Summary: 1) Avoidance (Will attempts to regulate self directly) 2) Indulgence (Will regulated by overindulgence and self-disgust) 3) Prohibition (Will as unconquerable, regulated by external power) 4) Shame (Will as unconquerable, regulated by desire for approval / external morality / self hatred) 5) Sublimation (Will regulated though distraction) 6) Masochism (Will as unconquerable, regulated through self destructive privation and suffering) Seems to me that 2, 3, 4 and 6 share a sort of anti-life anti-human slave morality concept in common. Each relies on hatred of the self or fear of group punishment and powerlessness as a means of not dealing directly with the problems presented by The Will. Number one is oxymoronic. Number 2 is an inversion of 3. 5 is similar to 1. None of these are entirely satisfactory. However some are far worse than others. In my experience a combination of indulgence and sublimation work the best to avoid self-destruction. Indulgence can teach one the limits of one’s will and map out the benefits and pitfalls of a particular drive. Sublimation can sometimes substitute one drive for another but for this to be successful the substitute must be more powerful than the drive being replaced. Sublimation also risks the achievement of empty meaningless or even destructive goals in the attempt to avoid reckoning with some Will that one is unable to come to terms with. In the end I find it best to reckon with one’s drives directly. This requires first knowing ones drives and then excepting the drive itself without judgment. Only then can the drive be integrated into one’s consciousness and accommodated in ways that serve ones life. Or is Nietzsche might say one’s will to power. ;-)
I think all of these methods are valid but each in different circumstances. At the end they are just a methods and no method is universal. They work when used in appropriate circumstance. It is just our knowledge and wisdom that we need when to apply which method and never think that there can be one universal solution to all problems or even problems that appear same or similar.
Daybreak 109: Nietzsche's Guide to Self-Control (Dealing with Vehement Drives) 01:09 📚 Nietzsche's Daybreak offers practical advice for day-to-day living, a departure from his more philosophical works. 03:36 🤔 Nietzsche challenges the traditional view of the self as a unitary being and instead presents it as a multiplicity of impulses and drives. 06:49 ⏳ T.S. Eliot's poem highlights the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the self, challenging the idea of a consistent identity. 10:09 🧘♂ Buddhism's perspective on the self as aggregates or heaps offers an alternative to the Western concept of a centralized, consistent self. 16:10 🤷♂ Saint Paul's dilemma in Romans underscores the paradox of human will and desire, especially in the context of free will doctrine. 19:30 🤯 People often experience an internal conflict when trying to control their willpower, which aligns more with Nietzsche's view of the self as a multiplicity of conflicting drives. 36:24 🚫 Avoiding the occasion for satisfying an impulse is one way to combat vehement drives, by refraining from satisfying it for extended periods. 41:28 ⏰ Imposing a strict and regular schedule for satisfying one's impulses can help regulate them, creating intervals when the impulse is less disturbing. This method can gradually transition into avoidance. 42:52 🍻 Nietzche discusses methods for dealing with vehement drives, such as the desire for alcohol, and how social rituals can help manage them effectively. 44:17 🤔 Nietzche describes a strategy of deliberately indulging in a desire to the point of disgust as a means of gaining control over it, even though it can often lead to negative consequences. 46:25 🧠 Nietzche discusses an intellectual trick where one associates the idea of gratification with painful thoughts or consequences, making the desire itself feel painful and thus easier to control. 48:43 👥 Nietzche explains the role of imagination and culture in creating automatic associations of shame or fear with certain behaviors, helping individuals control their impulses. 55:18 💪 Nietzche suggests redirecting one's energy into challenging tasks or alternative pleasures as a way to subdue a dominant impulse, but acknowledges this method may only work for a few. 01:01:02 🚫 Nietzche discusses the ascetic method, where one weakens and subdues their entire physical and psychological self to control a single overpowering instinct or desire. 01:03:08 🧘♂ The deadening of the entire organism is a powerful strategy to combat vehement drives, but it comes with significant trade-offs. 01:03:36 🤯 Nietzsche outlines six methods for dealing with vehement drives, including shunning opportunities, regulating impulses, inducing satiety and disgust, associating with painful ideas, dislocating one's forces, and inducing general debility and exhaustion. 01:04:31 🧠 The intellect is not an independent entity but is driven by competing impulses, and the perception of inner conflict arises when one impulse competes with another. 01:05:14 ⚖ Nietzsche's methods for combating vehement drives are all rooted in the principle of nourishment, either directly or indirectly aiming to control the nourishment of these drives. 01:06:22 ⚔ Nietzsche suggests that controlling one's impulses is akin to a war where competing impulses attempt to cut off each other's supply lines, ultimately relying on starving or regulating these impulses for self-governance. 01:07:31 🤷♂ Nietzsche acknowledges that there is no universal prescription for managing vehement drives, and self-experimentation is often required to discover what works in individual cases. 01:08:14 🔄 William James emphasizes the significance of habit and how every small decision shapes our character and behavior, urging individuals to pay attention to their conduct during their formative years.
