Gemes says that Nietzsche wants us - after we have passed through nihilism - to "create strong values and back those values up with our drives", so that we can create great works of art and philosophy. Of course, Nietzsche wants to go far beyond that towards a world-historical moment comparable to the arrival of Dionysos in ancient Greece, the founding of Rome of the founding of the Church, or the Renaissance. The point is that it is only in such world historical moments that great art and philosophy is possible.
There's no thing such as a world historical moment because nobody can define what that even means. Perhaps you can? I doubt it. Great art, which is in the mind of the observer, can occur at any random time. The same with regards to philosophy.
@@Richie.G.String Who said they were "flawless"? Strawman argument. Nietzsche also saw the Laws of Manu [Indian, not European] in the same light. So not all "old europeans"
@@Richie.G.String Nietizsche could define it & he did. How many times have we heard this Nihilistic "no such thing" from you? Nietzsche clearly defined those world historical moments, whether they be Manu in India, Heraclitus in Greece, Caesar in Rome, Raphael in the Renaissance or Napoleon in the 19th century. Indeed, the moment of his own Zarathustra!
Compassion is not actually a command. Nobody ever read the words, "You shall love your neighbor", then afterwards began to love their neighbor. Love doesn't work that way. Love comes from the heart, or it comes not at all ! More generally one does not become moral by following moral commands, but instead by his desire to be moral. He who follows moral commands in the hope of being rewarded for his goodness is essentially evil in his heart, for he has no actual love for morality itself, but only for the potential rewards that come from seeming to be moral.
29:50 How on earth can anyone who's read any amount of Nietzsche conclude that he is an endorser of nihilism? Perhaps as a stepping stone and a temporary state on the path to new values, but it's extremely clear that nihilism is not the end goal.
Continued references to the need for ‘free spirits’ who’d become the gardeners of the world’s soils, making it rich for the growth of some as of yet unseen ‘Great Man’, who would himself become the architect of the future and a new kind of human, was perhaps the central point in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ and ‘The Will to Power’. So aye, nihilism is a necessary collective death preceding the rising phoenix- the inevitable noble climb of humanity towards its collective future on further soils, with sufficient grandeur, and grandiosity, to toil those soils for the seeds of yet unseen future philosophies and arts. It’s all part of the great plan of humanity: to overcome and transcend itself, and to become human; all *too* human, more than human, and beyond.
We evolved in a small social system, a less differentiated society. An overarching authority seems required to maintain a large population with diverse values. That external, overarching authority creates a bond of ‘agree to disagree’. What is the divide and conquer driving mechanism and for what purpose? Can individual exist without family and some form of society? Can a planet exist outside of the solar system; the solar system outside of galaxy; galaxy without the overarching effect of the singularity? When you split the atom there is only death.
I feel that Nietzsche was misunderstood and overlooked regarding the hopeless and existential meaningless of life in General that Society would feel as a whole. I think the Jungian Concept of the Collective Unconscious is viewed as a mythical fantasy by a majority of the modern world, but Nietzsche was trying to explain the Collective Unconscious Nihilism we would feel. As humanity, we must get thru Nihilism as a Collective Unconscious.
would sublimation be some form of meta programming? the man that can make himself would be like a computer that rewrites its own code it seems to me...
I see sublimation as the redirection of drives towards another outcome. An example may be an artist has sexual desire for another. Instead of satisfying those drives through sex, the artist draws or paints their desired. The drive has been sublimated into art. That is how I conceive of it, anyway
No, nihilism is not a failure to find any value or meaning for all of existence, rather it is the rejection of the inherent value and meaningfulness in one's own existence as a human being. The nihilists says my existence as a human being means nothing, then asks me to prove to him otherwise. I reply your asking for a proof is the proof itself.
