It follows the rule on how to piss people off. Step 1- Be on RUclips Step 2- Talk about religion in any way, shape, or form; whether it's in a good or bad way. Step 3- Wait Step 4- Bankruptcy.
Edmar Fecler Shup up you fucking brony and - OH CRAP, the infection of needless bile and hatred is already spreading, it's just gotten me! ABANDON SHIP! Save your sanity and empathy towards your fellow man while you still can!
In my childhood I once read a comic about Tarzan, the 'king of the jungle' who is actually a human male who is strong and savage but noble, one scene that's most iconic is how Tarzan beats up a tiger who was trying to eat a wounded deer. Ooo Tarzan, defender of the weak, I'm supposed to say? But even at that time I wondered: so if the tiger's not allowed to eat the wounded deer, then what's it supposed to eat? Vegetables?
It depends, maybe Tarzan wants the deer for himself. Otherwise he's being a condescending asshole. The wounded deer is a goner, anyway, and would spoil quickly in such a climate.
@@Wsnow22Of course if Tarzan doesn't want that tiger to eat deer ever, either the tiger becomes a slave to his will or it kills him to be able to do whatever it wants
I always hated the concept of supporting mediocre behavior, but I also loath the concept of "pride" as a way of life. Live in the way you want to live, a person will never be better than the other by their life choices, until they start to commit crimes and morally wrong deeds.
La Oveja I disagree. If we can judge someone to be "worse" than another because of his/her immoralities then we can judge another to be "better" because his/her moral acts. I also have no problem with pride, but only after significant achievements.
La Oveja I *personally* believe that _too much_ pride can lead to greed... I dislike valuing mediocre behavior.I tend to do this a lot with my own achievements; brush them off not as the culmination of my work, but just another step into a staircase I'm currently ascending.But that's just me and my actual knowledge of philosophy is ineffably low.
Celebration of mediocrity: is anyone else reminded of The Incredibles? (everyone's special . . . that's just a fancy way of saying no-one is/ everyone can be super . . . and when everyone's super, no-one will be.)
What is Will to Power? Well it's one of the most complex and muddled ideas Nietzsche introduced. I'm Nietzsche fanboy as much as they go, but the concept of Will to power was purposefully left unclarified for two obvious reasons. The first is that if Will to Power is the only real drive in the world then Nietzsche is a crypto-metaphysician like Heidegger accused him of being, secondly Will to Power as just a historicist interpretation of history is severely weak and robs us of Nietzsche's more profound moral insights such as "The Transvaluation of all Values". Other Philosophers recognised this such as Foucault, when he refined "Will to Power" as "Will to Knowledge". One has to be very carefull to take any historical interpretation Nietzsche makes with a grain of salt, for one his claim that Jews created "slave morality" is extremely dubious ( one has only too read the old Testament to see how warlike the Jews were). This also would go in line that Nietzsche hated Christianity not so much for it's political organization or it's fanaticism, but because of it's life denying message which stemmed from Platonism.Secondly Will to Power as a political/moral theory is also extremely problematic , as it solely taken from a collection of fragments Nietzsche wrote known as "Will to Power" that his Nazi sister edited, and is contradicted by a lot of his earlier works such as "Thus Spake Zarathustra".
HobbitstoHobbes So what you're saying is, even though the Jews (of which I am one) started the slave morality trend, they did not follow it- it was actually Christianity which embraced assimilation.
I can't help but wonder if he saw that horse being beaten and thought "this is the Will to Power". It is a tragic and empty principle. It should not guide us. There are good reasons to separate 'is' and 'ought'. Although we can't change the 'is', struggling for the 'ought' is immensely productive. There is a lot to be said for kindness and reducing suffering.
That Dragon Fruit My own experience is that it turns people into inconsiderate assholes (I was a massive Nietzsche fanboy). And also, it's all well and good for those that have the power, less so for those that don't. I prefer a values or rights-based approaches
As always this is a really good explanation of the herd mentality. As a christian its never a bad thing to agree on some of these points rather than fear them. the height of arrogance in my understanding in my short walk in life so far is to assume we have a complete understanding after going to church and call it a day, find safety in not having to think anymore about it. I can think of nothing worse, whats the point then
The point is enlightenment ! You like all of us will lay dying . At that point you will have to accept that you have no control . If you can accept that sooner rather than later. You can experience peace . Otherwise you will live in fear! Fear that you won’t get something you want. Or fear you will lose something you have.
"That's just the way it is" is just a way to handwave away any critique. Nature has as much ecosystemic symbiosis as it does competition. And even if it didn't, something is not a good model for human behavior simply because it is natural for some species.
The reason any sybioses exist in nature is because they are beneficial to each party. Each party takes part in a symbiotic relationship because it benefits them personally, not because it helps another. Taking action to improve one's lot in life fits fine in with the will to power. But i agree with you that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right (i.e., moral, and I think that nietzsche would agree too-- but someone correct me if I'm wrong). Nietzsche isnt trying to define what's right and wrong here though, he's proposing from where people/cultures derive what they each believe is moral. Which not so coincidentally "right/moral" happens to be whatever they identify as central to their identity as opposed to wrong/immoral is whatever opposes their identity. E.g., how convenient that a religion that is rooted in passivity would say that the meek shall inherit the earth.
SinderGX No. It's just a relevant quote that summarizes what Nietzsche is arguing. Rapture is essentially Nietzsche's utopia, but Bioshock deconstructs how that philosophy is not realistically sustainable. People _have_ to work together to keep civilization intact which depends on a certain modicum of conformity.
As a Christian, Nietzsche has given me a lot to think about and I love reading him. I too reject mediocrity as virtuous, have thought about what the Bible says about weakness and virtue. Christians are capable of being strong (plenty Biblical figures existed who led ruthless military conquests, killed lions with their bare hands, stood up against their own cultures), but the Bible teaches that the source strength comes from God. We are not the source of our own strength, He is. That being said, many Christians use the grace of God as an excuse to lead mediocre lives, but plenty of non-Christians live in mediocrity as well. Considering a bell curve, the majority of people will be mediocre in most things no matter what the dominant school of thought is. How could everyone be a superhero?
The Bible even saids to brag about our weakness and always being careful not to brag on our strengths and if we talents we have to use it only one way moderation or else you haven’t surrendered.
What biblical figures led ruthless military conquests after becoming Christian? I imagine the lion was killed to protect people rather than for glory. It was my impression that all of the aggressive militaristic stuff was in the Old Testament and rejected by Jesus in the New. Wasn't that the whole point of turn the other cheek?
I have not read it entirely. But my knowledge of history is that when the Roman state and then germanic peoples adopted Christianity they influenced it with their warlike culture which would eventually lead to the justification of the Crusades. While the original Christians were pacifists based on the scripture or at least only were ok with self defense
Watching this 8-Bit Philosophy helped me understand why the creators of 'Smallville' connected Clark Kent with Nietzsche in one of the very first episodes. Everything about aspiring to be part of the herd, the Will to Power, and questions about if a person should be better than others (whether or not they actually are) is a lot of the meaning/complexity that surrounds Superman.
The reason people crave power is that power is a means for guaranteeing self-preservation. Morality presents another option, to co-exist with others by following a set social ques rather than to preserve one's self by overpowering opponents. It is an option without guarantee, but with greater rewards for more people if pulled off correctly.
Hmmm, I'm not sure... "People should strive to be strong and subjugate the weak" sounds a bit Ayn Rand-esque... I mean yeah, overvaluing mediocrity can lead to problems - trust me, I know, but there is such a thing as too much ambition. When you're not even considering the possibility that you might be wrong about something, that can also lead to serious problems.
The video isn't saying we should become more and more ambitios, but instead to simply allow oneself to be ambitious rather than hide it. It has nothing to do with subjugating the weak, rather that the weak should not blame the strong for simply being strong.
R3TR05P3CT Okay, I see your point. Still, this advice should be taken carefully, because it could easily be misinterpreted as "the strong shouldn't care about the weak".
Ayn Rand herself based her ideals on Nietzsche, though arguably Rand did not go far enough. For Rand, she believed that something objective exists (A=A, etc etc), but Nietzsche would argue that 'nothing' is objective 8bit philosophy did another video on Nietzsches concept of truth: ruclips.net/video/Y68mGbvZZZg/видео.html Personally, I think Nietzsche believes that the ideal man (aka the overman) would be able to be ambitious but have an understanding of his surroundings, and/or be able to turn it in his advantage. Also: tinyurl.com/n4uwy6m Nietzsche did say "Learning from ones enemies is the best way toward loving them; for it makes us grateful to them."
I think that you might like to read some more contemporary interpretations on Nietzsche. Wendy Brown's States of Injury has a great discussion on the concept of ressentiment (what was alluded to in the video), that actually recovers it from the hard-right, over-coming mentality. Happy reading!
Dominic Samaroo Did you just paraphrase from Barnyard? In your boundless compassion, did you fail to realize that solving another's problem robs them of the positive experience gained by them solving their own problem. By attempting to help them, you make them weaker, then proceed to feel virtuous. Is not the false intention and negative consequence a double injustice, done in the name of moral goodness?
Revan579 I never watched Barnyard, so no... And I feel like the situation you described is HIGHLY situational and a bit more precise than what I was going for. All I mean to say is that Christianity tells us to love one another - and I am certain it takes more strength of character to love EVERYONE and look for everyone's wellbeing, than it is to love yourself and only look for your success. If you think people helping each other is selfish than I don't know what to say.
Dominic Samaroo Yes, ideal maxims such as 'love all' don't tend to work well in particular situations, which coincidentally, are the very things their meant to be used for. Yet, our faith to such maxims is measured most by absent situations. Would you love those who may rob you or kill your family? Perhaps take what you really do love from you? If one were honest, i would think not. To be clear, i find nothing wrong with such a maxim, however, i find suspicious anyone who claims to hold it, as they're probably frauds. I'm equally certain that you don't love everyone you know. Love is no cheap commodity, but a rare spring of deep feeling felt for a select few. Love is most often like the sun in its beauty and vibrance -- It will come AND go. It is a passion for the strong, who must build it with a robust foundation, lest it collapse because of its own fibre, dense with passion. And it must be flexible, so that a sudden turbulence not tip it over. I never said it was selfish, merely that one might find himself to have done more harm than good. Perhaps it's the intention to goodness that counts, though i believe that Christians have a popular principle that refutes it. Still, even i'm uncomfortable with ascribing moral goodness only to consequences. I think Kierkegaard put it best when he asserted that one must have faith that God has helped them make the right decision, as all moral dilemmas are partially ambiguous, as are its solutions.
Revan579 Oh I know that I don't love everyone I meet - let alone someone who may harm me. But I still believe that loving everyone (even murderers and criminals) is what is right. Even if I don't always follow my belief because of the constraints of real life, its an important part of christianity to know that love should be answer to everything. I definitely believe that earthly happiness relies more on balancing helping oneself with helping others, and sharing love with only a few, like you said. But as a Christian I'm meant to strive to be loving like Christ - even if it means unhappiness here, because love is the road to peace eternal. And you may wonder why I believe in God when there's no evidence and no real gain for me - but honestly if there were no God then nothing would matter, we would all die and rot and everything would be pointless. But I (for no good reason) choose to believe that I have a purpose - so I choose to believe in God.
"The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied." Proverbs 13:4 "For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living." -2 Thessalonians 3:10-12 "In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty." Proverbs 14:23 Christianity does not promote people to be mediocre, Nietzsche does not seem to understand the countless verses on working hard for profit and Glory to God, and then he goes and builds a philosophy on his ignorance....The Bible does teach humility, to not gloat your success.
It's unfortunate that so many philosophies are built on misunderstandings or willful ignorance to what the Bible actually teaches...this is exactly what Paul spoke of when he said to not be led astray by empty and hollow philosophies.
+fatsamcastle have you even read the Bible? and can you differentiate between the new and old treatments? No? you just quote what popular culture thinks about the Bible, right? you haven't studied it or even took the time to look into in and consider what it actually says, right? Not once it the entire Bible does it state that the Earth is flat, nor does it even mention anything beyond Earth other than the moon sun and stars, let alone the Earth being the center of the Universe, never does it says to kill your disobedient children, and never does it say to stone homosexuals in particular..only that the God of the Bible is against homosexuality, or anything for that matter that goes against what is naturally intended. I don't know what "bible" you have read but please gets your facts and check your privilege before your hate rage on things you don't understand.
Gregor Perčič You want your words to be heard and have value, but then you push a valueless reality lol. do you not see the blatant hypocrisy of your own world view? Truth is your god? So truth is electron impulses in your brain? You place all your value into something that is "ultimately" completely valueless, your self. Do you believe your brain is more valuable then mine? Are your thoughts more truthful then my own? Who is right your thoughts or mine?