Its funny, but i stopped drinking completely only after method 3. The schedule of drinking just doesn't work because of the amount of triggers in our modern society and you can't decide to avoid alcohol forever until you hit rock bottom and feel all this terrible influnce of acid on your conscience, decision making and emotions. But this method doesn't work for smoking nicotine, because its very difficult to hit rock bottom with cigarettes until you have cancer :)
I love buddhism that said environmental circumstances can make the attainment of a middle nirvanic way impossible so buddhism runs into a sort of practical dead end when extremes are forced upon us.
1:00:00 this point of your so called spiritual overriding of the bodies desires, is just another drive. is made constantly by ug krishnamurti, saying "your goal of enlightenment/peace is the thing that disrupts the peace that is already there"
13:30 really an excellent point regarding prohibition and why it appeared to be the solution for paternal and spousal abandonment. The thing about compulsive behaviors is you cannot treat a compulsion directly if you're trying to cure it. You can substitute a new one by addressing only the compulsion, which is what 12-step recovery does. Addiction is not a disease per se, at least insofar as substance use disorder isn't primary pathology. Tolerance and withdrawal are known side effects, not a disease. We observe strong behavioral heritability with other compulsions as well, but parents with drinking problems often raise kids with drinking problems because their kids have sociopath and narcissist parents who will want a gold star just because they get sober. This is not a population that typically requires praise or encouragement to pursue its own interests, but that's probably because making sure to do so at your expense keeps their egos nice and happy If they want a gold star they should not continue to gyp their kids with the injustice of shit parenting. The compulsion is the symptom, but of course someone who is incapable of mutuality who definitely takes more from their kids than they give them doesn't see that as their problem and has already been blaming the substance rather than taking responsibility all along anyway.. Steps 4 and 5 in the 12 step model force self-examination and steps 8 and 9 force accountability. So it's essentially a workaround for knocking the rough edges off antisocial behavior and substitutes meeting attendance for the compulsion and group approval for the substance. And see it's useful to the organization if they don't cure you right, it allows perpetrators to hijack a victim narrative with self-reported self-assessment, so that's where the potential to gloat over ripping off society is, I guess. Fitting then that the treatment industry is so bogus, as the disease model of addiction ensures chronicity.. Compulsions distract us from obsessions (unresolved anxieties). It is the compulsion which keeps the obsession relegated to our unconscious. So in general stress doesn't really activate compulsive behavior directly but as the indirect result of refusing to introspect. Blaming one's behavior on a made-up disease is a great way to do that. Guilt isn't excused by disease or insanity, AAMOF it's this very irrationality though that guarantees cultural immorality.
6:26 also a concept that bhuddism shares . The dynamic self as you put it. Very interesting idea and one I believe to be true. A patient with Alzheimer a clear indicator memory plays an integral role in the construction of a personality. And memory varies greatly even in healthy brains .
