Whether they sub­mit to his mighty philo­soph­i­cal influ­ence, resist it with all their own might, or fall some­where in between, every­one who’s read the pro­nounce­ments of Friedrich Niet­zsche (find his ebooks here) rec­og­nizes his voice — well, his tex­tu­al voice, that is. Hav­ing died in 1900 after spend­ing the last decade of his life in a men­tal break­down, the author of Thus Spake Zarathus­tra and Beyond Good and Evil has an excuse for not leav­ing behind much in the way of audio mate­r­i­al. But love Niet­zsche or hate him, a read­er has to won­der: what did the guy actu­al­ly sound like?

Here to sati­ate our curios­i­ty come Flavia Mon­tag­gio, Patri­cia Mon­tag­gio, and Imp Kerr, authors of the Inves­tiga­tive Genet­ics paper “DNA-based pre­dic­tion of Niet­zsche’s voice,” which sup­pos­ed­ly offers a sci­en­tif­ic means of doing just that. “We col­lect­ed trace amounts of cel­lu­lar mate­r­i­al (Touch DNA) from books that belonged to the philoso­pher Friedrich Niet­zsche,” reads the abstract, which goes on to describe the gath­er­ing of Niet­zsche-relat­ed data even­tu­al­ly “con­vert­ed into bio-mea­sures that were used to 3D-print a vocal tract and lar­ynx through which phona­tion was organ­i­cal­ly gen­er­at­ed.” The result, after run­ning every­thing through a series of text-to-speech sim­u­la­tions: “the first attempt at sim­u­lat­ing the voice of a deceased per­son”:

It all seems legit, right? Or maybe you Ger­man-speak­ers out there will sus­pect some­thing fishy, start­ing with the unlike­ly name of Imp Kerr. It actu­al­ly belongs to “a Swedish-French artist liv­ing in New York City, most­ly known for her fake Amer­i­can Appar­el adver­tise­ment cam­paign,” or so reads the Wikipedia page quot­ed by a Lan­guage Log post on the project. “I have no idea whether any­thing in the Wikipedia arti­cle about Imp Kerr is true,” writes author Mark Liber­man, “but it’s clear from inter­nal evi­dence that the alleged Inves­tiga­tive Genet­ics arti­cle is a piece of per­for­mance art.”

Liber­man breaks down the paper’s humor­ous ele­ments, from its “many seg­ments that dis­play qua­si-sci­en­tif­ic ter­mi­nol­o­gy in mean­ing­less or con­tra­dic­to­ry ways” to its sim­ple inabil­i­ty to “restrain a cer­tain tell­tale play­ful­ness” (as when it deals with a res­o­nance “low­er than expect­ed in regards of Nietzsche’s robust mandibles”). All this may remind you of the famous hoax where­in physi­cist Alan Sokal pub­lished a paper­ful of sheer non­sense in a respect­ed cul­tur­al-stud­ies jour­nal. Or you may think of the film above, which pur­ports, ques­tion­ably, to show Niet­zsche’s last days. It just goes to show that, if your ideas live on, you live on — or your read­ers will try to make you do so.

via The New Inquiry/Leit­er Reports

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Dig­i­tal Niet­zsche: Down­load Nietzsche’s Major Works as Free eBooks

Down­load Wal­ter Kaufmann’s Lec­tures on Niet­zsche, Kierkegaard, Sartre & Mod­ern Thought (1960)

Human, All Too Human: 3‑Part Doc­u­men­tary Pro­files Niet­zsche, Hei­deg­ger & Sartre

Free Online Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Ger­man philoso­pher Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger, wide­ly con­sid­ered one of the most influ­en­tial philoso­phers of the 20th cen­tu­ry, was a Nazi, a fact known to most any­one with more than a pass­ing knowl­edge of the sub­ject. In a New York Review of Books essay, Har­vard intel­lec­tu­al his­to­ri­an Peter E. Gor­don points out that “the philosopher’s com­plic­i­ty with the Nazis first became a top­ic of con­tro­ver­sy in the pages of Les Temps mod­ernes short­ly after the war.” The issue arose again when a for­mer stu­dent of Hei­deg­ger pub­lished “a vig­or­ous denun­ci­a­tion” in 1987. In these cas­es, and others—like his pro­tégé and one­time lover Han­nah Arendt’s defense of her for­mer teacher—the scan­dal tends to “always end with the same unsur­pris­ing dis­cov­ery that Hei­deg­ger was a Nazi.”

