Nietzsche both fascinates and scares me. Sometimes I feel that he has the most clear grasp of life and meaning. Other times I feel like he could destroy society and leave us with no foundation on which to stand. Sometimes both at the same time. Incredible thinker!
There will always be someone who maintains the opposite and argues it better. It is precisely Frederic who leaves everything to speculation and mere desires of human impulses. In all his literature there is no forceful argument against the existence of God and the transcendence of values, so then his entire philosophical pretension falls, because that is what it is, a desire.
It took 6 months to read the whole of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Each page felt like a punch in the gut, but exactly like a sharp pain it was awakening. For me, F. Nietzsche is the thinker who gave a voice to my own thoughts, and l won't stop quoting what Nico Kazantzakis said about his work : "Here's lion's food for your mind - if you dare."
Nietzsche helped share the Vedic philosophy and in that found his own - a precursor or the father of the true metamodern idea - that we are more than our parts - the gestalt of being, existence, and nothingness...
You are right to emphasise the emotional, intoxicating, passionate nature of Nietzsche's work. Reading Nietzsche is not like reading any other philosopher, at least in my experience. He was as much of a prophet and a poet as a philosopher, and this goes a long way towards explaining not only why he was so popular and influential among 20th-century artists and writers, but also why he is often regarded with suspicion by philosophers of a more analytical and less engaged type - indeed, many would argue that Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher at all.
I love to read books. A big part of my life. But sometimes philosophy can get a bit complex and sophisticated for me and I get tired. Then I watch these videos instead, where I get insightful and accurate summaries and inspiring concretizations. Thanks! Continue!
I have this problem sometimes too. I just sit and think on it. Ive gotten better at it and can now read for longer. Except, David Hume "A treatise of human nature" alludes me. I get 50 to 100 pages in and have to restart from confusion. Being able to talk to someone, even if they have no idea what youre saying. Talking to someone who does, or videos help me a lot too. I havent looked into content on this book yet. I keep reading it hoping ill get there.
@@naturesfinest2408 Sometimes when I immersed myself in books on philosophy, I look up at the ceiling and think; "what the hell was I reading just now? I didn't understand anything" Then it's nice to have youtube channels like this. Evola, Jung, Nietzsche and Plato are my favorites as well as the perennialists/traditionalists. Don't forget to meditate, though. You must not become a thinking machine that only reads. You have to be present and dynamic. The will to act. Training is nothing as Ras Al'Ghul said
I majored in philosophy as an undergrad. I wish I had a teacher like you! Your topics are very engaging, and you are so good at clarifying complex ideas that would otherwise seem foggy and confusing.
Reading nietzsche really can be tough. I read his Zarathustra and even though i just grasped a percent of what he was saying i never felt as impacted by a book like that. His writing style really blowed my mind. Its just like every word means something very dofferent as normal, sometimes even the opposite of itself. Through this you get a new perspective on language and therefore on wxistence itself
He or She who has ears to hear Let them hear! We were inprisoned from within ourselves unknowingly by ourselves and to each other "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" 7 Years of tribulations I had become a battlefield from within to set myself free from what was preached to be real but is not ACTUALLY what is. God has lead me to this even when I was blind. What God actually is is pure power It's a Natural Force that has Always been & it's chaotic force has been Arising in me when I let go of what I had considered what "me" is. God is Loving But God is also Violent & completely not definable. Morality keeps you from knowing it Morality has changed recently hence all the nonsense now Adays that has been promoted as "Good" which calls alot of your old school "Good" as now evil Moralities are nearly passing clouds God is Beyond Morality God is far Beyond all human concepts of "Good & Evil" It says so in the Bible when God returns it will wage war & kill off many things because this is the way of things. For change to happen there must be destruction so the re-Creation process can happen. How lonely it's been that I for some reason haven't been able to show this to others. The frost of such solitude had at times made me tremble in Fear. I must fear not. With Faith I move Forward even when everyone around me may doubt me or call me a devil
I have had a similar experience with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where I had to put it down a couple times. I am not sure if it was due to some form of egoic inflation or identification on my part? The second time I read it I paired it with Carl Jung’s Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra which I think helped me keep a little more grounded, or at least the ability to develop my own opinions, where I could disagree or agree with Jung on certain points, and Nietzsche on others. On a side note, I love your videos and I hope to see more from you in the future~❤
It really is wild and interesting to see even in this comments section the number of people that felt that way. I really do think it's because that book is such naked archetype that it gets you drunk only I'm not sure the brew is towards healthiness. Very interesting stuff. I can see the Jung side reading being a good way of doing it. Been meaning to read that as well so I might take a page out of your book. And thanks for the kind words Methuo!
No I think you would be right it might just be that I'm so ignorant of sociology that I don't even know that. I really need to become better acquainted with sociology 🙈
I'm partial to psychology as a student of it, I'm usually thinking about psychology before I consider sociology. So I'm there with ya about being ignorant of it in general lol
yeah i'm ignorant too, but I feel like psychology and sociology have different theories and methods. psychology often feels like it questions 'why', while sociology seems to like to measure 'what, when, how, and whereto'. like you suggest, most of my exposure to sociology has involved structuralist approaches and a lot of quantitative methodology to measure behaviours between many actors in a network. it's pretty hard to imagine a post-structuralist approach to sociology... much easier to imagine those concepts being used in psychological research... an investigation into that would actually make an interesting video!
It's true that when dealing with the cultural psyche it's nearly impossible to quantify anything. But remember Nietzsche declared that "our science is anti-intellectual by nature: all it does is MEASURE things!"...
As you have described him, it seems to me Nietzsche was a religious man. But perhaps I have misunderstood. Anyway, great stuff. It is a pleasure (truly) to see someone who has found a thinker/author to whom he can say "thank you for giving me truth I knew but didn't understand." It's like that for me with Lewis. I disagree with him a good bit but I revel in his overall understanding of things; so true there is a joyous pain that makes it hard to fully approach.
If we replaced the explosives in a rocket launchers ammo with just more fuel for the thruster and got a pair of skates, would it make us go forward by propulsion?
Jung and Nietzsche are both unhinged. I have tried to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra a few times. Every time I put it down quickly because it reads at times of the most inflated pedantic discussion that hides some truth in it. I am an artist, have known many artists but there is a difference between pathological art vs real art. When I was much younger, I was into graffiti. With a friend of mine, we would brutally critique others' pieces to fuel our own growth. To correct ourselves and to grow. What made the true standout pieces flesh themselves over others is of course talent, color theory, execution and so many things but was mainly the psyche of the person creating it. You could see the person's personality in their letters. How they were insecure, how they may have felt they needed to add some extra sort of details or if someone was just off in some particular manner. Zarathustra reads to me like something is very off and that is inflation of the highest magnitude, fucken delusion it felt like at times. It is not art or truth stripped down to the very essence of what matters. It is superfluous language in a dance that causes annoyance, Jung too. Jung was brilliant at times and some of his ideas are essentially the truths expressed in eastern philosophy and alchemy just in a new light which is fun. Though it is like he created some fantasy world for himself with new nomenclature and the dealings of running around in a fantasy world that sometimes equates to what seems like lord of the rings. I can't stand art that reeks of excess and both of these men profoundly reek of excess to me. Not the embracing of hedonistic life and living truly in the moment but of narcissistic delusions and inflation. Edit: Maybe some of this is my frustration with what people have done with these men's work, maybe some of this is projection of my own psyche but I do know there is something very amidst with both of these men's work.