But is the origin of an intrinsic value a drive, or is it the intrinsic value that causes the drive ? Sure, you value the Coke because you are driven to drink something you enjoy, but what of your enjoyment? The intrinsic value here -- at least for you -- is your enjoyment, not the Coke itself. The Coke merely has an instrumental value for you as a means to your enjoyment, it has no intrinsic value just sitting there in the can or bottle. It's only when you drink the Coke and it produces your enjoyment of tasting it that it has any value for you. It's an instrument for producing your pleasure, and the drive to drink it is caused by your intrinsically valuing your own enjoyment. Again, Nietzsche gets it wrong, human beings are not ultimately controlled by their instinctual drives, but by their intrinsic values. This is why drives can be resisted. You chose to lecture rather than drink the Coke. Sure, you can say your drive to lecture was stronger than your drive to drink the Coke, but your drive to lecture gets all its strength and its very existence from your valuing your standing as a good lecturer. After all, how could you even value being a good lecturer in the first place if, like a mere animal, you were completely controlled by biological drives? No, if that were the case, your drive for the taste and refreshment of the Coke would surely have overcome you. Values, not drives, are the ultimate motivation for human beings.
Are you sure those values have no basis other than God ? Like species, values survive in the struggle for existence, so the mere fact that a value has survived for millenniums attests to its importance for life. Jesus did not invent compassion, he sacrificed himself as a testament to it !
@@AlbertAlbertB. its at peace with meaninglessness, if you would equate the two... i guess there's mant types of nihilism in philosophy; i'd like to learn more
@@theodoricsmith577 yes~ because morality fails to see the value in the so-called bad or evil ...and i think this is a dire mistake ( when people label something as evil and then ignore it or shun it; to me, this is losing out on all of the subtleties of life... its perceiving the world in blocks and not layers and intertwining of things... much like in samuel beckett's writing; it seems that zen in books points to that, and does appreciate it, even moreso than most; but- the taking of the precepts is very black and white, in delineating moral behaviors amd etc. ) its why i didnt take the precepts...
The question Nietzsche fails to ask: How long will an otherwise weak human species survive against its often fierce competitors, against its frequently hostile environment, and against its most deadly enemy of them all, itself, without any compassion whatsoever ? ANSWER: Not for very fucking long ! Compassion is not some arbitrary value invented by the weak in order to subvert the will of the strong, as Nietzsche has it. It's a survival mechanism for uniting a species that would not stand any chance of survival whatsoever, if each man had to stand alone ever distrustful of his neighbors intentions and good will towards himself. If you think men will still be united to some degree by their own rational self-interest, then you severely overrated the rationality of men. For, while you have the 'self-interest' part right, the fears, prejudices, and distrust of men will soon override their weak rationality and obscure their clear thinking, and the thought that 'I must first kill my neighbor or be killed by him' will soon creep into their minds and be an ever-present demon haunting their souls -- especially when they watch their neighbors so quickly, easily and coldly slaying each other in their constant struggle for power and survival. Without compassion, fear and distrust will come to rule the human mind. I'm not saying these men will not have the courage to kill, but just the opposite -- their fear will motivate them to try to kill first before they themselves are killed. This is a recipe for the ultimate death and the final extinction of an otherwise weak and helpless species -- whose life on this planet will become nasty, brutish, and short.
Y'know that as soon as "capitalism" is mentioned that that person is a reductive post-modernist and not only misinterprets Nietzsche but actually inverts what Nietzsche stresses to avoid to suit their own pathology of weakness as a "good".
What I have understood by the rich scriptures like The Gita, Veda, Purana and Upanishads actually the other religions haven't been contemplated into the drive of asking God in the conversational manner like done between Prahalad ( the devotee of Vishnu and Yama or the God of death 🙏🙏
This is great. Thanks for sharing!
Gemes says that Nietzsche wants us - after we have passed through nihilism - to "create strong values and back those values up with our drives", so that we can create great works of art and philosophy. Of course, Nietzsche wants to go far beyond that towards a world-historical moment comparable to the arrival of Dionysos in ancient Greece, the founding of Rome of the founding of the Church, or the Renaissance. The point is that it is only in such world historical moments that great art and philosophy is possible.
WRONG! Nietzsche understood the flaws underlying the documented thoughts of those old europeans.
There's no thing such as a world historical moment because nobody can define what that even means. Perhaps you can? I doubt it. Great art, which is in the mind of the observer, can occur at any random time. The same with regards to philosophy.
