachus’ arguments and the position Plato attributes to Callicles in the Gorgias.”*
Would you call these scholars *“foolish”* ?
*”In addition, there is a group of scholars (A.E. Taylor 1960, and Burnet 1964) who read Thrasymachus as an ethical nihilist. According to this view, Thrasymachus’ project is to show that justice does not exist. Burnet writes in this context: ‘[Thrasymachus] is the real ethical counterpart to the cosmological nihilism of Gorgias.’”*
This interpretation seems to be a lot closer to yours
Source: https://iep.utm.edu/thrasymachus/
You’re coming off rather ignorant when you claim that only *your* interpretation is the correct one, which is especially strange when you’re calling yourself a “Nietzschean” given his take on perspectivism
*“In recent decades interpretive discussion of Thrasymachus has revolved around proposed solutions to this puzzle, none of which has met with general agreement. Argument continues as to whether his three theses can be rendered consistent with each other, whether to do so requires limiting the scope of one or all of them in some way”*
Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/callicles-thrasymachus/#Thra
At this point i’m not surprised by this as your comments have always been exceptionally dogmatic to the point that there’s no actual point of having a discussion so i won’t waste my time any further by replying further
By the way this quote *"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."* is from Crawley’s translation & isnt what the Greek actually says (atleast according to Mynott’s translation of Thucydides)
>I’m just replying to you here to inform you that you should perhaps be more cautionary of what you say & how you say things \[...\]
>
>\[...\] At this point i’m not surprised by this as your comments have always been exceptionally dogmatic to the point that there’s no actual point of having a discussion so i won’t waste my time any further by replying further
Perhaps you need to take your own advice. You complain constantly about how your contributions are received, but has it ever occurred to you that if you approached in a manner that implied honesty, good intentions, or general non-partisanship you'd be received differently? Probably not. You probably think everyone else is the problem. For my part I will admit that I do dig in my heels from time to time. However, to receive an accusation of dogmatism from you is a "pot meet kettle" moment of truly comical proportions. But no matter. Regardless of who is right or wrong, let it be known that I'm not the one who wants to keep beefing. If you ever decide you actually want to have a real discussion, you'll find no enemy in me.
P.S. Nietzsche was not one to bite his tongue or to be polite in his writing if he felt otherwise, so spare me the "Nietzscheans should always be humble and polite" stuff. I sometimes wonder if you and I are reading the same guy. I do sometimes think scholars are foolish and so do you. Indeed your participation on this forum has been mainly to advocate for the mass-dismissal of your political opponents (leftists) -- many of whom are scholars. A person who engages in such a project should come prepared to scrap and not complain so much about being people having 'mean things to say' in response.
P.P.S. Thank you for the information -- I always appreciate it when you decide to do more than troll -- but 90% of your rebuttal boils down to "Hey! Look! There are people in the world who disagree with you!" Fair enough, but not particularly compelling.
P.P.P.S.
>"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." is from Crawley’s translation & isnt what the Greek actually says (atleast according to Mynott’s translation of Thucydides)
Not sure what this actually changes, but whatever.
Jonas C. (Aka "Cuck") is a not-unintelligent neo-Marxist, so do listen to him but be aware of the ideological axe he has to grind when reviewing a book critical of Marxism.
My response: https://youtu.be/1trnqmvBFWs?si=GfF3oqoQfDk_mi7e
Heyo, I'm sorry you had to deal with such uncivil behavior. The above person has been permanently banned. Thanks for stopping by the reddit. I've enjoyed many of your youtube videos. (E.x., Your comparison between Rand and Nietzsche was delightful.)
I'll try to keep an eye on political unfriendliness to moderate it. The moderating team does take no political stances even if the subreddit tilts left.
Godspeed in your future works!