I did a video where I explored this topic in a bit of depth on Jorda Peterson's shadow. Hope it answers your question ruclips.net/video/3kDpEKM7ZBI/видео.html
I like Cato a lot as an indictment of stoicism -- a philosophy meant for the loftiest heights of the upper class often at odds with the reality of many of those oppressed by the systems they ran. Yes, Cato was opposed to Caesar and to the tyranny he would wreak, but at the same time, he violently protested any threat to the power of the Roman oligarchy and exemplified many of the attitudes that would allow populists like Caesar to gain power in the first place.
Profound analysis. I agree with you the Nietzsche has the unique capability to keep me somewhat grounded in what Husserl termed the natural attitude, the default mode of consciousness in which we take the world to be a given and unquestioned reality, when I stray too deep into the philosophical attitude, one of deep critical thinking, where everything can be questioned, the assumptions of physicalism are suspect and the world is one of unity not separation. Most folks exist in the natural attitude and it is imperative for daily functionality in a collective however inevitable conflict and paradoxes seem to arise the two attitudes intermingle.
Thanks Santa Cruz Man and I like that way of putting it. I think this way of looking at Nietzsche. Interesting to combine it with what other commenters are saying about Thus Spoke Zara. It's like a little Nietzsche brings you back to earth from the heavens of philosophy and too much brings you down into an intoxicating underworld
I agree that Nihilism and existentialism is a phase towards insight. We vacillate between certainty, and doubt, as a natural course in the carving of our own personal path. Using Nietzsche - it is the times of doubt or in the places between evolution like the camel into the lion - not a camel but not yet a lion...
Supposedly , Nietzsche met and conversed with Dionysus on the beach in Turin. He said Dioysus was wearing a large straw hat and prada sunglasses. And why not ? Although the whole incident is shrouded in mystery. I visited Nietzsche's last home , Silberschloss, in Weimar , a few years back. His presence is still keenly felt there. Nietzsche led me to A.R.Orage and Gurdjieff. So I have him to thank for that. Orage wrote a great book about Nietzsche prior to meeting Ouspensky. Fascinating stuff. Very nice to hear someone who is articulate and educated these days. I betcha know a lot about W.B.Yeats. As I typed Dionysus , you actually said the word two seconds after !!! Talk about synchronicity. Incidentally , a word coined by Carl Jung in 1913 (synch and chronos : Greek , together and time ) combined )
Thanks for the interesting background. It would be interesting to study the collective unconscious by comparing media content consumed in different cultures, age groups and across time.
Ash gesus I dun 0 if I should watch this won. Afacit nietzche declared God dead Jung thought mhmm I ain't susher some silly snakes are always around aerland
Nietzche can be plased in any of 4 quadrins. You can easy find his connection to material (body) q2 and conflict with religion (Dowkins)he call himself "physiologist", or connection to Marx in q4, or q1 individualism and personal growth. Actually its not really fair to put Nietzche with "Woke", becouse woke are for equality and tolerance and Nietzche is for unequality by superiority ubermensch, and he is agains tolerance as weakness of character (tarantulas from Zaratustra).
To my mind “Nietzsche matters” because of his contribution to post-Kantian philosophy. Like Schopenhauer, he viewed the Will as the very generator of reality, although instead of giving it a negative spin, he have it a positive one.
I’ve always been somewhere between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard with a dash of Kant as far as my worldview, I understand exactly what you mean about the draw that Nietzsche has…he’s startlingly brilliant.
Nietzssche is a great philosopher ,but he can't be read out side of the western phiosophical tradition. I will listen to this lecture when i am more in the mood. Sounds good ,but put off by the mystifacation of J ung.I prefer Freud.
In my opinion U felt the cross dear boi. You said truth or untruth why not health and unhealth. Then you can look forward to unhealthy direction like jungs shadow concept 🦍🙏
Hi The Living Philosophy, your channel has really grown on me as time has passed. I wish you attain the highest form of energy from a complete reading of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and also the balance required to deal with the energy.
I feel like Nietzsche is the center of all philosophy and every other great philosopher is a continuation to his his brilliance. No philosopher exits outside his range of knowledge as far as I can see. Great video thx!
Brilliant, brilliant video. Very well put. As you say, if you disagree with him about one of his arguments, he forces you to plumb some serious depths to attempt to structure a retort. But, crucially, not mere verbal/intellectual depths, but emotional and spiritual depths too. His ability to snipe one of your innermost beliefs (usually hitherto completely unexamined) in a single line of an aphorism is quite the ride when you first encounter it. An amazing philosopher.
I love the way you put that: not just verbal/intellectual but emotional and spiritual depths. That's something I didn't have the sense to articulate but exactly what I was trying to get at
Interesting, thanks! Loved the commentary about Cato and a wave being a part of a pattern in the ocean. Also the concept of 'value workers' was very interesting, especially with the following highlight on the utility of untruth. Great stuff.
I have a question, when you say Nietzsche is still relevant, do you think, that he will ever won’t be? I can not see how his philosophy would ever be irrelevant, take for example his concept of the Übermensch, this would never stop being useful as long as we will have change.
Im a dry cleaner from Melbourne Australia, I have read all of Nietzsche's books, it took me a long time, I struggled with it, but it changed me permanently, he is so important ! The gay science is my favourite.
‘Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men - this and nothing else is its task’ . There should evolve a ‘party of life’, which will ‘embrace the greatest of all tasks, the higher breeding of humanity, together with the remorseless extermination of all degenerate and parasitic elements’ [Ecce Homo, 1908].
It's interesting this appears to be a common quote online. It makes Nietzsche sound like he's advocating genocide. It should be noted that the first quote is from Schopenhauer as an educator written in 1873. The second part from party of life onwards is from Ecce Homo's section on The Birth of Tragedy. If you look at the broader context, Nietzsche is talking about degenerate and parasitic elements in music rather than people. Here it is in Kaufmann's translation: "A tremendous hope speaks out of this essay. In the end I lack all reason to renounce the hope for a Dionysian future of music. Let us look ahead a century; let us suppose that my attempt to assassinate two millennia of antinature and desecration of man were to succeed. That new party of life which would tackle the greatest of all tasks, the attempt to raise humanity higher, including the relentless destruction of everything that was degenerating and parasitical, would again make possible that excess of life on earth from which the Dionysian state, too, would have to awaken again."
