We hope you enjoy this one. Consider it a prequel to our "Why Nietzsche Hated Plato" video. Thanks for all the support! SUPPORT US ON PATREON: ▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
Socrates is remembered because there are more week people then there are strong there are more vengeful cowards then there are heroes. And the mob decided to adopt in immortalize him
Nietzsche was the 'master clickbatter', before internet was even invented. He made propostorous remarks to attract the attention of his readers and enjoyed destroying their presuppositions. He was kind of Socratic in the way that his reproach was a revenge against the philosophers of antiquity still employing dialectics himself to achieve his goals. Now that is some Socratic Irony right there. Quite Meta :P
@@migaru7362 I agree. The idea should be analyzed regardless of who said it, if the idea itself seems worth analyzing. I also feel that not analyzing the person as well can leave out vital information not just about The person but the idea itself. Marx prattles on and on about exploiting the working class and what does he do to the one person his life that he actually employed? He knocked her up, abused her and threw her in the gutter. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t take seriously a mans opinion on how to treat the working class when he treats the working class he encounters that way? Ideas should be analyzed independently but the person shouldn’t be completely ignored either.
I’m not a Nietzsche fanboy myself( I like Plato and Aristotle wayyy more) but Nietzsche doesn’t argue really. He criticizes Plato on something with a cheeky response about Plato’s character, doesn’t offer a solution to the mentioned criticism. He claims that Plato among other create nihilism and the solution to nihilism is the will to power. You might call this an argument but it’s not formal,systematic, or comprehensive and in certain case not even prescriptive(are you really doing what you want if Nietzsche told you so?)
I think its the opposite, Socraties was so good at arguing that people would rather give up striving to live a life that they were convinced was now foolish. They were happy but stupid, Socatise made them ponder just how stupid they where. Ignorance is bliss i guess.
socrates made a career out of arguing. the substance of life shouldn't be in argument. you completely vitiate the existential element. socrates is the pure intellectual who hobbles out of his college rooms looking like skeletor because he's dissociated himself from embodied life and reduced himself to a walking corpse. for all of his inquiries into the meaning of life he's destroyed all of the meaning in life.
except socrates didnt argue, he was simply trying to find answers to questions with the help of other people that they could both happily agree on. problem is that everyone he talked with ended up going in circles without finding any concrete answer or solution that they could both agree on. hence why socrates always claimed that he knew nothing, while the other people who he talked with could not prove their beliefs yet they believed in them and followed them, they could not give a reason why
@@visceraeyes525 if you know nothing you can do nothing because you have no premises from which to operate. that's a recipe for destruction. the athenians knew this and had to put a stop to it. socrates' arguments are made in bad faith. if you've ever argued with someone like socrates you realize quickly what they're doing although you can never get them off of it. socrates was a kvnt. they should have just looked at him and said, "if you're a know nothing then why am i talking to you? why would i waste my time talking to someone who knows nothing?" but, sadly, even this is too much to say to someone as disingenuous as socrates. you simply can't engage them because that's the initial hook of their entire game. he should have just been ignored.
@@conantheseptuagenarian3824 sure but he tried to make people question their beliefs and to be introspective instead of just accepting things that they are taught or expected to believe in while pushing those same beliefs on everyone else to the point that it becomes the norm, yet no one he talked with could explain the reasoning behind their beliefs. obviously the government was afraid of free thinking and punished him with death or exile. a bit ridiculous to punish someone like that for that reason but it goes to show how threatened the government was by free thought
The very use of the word “hated” in the clickety-clickbait title goes completely against Nietzsche’s philosophy of “Beyond Good and Evil”. Nietzsche had many things to say about Socrates, both good and bad. He also wrote a book called the Antichrist, while elsewhere he dubbed Jesus “the noblest human being”. Black and white thinking was the essence of what Nietzsche opposed (and is also on of the signs of bipolar disorder). Nietzsche criticized the dialectic of Socrates, but he also greatly admired him as the philosopher par excellence, as the gadfly of his age, criticizing the hubris of his fellow Athenians. As such, Nietzsche saw himself as the heir to Socrates.
well to be fair "The anti-christ" doesnt attack jesus, it just states that his message was distorted later on by his disciples ( mainly paul and peter) giving focus only to his death and the whole myth of ressurection, salvation and the after-life, instead of his life and teachings and instead of uniting the kingdom of god with THIS life and within everyone, which was what Jesus, according to Nietzsche, was preaching about. If anything it is anti-church/christianity...it's Paul that really sticks out as the "antichrist" figure
FYI Black and white thinking is a symptom of borderline personality disorder, not bipolar disorder. It's a common mistake, behavior popularly termed "bipolar" is usually actually indicative of borderline personality disorder.
Socrates performed an analysis of people in his time. He showed that peoples beliefs were instinctual rather than rational. And what did Nietzsche do, he criticized Christianity, Kant and Schopenhauer, Wagner, science, and ascetic ideals. Nietzsche was a modern Socrates. They were not so different. The Athenian elite were not so nice, not rational and destroyed their own state via the Peloponnesian War. Thank goodness that Basel provided Nietzsche a pension! I love Nietzsche but perspective is needed to understand him. Thanks for the discussion.
In Summary: Socrates: I argue that we should argue. Nietzsche: Well, I argue that we shouldn't argue, because arguing is for weak nerds. Socrates: ...What are you even doing with your life? Nietzsche: I wish I was a king.
This reminds me of how in an argument one person can bully the other into giving up. But that doesn’t mean they are actually right. It just means they can argue better than the other. Reason is not truth, because people do not know all truth. We don’t know everything so we can’t reason the truth. We can only make a hypothesis with the limited information we have. Which is essentially worthless. We don’t even know how wrong we actually are.
For Socrates, general democracy was the mob. They were not that different, after all, but Nietzsche could lean on 2000 years work of others, while Socrates walked out of the postapocalyptic stone age, starting from nearly zero.
I think as you point context matters a lot. And if you look at Nietzsche now he was just out of the middle age too. It’s not like he was omniscient of his conditions because he couldn’t even knew what would arrive 100 years later..
Socrates had centuries of Greek (and Persian!) thought to build on, and if he wanted to back millennia there were the Egyptians--he's about midway between us and the Pyramids.
There were centuries of philosophical work before Socrates was born. Specifically scientific methodology, which is the crown jewel of Western thought. That is NOT nearly zero, you're misinformed.
"Over emphasis on logic. Arguments are a last effort of the weak." Wut. If an argument can defeat your "power" then you never had any. Such a supposed power wouldn't spend his time whining about losing to logic and reality. What a clown.
It would seem I am being recommended the same videos as you late at night (assuming you didn't seek out this video). I'm not sure whether to be thrilled or concerned. Seriously though, love your work, and totally agree.
'If an argument can defeat your power, you never had any.' Socrates' agility and wisdom in public debate did not save him from meeting his end at the hands of the Athenian elite, who he bested verbally and regularly in front of crowds of his peers. I believe that when Nietzsche refers to arguments as being the tool of the powerless, he is merely giving an observation about reality. It must be noted that in Nietzsche's view, it was the powerful that ultimately decided the morality of the day. This is not to say that he necessarily agreed with that system. It's just how things were/are. Socrates DID leave a lasting legacy in the world. However, you must apply Nietzsche's pov to the equation too; Would Socrates' legacy have been known to us if the powers that be did not wish it? Would Socrates' writings have even survived if the hellinistic world had not been such a powerhouse back in the day? Perhaps Hellas would have fallen to the Celtic and Dalmatian tribes of antiquity, causing the records to be lost. What if the European kings had adamantly resisted the enlightenment, when classical Greek thinkers inspired modern philosophy? One decision altered by the [many] powers that were, and you may not have ever heard of Socrates.
I always was under the impression his idea of being right was less logical and more based on his hated mob and the mob mentality. Then again he could be inserting cynicism into in an attempt to be ironic.
Arguments are often a lot like cassation (vs appelation). Not calling out general principles, but calling out on minor discrepancies. We all are living people. We all make mistakes. But our principles form not overnight, but in several years. And often we find enough proofs to them. So one "argument won" over minor forgotten sources or accidentally twisted diagrams will not change anything. And yes, powerful people can lead others to believe anything actually emotional as "logical", such as denying nature of two sexes or anything like that.
Discovering Socratic questioning method was the best thing that happened in my life. Its the only solution to solve complex contemporary problems of our world. Claiming Socrates or any philosopher uses dialogue as a means to reach power is either projection or ignorance. If someone can't answer simple questions then he aint authority. Or at least he shouldn't be. That's kind of low from Nietzsche. Anyhow after years of studying problems of the world and history I have come to conclusion that most philosophers are just "masturbating" with too many overly sophisticated words. Life and world is based on simple foundations, yet very complex structure is built upon them. Philo - sophia is just love for learning and science. You can use simple words to describe most phenomena.
@@strangeWaters How do you get "there" when you don't know that "there" exists? You have to ask questions so you can arrive at "there". And what problems does questioning solve? Basically EVERY problem that mankind faces. Of course you need to apply knowledge that was discovered by socratic questioning method if you actually want to solve a problem. Example: ask doctors socratic questions about causes of disease. If you do that, you will discover that they have no clue about disease processes and that they're not only useless but also harmful with the usage of chemical drugs. Then you can observe nature and ask questions and discover the cause of diseases. That's just one example of many. Claming that asking questions is a trick to "find your way to emptiness" is gaslighting. And it comes either from ignorance or hate. If you dont ask questions then probably your life is empty and you project it onto youtube comments.
@@michaelk1589 Then what if you question morality based on the premise that the one reacting has no logic? What does proving the baselessness of (a) moral accomplish when looking at the world? In the search of progress one shouldn't digress into spiting those deemed inferior, for inferiority is an illusion only those of weak logic have applied on themselves. Thus by infecting the self with inferiority, not by contact or failing of the other, but simply through the corruption of ones own logic, corrupted by the ego, forgetting that it is not ego that makes one unique nor grants any grounds for a claim to superiority. Your last 2 sentences contained a judgement that could be mirrored right back. Why would you even make such a statement? Many people think their statements say something about the subject, but in reality they firstly tell you about the speaker themselves.
@@bramboeshoe905 Well, the previous commenter claimed in the first post that one "finds way for emptiness" by asking questions and that is a useless endeavour. I say that its complete lunacy since you grow and get knowledge by exactly this - asking questions and the observing the phenomenas of the world. I therefore claim that such stance of an individual is not only making his life fruitless since he won't get into any meaningful conclusions but its also harmful since his actions will most probably bring undesired results due to lack of knowlegde. And such stance comes from either being an ignorant human or person filled with hate or fear. That is objective statement. Knowledge comes from love and will to live and curiousity. And about first part of your comment - I have no clue what you mean there. Please reiterate in simple words if you want an answer. I didnt write anything about inferiority or superiority so I cant comment. But since you said word "morality" then I shall state that there is only objective morality that bounds all creatures with higher capacity for thinking. If you are a "moral relativist" I shall not engage in further discussion since moral relativists are insane and dangerous. And its very important to discern right from wrong /good from evil in todays world. So judging immoral or harmful worldview is substantiated.
Well, this certainly makes me appreciate Socrates more. Edit: huh, didn't expect anyone to like this, or to even leave a comment, let alone argue. Personally, I prefer Plato.
@@Vectivuss Man you just sound so vitriolic and angry over some dude that died 2 thousand+ years ago. I guess that speaks to Socrate's ability to live rent free into everyone's head.
@@supergobgoblin424 to me your comment is showing how annoyed you are of op's comment just because he subverted the expected perception of socrates after they saw nietzsche sneering at socrates... you cant accept there is one who subverted it , so you reaffirming your offended adoration to nietszche by replying that way
@@exmaniac1474 but the same can be say about you, the fact that someone refused the subvertion subverted the expectations you had after reading the original comment, you can't accept there is one who disagrees with the subvertion, so you reaffirmed your offended adoration to Socrates by replying that way
What I think is funny is that Nietzsche thinks he actually knows who Socrates was. We only have vague depictions in the Early, Middle, and Later stages of Plato's writings. No one really knows what kind of man he was.
People thinks Nietzsche or any other person who does not understands / speaks / writes the ancient greek language and does not know the origin of each word and each letter(Greek alphabet is coded) can be a philosopher.. For example, did you know that when you are asking a question and when you are '' in love '' you are actually doing the same thing, because "in love" and "question" have exactly the same meaning?which is "the desire of acquiring something you don't already have" , a thing or an answer! Philosopher=Φίλος+Σοφία=Friend of Wisdom! this is the reason Eros (Cupid) referred to as Deamon or great philosopher and not as a God (Deamon is the stage between mortals and gods) because Gods are wise but Cupid constantly seeks wisdom, so he couldn't be a god.. my point is that if we, the modern Greeks cant completely understand the meaning of philosophy after years of studying, how is it possible for someone without Greek education do it? Today's philosophy has nothing to do with the ancient Greek one
Well said. Then again, you’re probably a rational type who naturally questioned the world around you since you were born. I’ve come to notice a lot of people become uncomfortable when they begin to question what they experienced. They’d rather live within the illusion of their personal life where it’s comfortable. The positive is that they usually live in bliss but the downfall is that they aren’t very reliable in critical moments
@@christianbrobst3486 Comfortability with the unknown exists within a spectrum in my opinion. Those who refuse to suspend judgement in the absence of sufficient evidence are the worst kind of people and aren’t reliable. Most people can be eventually be swayed if the subject isn’t religion.
@@dj69918 I’d have to agree and add that every ideology and way of thought that’s been labeled or defined exists as a spectrum. Do you mean people who put value into tribalism, in a sense? Basically those who take action for a side not because they share ideals but due to tribalistic nature
@@christianbrobst3486 From my experience tribalism usually doesn’t make people act against their personal beliefs, it tends to change their beliefs to fall in line with the tribe. The tribe has to be right because a wrong tribe is a dead tribe.
That's kind of ironic. Socrates himself did what he did by instinct and love to philosophy. Heck, Socrates even died for that instinct since he wasn't willing to compromise. It's not Socrates's fault that weak-minded and weak-blooded guys bent before his questions. It's their own damn fault. In a sense, Socrates was the embodiment of Nietzsche's ideal of Overman. But at the same time... I can see why Nietzsche had a troublesome relationship with Socrates's philosophy.
Nietzsche's suggestion is that Socrates was driven by insincere motives (i.e. to manifest his own will to power in a society where he is unable to do so by conventional means) rather than just the love of philosophy, and he arrives at this through some pretty interesting psychoanalysis. Whether you are convinced or not, I think it makes for some interesting philosophy regarding people's true intentions and looking beyond surface level phenomena
Kinda ironic how Nietzsche’s whole philosophical career is based on doing the very thing he despises about Socrates (making an argument to prove your point instead of brute force).
@@Dezzreck well, as Ayn Rand’s philosophy shows ‘making a point’ doesn’t get much as her famous books shows… I think the idea of ‘hey trade offs happen’ or as Sowell says- I paraphrase ‘first stage thinking is not the end’ do a thing- what comes next after that was completed?
8:58 - Nietzsche strawmans Socrates because his argument is weak. Socrates was respected in Athenian society. He was credited with heroics during war time when he was a soldier. A religious idol had named him as the wisest man in the world. They resisted their urges to arrest him for a very long time until finally they were virtually forced too. Even the Athenians did everything they possibly could after sentencing him to death to allow him to escape. Nietzche's argument against Socrates is his argument against slave morality that was repeated against the Jews/Jesus in Genealogy. Good video Weltgeist, I appreciate your stuff.
From what we know of him, Socrates was a war veteran. He also seemed to be a lot more popular and relevant during his life than Nietzsche was during his. From the evidence we have, it seems like Socrates was closer to Nietzsche's ideal than Nietzsche himself was. That's the biggest irony here.