Gregor Perčič See you will never discover truth unless you seek it outside of yourself. This is why "smart" Christians use the Bible as their ultimate authority, and not themselves, or their experiences, because experiences can be deceiving, just as you are iterating. But I can point to something outside of "myself" as my authority ,so I actually have something to stand on, apart from that foundational ground all I have is my unverifiable personal mind and experiences, and what a whirlwind of uncertainty that is, even so much as "ultimately" nothing. "You will seek me and you will find me, when you seek me with ALL your heart." See that is what is so fascinating about this conversation, you are seeking "truth", Christ actually claimed to be "the truth"
Well then, let me clarify. 1. I was defending the Bible in particular because the comment attacked the Bible in particular. The Bible was mentioned at the end of the comment, hence it included the Bible into said fallacies, so I refuted the points. 2. "Truth" being your god and only accepting reality with logic is out of place in a discussion of Christian beliefs (casualty, division or any other matter) because the core of the Christian belief is Faith in God and His Bible. That is not to say that God does not appeal to and emphasize reason, but that Faith is required to understand and comprehend His Word. This also does not mean that Faith is a crutch to stand on for Christians when met with any strong ideological resistance,(granted there are people who do exactly that).Nor does it mean to blindly accept things you don't understand. Logic(ESPECIALLY human logic) is fallible because it stems from individual perspectives and personal understandings. Man cannot attempt to pursue logically the universe for a multitude of reasons, (let alone that we can only visibly observe and interact with a very small part of it), and should not rely on observation and experience alone to reach what he deems the "truth". Laws we have established about philosophy and sciences are all conjecture and guess-work(the THEORY of relativity, plate tectonics, evolution) and in no way represent actual reality because they are only made from a relatively small perspective. The God of the Bible however, presents Truth told from a position outside of this physical realm that only man can observe, but to trust in that position requires Faith. Faith itself requires man to overlook his doubts about the things he either does not understand or simply refuses to accept because his own mind limits his openness. 3. While Christianity is rooted in" Abrahamic ' doctrine, it is unto itself the Word of Christ(who testifies Himself as God) and does not propose to "gather a crowd that defends and tries to take over". This is not only a misunderstanding of Christianity, but of all religion. Religion is meant to reconnect( using its Latin root) and teaches that we need to adopt and develop higher qualities of love, mercy, generosity, kindness and so on. Men, with our fickle hearts and minds, deviate from this and tarnish what religion is meant to represent. So while it may seem that all religious doctrine only brainwashes and inspires a ritualistic hive-mind, this is man's corruption and not its intended established purpose.
Humanity is a social species and bring pro-social helps humanity survive. The beliefs of a psychopath: Only wealth and power matter, not the goodness of compassion.
Anyone else notice that the video did not address the question? Also, it is interesting that Nietzsche blames Christianity for people being "mediocre" as he calls it. People have been conforming before Christianity came. As a matter of fact, I believe he misrepresents what Christianity means.
The reason for the video isn't to answer the question, but to present it to the viewery (Hence the name) The only reason christianity was used for it is because it brought to question a societal norm, tend to notice how a lot of people hate rich people? or people being upset at others being extremely happy at their own victory? It was a question as to where those preconceived notions causing us to dislike those came from.
"People have been conforming before Christianity came." True, but in Nietzsche's writings he was openly using it as but one example of 'slave morality' which was also followed by Plato.
It's not a matter of answering a question. The video is using the Socratic method. It presents a question and prepositions and lets the "student" develop their own conclusions. Personally I think Nietzsche was too focused on the Individual. A human could never outrun a lion or a bear. We will never have better hearing than a dog or jackal. Our vision will always be worse than an owl or eagle. No man could take down an elephant in unarmed combat. The reason humans have the power we do now is our social ability. Our industry builds cars and jets that are an order of magnitude faster than lions. We can deploy wireless microphones over a massive area and humans organized group mammoth hunts before we had written language. Human power is not in the Ubermensch but in the group.
Schuyler Bostedt I think you are missing a few critical points of his philosophy. Yes, he was very critical of slave morality, ie, christianity, but he was not a proponent of master morality, like many claim. The whole point of going 'beyond good and evil' is to move past such ideologies, and forge your own. For example, while some might think Nietzsche encouraged very selfish behavior he was actually known among his friends and colleagues as being very generous.
Yes, they would've been considered moral and righteous. They would've been venerated by the masses and thanked because without their rise all those people would've never existed.
I'm an atheist and a libertarian but this video amounts to an argument from nature. Life does not persist because of a drive for power, it exists because of a drive for survival. A lion does not kill an antelope because it seeks power, it does so because it is hungry.
+Christian Allinson Fischer food makes you stronger. hunger means you're getting weaker. lion eats for power. semantics. definitions. nothing special. i just overpowered you because i saw where you were struggling, corrected you, and then pretended like i do it all the time. or, you could say that i was replying to your post. see the world how you want. that's your will to power. just like i will see the world the way i want to see it, as my will to power. this means we could argue forever, each one pretending to hold the key to understanding, where in fact we're just trying to defeat one another. then when one of us gives up, the other one will not physically eat the one who gives up, but he will eat food for the ego. the same ego that is required to overcome self-doubt and make a success in life. and then actually get to eat the physical food. like antelope meat i just went full circle so that we wouldnt have to argue :)
+Christian Allinson Fischer Exactly. Even though, I have watched videos were a far right Wing Christian argued that babies were acting narcissistic for crying for food, lack of sleep, to be held, psychological and physical survival pleads. I don't think you can really strongly morality to something a person or thing does out of instinctual reactions to survive. Could anyone really fault the Donner party survivors for eating their dead when they were starving to death in the snow?
+Christian Allinson Fischer False- Lions like other animals kill for sport too, they also do so to command more power in their society... mating rights, first to drink from the watering hole- ect. power = privileges and everybody wants some-
I think this is a misunderstanding of Christianity, Christians aren't about everyone being the same they are about everyone being different but having the same value. You can say that wealth, wits and intelligence is the sign that we are doing well but these things are frequently out of our control. If you are born rich are you better than anyone else? If you grew up in a war zone and so couldn't get an education does that make you worse? The world is not even or fair so you cannot judge people by these things. The idea of nature having this will to power is a good point, animals compete to survive. But are we animals?
Christianity does not call for the removal of exceptionalism, greatness, or leadership. These are gifts that God gave us to use in the SERVICE of others as well as ourselves. It's service to others and love that Christianity espouses. The view of Nietzsche is simply incorrect with regard to the purpose of Christianity.
You can't say someone's opinion is "incorrect" there are opinions and then there are facts. A fact can be incorrect but an opinion cannot be. I am not some narrow minded Neanderthal that goes on and on about "religion is evil". I have respect for all religions. Don't get the wrong idea please.
+Jabs McTooFresh An opinion can be incorrect if it contradicts a fact. If I said that in my opinion all dogs have 6 legs, my opinion would be incorrect. +DARIVS ARCHITECTVS A lot of the criticisms I've heard against Christianity are really just critiquing a society trying (and usually failing) to follow the Bible, instead of critiquing the actual Bible. I think Nietzche's view is one such criticism.
Isn't Christianity just one of the many reasons that Edward Gibbon thought the Roman Empire fell? They became weak due to Christian morality, and cared more about their life in heaven rather than their life on Earth, hence why they tried less to save the Empire.
Yes. And he was utterly wrong. Or maybe not "wrong" but misguided. As I see it. Early Empires like for example Achaemenid, Alexander's, Early Rome didn't rely on a factor of belonging to some group that would unite them. When human population increased the early divisions in society that we observe later in history manifested. It's much easier to control 100 thousand people then to control 10 milion people. If those 10 milion people think of themselves as then we have the old "we are us, they are them" divisions. But if every culture in a vast empire like Rome follows one religion then those divisions are slightly undone and replaced with "we are ". It helps if there is another group outside of the empire that follows different religions. It's one of the reasons why there was the council of Nicea and why the Sassanid empire that was in early times of it's existence religiously tolerant to minorities, then in later period started to prosetylyze zoroastrianism and actively pressecute Nicean (Roman) Christians. I think that Christianity was one of the main factors why the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire actually survived to the 15th century.
Doesn't explain how the Byzantine Empire, aka the eastern Roman Empire (and arguably a more Christian empire), survived for another millennium. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire (inb4 how 'Roman' is the Eastern roman empire. Well, maybe not as roman as the classic western roman empire, but defintiely more roman than the later Hply 'Roman' Empires)
HobbitstoHobbes It's quite normal Roman propaganda. You probably know that Romans didn't force their Greco-Roman Pantheon of Gods on subdued "nations". On the controrary they let local worship to flourish and even encouraged the worship of foreign gods as if they were Roman (cult of Mithra as the obvious example). Which isn't a big deal when you deal with politheism that already has hundreds of deities. Now with Judea and Parthia(as the main enemy of Rome)....this was problematic. Both Judea and Arsacid Iran (Parthia) had monotheistic religions. That means that the population would not accept "sharing" their god with other Gods. It would defy the idea of monotheism. That was the main reason of Roman persecution of Jews and later Christians in the empire. Their religion in that Roman state was an agents of chaos. But Later where you have half of the population already being Christian they had to adapt to a completely different policy ie. persecution of politheistic "pagans".
If the Roman Empire's fall can ever be attributed to religion, it would be because the tolerance of Christian beliefs made the Emperor no longer appear to be "God on Earth" (which means that tight grip of fear the Emperor held before quickly vanished). However, the Roman Empire fell due to a number of reasons and religion was a very small part of it.
Christianity isn't about love at all it's about control. Pastors take people on emotional highs and lows. Threatening people with hell but at the same time saying Jesus loves you and you'll only get to heaven if you surrender yourself.
"Jesus said to his Jews: “The law was for servants - love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!” - Nietzsche Nietzsche envisioned Jesus as a 'free spirit' beyond good and evil, and suggested that it was Paul who perverted those ideas to appeal to the masses and to invert Roman values. The Romans held beautiful, wealthy, and strong people in higher regard than ugly, poor, and weak people. Paul told that lower class of men that they were morally superior because they did not commit the sin of pride.
Nietzsche was deeply unsatisfied with life and had a bad experience of Christianity in his youth. He couldn't find a life partner and suffered poor health. He lashed out at Christianity and a society that didn't appreciate his love of ancient Greek philosophy and culture especially the Dionysian aspect.
I would think a Christian's ability to deny their more basic urges would be a sign of strength, not weakness. Also, for when they were talking about seeking to be more than ordinary; if we have no ordinary then how can anyone be extraordinary?
There is no need for anyone to desire to be ordinary or normal. "Normal" is contextual. It will always and forever exist, because it's just a mean or average of value. Unless a population is perfectly split down the middle between 2 extremes, like 50% being 7 feet tall exactly, and 50% being 5 feet tall exactly... unless that's the case, if there is any kind of gradient at all, then those who happen to fall in the middle are, without effort, average. And everyone in proximity to the average are also somewhat average without any effort. And if the average shifts, it shifts. But it's still the average. And those on the extreme of an undesirable trait, no matter how arbitrary that judgement is, simply have an undesirable trait. But those who have the extremely desirable trait to differentiate themselves from the average, are and should be looked up to. Why? Because evolution. If there is an advantageous trait, it should be sought after and revered, for the mere benefit of future generations having a greater preponderance of that advantageous trait. I'd argue all this only becomes a "moral issue" when the technological advancement of society "allows" for people to have less and less desirable traits without much consequence, because society and its benefits buffer them from the selective pressures of nature. The fear (a justified fear in my view) is that as society progresses technologically, and tends more and more to "protect and preserve" humans with less desirable traits, the average of the population actually degrades and becomes objectively less healthy and robust. So if/when society falls apart for whatever reason, the population would collapse significantly, because most people simply would be incapable of surviving and reproducing without the benefits of current society. Take cesarean procedures for example. If most women require cesarean procedures to birth healthy children, and society falls apart so that we can't supply enough medical equipment to safely perform those procedures, then infant and mother mortality would skyrocket and the population would plummet, and we'd have to basically start all over again because with population loss comes much knowledge and talent loss.
You do not need to subjugate or humiliate others in order to have success or abundance in life. If the people have a problem with your success, however, that is a different moral problem. Celebrate the exceptional, and celebrate the mediocre. Help others strive to be good.
This is silly because the bible says that we will be rewarded for our excellence in heaven. If Christianity is the reason for weakness it is because of Christians confused view of the bible itself. Which is actually a strong argument to make considering this is a big problem. Many Christians make the bible out to say that kinky sex, rock music, homosexuality, and even cursing are evil when the bible does not say anything like this at all (to name a few areas where many Christians are confused) Many people like to attack Christianity as a whole, but I feel we should just attack the complete lack of understanding of their own religion that many of them have. If you are going to believe something, you should know what it is and why you believe it. You should understand it fully for yourself instead of just accepting everything you are told about it.