@@TheLivingPhilosophy "The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy… And one shall help them to do so. [The Antichrist, 1895]
@@jamescareyyatesIII yup that's better. No getting around that one it's appalling. Other translations don't make it any better. I'd say that tone of the Antichrist is a shade more crazy than the rest of his work but you only have to look at what he says about women from 1883 on and you realise there's just elements of Nietzsche you can't defend. I don't think this makes him the philosopher of the Nazis that he is made out to be when you couple it with his critiques of the Germans but it certainly makes for serious reflection
@@TheLivingPhilosophy N. would of only hated the NAZIS because 1.) N..was famously philosemetic, believing that the Jews were descended,, like himself, of course, from the fabled Aryans, and 2) because N. hated any populist movement. Nietzsche, like most of his peers was a rabid eugenicist. This, in my opinion, is why he was tolerated in academia. It's no accident that eugenics becomes the vogue after the publication of The Origin of Species. Nearly every intellectual in Europe was a proud and vociferous eugenicist. As for Nietzsche himself, he was rotted with self-hate because he was the very physically sickly person which he aims to breed out of humanity. My point with all this is that Nietzsche would of hated all of his readers who weren't nobleman or aristocrats. My other point is that I do believe eugenics led to the Holocaust, since the slaughter of the Jews was a eugenics program. Of course, the NAZIS slaughtered invalids, the mentally retarded, and anyone they deemed unhealthy. *Health* is what Nietzsche was all about. Why else's does he go on and on about the sick man of Europe? Though Nietzsche wasn't directly responsible for the NAZIS, as a rabid eugenicist he was part of a movement which I believe led to the Holocaust. It's interesting to note that nearly all of today's celebrated billionaires are eugenicists, from Elon Musk to Peter Theil. ( See the secular Calvinist movement in Silicon Valley if you don't believe me.)Nietzsche isn't anybody's buddy.
@@jamescareyyatesIII Hmm I disagree about the Nietzsche being a hateful person. I've read a couple of biographies of him and his personality and he's not quite the misogynistic elite you'd expect. He had a circle of friends he spent a lot of time with in the Alps but also in Italy. Some were the cutting edge feminist thinkers of the day. But they weren't all intellectuals and he could be playful and prankish. He used to laugh his ass off at Mark Twain and bought copies of him for a few of his friends. People meeting him for the first time would be surprised by his mildness of manner and his politeness and how he wouldn't talk so much about himself. The picture that emerges from his biography is a man with a turbulent and intense inner life and Muse and not of a genocidal monster. I agree with that eugenicism was a common worldview at the time and Nietzsche saw the value of it. But I don't think that this was the strain that led to the Holocaust. There was the far greater trend of anti-Semitism that was brewing in the German psyche and Nietzsche railed against this element. Also I sense that eugenicist is synonymous with evil in your mind which is not something I personally agree with. I am board with using gene editing technologies to remove diseases from embryos and that would no doubt be considered eugenicist. I feel like eugenics shouldn't be seen in black and white terms as the label Nazi is. There is a spectrum of eugenicist philosophy which ranges from the progressive to the monstrous. Anyway I suspect this is probably an area we will have different intuitions about but thought I'd throw it in the mix
I was actually about to start on A Thousand Plateaus but Rene Girard overtook him at the last moment. So after Girard I think I'll be descending the Deleuze rabbit hole
If you were to apply Nietzsche's own method of looking at what his philosophy says about him psychologically, what do you think such an analysis would reveal? I'm really wrestling with where I stand with Nietzsche. There is so much I really dislike about him, his elitism, his self exaltation, his puffed up machismo and misogynism (although as Russell said, his relations with women were mostly confined to his sister haha) Yet, there is something I like about his life affirmation in the face of many difficulties, his championing of the pre-socratics and the freedom he carved out to philosophize with a hammer.. However, i think his criticism of religion is as profound (and as shallow), as someone like Dawkins, but for different reasons. It's not surprising that Nietzsche's ethics, that calls for a return to aristocracy, just ended up with fascism. Heidegger i think is a true disciple of Nietzsche in every regard. Rather than an antidote to nihilism, Nietzschianism seems to ring in a loveless aion.
Hmm interesting though michael. I can definitely see your point. The aristocratic element is off-putting and yet there's something to it in a certain way - some people are called to a path while others are called to different ones. It's saying something nakedly that I feel the New Age schools hide in the doctrine of reincarnation and calling people "old souls". But yeah it still very much makes for an offputting mixture in our democratic times. But I think when you do get down into him he's not really that arrogant or at least not personally - reading his biography and seeing his playfulness with his friends and seeing how he was using his work as a form of therapy as well as a Muse-infused exploration has tempered this for me a bit. And as for the Fascist bit there's a line in him that comes to mind about how when a lower culture encounters a higher culture they take the vices first (in the case of Western colonists alcohol and Christianity). I think that makes sense when approaching Nietzsche as well. Those coming at him from a lower level of development characterised by ressentiment will find plenty in Nietzsche to stuff their canons with even if it misses the genuine picture of what's going on with his philosophy. But all that being said I'm far from convinced that Nietzsche is the way forward only that he triggers in us the right question he brings to light certain assumptions that we might have been unaware that we held. As a devil's advocate there is no thinker better
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I guess I was swayed by Bertrand Russell's point ahout Nietzsche's ethics influencing the rise of fascism. His contention was that the call for a return to aristocracy in today's world is anachronistic and that all you end up with is something approximating fascism.. He thought Nietzsche was a sycophant of aristocracy.. (maybe that stems from his family connections as you mentioned in the video), perhaps philosopher/advisor to royalty sounded more glamorous than having to deal with publishers and so on.. which is understandable I guess. I think of the way people like Peterson cling to traditional Christian ethics. Maybe he has an intuition that at least in some way they were layed down by sages and not the outcome of natural philosophy, or a kind of Social Darwinisn. These questions ahout democracy and aristocracy of course go back to the Greeks. The problem with aristocracy is the precarious nature of it.. You have a good monarch and the culture flourishes, you have a negative one and all goes to ruin. If we look at it in terms of spiral dynamics it's the difference between red and blue. Blue offered more stability than the rule of warlords. What's troubling in Nietzsche is he sees society as only a means for the 'great man' to emerge and not the greater good of the people, or as he would say... the herd. He'd apparently be quite happy with ongoing serfdom. Interesting point about the new age idea of old souls. The vedic system has a term that points to the natural characteristics of a person (adikara). Originally cast wasn't fixed in stone, but arose as a consequence of ones inherent character. That's what I heard anyway. Later cast was determined by your birth family and that led to a kind of decadence. There are many instances for example where sages were born from casts other than the Brahmin. I agree that it would be a shame to discount Nietzsche on the basis of a few negatives in his ethics and or character. Same could be said about many theorists and Philosophers. It's not unlike the way today's woke culture dismiss outright anything they detect as deviating from their ideological world-view. The charge of ressentiment for any criticism of Nietzsche's elitism I'm not sure is entirely fair though, because I think its clearly there. Are you saying that the nazis took the lesser part of Nietzschianism and missed the deeper picture? On what basis did Heidegger rationalise his affiliation with the nazis, a Nietzschian one?. Why would a Nietzschian even care if democracy was abandoned and atrocities committed. They might regret it not spawning enough of the great man I guess. As for Anti-Semitism, apparently the worst of it was already there in Lutheranism, the religion Nietzsche was profoundly conditioned by. Marx's father was a Jewish convert to Lutheranism and they're often the most strident... Otto Weininger for example, a Jewish convert whose work apparently influenced the nazis through Hitler's mentor Dietrich Eckart. There is also a solid argument to be made that Marx associated the evils of capitalism directly with Judaism. For example, Marx said gentile capitalists were "inwardly circumcised jews" . So the seeds of Anti-Semitism in Germany were already in place and can't be entirely blamed on Nietzsche haha