Thank you for making these in-depth videos. I think this one really outlines the problem of Nietzsche because his basic conception of will and control here is almost 1 to 1 that of Thomas Aquinas, which Nietzsche probably was never aware of throughout his lifetime. I think that’s the frustrating thing about him. For as clever as he is, his „philosophy“ (or I guess „commentary“ is a better word? As Nietzsche is a philosopher in the sense in which Tucker Carlson is a political figure) is sort of embryonically tainted because he constantly tilts at windmills in his ideas about Christianity, Hellenistic society, biology/evolution and the works of other philosophers. There is a sense in which Nietzsche is a sort of first „step of simulacra“ (in the beaudrillardian sense) because instead of reconnecting the contemporary representations of his time of Christianity, western history, philosophy, etc… to their approximate/revelatory „essences“ he takes them at face value and then „wrestles down“ these face value representations. So to a contemporary Christian he always seems like a complete raving madman because most of his conceptions of what is and isn’t Christianity are really only found in what we would call „the excesses of the 19th century“ (overemphasis on hell, a sort of moral hypochondria, etc…) even though he does very much recognise many of the flaws of the wider Christian „mainstream“ of his time. Even his, by todays neurological/biological standards, untenable material explanations of the phenomena of free will/consciousness, can be seen as very much merited in the heavily idealistic aristocratic culture of the 19th. So I am still undecided about him. Sometimes he is so delusionally separated from reality that he seems like a complete schizo (genealogy of morals for example) who can only be understood as an unfortunate consequence of his own era, and then at other times he is sort of a beautiful „negation“ of his contemporary world (concept of will to power for example) who seemed almost necessary to „synthesise“ (in the Hegelian sense) the 19th century. Maths being his worst subject shows very hard btw, especially in his chronic inability to understand what metaphysics are. Or maybe he just wilfully misunderstands the topic in order to not have to deal with it. Who knows. So I will keep watching until I can make up my mind about his use. Keep up the good work.
No wonder Nietzsche was cast so far from the overman; he was running from what I can tell. It’s surprising that this is how he operated after reading Zarathustra. These methods he’s distilled under the guise of “self control” reek of 6 ways to run. Where is the mastery? Where is the understanding of the onset of the drive and more consciously leading the cattle to water when it’s thirsty rather than praying that the cattle won’t ruin the pastures in search of the water? Not to say that all impulses should be naively satiated rather the need of the impulse must be understood as to intentionally meet the lack of the certain impulse as the farmer, not the emancipated cattle. If self masterly is an internal war within you, should you win don’t you lose? Do we blame the cattle for acting out of hunger and thirst? Or do we choose how we feed it? Nietzsche is still my favorite philosopher and this was a great video, I just find this perspective way too confining.
Are all drives at all times prudent for life? That is, aren't there some diseased cattle that shouldn't be led to water at all and instead killed? As circumstances change we need to adapt our drives. It's hard to determine if it's societal guilt or a genuine reflection of the self when we feel the need to shed old desires. However, whenever we're certain that our Will within longs for change, we need methods to reform and construct more useful habits
I'm probably at a point where I am conflating ideas but I have a hard time hearing his suggestions for controlling these drives and the concept of accepting life as it comes and my own will. I'm not at a point anymore, as I was as a Christian, where certain things were viewed as sinful. It took longer to break away from shame or guilt. Now however my concern is time and conformity, I can't achieve my greater desires if I waste time on the lower and cannot spend time with people for some of the "lower" drives. I want a drive that satisfies all other drives, where I can say "it is worth regulating these drives for this". I have it in a way but its too vague in my mind, perhaps visualizing it or spending more time on in will indeed help it to grow. Part of the problem is what I want now that takes time. If the drive is good enough, if the goal is good enough it should be worth the time investment. I feel like the man in the mirror who forgets his own face. Like I'm forgetting something, or missing something. I know in part what I need to do. If I am to look at my drives like a war, the instant gratifications do rear their head when I look to something greater. I feel like I can see where one would make demons of these types of drives in any context. Yet I don't want to hate this part of myself, I want to give it what its seeking on a more fundamental level. I just watched the will to power podcast yesterday but feel like I've forgotten it all, I don't understand why this happens but I want to start accepting things aren't understood instantly. I feel like I've known Nietzsche forever but in the span of my life it truly hasn't been that long.
Aarvoll is an obscure youtuber who's very deeply committed to platonism and who I've followed for a few years. Don't think he's aware of you, but I think a discussion between you both would be brilliant--and he's always been open to engaging with different voices
Quite interesting you are familiar with the Christian mystics, to me nietzsche's style is the most similar to a Mystic there is, except that his revelation comes from a personal and pseudo materialist, psychological view point.
That depends on man being a rational animal and the passions/spirit yielding to reason. To Nietzsche, this is no solution, for we are not rational animals.