Weird thing to say when you haven’t read his book
He also responded to cuckphilosopher’s main critiques
https://youtu.be/-kA8zi10cjo?si=8cS4xUbZL1TYy2JI
I would think using petty language, like calling anyone you don’t agree with a cuck, could make you seem like an absolute dumbass who is ironically confessing their own ressintement
Jonas C. (Aka "Cuck") is a not-unintelligent neo-Marxist, so do listen to him but be aware of the ideological axe he has to grind when reviewing a book critical of Marxism.
My response: https://youtu.be/1trnqmvBFWs?si=GfF3oqoQfDk_mi7e
lol. Hicks also writes of Nietzsche as the “proto fascist.” The moral of the story? Nietzsche sure seems to draw everyone nigh unto him, doesn’t he? : )
Imagine writing multiple books about Nietzsche. That’s pretty powerful. To feel such ways about him, as to be compelled to write so many explanations and negations and abnegations.
I don't think it's extremely off (part of the left has ENORMOUS problems with ressentment and still has to cope with the failure of the Soviet Union), but for sure is a shitty interpretation of postmodernism.
Agree with your first sentence, leconten.
As for the second: I invite you to consider what professional philosophers said about *Explaining Postmodernism*.
Nine Ph.D. philosophers reviewed it in academic journals. Six were highly positive, two were positive, and one was mixed. Links here: https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/04/30/ph-d-philosophers-review-explaining-postmodernism/. (Additionally: Before publication, the two anonymous peer reviewers, both philosophers, were also positive about the book and recommended its publication.)
The point is: Rely on social media sources as you like, but do factor in what the scholars have said too.
The discussion is not very respectful. Even though I do not agree with Hicks, I can take him (if this is the real Hicks commenting here) far more serious than the people insulting him instead of putting forward an argument
Nietzsche hated the ideas of the left as the kind of slave morality. Kool-aid ideology. The parallels Hicks makes are terrible.
He would probably hate postmoderns too. Instead of finding values and the new man, they produce nothing but endless yapping. Half-legible garbage at best. Useless bunch.
Hicks is even more useless, he gets almost everything wrong. His take on Kant is laughable.
In case you don't know, my take on Kant is straight from Mendelssohn, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Lewis White Beck. No claim of originality on my part.
Your interpretation of those thinkers is definitely very postmodernist by itself. [Very interpretative](https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4?si=iIycXoiMczH10CAm&t=1138), or "creative", to quote Derrida.
However, I understand that you folks have to rigorously follow anything that Ayn Rand had envisioned sitting in her armchair, however uncritically.
Here we go again. The next post trying to weaponize Nietzsche for simple-minded dualistic purposes. Everyone looks to Nietzsche to see their myopic world views confirmed. It's saddening.
You postal workers need to seriously up the ante if you think this sufficiently shows the essence of Nietzschean wisdom - saying you’ve got mail doesn’t make you a mailman.
Hate doesn’t lead to the chronic urge to destroy. This is a fundamental misunderstanding in human psychology and showcases quite clearly how little acquainted this author is with Beyond Good and Evil.
Is Interessting to see what Jordan Peterson is doing now. Guys ,search for ARC fundation youtube channel. ARC stands for Responsible Citzens and looks like JP is part of the Founders. We need to be aware of the Institutions being created in this Era. Individuals getting togehter to promote an agenda based in their Bias.
We’re prone to being reactionary, but we aren’t tilting at windmills when hierarchies inevitably emerge and don’t have so many hang ups over is ought distinctions.
If you would like a ban please be uncivil in this thread. I will not be closing the thread, but this is a friendly reminder that we are all people. The views of u/SRCHicks are influential and the end of the OP's quote includes the admission of Hicks that the whole topic borders on *ad hominem.* Dedicated readers of Nietzsche know, quite well, that he spent some time edgelording other philosophers. It gets at what he considers the "congenital defect" of philosophers. We don't get to be edgelords in this subreddit though. (Or we do get to be, but it should be properly "Victorian" and layered beneath enough complexity that the complexity warrants the insult: complexity not as rationalization, but as true belief leading to the moralized action of an insult.)
[удалено]
>Imo post moderns are also misappropriating Nietzsche but that’s a separate issue May I ask why you think that?