@@michaelmcclure3383 Ah okay I think I see your point clearer. I wouldn't take much from Russell on Nietzsche. I read his account of him and it was painfully off the mark. I think it did its bit to contribute to keeping Nietzsche out of respectable circles for so long. And despite Nietzsche's father being a teacher to the princesses it was never a card that Nietzsche pulled or looked to pull. It wasn't a particularly noteworthy connection and pales in comparison to Russell's elite status (Russell being pretty much British aristocracy). The thing about Nietzsche aristocractic tendencies is that they aren't really political. I could be wrong but I don't really remember talking about his ideal type politically at all. It's more that Nietzsche is looking for the giants of humanity and the people who seem to have found the balance between instinct and reason happen to be people like Napoleon and Borgias but Nietzsche isn't idolising them at all as conquerors or rulers but as healthy types. Nietzsche "few" are those who can affirm life as it is. He wanted to set up a university of free spirits to push the bounds of human health and thinking - not like a Confucian academy of leadership. He's not really a politically aristocratic thinker in my eyes but an intellectual/spiritual aristocrat (again I could be wrong and this might just be my reading I'd have to go digging to make sure I'm not missing something big here). As for the Fascist Nietzsche you are spot on about Nietzsche thinking little of democracy and maybe that is the thread that leads to unwinding my point above. On the other hand the misconception about Nietzsche and Anti-Semitism is truly nonsensical. He has far worse things to say about the Germans and their antisemitism than he ever says about Jewish people. But this part of Nietzsche's work was overlooked and instead he was warped (with a lot of help from his sister) into being some kind of proto-Nazi. So as far as this part of his conditioning goes Nietzsche very much unlearned it. As you say the seeds were there already and this was part of what digusted Nietzsche so much and why he gave up his German passport in disgust with what Germany had become.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy great points! I think Russell really did blame Nietzsche for the rise of Nazism come to think of it. That's probably why he tried to keep it out of respectable circles as you say and hoped it had had its time.. It's ironic that Russell was quite the aristocrat himself, that made me laugh. In his analysis he finally contrasts Nietzsche with Gautam Buddha and their respective views of suffering. That's what particularly disturbed him I guess, the seeming lack of regard for human suffering in general. So Nietzsche was pointing to a kind of sovereignty of spirit and an integral life affirming health. In my view his life affirmation, without recourse to otherworldly consolation, is the best thing about his philosophy. His Amor Fati. I like what you say about Nietzsche having more to say about collective and individual psychology than anything else. Do you think the problems come when there is an attempt to apply it externally (socially/politically)? What would a society governed by Nietzschian ethics look like... shudder haha In much the same troublesome way as when people try and apply postmodernism to society at large, maybe Nietzsche is best approached for gaining insight into collective drives, or for personal transformation. When applied politically/socially it may have negative effects.. one being the undermining of workable structures and creating a vacuum for any crazy monstrosity to take hold. As I say this is probably why Peterson (a supposed Nietzschian), clings so tightly to much of Christianity, liberalism and western values in general. I think he's probably onto something here.. I'm referring particularly to this negation and reassessment of all values, a process that is great individually.. but potentially massively disruptive and Illl concieved when applied collectively. As Wilber points out.. one must transcend and include! The problem with green and,postmodernism is it can transcend and negate.. but it certainly can't include. It doesn't understand that these stages and paradigms of blue and orange that contain things like capitalism, liberalism, democracy, religion, science and so on aren't going anywhere and have to be included. Only a truly integral understanding is capable of seeing that as part of a developmental ladder. I think, in the end, its rather that the excesses of traditionalism and modernism get tempered and synthesised with green thinking instead of completely negated and replaced with some utopian year zero ideology. Thanks for letting me rant. I think this has helped me a lot with many of my reservations about Nietzsche.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy you know what I'm saying right. Wilber's point is If you can only transcend, but can't include, then doesn't it make sense that you end up anti,enlightenment, anti liberalism and just anti western values in general.. it sets upon a kind of nihilistic endgame of constant negation. And then what fills that vacuum? Rememberimg that Wilber also talked about the problem of the 'regressive left', or this retribalisation of postmodern thinkers back into ethnocentric affiliations. This happens with the move away from the origins of postmodernism (which was characterised by scepticism), and into the realm of a new certainty, ironically to the point of absolutism. Talking the green talk, but not walking the green walk.. Emphasising differences and neglecting commonality or an inclusive worldcentric vision. I know it sounds a bit Peterson conspiracy theory, but it's interesting to ponder. It also brings up the question, what is the purpose of postmodern critique.. is it to do away with all that came before, or is it just an antithesis leading towards a new synthesis. I tend to think its the later. The defenders of modernity rarely offer much criticism of its more neurotic, lopsided nature and to me that's one of the best things about postmodern critique. It is potentially iberating and on an individual level aids one in forging their own life based on genuine enthusiasm and not the unconscious conditioning of the era and its prescriptions for happiness. Collectively however, I'm not sure the answers are gonna come from postmodern thinkers. It seems that something goes terribly wrong when their ideas get implemented socially/politically. Wilber thinks that although orange is a lower level of development, it's presently healthier than green which has grown increasingly toxic. . Ultimately he says the solutions must come from a second tier perspective, but how long before that becomes 'the leading edge' is unclear haha
I thought I was the only one who couldn't get through this spoke Zarathustra! Once he betrayed the motif about not picking up the sword in ignorance I put it down.
Haha I know right! I'm surprised to see how much that point has resonated in the comments. Brings to mind Nietzsche's line in Ecce Homo "I am dynamite"
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thinking about the Buddhists. Do you think "right intention" matters? I get the raw archetype dynamite concept. But the callousness of it seems detrimental from both a personal and social lense. It's freeing but also dangerous. What do you think?
@@eboy4032 Yeah it's worrying to think of someone drinking down every word Nietzsche says uncritically. There's so much value in connecting directly with archetype through him but on the other hand it's dynamite and dynamite shouldn't be played with lightly. There's so much value to be gotten from him but yeah I do agree that it should come with a safety warning
💚Join the community, support the channel and get access to bonus content: patreon.com/thelivingphilosophy
Nietzsche both fascinates and scares me. Sometimes I feel that he has the most clear grasp of life and meaning. Other times I feel like he could destroy society and leave us with no foundation on which to stand. Sometimes both at the same time. Incredible thinker!
I know Arthur it's a mindfuck right!?
There will always be someone who maintains the opposite and argues it better. It is precisely Frederic who leaves everything to speculation and mere desires of human impulses. In all his literature there is no forceful argument against the existence of God and the transcendence of values, so then his entire philosophical pretension falls, because that is what it is, a desire.
It took 6 months to read the whole of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Each page felt like a punch in the gut, but exactly like a sharp pain it was awakening.
For me, F. Nietzsche is the thinker who gave a voice to my own thoughts, and l won't stop quoting what Nico Kazantzakis said about his work : "Here's lion's food for your mind - if you dare."
Great video on turning Nietzsche from literary dynamite into something practical. Please keep making them.
Thank you kindly will do!
Nietzsche helped share the Vedic philosophy and in that found his own - a precursor or the father of the true metamodern idea - that we are more than our parts - the gestalt of being, existence, and nothingness...
You are right to emphasise the emotional, intoxicating, passionate nature of Nietzsche's work. Reading Nietzsche is not like reading any other philosopher, at least in my experience. He was as much of a prophet and a poet as a philosopher, and this goes a long way towards explaining not only why he was so popular and influential among 20th-century artists and writers, but also why he is often regarded with suspicion by philosophers of a more analytical and less engaged type - indeed, many would argue that Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher at all.
"The Charles Bukowski of philosophy." - Nailed it!