+Ben anonnimous (Cracken) I think Christians have confused views for the Bible is because there's a multiple way to interpret the Bible. It's possible for a group of people to share the same opinion on a subject, but it may be impossible for every human to draw the same conclusion from said subject. The way we value life and how our parents raised us determines how we will comprehend important subjects. No person has the exact same upbringing, so not every person can have the same views or comprehension skills. I don't fall under any religion, so I do feel like I am missing out on some important person experience. I completely agree with your last part. It pisses me off that so many people just love to believe what they are told. Not even thinking about questioning their higher power or their message. I haven't live long, but I've live in a lot of states and met a lot of people. It's damn near depressing hearing answers they find in my questions. The youth really has no guidance. Most of their religious beliefs base off of what their parents believe and not what they personally believe. Some of their outlooks on terrorism and racism is based off of the "old way of life";referring to slavery and segregation and bigotry. Sorry for the rant Ben.
YourRegularGamer Don't be sorry I like what you have to say. It irritates me though that so many people interpret things differently because if you actually read what your faith is based on it's usually really cut and dry. It's simple. It's so easy to understand. But because people want to believe something they change it to mean what they want it to mean. Most of the different interpretations are just desperate attempts to justify their religion to their world views that do not actually match. If you are going to believe a religion then you might have to accept some things that you don't like but if you believe the religion then its just a hard truth and you should deal with it.
Ben anonnimous I agree. Way to many people with that mindset populate the United States. I guess asking for something simple is just asking for too much. If people actually took in the reality of their religion, I seriously doubt that we would have a lot of religious people. They'd probably turn into an atheist out of spite!
YourRegularGamer Most religions are pretty brutal, although there are a few that are not so bad. But because of the way society works usually the ones considered bad are much better then people think and the ones considered good are much worse.
+Ben anonnimous (Cracken) I'm soooo glad someone else sees how people randomly attack Christianity just because they think it goes out its way to condemn rock, sex, etc. when it really doesn't
True, but the fly is lesser to the spider. Humankind is equal. We shouldn't make the weak feel weaker or the strong feel better because they are. Instead we should try to help others benefit from your strength or weakness instead of making yourself out to be better than everyone if you are strong. So it makes perfect sense in the animal kingdom, but in our modern life it is an outdated philosophy.
This is a really good point of discussion. For my money, Christianity (and all main world religions) is something that challenges others to be under the umbrella of seeking inner peace, understanding the inner self, loving your neighbor, providing for those who cannot provide for yourself, increase the love you have for yourself by reflecting that love toward others, etc. And these religions all also say that doing such is indeed going AGAINST the norm. It is not normal in nature to love your fellow man regardless; it is only normal in nature to promote your genetics and those alone. And yet, in religion, man is called over and over again to sacrifice for the sake of those outside of his lineage. I would argue that major faiths command mankind to go above and beyond and against the grain, and to love others in spite of their shortcomings and help give them a fair shake, rather than leave them to die and rot in your own dust. Religion doesn't cause us to become complacent when we choose to be unified by it, we just become complacent in being exposed to others doing good things through our mutual faith, and then don't feel as much onus to work toward it, because others are more than willing to do so, apparently.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and since Jesus died THEN came back Jesus must be a body builder because you can't get much stronger than that...
Christianity in Nietzsche's age must have been very different from the one we have in America today. Much of what he was saying gets preached by some very successful ministers in our time.
These are by far my favorite series from this channel! But seriously, that Psychologist is FANTASTIC too! But that came later for me. I"ve been following for a while now. :)
This video doesn't seem draw the line between taking advantage of the weak, and striving at personal progress. It also seems to imply that s power is met by self-interest at the expense of others, in which case crusaders and colonists had no issue causing genocide and slavery of the weak in a effort to progress their financial status, under the spiritual conviction to a Christian God, just saying. I additionally do not agree with this philosopher's perception of nature. Most of nature is propelled by the will to live, none more. Sometimes this comes to disadvantage of other species but not always. Most animals do not have a concept of "success", or the will to outcompete or pursue power over its neighboring lifeforms if they don't have to. You can take the evolution of the koala bear, sloth and panda as perfect examples. As far as success goes, that depends on how you measure it. Even though predators eat prey, prey make up 90% of the animal kingdom, predators make up only 10%
Does getting a trophy for winning mean you're taking advantage of the weak? I'd say not. That was Nietzsce's main point, that lowering yourself to be equal with others cannot be considered morally righteous if we live in a world where you must compete to survive. The video's focus on Nietzsce's birds and sheep analogy is probably what has led to most of the misunderstanding in the comments section.
""This video doesn't seem draw the line between taking advantage of the weak, and striving at personal progress" The video doesn't have to. We do. The video just raises a philosophical question that is supposed to generate the exact kinds of discussions that you have raised here, such is the nature of philosophy, which is at times intentionally provocative to stir people to thought and discussion.
Remiel Pollard The kind of thought and discussion that she just made. Her statement was a reply to the philosophical view presented by the video. Though, if you would like to join in the discussion than one thing you could do is raise a counter to her proclamation that discusses the actual topic of the video instead of just the parameters of the video's production.
What is weakness? Is it the inability to dominate others? Is it the inability to bend others to your will? Being able to do these things are counted as "strength" in a Nietzschean worldview, and only if you consider your morality as the only true morality. In all honesty, Christianity makes us weak and strong at the same time.
This is a big misrepresentation of the principles of Christianity. Christ and the Bible don't teach mediocrity, they teach humility (not boasting but serving your fellow man with your gifts). The video said that strength, brilliance, wealth, etc are to be valued in society, but Christianity never devalues these things. It puts these things in proper persepective, as gifts and tools to help each other... " Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves. 4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. (Philippians 2:3,4) Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27) Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men. (1 Thessalonians 5:14)
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Romans 2:12. The Bible teaches us to be set apart. You see this throughout all teachings. Our humility and self-sacrifice is what sets us apart. Jesus says the last will be first and the first will be last. He turns the whole argument of survival-of-the-fittest on its head.
+Tanner McCoon There's one small problem with that perspective - There is no god. What if the strong shall inherit the earth? What if the first will remain the first? What if justice is but a contract between near equals in power? Do these possibilities terrify you? If so, ask yourself why. Without god the only way to overcome nihilism is to set up the real world (the world as the body experiences it) as the ideal.
+Tanner McCoon The church uses euphemisms like 'humility' and 'self-sacrifice' to guilt you into donating more $$$ to them when the collection basket comes around. It's all a scam to take your money and control how you think - in other words it's the most successful cult the world has ever seen. Jesus was a hellova marketing genius :)
Interesting, I can see how Christianity taking away the "will to power" would make Christians look weak. The idea of seizing power or survival of the fittest doesn't have a place in a religion where the afterlife is the focal point and main reward. You could roughly say Christianity focuses on spiritual power rather than earthly power. If you believed no spiritual power exists or that it's not important, that would seem incredibly weak and pointless.
"Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognized and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gained said justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just" --Blaise Pascal, _Pensées_
I do landscaping for my local church every Spring and Summer, and I've noticed something. Over by the graves, there are some patches of grass that are less verdant than others. Sure, grass grows, but it isn't as much as others. One time we had a really big storm, and some areas of the gravesite were so overgrown that it took a single $150 battery to get through a single row. I can usually get through four rows on that battery, and they take 2 hours to charge. But some areas just don't produce as much grass. In fact, in most areas, it's the graves closest to the church that tend to be the most baron, while those further away are the most verdant. This observation tells me that nature isn't egalitarian. It does in fact play favorites. Some areas of land are more fertile than others. Some animals have better features than others, and can therefore survive better. And some people are born with better genetics, or into better circumstances, or to wealthier and healthier families and communities. If you want to replace "Nature" with "God", who essentially in the Christian belief holds absolute domain over all that is, and decides the fate and reality of any and all beings, including patches of grass, this realization essentially contradicts the entirety of the Christian doctrine, and only proves people like Nietzsche correct in how the world works. This inequality encourages, even demands competition. If one is to survive, they'd have to gain the knowledge and power to take on another and beat them. Maybe not in some violent brawl, but in some form of arena. It's weird that a god would design the world in such a way, and then ask for us to live in ways contrary to what is necessary to survive. That is until you look at Gnosticism.
Participation trophies is a new concept to me I didn't hear about them till the 2000's. I find it kinda hard to believe that a group that is stereotyped as "I'm better than you" and told they are a hypocrite for it could be also stereotyped as seeking mediocrity.
As a Christian, I do believe people should worship God, but not to the point of conformity. Exceptional people should be appreciated, and people should show their love of God in their own ways.
Nietzsche has overlooked a pivotal point however, that strength does not just come from the individual dominating the many, but also from the many themselves. you look at flocks of birds or shawls of fish, they survive and thrive due to teamwork in the face of an aggressive individualist. In apes, the alpha male isn't he who dominates and bullies the other apes, but he who has empathy and can make friends, get the apes to work together and keep the peace. that's not just conjecture, it's scientific fact. The survivalists who are vehemently individualist don't last long in the wild, at least in our closest cousins
This is fine for birds and tigers, but offers little or nothing to sheep and tourists. It suggests that if you aren't a predator, then you have very little value, and there is nothing you can do to become more valuable. Basically, it says, "if you aren't born an ubermensch, hurry and die without breeding, because we don't need you." Also, it prioritizes individual physical power over collective moral power. It never allows for the possibility that the moral collective may yet win in the end.
The people in Christianity who are used as examples are the saint, those who have done extraordinary things with their lives, who have pushed the limits. Christianity encourages you to be more than human, but also not to brag about it, and glorify yourself.
I do not agree at all what this video is saying. From a Christian perspective the reason, scripturally, we are called to be “Shine as bright as stars in the sky”. What does that reference, it references the idea that Christians are not to be “mundane” or “moderate”. We are supposed to stick out in the world, people are supposed to look to us as lights. Also Christianity focuses on weakness because in and of its self we are all weak. The idea of not admitting you are weak and prideful in and of it’s self and Christianity seeks avoid pride. As everything in this world has all be given to us by God and Jesus Christ. Can you really say that Humans are “strong” when a simple virus we can even see can kill us. I or a simple piece of food stuck in ones throat. We in and of its self are weak beings. But this weakness is why allows Christians to rely and pursue God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To not rely on our own strength but the strength of a perfect and holy being. I believe that it takes more “strength” to live the TRUE life of a Christian one who is following a Christ then to live in the world. From the worls perspective of power yes us Christians do not have it. We seek to not have it as all kinds of evil can come from it. We instead seek the power of our God to sustain us through all times. He is the one who saved us, Jesus is the one who gives salvation. We did nothing (being weak) to earn the grace and salvation. It was freely given to us so that God could be in relationship to us. Seek Jesus he is the way the Truth and the Life :)
The true idea of power is knowing that you're powerless, the same way true knowledge is knowing you don't know everything. This isn't weakness, it's just factual that we are humans, not gods. We have limits, but acknowledging those limits doesn't make someone weak, it makes them aware of their lack of awareness. Humans are strong, and they can be stronger by themselves, but strength means nothing in the face of the realization that you will never be stronger than God, and that upsets some people's pride. Knowing they can never be gods hurts them, so they resort to these ideas and philosophies. It's a pathetic illusion really.
Plus, worldly strength is different from spiritual strength. Earthly convictions has pushed people beyond their limits at times, but spiritual convictions have pushed other people way beyond earthly convictions can ever will. Somebody who believes in God is way more dangerous and powerful than anybody who doesn't believe, since their convictions push them to do things that seems implausible and irrational, but there is nothing more powerful than a man who believes in something so much, they're willing to die for it.
Well, it is a fact of life. The world belongs to the strong, and the brutal. even if that strength is ten million weak, one minded individuals. there are still ten million of them in strength. however, the world turns and shifts what it clarifies as "strength" constantly. for instance, if I had a gun, and I said "Do this, or I'll kill you" you'd do it. simply because, you don't have a gun. However, if you did, it would come down to less "who can kill" and more of "who will kill" and, if you had another with a gun, it'd come down to "if I kill, will I be killed".
Interesting connection, because The Incredibles, takes a little inspiration of this phylosophy. The Supers, are the ones that are exceptional and the normals (the people that dont have super powers) want that the supers just be mediocre and normal.
The point of a participation trophy is to keep from discouraging kids from trying at all. Kids, and even adults, often try something unfamiliar to them and, because it's new and they kinda suck at it, they feel embarrassed and refuse to keep practicing until they get good. It's not celebrating mediocrity, it's preventing self-doubt from crushing those who may have talent.
And thus taking away the incentive to rise above your peers. It’s like giving every kid on a test a B regardless of if they should’ve gotten a F or an A. Whether it means to or not, it discourages actually trying to improve at what you’re participating in.
@@verscarii3238 I've changed my mind about participation trophies in the (checks timestamp) *seven years* since I posted that comment. Participation Trophies are for the boomer parents to feel like their kids accomplished something. The kids don't give a shit about your cheap plastic trinket. Its the rich parents who cry if their kid doesn't win something. The kid's feelings are entirely superfluous to the situation.