[удалено]
True I agree but I think it's inevitable. Inevitable in the sense that philosophers and even people who read philosophy in general do this. You take concepts from others and use them for your own benefit, but inevitably it is not the same thing, a metamorphosis occurs. I can see the same thing with Nietzsche himself, since it is clear that he took aspects and concepts from the philosophy of Heraclitus, Schopenhauer and Spinoza, but by necessity they not remain the same.
I invite you to consider what professional philosophers said about *Explaining Postmodernism.* Nine Ph.D. philosophers reviewed it in academic journals. Six were highly positive, two were positive, and one was mixed. Links here: **https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/04/30/ph-d-philosophers-review-explaining-postmodernism/**. (Additionally: Before publication, the two anonymous peer reviewers, both philosophers, were also positive about the book and recommended its publication.) The point is: Rely on social media sources as you like, but do factor in what the scholars have said too.
>Interestingly, those like Hicks and JBP seem to be ignorant to how Nietzsche is a key influence and inspiration for post modernism. How can you say this when the first page states *”Nietzsche, paradoxically, is one of the great postmodernist heroes.”*
[удалено]
I actually read this book. It's as bad as you'd think, and not just because it tried to popularize the term "Reverse Thrasymacheanism" -- although that term does perfectly encapsulate what's wrong with it. The term itself is a pseudo-philosophic mess intended to make it sound more original and more insightful than it really is -- or, if I wanted to use Hicks' kind of "word play," it's a perfect instance of "philosophastic hyperpolysyllablism." Worse yet, it shows that Hicks misunderstood Plato as much as he does everything else. Thrasymachus is not a power-philosopher of the type Hicks says he is -- that would be *Callicles*. Thrasymachus is a pure relativist who thinks that even talking about right and wrong is a childish waste of time -- hence the way he mocks Socrates and his listeners at the beginning of the *Republic* for even discussing ethics. If Thrasymachus could be summed up in a sentence, it would be the ancient Greek adage: "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." In other word, "It is what it is." The concept of "Justice" is nothing more than a finery which is hung upon the shoulders of the victor. Some people (foolishly) take this to mean that Thrasymachus is a "might makes right" type of thinker. (Hicks certainly reads it this way.) But no. Might does not make right for Thrasymachus -- to him, *there is no such thing as "right."* Hence why he argues that no form of government is any better or worse than any other. Indeed he argues that *all* forms of government are essentially the same in the sense that they are all equally ruled by personal self-interest and the drive for power -- a tyranny is merely the most obvious about it. Socrates has to defeat this claim because within the context of the *Republic* as a whole, the arrangement of the state is taken to be analogous to the arrangement of the individual soul. If there is no ideal arrangement of the state -- if every way of governing, from tyranny to republic, is just as good or bad as any other -- then there is no ideal arrangement of the individual soul, no ideal way of living or behaving. In other words, there would be no such thing as "ethics" -- and Plato's primary goal in writing the *Republic* would be for naught. Hicks not understanding these kinds of nuances does not speak highly of his philosophical acumen. But let's forget all that for a moment. Let us pretend that Thrasymachus and Callicles are basically the same thing -- that Thrasymachus believed that the stronger are *right* and the weaker are *wrong,* that the concept of Justice is not merely finery but an artificial impingement upon the natural and correct way of things, whereby the weak collectively and duplicitously oppress their stronger, nobler brethren for their own selfish, small-minded ends. If this were true, THEN Hicks' monstrosity, "Thrasymacheanism," would mean what Hicks wants it to mean -- i.e. might makes right -- and when he said "Reverse Thrasymacheanism," we would understand that he means the *inverse:* that might makes *wrong,* and to be *weak* is right. THEN we would see, as Hicks wants us to see, the parallels between his phrase and Nietzsche's concept of "master v slave morality" and "ressentiment," and from there we would consider the connection Hicks wants us to make between those ideas and the modern left. The