Haha thanks James
I love to read books. A big part of my life. But sometimes philosophy can get a bit complex and sophisticated for me and I get tired. Then I watch these videos instead, where I get insightful and accurate summaries and inspiring concretizations. Thanks! Continue!
Delighted to hear it jimeas thanks for the support
I have this problem sometimes too. I just sit and think on it. Ive gotten better at it and can now read for longer. Except, David Hume "A treatise of human nature" alludes me. I get 50 to 100 pages in and have to restart from confusion.
Being able to talk to someone, even if they have no idea what youre saying. Talking to someone who does, or videos help me a lot too. I havent looked into content on this book yet. I keep reading it hoping ill get there.
@@naturesfinest2408 Sometimes when I immersed myself in books on philosophy, I look up at the ceiling and think; "what the hell was I reading just now? I didn't understand anything" Then it's nice to have youtube channels like this. Evola, Jung, Nietzsche and Plato are my favorites as well as the perennialists/traditionalists.
Don't forget to meditate, though. You must not become a thinking machine that only reads. You have to be present and dynamic. The will to act. Training is nothing as Ras Al'Ghul said
Is reading and learning about philosophy shape our own? Is it bettr left alone to concentrate on our own expierence?
I majored in philosophy as an undergrad. I wish I had a teacher like you! Your topics are very engaging, and you are so good at clarifying complex ideas that would otherwise seem foggy and confusing.
Thanks so much Sofie! That's very high praise!
@Rory O'Connor Much appreciated Rory
Reading nietzsche really can be tough. I read his Zarathustra and even though i just grasped a percent of what he was saying i never felt as impacted by a book like that. His writing style really blowed my mind. Its just like every word means something very dofferent as normal, sometimes even the opposite of itself. Through this you get a new perspective on language and therefore on wxistence itself
He or She who has ears to hear Let them hear!
We were inprisoned from within ourselves unknowingly by ourselves and to each other
"The path to hell is paved with good intentions"
7 Years of tribulations I had become a battlefield from within to set myself free from what was preached to be real but is not ACTUALLY what is.
God has lead me to this even when I was blind.
What God actually is is pure power
It's a Natural Force that has Always been & it's chaotic force has been Arising in me when I let go of what I had considered what "me" is.
God is Loving
But God is also Violent & completely not definable.
Morality keeps you from knowing it
Morality has changed recently hence all the nonsense now Adays that has been promoted as "Good" which calls alot of your old school "Good" as now evil
Moralities are nearly passing clouds
God is Beyond Morality
God is far Beyond all human concepts of "Good & Evil"
It says so in the Bible when God returns it will wage war & kill off many things because this is the way of things.
For change to happen there must be destruction so the re-Creation process can happen.
How lonely it's been that I for some reason haven't been able to show this to others. The frost of such solitude had at times made me tremble in Fear. I must fear not.
With Faith I move Forward even when everyone around me may doubt me or call me a devil
I love Nietzche philosophy it more of a Psychology. Thank you and great job. 🖤🌹
I have had a similar experience with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, where I had to put it down a couple times. I am not sure if it was due to some form of egoic inflation or identification on my part? The second time I read it I paired it with Carl Jung’s Seminar on Nietzsche’s Zarathustra which I think helped me keep a little more grounded, or at least the ability to develop my own opinions, where I could disagree or agree with Jung on certain points, and Nietzsche on others.
On a side note, I love your videos and I hope to see more from you in the future~❤
It really is wild and interesting to see even in this comments section the number of people that felt that way. I really do think it's because that book is such naked archetype that it gets you drunk only I'm not sure the brew is towards healthiness. Very interesting stuff. I can see the Jung side reading being a good way of doing it. Been meaning to read that as well so I might take a page out of your book.
And thanks for the kind words Methuo!
The Italians got the hands and arms expressing as there talking.
This guys all about the head and neck 😂
Collective psychology... Wouldn't that be sociology? Or is sociology more about structures?
No I think you would be right it might just be that I'm so ignorant of sociology that I don't even know that. I really need to become better acquainted with sociology 🙈
I'm partial to psychology as a student of it, I'm usually thinking about psychology before I consider sociology. So I'm there with ya about being ignorant of it in general lol
yeah i'm ignorant too, but I feel like psychology and sociology have different theories and methods. psychology often feels like it questions 'why', while sociology seems to like to measure 'what, when, how, and whereto'. like you suggest, most of my exposure to sociology has involved structuralist approaches and a lot of quantitative methodology to measure behaviours between many actors in a network. it's pretty hard to imagine a post-structuralist approach to sociology... much easier to imagine those concepts being used in psychological research... an investigation into that would actually make an interesting video!
You look just like this guy I was friends with on Facebook from Pennsylvania.
If you didn't have that accent, I'd swear you were the same guy
It's true that when dealing with the cultural psyche it's nearly impossible to quantify anything. But remember Nietzsche declared that "our science is anti-intellectual by nature: all it does is MEASURE things!"...
As you have described him, it seems to me Nietzsche was a religious man. But perhaps I have misunderstood. Anyway, great stuff. It is a pleasure (truly) to see someone who has found a thinker/author to whom he can say "thank you for giving me truth I knew but didn't understand." It's like that for me with Lewis. I disagree with him a good bit but I revel in his overall understanding of things; so true there is a joyous pain that makes it hard to fully approach.
I would agree about the Nietzsche being religious in the broader depth of the word
Don't ask me why, please keep philosophising ♥️
Haha thanks jack will do!
If we replaced the explosives in a rocket launchers ammo with just more fuel for the thruster and got a pair of skates, would it make us go forward by propulsion?
Jung and Nietzsche are both unhinged. I have tried to read Thus Spoke Zarathustra a few times. Every time I put it down quickly because it reads at times of the most inflated pedantic discussion that hides some truth in it. I am an artist, have known many artists but there is a difference between pathological art vs real art. When I was much younger, I was into graffiti. With a friend of mine, we would brutally critique others' pieces to fuel our own growth. To correct ourselves and to grow. What made the true standout pieces flesh themselves over others is of course talent, color theory, execution and so many things but was mainly the psyche of the person creating it. You could see the person's personality in their letters. How they were insecure, how they may have felt they needed to add some extra sort of details or if someone was just off in some particular manner.
Zarathustra reads to me like something is very off and that is inflation of the highest magnitude, fucken delusion it felt like at times. It is not art or truth stripped down to the very essence of what matters. It is superfluous language in a dance that causes annoyance, Jung too. Jung was brilliant at times and some of his ideas are essentially the truths expressed in eastern philosophy and alchemy just in a new light which is fun. Though it is like he created some fantasy world for himself with new nomenclature and the dealings of running around in a fantasy world that sometimes equates to what seems like lord of the rings. I can't stand art that reeks of excess and both of these men profoundly reek of excess to me. Not the embracing of hedonistic life and living truly in the moment but of narcissistic delusions and inflation.
Edit: Maybe some of this is my frustration with what people have done with these men's work, maybe some of this is projection of my own psyche but I do know there is something very amidst with both of these men's work.