@@6ixthhydro652 You don't believe you must control your desires? You don't think you have to use logic to figure out how to live life? You don't believe your mind (same thing as soul essentially) has any power? Plato's plan for raising children this way WORKS and has transformed the world.(Not communally, but by parents).
@@untimelyreflections We put a man on the moon without logic, without figuring out a whole bunch of stuff? If we are not rational, then we have no will.
@@ozzy5146 There's a difference between having the ability to reason logically and logic determining your actions in the form of an arbitrarily governing free will. The fact that we went to the moon is therefore irrelevant to the argument at hand. You're correct that if we're not rational, we have no free will. But we do have will. As Schopenhauer wrote, "A man cannot choose what he wills - but he wills what he wills."
I would disagree that Christianity gives up on virtue. I think the teaching that you are referring to in Romans is one that is put forward by St Paul, and not necessarily by Jesus. The good samaritan parable is a good example - the expert in the law asks Jesus how to have eternal life, and Jesus replies, love god and love your neighbour. In other words, act virtuously towards each other out of love. This is the example set by the Samaritan, and Jesus says we should do likewise. Paul seriously misses out on this by saying we are justified by faith alone... Perhaps this is why the book of James responds saying that faith without works is dead. Paul never met Jesus and his teachings show it.
Hmm. That's not my understanding of buddhism. And, St. paul could in no way be described as being within thr christian tradition ...st pauls writings are just what they are and he does not describe human nature in the way you use. I would say he says there is no human nature at all. This has significant implications. St paul and buddha are very close in this regard. That is; there is no human nature .
Stoicism and how does N refract on that nest of ideas. You're a jerk but you've given me hope that young people still think. After a worthless PhD and publishing poems for 50 dollars a hit isn't what I expected.
Summary:
1) Avoidance (Will attempts to regulate self directly)
2) Indulgence (Will regulated by overindulgence and self-disgust)
3) Prohibition (Will as unconquerable, regulated by external power)
4) Shame (Will as unconquerable, regulated by desire for approval / external morality / self hatred)
5) Sublimation (Will regulated though distraction)
6) Masochism (Will as unconquerable, regulated through self destructive privation and suffering)
Seems to me that 2, 3, 4 and 6 share a sort of anti-life anti-human slave morality concept in common. Each relies on hatred of the self or fear of group punishment and powerlessness as a means of not dealing directly with the problems presented by The Will. Number one is oxymoronic. Number 2 is an inversion of 3. 5 is similar to 1.
None of these are entirely satisfactory. However some are far worse than others. In my experience a combination of indulgence and sublimation work the best to avoid self-destruction. Indulgence can teach one the limits of one’s will and map out the benefits and pitfalls of a particular drive. Sublimation can sometimes substitute one drive for another but for this to be successful the substitute must be more powerful than the drive being replaced. Sublimation also risks the achievement of empty meaningless or even destructive goals in the attempt to avoid reckoning with some Will that one is unable to come to terms with.
In the end I find it best to reckon with one’s drives directly. This requires first knowing ones drives and then excepting the drive itself without judgment. Only then can the drive be integrated into one’s consciousness and accommodated in ways that serve ones life. Or is Nietzsche might say one’s will to power. ;-)
I think all of these methods are valid but each in different circumstances. At the end they are just a methods and no method is universal. They work when used in appropriate circumstance. It is just our knowledge and wisdom that we need when to apply which method and never think that there can be one universal solution to all problems or even problems that appear same or similar.
There are so many pearls and golden nuggets (from you and FN) in this, I’m having to listen to it multiple times. Thank you.
Daybreak 109: Nietzsche's Guide to Self-Control (Dealing with Vehement Drives)
01:09 📚 Nietzsche's Daybreak offers practical advice for day-to-day living, a departure from his more philosophical works.
03:36 🤔 Nietzsche challenges the traditional view of the self as a unitary being and instead presents it as a multiplicity of impulses and drives.
06:49 ⏳ T.S. Eliot's poem highlights the dynamic and ever-changing nature of the self, challenging the idea of a consistent identity.
10:09 🧘♂ Buddhism's perspective on the self as aggregates or heaps offers an alternative to the Western concept of a centralized, consistent self.