As Dr. Eric Thomas puts it, "All men are created equal, some just work harder in pre-season." That's normal, Christianity gives principles for Good, Evil, and Equality. However, we, as humans, have free will in what we do.
Proverbs 22:29 KJV Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men. There's always been an encouragement to be outstanding, but not without a mandate to be humble.
Step on the weak because you can basically. I feel bad for the people who actually believe this mindset. I don't understand how you can leave a trail of sadness and anger everywhere you go because you treat people like shit and how you can then go home and be OK with yourself as a person. People don't need to be the same to be "equal", and having moral values doesn't make you a brainwashed fool. People should strive to be there best while also helping those around them be there best as well, rather then racing or sabotaging each other.
***** And you aren't inflating your own ego by pretending to be morally superior to others? Weaklings always hide behind morality pretending it's some short of absolute truth instead of the self-serving belief system that it is.
Spider58x Your right, however the REALITY is is that most people who live in a civilized society have morals. Morality exists as long as there is a moral person alive. Trying to say morality doesn't exist is like saying love, hate, empathy, and sadness don't exist. Even you have morals, and if you try and say you don't then your a liar or your a sociopath, in witch case do the planet a favor and move to an island with a population of 1.
You gotta love a morality that relies on not meeting a strong person following that morality and doing it to you, because from what I've seen Social Darwinists will quickly change their tune if someone else practices it on them
The Bible even saids to brag about our weakness and always being careful not to brag on our strengths and if we talents we have to use it only one way moderation or else you haven’t surrendered.
I want to give a nihilist approach towards Pascal's wager. Pascal argues that because we cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists we're given an impasse. On one hand you could live life in the moment not caring about the outcome and when you die go to hell for living through vice or you could die and nothing happens. But on the other hand you could live virtuously, and when you die you go to heaven, or you die and nothing happens. So he argues that you should live as a Christian and die as a Christian, because any other way you lose everything. I would like to argue that if there isn't a god and you spend your whole life as a Christian and die as a Christian but there is nothing you lose everything you wasted the one thing in life you truly have... Your life. It's more worth it to live how you want to and not care about the outcome because life will go on one way or the other
Pascal said "infinities frighten me", Nietzsche said "if you stare at the abyss,the abyss stares back". If you don't affirm life as it basically is as a fact, then obviously you are going to drift to Christianity and religion out of fear.
No, seriously. Don't bring up the gambling argument. It's such a disgusting insult that I'm surprised Pascal's name hasn't been smeared in figurative shit.
"Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil--this is a gift of God." -Ecclesiastes 5:19 Try again, Nietzshe.
Absolutely none of those are qualities of Christianity, any way you try to look at it. This is what culture has made it - but it's culture and norm not Christianity that has milked the poor for centuries.
This is still extremely relevant, especially since we live in a world which is trying to create the very same mass of non-differentiated people. These days you are not allowed to have a racist, a chauvinist, a sexist, a conservative, a christian, a muslim, a religious, a traditional, a communist, a fascist, an imperialist worldview without getting shunned by society and without recieving numerous death threats, Tumblr style. Cultural marxism, the movement to make everyone have equal rights, is purposefully silencing parts of the populace, using fear and terror to bring them back in line, to make them believe in what they tell them to believe. Don't tell me that is any different from Christian worldview a few centuries ago. Freedom of opinion for all, except the ones we don't agree with! The motto of todays world.
That Guy Last I checked, feminists on the internet have never beaten a 17 year old to death, than hung his corpse from a street light, only for the police to call it a suicide. Nor have they ever dragged a man from the back of a truck after burning him for two hours. Nor have they ever beaten a trans woman half to death, then drowned her in a toilet.
Res13void Unless the said person personally commited the crime you can't blame them. Their ideology is what it is and if you're trying to change it, you're just as bad as they are.
Maybe I've just been living under a rock, but ethics seem rather backwards in this video. The Bible teaches to strive to stand apart, yet be humble in glory. In regards to what is occurring in our world, far-left thinkers and SJWs are those who seek to keep us all on the same playing field, both socially and economically. More on the right believe that hard work = success, and push for ideals such as capitalism and nationalism. These are all generalizations, so please do not be offended by them. Nonetheless, please do not blend ideologies together.
These kind of philosophies come from men who only make conjures and confirm philosophical "Truths" by musings in their minds based on their own understandings of the world. It doesn't come from someone who even studied the Bible or even had a basic grasp of what it teaches, just what he knew based on the piety of Christian people and society's view of the religion.
+Fullmetal Keyblade nietzsche's father was a pastor, he understands christianity better than you and has read and studied everything there is about philosophy and not just christian, so your statement is really empty
I don't think things like wealth or strength should be valued. Wisdom and intelligence however should be valued very highly, and the bible itself does say that wisdom is more valuable than gold or silver (And yes it tells us to value God above all else, but wisdom still has great value.). So those that actually know anything about the bible knows that what he's saying is wrong (factually wrong anyway). Yes we as Christians may value different things than other people. But according to his own philosophy that really shouldn't matter (Since it cannot be right or wrong anyway. side note: Really hard to argue anything when your a nihilist.) And saying "That's just the way the world is." Is the excuse of a real weakling. Admittedly some Christians are just following the herd, but the real ones live their lives the way they think the world should be. I for one choose not to have my life dictated by something as arbitrary as where or when I was born (Real easy to say that might and wealth should be valued when your a rich German guy.).
a good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing. "the strengths and weaknesses of their sales and marketing operation" synonyms: strong point, advantage, asset, forte, aptitude, talent, skill; specialty "what are your strengths?" antonyms: failing, flaw, limitation literary a person or thing perceived as a source of mental or emotional support. "he was my closest friend, my strength and shield" shouldn't be valued. seems legit.
I meant strength as in power (Like political or military), but your right in that I should've phrased it better than I did. And by shouldn't be valued, I meant like shouldn't be valued above things like Wisdom or Kindness. And that people shouldn't seek these things for the sake of these things themselves (I.E. to gain wealth for wealth's sake because wealth is valuable. The same goes for power (Like military or political).) while the power and wealth I was referring to is ultimately meaningless (As they both fade in time) the inner strength you speak of is something truly valuable (Even so I think that someone who has these should not be treated better than other people who don't have them. Which is at least what I thought the philosophy was implying and something that I am very much against) In my personal opinion all people while they may have different talents/abilites are all equally human and should be treated as such, it's something I try to keep this in mind because all throughout history the worst acts of violence happened because one group thought they was above another. Thank you for correcting me so we could have this friendly exchange. :)
***** I fucked up a post in the window on the side of the screen, and for some reason I have to go directly to the video, find my post near the bottom of the list, and that's how I'll delete it. I just decided to skip all of that and make it a null comment.
Humanity is a social species and bring pro-social helps humanity survive. The beliefs of a psychopath: Only wealth and power matter, not the goodness of compassion.
People should strive to be the best so long as they are not sabotaging others or society. However, at times it is in society's best interest to reallocate assets which may require the destruction of some of the status quo which may appear to be an effort in sabotage.
+StateoftheNihil there is no truth then? John 17:17 "sanctify them through the thy truth thy word is truth" To be fair if truth is open for interpretation your "truthful" comment has to be open for interpretation too. On a side note happy Easter, God sure went out of his way to save me I'm just so glad the empty tomb is evidence that Jesus really was God otherwise I would doubt Christianity the same way I doubt all other religions that worship dead Gods.
Thomas Wakefield: Everyone has their own interpretations of the text. The bible is not very rigid in its meaning. More oft than not, we're left wondering what it is supposed to mean. And my comment is open to interpretation, but you also cannot ignore that my language is much more rigid than that of the bible, so there is only so much "wiggle room". And Happy Easter to you too.
+StateoftheNihil first, thanks for keeping this a sophisticated and logical conversation. Yes, everyone surely has the God given free will to believe what they want about anything here and now otherwise God couldn't be a loving God. I've read the Bible and studied it extensively before truly believing it (and after) and don't quite understand what you meant "more oft than not." It's very specific when the context is taken into play, but when verses and passages are read without contextual information be it near or far I guess it could seem vague. But then again I guess that's just my interpretation. 😉 maybe it's just me but it seems God would be contradictory if he gave us a written "truth" and made it vague. And if I were ever to find "authentic Christianity" contradictory or Gods Word contradictory I'd disavow my belief in it because I want to believe the truth not a religion. I guess theirs a reason "Christians" were originally called Believers.
Thomas Wakefield: It is vague in the sense that people are always arguing over the meanings of the parables or arguing about why god actually destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Everyone thinks they have the best explanation.
I think no. For some people chritstianity will make people stronger. Faith in Jesus and God may encourage people to make big deals. Not always, but may work. Therefore, I respect highly Nietzsche's phylosophy. Maybe he don't liked christianity, but his ideas are very useful for life.
You (wisecrack) make these videos with questions as the titles but do little to explore the issue, instead offering a 3-4 minute one sided half explanation, or 8 bit, should i say. I was looking forward to a more balanced in depth or revealing take, but this is not it.
Well, it's kind of the point. It's the philosophy that Nietzsche had. It was his answer to the question posed. If this was a discussion the no ammount of video time would be enough to resolve the issue. The point of this video is not to convince anyone, it is to provoke thought and to make a philosophers point of view avaliable.
You can argue Nietzsche is wrong, but in my family he sure isn't. I've seen slave morality ruin lives because it has made people I care about spineless and unwilling to confront others. When confronted with a problem, the goal becomes not to fix it, but to demonstrate one's own suffering in dealing with it. Ideally, the problem never gets fixed, because then you get to be the victim and by suffering that problem, demonstrating your moral superiority. I find that personally infuriating.
Lol, the title of this video is like saying "does the position that all human being have inherent worth make us weak?" If you describe "strength" as amassing as much as you want by any means necessary then yes respecting the dignity of others could get in the way of one's goal to gain all they can.
"That's not how it ought to be!", "That's just how it is". Tell me, when was the last time *anything* improved, by you saying: "That's just how it is"?
Jack Chase That's not what I meant. If there's a problem, you can either: 1)Say: "That's just how it is". 2)Complain about it. 3)Find a way to stop the problem. Which one do you think is best?
I know this is two years old but whatever. Anyway, the point being made was not complacency but rather that it's pointless to argue over how life "ought to be" since this isn't a perfect world. Although the world "ought" to be perfect and we "ought" to be able to fight for everything we believe in and after working hard enough for it we "ought" to get it, that just isn't the way the world works, and no matter how hard you try or how long you fight you can't change it. In other words, you need to first accept the world for how it operates, the results it gets, etc before you can figure out the difference between what you can change, what you can't, and what in the world could be changed for the better.
collin ohlinger Not quite; rather one based upon the abolishment of illegitimate hierarchical institutions and constructs, and in their place replaced with that of decentralized associations within favour of free association, direct democracy and horizontalism. Basically, Libertarian Socialism.
I really agree with this video. At a quite early age, I discovered that morals are proposterous. The only things in life that is worth doing are the ones that improve your life's quality the most. Note that these acts don't necessarily have to be selfish, for example since you benefit from people liking you, and thereby shouldn't always be selfish (since no one likes a selfish person). I also believe that people follow this way of thinking, even though they might not be aware of it. We benefit (or at least cut our losses) in all that we do - whether it be getting money, improving relationships, avoiding punishment or feeling good. With that said, I can surmise that there is no such thing as true altruism because, in the end, we are selfish beings that do everything for ourselves. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, since there is no true, universal good or evil - and, by proxy, morality. This is because, when it comes down to it, everything is made up of atoms. We're just a bunch of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen (among some other elements) put together, acting in a way that gives us the best chance to reproduce, since that's how genetics work. We are a happenstance, and morality is a concept that we made up to make society work better in general. And I'm not saying morals is a bad thing either - it's generally beneficial to us as a society. But in some cases, it's more worth to do something that is against our moral code, than to follow it.
I like this vid but I will say competitiveness is not everything. As a counterpoint, one can and should strive to exceptional, but that doesn't change the fact all will grow weak as time passes. I don't think true Christianity makes a man weak, but shows a man how weak he truly is and shows him how to be strong by facing the truth.
>Mega man.
>Ubermensch
I get it.
I have a feeling this video will piss people off.
It follows the rule on how to piss people off.
Step 1- Be on RUclips
Step 2- Talk about religion in any way, shape, or form; whether it's in a good or bad way.
Step 3- Wait
Step 4- Bankruptcy.
Shir'o Khorshid I'd rather say
Step 1 - Be on youtube
Step 2 - Piss people off
Step 3 - Profit
Shir'o Khorshid its also best to talk about politics if you can, also with religion
Brian O And don't forget sports, video games and sexual preferences.
Well, it's better to be pissed off than to be pissed on.