I would love your opinion on why Jordan Peterson is so anti-postmodern. Still new to all of this. Thank you!😊❤
I did a video where I explored this topic in a bit of depth on Jorda Peterson's shadow. Hope it answers your question ruclips.net/video/3kDpEKM7ZBI/видео.html
And what a great influence he had on the arts as well! Always going to love your channel and still cant help but go back to your old vids x
I like Cato a lot as an indictment of stoicism -- a philosophy meant for the loftiest heights of the upper class often at odds with the reality of many of those oppressed by the systems they ran. Yes, Cato was opposed to Caesar and to the tyranny he would wreak, but at the same time, he violently protested any threat to the power of the Roman oligarchy and exemplified many of the attitudes that would allow populists like Caesar to gain power in the first place.
I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra a while ago and I know exactly what you mean.
Great video as usual, keep it up.
Haha it's mad right! Thanks Santos
"Man would rather have the void for a purpose, than be void of purpose..."
I thought Ken Wilber was just a bunch of babble. 🤷
Nah man Wilber is epic. Has his flaws without a doubt but wow that guy's got serious insights
I look forward to when you will step in and become the doctor. That will b original revolution. HAPPY NEW YEAR!💎⚡🥊
Haha thanks Mark me too! And a happy new year to you!
Great thanks for this
Nietzsche IS the great wakerupper!
Profound analysis.
I agree with you the Nietzsche has the unique capability to keep me somewhat grounded in what Husserl termed the natural attitude, the default mode of consciousness in which we take the world to be a given and unquestioned reality, when I stray too deep into the philosophical attitude, one of deep critical thinking, where everything can be questioned, the assumptions of physicalism are suspect and the world is one of unity not separation.
Most folks exist in the natural attitude and it is imperative for daily functionality in a collective however inevitable conflict and paradoxes seem to arise the two attitudes intermingle.
Thanks Santa Cruz Man and I like that way of putting it. I think this way of looking at Nietzsche. Interesting to combine it with what other commenters are saying about Thus Spoke Zara. It's like a little Nietzsche brings you back to earth from the heavens of philosophy and too much brings you down into an intoxicating underworld
Happy 2023. Keep making great videos.
Thanks chaoslab and happy new year to you!
I agree that Nihilism and existentialism is a phase towards insight. We vacillate between certainty, and doubt, as a natural course in the carving of our own personal path. Using Nietzsche - it is the times of doubt or in the places between evolution like the camel into the lion - not a camel but not yet a lion...
Yes!
Supposedly , Nietzsche met and conversed with Dionysus on the beach in Turin. He said Dioysus was wearing a large straw hat and prada sunglasses. And why not ? Although the whole incident is shrouded in mystery.
I visited Nietzsche's last home , Silberschloss, in Weimar , a few years back. His presence is still keenly felt there.
Nietzsche led me to A.R.Orage and Gurdjieff. So I have him to thank for that. Orage wrote a great book about Nietzsche prior to meeting Ouspensky.
Fascinating stuff.
Very nice to hear someone who is articulate and educated these days.
I betcha know a lot about W.B.Yeats.
As I typed Dionysus , you actually said the word two seconds after !!!
Talk about synchronicity. Incidentally , a word coined by Carl Jung in 1913 (synch and chronos : Greek , together and time ) combined )
Thanks for the interesting background. It would be interesting to study the collective unconscious by comparing media content consumed in different cultures, age groups and across time.
It really would stef
Ash gesus I dun 0 if I should watch this won. Afacit nietzche declared God dead Jung thought mhmm I ain't susher some silly snakes are always around aerland
I'm getting Joycean flashbacks reading this comment
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Mr James I presume? 🦍🙏
The very one
I thank you for that. And may every day begin with a smile the night be full of contentment and the twilight stirr your imagination. 🦍🙏
Fun fun fun. Well done.
Nietzche can be plased in any of 4 quadrins. You can easy find his connection to material (body) q2 and conflict with religion (Dowkins)he call himself "physiologist", or connection to Marx in q4, or q1 individualism and personal growth. Actually its not really fair to put Nietzche with "Woke", becouse woke are for equality and tolerance and Nietzche is for unequality by superiority ubermensch, and he is agains tolerance as weakness of character (tarantulas from Zaratustra).
To my mind “Nietzsche matters” because of his contribution to post-Kantian philosophy. Like Schopenhauer, he viewed the Will as the very generator of reality, although instead of giving it a negative spin, he have it a positive one.
I’ve always been somewhere between Nietzsche and Kierkegaard with a dash of Kant as far as my worldview, I understand exactly what you mean about the draw that Nietzsche has…he’s startlingly brilliant.
Nietzssche is a great philosopher ,but he can't be read out side of the western phiosophical tradition. I will listen to this lecture when i am more in the mood. Sounds good ,but put off by the mystifacation of J ung.I prefer Freud.
🍀 promo sm!!!
go for it(unhealthy is maybe even healthy sometimes haha))! fear is inside hollow & outside it just don't exists. I adore your videos, keep it up!
In my opinion U felt the cross dear boi. You said truth or untruth why not health and unhealth. Then you can look forward to unhealthy direction like jungs shadow concept 🦍🙏
Hi The Living Philosophy, your channel has really grown on me as time has passed. I wish you attain the highest form of energy from a complete reading of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and also the balance required to deal with the energy.
I feel like Nietzsche is the center of all philosophy and every other great philosopher is a continuation to his his brilliance. No philosopher exits outside his range of knowledge as far as I can see. Great video thx!
Brilliant, brilliant video. Very well put. As you say, if you disagree with him about one of his arguments, he forces you to plumb some serious depths to attempt to structure a retort. But, crucially, not mere verbal/intellectual depths, but emotional and spiritual depths too. His ability to snipe one of your innermost beliefs (usually hitherto completely unexamined) in a single line of an aphorism is quite the ride when you first encounter it. An amazing philosopher.
I love the way you put that: not just verbal/intellectual but emotional and spiritual depths. That's something I didn't have the sense to articulate but exactly what I was trying to get at
Interesting, thanks! Loved the commentary about Cato and a wave being a part of a pattern in the ocean. Also the concept of 'value workers' was very interesting, especially with the following highlight on the utility of untruth. Great stuff.
Thanks Bruce!
I have a question, when you say Nietzsche is still relevant, do you think, that he will ever won’t be?
I can not see how his philosophy would ever be irrelevant, take for example his concept of the Übermensch, this would never stop being useful as long as we will have change.
I know you aren’t asking me. But I feel he will not be relevant if we ever choose to progress into a fearing society.
Im a dry cleaner from Melbourne Australia, I have read all of Nietzsche's books, it took me a long time, I struggled with it, but it changed me permanently, he is so important ! The gay science is my favourite.
Gay Science is definitely wrestling for my top spot as well Aslin
‘Mankind must work continually at the production of individual great men - this and nothing else is its task’ . There should evolve a ‘party of life’, which will ‘embrace the greatest of all tasks, the higher breeding of humanity, together with the remorseless extermination of all degenerate and parasitic elements’ [Ecce Homo, 1908].
It's interesting this appears to be a common quote online. It makes Nietzsche sound like he's advocating genocide. It should be noted that the first quote is from Schopenhauer as an educator written in 1873. The second part from party of life onwards is from Ecce Homo's section on The Birth of Tragedy. If you look at the broader context, Nietzsche is talking about degenerate and parasitic elements in music rather than people. Here it is in Kaufmann's translation:
"A tremendous hope speaks out of this essay. In the end I lack all reason to renounce the hope for a Dionysian future of music. Let us look ahead a century; let us suppose that my attempt to assassinate two millennia of antinature and desecration of man were to succeed. That new party of life which would tackle the greatest of all tasks, the attempt to raise humanity higher, including the relentless destruction of everything that was degenerating and parasitical, would again make possible that excess of life on earth from which the Dionysian state, too, would have to awaken again."
