#684 Patrick Lee Miller: Plato vs. Nietzsche, Metaphysics, and Morality

------------------Support the channel------------

------------------Follow me on---------------------

RECORDED ON JULY 6th 2022.
Dr. Patrick Lee Miller is an associate professor of Philosophy at Duquesne University, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He is the author of Becoming God: Pure Reason in Early Greek Philosophy (Bloomsbury, 2012), and co-editor of Introductory Readings in Ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy (Hackett, 2015).

In this episode, we talk about Nietzsche and Plato. We start by talking about Nietzsche’s phases in his writings, and ask if The Will to Power should be considered canon. We discuss why we can compare Nietzsche and Plato. And then we get into some of the aspects of their philosophies, and where they diverge and converge, including: the Dionysian, the Apollonian, and the Greek poets; their metaphysics; the Eternal Return, and time as linear or circular; slave and master morality; Plato’s Republic, hierarchy, and democracy; and the differences between the Philosopher King and the Übermensch.

Time Links:
00:00 Intro
00:33 Phases in Nietzsche’s career
15:35 Is The Will to Power canon?
18:39 Why compare Nietzsche and Plato?
22:03 Nietzsche’s takes on Plato and Socrates
30:21 The Dionysian, the Apollonian, and the Greek poets
45:05 The metaphysics of Plato and Nietzsche
47:56 The Eternal Return, and time as linear or circular
1:17:24 Slave and master morality
1:24:18 Plato’s Republic, hierarchy, and democracy
1:48:45 The Philosopher King, and the Übermensch
2:11:52 Follow Dr. Lee Miller’s work!
--
Follow Dr. Lee Miller’s work:
--
A HUGE THANK YOU TO MY PATRONS/SUPPORTERS: KARIN LIETZCKE, ANN BLANCHETTE, PER HELGE LARSEN, LAU GUERREIRO, JERRY MULLER, HANS FREDRIK SUNDE, BERNARDO SEIXAS, HERBERT GINTIS, RUTGER VOS, RICARDO VLADIMIRO, CRAIG HEALY, OLAF ALEX, PHILIP KURIAN, JONATHAN VISSER, JAKOB KLINKBY, ADAM KESSEL, MATTHEW WHITINGBIRD, ARNAUD WOLFF, TIM HOLLOSY, HENRIK AHLENIUS, JOHN CONNORS, PAULINA BARREN, FILIP FORS CONNOLLY, DAN DEMETRIOU, ROBERT WINDHAGER, RUI INACIO, ARTHUR KOH, ZOOP, MARCO NEVES, COLIN HOLBROOK, SUSAN PINKER, PABLO SANTURBANO, SIMON COLUMBUS, PHIL KAVANAGH, JORGE ESPINHA, CORY CLARK, MARK BLYTH, ROBERTO INGUANZO, MIKKEL STORMYR, ERIC NEURMANN, SAMUEL ANDREEFF, FRANCIS FORDE, TIAGO NUNES, BERNARD HUGUENEY, ALEXANDER DANNBAUER, FERGAL CUSSEN, YEVHEN BODRENKO, HAL HERZOG, NUNO MACHADO, DON ROSS, JONATHAN LEIBRANT, JOÃO LINHARES, OZLEM BULUT, NATHAN NGUYEN, STANTON T, SAMUEL CORREA, ERIK HAINES, MARK SMITH, J.W., JOÃO EIRA, TOM HUMMEL, SARDUS FRANCE, DAVID SLOAN WILSON, YACILA DEZA-ARAUJO, IDAN SOLON, ROMAIN ROCH, DMITRY GRIGORYEV, TOM ROTH, DIEGO LONDOÑO CORREA, YANICK PUNTER, ADANER USMANI, CHARLOTTE BLEASE, NICOLE BARBARO, ADAM HUNT, PAWEL OSTASZEWSKI, AL ORTIZ, NELLEKE BAK, KATHRINE AND PATRICK TOBIN, GUY MADISON, GARY G HELLMANN, SAIMA AFZAL, ADRIAN JAEGGI, NICK GOLDEN, PAULO TOLENTINO, JOÃO BARBOSA, JULIAN PRICE, EDWARD HALL, HEDIN BRØNNER, DOUGLAS P. FRY, FRANCA BORTOLOTTI, GABRIEL PONS CORTÈS, URSULA LITZCKE, DENISE COOK, SCOTT, ZACHARY FISH, TIM DUFFY, TRADERINNYC, TODD SHACKELFORD, AND SUNNY SMITH!
A SPECIAL THANKS TO MY PRODUCERS, YZAR WEHBE, JIM FRANK, ŁUKASZ STAFINIAK, IAN GILLIGAN, LUIS CAYETANO, TOM VANEGDOM, CURTIS DIXON, BENEDIKT MUELLER, VEGA GIDEY, THOMAS TRUMBLE, AND NUNO ELDER!
AND TO MY EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS, MICHAL RUSIECKI, ROSEY, JAMES PRATT, MATTHEW LAVENDER, SERGIU CODREANU, AND BOGDAN KANIVETS!

And check out my playlists on:

#TheDissenter #PatrickLeeMiller #Philosophy

[vagabondcaleb]

Very excited for the follow up to this!

[lau-guerreiro]

I'm completely unsatisfied with the explanation for the claim that "I can remember my future". His explanation using Locke's definition only supports the following statement "The memories that I have right now will also be had by another person in the future."

The statement "I can remember my future" is deceptive, because it does not define "I" nor "future".
If the normal definition of 'future' were used, then "I can remember my future" would mean that today I can remember what will happen to me tomorrow. And that would be a very substantial example of what would be different in our lives if Nietzsche's theory is correct.
But that is not how Patrick uses 'future' in his explanation, and therefore, there is nothing that would be different in our lives as a result of Nietzsche's theory being correct.

I think that Patrick knows this is a flaw in his claim, and he was trying to avoid answering, and you pushed him a little on it, but in the end you politely moved on - which I understand.

But I have no reason for being so polite. I think this whole 'eternal return' theory is utterly nonsensical, and I find it bizarre to see intelligent philosophers twisting themselves into pretzels in order to accept this nonsense just because they like the rest of Nietzsche's philosophy. If it had been proposed by anyone else other than Nietzsche they would laugh at it.

The theory of eternal return only makes any sense if you have Idealism and a universe that cycles from Big Bang to Big Crunch. But even then, there is no reason why an individual 'I' would remember what is going to happen tomorrow.