What stirs up con­tro­ver­sy isn’t Heidegger’s mem­ber­ship in the par­ty, but his moti­va­tions. Was he sim­ply a shrewd, if craven, careerist, or a gen­uine­ly hate­ful anti-Semi­te, or a lit­tle from each col­umn? What­ev­er the expla­na­tion, Hei­deg­ge­ri­ans have been able to wall off the phi­los­o­phy from sup­posed moral or polit­i­cal laps­es in judg­ment. Arendt did so by claim­ing that Hei­deg­ger, and all of phi­los­o­phy, was polit­i­cal­ly naïve. Recalls Adam Kirsch in the Times:

The seal was set on his abso­lu­tion by Han­nah Arendt, in a birth­day address broad­cast on West Ger­man radio. Heideg­ger’s Nazism, she explained, was an “escapade,” a mis­take, which hap­pened only because the thinker naïve­ly “suc­cumbed to the temp­ta­tion … to ‘inter­vene’ in the world of human affairs.” The moral to be drawn from the Hei­deg­ger case was that “the think­ing ‘I’ is entire­ly dif­fer­ent from the self of con­scious­ness,” so that Heideg­ger’s thought can­not be con­t­a­m­i­nat­ed by the actions of the mere man.

The pub­li­ca­tion of Heidegger’s so-called “black note­books,” jour­nals that he kept assid­u­ous­ly from 1931–1941, may change all that. They show Hei­deg­ger for­mu­lat­ing a phi­los­o­phy of anti-Semitism—using the cen­tral cat­e­gories of his thought—one that oper­ates, as Michel Fou­cault might say, along “the rules of exclu­sion.”

In pub­lished excerpts of a trans­la­tion by Richard Polt, an exec­u­tive mem­ber of the Hei­deg­ger Cir­cle, Crit­i­cal The­o­ry shows how much Hei­deg­ger turned his own con­cep­tu­al appa­ra­tus against Jews. At one point, he writes:

One of the most secret forms of the gigan­tic, and per­haps the old­est, is the tena­cious skill­ful­ness in cal­cu­lat­ing, hus­tling, and inter­min­gling through which the world­less­ness of Jew­ry is ground­ed.

In this short pas­sage alone, Hei­deg­ger invokes lazy stereo­types of Jews as “cal­cu­lat­ing” and “hus­tling.” He also, more impor­tant­ly, describes the Jew­ish peo­ple as “world­less.” As Crit­i­cal The­o­ry writes, “Being-in-the-world (In-der-Welt-sein) is the basic activ­i­ty of human exist­ing. To say that the Jews are ‘world­less’… is more than a con­fused stereo­type.” It is Heidegger’s way of cast­ing Jews out of Dasein, his most impor­tant cat­e­go­ry, a word that means some­thing like “being-there” or “pres­ence.” Jews, he writes, are “his­to­ry­less” and “are not being, but mere­ly ‘cal­cu­late with being.’”

More­over, Hei­deg­ger took up the Nazi char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of Jews as cor­rupt under­min­ers of soci­ety. As rep­re­sen­ta­tives of moder­ni­ty, and its tech­no­crat­ic dom­i­na­tion of human­i­ty, the Jews threat­ened “being” in anoth­er way:

What is hap­pen­ing now is the end of the his­to­ry of the great incep­tion of Occi­den­tal human­i­ty, in which incep­tion human­i­ty was called to the guardian­ship of be-ing, only to trans­form this call­ing right away into the pre­ten­sion to re-present beings in their machi­na­tion­al unessence…

The except goes on at length in this vein, with Jew­ish “tech­no­log­i­cal machin­ery” pos­ing a threat to civ­i­liza­tion. Per­haps most shock­ing­ly, Hei­deg­ger attrib­uted Nazi con­cen­tra­tion camps to “self-destruc­tion,” com­plete­ly absolv­ing by omis­sion, and min­i­miz­ing and excus­ing, the crimes of his par­ty. An arti­cle in Ital­ian news­pa­per Cor­riere Del­la Sera doc­u­ments Heidegger’s defense of Nazism and his claim in 1942 that “the com­mu­ni­ty of Jews” is “the prin­ci­ple of destruc­tion” and that the camps were only a log­i­cal out­come of this prin­ci­ple, the “supreme ful­fill­ment of tech­nol­o­gy,” “corpse fac­to­ries.” The real vic­tims, of course, are the Ger­mans, and the Allies are guilty of ”repress­ing our will for the world.”