@@TheLivingPhilosophy "The weak and ill-constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy… And one shall help them to do so. [The Antichrist, 1895]
@@jamescareyyatesIII yup that's better. No getting around that one it's appalling. Other translations don't make it any better. I'd say that tone of the Antichrist is a shade more crazy than the rest of his work but you only have to look at what he says about women from 1883 on and you realise there's just elements of Nietzsche you can't defend. I don't think this makes him the philosopher of the Nazis that he is made out to be when you couple it with his critiques of the Germans but it certainly makes for serious reflection
@@TheLivingPhilosophy N. would of only hated the NAZIS because 1.) N..was famously philosemetic, believing that the Jews were descended,, like himself, of course, from the fabled Aryans, and 2) because N. hated any populist movement. Nietzsche, like most of his peers was a rabid eugenicist. This, in my opinion, is why he was tolerated in academia. It's no accident that eugenics becomes the vogue after the publication of The Origin of Species. Nearly every intellectual in Europe was a proud and vociferous eugenicist. As for Nietzsche himself, he was rotted with self-hate because he was the very physically sickly person which he aims to breed out of humanity. My point with all this is that Nietzsche would of hated all of his readers who weren't nobleman or aristocrats. My other point is that I do believe eugenics led to the Holocaust, since the slaughter of the Jews was a eugenics program. Of course, the NAZIS slaughtered invalids, the mentally retarded, and anyone they deemed unhealthy. *Health* is what Nietzsche was all about. Why else's does he go on and on about the sick man of Europe? Though Nietzsche wasn't directly responsible for the NAZIS, as a rabid eugenicist he was part of a movement which I believe led to the Holocaust. It's interesting to note that nearly all of today's celebrated billionaires are eugenicists, from Elon Musk to Peter Theil. ( See the secular Calvinist movement in Silicon Valley if you don't believe me.)Nietzsche isn't anybody's buddy.
@@jamescareyyatesIII Hmm I disagree about the Nietzsche being a hateful person. I've read a couple of biographies of him and his personality and he's not quite the misogynistic elite you'd expect. He had a circle of friends he spent a lot of time with in the Alps but also in Italy. Some were the cutting edge feminist thinkers of the day. But they weren't all intellectuals and he could be playful and prankish. He used to laugh his ass off at Mark Twain and bought copies of him for a few of his friends. People meeting him for the first time would be surprised by his mildness of manner and his politeness and how he wouldn't talk so much about himself. The picture that emerges from his biography is a man with a turbulent and intense inner life and Muse and not of a genocidal monster. I agree with that eugenicism was a common worldview at the time and Nietzsche saw the value of it. But I don't think that this was the strain that led to the Holocaust. There was the far greater trend of anti-Semitism that was brewing in the German psyche and Nietzsche railed against this element. Also I sense that eugenicist is synonymous with evil in your mind which is not something I personally agree with. I am board with using gene editing technologies to remove diseases from embryos and that would no doubt be considered eugenicist. I feel like eugenics shouldn't be seen in black and white terms as the label Nazi is. There is a spectrum of eugenicist philosophy which ranges from the progressive to the monstrous. Anyway I suspect this is probably an area we will have different intuitions about but thought I'd throw it in the mix
love your channel, thank you so much for the hard work.
Thanks LocoPax!
Deleuze would be an interesting take. Please take a look.
I was actually about to start on A Thousand Plateaus but Rene Girard overtook him at the last moment. So after Girard I think I'll be descending the Deleuze rabbit hole
If you were to apply Nietzsche's own method of looking at what his philosophy says about him psychologically, what do you think such an analysis would reveal?
I'm really wrestling with where I stand with Nietzsche. There is so much I really dislike about him, his elitism, his self exaltation, his puffed up machismo and misogynism (although as Russell said, his relations with women were mostly confined to his sister haha)
Yet, there is something I like about his life affirmation in the face of many difficulties, his championing of the pre-socratics and the freedom he carved out to philosophize with a hammer..
However, i think his criticism of religion is as profound (and as shallow), as someone like Dawkins, but for different reasons. It's not surprising that Nietzsche's ethics, that calls for a return to aristocracy, just ended up with fascism. Heidegger i think is a true disciple of Nietzsche in every regard. Rather than an antidote to nihilism, Nietzschianism seems to ring in a loveless aion.
Hmm interesting though michael. I can definitely see your point. The aristocratic element is off-putting and yet there's something to it in a certain way - some people are called to a path while others are called to different ones. It's saying something nakedly that I feel the New Age schools hide in the doctrine of reincarnation and calling people "old souls". But yeah it still very much makes for an offputting mixture in our democratic times. But I think when you do get down into him he's not really that arrogant or at least not personally - reading his biography and seeing his playfulness with his friends and seeing how he was using his work as a form of therapy as well as a Muse-infused exploration has tempered this for me a bit. And as for the Fascist bit there's a line in him that comes to mind about how when a lower culture encounters a higher culture they take the vices first (in the case of Western colonists alcohol and Christianity). I think that makes sense when approaching Nietzsche as well. Those coming at him from a lower level of development characterised by ressentiment will find plenty in Nietzsche to stuff their canons with even if it misses the genuine picture of what's going on with his philosophy. But all that being said I'm far from convinced that Nietzsche is the way forward only that he triggers in us the right question he brings to light certain assumptions that we might have been unaware that we held. As a devil's advocate there is no thinker better
@@TheLivingPhilosophy I guess I was swayed by Bertrand Russell's point ahout Nietzsche's ethics influencing the rise of fascism. His contention was that the call for a return to aristocracy in today's world is anachronistic and that all you end up with is something approximating fascism.. He thought Nietzsche was a sycophant of aristocracy.. (maybe that stems from his family connections as you mentioned in the video), perhaps philosopher/advisor to royalty sounded more glamorous than having to deal with publishers and so on.. which is understandable I guess. I think of the way people like Peterson cling to traditional Christian ethics. Maybe he has an intuition that at least in some way they were layed down by sages and not the outcome of natural philosophy, or a kind of Social Darwinisn.
These questions ahout democracy and aristocracy of course go back to the Greeks. The problem with aristocracy is the precarious nature of it.. You have a good monarch and the culture flourishes, you have a negative one and all goes to ruin. If we look at it in terms of spiral dynamics it's the difference between red and blue. Blue offered more stability than the rule of warlords. What's troubling in Nietzsche is he sees society as only a means for the 'great man' to emerge and not the greater good of the people, or as he would say... the herd. He'd apparently be quite happy with ongoing serfdom.
Interesting point about the new age idea of old souls. The vedic system has a term that points to the natural characteristics of a person (adikara). Originally cast wasn't fixed in stone, but arose as a consequence of ones inherent character. That's what I heard anyway. Later cast was determined by your birth family and that led to a kind of decadence. There are many instances for example where sages were born from casts other than the Brahmin.
I agree that it would be a shame to discount Nietzsche on the basis of a few negatives in his ethics and or character. Same could be said about many theorists and Philosophers. It's not unlike the way today's woke culture dismiss outright anything they detect as deviating from their ideological world-view. The charge of ressentiment for any criticism of Nietzsche's elitism I'm not sure is entirely fair though, because I think its clearly there.