@@Richie.G.String Who said they were "flawless"? Strawman argument. Nietzsche also saw the Laws of Manu [Indian, not European] in the same light. So not all "old europeans"
@@Richie.G.String Nietizsche could define it & he did. How many times have we heard this Nihilistic "no such thing" from you? Nietzsche clearly defined those world historical moments, whether they be Manu in India, Heraclitus in Greece, Caesar in Rome, Raphael in the Renaissance or Napoleon in the 19th century.
Indeed, the moment of his own Zarathustra!
Compassion is not actually a command. Nobody ever read the words, "You shall love your neighbor", then afterwards began to love their neighbor. Love doesn't work that way. Love comes from the heart, or it comes not at all !
More generally one does not become moral by following moral commands, but instead by his desire to be moral. He who follows moral commands in the hope of being rewarded for his goodness is essentially evil in his heart, for he has no actual love for morality itself, but only for the potential rewards that come from seeming to be moral.
Great lecture, thanks for the upload
Another small list freddy n's name is on is, people from the 19th century that will be remembered in 2000 years
29:50 How on earth can anyone who's read any amount of Nietzsche conclude that he is an endorser of nihilism? Perhaps as a stepping stone and a temporary state on the path to new values, but it's extremely clear that nihilism is not the end goal.
Continued references to the need for ‘free spirits’ who’d become the gardeners of the world’s soils, making it rich for the growth of some as of yet unseen ‘Great Man’, who would himself become the architect of the future and a new kind of human, was perhaps the central point in ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ and ‘The Will to Power’.
So aye, nihilism is a necessary collective death preceding the rising phoenix- the inevitable noble climb of humanity towards its collective future on further soils, with sufficient grandeur, and grandiosity, to toil those soils for the seeds of yet unseen future philosophies and arts.
It’s all part of the great plan of humanity: to overcome and transcend itself, and to become human; all *too* human, more than human, and beyond.
37:00 answers ur point, it is a necessary stepping stone
How on earth can anyone who's had this question not have the patience to finish the the lecture and recieve the answer
he is a moral nihilist
We evolved in a small social system, a less differentiated society. An overarching authority seems required to maintain a large population with diverse values. That external, overarching authority creates a bond of ‘agree to disagree’.
What is the divide and conquer driving mechanism and for what purpose? Can individual exist without family and some form of society? Can a planet exist outside of the solar system; the solar system outside of galaxy; galaxy without the overarching effect of the singularity?
When you split the atom there is only death.
I feel that Nietzsche was misunderstood and overlooked regarding the hopeless and existential meaningless of life in General that Society would feel as a whole. I think the Jungian Concept of the Collective Unconscious is viewed as a mythical fantasy by a majority of the modern world, but Nietzsche was trying to explain the Collective Unconscious Nihilism we would feel. As humanity, we must get thru Nihilism as a Collective Unconscious.
would sublimation be some form of meta programming? the man that can make himself would be like a computer that rewrites its own code it seems to me...
I see sublimation as the redirection of drives towards another outcome. An example may be an artist has sexual desire for another. Instead of satisfying those drives through sex, the artist draws or paints their desired. The drive has been sublimated into art. That is how I conceive of it, anyway
No, nihilism is not a failure to find any value or meaning for all of existence, rather it is the rejection of the inherent value and meaningfulness in one's own existence as a human being. The nihilists says my existence as a human being means nothing, then asks me to prove to him otherwise. I reply your asking for a proof is the proof itself.
Stop! I never feel "regret" when I drink coffee nir do I feel dissatisfied when I drink it, quite the opposite.
But is the origin of an intrinsic value a drive, or is it the intrinsic value that causes the drive ? Sure, you value the Coke because you are driven to drink something you enjoy, but what of your enjoyment? The intrinsic value here -- at least for you -- is your enjoyment, not the Coke itself. The Coke merely has an instrumental value for you as a means to your enjoyment, it has no intrinsic value just sitting there in the can or bottle. It's only when you drink the Coke and it produces your enjoyment of tasting it that it has any value for you. It's an instrument for producing your pleasure, and the drive to drink it is caused by your intrinsically valuing your own enjoyment.