Hei­deg­ger intend­ed the “black note­books,” so damn­ing that sev­er­al schol­ars of Hei­deg­ger fought their pub­li­ca­tion, to be released after all of his work was pub­lished. As with all of the philosopher’s dif­fi­cult work, the note­books are often obscure; it is not always clear what he means to say. But major Hei­deg­ger schol­ars have respond­ed in a vari­ety of ways—including resign­ing a chair­ship of the Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Soci­ety—that sug­gest the worst. Accord­ing to Dai­ly Nous, a web­site about the phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sion, when Gün­ter Figal resigned his posi­tion in Jan­u­ary as chair of the Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Soci­ety, he said:

As chair­man of a soci­ety, which is named after a per­son, one is in cer­tain way a rep­re­sen­ta­tive of that per­son. After read­ing the Schwarze Hefte [Black Note­books], espe­cial­ly the anti­se­mit­ic pas­sages, I do not wish to be such a rep­re­sen­ta­tive any longer. These state­ments have not only shocked me, but have turned me around to such an extent that it has become dif­fi­cult to be a co-rep­re­sen­ta­tive of this.

Whether or not this new evi­dence will cause more of his adher­ents to renounce his work remains to be seen, but the note­books, writes Peter Gor­don, will sure­ly “cast a dark shad­ow over Hei­deg­ger’s lega­cy.” A very dark shad­ow.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Talks About Lan­guage, Being, Marx & Reli­gion in Vin­tage 1960s Inter­views

Mar­tin Hei­deg­ger Talks Phi­los­o­phy with a Bud­dhist Monk on Ger­man Tele­vi­sion (1963)

Human, All Too Human: 3‑Part Doc­u­men­tary Pro­files Niet­zsche, Hei­deg­ger & Sartre

Find cours­es on Hei­deg­ger in our col­lec­tion, 1,700 Free Online Cours­es from Top Uni­ver­si­ties

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

In the world of the 8‑bit video game, there may be no more a frus­trat­ing, Sisy­phuse­an task than com­plet­ing the var­i­ous iter­a­tions of Mega Man. Each suc­ces­sive lev­el can feel end­less, as one dies and starts again, time after time, with no glo­ri­ous end in sight. It can feel like, as Friedrich Niet­zsche might say, being caught in a cycle of “eter­nal recur­rence,” des­tined to repeat the same actions, over and over again for eter­ni­ty.

The videos here then—part of the pop­u­lar trend of 8‑bit shorts—use the graph­ics and bleep­ing sound effects and music of Mega Man to illus­trate Nietzsche’s seem­ing­ly pes­simistic ideas. First, with a nod to Rust Cohle, we have the theory—or rather the thought experiment—of “eter­nal recur­rence.” Draw­ing on Arthur Schopen­hauer’s inter­pre­ta­tion of Bud­dhism, Niet­zsche imag­ined a uni­verse with no end and no begin­ning, an end­less loop of suf­fer­ing in which one is des­tined to make the same mis­takes for­ev­er.

If this seems ter­ri­fy­ing­ly bleak to you, you may approach life through a haze of resen­ti­ment, Niet­zsche might say, a bit­ter tan­gle of anger and blame that rejects the world as it is. The one who over­comes this snare—the uber­men­sch—has achieved self-mas­tery. Strong in the ways of the “will to pow­er” is he, and delight­ed by the prospect of liv­ing in the present moment an infi­nite num­ber of times, even if the uni­verse is cold, cru­el, and indif­fer­ent to human exis­tence. The “will to pow­er” gov­erns all life, for Niet­zsche, and human life in par­tic­u­lar is weak­ened by ignor­ing this fact and cling­ing to moral sys­tems of resen­ti­ment like that of Chris­tian­i­ty.

Niet­zsche’s argu­ment against Chris­tian­i­ty, as explained above at least, is that it encour­ages, even cel­e­brates medi­oc­rity and frowns upon excel­lence. That such is the gen­er­al tenor of our cur­rent age—an assess­ment the nar­ra­tor makes—is debat­able. Yes, we may pro­mote medi­oc­ri­ties at an alarm­ing rate, but we also at least nom­i­nal­ly cel­e­brate uber men (almost always men), who may not tru­ly be self made but who sure­ly live by the dic­tates of the will to pow­er, tak­ing what they want when they want it. Whether Nietzsche’s char­ac­ter­i­za­tion of this preda­to­ry behav­ior as the high­est of human pos­si­bil­i­ties inspires you or not may depend on how far you feel your­self to be above the com­mon herd.