The *real* question here is whether the comments will consist of sincere philosophical discussions, or merely devolve into pointless flame-wars.
we didn't start the flame war
Derp Derpington It was always burning since the Internets starting.
Derp Derpington we didn't ignite it but we tried to fight it
Flamewar..... It's always Flamewar
Edmar Fecler Shup up you fucking brony and - OH CRAP, the infection of needless bile and hatred is already spreading, it's just gotten me! ABANDON SHIP! Save your sanity and empathy towards your fellow man while you still can!
In my childhood I once read a comic about Tarzan, the 'king of the jungle' who is actually a human male who is strong and savage but noble, one scene that's most iconic is how Tarzan beats up a tiger who was trying to eat a wounded deer.
Ooo Tarzan, defender of the weak, I'm supposed to say?
But even at that time I wondered: so if the tiger's not allowed to eat the wounded deer, then what's it supposed to eat? Vegetables?
What a shitty analogy for the context of the video.
It depends, maybe Tarzan wants the deer for himself. Otherwise he's being a condescending asshole. The wounded deer is a goner, anyway, and would spoil quickly in such a climate.
mikitz in Tarzan's point of view the deer is "cute" so worth saving
According to Nietzsche the tiger is just supposed to die because it was unable to kill Tarzan.
@@Wsnow22Of course if Tarzan doesn't want that tiger to eat deer ever, either the tiger becomes a slave to his will or it kills him to be able to do whatever it wants
I always hated the concept of supporting mediocre behavior, but I also loath the concept of "pride" as a way of life. Live in the way you want to live, a person will never be better than the other by their life choices, until they start to commit crimes and morally wrong deeds.
La Oveja I disagree. If we can judge someone to be "worse" than another because of his/her immoralities then we can judge another to be "better" because his/her moral acts. I also have no problem with pride, but only after significant achievements.
La Oveja I *personally* believe that _too much_ pride can lead to greed... I dislike valuing mediocre behavior.I tend to do this a lot with my own achievements; brush them off not as the culmination of my work, but just another step into a staircase I'm currently ascending.But that's just me and my actual knowledge of philosophy is ineffably low.
do crimes to get better than someone. seems legit.
Celebration of mediocrity: is anyone else reminded of The Incredibles? (everyone's special . . . that's just a fancy way of saying no-one is/ everyone can be super . . . and when everyone's super, no-one will be.)
Don't tell me what to do, Mom!
What is Will to Power? Well it's one of the most complex and muddled ideas Nietzsche introduced. I'm Nietzsche fanboy as much as they go, but the concept of Will to power was purposefully left unclarified for two obvious reasons. The first is that if Will to Power is the only real drive in the world then Nietzsche is a crypto-metaphysician like Heidegger accused him of being, secondly Will to Power as just a historicist interpretation of history is severely weak and robs us of Nietzsche's more profound moral insights such as "The Transvaluation of all Values". Other Philosophers recognised this such as Foucault, when he refined "Will to Power" as "Will to Knowledge".
One has to be very carefull to take any historical interpretation Nietzsche makes with a grain of salt, for one his claim that Jews created "slave morality" is extremely dubious ( one has only too read the old Testament to see how warlike the Jews were). This also would go in line that Nietzsche hated Christianity not so much for it's political organization or it's fanaticism, but because of it's life denying message which stemmed from Platonism.Secondly Will to Power as a political/moral theory is also extremely problematic , as it solely taken from a collection of fragments Nietzsche wrote known as "Will to Power" that his Nazi sister edited, and is contradicted by a lot of his earlier works such as "Thus Spake Zarathustra".
HobbitstoHobbes So what you're saying is, even though the Jews (of which I am one) started the slave morality trend, they did not follow it- it was actually Christianity which embraced assimilation.
Thanks for the background clarity, I wondered why these ideas came across as entirely fascist.
I can't help but wonder if he saw that horse being beaten and thought "this is the Will to Power". It is a tragic and empty principle. It should not guide us.
There are good reasons to separate 'is' and 'ought'. Although we can't change the 'is', struggling for the 'ought' is immensely productive. There is a lot to be said for kindness and reducing suffering.
Aaron Horrell Why should the will to power not guide us?
That Dragon Fruit My own experience is that it turns people into inconsiderate assholes (I was a massive Nietzsche fanboy). And also, it's all well and good for those that have the power, less so for those that don't. I prefer a values or rights-based approaches
As always this is a really good explanation of the herd mentality. As a christian its never a bad thing to agree on some of these points rather than fear them. the height of arrogance in my understanding in my short walk in life so far is to assume we have a complete understanding after going to church and call it a day, find safety in not having to think anymore about it. I can think of nothing worse, whats the point then
Truly said, I would also agree.
Yes. Kierkegaard would have none of that mess. It is my opinion that Jesus won’t either. He did come to bring a sword after all.
The point is enlightenment ! You like all of us will lay dying . At that point you will have to accept that you have no control . If you can accept that sooner rather than later. You can experience peace . Otherwise you will live in fear! Fear that you won’t get something you want. Or fear you will lose something you have.
Does this mean you are comfortable with world dominated by the survival of the fittest? One which is ruled by an arrogant aristocratic elite?
@@Sonofagreatdad Are you a Buddhist?
“I own one participation trophy. Big, bold letters on it say, “life” it also says “Champion” Woot! Woot!
"That's just the way it is" is just a way to handwave away any critique. Nature has as much ecosystemic symbiosis as it does competition. And even if it didn't, something is not a good model for human behavior simply because it is natural for some species.
You fundamentally misunderstand the: "will to power"
The reason any sybioses exist in nature is because they are beneficial to each party. Each party takes part in a symbiotic relationship because it benefits them personally, not because it helps another. Taking action to improve one's lot in life fits fine in with the will to power. But i agree with you that just because something is natural doesn't mean it's right (i.e., moral, and I think that nietzsche would agree too-- but someone correct me if I'm wrong). Nietzsche isnt trying to define what's right and wrong here though, he's proposing from where people/cultures derive what they each believe is moral. Which not so coincidentally "right/moral" happens to be whatever they identify as central to their identity as opposed to wrong/immoral is whatever opposes their identity. E.g., how convenient that a religion that is rooted in passivity would say that the meek shall inherit the earth.
"A man _chooses_; A slave _obeys_." - Nietzsche
So is that were that quote comes from? Cool.
SinderGX No. It's just a relevant quote that summarizes what Nietzsche is arguing. Rapture is essentially Nietzsche's utopia, but Bioshock deconstructs how that philosophy is not realistically sustainable. People _have_ to work together to keep civilization intact which depends on a certain modicum of conformity.
All I thought of was Bioshock
Andrew Ryan from Bioshock, actually.
TheJaredtheJaredlong No, it shows that an underwater society where everyone is on crazy pills that makes you ultra-violent doesn't work. :P
Bro, I find your comments and the way you deliver content amazing. Keep up the good work. Wisecrack rocks!
As a Christian, Nietzsche has given me a lot to think about and I love reading him. I too reject mediocrity as virtuous, have thought about what the Bible says about weakness and virtue. Christians are capable of being strong (plenty Biblical figures existed who led ruthless military conquests, killed lions with their bare hands, stood up against their own cultures), but the Bible teaches that the source strength comes from God. We are not the source of our own strength, He is.
That being said, many Christians use the grace of God as an excuse to lead mediocre lives, but plenty of non-Christians live in mediocrity as well. Considering a bell curve, the majority of people will be mediocre in most things no matter what the dominant school of thought is. How could everyone be a superhero?
The Bible even saids to brag about our weakness and always being careful not to brag on our strengths and if we talents we have to use it only one way moderation or else you haven’t surrendered.
@_notim_We believe God gives us strength we wouldn’t ordinarily have.
Too bad he is a cowardly fool
What biblical figures led ruthless military conquests after becoming Christian? I imagine the lion was killed to protect people rather than for glory. It was my impression that all of the aggressive militaristic stuff was in the Old Testament and rejected by Jesus in the New. Wasn't that the whole point of turn the other cheek?
I have not read it entirely. But my knowledge of history is that when the Roman state and then germanic peoples adopted Christianity they influenced it with their warlike culture which would eventually lead to the justification of the Crusades. While the original Christians were pacifists based on the scripture or at least only were ok with self defense
Video made my family fall apart
10/10
Watching this 8-Bit Philosophy helped me understand why the creators of 'Smallville' connected Clark Kent with Nietzsche in one of the very first episodes. Everything about aspiring to be part of the herd, the Will to Power, and questions about if a person should be better than others (whether or not they actually are) is a lot of the meaning/complexity that surrounds Superman.
The reason people crave power is that power is a means for guaranteeing self-preservation.
Morality presents another option, to co-exist with others by following a set social ques rather than to preserve one's self by overpowering opponents.
It is an option without guarantee, but with greater rewards for more people if pulled off correctly.
Hmmm, I'm not sure... "People should strive to be strong and subjugate the weak" sounds a bit Ayn Rand-esque... I mean yeah, overvaluing mediocrity can lead to problems - trust me, I know, but there is such a thing as too much ambition. When you're not even considering the possibility that you might be wrong about something, that can also lead to serious problems.
The video isn't saying we should become more and more ambitios, but instead to simply allow oneself to be ambitious rather than hide it. It has nothing to do with subjugating the weak, rather that the weak should not blame the strong for simply being strong.
R3TR05P3CT Okay, I see your point. Still, this advice should be taken carefully, because it could easily be misinterpreted as "the strong shouldn't care about the weak".
Ayn Rand herself based her ideals on Nietzsche, though arguably Rand did not go far enough. For Rand, she believed that something objective exists (A=A, etc etc), but Nietzsche would argue that 'nothing' is objective
8bit philosophy did another video on Nietzsches concept of truth: ruclips.net/video/Y68mGbvZZZg/видео.html
Personally, I think Nietzsche believes that the ideal man (aka the overman) would be able to be ambitious but have an understanding of his surroundings, and/or be able to turn it in his advantage.
Also: tinyurl.com/n4uwy6m
Nietzsche did say "Learning from ones enemies is the best way toward loving them; for it makes us grateful to them."
I think that you might like to read some more contemporary interpretations on Nietzsche. Wendy Brown's States of Injury has a great discussion on the concept of ressentiment (what was alluded to in the video), that actually recovers it from the hard-right, over-coming mentality. Happy reading!
subjugate the weak? sounds like filthy heathen talk. deus vult! crusade for scandinavia!
It takes strength to pick yourself up ... it takes more strength to pick someone else up
5/10 not enough skyrim - IGN
Dominic Samaroo Did you just paraphrase from Barnyard? In your boundless compassion, did you fail to realize that solving another's problem robs them of the positive experience gained by them solving their own problem. By attempting to help them, you make them weaker, then proceed to feel virtuous. Is not the false intention and negative consequence a double injustice, done in the name of moral goodness?
Revan579 I never watched Barnyard, so no... And I feel like the situation you described is HIGHLY situational and a bit more precise than what I was going for. All I mean to say is that Christianity tells us to love one another - and I am certain it takes more strength of character to love EVERYONE and look for everyone's wellbeing, than it is to love yourself and only look for your success. If you think people helping each other is selfish than I don't know what to say.
Dominic Samaroo Yes, ideal maxims such as 'love all' don't tend to work well in particular situations, which coincidentally, are the very things their meant to be used for. Yet, our faith to such maxims is measured most by absent situations. Would you love those who may rob you or kill your family? Perhaps take what you really do love from you? If one were honest, i would think not. To be clear, i find nothing wrong with such a maxim, however, i find suspicious anyone who claims to hold it, as they're probably frauds.
I'm equally certain that you don't love everyone you know. Love is no cheap commodity, but a rare spring of deep feeling felt for a select few. Love is most often like the sun in its beauty and vibrance -- It will come AND go. It is a passion for the strong, who must build it with a robust foundation, lest it collapse because of its own fibre, dense with passion. And it must be flexible, so that a sudden turbulence not tip it over.
I never said it was selfish, merely that one might find himself to have done more harm than good. Perhaps it's the intention to goodness that counts, though i believe that Christians have a popular principle that refutes it. Still, even i'm uncomfortable with ascribing moral goodness only to consequences. I think Kierkegaard put it best when he asserted that one must have faith that God has helped them make the right decision, as all moral dilemmas are partially ambiguous, as are its solutions.
Revan579 Oh I know that I don't love everyone I meet - let alone someone who may harm me. But I still believe that loving everyone (even murderers and criminals) is what is right. Even if I don't always follow my belief because of the constraints of real life, its an important part of christianity to know that love should be answer to everything. I definitely believe that earthly happiness relies more on balancing helping oneself with helping others, and sharing love with only a few, like you said. But as a Christian I'm meant to strive to be loving like Christ - even if it means unhappiness here, because love is the road to peace eternal.