Again, Nietzsche gets it wrong, human beings are not ultimately controlled by their instinctual drives, but by their intrinsic values. This is why drives can be resisted. You chose to lecture rather than drink the Coke. Sure, you can say your drive to lecture was stronger than your drive to drink the Coke, but your drive to lecture gets all its strength and its very existence from your valuing your standing as a good lecturer. After all, how could you even value being a good lecturer in the first place if, like a mere animal, you were completely controlled by biological drives? No, if that were the case, your drive for the taste and refreshment of the Coke would surely have overcome you.
Values, not drives, are the ultimate motivation for human beings.
So frustration and despair are the same? Leave it to philosophers to complicate something that is not complicated.
Are you sure those values have no basis other than God ? Like species, values survive in the struggle for existence, so the mere fact that a value has survived for millenniums attests to its importance for life. Jesus did not invent compassion, he sacrificed himself as a testament to it !
did he think that zen buddhism was in error with its moral precepts? zen has much nihilism but perhaps is spoiled by morality...
To point I think. Spoiled by morality?
Buddhism nihilistic? Nihilism is abyss, while buddhism tries to find the light, does it not?
@@AlbertAlbertB. its at peace with meaninglessness, if you would equate the two... i guess there's mant types of nihilism in philosophy; i'd like to learn more
@@theodoricsmith577 yes~ because morality fails to see the value in the so-called bad or evil ...and i think this is a dire mistake
( when people label something as evil and then ignore it or shun it; to me, this is losing out on all of the subtleties of life... its perceiving the world in blocks and not layers and intertwining of things... much like in samuel beckett's writing; it seems that zen in books points to that, and does appreciate it, even moreso than most; but- the taking of the precepts is very black and white, in delineating moral behaviors amd etc. )
its why i didnt take the precepts...
[ nihilsim to me, would be, to accept all things, both light and dark, because zen /chan buddhism goes beyind duality ]
The question Nietzsche fails to ask: How long will an otherwise weak human species survive against its often fierce competitors, against its frequently hostile environment, and against its most deadly enemy of them all, itself, without any compassion whatsoever ?
ANSWER: Not for very fucking long !
Compassion is not some arbitrary value invented by the weak in order to subvert the will of the strong, as Nietzsche has it. It's a survival mechanism for uniting a species that would not stand any chance of survival whatsoever, if each man had to stand alone ever distrustful of his neighbors intentions and good will towards himself.
If you think men will still be united to some degree by their own rational self-interest, then you severely overrated the rationality of men. For, while you have the 'self-interest' part right, the fears, prejudices, and distrust of men will soon override their weak rationality and obscure their clear thinking, and the thought that 'I must first kill my neighbor or be killed by him' will soon creep into their minds and be an ever-present demon haunting their souls -- especially when they watch their neighbors so quickly, easily and coldly slaying each other in their constant struggle for power and survival. Without compassion, fear and distrust will come to rule the human mind. I'm not saying these men will not have the courage to kill, but just the opposite -- their fear will motivate them to try to kill first before they themselves are killed. This is a recipe for the ultimate death and the final extinction of an otherwise weak and helpless species -- whose life on this planet will become nasty, brutish, and short.
dumbest question of the decade @ 39:25. Yikes
Y'know that as soon as "capitalism" is mentioned that that person is a reductive post-modernist and not only misinterprets Nietzsche but actually inverts what Nietzsche stresses to avoid to suit their own pathology of weakness as a "good".
What I have understood by the rich scriptures like The Gita, Veda, Purana and Upanishads actually the other religions haven't been contemplated into the drive of asking God in the conversational manner like done between Prahalad ( the devotee of Vishnu and Yama or the God of death 🙏🙏
I'm kinda of nihilistic even as a kid never had meaning or cared about life so I can relate to Nihilism the most then any other philosophy
Poor man
ähä
This guy sounds like a gay science
The Worst reading of Nietzsche I’ve heard; quite remarkable how a “professor” got it so absurdly wrong
This is a great reading on Nietzsche, especially the part about the herd remaining Christian.
Unless you have read Schopenhauer and Freud you cannot understand the meanderings of an infantile man in history of the Western Civilization.
Did you just call Nietzsche an infantile man?
Freud was unremarkable and an idiot.