The irony is never lost on me how Nietzsche is trying to use arguments and logic to complain about someone and their successors bringing those to the world in a more systematic and disciplined way. So the very vehicle through which science accomplishes what it does, Nietzsche takes issue with. A philosopher, who is anti knowledge? Interesting...
@@grabballz4857 What makes you think science and logic are sterile? Sterile means "that can give birth to nothing". Does it seem to you that science and logic have given birth to nothing?
@@nodruj8681 And yet, we understand his points, so that means Socrates has much to do with knowledge. Maybe he does feel superior in a way, but not necessarily arrogant. He has the confidence of the person who knows they're right and can show it through argumentation. What do you mean by a "wise man"? Sophistes were professional orators who could argue one way or another. They weren't that much concerned with truth. They too felt superior in their mastery of language and ability to manipulate people by means of clever but fallacious argumentation. So what makes you think Socrates was doing the same thing when clearly his dialogs show he is not? What is fallacious in Socrates's ways of questioning people?
Thanks. Some great material here. However it is worth remembering that Nietzsche didn't hate Socrates per se, quite the opposite - he very much appreciated him just didn't agree with his methods
So, Nietzsche was making an argument against Socrates, to show that Socrates had no real power, and as such was forced to make arguments against the powerful? So, if Socrates was making an argument because he was to weak to do otherwise, what does that make Nietzsche, who was making an argument against Socrates?
Let's add to that the fact that Socrates was a buff wrestler and a war veteran... And Nietzsche was a sore loser and a cripple. Thanks to Socrates we've got latter on Aristotelian and Stoic philosophies and they weren't about weakness of a slave mentality as Nitzsche argues but about strength to restrain yourself to control animal urges. Couse to them a virtues man isn't a pathetic harmless weakling but a strong restrained pacifist. Only a Germanic barbarian could argue for a "Might makes right" dogma.
@@RUclipsTryingToBeTwiter31581 Nietzsche uses the Christians to represent slave morality and the Greeks to represent master morality in actuality. Might make's right isn't true in so far as it's used to spread meta narratives that are used as a means to more power/control over people's lives. There you have postmodern skepticism.
If all goes well, the time will come,” Nietzsche prophesies, “when one will take up the Memorabilia of Socrates rather than the Bible as guide to morals and reason.”19
Thats funny because Plato used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, and Plato had a big influence on the Bible and the church founders. So, in essence, Nietzsche wanted people to use the Bible to guide their morals and resson.
I don't think it's accurate to say Socrates hated or destroyed earlier Greek culture - he may have challenged parts of it - but he speaks positively (almost hero-worship-like) of Homer in several Platonic dialogues, so Nietzsche was a little hyperbolic in that assumption. He does make some valid criticisms of the Socratic dialectic, but he is not above the errors of his own time either. For example, in " twilight of the idols " when speaking of how Socrates belonged to the lowest class and that he was ugly; Nietzsche goes on to say: " Ugliness is often enough of the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte in animo. But the criminal is decadent. " It's not Nieztsche's fault to buy into this hokum, but he is trying to strengthen his argument with what we know today to be pseudoscientific-based claims. ie. fields like physiognomy or phrenology. Even brilliant minds like him can use dodgy evidence on occasion. Nevertheless, his criticism of Socrates' decadence in the more intellectual sense, or as he puts it, the " anarchy of the instincts " and the " hyperthrophy of the logical faculty " holds more weight for sure.
Yes, it's almost like Nietzsche's arguments don't make any sense. But then caring about good argument is for the weak. The ultimate fascist philosopher.
@Christopher Bolhuis Rather than using your Will to Power to belittle people on the internet, why not use it to provide passages in Nietzsche that prove he didn't believe that all that exists is the Will to Power and therefore that 'higher order' functions such as reason and logic aren't just in the service of the Will to Power, and it's just as valid, in fact more honest, to settle arguments using violence as opposed to reasoned debate? Nietzsche's arguments work great if you're Genghis Khan, just acting out in the world, not so much for a philosopher who at least has some requirement to reason his points out so people can understand them. But as a Nietzschean I suppose you think proving your point is a waste of time anyway, better to just troll people. He really is the philosopher of the current age.
@Christopher Bolhuis Using argument to claim that using argument is a cowardly form of overpowering others. If you don't believe in some kind Absolute, transcendental Truth, which Nietzsche clearly didn't, then yeah everything is just a jostling of different will to powers. There's no way of getting out of the idea that God is dead without plunging into nihilism, which of course he did, and no 'reevaluation of all values' is going to get you out of it. He should have stuck to reading Schopenhauer.
Ah actually there is some scientific basis to the idea that beautiful people are better people...several studies on it...not proven 100 percent but far from completley wrong
@@freefromthedark6784 Well "better" is not exactly the term to use. One might use the term if one believes in Objectivity, but is "better" really existent in an objective, scientific path? You see, whats better for one person, is the person's opponent's worse. Some people consider themselves the best people in the world, superior to any living beings, are they though? A person might think of himself as a burden, as a total looser, but that is his mere intepretation of himself.
Nietzsche is like a great first draft to a script which is in need of a rewrite to fix all the plot holes lol...sporadic moments of genius and then moments of fails in his thought,heck even Napoleon himself who he infamously praises so much had to use reason and arguments to get to power,no man is an island,this leads to entitlement.
As always, mein Herr does a peerless work in this appraisal. We are gifted by your gift of clarity and narrative in examining these important works snd ideas. Gute arbeit!
Socrates failed in judging the character of two of his friends: Alcibiades and Critias. Alcibiades was a narcissist and eventually a traitor, and Critias was a sociopath and eventually a tyrant.
The Memorabilia of Xenophon give a really true picture, that is just as spiritually rich as was the model for the picture; one must, how- ever, understand how to read this book. The philologists believe at bottom that Socrates has nothing to say to them, and therefore are bored by it. Others feel that this book points you to, and at the same time gives you, happiness. -Nietzsche, posthumous frag. 18 [47] (1876)
It seems to me this kind of “degeneration” of society and the need to “use” power on the surroundings or let it fester inside said society is also applicable on the individual. It feels like whenever nietzsche is criticising socratis he is also criticising himself for the exact same thing. Its almost like a spiral we cant get out of. Maybe thats why nietzsche sounds so depressed all the time lmao
The irony here is that the tool he uses to justify his hatred is the very tool he hates. It could be said that he encountered an enemy one can only beat by not fighting...and he chose to beat it by fighting.
From what I understand about Friedrich Nietzsche, not a whole lot of people considered him an upstanding citizen as well, I have personally heard him called a clown in conversation at least once, and he has written some very unpleasant things about the educational establishment in general at that time he was alive. For me it also certainly doesn't help that he has apparently embraced stoic principles, and I believe his main concepts of teaching look an awful lot like the socratic teaching method. I have my own opinion here which is I think Friedrich Nietzsche was negatively influenced by people who were labeling themselves as stoics and those embracing Socrates' philosophy, and his critique was misdirected at stoicism in general and Socrates. When I read Beyond Good and Evil, there was a part that called 'We Scholars'. This particular part had nothing really nice to say about what he considered 'bloodless educators', who merely played lip service to the content they were teaching and made a mockery of the process itself. If he was referring to those who claim to be 'Socratic', that I can see where his problem was Socrates and stoicism actually comes from if I am correct.
being deemed healthy by a sick society is no good measure of health. criticism towards contemporariness to enlighten a succumbing mentality (the mass), upsetting the status quo, and being deemed sick (not an upstanding cirizen) by the mainstream literary/intellectual society is hardly a good measure. he wasn't saying the masses were wrong, he was implying they might be living according to rules and an ethos which their ancestors apparently built for them, while obviously being in a homogeneous mindset to them. while one has to admit the great number of ways in which the world has culturally and technologically enriched itself through the centuries, it is also of no use to point out all the great amount of good done, just to hide the proportionally immense atrocities and sheer dehumanization that came with it. it seems obvious that cognitive dissonance is fundamental in order to understand what nietzsche cryptically implied in his poetry and literary works in general. first and foremost one has to embrace the unknowingness about his time period, about which the winners always talked so highly of, as in most cases is done by those who prosper. contemporary criticism evaluations done in hindsight are hardly a good way to evaluate a poet-philosophers work. the destructive and demystifying manner in which nietzsche, and schopenhauer before him, approached all past common and specialized 'knowledge' resulting in a radical re-evaluation of past dogmas, vices and virtues is hardly something that can be comprehended under the influence of contemporary mainstream (of any time, not just today's) ethics and morals, generally heavily guided by a prevailing mass mentality (see freud's and others work). one would need to do as zarathustra did to truly embrace and/or refuse his message and proposals about the human condition and life in an unconditioned condition (nature, without social/ethical/moral propaganda of good and evil). there is no suggestion he was inherently right, none whatsoever. he pointed out regular and recurring phenomena of this cosmos, encouraging his reader to enquire, and not to simply settle for what is "already known and established" by some compartmentalized elected hierarchy of past/present individuals. man needs to see for himself before he believes in anything. sure he was human, he had his problems, perfection was and never has been the objective of his or any other philosophical system of the past, neither was his purpose an idealistic critique towards the social hierarchy and systems used, it was more of an attempt to give another possibility for a different more autocratic/anarchic way of life with which life could be different, perhaps for the better, perhaps for worse. these are just two cents on the matter, i'm not claiming to be right or an expert on nietzsche, this is perhaps a young inexperienced man's consideration on a topic which is all too often left to those in power or as an exclusive conversation of the presbytery, i'd like for everyone to have their own, actual view, instead of THE RIGHT ONE, because the textbook says its so. onthefence.jpg
9:20 for people wanting to study deeper into why ancient greece eventually accepted Socrates I recommend Giambattista Vico's "New Science-Concerning the Common Nature of Nations" (Oswald Spengler expands on Vico in his work "Decline of the west") Vico identifies 3 big stages for every civilization (Spengler uses 4 but they are basically the same idea): 1. age of God: foundation/infancy, the metaphysical reigns supreme, in our case Christianity coming into history 2. age of Heroes: "middle age", expansion and consolidation, Monarchy, metaphysical impetus very strong("God is with you/the gods are with you"), Virtuous warrior "the Knight", the peak is the "age of discovery" 3. age of Men: full maturity is reached BUT decay/death awaits, the impetus of the previous periods is lost, atheism, Republic, man only exist for himself, "To rest on your laurels ", Marcus Aurelious wrote "meditations" during this period of Rome as a way to Cope with the situation basically the 3th age (of ancient Greece) is where Socrates starts to take roots in Hellenic society. ------ curiously enough the Biblical pattern is similar: 1--foundation (year "0") the "Logos is made flesh" and enters history 2--"evangelization" conquest and consolidation Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Revelation 2:26 "And to the one who overcomes and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod and shatter them like pottery- just as I have received authority from My Father" Christopher Columbus was a very important figure for the Evangelization of the nations 3--"Apocalypse" (contraction, "end of the cycle", "first this message must reach all nations then the end will come" Matthew 24:14, "the great apostasy" must occur this is: atheism/secularism/abandonment of the faith 2Thessalonians 2:3 etc...) although the pattern of the Apocalypse is a reference to the "ending cycle" of the whole earth(the "cosmos") not just one nation, similar to the pattern of the "great flood" from Genesis (after all the suffering "Revelations/Apocalypse" ends with the vision of a city with "the garden" at its center with "the tree" in the center of the garden in "a new heaven and a new earth where goodness lives" "the old earth/cosmos has passed away burned in fire"...)
Curiously enough also similar to Thelema with the Aeon of Isis being when man worshipped the earth, the aeon of osiris being when man worshipped gods and the aeon of horus being when man worshipped man.
Nowadays, the most important "evangelists" are tech company shamans spewing their effete doctrines. What would Nietzche think of this capitalist decadence the world has sunk into? If he thought Hellenistic culture was bad he would have fainted at ours today...if you can even call it a culture that is
in this video my deep-rooted love for both philosophy and languages is turned on fire. damn if i am amazed by the words used in this video. thank you for making this! really makes me a happier man
Nietzsche really missed with this one. Socrates wasn't so much concerned with "the will to power" as he was the pursuit of knowledge. Socrates could have easily acted as a sophist to rally suport and gain power and status in his society, but he was too pure for that, he cared primarily about the pursuit of authentic knowledge, and he disliked the sophists. I think Nietzsche resented Socrates because he was personally offended by the idea that someone like Socrates might question the legitimacy of those in power.
Even just the very idea that Power = Good and Lack of Power = Bad, no matter how the Power was obtained, seems like a pretty shallow way to distinguish between Good and Bad
Reading Nietzsche and understanding him is super complicated, I have yet achieved a level where I can read his books in under a year. But I do know that he never made such a black and white declaration about anything. His idea of power = good is not power as in tyrannical, opressive power. It's the Idea of competence, confidence building up strengh and taking on life at full force and determination. This is a sort of biological determinism, where people who are powerful, as in competent , should succeed and rule the weak, who are incompetent and lazy. The video here is made short for convenience , but Nietzsche adds a lot of flesh around his points of views and in the end he isn't as radical as it seems. I don't pretend to understand Nietzsche fully, but I do know that to make a constructive and good criticism of him, you have to read his whole work. This takes so much time and dedication that most of us will never achieve it. Either way, I think you are wrong about his idea of power and the video is also misleading because Nietzsche adds a lot of nuance to his critics. In some other books or chapters, he also admires Socrates for other things.
I can’t remember hearing the issue being put as “instinct versus reason” before. It is a useful summary. If Nietzsche is all about power then the most power must go to Nietzsche through his thought so he must “refute” any alternative to him.
nietsche's "The phases of spiritual metamorphosis are symbolically represented by the camel, the lion, and the child" its not only on a individual level but on a society evolutionary species level... the biggest problem is that through history the lion because of our instincts conditioning never wanne turn back into an infant/child because then the lion will se and have to phase its own ignorance and give into submission.and from nature a lion a proud animal...which is very confronting for the condioned soul and being.but when a lion can willingly and accepting returns into an infant, thats were it will fiend its piece and greatness.
Weltgeist, have you looked into the differences in Nietzsche's text when translated by Colli and Montinari? Or the differences between other translations? I am always very surprised that things can be so different from one translation to another. It would make a good topic for a vide one day!
If Nietzsche's argument was that making decisions for society based on good reasoning is wrong because society should be ruled by the authority of force, then his argument is self-defeating because it dismisses reasonable argument and therefore makes redundant anything that anyone says, including whatever he himself argues.
It’s not “good reasoning” he’s rejecting, but the “rejection of instinct” that he’s rejecting. Think about it, at what point in our evolution as humans did we go from creatures that instinctually drank water and ate, into knowing that those are things we must do? At what point did sexual reproduction go from being an instinctual action, into a rational choice to have children? There’s lots humans do by instinct that we don’t understand, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad. The Socratic irony attacks instinct. The necessity to have a good reason for every action can be destructive, but acting on good reason isn’t. I hope I made sense there.
Nietzsche’s point is that arguing can take you away from a good decision. For example if I decide I want to work out. Socrates would ask why and at the end get you to your body is not your being. Arguing or thinking too much kills actions.
So going off this video and Nietzsche's own words, wouldn't it be more correct to refer to Nietzsche as a Sophist than a philosopher, and refer to his arguments as Sophistry? It sounds like Nietzsche would have preferred that title, and no doubt students of Socrates and Plato would also feel it was more accurate...
