The Use and Abuse of History

por

Leído por Public Domain Scholar

English · 1910 · 2h 40m · History, Philosophy

1 (5 reseñas)

“Whoever asks his friends whether they would live the last ten or twenty years over again, will easily see which of them is born for the ‘super-historical standpoint.’”

“The Use and Abuse of History” is a work antithetical to Hegelian and Darwinian views of history and progress of Nietzsche’s epoch. Modern man, Nietzsche claims, for all his meticulous studies of the Hellenes and Renaissance has yet to become anything resembling the life-affirming objects of his studies. However, central to this work is the “historical,” “unhistorical,” and “super-historical” senses. Historical studies make man unhappy, yet while man envies the animals who live unhistorically, man would not trade places with them. A healthier organism, for Nietzsche, is one who can appropriately learn and forget history.

Part of a larger work, “Thoughts Out of Season,” yet published, read, and taught independently of it, “The Use and Abuse of History” is an early work of Nietzsche’s in which he questions the overly scholarly studies of history and asks “How are such studies serving or not serving life?” - Summary by Public Domain Scholar

Capítulos

Select a chapter to play

Preface 3:39 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section I 16:15 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section II 12:04 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section III 9:57 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section IV 14:22 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section V 12:41 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section VI 18:04 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section VII 12:54 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section VIII 16:47 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section IX 24:11 Leído por Public Domain Scholar
Section X 19:55 Leído por Public Domain Scholar

Reseñas

Sound uncannily like bad AI


(1 estrella)

If this is really the voice of a human reader, I must say it is a voice that sounds uncannily like the bad AI voices we used to hear a few years ago. Public Domain Scholar breaks sentences into such bizarre chunks the meaning of each sentence is almost impossible to discern. I am afraid I find this flat and broken mode of delivery all but impossible to listen to. I suspect, frankly, the project may be a prank of some kind (someone writing a PhD on fakery, perhaps), but of course I cannot prove that.