16:10 🤷♂ Saint Paul's dilemma in Romans underscores the paradox of human will and desire, especially in the context of free will doctrine.
19:30 🤯 People often experience an internal conflict when trying to control their willpower, which aligns more with Nietzsche's view of the self as a multiplicity of conflicting drives.
36:24 🚫 Avoiding the occasion for satisfying an impulse is one way to combat vehement drives, by refraining from satisfying it for extended periods.
41:28 ⏰ Imposing a strict and regular schedule for satisfying one's impulses can help regulate them, creating intervals when the impulse is less disturbing. This method can gradually transition into avoidance.
42:52 🍻 Nietzche discusses methods for dealing with vehement drives, such as the desire for alcohol, and how social rituals can help manage them effectively.
44:17 🤔 Nietzche describes a strategy of deliberately indulging in a desire to the point of disgust as a means of gaining control over it, even though it can often lead to negative consequences.
46:25 🧠 Nietzche discusses an intellectual trick where one associates the idea of gratification with painful thoughts or consequences, making the desire itself feel painful and thus easier to control.
48:43 👥 Nietzche explains the role of imagination and culture in creating automatic associations of shame or fear with certain behaviors, helping individuals control their impulses.
55:18 💪 Nietzche suggests redirecting one's energy into challenging tasks or alternative pleasures as a way to subdue a dominant impulse, but acknowledges this method may only work for a few.
01:01:02 🚫 Nietzche discusses the ascetic method, where one weakens and subdues their entire physical and psychological self to control a single overpowering instinct or desire.
01:03:08 🧘♂ The deadening of the entire organism is a powerful strategy to combat vehement drives, but it comes with significant trade-offs.
01:03:36 🤯 Nietzsche outlines six methods for dealing with vehement drives, including shunning opportunities, regulating impulses, inducing satiety and disgust, associating with painful ideas, dislocating one's forces, and inducing general debility and exhaustion.
01:04:31 🧠 The intellect is not an independent entity but is driven by competing impulses, and the perception of inner conflict arises when one impulse competes with another.
01:05:14 ⚖ Nietzsche's methods for combating vehement drives are all rooted in the principle of nourishment, either directly or indirectly aiming to control the nourishment of these drives.
01:06:22 ⚔ Nietzsche suggests that controlling one's impulses is akin to a war where competing impulses attempt to cut off each other's supply lines, ultimately relying on starving or regulating these impulses for self-governance.
01:07:31 🤷♂ Nietzsche acknowledges that there is no universal prescription for managing vehement drives, and self-experimentation is often required to discover what works in individual cases.
01:08:14 🔄 William James emphasizes the significance of habit and how every small decision shapes our character and behavior, urging individuals to pay attention to their conduct during their formative years.
Its funny, but i stopped drinking completely only after method 3. The schedule of drinking just doesn't work because of the amount of triggers in our modern society and you can't decide to avoid alcohol forever until you hit rock bottom and feel all this terrible influnce of acid on your conscience, decision making and emotions. But this method doesn't work for smoking nicotine, because its very difficult to hit rock bottom with cigarettes until you have cancer :)
I love buddhism that said environmental circumstances can make the attainment of a middle nirvanic way impossible so buddhism runs into a sort of practical dead end when extremes are forced upon us.
1:00:00 this point of your so called spiritual overriding of the bodies desires, is just another drive. is made constantly by ug krishnamurti, saying "your goal of enlightenment/peace is the thing that disrupts the peace that is already there"
13:30 really an excellent point regarding prohibition and why it appeared to be the solution for paternal and spousal abandonment. The thing about compulsive behaviors is you cannot treat a compulsion directly if you're trying to cure it. You can substitute a new one by addressing only the compulsion, which is what 12-step recovery does. Addiction is not a disease per se, at least insofar as substance use disorder isn't primary pathology. Tolerance and withdrawal are known side effects, not a disease. We observe strong behavioral heritability with other compulsions as well, but parents with drinking problems often raise kids with drinking problems because their kids have sociopath and narcissist parents who will want a gold star just because they get sober. This is not a population that typically requires praise or encouragement to pursue its own interests, but that's probably because making sure to do so at your expense keeps their egos nice and happy
If they want a gold star they should not continue to gyp their kids with the injustice of shit parenting. The compulsion is the symptom, but of course someone who is incapable of mutuality who definitely takes more from their kids than they give them doesn't see that as their problem and has already been blaming the substance rather than taking responsibility all along anyway.. Steps 4 and 5 in the 12 step model force self-examination and steps 8 and 9 force accountability. So it's essentially a workaround for knocking the rough edges off antisocial behavior and substitutes meeting attendance for the compulsion and group approval for the substance. And see it's useful to the organization if they don't cure you right, it allows perpetrators to hijack a victim narrative with self-reported self-assessment, so that's where the potential to gloat over ripping off society is, I guess. Fitting then that the treatment industry is so bogus, as the disease model of addiction ensures chronicity..