Nietzsche resorts to false dichotomy: either you can discharge power as an authoritarian or you persuade others of your authority. He fails to recognize and acknowledge that democracy was put into place before the time of Socrates and Socrates was a product of it. He fails to see that the purpose of democracy was to avoid rule by brute force, rather to provide the methods by which a consensus would be attained. He most certainly fails to see that the decadence of Athenian democracy was not due to inherent flaws, that were of course present, but due to the fact that by Socrates' time Athens had become a Hegemony, discharging power by brute force on other Greek cities and like Thucidydes very poignantly states in his History of the Peloponnesian War "the state of Athens would turn inwards the methods that it used to subdue foreign states". The superficiality and hypocrisy Socrates would attempt to combat were mere attempts of his contemporaries to compromise their perceived political virtue with the acquiescence they were providing to the expansionist policies of the State and it's undemocratic treatment of conquered populations.
No not persuade others of your authority, persuade others because you don’t have the authority to tell them that this is like this and that is like that. And he doesn’t say it’s this or that only that one argues because he lacks the power to control.
Nietzsche's criticism of Socrates reeks of : 1) Lack of historical knowledge 2) Lack of understanding of even basic concepts of what is philosophy and what is sophistry 3) Covert (or not so covert) anti-hellenism Nietzsche basically wanted to cut and paste selective parts of Greek culture to suit his own preferences. His obsession fighting Socrates because he was "ugly and low class" reflected the jealousy that quite many ugly low value men have for any ugly ex-low value man who rises up to become high value man. Now lets clear out some of the oh-so-many misconceptions of Nietzsche's critique on Socrates. Error No1: Socrates was "mob". Socrates was neither poor nor low class let alone part of the "mob". His father had a stone-working business and he worked there and was quite successful. We do not know details but we know that his two marriages were done with women who came from aristocratic backgrounds. One with an unnamed woman in his youth who probably died before delivering a child who was from famous politician-general Kimon's extended family and then with the infamous Xanthippe later in life with whom he had some 2-3 decades age difference and she was also an aristocrat. As such there is no case that Socrates was low class. He may had not been an aristocrat but he was surely from the upper-middle class echelons. Thus he was serving in the army as a hoplite, a very expensive endeavour indeed for lower social classes. Error No2: Socrates a "theoretician". Socrates was first and foremost a working man and a soldier. He became a full-time philosopher later in life towards his 6th decade. Earlier he must had been successful in his business to be able to marry with aristocrats and of course he was famously one of the best hoplites in Athens excelling in a very difficult Athenian campaign up in north Greece, during which he also saved the life of a young Alcibiades (who was so impressed that became his friend and made him his teacher). How many philosophers who reigned supreme on the battlefield do you know? Socrates was the perfect combination of soldier and thinker - he just lacked physical beauty which of course he overcame in every single aspect. Error No3: Socrates was not reasoning for the shake of reasoning. That was rather the sophists doing so - the ones that Nietzsche actually praised! Sophists were the gamma-males (if you like a modern term! LOL!) who sold cheap "reasoning techniques" to sway the opinions of others and sold their teachings for hefty prices to the rich and powerful. Socrates was indeed mistaken for a sophist even back in his times (infamously considered so by Aristophanes who hated sophists and thought Socrates has to be their leader or something!) and repeatedly later on by his detractors but in reality Socrates was their biggest opponent. He fought to remove sophistry from the public dialogue and replace it with reason and evidence. Error No4: They heyday of Greek culture was NOT the 5th century but the 4th century BC in which Plato and Aristotle (world's greatest philosopher and initiator of science as we know it) lived and taught. The heyday of Greek culture was the rise of Alexander the Great, himself a student of Aristotle who was a student of Plato who was a student of Socrates. Effectively Alexander the Great was a grandson-student of Socrates. Error No4: Socrates as-if replaced the "will of the powerful" with the "decision-making based on reasoning and dialogue'. Socrates had nothing to do with such a process - in fact this had already started centuries before Socrates at the very roots of democracy in Athens and Sparta - and we can go as far back as Homer who notes not only high king Agamemnon holding military councils but even leading God Zeus holding God Councils to decide upon important issues such as the fate of Troy. Nietzsche, a Teuton in mind, could not understand this very basic function of Greek culture, that there is no "high king", no "high leader". In Greece you can have Alexander the Great (greatest man in human history) as your king/leader/gerneral and he still has to call up the assembly to talk and try to convince you of the validity of his next steps and awaits for your agreement and commitment. There is no "I order, you obey". The latter is something that the German Nietzsche just could not digest. He would rather just ignore elemental features of the Greek culture and recreate it as per his own Germanic soul. To be fair to him, it was not just him doing so. Pretty much all Western and Eastern Europeans and even the Italians and the Spanish have done this error to varying degrees. There is a reason why I insist that if you really want to understand ancient Greek culture you need a Greek teacher. How strange eh?
There are some excellent comments here, but let me oversimplify for just a moment, as the apparent contradictions seem to be drowning us. The "politician" is the prototype of the man who lives by argument. And how do most people feel about a politician? Also, the healthy man, true to instinct and innate "virtu" (one of N.'s favorite concepts) is marked by individualism, whereas argument is by definition an activity engaged in with others. The man of "virtu" would disdain someone who spent their day engaging in dialogues with whomever was available to debate with. That admiration we have for strong silent men who know themselves is not easily given to the politician, no matter how clever he might be.
but where does virtue come from? It comes from past politicians who came from men of virtue who again came from past politicians. It is how civilizations fall and rise.
@@wahrerrosty5347 Or perhaps it comes from men of probity and virtue who step forward to become leaders, sometimes reluctantly. The common type of glad-handing politician is a different sort of creature, and one usually at a safe remove from virtue. But I acknowledge your "strong men-good times-weak men-bad times" cycle as containing some truth.
It seemed to me, when I was young, that Socrates was a pest who went around confusing people, rather than helping them to think clearly. Now he may have done some good, by teaching people that they hadn't thought things through carefully. But then he doesn't help them toward any clarity or solution to their conundrum. Socrates must be analyzed from the tenor of the times. Athens had been defeated and humiliated after the long and unwise, for Athens, Peloponnesian War, never to regain its former glory. That was the context of Socrates noisome activities. It was like the US after the defeat in the Vietnam War. How could we lose? Since then, we have been looking for a Messiah, and of course picking mediocrities at best, and sometimes a phony or a demagogue. We are in decline like Athens our people are easily confused, and misled, and have turned on each other.
@@oriraykai3610 Since our only comprehensively source is Plato, that is whom I rely on as does everyone. I said, you may recall, "It seems to me..." no one can be sure.
Socrates conditioned people to be on his side for decadence and approval. He accomplished his goal and was much more competent than nietchze who sat there bitching about it. Life is structured in a manner. You either fight. Or you escape from it. Socrates chose to fight for his ideal world no matter what it lead to. The only rational approach as for living and he got what he wanted ultimately.
@@chuhwey3632 Socrates alienated a good many Athenians and was accused of corrupting the youth. He had a following of young people who were evidently enamored of him, but whether he was guiding them to better good, or leading them astray is debatable. He was put on trial and a majority condemned him. He was given a chance to defend himself or make amends. He did neither but as it were thumbed his nose at the large jury of citizens. He accepted the death sentence as if he welcomed it. He was old, tired and had done as much as he could to correct what he perceived as the ills of society. He was arguably a crank, and a reactionary at the same time. It is a fascinating story. He should be understood within the political situation of Athens when after Athenians had suffered a humiliating defeat in the Peloponnesian War they were forced to tear down their walls and a government of 30 tyrants was installed presumably to do Sparta's bidding. This was the calamity during which Socrates began to prod people and confuse them seemingly to restore the old ways of conducting their lives and businesses, but without offering any relief from their oppressed state.
@@tonygumbrell22 literally any worldview is debatable considering the way we live life is not a organized perfect road but a individualized one based off of ones own life experience. You're projecting your own insecurities with his way of life and trying to pass it as objective outlook.
I think this is a bit one sided. N also deeply admired Socrates and unequivocally considered him one of the most 'interesting' people to have ever lived. His attitude to S was profoundly ambivalent (like his attitude to truth, a value he denounced at the same time as explicitly dedicating his entire life to its pursuit).
Cool, although I would argue that N mostly dedicated his whole life to finding meaning and joy in it. Either way, my main point here is that the two things might be related in a complex way, like his relation to S, as u point out.
Nietzsche was beyond good and evil, remember? Not only did he not hate Socrates, he clearly loved him. He imitated him with an intense passion. He was ultimately more positive than Socrates, who he rightly saw as a cultural wrecking ball, a spiritual menace. His standing hero. I cannot think of anybody closer to my mind when I think of Socrates than Nietzsche.
"I'll just talk against religion, talk against other philosophers, talk against every one and the young "rebellious" youth will make me their god" -Nietzche
Good video but almost completely avoids explicitly discussing the actual conflict- realpolitik vs truth-seeking, consistentcy-based philosophy. Nietzsche’s points only make any sense if you agree that truth has no inherent value and saying a lie that is believed is infinitely better than a truth that is ignored. A power-based philosophy that he’s known for to be sure, it’s just a little radical to say there’s nothing morally wrong with being the most dishonest, horrific POS ever if it "works." Nietzsche would admire and compliment Hitler/Stalin/Bin Laden/any other historical figure who was important or had power just was morally horrifically wrong (except for a random oh they-were-too-bad-and-burned-themselves-out-so-don't-do-that but that's impossible to define generally so he never tried in all his works), Socrates wouldn’t. They're both valid, and possibly internally-consistent philosophies but I've just never been able to get behind beliefs that are just oh you can do literally whatever and if it works congrats you did the right thing and if you get busted then oh it was the bad thing. Nietzsche would love corporate frauds and whenever they got caught he'd instantly say they did the wrong thing because it didn't work. At the end of the day, power-based theories are inconsistent and contradictory and that's the point "because so is life" but I prefer trying to seek truth and actually be consistent
The world is all about power dynamics. Western news outlets already exploit the concept of "post-truth" and distort messages, safe example would be Iraq in which, in the end, no chemical weapons were found. The US always seeks to assert itself and wage the informational warfare. But unlike western hypocrites, Asian mentality (and post-Soviet mentality) do not reject power dynamics. Many Asians or Russians actually are very pragmatic about power. For example, many see that corruption is just a vent, a tension-release shaft which appears when laws are too oppressive or incomprehensible. Bribery often is a form of paid service. If all, we should call not for abolishment of bribery, but for transparency and open unified prices for government services. This is only one example, there are many more. Powerful countries and companies exercise their will, form "crowds" believing their self-created infouniverses.
Um, you've somewhat misunderstood Nietzsche he definitely wouldn't have supported those men you mentioned. In fact, there was a great composer during his time (I forget his name) Nietzsche originally considered him an Overman due to his accomplishments through music, but when he began supporting german nationalism, Nietzsche rescinded that claim bc he was just going along with the social trends of his particular culture and society at the time
0:50 2:30 Pre-Socratic Golden Age 5:24 Overemphasis on Argument 6:13 Weak People Argue, Strong Commands 7:32 An ugly outsider 9:04 Successful Clown 🤡 11:33 Socrates was a consequence of Decline
My problem with Neitzche, here, is that I really couldn't give a good goddamn if Socrates was just so insecure and weak that he established himself as a philosopher read for thousands of years and whose name is yet even familiar with most who have not read him. If Nietzche thinks he only did all that because he's a mewling coward with no other way to achieve an expression of power, that doesn't really change the impact of the expression anymore than someone reacting to Nietzche by saying, 'Nice fedora.' Nietzsche hated Socrates because Socrates existed and is well known today, despite being ugly and such and Nietzsche is frustrated because he wanted to feel special but can't as long as Socrates is here, so he killed himself. So satisfied was he that Socrates operated within the paradigm of Will to Power, Nietzsche decided to do a victory lap by ultimately disempowering himself from his body. wtg Nietzsche 11/10 troll
Seems like Nietzche never had much of anything good to say about anything. Critical to a fault. He may be right about a lot of things, but he chose destruction over construction imo, and thus he only represents darkness in my mind, always has
“For some people this evasion of one’s own growth, setting low levels of aspiration, the fear of doing what one is capable of doing, voluntary self-crippling…are in fact defenses against grandiosity, arrogance, sinful pride, hubris. There are people who cannot manage that graceful integration between the humility and the pride which is absolutely necessary for creative work. To invent or create you must have the “arrogance of creativeness” which so many investigators have noticed. But, of course, if you have only the arrogance without the humility, then you are in fact [delusional]. You must be aware not only of the godlike possibilities within, but also of the existential human limitations….If you can be amused by the worm trying to be god, then in fact you may be able to go on trying and being arrogant without fearing [delusions of grandeur]…This is a good technique.”(Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
I haven't read Nietzsche but if this is an accurate representation then it's no wonder he admired the Sophist because his argument is full of it ( i.e. sophistry and bs!). And of course one can admire both the pre and post Socratic traditions there's absolutely no reason to pick one or the other.
Socratic traditions: created by physically active, proficient strongmen who opposed the moral idiocy of the Athenians. Post-Socratic ""traditions"": created by twig-limbed aristocrats who didn't know anything about reality, and probably couldn't even deadlift 100lbs.
Nietzsche doesn’t say anything about how that power is derived. Socrates had power through arguments because the powerful had so abused their positions that Socrates’ reasoning rang true, as they do today. If the higher form of man was lost… we can only blame it on the powerful, who through their greed and perversities, lost them.
I love a lot of Nietzsche, but for the same reasons he admired the Sophists. Because of logical thinking. Which was what Socrates was, he literally changed the western world due to his logical thinking. Through the early scholars like Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras we get Socrates, he learned from those before him, and his thinking changed the world and gave us Plato, Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Socrates was friend with Perikles, one of the statemen that gave us Democracy. He thought it's flaw was that not everyone should be able to be a politician or vote. As politics was an important function of any society, and no one should be rule by a fool. So wither if Nietzsche means Socrates was ugly from looks or from his personal views or ideology, I disagree with him. Socrates is the greatest philosopher of the world. Not because he is the smartest or the one most right. But because he really started true western philosophy.
I gave my first read to the problem of Socrates in the Twilight of the Idols and I think this video might have skipped some part about it, though idk how relevant it is. In my view Nietzsche started building a picture of how wise men saw life as something undesireable or bad. He disagrees with this position. Then comes Socrates who has this new method and has found virtue in reason. In the end, Socrates reasons himself to death, to drink the poison he was given. He did not resist it, but welcomed it. His reason lead himself to his own demise, but since reason is a virtue, his death would also be a virtuous one. I think that was one problem Nietzsche had with Socrates.
This actually explains a lot about the current world. The western culture has lost or is losing its power... And those whos might makes right will rule the world.
Gread vid. Thank you a lot. Keep going, perhaps ,best YT channel I've ever seen. I wonder, if you can make some videos about poetry, since Schopenhauer and Nietzsche adored it. Thank you in advance.
Even if his writing style seems blunt and audacious, Nietzsche is a very nuanced thinker, therefore it is important to be subtle with our thinking when criticizing Nietzsche.
And with the pure-hearted innocence of a child when I was in grade school I would ask my teachers, why are we doing this? What is the purpose of school? So you can grow up and get a job and pay your bills? But why is that how we live our lives? Did you really enjoy your job? Do you really enjoy the life you have? Why would we continue to do things this way everyone if everyone so unhappy with it. I don't want to be here at the school. I don't want to take these tests. I don't want to waste my time doing homework. I'm here 8 hours a day. Can't you teach me everything I need to know when I'm here for 8 hours a day? And you're not even teaching me anything that I want to learn about? Why have I been forced into this situation? Why do you think this is the right way to do things? No more questions for you.
After your videos on Nietzsche's critique of Kant, Schopenhauer, Plato, and Socrates, I really hope you make another video on why he loved DOSTOEVSKY so much.
"Power" is an illusion. The Greatest illusion is Using Words to Change People's Beliefs. Creating Power for those who otherwise couldn't yield their own.-A. Friend. ❤
Small footnote: Most of what has been written about Socrates and his method has been done so by the hand of Plato. It is still a matter of debate if the works of Plato accurately describe the opinions of Socrates or just his own.