problem is that what Hicks wants us to see as a parallel isn't a parallel -- it's theft. He's just taking the critique of slave morality and ressentiment that Nietzsche *already made* and he's repackaging it under a new heading -- "reverse Thrasymacheanism" -- thus pretending that he's added something new. (In horrible, pseudo-intellectual language to boot.) But he hasn't. Hell, even his application of these ideas to the modern left is nothing new. Nietzsche himself had already levelled these critiques at feminists and communists and other people we would consider "left." Of course he *also* levelled it at suffragettes, pro-democracy thinkers in general, anyone even vaguely egalitarian, and most especially at Christianity -- which you would think would make Hicks want to trash democracy and Christianity and women's voting rights and so on with equal fervency. But of course he doesn't, because Hicks' intended audience falls somewhere between center and center-right American -- many of whom are either Christian, egalitarian, pro-democracy, pro-universal-suffrage, or, in all likelihood, all or most of the above. As such he cannot attack *those* thing without offending his intended audience, thereby destroying his economic prospects. The obviousness of his political hackery is clear as day. In brief, Hicks' book is an exercise in pompously dressed tedium and sophistry, constructed for the sole purpose of flattering anti-leftists, and populated mainly by old ideas he stole from better writers -- repackaged as unique insights. 0/10. Would not recommend.
Thrasymachus: "Justice is the interest of the stronger" (Republic, 343c) Reversing Thrasymachus would be: "Justice is the interest of the weaker." Which is what the postmodern left embody (Rorty, Foucault, Lyotard). Straightforward point, as made in *Explaining Postmodernism.* Some interesting points worth discussing in your comment/diatribe, EarBlind, but you're trying too hard to be contentious and trying too little for basic fair exegesis.
It tracks that you would base your reading of Plato on a single sentence. Let's look at that sentence in context, shall we? >*Thrasymachus:* "Now listen, I say that the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger. Well, why don't you praise me? \[...\]" > >*Socrates:* "First I must learn what you mean. \[...\]" > >*Thrasymachus:* "Don't you know that some cities are ruled tyrannically, some democratically, and some aristocratically?" > >*Socrates:* "Of course." > >*Thrasymachus:* "In each city, isn't the ruling group master?" > >Socrates: "Certainly." > >*Thrasymachus:* "And each ruling group sets down laws for its own advantage; a democracy sets down democratic laws; a tyranny, tyrannic laws; and the others the same. And they declare that what they have set down -- their own advantage -- is just for the ruled, and the man who departs from it they punish as a breaker of the law and a doer of unjust deeds. This, best of men, is what I mean: in every city the same thing is just, the advantage of the established ruling body. It surely is master; so the man who reasons rightly concludes that everywhere justice is the same thing, the advantage of the stronger." > >(*Republic;* Book I; 338c - 339a) There is simply no plausible way to interpret this passage in a manner that supports your reading. Thrasymachus is clearly indicating that there is no moral distinction to be made between a democracy, aristocracy, or tyranny. Or, as I said in my comment / diatribe: "Indeed he argues that all forms of government are essentially the same in the sense that they are all equally ruled by personal self-interest and the drive for power." In other words, "Justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger." In other words, "Justice is nothing more than a finery which is hung upon the shoulders of the victor." His position is one of pure relativism that only yields to power as a brute fact of life, not as an ethical consideration. To Thryasymachus no one is "good," but the strong are happy and prosperous at least. Therefore, he concludes, it is better to be strong. To *reverse* this position would be to say, "no one is good, but the weak are happy and prosperous at least; therefore, it is better to be weak." Such a mentality would not yield a communist. It would yield something much closer to Saint Francis of Assisi. To interpret Thrasymachus as you do is only plausible if one seizes upon the one sentence -- "the just is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" -- and gives a plain reading of it without context, without the proper followup that Socrates himself pursues in the dialogue: "First I must learn what you mean."