Are you saying that the nazis took the lesser part of Nietzschianism and missed the deeper picture? On what basis did Heidegger rationalise his affiliation with the nazis, a Nietzschian one?. Why would a Nietzschian even care if democracy was abandoned and atrocities committed. They might regret it not spawning enough of the great man I guess.
As for Anti-Semitism, apparently the worst of it was already there in Lutheranism, the religion Nietzsche was profoundly conditioned by. Marx's father was a Jewish convert to Lutheranism and they're often the most strident... Otto Weininger for example, a Jewish convert whose work apparently influenced the nazis through Hitler's mentor Dietrich Eckart. There is also a solid argument to be made that Marx associated the evils of capitalism directly with Judaism. For example, Marx said gentile capitalists were "inwardly circumcised jews" . So the seeds of Anti-Semitism in Germany were already in place and can't be entirely blamed on Nietzsche haha
@@michaelmcclure3383 Ah okay I think I see your point clearer. I wouldn't take much from Russell on Nietzsche. I read his account of him and it was painfully off the mark. I think it did its bit to contribute to keeping Nietzsche out of respectable circles for so long. And despite Nietzsche's father being a teacher to the princesses it was never a card that Nietzsche pulled or looked to pull. It wasn't a particularly noteworthy connection and pales in comparison to Russell's elite status (Russell being pretty much British aristocracy).
The thing about Nietzsche aristocractic tendencies is that they aren't really political. I could be wrong but I don't really remember talking about his ideal type politically at all. It's more that Nietzsche is looking for the giants of humanity and the people who seem to have found the balance between instinct and reason happen to be people like Napoleon and Borgias but Nietzsche isn't idolising them at all as conquerors or rulers but as healthy types. Nietzsche "few" are those who can affirm life as it is. He wanted to set up a university of free spirits to push the bounds of human health and thinking - not like a Confucian academy of leadership. He's not really a politically aristocratic thinker in my eyes but an intellectual/spiritual aristocrat (again I could be wrong and this might just be my reading I'd have to go digging to make sure I'm not missing something big here).
As for the Fascist Nietzsche you are spot on about Nietzsche thinking little of democracy and maybe that is the thread that leads to unwinding my point above. On the other hand the misconception about Nietzsche and Anti-Semitism is truly nonsensical. He has far worse things to say about the Germans and their antisemitism than he ever says about Jewish people. But this part of Nietzsche's work was overlooked and instead he was warped (with a lot of help from his sister) into being some kind of proto-Nazi. So as far as this part of his conditioning goes Nietzsche very much unlearned it. As you say the seeds were there already and this was part of what digusted Nietzsche so much and why he gave up his German passport in disgust with what Germany had become.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy great points!
I think Russell really did blame Nietzsche for the rise of Nazism come to think of it. That's probably why he tried to keep it out of respectable circles as you say and hoped it had had its time.. It's ironic that Russell was quite the aristocrat himself, that made me laugh. In his analysis he finally contrasts Nietzsche with Gautam Buddha and their respective views of suffering. That's what particularly disturbed him I guess, the seeming lack of regard for human suffering in general.
So Nietzsche was pointing to a kind of sovereignty of spirit and an integral life affirming health. In my view his life affirmation, without recourse to otherworldly consolation, is the best thing about his philosophy. His Amor Fati.
I like what you say about Nietzsche having more to say about collective and individual psychology than anything else. Do you think the problems come when there is an attempt to apply it externally (socially/politically)? What would a society governed by Nietzschian ethics look like... shudder haha
In much the same troublesome way as when people try and apply postmodernism to society at large, maybe Nietzsche is best approached for gaining insight into collective drives, or for personal transformation. When applied politically/socially it may have negative effects.. one being the undermining of workable structures and creating a vacuum for any crazy monstrosity to take hold. As I say this is probably why Peterson (a supposed Nietzschian), clings so tightly to much of Christianity, liberalism and western values in general. I think he's probably onto something here.. I'm referring particularly to this negation and reassessment of all values, a process that is great individually.. but potentially massively disruptive and Illl concieved when applied collectively. As Wilber points out.. one must transcend and include! The problem with green and,postmodernism is it can transcend and negate.. but it certainly can't include. It doesn't understand that these stages and paradigms of blue and orange that contain things like capitalism, liberalism, democracy, religion, science and so on aren't going anywhere and have to be included. Only a truly integral understanding is capable of seeing that as part of a developmental ladder. I think, in the end, its rather that the excesses of traditionalism and modernism get tempered and synthesised with green thinking instead of completely negated and replaced with some utopian year zero ideology.
Thanks for letting me rant. I think this has helped me a lot with many of my reservations about Nietzsche.
@@TheLivingPhilosophy you know what I'm saying right. Wilber's point is If you can only transcend, but can't include, then doesn't it make sense that you end up anti,enlightenment, anti liberalism and just anti western values in general.. it sets upon a kind of nihilistic endgame of constant negation. And then what fills that vacuum? Rememberimg that Wilber also talked about the problem of the 'regressive left', or this retribalisation of postmodern thinkers back into ethnocentric affiliations. This happens with the move away from the origins of postmodernism (which was characterised by scepticism), and into the realm of a new certainty, ironically to the point of absolutism. Talking the green talk, but not walking the green walk.. Emphasising differences and neglecting commonality or an inclusive worldcentric vision.
I know it sounds a bit Peterson conspiracy theory, but it's interesting to ponder. It also brings up the question, what is the purpose of postmodern critique.. is it to do away with all that came before, or is it just an antithesis leading towards a new synthesis. I tend to think its the later.
The defenders of modernity rarely offer much criticism of its more neurotic, lopsided nature and to me that's one of the best things about postmodern critique. It is potentially iberating and on an individual level aids one in forging their own life based on genuine enthusiasm and not the unconscious conditioning of the era and its prescriptions for happiness. Collectively however, I'm not sure the answers are gonna come from postmodern thinkers. It seems that something goes terribly wrong when their ideas get implemented socially/politically. Wilber thinks that although orange is a lower level of development, it's presently healthier than green which has grown increasingly toxic. . Ultimately he says the solutions must come from a second tier perspective, but how long before that becomes 'the leading edge' is unclear haha
I thought I was the only one who couldn't get through this spoke Zarathustra! Once he betrayed the motif about not picking up the sword in ignorance I put it down.
Haha I know right! I'm surprised to see how much that point has resonated in the comments. Brings to mind Nietzsche's line in Ecce Homo "I am dynamite"
@@TheLivingPhilosophy Thinking about the Buddhists. Do you think "right intention" matters? I get the raw archetype dynamite concept. But the callousness of it seems detrimental from both a personal and social lense. It's freeing but also dangerous. What do you think?
@@eboy4032 Yeah it's worrying to think of someone drinking down every word Nietzsche says uncritically. There's so much value in connecting directly with archetype through him but on the other hand it's dynamite and dynamite shouldn't be played with lightly. There's so much value to be gotten from him but yeah I do agree that it should come with a safety warning
Ive had beyond good and evil sitting in the cupboard for a while. Youve me convinced to get it out again
Can't ask for a better reaction than that!
Keep up the good work. Nietzsche will remain important for a very long time.
Holy smokes Julian that's very geneous thank for the support it means a lot!
@@TheLivingPhilosophy You are welcome