And you may wonder why I believe in God when there's no evidence and no real gain for me - but honestly if there were no God then nothing would matter, we would all die and rot and everything would be pointless. But I (for no good reason) choose to believe that I have a purpose - so I choose to believe in God.
"The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, while the soul of the diligent is richly supplied." Proverbs 13:4
"For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living." -2 Thessalonians 3:10-12
"In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty." Proverbs 14:23
Christianity does not promote people to be mediocre, Nietzsche does not seem to understand the countless verses on working hard for profit and Glory to God, and then he goes and builds a philosophy on his ignorance....The Bible does teach humility, to not gloat your success.
It's unfortunate that so many philosophies are built on misunderstandings or willful ignorance to what the Bible actually teaches...this is exactly what Paul spoke of when he said to not be led astray by empty and hollow philosophies.
+fatsamcastle have you even read the Bible? and can you differentiate between the new and old treatments? No? you just quote what popular culture thinks about the Bible, right? you haven't studied it or even took the time to look into in and consider what it actually says, right? Not once it the entire Bible does it state that the Earth is flat, nor does it even mention anything beyond Earth other than the moon sun and stars, let alone the Earth being the center of the Universe, never does it says to kill your disobedient children, and never does it say to stone homosexuals in particular..only that the God of the Bible is against homosexuality, or anything for that matter that goes against what is naturally intended. I don't know what "bible" you have read but please gets your facts and check your privilege before your hate rage on things you don't understand.
Gregor Perčič You want your words to be heard and have value, but then you push a valueless reality lol. do you not see the blatant hypocrisy of your own world view?
Truth is your god? So truth is electron impulses in your brain? You place all your value into something that is "ultimately" completely valueless, your self. Do you believe your brain is more valuable then mine? Are your thoughts more truthful then my own? Who is right your thoughts or mine?
Gregor Perčič See you will never discover truth unless you seek it outside of yourself. This is why "smart" Christians use the Bible as their ultimate authority, and not themselves, or their experiences, because experiences can be deceiving, just as you are iterating. But I can point to something outside of "myself" as my authority ,so I actually have something to stand on, apart from that foundational ground all I have is my unverifiable personal mind and experiences, and what a whirlwind of uncertainty that is, even so much as "ultimately" nothing.
"You will seek me and you will find me, when you seek me with ALL your heart."
See that is what is so fascinating about this conversation, you are seeking "truth", Christ actually claimed to be "the truth"
Well then, let me clarify. 1. I was defending the Bible in particular because the comment attacked the Bible in particular. The Bible was mentioned at the end of the comment, hence it included the Bible into said fallacies, so I refuted the points. 2. "Truth" being your god and only accepting reality with logic is out of place in a discussion of Christian beliefs (casualty, division or any other matter) because the core of the Christian belief is Faith in God and His Bible. That is not to say that God does not appeal to and emphasize reason, but that Faith is required to understand and comprehend His Word. This also does not mean that Faith is a crutch to stand on for Christians when met with any strong ideological resistance,(granted there are people who do exactly that).Nor does it mean to blindly accept things you don't understand. Logic(ESPECIALLY human logic) is fallible because it stems from individual perspectives and personal understandings. Man cannot attempt to pursue logically the universe for a multitude of reasons, (let alone that we can only visibly observe and interact with a very small part of it), and should not rely on observation and experience alone to reach what he deems the "truth". Laws we have established about philosophy and sciences are all conjecture and guess-work(the THEORY of relativity, plate tectonics, evolution) and in no way represent actual reality because they are only made from a relatively small perspective. The God of the Bible however, presents Truth told from a position outside of this physical realm that only man can observe, but to trust in that position requires Faith. Faith itself requires man to overlook his doubts about the things he either does not understand or simply refuses to accept because his own mind limits his openness. 3. While Christianity is rooted in" Abrahamic ' doctrine, it is unto itself the Word of Christ(who testifies Himself as God) and does not propose to "gather a crowd that defends and tries to take over". This is not only a misunderstanding of Christianity, but of all religion. Religion is meant to reconnect( using its Latin root) and teaches that we need to adopt and develop higher qualities of love, mercy, generosity, kindness and so on. Men, with our fickle hearts and minds, deviate from this and tarnish what religion is meant to represent. So while it may seem that all religious doctrine only brainwashes and inspires a ritualistic hive-mind, this is man's corruption and not its intended established purpose.
"How many participation trophies do you own?"
None, I broke them over my bullies because I'm better than them.
"What doesn't kill us messes us up so bad that we're really lucky ever to get it back together again." --Dennis Miller, when he was funny.
'There is no good and evil, there is only power...and those too weak to seek it.'
-Voldermort
The greatest philosopher of our time.
Voldemort did nothing wrong
LittleComet
Same
Humanity is a social species and bring pro-social helps humanity survive.
The beliefs of a psychopath: Only wealth and power matter, not the goodness of compassion.
Giving Love
the fallacy here is seeing the nature of humanity as separate from any source of power
Anyone else notice that the video did not address the question?
Also, it is interesting that Nietzsche blames Christianity for people being "mediocre" as he calls it. People have been conforming before Christianity came. As a matter of fact, I believe he misrepresents what Christianity means.
The reason for the video isn't to answer the question, but to present it to the viewery (Hence the name)
The only reason christianity was used for it is because it brought to question a societal norm, tend to notice how a lot of people hate rich people? or people being upset at others being extremely happy at their own victory? It was a question as to where those preconceived notions causing us to dislike those came from.
Hm. I think you have a good point. I might watch it again.
"People have been conforming before Christianity came."
True, but in Nietzsche's writings he was openly using it as but one example of 'slave morality' which was also followed by Plato.
It's not a matter of answering a question. The video is using the Socratic method. It presents a question and prepositions and lets the "student" develop their own conclusions.
Personally I think Nietzsche was too focused on the Individual. A human could never outrun a lion or a bear. We will never have better hearing than a dog or jackal. Our vision will always be worse than an owl or eagle. No man could take down an elephant in unarmed combat. The reason humans have the power we do now is our social ability. Our industry builds cars and jets that are an order of magnitude faster than lions. We can deploy wireless microphones over a massive area and humans organized group mammoth hunts before we had written language.
Human power is not in the Ubermensch but in the group.
Schuyler Bostedt I think you are missing a few critical points of his philosophy. Yes, he was very critical of slave morality, ie, christianity, but he was not a proponent of master morality, like many claim. The whole point of going 'beyond good and evil' is to move past such ideologies, and forge your own. For example, while some might think Nietzsche encouraged very selfish behavior he was actually known among his friends and colleagues as being very generous.
Wait, if the Natzis won the war would that make their ideologies morally good because of their will to power?
Yes, they would've been considered moral and righteous. They would've been venerated by the masses and thanked because without their rise all those people would've never existed.
very based comment
thats a good questiom hahah
Yes. Because anyone who opposed the Nazis would have been killed.
the nacheese were the good guys who tried to save us from the commies. they sent multiple peace offers to britian. look up rudolph hess
I'm an atheist and a libertarian but this video amounts to an argument from nature. Life does not persist because of a drive for power, it exists because of a drive for survival. A lion does not kill an antelope because it seeks power, it does so because it is hungry.
+Christian Allinson Fischer
food makes you stronger. hunger means you're getting weaker. lion eats for power. semantics. definitions. nothing special.
i just overpowered you because i saw where you were struggling, corrected you, and then pretended like i do it all the time. or, you could say that i was replying to your post.
see the world how you want. that's your will to power.
just like i will see the world the way i want to see it, as my will to power. this means we could argue forever, each one pretending to hold the key to understanding, where in fact we're just trying to defeat one another.
then when one of us gives up, the other one will not physically eat the one who gives up, but he will eat food for the ego. the same ego that is required to overcome self-doubt and make a success in life. and then actually get to eat the physical food. like antelope meat
i just went full circle so that we wouldnt have to argue :)
+John C nice.
+Christian Allinson Fischer Exactly. Even though, I have watched videos were a far right Wing Christian argued that babies were acting narcissistic for crying for food, lack of sleep, to be held, psychological and physical survival pleads. I don't think you can really strongly morality to something a person or thing does out of instinctual reactions to survive. Could anyone really fault the Donner party survivors for eating their dead when they were starving to death in the snow?
+Christian Allinson Fischer I might be wrong, since I havent read the literature, but it might just be a analogy.
+Christian Allinson Fischer False- Lions like other animals kill for sport too, they also do so to command more power in their society... mating rights, first to drink from the watering hole- ect. power = privileges and everybody wants some-
I think this is a misunderstanding of Christianity, Christians aren't about everyone being the same they are about everyone being different but having the same value. You can say that wealth, wits and intelligence is the sign that we are doing well but these things are frequently out of our control. If you are born rich are you better than anyone else? If you grew up in a war zone and so couldn't get an education does that make you worse? The world is not even or fair so you cannot judge people by these things.
The idea of nature having this will to power is a good point, animals compete to survive. But are we animals?
Such a fantastic series! As a child of the 80s, I thank you.
Christianity does not call for the removal of exceptionalism, greatness, or leadership. These are gifts that God gave us to use in the SERVICE of others as well as ourselves. It's service to others and love that Christianity espouses. The view of Nietzsche is simply incorrect with regard to the purpose of Christianity.
+DARIVS ARCHITECTVS Incorrect to you*
To you*
You can't say someone's opinion is "incorrect" there are opinions and then there are facts. A fact can be incorrect but an opinion cannot be.
I am not some narrow minded Neanderthal that goes on and on about "religion is evil". I have respect for all religions. Don't get the wrong idea please.
+Jabs McTooFresh An opinion can be incorrect if it contradicts a fact. If I said that in my opinion all dogs have 6 legs, my opinion would be incorrect.
+DARIVS ARCHITECTVS A lot of the criticisms I've heard against Christianity are really just critiquing a society trying (and usually failing) to follow the Bible, instead of critiquing the actual Bible. I think Nietzche's view is one such criticism.
〈-thatguyoverthere Interesting idea.
Isn't Christianity just one of the many reasons that Edward Gibbon thought the Roman Empire fell? They became weak due to Christian morality, and cared more about their life in heaven rather than their life on Earth, hence why they tried less to save the Empire.
Yes. And he was utterly wrong. Or maybe not "wrong" but misguided. As I see it. Early Empires like for example Achaemenid, Alexander's, Early Rome didn't rely on a factor of belonging to some group that would unite them. When human population increased the early divisions in society that we observe later in history manifested. It's much easier to control 100 thousand people then to control 10 milion people. If those 10 milion people think of themselves as then we have the old "we are us, they are them" divisions. But if every culture in a vast empire like Rome follows one religion then those divisions are slightly undone and replaced with "we are ". It helps if there is another group outside of the empire that follows different religions. It's one of the reasons why there was the council of Nicea and why the Sassanid empire that was in early times of it's existence religiously tolerant to minorities, then in later period started to prosetylyze zoroastrianism and actively pressecute Nicean (Roman) Christians. I think that Christianity was one of the main factors why the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire actually survived to the 15th century.
Doesn't explain how the Byzantine Empire, aka the eastern Roman Empire (and arguably a more Christian empire), survived for another millennium.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire
(inb4 how 'Roman' is the Eastern roman empire. Well, maybe not as roman as the classic western roman empire, but defintiely more roman than the later Hply 'Roman' Empires)
The Romans fell due to numerous factors like weak insane caesars and an awful economy. To saw Christianity is to blame would be irrational.
HobbitstoHobbes It's quite normal Roman propaganda. You probably know that Romans didn't force their Greco-Roman Pantheon of Gods on subdued "nations". On the controrary they let local worship to flourish and even encouraged the worship of foreign gods as if they were Roman (cult of Mithra as the obvious example). Which isn't a big deal when you deal with politheism that already has hundreds of deities. Now with Judea and Parthia(as the main enemy of Rome)....this was problematic. Both Judea and Arsacid Iran (Parthia) had monotheistic religions. That means that the population would not accept "sharing" their god with other Gods. It would defy the idea of monotheism. That was the main reason of Roman persecution of Jews and later Christians in the empire. Their religion in that Roman state was an agents of chaos. But Later where you have half of the population already being Christian they had to adapt to a completely different policy ie. persecution of politheistic "pagans".
If the Roman Empire's fall can ever be attributed to religion, it would be because the tolerance of Christian beliefs made the Emperor no longer appear to be "God on Earth" (which means that tight grip of fear the Emperor held before quickly vanished). However, the Roman Empire fell due to a number of reasons and religion was a very small part of it.
"That's my Nietzshe!"
I'm working on a philosophical sitcom.
Christianity isn't about love at all it's about control. Pastors take people on emotional highs and lows. Threatening people with hell but at the same time saying Jesus loves you and you'll only get to heaven if you surrender yourself.