Great video. Great summary. One correction, "Draught in the dust" is pronounced "Draft." e.g Like Guinness beer is served 'on draught'. It is also could be like a draught in the sense of a house with a window open on a windy day.
just to help, ascertain is said thusly (a · suh · tayn), I know this won't reach many but it's a common word that is useful. "A certain" is definitely having a different meaning.
The problem I have with Nietzsche's analysis of Socrates - as a man - is that Socrates was not of the mob: on the contrary, while not an aristocrat he had enough money to stand in the phalanx as a hoplite, which would have put him in a minority of citizens in Athens. He was regarded as a war hero: he fought for his state, while Nietzsche's military service consisted of falling off a horse. Socrates' entirely justifiable conviction for subversion was not because he undermined aristocratic values, but because he undermined democratic values, as did Plato more generally. It looks to me that envy played a large part in Nietzsche's analysis. Having said that, I agree that the Socratic method is partially a fraud. You can always show that at some point a normative assertion runs out of "reasons". Nicely done video BTW, subscribed.
@unreasonable you say the Socratic method is a fraud? I agree that a normative assertion runs out of reason but that is not why he used the Socratic method. I think he used it to show people (usually the arrogant ones) that no matter what your belief is, there are ways to disprove that. His main point would be that do not fool yourself by thinking your way is the only right way, do not feel contempt with your conclusion on something. Having said that, I don't mean that whatever opinions of beliefs you have might be wrong so you shouldn't believe in anything; rather to just keep an open mind and never feel contempt with you knowledge, always learn more!
@@HasanAli-ni4gi Your description might well be a very good, pragmatic way to approach reason, knowledge and debate, I try to follow this approach myself, but it is not at all what is going on in Socratic dialog or Platonic philosphy more generally. Plato - who actually wrote the dialogs - in his other works expounded the doctrine that there are absolute truths which only elites could grasp, just as "Socrates" does in the dialogs. At the end of every Socratic dialog, IIRC, the other diners say something like "Well, if eros (or whatever) is not A, B or C as you demonstrate, what is it?" at which Socrates makes a categorical statement that he claims is not just true, but necessarily true. The other diners would rather get drunk or have a go with the flute girls and boys by this stage - understandable after having listened to Socrates all night - so he gets the last word. The dialogs are a fraud because Socrates' own claims are not subjected to the same method of critique.
I think u understand what you mean. Are you trying to say that the Socratic dialogs written by Plato are biased because it is written by Socrates’ student which is Plato? Because Nietzsche made the same argument.
@@HasanAli-ni4gi Not sure what you mean by "biased" in this context. For all I know they are reasonably accurate representations of the kind of dialogs Socrates actually had. The point is that the kinds of assertions made by Socrates in the dialogs are the same kind of assertions that are made by Plato in writings not involving Socrates. Both make the case for "Platonic idealism": the real existence of ideal forms, of which our earthly empirical experience is merely a distorted reflection. What seems to have happened in popular understanding of philosphy, is that the idea of Socrates as a "good bloke" standing up for his principles has survived, while idealism as a viable philosphical system, complete with it's elitist baggage, has not. So people find it hard to grasp that Socrates was in fact an active antidemocratic subversive, who would have had no time whatsoever for fuzzy relativistic pragmatism. My original point was that Nietzsche's objection to Socrates; that he was of the mob; is very strange, given that Socrates was elitist, as reading Plato makes clear. Objecting to Socrates because he was ugly is much more reasonable. ;-) Socrates/Plato thought that using reason to reach a higher state was something only elites could do reliably. Nietzsche appears to believe that only elites could abandon reason to reach a higher state. I am going to leave it there: let's see how Weltgeist's "Why Nietzsche Hated Plato" video interprets this issue.
Socrates was an actual warrior and relentless seeker of truth who faced death fearlessly and whose legacy lives on after thousands of years as the pinnacle of wisdom. Nietzsche was a promising academician who dropped out, wrote a few books, went insane probably as a result of syphilis, and whose impact came via the Nazis. Time has a way of showing truth from error.
Well, he’s describing the situation in the present US exactly. Our decadence is leading us to attack ourselves internally and will undoubtedly lead to our downfall.
Every society has weaknesses though. I actually think America wears its weaknesses on its sleeve but it’s a lot stronger than it looks at first glance.
"decadence" results when people "ask too many questions" and think for themselves and then realize that the belief-systems with which they've been brain -washed are intellectually bereft and, in fact, are nonsense. Truth and free inquiry are the enemies of all religions and all governments.
@@johncotter3788 that’s an oversimplification if ever I heard it. « Questioning » is all very well, but questioning to tear down and destroy without replacing anything is easy and smug, and always leads to destruction and decay. You’ll find that decadence, or even “decadence” as you put it is actually bad, and destroys lives, communities and yes, entire civilisations.
This video was great but clearly and unfortunately insufficient as evidenced by the comments, would you enjoy creating a part 2 going over the criticisms abundant here?
Who would want to finish his work though? Like with all due respect everyone should dread what Nietzsches ideal world would look like, it sounds like all around a destructive philosophy to me.
Socrates hated the mob so much he could not notice he became mob. Thanks to that terrible mistake, Nietzsche could avoid that pitfall. This fits with his views on fighting against monsters and becoming one, as well as the notion of overcoming your past selves. He made Socrates into a scapegoat and a target to illustrate his argument. Seeing the metaphor in reality.
@@oriraykai3610 There are many different types of mobs and many different examples of it. Just because someone was killed by the mob, does not mean they were not part of a mob - the same way just because someone was assassinated by the state, it does not mean they are stateless, or just because someone was oppressed by evil, it does not mean they themself are not evil. Socrates laid a foundation for the philosophizing and intellectual brainwashing of Plato and Aristotle, all trying to separate themselves from nature out of ignorance and pride and out of ignorance and pride attempting to bind the masses with their ideologically misguided machinery. People have been persecuted and killed for millennials, Socrates drank the poison while a thousand slaves were slain trying to escape their captors, all in the same week. Not every artist is Leonardo, not every martyr is Jesus.
They're similar flames. Nietzsche had the gift and curse to stand on Socrates's giant shoulders. It'd be intimidating to make your own mark and influence the world next to a giant.
Interesting take on Socrates but I fail to understand what was so fantastic about pre-Socratic Greece. Nonetheless, the analysis is not dissimilar to the Buddha's description of how decadence arose. So long as the kings ruled according to the Dhamma (Sanskrit - Dharma), the country prospered and there was no crime. Whenever the king required counsel, he would summon those versed in the ways of tradition. Then a king decided to rule according to his own ideas and the land no longer prospered. And because he failed to look after the needy there occurred for the first time theft, and that set the ball rolling downhill. The root cause is, of course, lack of faith, thinking one knows better. In the modern world it manifests as doubt being the highest good and faith equal to superstition. And, as the Buddha says, the one who cultivates doubt does not reap the benefits of having faith in the Buddha's Teachings. Hence, the 'Buddhism' taught in the West is a confused and incoherent mess.
As much as I love Nietzsche, when it comes to his take on reason, truth, and virtue he tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Violence is a tool most used by the man who's reason will not sustain his life within this world - NOT the other way around. Reliance upon irrational means of survival, such as violence and coercion, ironically only makes a person more dependant upon others. The violent man relies on the productive effort of others, while they in turn rely on him for nothing - only for him not to not destroy them. The man of reason can survive in a desert, the man of violence can, at best, barely even survive within modern day society. A man primarily relying upon anything but his reason is forever weak and dependant.
With this said, the kind of rationalist form of reason (in a vacuum) used by most philosophers through the ages, especially within modern academia, is an utter sham. Some of the stuff I've read while studying is baffling in it's stupidity. Examples? Just look at the analytic-synthetic dichotomy or the is-aught gap. It's utter fucking nonsense but still there's almost even a concensus that these ideas/problems are real and relevant.
@@DinkSmalwood the is-aught gap is actually very relevant, because morality and efficiency/utility don't always walk hand-in-hand. Just because eating healthy food is better for my health it doesn't mean i should eat healthy food, that would only be true if my objective was to be healthy, but maybe I'd rather die at 50 but be a 10 times Mr. Olympia than live to 80 and being unremarkable.
@@joaogarcia6170 Oh, I understand it very well and I know that it is considered very important within academic philosophy. My point was that it's a non-problem, a wrongness in thought that stems from an incoherent view of human concept formation and the nature of concepts. I claim that aught implies can, and that can implies is. But that's a whole matter that I don't wish to get into here. My point is, academic philosophy is severely lacking. Interestingly most of the so-called hard problems within modern philosophy is that they aren't problems at all, as soon as you get your theory of concepts straight. The problem of universals... contingent vs necessary attributes... the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, the is-aught gap. You name it and it's probably just an error of thought stemming from a wrong theory of concepts.
Osho Rajaneesh and Buddha came together and said BOTH INSTINCT AND ONES OWN REASON is also important. In a way REASON is important because Instinct needs to be under check and Moderation
Socrat talk abut reason Nitche talk abut death of god but zen master when they ask what is real anchwer only dontknow.. lao tcu flow like river also with dont know ..childe are inocent why because they dot know what is good bad ugly beuty big smal write wrong
why so? dialectic is the base of reason and we all know reason is limited, sense we give front row to science our live experience is being diminished every year, despite the great techno achievements, we live in protected cocoons with a image projection of reality, want proof? the mass of western media manipulation, we live in a cult like state of mind.
@@antoniolima1068 I have a different understanding of dialectic. I don't necessarily equate it with reason. I think the kind of thinking that causes the most suffering in the long run is the attitude that is often taken during debate. The kind of thinking that sees language as a form of warfare. To me, dialectic does not necessarily refer to this kind of thing, though I suppose it could include it. But I think it also overlaps with dialogue, which is the exact opposite kind of activity, imo. I believe that dialogue is the only thing that could possibly save humanity from the mess we've made of everything.
@@ahobimo732 what mess? save humanity? this is what we are, no need to idealize our nature, it is healthy to accept who we are, dialectics is a tool, not a very good one, it is good to form functional systems, but all fallible, i prefer poetry, it goes way deeper into our nature and definably depends on subjectivity.
@@antoniolima1068 If the present cultural state of the world is "what we are" then we are most definitely not healthy. And I don't see how accepting it can be either.
We hope you enjoy this one. Consider it a prequel to our "Why Nietzsche Hated Plato" video. Thanks for all the support!
SUPPORT US ON PATREON:
▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
Gratitude is das father of all virtues: wisdom courage justice and compassion
I'm not sure whether English is your first language or not, but "draught" is pronounced like "draft"
How about why nietzsche was an idiot.
Socrates is remembered because there are more week people then there are strong there are more vengeful cowards then there are heroes. And the mob decided to adopt in immortalize him
Who are Socrates’s greatest contemporary followers? Are lawyers and politicians. The greatest liars and cowards of all the time
“That’s a very interesting argument Nietzsche, but I don’t think your current deadlift pr is enough to back it up.”
-Socrates
"Nice argument Nietzsche, why don't you back that up with a source?"
~ Socrates (probably)
@@JamesTaylor-on9nz “My source is that I made it the fuck up!”
-Nietzsche probably
pretty sure sam hyde hit idubbbz with that one
@@callums1235 The influence of The Legendary Cracked Sentient Editing Software is spreading
The chad wrestler vs the virgin cripple
Nietzsche was the 'master clickbatter', before internet was even invented. He made propostorous remarks to attract the attention of his readers and enjoyed destroying their presuppositions. He was kind of Socratic in the way that his reproach was a revenge against the philosophers of antiquity still employing dialectics himself to achieve his goals. Now that is some Socratic Irony right there. Quite Meta :P
Underrated comment. I have always felt the same way.
can you give 1 example
@@visceraeyes525 "God is dead !"
Preposterous* smart guy
Speaking of Socrates, Diogenes trolling him with the plucked chicken look it's a human was epic.
So he thinks arguing is bad and disruptive and then proceeds to… make a career out of arguing.
I dont think his career was very succesful. He died poor with nothing in pocket and almost 0 recognition by public.
@@migaru7362 just because he wasn’t successful doesn’t mean he didn’t try to do as I described.
@@migaru7362 I agree. The idea should be analyzed regardless of who said it, if the idea itself seems worth analyzing. I also feel that not analyzing the person as well can leave out vital information not just about The person but the idea itself. Marx prattles on and on about exploiting the working class and what does he do to the one person his life that he actually employed? He knocked her up, abused her and threw her in the gutter. Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn’t take seriously a mans opinion on how to treat the working class when he treats the working class he encounters that way? Ideas should be analyzed independently but the person shouldn’t be completely ignored either.
I’m not a Nietzsche fanboy myself( I like Plato and Aristotle wayyy more) but Nietzsche doesn’t argue really. He criticizes Plato on something with a cheeky response about Plato’s character, doesn’t offer a solution to the mentioned criticism. He claims that Plato among other create nihilism and the solution to nihilism is the will to power. You might call this an argument but it’s not formal,systematic, or comprehensive and in certain case not even prescriptive(are you really doing what you want if Nietzsche told you so?)
He didn't make a career out of arguing he made a career out of philology and eviscerating bad philosophy.
Socrates *breathes*
Nietz: and I took that personally
🤣🤣🤣
Classic
@@kellyoradio5029 a fellow ubermensch of high tastes, I see
@@Jabranalibabry Clever
Nietzschit is an annoying mosquito. Socrates was a lion.
Nietzsche's problem with Socrates: He's too good at arguing. So good, that people would rather live in ignorance than be obliterated by him.
I think its the opposite, Socraties was so good at arguing that people would rather give up striving to live a life that they were convinced was now foolish. They were happy but stupid, Socatise made them ponder just how stupid they where. Ignorance is bliss i guess.
socrates made a career out of arguing. the substance of life shouldn't be in argument. you completely vitiate the existential element. socrates is the pure intellectual who hobbles out of his college rooms looking like skeletor because he's dissociated himself from embodied life and reduced himself to a walking corpse. for all of his inquiries into the meaning of life he's destroyed all of the meaning in life.
except socrates didnt argue, he was simply trying to find answers to questions with the help of other people that they could both happily agree on. problem is that everyone he talked with ended up going in circles without finding any concrete answer or solution that they could both agree on. hence why socrates always claimed that he knew nothing, while the other people who he talked with could not prove their beliefs yet they believed in them and followed them, they could not give a reason why
@@visceraeyes525 if you know nothing you can do nothing because you have no premises from which to operate. that's a recipe for destruction. the athenians knew this and had to put a stop to it. socrates' arguments are made in bad faith. if you've ever argued with someone like socrates you realize quickly what they're doing although you can never get them off of it. socrates was a kvnt. they should have just looked at him and said, "if you're a know nothing then why am i talking to you? why would i waste my time talking to someone who knows nothing?" but, sadly, even this is too much to say to someone as disingenuous as socrates. you simply can't engage them because that's the initial hook of their entire game. he should have just been ignored.
@@conantheseptuagenarian3824 sure but he tried to make people question their beliefs and to be introspective instead of just accepting things that they are taught or expected to believe in while pushing those same beliefs on everyone else to the point that it becomes the norm, yet no one he talked with could explain the reasoning behind their beliefs. obviously the government was afraid of free thinking and punished him with death or exile. a bit ridiculous to punish someone like that for that reason but it goes to show how threatened the government was by free thought
The very use of the word “hated” in the clickety-clickbait title goes completely against Nietzsche’s philosophy of “Beyond Good and Evil”. Nietzsche had many things to say about Socrates, both good and bad. He also wrote a book called the Antichrist, while elsewhere he dubbed Jesus “the noblest human being”.
Black and white thinking was the essence of what Nietzsche opposed (and is also on of the signs of bipolar disorder).