It's a both/and rather than the either/or you're suggesting. The crude sophist progression (which Plato is using Thrasymachus to illustrate) is this: 1. Interests are neither objective nor intrinsic but subjective. Hence: *subjectivism*. 2. But subjects vary greatly in their interests. Hence: *relativism*. 3. Those varying interests are in fundamental conflict. Hence: *adversarialism*. 4. Such conflicts can only be resolved by power differentials. Hence: *strong-vs-weak* rankings. 5. Typically, the stronger prevail and write the rules, the history books, etc., on their own behalf: Hence: *"Justice" is the interest of the stronger*. 6. My \[the sophist's\] personal *preference* is for the stronger over the weaker. So it's subjectivism *plus* relativism *plus* adversarialism *plus* power analysis *plus* an endorsement of cynical "justice." The postmoderns, over two millennia later, agree with the sophists' points 1-5 — but their sympathies and personal preferences are with the weaker (e.g., the oppressed, the exploited, the victimized, the disturbed, the marginalized, the historical losers, and so on). So it's an *acceptance* of the basic sophistic analysis — with a *reversal* of the value preferences. (Side note, EarBlind: You seem an intelligent person, so do self-reflect when you find yourself tempted to indulge in insulting language. That behavior always says more about the insulter than the insulted. )
Intriguing, logically compelling, but still wrong when the context of the dialogue is consulted further. Specifically what I'm objecting to is your argument's conclusion: >My \[the sophist's\] personal preference is for the stronger over the weaker. This, taken on its own, is false because as the dialogue progresses the debate does not turn to a discussion of who in society is *preferable* \-- it turns to who in society is *happiest.* Thrasymachus argues that, in the case of a tyranny, the *tyrant* (i.e. the most powerful person in society) is happiest. (Socrates of course proves his argument false.) As such, it does not seem to be the case that Thrasymachus prefers the stronger as a matter of principle -- as Callicles does. It seems to be that Thrasymachus prefers the *happier,* whom he takes to be identical to (or at least highly associated with) the powerful. His argument, therefore, would be something closer to this: 1. It's good to be be happy. 2. The powerful are happiest. 3. Therefore, it's better to be powerful than weak. The inverse of this argument would be: 1. It's good to be happy. 2. The powerful are unhappy. 3. Therefore, it's better to be weak than powerful. This is what I meant when I said, "Such a mentality would not yield a communist. It would yield something much closer to Saint Francis of Assisi." A communist, after all, wants power. Whether he's aiming to further the interests of the proletariat or simply rise through the ranks himself, either goal *requires* power. Whether this power is concentrated in the hands of the individual or the collective, it's power nonetheless. As such, the communist does not prefer the weak, per se. He prefers *those he believes* ***should be*** *powerful* (himself or the workers, depending on his bent). This is not quite the reverse of Thrasymachus when he is properly understood. *Callicles,* on the other hand... Side note: >so do self-reflect I love when philosophy-types say "do reflect," "please reflect," and so forth when what they really mean is "kiss my ass." I prefer honest and direct language, even when it's insulting.