Nietzsche’s amoral phi­los­o­phy has appealed to some pret­ty preda­to­ry char­ac­ters, but it also appeals to anti-author­i­tar­i­an, post-mod­ern types because of his crit­i­cal stance toward not only reli­gion, but also what can seem like its sec­u­lar replace­ment, sci­ence. Niet­zsche respect­ed the sci­en­tif­ic method, but he rec­og­nized its lim­i­ta­tions as a means of describ­ing, rather than explain­ing the world. All of our descrip­tions are inter­pre­ta­tions that do not pen­e­trate into the realm of ulti­mate caus­es or mean­ings, and can­not pro­vide a priv­i­leged, god-like van­tage point from which to make absolute judg­ments.

When, in the hopes of replac­ing the cer­tain­ties of reli­gious moral­i­ty and meta­physics, we ele­vate sci­ence to the posi­tion of ulti­mate truth for­mer­ly grant­ed to the mind of god, we lose sight of this basic lim­i­ta­tion; we com­mit the same fal­la­cy as the reli­gious, mis­tak­ing our sto­ries about the world for the world itself. Would Nietzsche’s extreme skep­ti­cism have made him sym­pa­thet­ic to today’s cli­mate sci­ence deniers and anti­vaxxers? Prob­a­bly not. He did rec­og­nize that, like the phys­i­cal bod­ies where thought takes place, some ideas are healthy descrip­tions of real­i­ty and some are not. Nonethe­less, our expla­na­tions, Niet­zsche argued, whether sci­en­tif­ic or oth­er­wise, are contingent—effects of lan­guage, not exposés of Truth, cap­i­tal T.

For more 8‑Bit Phi­los­o­phy, see our posts on Pla­to, Sartre, Der­ri­da, as well as Kierkegaard and Camus, all illus­trat­ed in short, nos­tal­gic recre­ations of clas­sic video games.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

The Phi­los­o­phy of Niet­zsche: An Intro­duc­tion by Alain de Bot­ton

Niet­zsche Dis­pens­es Dat­ing Advice in a Short Screw­ball Film, My Friend Friedrich

The Dig­i­tal Niet­zsche: Down­load Nietzsche’s Major Works as Free eBooks

Human, All Too Human: 3‑Part Doc­u­men­tary Pro­files Niet­zsche, Hei­deg­ger & Sartre

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Here at Open Cul­ture, we like to think we keep dis­cus­sions rea­son­able. Not every site can say that; if you’ve ever dared to scroll down into the com­ments on Youtube (to pick an exam­ple pure­ly at ran­dom) you know what I mean. But on that very same repos­i­to­ry of stream­ing videos and shout­ing match­es, you can also find a help­ful aid to your debates both online and off: PBS Idea Chan­nel’s “Guide to Com­mon Fal­lac­i­es.”

When humans talk, some­times we adhere to the rules of log­ic, and some­times we break from them. In every­day life it does­n’t mat­ter that much either way, but, in the heat of an argu­ment, and espe­cial­ly amid the poten­tial con­fla­gra­tion of an inter­net argu­ment, con­sis­ten­cy is all. Under such con­di­tions, some­one who com­mits even a com­mon log­i­cal fal­la­cy may well do so with­out real­iz­ing it, and if you feel like edu­cat­ing them, you can reply with a link to whichev­er of these videos cov­ers the fal­la­cy they used:

• Mov­ing the Goal Posts Fal­la­cy
• The Fal­la­cy Fal­la­cy
• The Texas Sharp­shoot­er Fal­la­cy
• The Straw­man Fal­la­cy
• The Ad Hominem Fal­la­cy
• The Black and White Fal­la­cy
• The Author­i­ty Fal­la­cy
• The “No True Scots­man” Fal­la­cy

Host Mike Rugnetta (whom you might remem­ber from the pre­vi­ous Idea Chan­nel video we fea­tured, “Math Might Not Actu­al­ly Exist”) breaks down the fal­la­cy in ques­tion, accom­pa­ny­ing his expla­na­tion with a visu­al stream of illus­tra­tions, clips from movies, TV, and video games — and of course those main­stays of com­ment threads, ani­mat­ed GIFs. And he does­n’t just explain, he demon­strates, stag­ing a short debate with a straw-filled, shod­di­ly argu­ing ver­sion of him­self each and every time.