Nietzsche criticized the dialectic of Socrates, but he also greatly admired him as the philosopher par excellence, as the gadfly of his age, criticizing the hubris of his fellow Athenians. As such, Nietzsche saw himself as the heir to Socrates.
well to be fair "The anti-christ" doesnt attack jesus, it just states that his message was distorted later on by his disciples ( mainly paul and peter) giving focus only to his death and the whole myth of ressurection, salvation and the after-life, instead of his life and teachings and instead of uniting the kingdom of god with THIS life and within everyone, which was what Jesus, according to Nietzsche, was preaching about. If anything it is anti-church/christianity...it's Paul that really sticks out as the "antichrist" figure
Didbn't he claim to BE the antichrist in that book?
FYI Black and white thinking is a symptom of borderline personality disorder, not bipolar disorder. It's a common mistake, behavior popularly termed "bipolar" is usually actually indicative of borderline personality disorder.
@@oriraykai3610 yes he does that often, being the ugly beast people are afraid of seeing.
This
"I wouldn't exactly call myself a student of this plebe." - Nietzsche
Because my name is N I E T Z S C H E
And I'll end any motherfucker like my name in a spelling B!!!
"Don't make Nietzche come over there and put a knee up in your chi!" - Also Nietzsche
@@mainstreetsaint36 "Cause I am N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E and I'll end any motherfcker like my name in a spelling bee." - Also Nietzsche.
Typical prol method of drawing attention to oneself by badmouthing a long dead Man ..he owed his successxin large part to Socrates just as Plato does.
"Cause I'm the N-I-E-T-Z-S-C-H-E, and I'll end any mthrfckr like my name in a spelling bee" - Also Most Probably Nietzsche
Socrates performed an analysis of people in his time. He showed that peoples beliefs were instinctual rather than rational. And what did Nietzsche do, he criticized Christianity, Kant and Schopenhauer, Wagner, science, and ascetic ideals. Nietzsche was a modern Socrates. They were not so different. The Athenian elite were not so nice, not rational and destroyed their own state via the Peloponnesian War. Thank goodness that Basel provided Nietzsche a pension! I love Nietzsche but perspective is needed to understand him. Thanks for the discussion.
that genuinely has to be the worst take of both parties
@@fionnghallselma7193 If you have a better take, consider adding to the discussion
@@auschtits3023 nah
Nietzsche called Schopenhauer his teacher and advisor. He was a staunch opponent of Hegel, though.
@@quailinyourpocket3329 even Hegel's mother was. Hegel was cringe worthy, to use my teenage son's vocab
In Summary:
Socrates: I argue that we should argue.
Nietzsche: Well, I argue that we shouldn't argue, because arguing is for weak nerds.
Socrates: ...What are you even doing with your life?
Nietzsche: I wish I was a king.
Yes, Nietzsche is fascinating. Sickly, powerless intellectual who seemed to despise sickly, powerless intellectuals
Perfection
@@dashphonemail looks like projection then
Not even close. Read a book Jack.
@@JS-dt1tn bruh literally all I did for my poli sci degree was read books from guys like these, more than I ever would've wanted to
This reminds me of how in an argument one person can bully the other into giving up. But that doesn’t mean they are actually right. It just means they can argue better than the other. Reason is not truth, because people do not know all truth. We don’t know everything so we can’t reason the truth. We can only make a hypothesis with the limited information we have. Which is essentially worthless. We don’t even know how wrong we actually are.
exactly. sherlock holmes solves the case.
If we acted like reason was worthless the world would be a mess, but I agree.
For Socrates, general democracy was the mob.
They were not that different, after all, but Nietzsche could lean on 2000 years work of others, while Socrates walked out of the postapocalyptic stone age, starting from nearly zero.
I think as you point context matters a lot. And if you look at Nietzsche now he was just out of the middle age too. It’s not like he was omniscient of his conditions because he couldn’t even knew what would arrive 100 years later..
Socrates had centuries of Greek (and Persian!) thought to build on, and if he wanted to back millennia there were the Egyptians--he's about midway between us and the Pyramids.
NICE COMENT!
There were centuries of philosophical work before Socrates was born. Specifically scientific methodology, which is the crown jewel of Western thought. That is NOT nearly zero, you're misinformed.
@@josedanielherrera7115 In my opinion there was a high civilisation before, what we call history is the history of the abandoned survivors.
"Over emphasis on logic. Arguments are a last effort of the weak."
Wut. If an argument can defeat your "power" then you never had any. Such a supposed power wouldn't spend his time whining about losing to logic and reality. What a clown.
It would seem I am being recommended the same videos as you late at night (assuming you didn't seek out this video). I'm not sure whether to be thrilled or concerned.
Seriously though, love your work, and totally agree.
'If an argument can defeat your power, you never had any.'
Socrates' agility and wisdom in public debate did not save him from meeting his end at the hands of the Athenian elite, who he bested verbally and regularly in front of crowds of his peers. I believe that when Nietzsche refers to arguments as being the tool of the powerless, he is merely giving an observation about reality. It must be noted that in Nietzsche's view, it was the powerful that ultimately decided the morality of the day. This is not to say that he necessarily agreed with that system. It's just how things were/are.
Socrates DID leave a lasting legacy in the world. However, you must apply Nietzsche's pov to the equation too; Would Socrates' legacy have been known to us if the powers that be did not wish it? Would Socrates' writings have even survived if the hellinistic world had not been such a powerhouse back in the day? Perhaps Hellas would have fallen to the Celtic and Dalmatian tribes of antiquity, causing the records to be lost. What if the European kings had adamantly resisted the enlightenment, when classical Greek thinkers inspired modern philosophy? One decision altered by the [many] powers that were, and you may not have ever heard of Socrates.
I always was under the impression his idea of being right was less logical and more based on his hated mob and the mob mentality. Then again he could be inserting cynicism into in an attempt to be ironic.
If you had power you dont need to convince with logic. You just do
Arguments are often a lot like cassation (vs appelation). Not calling out general principles, but calling out on minor discrepancies. We all are living people. We all make mistakes. But our principles form not overnight, but in several years. And often we find enough proofs to them. So one "argument won" over minor forgotten sources or accidentally twisted diagrams will not change anything. And yes, powerful people can lead others to believe anything actually emotional as "logical", such as denying nature of two sexes or anything like that.
Discovering Socratic questioning method was the best thing that happened in my life. Its the only solution to solve complex contemporary problems of our world. Claiming Socrates or any philosopher uses dialogue as a means to reach power is either projection or ignorance. If someone can't answer simple questions then he aint authority. Or at least he shouldn't be. That's kind of low from Nietzsche. Anyhow after years of studying problems of the world and history I have come to conclusion that most philosophers are just "masturbating" with too many overly sophisticated words. Life and world is based on simple foundations, yet very complex structure is built upon them. Philo - sophia is just love for learning and science. You can use simple words to describe most phenomena.
Great comment!
What problems does it solve? It's just a trick to find your way to emptiness. But you could skip the questions and get there immediately.
@@strangeWaters How do you get "there" when you don't know that "there" exists? You have to ask questions so you can arrive at "there". And what problems does questioning solve? Basically EVERY problem that mankind faces. Of course you need to apply knowledge that was discovered by socratic questioning method if you actually want to solve a problem. Example: ask doctors socratic questions about causes of disease. If you do that, you will discover that they have no clue about disease processes and that they're not only useless but also harmful with the usage of chemical drugs. Then you can observe nature and ask questions and discover the cause of diseases. That's just one example of many.
Claming that asking questions is a trick to "find your way to emptiness" is gaslighting. And it comes either from ignorance or hate. If you dont ask questions then probably your life is empty and you project it onto youtube comments.
@@michaelk1589 Then what if you question morality based on the premise that the one reacting has no logic? What does proving the baselessness of (a) moral accomplish when looking at the world?
In the search of progress one shouldn't digress into spiting those deemed inferior, for inferiority is an illusion only those of weak logic have applied on themselves. Thus by infecting the self with inferiority, not by contact or failing of the other, but simply through the corruption of ones own logic, corrupted by the ego, forgetting that it is not ego that makes one unique nor grants any grounds for a claim to superiority.
Your last 2 sentences contained a judgement that could be mirrored right back. Why would you even make such a statement? Many people think their statements say something about the subject, but in reality they firstly tell you about the speaker themselves.
@@bramboeshoe905 Well, the previous commenter claimed in the first post that one "finds way for emptiness" by asking questions and that is a useless endeavour. I say that its complete lunacy since you grow and get knowledge by exactly this - asking questions and the observing the phenomenas of the world. I therefore claim that such stance of an individual is not only making his life fruitless since he won't get into any meaningful conclusions but its also harmful since his actions will most probably bring undesired results due to lack of knowlegde. And such stance comes from either being an ignorant human or person filled with hate or fear. That is objective statement. Knowledge comes from love and will to live and curiousity.
And about first part of your comment - I have no clue what you mean there. Please reiterate in simple words if you want an answer. I didnt write anything about inferiority or superiority so I cant comment. But since you said word "morality" then I shall state that there is only objective morality that bounds all creatures with higher capacity for thinking. If you are a "moral relativist" I shall not engage in further discussion since moral relativists are insane and dangerous. And its very important to discern right from wrong /good from evil in todays world. So judging immoral or harmful worldview is substantiated.
Well, this certainly makes me appreciate Socrates more.
Edit: huh, didn't expect anyone to like this, or to even leave a comment, let alone argue. Personally, I prefer Plato.
Dont know if id look up to an over glorified pedophile caught up in their own hubris
This made me appreciate Nietzche more
@@Vectivuss Man you just sound so vitriolic and angry over some dude that died 2 thousand+ years ago. I guess that speaks to Socrate's ability to live rent free into everyone's head.
@@supergobgoblin424 to me your comment is showing how annoyed you are of op's comment just because he subverted the expected perception of socrates after they saw nietzsche sneering at socrates... you cant accept there is one who subverted it , so you reaffirming your offended adoration to nietszche by replying that way
@@exmaniac1474 but the same can be say about you, the fact that someone refused the subvertion subverted the expectations you had after reading the original comment, you can't accept there is one who disagrees with the subvertion, so you reaffirmed your offended adoration to Socrates by replying that way
What I think is funny is that Nietzsche thinks he actually knows who Socrates was. We only have vague depictions in the Early, Middle, and Later stages of Plato's writings. No one really knows what kind of man he was.
He was probably a made up character by Plato too, so Nietzsche got trolled by Plato. lol
Agreed. we only have second hand sources through Plato and Aristotle.
People thinks Nietzsche or any other person who does not understands / speaks / writes the ancient greek language and does not know the origin of each word and each letter(Greek alphabet is coded) can be a philosopher..
For example, did you know that when you are asking a question and when you are '' in love '' you are actually doing the same thing, because "in love" and "question" have exactly the same meaning?which is "the desire of acquiring something you don't already have" , a thing or an answer!
Philosopher=Φίλος+Σοφία=Friend of Wisdom!
this is the reason Eros (Cupid) referred to as Deamon or great philosopher and not as a God (Deamon is the stage between mortals and gods) because Gods are wise but Cupid constantly seeks wisdom, so he couldn't be a god..
my point is that if we, the modern Greeks cant completely understand the meaning
of philosophy after years of studying, how is it possible for someone without Greek education do it? Today's philosophy has nothing to do with the ancient Greek one
Wouldn't that then apply to people who like Socrates? So by your logic everybody is wrong about Socrates and he is not worth commenting on.
@@Mierezkal Yes, everyone is wrong about Socrates, which is why I said that no one really knows who he was. That was the point.
Rare miss for Nietzsche. The Socratic method is the foundation of skepticism, which in my humble opinion is the most useful paradigm of all time.
Well said. Then again, you’re probably a rational type who naturally questioned the world around you since you were born. I’ve come to notice a lot of people become uncomfortable when they begin to question what they experienced. They’d rather live within the illusion of their personal life where it’s comfortable. The positive is that they usually live in bliss but the downfall is that they aren’t very reliable in critical moments
@@christianbrobst3486 Comfortability with the unknown exists within a spectrum in my opinion. Those who refuse to suspend judgement in the absence of sufficient evidence are the worst kind of people and aren’t reliable. Most people can be eventually be swayed if the subject isn’t religion.
@@dj69918 I’d have to agree and add that every ideology and way of thought that’s been labeled or defined exists as a spectrum. Do you mean people who put value into tribalism, in a sense? Basically those who take action for a side not because they share ideals but due to tribalistic nature
@@christianbrobst3486 From my experience tribalism usually doesn’t make people act against their personal beliefs, it tends to change their beliefs to fall in line with the tribe. The tribe has to be right because a wrong tribe is a dead tribe.
Read The Gay Science for a dismantling of the skeptics
That's kind of ironic. Socrates himself did what he did by instinct and love to philosophy. Heck, Socrates even died for that instinct since he wasn't willing to compromise. It's not Socrates's fault that weak-minded and weak-blooded guys bent before his questions. It's their own damn fault. In a sense, Socrates was the embodiment of Nietzsche's ideal of Overman. But at the same time... I can see why Nietzsche had a troublesome relationship with Socrates's philosophy.
Nietzsche's suggestion is that Socrates was driven by insincere motives (i.e. to manifest his own will to power in a society where he is unable to do so by conventional means) rather than just the love of philosophy, and he arrives at this through some pretty interesting psychoanalysis. Whether you are convinced or not, I think it makes for some interesting philosophy regarding people's true intentions and looking beyond surface level phenomena
Kinda ironic how Nietzsche’s whole philosophical career is based on doing the very thing he despises about Socrates (making an argument to prove your point instead of brute force).
Ur all wrong
@@Dezzreck well, as Ayn Rand’s philosophy shows ‘making a point’ doesn’t get much as her famous books shows…
I think the idea of ‘hey trade offs happen’ or as Sowell says- I paraphrase ‘first stage thinking is not the end’ do a thing- what comes next after that was completed?
@Ali this helps a lot actually
That is no surprise. Someone who idolizes primal creativity cannot respect him, who humbly searches metaphysical truth.
8:58 - Nietzsche strawmans Socrates because his argument is weak. Socrates was respected in Athenian society. He was credited with heroics during war time when he was a soldier. A religious idol had named him as the wisest man in the world. They resisted their urges to arrest him for a very long time until finally they were virtually forced too. Even the Athenians did everything they possibly could after sentencing him to death to allow him to escape. Nietzche's argument against Socrates is his argument against slave morality that was repeated against the Jews/Jesus in Genealogy. Good video Weltgeist, I appreciate your stuff.
From what we know of him, Socrates was a war veteran. He also seemed to be a lot more popular and relevant during his life than Nietzsche was during his. From the evidence we have, it seems like Socrates was closer to Nietzsche's ideal than Nietzsche himself was. That's the biggest irony here.
The irony is never lost on me how Nietzsche is trying to use arguments and logic to complain about someone and their successors bringing those to the world in a more systematic and disciplined way. So the very vehicle through which science accomplishes what it does, Nietzsche takes issue with.
A philosopher, who is anti knowledge? Interesting...
Have you read Nietzsche? His books are more like poetry, literature, there is little arguments and logic in his writing. And that's not a bad thing.
@@Ragnarok540 Why isn't that a bad thing?
@@markaguilera493 Because the vitality of life isn't in sterile science and logic but the irrational and passionate.
@@grabballz4857 What makes you think science and logic are sterile? Sterile means "that can give birth to nothing". Does it seem to you that science and logic have given birth to nothing?
@@nodruj8681 And yet, we understand his points, so that means Socrates has much to do with knowledge. Maybe he does feel superior in a way, but not necessarily arrogant. He has the confidence of the person who knows they're right and can show it through argumentation. What do you mean by a "wise man"? Sophistes were professional orators who could argue one way or another. They weren't that much concerned with truth. They too felt superior in their mastery of language and ability to manipulate people by means of clever but fallacious argumentation. So what makes you think Socrates was doing the same thing when clearly his dialogs show he is not? What is fallacious in Socrates's ways of questioning people?