"Jesus said to his Jews: “The law was for servants - love God as I love him, as his son! What are morals to us sons of God!” - Nietzsche
Nietzsche envisioned Jesus as a 'free spirit' beyond good and evil, and suggested that it was Paul who perverted those ideas to appeal to the masses and to invert Roman values. The Romans held beautiful, wealthy, and strong people in higher regard than ugly, poor, and weak people. Paul told that lower class of men that they were morally superior because they did not commit the sin of pride.
Nietzsche was deeply unsatisfied with life and had a bad experience of Christianity in his youth. He couldn't find a life partner and suffered poor health. He lashed out at Christianity and a society that didn't appreciate his love of ancient Greek philosophy and culture especially the Dionysian aspect.
I would think a Christian's ability to deny their more basic urges would be a sign of strength, not weakness. Also, for when they were talking about seeking to be more than ordinary; if we have no ordinary then how can anyone be extraordinary?
There is no need for anyone to desire to be ordinary or normal. "Normal" is contextual. It will always and forever exist, because it's just a mean or average of value. Unless a population is perfectly split down the middle between 2 extremes, like 50% being 7 feet tall exactly, and 50% being 5 feet tall exactly... unless that's the case, if there is any kind of gradient at all, then those who happen to fall in the middle are, without effort, average. And everyone in proximity to the average are also somewhat average without any effort. And if the average shifts, it shifts. But it's still the average. And those on the extreme of an undesirable trait, no matter how arbitrary that judgement is, simply have an undesirable trait. But those who have the extremely desirable trait to differentiate themselves from the average, are and should be looked up to. Why? Because evolution. If there is an advantageous trait, it should be sought after and revered, for the mere benefit of future generations having a greater preponderance of that advantageous trait. I'd argue all this only becomes a "moral issue" when the technological advancement of society "allows" for people to have less and less desirable traits without much consequence, because society and its benefits buffer them from the selective pressures of nature. The fear (a justified fear in my view) is that as society progresses technologically, and tends more and more to "protect and preserve" humans with less desirable traits, the average of the population actually degrades and becomes objectively less healthy and robust. So if/when society falls apart for whatever reason, the population would collapse significantly, because most people simply would be incapable of surviving and reproducing without the benefits of current society. Take cesarean procedures for example. If most women require cesarean procedures to birth healthy children, and society falls apart so that we can't supply enough medical equipment to safely perform those procedures, then infant and mother mortality would skyrocket and the population would plummet, and we'd have to basically start all over again because with population loss comes much knowledge and talent loss.
You do not need to subjugate or humiliate others in order to have success or abundance in life. If the people have a problem with your success, however, that is a different moral problem.
Celebrate the exceptional, and celebrate the mediocre. Help others strive to be good.
Why celebrate the mediocre. Why help others to be good.
This covers my love/hate relationship with Nietzche.
I'm here to read the comments...
I shouldn't cause i'm just gonna see people saying my religion is evil
im here 4 years later
Christianity turns you into a mere hollow shell of a human being.
Says the muslim
At least Islam acknowledges the righteousness of power.
This is silly because the bible says that we will be rewarded for our excellence in heaven. If Christianity is the reason for weakness it is because of Christians confused view of the bible itself. Which is actually a strong argument to make considering this is a big problem. Many Christians make the bible out to say that kinky sex, rock music, homosexuality, and even cursing are evil when the bible does not say anything like this at all (to name a few areas where many Christians are confused) Many people like to attack Christianity as a whole, but I feel we should just attack the complete lack of understanding of their own religion that many of them have. If you are going to believe something, you should know what it is and why you believe it. You should understand it fully for yourself instead of just accepting everything you are told about it.
+Ben anonnimous (Cracken) I think Christians have confused views for the Bible is because there's a multiple way to interpret the Bible. It's possible for a group of people to share the same opinion on a subject, but it may be impossible for every human to draw the same conclusion from said subject. The way we value life and how our parents raised us determines how we will comprehend important subjects. No person has the exact same upbringing, so not every person can have the same views or comprehension skills. I don't fall under any religion, so I do feel like I am missing out on some important person experience.
I completely agree with your last part. It pisses me off that so many people just love to believe what they are told. Not even thinking about questioning their higher power or their message. I haven't live long, but I've live in a lot of states and met a lot of people. It's damn near depressing hearing answers they find in my questions. The youth really has no guidance. Most of their religious beliefs base off of what their parents believe and not what they personally believe. Some of their outlooks on terrorism and racism is based off of the "old way of life";referring to slavery and segregation and bigotry. Sorry for the rant Ben.
YourRegularGamer
Don't be sorry I like what you have to say. It irritates me though that so many people interpret things differently because if you actually read what your faith is based on it's usually really cut and dry. It's simple. It's so easy to understand. But because people want to believe something they change it to mean what they want it to mean. Most of the different interpretations are just desperate attempts to justify their religion to their world views that do not actually match. If you are going to believe a religion then you might have to accept some things that you don't like but if you believe the religion then its just a hard truth and you should deal with it.
Ben anonnimous I agree. Way to many people with that mindset populate the United States. I guess asking for something simple is just asking for too much.
If people actually took in the reality of their religion, I seriously doubt that we would have a lot of religious people. They'd probably turn into an atheist out of spite!
YourRegularGamer
Most religions are pretty brutal, although there are a few that are not so bad. But because of the way society works usually the ones considered bad are much better then people think and the ones considered good are much worse.
+Ben anonnimous (Cracken) I'm soooo glad someone else sees how people randomly attack Christianity just because they think it goes out its way to condemn rock, sex, etc. when it really doesn't
"Whats normal for the spider is chaos for the fly"
"Thou salt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
--The Bible, Deuteronomy, 25:4
i can do that too yo
Artbug Morticia Addamm's right?
True, but the fly is lesser to the spider. Humankind is equal. We shouldn't make the weak feel weaker or the strong feel better because they are. Instead we should try to help others benefit from your strength or weakness instead of making yourself out to be better than everyone if you are strong. So it makes perfect sense in the animal kingdom, but in our modern life it is an outdated philosophy.
This is a really good point of discussion.
For my money, Christianity (and all main world religions) is something that challenges others to be under the umbrella of seeking inner peace, understanding the inner self, loving your neighbor, providing for those who cannot provide for yourself, increase the love you have for yourself by reflecting that love toward others, etc. And these religions all also say that doing such is indeed going AGAINST the norm. It is not normal in nature to love your fellow man regardless; it is only normal in nature to promote your genetics and those alone. And yet, in religion, man is called over and over again to sacrifice for the sake of those outside of his lineage.
I would argue that major faiths command mankind to go above and beyond and against the grain, and to love others in spite of their shortcomings and help give them a fair shake, rather than leave them to die and rot in your own dust. Religion doesn't cause us to become complacent when we choose to be unified by it, we just become complacent in being exposed to others doing good things through our mutual faith, and then don't feel as much onus to work toward it, because others are more than willing to do so, apparently.
Great video! I love wisecrack so much. 8-Bit philosophy, thug notes and earthling cinema, forever.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, and since Jesus died THEN came back Jesus must be a body builder because you can't get much stronger than that...
Christianity in Nietzsche's age must have been very different from the one we have in America today. Much of what he was saying gets preached by some very successful ministers in our time.
It is.
2:34 Funny how 'that's just the way it is' is also used by many religions to justify harmful behaviour. How did Nietzsche not see that?
The two things, besides music, I love the most: Philosophy and Video Games. Thx a lot!!!
These are by far my favorite series from this channel! But seriously, that Psychologist is FANTASTIC too! But that came later for me. I"ve been following for a while now. :)
This video doesn't seem draw the line between taking advantage of the weak, and striving at personal progress. It also seems to imply that s power is met by self-interest at the expense of others, in which case crusaders and colonists had no issue causing genocide and slavery of the weak in a effort to progress their financial status, under the spiritual conviction to a Christian God, just saying. I additionally do not agree with this philosopher's perception of nature. Most of nature is propelled by the will to live, none more. Sometimes this comes to disadvantage of other species but not always. Most animals do not have a concept of "success", or the will to outcompete or pursue power over its neighboring lifeforms if they don't have to. You can take the evolution of the koala bear, sloth and panda as perfect examples. As far as success goes, that depends on how you measure it. Even though predators eat prey, prey make up 90% of the animal kingdom, predators make up only 10%
Does getting a trophy for winning mean you're taking advantage of the weak? I'd say not. That was Nietzsce's main point, that lowering yourself to be equal with others cannot be considered morally righteous if we live in a world where you must compete to survive. The video's focus on Nietzsce's birds and sheep analogy is probably what has led to most of the misunderstanding in the comments section.
Baxter Burgundy "This video doesn't seem draw the line between taking advantage of the weak, and striving at personal progress"
Dang, you worded that perfectly, and yet nobody will understand its depth.
""This video doesn't seem draw the line between taking advantage of the weak, and striving at personal progress"
The video doesn't have to. We do. The video just raises a philosophical question that is supposed to generate the exact kinds of discussions that you have raised here, such is the nature of philosophy, which is at times intentionally provocative to stir people to thought and discussion.
Remiel Pollard The kind of thought and discussion that she just made. Her statement was a reply to the philosophical view presented by the video.
Though, if you would like to join in the discussion than one thing you could do is raise a counter to her proclamation that discusses the actual topic of the video instead of just the parameters of the video's production.
Might as well ask, "Does drunkenness give one an edge in a fight over the car keys?"
What is weakness? Is it the inability to dominate others? Is it the inability to bend others to your will? Being able to do these things are counted as "strength" in a Nietzschean worldview, and only if you consider your morality as the only true morality.
In all honesty, Christianity makes us weak and strong at the same time.
This is a big misrepresentation of the principles of Christianity. Christ and the Bible don't teach mediocrity, they teach humility (not boasting but serving your fellow man with your gifts). The video said that strength, brilliance, wealth, etc are to be valued in society, but Christianity never devalues these things. It puts these things in proper persepective, as gifts and tools to help each other...
" Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. (Philippians 2:3,4)
Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. (James 1:27)
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.
(1 Thessalonians 5:14)
im not a Nietzsche expert. But I don't think this was Nietzsche's way to say that might is right, but rather - one should aspire for greatness.
Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is--his good, pleasing and perfect will. - Romans 2:12.
The Bible teaches us to be set apart. You see this throughout all teachings. Our humility and self-sacrifice is what sets us apart. Jesus says the last will be first and the first will be last. He turns the whole argument of survival-of-the-fittest on its head.
+Tanner McCoon There's one small problem with that perspective - There is no god. What if the strong shall inherit the earth? What if the first will remain the first? What if justice is but a contract between near equals in power? Do these possibilities terrify you? If so, ask yourself why.
Without god the only way to overcome nihilism is to set up the real world (the world as the body experiences it) as the ideal.
+Tanner McCoon
The church uses euphemisms like 'humility' and 'self-sacrifice' to guilt you into donating more $$$ to them when the collection basket comes around. It's all a scam to take your money and control how you think - in other words it's the most successful cult the world has ever seen. Jesus was a hellova marketing genius :)
Interesting, I can see how Christianity taking away the "will to power" would make Christians look weak. The idea of seizing power or survival of the fittest doesn't have a place in a religion where the afterlife is the focal point and main reward.
You could roughly say Christianity focuses on spiritual power rather than earthly power. If you believed no spiritual power exists or that it's not important, that would seem incredibly weak and pointless.
I concur.
"Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognized and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has gained said justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just"
--Blaise Pascal, _Pensées_
I do landscaping for my local church every Spring and Summer, and I've noticed something. Over by the graves, there are some patches of grass that are less verdant than others. Sure, grass grows, but it isn't as much as others. One time we had a really big storm, and some areas of the gravesite were so overgrown that it took a single $150 battery to get through a single row. I can usually get through four rows on that battery, and they take 2 hours to charge. But some areas just don't produce as much grass. In fact, in most areas, it's the graves closest to the church that tend to be the most baron, while those further away are the most verdant.
This observation tells me that nature isn't egalitarian. It does in fact play favorites. Some areas of land are more fertile than others. Some animals have better features than others, and can therefore survive better. And some people are born with better genetics, or into better circumstances, or to wealthier and healthier families and communities. If you want to replace "Nature" with "God", who essentially in the Christian belief holds absolute domain over all that is, and decides the fate and reality of any and all beings, including patches of grass, this realization essentially contradicts the entirety of the Christian doctrine, and only proves people like Nietzsche correct in how the world works.
This inequality encourages, even demands competition. If one is to survive, they'd have to gain the knowledge and power to take on another and beat them. Maybe not in some violent brawl, but in some form of arena. It's weird that a god would design the world in such a way, and then ask for us to live in ways contrary to what is necessary to survive. That is until you look at Gnosticism.
Participation trophies is a new concept to me I didn't hear about them till the 2000's. I find it kinda hard to believe that a group that is stereotyped as "I'm better than you" and told they are a hypocrite for it could be also stereotyped as seeking mediocrity.
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone to man." Thomas Jefferson.