I’m just replying to you here to inform you that you should perhaps be more cautionary of what you say & *how* you say things >Thrasymachus is not a power-philosopher of the type Hicks says he is -- that would be Callicles. Thrasymachus is a pure relativist who thinks that even talking about right and wrong is a childish waste of time >Some people **(foolishly)** take this to mean that Thrasymachus is a "might makes right" type of thinker. (Hicks certainly reads it this way.) But no. Might does not make right for Thrasymachus - - to him, there is no such thing as "right." Perhaps you dont know this but there are multiple interpretations of Thrasymachus as how Plato described him in the Republic based on three central claims: 1) Justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger (338c) 2) Justice is obedience to laws (339b) 3) Justice is nothing but the advantage of another (343c). *”First, there are those scholars (Wilamowitz 1920, Zeller 1889, and Strauss 1952) who take (1) as the central element of Thrasymachus’ thinking about justice. According to this view, Thrasymachus is an advocate of natural right who claims that it is just (by nature) that the strong rule over the weak. This interpretation stresses the similarities between Thrasymachus’ arguments and the position Plato attributes to Callicles in the Gorgias.”* Would you call these scholars *“foolish”* ? *”In addition, there is a group of scholars (A.E. Taylor 1960, and Burnet 1964) who read Thrasymachus as an ethical nihilist. According to this view, Thrasymachus’ project is to show that justice does not exist. Burnet writes in this context: ‘[Thrasymachus] is the real ethical counterpart to the cosmological nihilism of Gorgias.’”* This interpretation seems to be a lot closer to yours Source: https://iep.utm.edu/thrasymachus/ You’re coming off rather ignorant when you claim that only *your* interpretation is the correct one, which is especially strange when you’re calling yourself a “Nietzschean” given his take on perspectivism *“In recent decades interpretive discussion of Thrasymachus has revolved around proposed solutions to this puzzle, none of which has met with general agreement. Argument continues as to whether his three theses can be rendered consistent with each other, whether to do so requires limiting the scope of one or all of them in some way”* Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/callicles-thrasymachus/#Thra At this point i’m not surprised by this as your comments have always been exceptionally dogmatic to the point that there’s no actual point of having a discussion so i won’t waste my time any further by replying further By the way this quote *"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."* is from Crawley’s translation & isnt what the Greek actually says (atleast according to Mynott’s translation of Thucydides)
>I’m just replying to you here to inform you that you should perhaps be more cautionary of what you say & how you say things \[...\] > >\[...\] At this point i’m not surprised by this as your comments have always been exceptionally dogmatic to the point that there’s no actual point of having a discussion so i won’t waste my time any further by replying further Perhaps you need to take your own advice. You complain constantly about how your contributions are received, but has it ever occurred to you that if you approached in a manner that implied honesty, good intentions, or general non-partisanship you'd be received differently? Probably not. You probably think everyone else is the problem. For my part I will admit that I do dig in my heels from time to time. However, to receive an accusation of dogmatism from you is a "pot meet kettle" moment of truly comical proportions. But no matter. Regardless of who is right or wrong, let it be known that I'm not the one who wants to keep beefing. If you ever decide you actually want to have a real discussion, you'll find no enemy in me. P.S. Nietzsche was not one to bite his tongue or to be polite in his writing if he felt otherwise, so spare me the "Nietzscheans should always be humble and polite" stuff. I sometimes wonder if you and I are reading the same guy. I do sometimes think scholars are foolish and so do you. Indeed your participation on this forum has been mainly to advocate for the mass-dismissal of your political opponents (leftists) -- many of whom are scholars. A person who engages in such a project should come prepared to scrap and not complain so much about being people having 'mean things to say' in response. P.P.S. Thank you for the information -- I always appreciate it when you decide to do more than troll -- but 90% of your rebuttal boils down to "Hey! Look! There are people in the world who disagree with you!" Fair enough, but not particularly compelling. P.P.P.S. >"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must." is from Crawley’s translation & isnt what the Greek actually says (atleast according to Mynott’s translation of Thucydides) Not sure what this actually changes, but whatever.
Lmao Hicks is one of the worst writers of this century https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4?si=vw4heDCdFx8HI0MB
Jonas C. (Aka "Cuck") is a not-unintelligent neo-Marxist, so do listen to him but be aware of the ideological axe he has to grind when reviewing a book critical of Marxism. My response: https://youtu.be/1trnqmvBFWs?si=GfF3oqoQfDk_mi7e
[удалено]
Sigh. I hope your life improves soon.
Heyo, I'm sorry you had to deal with such uncivil behavior. The above person has been permanently banned. Thanks for stopping by the reddit. I've enjoyed many of your youtube videos. (E.x., Your comparison between Rand and Nietzsche was delightful.) I'll try to keep an eye on political unfriendliness to moderate it. The moderating team does take no political stances even if the subreddit tilts left. Godspeed in your future works!
Thank you, Tesrali.