Thanks. Some great material here. However it is worth remembering that Nietzsche didn't hate Socrates per se, quite the opposite - he very much appreciated him just didn't agree with his methods
Surprised so much hate toward Nietzsche in comments. Great thinker. Great video too! .
It is always a joy to hear you saying "Decadence".
So, Nietzsche was making an argument against Socrates, to show that Socrates had no real power, and as such was forced to make arguments against the powerful? So, if Socrates was making an argument because he was to weak to do otherwise, what does that make Nietzsche, who was making an argument against Socrates?
Let's add to that the fact that Socrates was a buff wrestler and a war veteran...
And Nietzsche was a sore loser and a cripple.
Thanks to Socrates we've got latter on Aristotelian and Stoic philosophies and they weren't about weakness of a slave mentality as Nitzsche argues but about strength to restrain yourself to control animal urges. Couse to them a virtues man isn't a pathetic harmless weakling but a strong restrained pacifist.
Only a Germanic barbarian could argue for a "Might makes right" dogma.
@@RUclipsTryingToBeTwiter31581 Nietzsche uses the Christians to represent slave morality and the Greeks to represent master morality in actuality. Might make's right isn't true in so far as it's used to spread meta narratives that are used as a means to more power/control over people's lives. There you have postmodern skepticism.
If all goes well, the time will come,” Nietzsche prophesies, “when one will take up the Memorabilia of Socrates rather than the
Bible as guide to morals and reason.”19
Those who look at Nietzsche as a rival of Socratic figure either take a partial account or misinterpret him .
@@RT-yw3sz Glad someone here has actually read him closely... So sad to see so many miss the mark.
Thats funny because Plato used Socrates as a mouthpiece for his own ideas, and Plato had a big influence on the Bible and the church founders. So, in essence, Nietzsche wanted people to use the Bible to guide their morals and resson.
@@myhatmygandhi6217 no. Definitely not. That aspect of Socrates (the moralistic) was not top of mind. Infact it was highly deconstructed.
I don't think it's accurate to say Socrates hated or destroyed earlier Greek culture - he may have challenged parts of it - but he speaks positively (almost hero-worship-like) of Homer in several Platonic dialogues, so Nietzsche was a little hyperbolic in that assumption. He does make some valid criticisms of the Socratic dialectic, but he is not above the errors of his own time either. For example, in " twilight of the idols " when speaking of how Socrates belonged to the lowest class and that he was ugly; Nietzsche goes on to say: " Ugliness is often enough of the expression of a development that has been crossed, thwarted by crossing. The anthropologists among the criminologists tell us the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte in animo. But the criminal is decadent. " It's not Nieztsche's fault to buy into this hokum, but he is trying to strengthen his argument with what we know today to be pseudoscientific-based claims. ie. fields like physiognomy or phrenology. Even brilliant minds like him can use dodgy evidence on occasion. Nevertheless, his criticism of Socrates' decadence in the more intellectual sense, or as he puts it, the " anarchy of the instincts " and the " hyperthrophy of the logical faculty " holds more weight for sure.
Yes, it's almost like Nietzsche's arguments don't make any sense. But then caring about good argument is for the weak. The ultimate fascist philosopher.
@Christopher Bolhuis Rather than using your Will to Power to belittle people on the internet, why not use it to provide passages in Nietzsche that prove he didn't believe that all that exists is the Will to Power and therefore that 'higher order' functions such as reason and logic aren't just in the service of the Will to Power, and it's just as valid, in fact more honest, to settle arguments using violence as opposed to reasoned debate? Nietzsche's arguments work great if you're Genghis Khan, just acting out in the world, not so much for a philosopher who at least has some requirement to reason his points out so people can understand them. But as a Nietzschean I suppose you think proving your point is a waste of time anyway, better to just troll people. He really is the philosopher of the current age.
@Christopher Bolhuis Using argument to claim that using argument is a cowardly form of overpowering others. If you don't believe in some kind Absolute, transcendental Truth, which Nietzsche clearly didn't, then yeah everything is just a jostling of different will to powers. There's no way of getting out of the idea that God is dead without plunging into nihilism, which of course he did, and no 'reevaluation of all values' is going to get you out of it. He should have stuck to reading Schopenhauer.
Ah actually there is some scientific basis to the idea that beautiful people are better people...several studies on it...not proven 100 percent but far from completley wrong
@@freefromthedark6784 Well "better" is not exactly the term to use. One might use the term if one believes in Objectivity, but is "better" really existent in an objective, scientific path? You see, whats better for one person, is the person's opponent's worse. Some people consider themselves the best people in the world, superior to any living beings, are they though? A person might think of himself as a burden, as a total looser, but that is his mere intepretation of himself.
Nietzsche is like a great first draft to a script which is in need of a rewrite to fix all the plot holes lol...sporadic moments of genius and then moments of fails in his thought,heck even Napoleon himself who he infamously praises so much had to use reason and arguments to get to power,no man is an island,this leads to entitlement.
As always, mein Herr does a peerless work in this appraisal. We are gifted by your gift of clarity and narrative in examining these important works snd ideas. Gute arbeit!
Socrates failed in judging the character of two of his friends: Alcibiades and Critias. Alcibiades was a narcissist and eventually a traitor, and Critias was a sociopath and eventually a tyrant.
Failed? failed how? in not surviving? He said on his death bed that he had no problem with dying. Was he a liar then?
I mean Socrates did say he knew nothing about anything
This was really good
*This seems to be quite a niche perspective.*
Heh I see what you did there.
@@jakariashafin1695
It goes much deeper.
*RorriMaesu says useaMirroR*
The Memorabilia of Xenophon give a really true picture, that is just
as spiritually rich as was the model for the picture; one must, how-
ever, understand how to read this book. The philologists believe at
bottom that Socrates has nothing to say to them, and therefore are
bored by it. Others feel that this book points you to, and at the same
time gives you, happiness.
-Nietzsche, posthumous frag. 18 [47] (1876)
It seems to me this kind of “degeneration” of society and the need to “use” power on the surroundings or let it fester inside said society is also applicable on the individual. It feels like whenever nietzsche is criticising socratis he is also criticising himself for the exact same thing. Its almost like a spiral we cant get out of. Maybe thats why nietzsche sounds so depressed all the time lmao
“It feels like”?
If you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
The irony here is that the tool he uses to justify his hatred is the very tool he hates. It could be said that he encountered an enemy one can only beat by not fighting...and he chose to beat it by fighting.
Irrational Nietzche
Socrates brought about the stagnant circle of inquiry while Nietzsche literally made Superman
From what I understand about Friedrich Nietzsche, not a whole lot of people considered him an upstanding citizen as well, I have personally heard him called a clown in conversation at least once, and he has written some very unpleasant things about the educational establishment in general at that time he was alive.
For me it also certainly doesn't help that he has apparently embraced stoic principles, and I believe his main concepts of teaching look an awful lot like the socratic teaching method.
I have my own opinion here which is I think Friedrich Nietzsche was negatively influenced by people who were labeling themselves as stoics and those embracing Socrates' philosophy, and his critique was misdirected at stoicism in general and Socrates.
When I read Beyond Good and Evil, there was a part that called 'We Scholars'. This particular part had nothing really nice to say about what he considered 'bloodless educators', who merely played lip service to the content they were teaching and made a mockery of the process itself. If he was referring to those who claim to be 'Socratic', that I can see where his problem was Socrates and stoicism actually comes from if I am correct.
being deemed healthy by a sick society is no good measure of health. criticism towards contemporariness to enlighten a succumbing mentality (the mass), upsetting the status quo, and being deemed sick (not an upstanding cirizen) by the mainstream literary/intellectual society is hardly a good measure. he wasn't saying the masses were wrong, he was implying they might be living according to rules and an ethos which their ancestors apparently built for them, while obviously being in a homogeneous mindset to them.
while one has to admit the great number of ways in which the world has culturally and technologically enriched itself through the centuries, it is also of no use to point out all the great amount of good done, just to hide the proportionally immense atrocities and sheer dehumanization that came with it.
it seems obvious that cognitive dissonance is fundamental in order to understand what nietzsche cryptically implied in his poetry and literary works in general. first and foremost one has to embrace the unknowingness about his time period, about which the winners always talked so highly of, as in most cases is done by those who prosper. contemporary criticism evaluations done in hindsight are hardly a good way to evaluate a poet-philosophers work.
the destructive and demystifying manner in which nietzsche, and schopenhauer before him, approached all past common and specialized 'knowledge' resulting in a radical re-evaluation of past dogmas, vices and virtues is hardly something that can be comprehended under the influence of contemporary mainstream (of any time, not just today's) ethics and morals, generally heavily guided by a prevailing mass mentality (see freud's and others work). one would need to do as zarathustra did to truly embrace and/or refuse his message and proposals about the human condition and life in an unconditioned condition (nature, without social/ethical/moral propaganda of good and evil).
there is no suggestion he was inherently right, none whatsoever.
he pointed out regular and recurring phenomena of this cosmos, encouraging his reader to enquire, and not to simply settle for what is "already known and established" by some compartmentalized elected hierarchy of past/present individuals.
man needs to see for himself before he believes in anything.
sure he was human, he had his problems, perfection was and never has been the objective of his or any other philosophical system of the past, neither was his purpose an idealistic critique towards the social hierarchy and systems used, it was more of an attempt to give another possibility for a different more autocratic/anarchic way of life with which life could be different, perhaps for the better, perhaps for worse.
these are just two cents on the matter, i'm not claiming to be right or an expert on nietzsche, this is perhaps a young inexperienced man's consideration on a topic which is all too often left to those in power or as an exclusive conversation of the presbytery, i'd like for everyone to have their own, actual view, instead of THE RIGHT ONE, because the textbook says its so.
onthefence.jpg
Just like Socrates hated the sophists which in turn becomes the biblical hatred of greek thought (philosophy).
Got put the "fried" in Friedrich when he said "Nietzschit ist tot."
I mean, look at his moustache
Nietzsche hated the Stoics, dude…
9:20 for people wanting to study deeper into why ancient greece eventually accepted Socrates I recommend Giambattista Vico's "New Science-Concerning the Common Nature of Nations"
(Oswald Spengler expands on Vico in his work "Decline of the west")
Vico identifies 3 big stages for every civilization (Spengler uses 4 but they are basically the same idea):
1. age of God: foundation/infancy, the metaphysical reigns supreme, in our case Christianity coming into history
2. age of Heroes: "middle age", expansion and consolidation, Monarchy, metaphysical impetus very strong("God is with you/the gods are with you"), Virtuous warrior "the Knight", the peak is the "age of discovery"
3. age of Men: full maturity is reached BUT decay/death awaits, the impetus of the previous periods is lost, atheism, Republic, man only exist for himself, "To rest on your laurels ", Marcus Aurelious wrote "meditations" during this period of Rome as a way to Cope with the situation
basically the 3th age (of ancient Greece) is where Socrates starts to take roots in Hellenic society.
------
curiously enough the Biblical pattern is similar:
1--foundation (year "0") the "Logos is made flesh" and enters history
2--"evangelization" conquest and consolidation
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Revelation 2:26 "And to the one who overcomes and continues in My work until the end, I will give authority over the nations. He will rule them with an iron rod and shatter them like pottery- just as I have received authority from My Father"
Christopher Columbus was a very important figure for the Evangelization of the nations
3--"Apocalypse" (contraction, "end of the cycle", "first this message must reach all nations then the end will come" Matthew 24:14, "the great apostasy" must occur this is: atheism/secularism/abandonment of the faith 2Thessalonians 2:3 etc...)
although the pattern of the Apocalypse is a reference to the "ending cycle" of the whole earth(the "cosmos") not just one nation, similar to the pattern of the "great flood" from Genesis
(after all the suffering "Revelations/Apocalypse" ends with the vision of a city with "the garden" at its center with "the tree" in the center of the garden in "a new heaven and a new earth where goodness lives" "the old earth/cosmos has passed away burned in fire"...)
Curiously enough also similar to Thelema with the Aeon of Isis being when man worshipped the earth, the aeon of osiris being when man worshipped gods and the aeon of horus being when man worshipped man.
deep
Nowadays, the most important "evangelists" are tech company shamans spewing their effete doctrines. What would Nietzche think of this capitalist decadence the world has sunk into? If he thought Hellenistic culture was bad he would have fainted at ours today...if you can even call it a culture that is
I’m not reading that mf
in this video my deep-rooted love for both philosophy and languages is turned on fire. damn if i am amazed by the words used in this video. thank you for making this! really makes me a happier man
Much appreciated!
Nietzsche really missed with this one. Socrates wasn't so much concerned with "the will to power" as he was the pursuit of knowledge. Socrates could have easily acted as a sophist to rally suport and gain power and status in his society, but he was too pure for that, he cared primarily about the pursuit of authentic knowledge, and he disliked the sophists.
I think Nietzsche resented Socrates because he was personally offended by the idea that someone like Socrates might question the legitimacy of those in power.
Even just the very idea that Power = Good and Lack of Power = Bad, no matter how the Power was obtained, seems like a pretty shallow way to distinguish between Good and Bad
@@NondescriptMammal yes, it's essentially the philosophy of "might makes right", not very sophisticated when you really look at it.
Reading Nietzsche and understanding him is super complicated, I have yet achieved a level where I can read his books in under a year. But I do know that he never made such a black and white declaration about anything. His idea of power = good is not power as in tyrannical, opressive power. It's the Idea of competence, confidence building up strengh and taking on life at full force and determination. This is a sort of biological determinism, where people who are powerful, as in competent , should succeed and rule the weak, who are incompetent and lazy. The video here is made short for convenience , but Nietzsche adds a lot of flesh around his points of views and in the end he isn't as radical as it seems.
I don't pretend to understand Nietzsche fully, but I do know that to make a constructive and good criticism of him, you have to read his whole work. This takes so much time and dedication that most of us will never achieve it.
Either way, I think you are wrong about his idea of power and the video is also misleading because Nietzsche adds a lot of nuance to his critics. In some other books or chapters, he also admires Socrates for other things.
lol where do get these ideas from. Not even close !
@@dauvyde4665 i have read all of Ns stuff. Including his notebooks. This guy is terribly wrong.
I can’t remember hearing the issue being put as “instinct versus reason” before. It is a useful summary.
If Nietzsche is all about power then the most power must go to Nietzsche through his thought so he must “refute” any alternative to him.
nietsche's "The phases of spiritual metamorphosis are symbolically represented by the camel, the lion, and the child" its not only on a individual level but on a society evolutionary species level... the biggest problem is that through history the lion because of our instincts conditioning never wanne turn back into an infant/child because then the lion will se and have to phase its own ignorance and give into
submission.and from nature a lion a proud animal...which is very confronting for the condioned soul and being.but when a lion can willingly and
accepting returns into an infant, thats were it will fiend its piece and greatness.
Weltgeist, have you looked into the differences in Nietzsche's text when translated by Colli and Montinari? Or the differences between other translations? I am always very surprised that things can be so different from one translation to another. It would make a good topic for a vide one day!
I'm not sure he has to read Nietzsche in English, he seems like a native German
If Nietzsche's argument was that making decisions for society based on good reasoning is wrong because society should be ruled by the authority of force, then his argument is self-defeating because it dismisses reasonable argument and therefore makes redundant anything that anyone says, including whatever he himself argues.
Yep. Nietzsche was a big LARPER. If anything else he was the embodiment of the weak nerd that was never in a fight and spent his whole life arguing.