Compulsions distract us from obsessions (unresolved anxieties). It is the compulsion which keeps the obsession relegated to our unconscious. So in general stress doesn't really activate compulsive behavior directly but as the indirect result of refusing to introspect. Blaming one's behavior on a made-up disease is a great way to do that. Guilt isn't excused by disease or insanity, AAMOF it's this very irrationality though that guarantees cultural immorality.
6:26 also a concept that bhuddism shares . The dynamic self as you put it. Very interesting idea and one I believe to be true.
A patient with Alzheimer a clear indicator memory plays an integral role in the construction of a personality. And memory varies greatly even in healthy brains .
Really needed this one, for addiction. Thank you. 🙏
Exquisite
.Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge
Thank you for making these in-depth videos.
I think this one really outlines the problem of Nietzsche because his basic conception of will and control here is almost 1 to 1 that of Thomas Aquinas, which Nietzsche probably was never aware of throughout his lifetime.
I think that’s the frustrating thing about him. For as clever as he is, his „philosophy“ (or I guess „commentary“ is a better word? As Nietzsche is a philosopher in the sense in which Tucker Carlson is a political figure) is sort of embryonically tainted because he constantly tilts at windmills in his ideas about Christianity, Hellenistic society, biology/evolution and the works of other philosophers. There is a sense in which Nietzsche is a sort of first „step of simulacra“ (in the beaudrillardian sense) because instead of reconnecting the contemporary representations of his time of Christianity, western history, philosophy, etc… to their approximate/revelatory „essences“ he takes them at face value and then „wrestles down“ these face value representations.
So to a contemporary Christian he always seems like a complete raving madman because most of his conceptions of what is and isn’t Christianity are really only found in what we would call „the excesses of the 19th century“ (overemphasis on hell, a sort of moral hypochondria, etc…) even though he does very much recognise many of the flaws of the wider Christian „mainstream“ of his time. Even his, by todays neurological/biological standards, untenable material explanations of the phenomena of free will/consciousness, can be seen as very much merited in the heavily idealistic aristocratic culture of the 19th.
So I am still undecided about him. Sometimes he is so delusionally separated from reality that he seems like a complete schizo (genealogy of morals for example) who can only be understood as an unfortunate consequence of his own era, and then at other times he is sort of a beautiful „negation“ of his contemporary world (concept of will to power for example) who seemed almost necessary to „synthesise“ (in the Hegelian sense) the 19th century.
Maths being his worst subject shows very hard btw, especially in his chronic inability to understand what metaphysics are. Or maybe he just wilfully misunderstands the topic in order to not have to deal with it. Who knows.
So I will keep watching until I can make up my mind about his use. Keep up the good work.
No wonder Nietzsche was cast so far from the overman; he was running from what I can tell. It’s surprising that this is how he operated after reading Zarathustra. These methods he’s distilled under the guise of “self control” reek of 6 ways to run. Where is the mastery? Where is the understanding of the onset of the drive and more consciously leading the cattle to water when it’s thirsty rather than praying that the cattle won’t ruin the pastures in search of the water? Not to say that all impulses should be naively satiated rather the need of the impulse must be understood as to intentionally meet the lack of the certain impulse as the farmer, not the emancipated cattle. If self masterly is an internal war within you, should you win don’t you lose? Do we blame the cattle for acting out of hunger and thirst? Or do we choose how we feed it?
Nietzsche is still my favorite philosopher and this was a great video, I just find this perspective way too confining.
Are all drives at all times prudent for life? That is, aren't there some diseased cattle that shouldn't be led to water at all and instead killed?