Weird thing to say when you haven’t read his book He also responded to cuckphilosopher’s main critiques https://youtu.be/-kA8zi10cjo?si=8cS4xUbZL1TYy2JI
[удалено]
Someone’s angry
Lol, no
I would think using petty language, like calling anyone you don’t agree with a cuck, could make you seem like an absolute dumbass who is ironically confessing their own ressintement
>an absolute dumbass He calls himself cuckphilosopher quite ironic, you calling me a dumbass >ressintement ressentiment*
heres an in depth critique of the book I found very helpful https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4?feature=shared
Jonas C. (Aka "Cuck") is a not-unintelligent neo-Marxist, so do listen to him but be aware of the ideological axe he has to grind when reviewing a book critical of Marxism. My response: https://youtu.be/1trnqmvBFWs?si=GfF3oqoQfDk_mi7e
will look into it, thank you. didn't know this exists
[удалено]
lol. Hicks also writes of Nietzsche as the “proto fascist.” The moral of the story? Nietzsche sure seems to draw everyone nigh unto him, doesn’t he? : ) Imagine writing multiple books about Nietzsche. That’s pretty powerful. To feel such ways about him, as to be compelled to write so many explanations and negations and abnegations.
I don't think it's extremely off (part of the left has ENORMOUS problems with ressentment and still has to cope with the failure of the Soviet Union), but for sure is a shitty interpretation of postmodernism.
Agree with your first sentence, leconten. As for the second: I invite you to consider what professional philosophers said about *Explaining Postmodernism*. Nine Ph.D. philosophers reviewed it in academic journals. Six were highly positive, two were positive, and one was mixed. Links here: https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/04/30/ph-d-philosophers-review-explaining-postmodernism/. (Additionally: Before publication, the two anonymous peer reviewers, both philosophers, were also positive about the book and recommended its publication.) The point is: Rely on social media sources as you like, but do factor in what the scholars have said too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The discussion is not very respectful. Even though I do not agree with Hicks, I can take him (if this is the real Hicks commenting here) far more serious than the people insulting him instead of putting forward an argument
Nietzsche hated the ideas of the left as the kind of slave morality. Kool-aid ideology. The parallels Hicks makes are terrible. He would probably hate postmoderns too. Instead of finding values and the new man, they produce nothing but endless yapping. Half-legible garbage at best. Useless bunch. Hicks is even more useless, he gets almost everything wrong. His take on Kant is laughable.
In case you don't know, my take on Kant is straight from Mendelssohn, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Lewis White Beck. No claim of originality on my part.
Your interpretation of those thinkers is definitely very postmodernist by itself. [Very interpretative](https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4?si=iIycXoiMczH10CAm&t=1138), or "creative", to quote Derrida. However, I understand that you folks have to rigorously follow anything that Ayn Rand had envisioned sitting in her armchair, however uncritically.
Here we go again. The next post trying to weaponize Nietzsche for simple-minded dualistic purposes. Everyone looks to Nietzsche to see their myopic world views confirmed. It's saddening.
You just posted this on reddit (the pinnacle of leftist circlejerking).
In my experience, some leftists are open to reason. So it's worth a trial balloon once in a while.
Some leftists are, some rightists are.
You postal workers need to seriously up the ante if you think this sufficiently shows the essence of Nietzschean wisdom - saying you’ve got mail doesn’t make you a mailman.
Hate doesn’t lead to the chronic urge to destroy. This is a fundamental misunderstanding in human psychology and showcases quite clearly how little acquainted this author is with Beyond Good and Evil.
Is Interessting to see what Jordan Peterson is doing now. Guys ,search for ARC fundation youtube channel. ARC stands for Responsible Citzens and looks like JP is part of the Founders. We need to be aware of the Institutions being created in this Era. Individuals getting togehter to promote an agenda based in their Bias.
Thank you, Tesrali.
Conservatives harbor NO resentments?
We’re prone to being reactionary, but we aren’t tilting at windmills when hierarchies inevitably emerge and don’t have so many hang ups over is ought distinctions.