It’s not “good reasoning” he’s rejecting, but the “rejection of instinct” that he’s rejecting. Think about it, at what point in our evolution as humans did we go from creatures that instinctually drank water and ate, into knowing that those are things we must do? At what point did sexual reproduction go from being an instinctual action, into a rational choice to have children? There’s lots humans do by instinct that we don’t understand, but that doesn’t mean they’re bad. The Socratic irony attacks instinct. The necessity to have a good reason for every action can be destructive, but acting on good reason isn’t. I hope I made sense there.
Nietzsche wrote against the entire practice of trying to improve society so this criticism isn't very relevant
Neither would he then even argue that society should be ruled by force
Nietzsche’s point is that arguing can take you away from a good decision. For example if I decide I want to work out. Socrates would ask why and at the end get you to your body is not your being. Arguing or thinking too much kills actions.
Nietzsche observes the Will to Truth
Dismisses it, "That's a will to power"
Caveman observes iPhone
Uses it to kill a small rabbit
So going off this video and Nietzsche's own words, wouldn't it be more correct to refer to Nietzsche as a Sophist than a philosopher, and refer to his arguments as Sophistry?
It sounds like Nietzsche would have preferred that title, and no doubt students of Socrates and Plato would also feel it was more accurate...
Nietzsche seems to argue that all philosophy is sophistry, so he wouldn't disagree
Nietzsche resorts to false dichotomy: either you can discharge power as an authoritarian or you persuade others of your authority.
He fails to recognize and acknowledge that democracy was put into place before the time of Socrates and Socrates was a product of it.
He fails to see that the purpose of democracy was to avoid rule by brute force, rather to provide the methods by which a consensus would be attained.
He most certainly fails to see that the decadence of Athenian democracy was not due to inherent flaws, that were of course present, but due to the fact that by Socrates' time Athens had become a Hegemony, discharging power by brute force on other Greek cities and like Thucidydes very poignantly states in his History of the Peloponnesian War "the state of Athens would turn inwards the methods that it used to subdue foreign states".
The superficiality and hypocrisy Socrates would attempt to combat were mere attempts of his contemporaries to compromise their perceived political virtue with the acquiescence they were providing to the expansionist policies of the State and it's undemocratic treatment of conquered populations.
No not persuade others of your authority, persuade others because you don’t have the authority to tell them that this is like this and that is like that. And he doesn’t say it’s this or that only that one argues because he lacks the power to control.
If democracy is intended to prevent brute force, it does a terrible job at it
Nietzsche's criticism of Socrates reeks of :
1) Lack of historical knowledge
2) Lack of understanding of even basic concepts of what is philosophy and what is sophistry
3) Covert (or not so covert) anti-hellenism
Nietzsche basically wanted to cut and paste selective parts of Greek culture to suit his own preferences. His obsession fighting Socrates because he was "ugly and low class" reflected the jealousy that quite many ugly low value men have for any ugly ex-low value man who rises up to become high value man. Now lets clear out some of the oh-so-many misconceptions of Nietzsche's critique on Socrates.
Error No1: Socrates was "mob". Socrates was neither poor nor low class let alone part of the "mob". His father had a stone-working business and he worked there and was quite successful. We do not know details but we know that his two marriages were done with women who came from aristocratic backgrounds. One with an unnamed woman in his youth who probably died before delivering a child who was from famous politician-general Kimon's extended family and then with the infamous Xanthippe later in life with whom he had some 2-3 decades age difference and she was also an aristocrat. As such there is no case that Socrates was low class. He may had not been an aristocrat but he was surely from the upper-middle class echelons. Thus he was serving in the army as a hoplite, a very expensive endeavour indeed for lower social classes.
Error No2: Socrates a "theoretician". Socrates was first and foremost a working man and a soldier. He became a full-time philosopher later in life towards his 6th decade. Earlier he must had been successful in his business to be able to marry with aristocrats and of course he was famously one of the best hoplites in Athens excelling in a very difficult Athenian campaign up in north Greece, during which he also saved the life of a young Alcibiades (who was so impressed that became his friend and made him his teacher). How many philosophers who reigned supreme on the battlefield do you know? Socrates was the perfect combination of soldier and thinker - he just lacked physical beauty which of course he overcame in every single aspect.
Error No3: Socrates was not reasoning for the shake of reasoning. That was rather the sophists doing so - the ones that Nietzsche actually praised! Sophists were the gamma-males (if you like a modern term! LOL!) who sold cheap "reasoning techniques" to sway the opinions of others and sold their teachings for hefty prices to the rich and powerful. Socrates was indeed mistaken for a sophist even back in his times (infamously considered so by Aristophanes who hated sophists and thought Socrates has to be their leader or something!) and repeatedly later on by his detractors but in reality Socrates was their biggest opponent. He fought to remove sophistry from the public dialogue and replace it with reason and evidence.
Error No4: They heyday of Greek culture was NOT the 5th century but the 4th century BC in which Plato and Aristotle (world's greatest philosopher and initiator of science as we know it) lived and taught. The heyday of Greek culture was the rise of Alexander the Great, himself a student of Aristotle who was a student of Plato who was a student of Socrates. Effectively Alexander the Great was a grandson-student of Socrates.
Error No4: Socrates as-if replaced the "will of the powerful" with the "decision-making based on reasoning and dialogue'. Socrates had nothing to do with such a process - in fact this had already started centuries before Socrates at the very roots of democracy in Athens and Sparta - and we can go as far back as Homer who notes not only high king Agamemnon holding military councils but even leading God Zeus holding God Councils to decide upon important issues such as the fate of Troy. Nietzsche, a Teuton in mind, could not understand this very basic function of Greek culture, that there is no "high king", no "high leader". In Greece you can have Alexander the Great (greatest man in human history) as your king/leader/gerneral and he still has to call up the assembly to talk and try to convince you of the validity of his next steps and awaits for your agreement and commitment. There is no "I order, you obey".
The latter is something that the German Nietzsche just could not digest. He would rather just ignore elemental features of the Greek culture and recreate it as per his own Germanic soul. To be fair to him, it was not just him doing so. Pretty much all Western and Eastern Europeans and even the Italians and the Spanish have done this error to varying degrees.
There is a reason why I insist that if you really want to understand ancient Greek culture you need a Greek teacher. How strange eh?
There are some excellent comments here, but let me oversimplify for just a moment, as the apparent contradictions seem to be drowning us. The "politician" is the prototype of the man who lives by argument. And how do most people feel about a politician? Also, the healthy man, true to instinct and innate "virtu" (one of N.'s favorite concepts) is marked by individualism, whereas argument is by definition an activity engaged in with others. The man of "virtu" would disdain someone who spent their day engaging in dialogues with whomever was available to debate with. That admiration we have for strong silent men who know themselves is not easily given to the politician, no matter how clever he might be.
Nice description Sir. Peace be unto you.
Wow dude, well put.
but where does virtue come from? It comes from past politicians who came from men of virtue who again came from past politicians. It is how civilizations fall and rise.
@@wahrerrosty5347 Or perhaps it comes from men of probity and virtue who step forward to become leaders, sometimes reluctantly. The common type of glad-handing politician is a different sort of creature, and one usually at a safe remove from virtue. But I acknowledge your "strong men-good times-weak men-bad times" cycle as containing some truth.
It seemed to me, when I was young, that Socrates was a pest who went around confusing people, rather than helping them to think clearly. Now he may have done some good, by teaching people that they hadn't thought things through carefully. But then he doesn't help them toward any clarity or solution to their conundrum. Socrates must be analyzed from the tenor of the times. Athens had been defeated and humiliated after the long and unwise, for Athens, Peloponnesian War, never to regain its former glory. That was the context of Socrates noisome activities. It was like the US after the defeat in the Vietnam War. How could we lose? Since then, we have been looking for a Messiah, and of course picking mediocrities at best, and sometimes a phony or a demagogue. We are in decline like Athens our people are easily confused, and misled, and have turned on each other.
How would you know since we only know what he said after Plato wrote about it, probably after he died.
@@oriraykai3610 Since our only comprehensively source is Plato, that is whom I rely on as does everyone. I said, you may recall, "It seems to me..." no one can be sure.
Socrates conditioned people to be on his side for decadence and approval. He accomplished his goal and was much more competent than nietchze who sat there bitching about it. Life is structured in a manner. You either fight. Or you escape from it. Socrates chose to fight for his ideal world no matter what it lead to. The only rational approach as for living and he got what he wanted ultimately.
@@chuhwey3632 Socrates alienated a good many Athenians and was accused of corrupting the youth. He had a following of young people who were evidently enamored of him, but whether he was guiding them to better good, or leading them astray is debatable. He was put on trial and a majority condemned him. He was given a chance to defend himself or make amends. He did neither but as it were thumbed his nose at the large jury of citizens. He accepted the death sentence as if he welcomed it. He was old, tired and had done as much as he could to correct what he perceived as the ills of society. He was arguably a crank, and a reactionary at the same time. It is a fascinating story. He should be understood within the political situation of Athens when after Athenians had suffered a humiliating defeat in the Peloponnesian War they were forced to tear down their walls and a government of 30 tyrants was installed presumably to do Sparta's bidding. This was the calamity during which Socrates began to prod people and confuse them seemingly to restore the old ways of conducting their lives and businesses, but without offering any relief from their oppressed state.
@@tonygumbrell22 literally any worldview is debatable considering the way we live life is not a organized perfect road but a individualized one based off of ones own life experience. You're projecting your own insecurities with his way of life and trying to pass it as objective outlook.
Make Greek Great Again.
I think Nietzsche is just jealous "I wanted to destroy a great culture!"😭😭😭
I think this is a bit one sided. N also deeply admired Socrates and unequivocally considered him one of the most 'interesting' people to have ever lived. His attitude to S was profoundly ambivalent (like his attitude to truth, a value he denounced at the same time as explicitly dedicating his entire life to its pursuit).
Cool, although I would argue that N mostly dedicated his whole life to finding meaning and joy in it. Either way, my main point here is that the two things might be related in a complex way, like his relation to S, as u point out.
Nietzsche was beyond good and evil, remember? Not only did he not hate Socrates, he clearly loved him. He imitated him with an intense passion. He was ultimately more positive than Socrates, who he rightly saw as a cultural wrecking ball, a spiritual menace. His standing hero. I cannot think of anybody closer to my mind when I think of Socrates than Nietzsche.
This is an excellent video.
Thank you
"I'll just talk against religion, talk against other philosophers, talk against every one and the young "rebellious" youth will make me their god"
-Nietzche
I agree with Nietzsche on this issue. I see this going on still.
Socrates was like state champion in wrestling - he was a wrestling hero - basically a sportstar - how is the powerless?
Next up: Why Nietzsche Hated Nietzsche.
Might unironically make for a good video…
Didn't he also call nationalism an infantile disease and claim he wasn't German by heart (I might be wrong on this so don't quote me)
Good video but almost completely avoids explicitly discussing the actual conflict- realpolitik vs truth-seeking, consistentcy-based philosophy. Nietzsche’s points only make any sense if you agree that truth has no inherent value and saying a lie that is believed is infinitely better than a truth that is ignored. A power-based philosophy that he’s known for to be sure, it’s just a little radical to say there’s nothing morally wrong with being the most dishonest, horrific POS ever if it "works." Nietzsche would admire and compliment Hitler/Stalin/Bin Laden/any other historical figure who was important or had power just was morally horrifically wrong (except for a random oh they-were-too-bad-and-burned-themselves-out-so-don't-do-that but that's impossible to define generally so he never tried in all his works), Socrates wouldn’t. They're both valid, and possibly internally-consistent philosophies but I've just never been able to get behind beliefs that are just oh you can do literally whatever and if it works congrats you did the right thing and if you get busted then oh it was the bad thing. Nietzsche would love corporate frauds and whenever they got caught he'd instantly say they did the wrong thing because it didn't work. At the end of the day, power-based theories are inconsistent and contradictory and that's the point "because so is life" but I prefer trying to seek truth and actually be consistent
So trump was Nietzsche then?
Pretty myopic assesment but sure
The world is all about power dynamics. Western news outlets already exploit the concept of "post-truth" and distort messages, safe example would be Iraq in which, in the end, no chemical weapons were found. The US always seeks to assert itself and wage the informational warfare. But unlike western hypocrites, Asian mentality (and post-Soviet mentality) do not reject power dynamics. Many Asians or Russians actually are very pragmatic about power. For example, many see that corruption is just a vent, a tension-release shaft which appears when laws are too oppressive or incomprehensible. Bribery often is a form of paid service. If all, we should call not for abolishment of bribery, but for transparency and open unified prices for government services. This is only one example, there are many more. Powerful countries and companies exercise their will, form "crowds" believing their self-created infouniverses.
Um, you've somewhat misunderstood Nietzsche he definitely wouldn't have supported those men you mentioned. In fact, there was a great composer during his time (I forget his name) Nietzsche originally considered him an Overman due to his accomplishments through music, but when he began supporting german nationalism, Nietzsche rescinded that claim bc he was just going along with the social trends of his particular culture and society at the time
@@TOAOM123 can you explain how? Or is arguing too Socratic? :P
Nietze just got owned in a debate once and is hardcoping, that's the only explanation.
debate is all rhetoric. truth has very little to do with it
@@leleltea8921 that’s cope
@@EepyJuni you know it's true
0:50
2:30 Pre-Socratic Golden Age
5:24 Overemphasis on Argument
6:13 Weak People Argue, Strong Commands
7:32 An ugly outsider
9:04 Successful Clown 🤡
11:33 Socrates was a consequence of Decline
My problem with Neitzche, here, is that I really couldn't give a good goddamn if Socrates was just so insecure and weak that he established himself as a philosopher read for thousands of years and whose name is yet even familiar with most who have not read him. If Nietzche thinks he only did all that because he's a mewling coward with no other way to achieve an expression of power, that doesn't really change the impact of the expression anymore than someone reacting to Nietzche by saying, 'Nice fedora.'
Nietzsche hated Socrates because Socrates existed and is well known today, despite being ugly and such and Nietzsche is frustrated because he wanted to feel special but can't as long as Socrates is here, so he killed himself. So satisfied was he that Socrates operated within the paradigm of Will to Power, Nietzsche decided to do a victory lap by ultimately disempowering himself from his body.
wtg Nietzsche 11/10 troll
Killing urself bcuz of another mans success beta move
but nietzsche didnt kill himself
You don’t know what you’re talking about. You don’t belong in philosophy.
@@khyberkhyber193 I think that he meant that he destroyed himself, not kill himself literally.
Seems like Nietzche never had much of anything good to say about anything. Critical to a fault. He may be right about a lot of things, but he chose destruction over construction imo, and thus he only represents darkness in my mind, always has
“For some people this evasion of one’s own growth, setting low levels of aspiration, the fear of doing what one is capable of doing, voluntary self-crippling…are in fact defenses against grandiosity, arrogance, sinful pride, hubris. There are people who cannot manage that graceful integration between the humility and the pride which is absolutely necessary for creative work. To invent or create you must have the “arrogance of creativeness” which so many investigators have noticed. But, of course, if you have only the arrogance without the humility, then you are in fact [delusional]. You must be aware not only of the godlike possibilities within, but also of the existential human limitations….If you can be amused by the worm trying to be god, then in fact you may be able to go on trying and being arrogant without fearing [delusions of grandeur]…This is a good technique.”(Abraham Maslow, The Farther Reaches of Human Nature)
Currently writing a term paper on Plato and the rule of law and happened to see this video on my feed, lovely video mate!
I haven't read Nietzsche but if this is an accurate representation then it's no wonder he admired the Sophist because his argument is full of it ( i.e. sophistry and bs!).
And of course one can admire both the pre and post Socratic traditions there's absolutely no reason to pick one or the other.
Socratic traditions: created by physically active, proficient strongmen who opposed the moral idiocy of the Athenians.
Post-Socratic ""traditions"": created by twig-limbed aristocrats who didn't know anything about reality, and probably couldn't even deadlift 100lbs.