As circumstances change we need to adapt our drives. It's hard to determine if it's societal guilt or a genuine reflection of the self when we feel the need to shed old desires.
However, whenever we're certain that our Will within longs for change, we need methods to reform and construct more useful habits
Thanks
I'm probably at a point where I am conflating ideas but I have a hard time hearing his suggestions for controlling these drives and the concept of accepting life as it comes and my own will. I'm not at a point anymore, as I was as a Christian, where certain things were viewed as sinful. It took longer to break away from shame or guilt. Now however my concern is time and conformity, I can't achieve my greater desires if I waste time on the lower and cannot spend time with people for some of the "lower" drives.
I want a drive that satisfies all other drives, where I can say "it is worth regulating these drives for this". I have it in a way but its too vague in my mind, perhaps visualizing it or spending more time on in will indeed help it to grow. Part of the problem is what I want now that takes time. If the drive is good enough, if the goal is good enough it should be worth the time investment.
I feel like the man in the mirror who forgets his own face. Like I'm forgetting something, or missing something. I know in part what I need to do. If I am to look at my drives like a war, the instant gratifications do rear their head when I look to something greater. I feel like I can see where one would make demons of these types of drives in any context. Yet I don't want to hate this part of myself, I want to give it what its seeking on a more fundamental level.
I just watched the will to power podcast yesterday but feel like I've forgotten it all, I don't understand why this happens but I want to start accepting things aren't understood instantly. I feel like I've known Nietzsche forever but in the span of my life it truly hasn't been that long.
Aarvoll is an obscure youtuber who's very deeply committed to platonism and who I've followed for a few years. Don't think he's aware of you, but I think a discussion between you both would be brilliant--and he's always been open to engaging with different voices
50:38 >fugg
lmao love this dude
Quite interesting you are familiar with the Christian mystics, to me nietzsche's style is the most similar to a Mystic there is, except that his revelation comes from a personal and pseudo materialist, psychological view point.
Based on the topics discussed in this video, is there a Napoleon biography you would recomend?
the "5 aggregates" or Kandhas, is a great work by the buddha, and seems to destroy the so called "hard problem of consciousness"
Goodatimezennie is my favorite Italian 🥧
Seems like Plato's tri-partite soul is the solution.
That depends on man being a rational animal and the passions/spirit yielding to reason. To Nietzsche, this is no solution, for we are not rational animals.
I think that too but I don’t think the metaphysical elements are reasonable to believe in
@@6ixthhydro652 You don't believe you must control your desires? You don't think you have to use logic to figure out how to live life? You don't believe your mind (same thing as soul essentially) has any power? Plato's plan for raising children this way WORKS and has transformed the world.(Not communally, but by parents).
@@untimelyreflections We put a man on the moon without logic, without figuring out a whole bunch of stuff? If we are not rational, then we have no will.
@@ozzy5146 There's a difference between having the ability to reason logically and logic determining your actions in the form of an arbitrarily governing free will. The fact that we went to the moon is therefore irrelevant to the argument at hand.
You're correct that if we're not rational, we have no free will. But we do have will. As Schopenhauer wrote, "A man cannot choose what he wills - but he wills what he wills."
I would disagree that Christianity gives up on virtue. I think the teaching that you are referring to in Romans is one that is put forward by St Paul, and not necessarily by Jesus. The good samaritan parable is a good example - the expert in the law asks Jesus how to have eternal life, and Jesus replies, love god and love your neighbour. In other words, act virtuously towards each other out of love. This is the example set by the Samaritan, and Jesus says we should do likewise. Paul seriously misses out on this by saying we are justified by faith alone... Perhaps this is why the book of James responds saying that faith without works is dead. Paul never met Jesus and his teachings show it.
Hmm.
That's not my understanding of buddhism. And, St. paul could in no way be described as being within thr christian tradition ...st pauls writings are just what they are and he does not describe human nature in the way you use. I would say he says there is no human nature at all. This has significant implications. St paul and buddha are very close in this regard. That is; there is no human nature .
Stoicism and how does N refract on that nest of ideas. You're a jerk but you've given me hope that young people still think. After a worthless PhD and publishing poems for 50 dollars a hit isn't what I expected.