Log­ic has always struck me as an inher­ent­ly fas­ci­nat­ing sub­ject, and these videos cer­tain­ly pro­vide quick and fun­ny hits of it. I do have my doubts as to whether they’ll actu­al­ly help any­one win an argu­ment. So point out oth­ers’ log­i­cal fal­lac­i­es if you must, but bear in mind that you might be the only one who learns any­thing as a result.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Oxford’s Free Course Crit­i­cal Rea­son­ing For Begin­ners Will Teach You to Think Like a Philoso­pher

Does Math Objec­tive­ly Exist, or Is It a Human Cre­ation? A New PBS Video Explores a Time­less Ques­tion

Free Online Phi­los­o­phy Cours­es

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

These days, would we expect to find a pro­file of a homo­sex­u­al rad­i­cal-left philoso­pher spe­cial­iz­ing in dis­ci­pline and pun­ish­ment in the pages of Time mag­a­zine? Maybe, maybe not—and few of us would find out if there were one, giv­en that the mag­a­zine seems to have long since ced­ed its cen­tral­i­ty in Amer­i­can cul­ture, falling back on a sub­scriber base of retirees and den­tist offices. But in Novem­ber 1981, when Time was def­i­nite­ly still TIME, it did indeed run such a pro­file, and now you can read it in full in PDF form.

“Watch­ing French Marx­ists grap­ple with the rad­i­cal the­o­ries of Michel Fou­cault, says the philoso­pher’s trans­la­tor Alan Sheri­dan, is like watch­ing ‘a police­man attempt­ing to arrest a par­tic­u­lar­ly out­ra­geous drag queen.’ ” So reports jour­nal­ist and cul­tur­al his­to­ri­an Otto Friedrich in the piece’s open­ing. “The solemn spe­cial­ists who patrol the Amer­i­can uni­ver­si­ty have their own dif­fi­cul­ties with Fou­cault. Leo Bersani of the French depart­ment at Berke­ley eulo­gizes him as ‘our most bril­liant philoso­pher of pow­er,’ but Yale His­to­ri­an Peter Gay dis­miss­es him: ‘He does­n’t do any research, he just goes on instinct.’ ”

Oth­er sources offer­ing acco­lade, con­dem­na­tion, and a mix­ture of both for the author of The Archae­ol­o­gy of Knowl­edge and The His­to­ry of Sex­u­al­i­ty, include (broad­ly speak­ing) col­leagues like lit­er­ary the­o­rist Edward Said, who com­plains that Fou­cault “has nev­er been able to explain his­tor­i­cal change,” and philoso­pher Richard Rorty, who sug­gests Fou­cault “join the bour­geois lib­er­als he despis­es.” When Fou­cault him­self speaks, he exhibits the expect­ed ten­den­cy toward intel­lec­tu­al defi­ance and rug-pulling rede­f­i­n­i­tion of terms, though the arti­cle also gath­ers sev­er­al moments of sur­pris­ing frank­ness about his own life. (“I can­not expe­ri­ence plea­sure,” he claims.)

Of course, not every Amer­i­can of the day got to know Fou­cault through Time. Rather than in that most main­stream of all mag­a­zines, they may have dis­cov­ered him through one of the least: Chez Fou­cault, the low bud­get fanzine we fea­tured last week. And the con­nec­tion goes deep­er: “In 1981, when Time mag­a­zine pub­lished an arti­cle on Fou­cault,” writes James Miller in his biog­ra­phy The Pas­sion of Michel Fou­cault, “the pho­to­graph accom­pa­ny­ing the piece [above] showed Fou­cault sit­ting with Sime­on Wade”—publisher of Chez Fou­cault. Wade put the ‘zine togeth­er with oth­er Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia stu­dents, a group whom the philoso­pher’s ideas would con­tin­ue to influ­ence until his death, as evi­denced by his final UC Berke­ley lec­tures in 1983, and beyond—as col­le­gians cur­rent­ly work­ing under the sys­tem of con­trol known as the cul­tur­al the­o­ry depart­ment can attest.

via Crit­i­cal Theory/Pro­gres­sive Geo­gra­phies

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Hear Michel Fou­cault Deliv­er His Lec­ture on “Truth and Sub­jec­tiv­i­ty” at UC Berke­ley, In Eng­lish (1980)

Hear Michel Foucault’s Lec­ture “The Cul­ture of the Self,” Pre­sent­ed in Eng­lish at UC Berke­ley (1983)

Michel Fou­cault – Beyond Good and Evil: 1993 Doc­u­men­tary Explores the Theorist’s Con­tro­ver­sial Life and Phi­los­o­phy

Watch a “Lost Inter­view” With Michel Fou­cault: Miss­ing for 30 Years But Now Recov­ered

Read Chez Fou­cault, the 1978 Fanzine That Intro­duced Stu­dents to the Rad­i­cal French Philoso­pher

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.