@@DISTurbedwaffle918 hmm... I believe that Socratic and post-Socratic are identical. so....
@@Iknowknow112
Cringe.
Socratic is actual philosophy.
Post-Socratic is just anti-philosophy ideals being touted as "the new philosophy"
Nietzsche doesn’t say anything about how that power is derived.
Socrates had power through arguments because the powerful had so abused their positions that Socrates’ reasoning rang true, as they do today.
If the higher form of man was lost… we can only blame it on the powerful, who through their greed and perversities, lost them.
I love a lot of Nietzsche, but for the same reasons he admired the Sophists. Because of logical thinking. Which was what Socrates was, he literally changed the western world due to his logical thinking. Through the early scholars like Thales, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Pythagoras we get Socrates, he learned from those before him, and his thinking changed the world and gave us Plato, Aristotle and Alexander the Great.
Socrates was friend with Perikles, one of the statemen that gave us Democracy. He thought it's flaw was that not everyone should be able to be a politician or vote. As politics was an important function of any society, and no one should be rule by a fool.
So wither if Nietzsche means Socrates was ugly from looks or from his personal views or ideology, I disagree with him. Socrates is the greatest philosopher of the world. Not because he is the smartest or the one most right. But because he really started true western philosophy.
I gave my first read to the problem of Socrates in the Twilight of the Idols and I think this video might have skipped some part about it, though idk how relevant it is.
In my view Nietzsche started building a picture of how wise men saw life as something undesireable or bad. He disagrees with this position. Then comes Socrates who has this new method and has found virtue in reason.
In the end, Socrates reasons himself to death, to drink the poison he was given. He did not resist it, but welcomed it. His reason lead himself to his own demise, but since reason is a virtue, his death would also be a virtuous one.
I think that was one problem Nietzsche had with Socrates.
This is a very good analysis
This actually explains a lot about the current world.
The western culture has lost or is losing its power... And those whos might makes right will rule the world.
I think you are now my favorite youtube channel, your videos are really great
You realize Netzhe went crazy in the end of life , he found out he was wrong whole time.
Why?
🤨
Umm. No. He found out that sex with prostitutes can lead to incurable neuro degenerative disease.
I do not listen to anyone who cannot spell "Nietzsche" right.
@@midasiscariot Because that's so important
@@eftichismalandrakis Instantly allows to tell negative IQ in a person
Gread vid. Thank you a lot. Keep going, perhaps ,best YT channel I've ever seen.
I wonder, if you can make some videos about poetry, since Schopenhauer and Nietzsche adored it.
Thank you in advance.
Nietzsche is like a redditor angrily typing away at what's obviously a troll just trying to mess with him.
Even if his writing style seems blunt and audacious, Nietzsche is a very nuanced thinker, therefore it is important to be subtle with our thinking when criticizing Nietzsche.
Nietzsche was the king troll
@@atmosrepair *Directly inspires Hitler* "We do a little trolling."
And with the pure-hearted innocence of a child when I was in grade school I would ask my teachers, why are we doing this? What is the purpose of school? So you can grow up and get a job and pay your bills? But why is that how we live our lives? Did you really enjoy your job? Do you really enjoy the life you have? Why would we continue to do things this way everyone if everyone so unhappy with it. I don't want to be here at the school. I don't want to take these tests. I don't want to waste my time doing homework. I'm here 8 hours a day. Can't you teach me everything I need to know when I'm here for 8 hours a day? And you're not even teaching me anything that I want to learn about? Why have I been forced into this situation? Why do you think this is the right way to do things? No more questions for you.
After your videos on Nietzsche's critique of Kant, Schopenhauer, Plato, and Socrates, I really hope you make another video on why he loved DOSTOEVSKY so much.
And many critics of Nietzche have said he became delusional because he suffered from the effects of syphilis.
Well yes he absolutely went nuts too, but that doesn't mean he was incorrect.
"Power" is an illusion. The Greatest illusion is Using Words to Change People's Beliefs. Creating Power for those who otherwise couldn't yield their own.-A. Friend. ❤
Small footnote: Most of what has been written about Socrates and his method has been done so by the hand of Plato. It is still a matter of debate if the works of Plato accurately describe the opinions of Socrates or just his own.
Diogenes certainly had some opinions about that!
Nietzsche never heard of a warrior poet. also, it's hilarious that he's making the argument that arguing is weakness...
Great video.
Great summary. One correction,
"Draught in the dust" is pronounced "Draft." e.g Like Guinness beer is served 'on draught'. It is also could be like a draught in the sense of a house with a window open on a windy day.
Or, as the Irish say, if there is no Guinness on draught, it is a drought.
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct.
just to help, ascertain is said thusly (a · suh · tayn), I know this won't reach many but it's a common word that is useful.
"A certain" is definitely having a different meaning.
The problem I have with Nietzsche's analysis of Socrates - as a man - is that Socrates was not of the mob: on the contrary, while not an aristocrat he had enough money to stand in the phalanx as a hoplite, which would have put him in a minority of citizens in Athens. He was regarded as a war hero: he fought for his state, while Nietzsche's military service consisted of falling off a horse. Socrates' entirely justifiable conviction for subversion was not because he undermined aristocratic values, but because he undermined democratic values, as did Plato more generally. It looks to me that envy played a large part in Nietzsche's analysis.
Having said that, I agree that the Socratic method is partially a fraud. You can always show that at some point a normative assertion runs out of "reasons".
Nicely done video BTW, subscribed.
@unreasonable you say the Socratic method is a fraud? I agree that a normative assertion runs out of reason but that is not why he used the Socratic method. I think he used it to show people (usually the arrogant ones) that no matter what your belief is, there are ways to disprove that. His main point would be that do not fool yourself by thinking your way is the only right way, do not feel contempt with your conclusion on something. Having said that, I don't mean that whatever opinions of beliefs you have might be wrong so you shouldn't believe in anything; rather to just keep an open mind and never feel contempt with you knowledge, always learn more!
@@HasanAli-ni4gi Your description might well be a very good, pragmatic way to approach reason, knowledge and debate, I try to follow this approach myself, but it is not at all what is going on in Socratic dialog or Platonic philosphy more generally. Plato - who actually wrote the dialogs - in his other works expounded the doctrine that there are absolute truths which only elites could grasp, just as "Socrates" does in the dialogs. At the end of every Socratic dialog, IIRC, the other diners say something like "Well, if eros (or whatever) is not A, B or C as you demonstrate, what is it?" at which Socrates makes a categorical statement that he claims is not just true, but necessarily true. The other diners would rather get drunk or have a go with the flute girls and boys by this stage - understandable after having listened to Socrates all night - so he gets the last word.
The dialogs are a fraud because Socrates' own claims are not subjected to the same method of critique.
I think u understand what you mean. Are you trying to say that the Socratic dialogs written by Plato are biased because it is written by Socrates’ student which is Plato? Because Nietzsche made the same argument.
@@HasanAli-ni4gi Not sure what you mean by "biased" in this context. For all I know they are reasonably accurate representations of the kind of dialogs Socrates actually had. The point is that the kinds of assertions made by Socrates in the dialogs are the same kind of assertions that are made by Plato in writings not involving Socrates. Both make the case for "Platonic idealism": the real existence of ideal forms, of which our earthly empirical experience is merely a distorted reflection.
What seems to have happened in popular understanding of philosphy, is that the idea of Socrates as a "good bloke" standing up for his principles has survived, while idealism as a viable philosphical system, complete with it's elitist baggage, has not. So people find it hard to grasp that Socrates was in fact an active antidemocratic subversive, who would have had no time whatsoever for fuzzy relativistic pragmatism.
My original point was that Nietzsche's objection to Socrates; that he was of the mob; is very strange, given that Socrates was elitist, as reading Plato makes clear. Objecting to Socrates because he was ugly is much more reasonable. ;-) Socrates/Plato thought that using reason to reach a higher state was something only elites could do reliably. Nietzsche appears to believe that only elites could abandon reason to reach a higher state. I am going to leave it there: let's see how Weltgeist's "Why Nietzsche Hated Plato" video interprets this issue.
I subbed because of this video. will be checking out the rest. keep it up.
IN SHORT: nietzsche was mad that socrates proved santa claus doesnt exsist, and has forever hated him for it.
I think he "proved" that Santa is within and that's where you must look to find him...
Platonism is the belief in spiritual world of ideal forms
Socrates was an actual warrior and relentless seeker of truth who faced death fearlessly and whose legacy lives on after thousands of years as the pinnacle of wisdom. Nietzsche was a promising academician who dropped out, wrote a few books, went insane probably as a result of syphilis, and whose impact came via the Nazis. Time has a way of showing truth from error.
I like his style of writing.
Who?
@@byronobrien3121 Nietzsche
What condemnation of Socrates can we not give to the infirm man Nietzsche who could not oppose his mother and his older sister?
Well, he’s describing the situation in the present US exactly. Our decadence is leading us to attack ourselves internally and will undoubtedly lead to our downfall.
Every society has weaknesses though. I actually think America wears its weaknesses on its sleeve but it’s a lot stronger than it looks at first glance.
"decadence" results when people "ask too many questions" and think for themselves and then realize that the belief-systems with which they've been brain -washed are intellectually bereft and, in fact, are nonsense. Truth and free inquiry are the enemies of all religions and all governments.
@@johncotter3788 that’s an oversimplification if ever I heard it. « Questioning » is all very well, but questioning to tear down and destroy without replacing anything is easy and smug, and always leads to destruction and decay. You’ll find that decadence, or even “decadence” as you put it is actually bad, and destroys lives, communities and yes, entire civilisations.
Really good video. I think you nail everything in a 14 min video which is impressive. Many thanks.
This video was great but clearly and unfortunately insufficient as evidenced by the comments, would you enjoy creating a part 2 going over the criticisms abundant here?
Could you make a video on nietzsche and machiavelli?
Who would want to finish his work though? Like with all due respect everyone should dread what Nietzsches ideal world would look like, it sounds like all around a destructive philosophy to me.
Nazis want to finish his work.
This channel is Nazis hiding their power level.
Nietzsche is misunderstood, he admired Plato and the Greeks in general to a great degree.
Nothing more poetic than a "strong and indominable" power being destroyed by mere words.
Socrates hated the mob so much he could not notice he became mob.
Thanks to that terrible mistake, Nietzsche could avoid that pitfall.
This fits with his views on fighting against monsters and becoming one, as well as the notion of overcoming your past selves.
He made Socrates into a scapegoat and a target to illustrate his argument.
Seeing the metaphor in reality.
Socrates "became the mob"? WTF? He was persecuted and killed, all by himself. Gee, kind 'a the way Jesus was.
@@oriraykai3610 There are many different types of mobs and many different examples of it.
Just because someone was killed by the mob, does not mean they were not part of a mob - the same way just because someone was assassinated by the state, it does not mean they are stateless, or just because someone was oppressed by evil, it does not mean they themself are not evil.
Socrates laid a foundation for the philosophizing and intellectual brainwashing of Plato and Aristotle, all trying to separate themselves from nature out of ignorance and pride and out of ignorance and pride attempting to bind the masses with their ideologically misguided machinery.
People have been persecuted and killed for millennials, Socrates drank the poison while a thousand slaves were slain trying to escape their captors, all in the same week. Not every artist is Leonardo, not every martyr is Jesus.
They're similar flames. Nietzsche had the gift and curse to stand on Socrates's giant shoulders. It'd be intimidating to make your own mark and influence the world next to a giant.
Interesting take on Socrates but I fail to understand what was so fantastic about pre-Socratic Greece. Nonetheless, the analysis is not dissimilar to the Buddha's description of how decadence arose. So long as the kings ruled according to the Dhamma (Sanskrit - Dharma), the country prospered and there was no crime. Whenever the king required counsel, he would summon those versed in the ways of tradition. Then a king decided to rule according to his own ideas and the land no longer prospered. And because he failed to look after the needy there occurred for the first time theft, and that set the ball rolling downhill. The root cause is, of course, lack of faith, thinking one knows better. In the modern world it manifests as doubt being the highest good and faith equal to superstition. And, as the Buddha says, the one who cultivates doubt does not reap the benefits of having faith in the Buddha's Teachings. Hence, the 'Buddhism' taught in the West is a confused and incoherent mess.
after my last attempt to discuss problems with contemporary intellectuals has failed i must agree with Nietzsche
As much as I love Nietzsche, when it comes to his take on reason, truth, and virtue he tossed the baby out with the bathwater. Violence is a tool most used by the man who's reason will not sustain his life within this world - NOT the other way around. Reliance upon irrational means of survival, such as violence and coercion, ironically only makes a person more dependant upon others. The violent man relies on the productive effort of others, while they in turn rely on him for nothing - only for him not to not destroy them. The man of reason can survive in a desert, the man of violence can, at best, barely even survive within modern day society. A man primarily relying upon anything but his reason is forever weak and dependant.
With this said, the kind of rationalist form of reason (in a vacuum) used by most philosophers through the ages, especially within modern academia, is an utter sham. Some of the stuff I've read while studying is baffling in it's stupidity. Examples? Just look at the analytic-synthetic dichotomy or the is-aught gap. It's utter fucking nonsense but still there's almost even a concensus that these ideas/problems are real and relevant.
@@DinkSmalwood the is-aught gap is actually very relevant, because morality and efficiency/utility don't always walk hand-in-hand. Just because eating healthy food is better for my health it doesn't mean i should eat healthy food, that would only be true if my objective was to be healthy, but maybe I'd rather die at 50 but be a 10 times Mr. Olympia than live to 80 and being unremarkable.
@@joaogarcia6170 Oh, I understand it very well and I know that it is considered very important within academic philosophy. My point was that it's a non-problem, a wrongness in thought that stems from an incoherent view of human concept formation and the nature of concepts. I claim that aught implies can, and that can implies is. But that's a whole matter that I don't wish to get into here. My point is, academic philosophy is severely lacking. Interestingly most of the so-called hard problems within modern philosophy is that they aren't problems at all, as soon as you get your theory of concepts straight. The problem of universals... contingent vs necessary attributes... the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, the is-aught gap. You name it and it's probably just an error of thought stemming from a wrong theory of concepts.
Osho Rajaneesh and Buddha came together and said BOTH INSTINCT AND ONES OWN REASON is also important. In a way REASON is important because Instinct needs to be under check and Moderation
Socrat talk abut reason Nitche talk abut death of god but zen master when they ask what is real anchwer only dontknow.. lao tcu flow like river also with dont know ..childe are inocent why because they dot know what is good bad ugly beuty big smal write wrong
I find much of Neitzsche's writing quite fascinating, but I must confess, his position on dialectic disgusts and enrages me.
why so? dialectic is the base of reason and we all know reason is limited, sense we give front row to science our live experience is being diminished every year, despite the great techno achievements, we live in protected cocoons with a image projection of reality, want proof? the mass of western media manipulation, we live in a cult like state of mind.
@@antoniolima1068 I have a different understanding of dialectic. I don't necessarily equate it with reason.
I think the kind of thinking that causes the most suffering in the long run is the attitude that is often taken during debate. The kind of thinking that sees language as a form of warfare.
To me, dialectic does not necessarily refer to this kind of thing, though I suppose it could include it. But I think it also overlaps with dialogue, which is the exact opposite kind of activity, imo.
I believe that dialogue is the only thing that could possibly save humanity from the mess we've made of everything.
@@ahobimo732 what mess? save humanity? this is what we are, no need to idealize our nature, it is healthy to accept who we are, dialectics is a tool, not a very good one, it is good to form functional systems, but all fallible, i prefer poetry, it goes way deeper into our nature and definably depends on subjectivity.
@@antoniolima1068 If the present cultural state of the world is "what we are" then we are most definitely not healthy. And I don't see how accepting it can be either.