What r u trying to say?
honestly disappointed that no real discussion actually happened.
As a Christian, I do believe people should worship God, but not to the point of conformity.
Exceptional people should be appreciated, and people should show their love of God in their own ways.
Nietzsche has overlooked a pivotal point however, that strength does not just come from the individual dominating the many, but also from the many themselves. you look at flocks of birds or shawls of fish, they survive and thrive due to teamwork in the face of an aggressive individualist. In apes, the alpha male isn't he who dominates and bullies the other apes, but he who has empathy and can make friends, get the apes to work together and keep the peace. that's not just conjecture, it's scientific fact. The survivalists who are vehemently individualist don't last long in the wild, at least in our closest cousins
This is fine for birds and tigers, but offers little or nothing to sheep and tourists. It suggests that if you aren't a predator, then you have very little value, and there is nothing you can do to become more valuable. Basically, it says, "if you aren't born an ubermensch, hurry and die without breeding, because we don't need you."
Also, it prioritizes individual physical power over collective moral power. It never allows for the possibility that the moral collective may yet win in the end.
The people in Christianity who are used as examples are the saint, those who have done extraordinary things with their lives, who have pushed the limits. Christianity encourages you to be more than human, but also not to brag about it, and glorify yourself.
*saints
What I understand is that the weak are smarter than the strong. And then created a system that makes the strong as mediocre as them.
I do not agree at all what this video is saying. From a Christian perspective the reason, scripturally, we are called to be “Shine as bright as stars in the sky”. What does that reference, it references the idea that Christians are not to be “mundane” or “moderate”. We are supposed to stick out in the world, people are supposed to look to us as lights.
Also Christianity focuses on weakness because in and of its self we are all weak. The idea of not admitting you are weak and prideful in and of it’s self and Christianity seeks avoid pride. As everything in this world has all be given to us by God and Jesus Christ. Can you really say that Humans are “strong” when a simple virus we can even see can kill us. I or a simple piece of food stuck in ones throat. We in and of its self are weak beings. But this weakness is why allows Christians to rely and pursue God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. To not rely on our own strength but the strength of a perfect and holy being.
I believe that it takes more “strength” to live the TRUE life of a Christian one who is following a Christ then to live in the world.
From the worls perspective of power yes us Christians do not have it. We seek to not have it as all kinds of evil can come from it. We instead seek the power of our God to sustain us through all times. He is the one who saved us, Jesus is the one who gives salvation. We did nothing (being weak) to earn the grace and salvation. It was freely given to us so that God could be in relationship to us. Seek Jesus he is the way the Truth and the Life :)
The true idea of power is knowing that you're powerless, the same way true knowledge is knowing you don't know everything. This isn't weakness, it's just factual that we are humans, not gods. We have limits, but acknowledging those limits doesn't make someone weak, it makes them aware of their lack of awareness. Humans are strong, and they can be stronger by themselves, but strength means nothing in the face of the realization that you will never be stronger than God, and that upsets some people's pride. Knowing they can never be gods hurts them, so they resort to these ideas and philosophies. It's a pathetic illusion really.
Plus, worldly strength is different from spiritual strength. Earthly convictions has pushed people beyond their limits at times, but spiritual convictions have pushed other people way beyond earthly convictions can ever will. Somebody who believes in God is way more dangerous and powerful than anybody who doesn't believe, since their convictions push them to do things that seems implausible and irrational, but there is nothing more powerful than a man who believes in something so much, they're willing to die for it.
Apparently (according to the video) having the creator of the universe on our side makes us weak :/
Well, it is a fact of life.
The world belongs to the strong, and the brutal.
even if that strength is ten million weak, one minded individuals.
there are still ten million of them in strength.
however, the world turns and shifts what it clarifies as "strength" constantly.
for instance, if I had a gun, and I said "Do this, or I'll kill you" you'd do it.
simply because, you don't have a gun. However, if you did, it would come down to less "who can kill" and more of "who will kill"
and, if you had another with a gun, it'd come down to "if I kill, will I be killed".
This video has amazing animation. Fantastic job!
Get this, people ARE different. Some are better than others.
Did the beginning just quote "The Incredibles"?
If not, it was incredibly similar
Interesting connection, because The Incredibles, takes a little inspiration of this phylosophy. The Supers, are the ones that are exceptional and the normals (the people that dont have super powers) want that the supers just be mediocre and normal.
The point of a participation trophy is to keep from discouraging kids from trying at all. Kids, and even adults, often try something unfamiliar to them and, because it's new and they kinda suck at it, they feel embarrassed and refuse to keep practicing until they get good. It's not celebrating mediocrity, it's preventing self-doubt from crushing those who may have talent.
And thus taking away the incentive to rise above your peers. It’s like giving every kid on a test a B regardless of if they should’ve gotten a F or an A. Whether it means to or not, it discourages actually trying to improve at what you’re participating in.
@@verscarii3238 I've changed my mind about participation trophies in the (checks timestamp) *seven years* since I posted that comment. Participation Trophies are for the boomer parents to feel like their kids accomplished something. The kids don't give a shit about your cheap plastic trinket. Its the rich parents who cry if their kid doesn't win something. The kid's feelings are entirely superfluous to the situation.
As Dr. Eric Thomas puts it, "All men are created equal, some just work harder in pre-season." That's normal, Christianity gives principles for Good, Evil, and Equality. However, we, as humans, have free will in what we do.
Proverbs 22:29 KJV
Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men.
There's always been an encouragement to be outstanding, but not without a mandate to be humble.
Step on the weak because you can basically.
I feel bad for the people who actually believe this mindset. I don't understand how you can leave a trail of sadness and anger everywhere you go because you treat people like shit and how you can then go home and be OK with yourself as a person.
People don't need to be the same to be "equal", and having moral values doesn't make you a brainwashed fool. People should strive to be there best while also helping those around them be there best as well, rather then racing or sabotaging each other.
Don't worry, their quick enough to let go of it when they run into someone stronger than themselves who share's this mindset
Ricther Belmont No just you are. You are just projecting your own psychology on to other people.
***** And you aren't inflating your own ego by pretending to be morally superior to others? Weaklings always hide behind morality pretending it's some short of absolute truth instead of the self-serving belief system that it is.
Spider58x I think it's safe to say that we are, in fact, morally superior to sociopaths.
Spider58x
Your right, however the REALITY is is that most people who live in a civilized society have morals. Morality exists as long as there is a moral person alive. Trying to say morality doesn't exist is like saying love, hate, empathy, and sadness don't exist. Even you have morals, and if you try and say you don't then your a liar or your a sociopath, in witch case do the planet a favor and move to an island with a population of 1.
This is just a very very very superficial introduction to what is probably the most incredible cognitive leap mankind has ever taken.
So basically "It's okay to be a douchebag."
Not a douchebag, just better than other people at certain things.
You gotta love a morality that relies on not meeting a strong person following that morality and doing it to you, because from what I've seen Social Darwinists will quickly change their tune if someone else practices it on them
Natasel Awesome people are not self-centered.
Natasel What's awesome about yourself?
Capt. Scoops I believe the moral is more along the lines of don't be afraid to be exceptional. Don't dull down your abilities for the sake of society.
This is both hilarious and brilliant. Keep up the good work!!
The Bible even saids to brag about our weakness and always being careful not to brag on our strengths and if we talents we have to use it only one way moderation or else you haven’t surrendered.
Do you plan on covering any eastern philosophers?
I want to give a nihilist approach towards Pascal's wager. Pascal argues that because we cannot prove without a shadow of a doubt that God exists we're given an impasse. On one hand you could live life in the moment not caring about the outcome and when you die go to hell for living through vice or you could die and nothing happens. But on the other hand you could live virtuously, and when you die you go to heaven, or you die and nothing happens. So he argues that you should live as a Christian and die as a Christian, because any other way you lose everything. I would like to argue that if there isn't a god and you spend your whole life as a Christian and die as a Christian but there is nothing you lose everything you wasted the one thing in life you truly have... Your life. It's more worth it to live how you want to and not care about the outcome because life will go on one way or the other
Don't bring up the gambling argument.
ever thought about you might be praying to the wrong god?
there is plenty wrong with the pascal wager.
Pascal said "infinities frighten me", Nietzsche said "if you stare at the abyss,the abyss stares back". If you don't affirm life as it basically is as a fact, then obviously you are going to drift to Christianity and religion out of fear.
No, seriously. Don't bring up the gambling argument. It's such a disgusting insult that I'm surprised Pascal's name hasn't been smeared in figurative shit.
Ilysanth Amaranthine i agree with you 110%
This is in a lot of ways a gross oversimplification of Nietzsche's ideas...
"Moreover, when God gives someone wealth and possessions, and the ability to enjoy them, to accept their lot and be happy in their toil--this is a gift of God." -Ecclesiastes 5:19
Try again, Nietzshe.
Absolutely none of those are qualities of Christianity, any way you try to look at it. This is what culture has made it - but it's culture and norm not Christianity that has milked the poor for centuries.
Ewww! In 2015, Nietzsche sounds very silly indeed. Philosophy has developed a great deal since this very fearful world view.
This is still extremely relevant, especially since we live in a world which is trying to create the very same mass of non-differentiated people. These days you are not allowed to have a racist, a chauvinist, a sexist, a conservative, a christian, a muslim, a religious, a traditional, a communist, a fascist, an imperialist worldview without getting shunned by society and without recieving numerous death threats, Tumblr style. Cultural marxism, the movement to make everyone have equal rights, is purposefully silencing parts of the populace, using fear and terror to bring them back in line, to make them believe in what they tell them to believe. Don't tell me that is any different from Christian worldview a few centuries ago. Freedom of opinion for all, except the ones we don't agree with! The motto of todays world.
I find it more relevant than ever, did you miss all the allusions to participation trophies, those were intentional.
The new atheists (Dawkins, et al) should read more Nietzsche. Nietzsche had the integrity to look at the full implications of his beliefs.
That Guy Last I checked, feminists on the internet have never beaten a 17 year old to death, than hung his corpse from a street light, only for the police to call it a suicide. Nor have they ever dragged a man from the back of a truck after burning him for two hours. Nor have they ever beaten a trans woman half to death, then drowned her in a toilet.
Res13void Unless the said person personally commited the crime you can't blame them. Their ideology is what it is and if you're trying to change it, you're just as bad as they are.
Maybe I've just been living under a rock, but ethics seem rather backwards in this video. The Bible teaches to strive to stand apart, yet be humble in glory. In regards to what is occurring in our world, far-left thinkers and SJWs are those who seek to keep us all on the same playing field, both socially and economically. More on the right believe that hard work = success, and push for ideals such as capitalism and nationalism. These are all generalizations, so please do not be offended by them. Nonetheless, please do not blend ideologies together.
These kind of philosophies come from men who only make conjures and confirm philosophical "Truths" by musings in their minds based on their own understandings of the world. It doesn't come from someone who even studied the Bible or even had a basic grasp of what it teaches, just what he knew based on the piety of Christian people and society's view of the religion.
+Fullmetal Keyblade nietzsche's father was a pastor, he understands christianity better than you and has read and studied everything there is about philosophy and not just christian, so your statement is really empty
+SRBIJA .SRBIJA if you say so....
Christianity has nothing to do with the right. Most people that are right wingers wouldn't be accepted has christians by Jesus.
I don't think things like wealth or strength should be valued. Wisdom and intelligence however should be valued very highly, and the bible itself does say that wisdom is more valuable than gold or silver (And yes it tells us to value God above all else, but wisdom still has great value.). So those that actually know anything about the bible knows that what he's saying is wrong (factually wrong anyway). Yes we as Christians may value different things than other people. But according to his own philosophy that really shouldn't matter (Since it cannot be right or wrong anyway. side note: Really hard to argue anything when your a nihilist.) And saying "That's just the way the world is." Is the excuse of a real weakling. Admittedly some Christians are just following the herd, but the real ones live their lives the way they think the world should be. I for one choose not to have my life dictated by something as arbitrary as where or when I was born (Real easy to say that might and wealth should be valued when your a rich German guy.).
a good or beneficial quality or attribute of a person or thing.
"the strengths and weaknesses of their sales and marketing operation"
synonyms: strong point, advantage, asset, forte, aptitude, talent, skill; specialty
"what are your strengths?"
antonyms: failing, flaw, limitation
literary
a person or thing perceived as a source of mental or emotional support.
"he was my closest friend, my strength and shield"
shouldn't be valued. seems legit.
I meant strength as in power (Like political or military), but your right in that I should've phrased it better than I did. And by shouldn't be valued, I meant like shouldn't be valued above things like Wisdom or Kindness. And that people shouldn't seek these things for the sake of these things themselves (I.E. to gain wealth for wealth's sake because wealth is valuable. The same goes for power (Like military or political).) while the power and wealth I was referring to is ultimately meaningless (As they both fade in time) the inner strength you speak of is something truly valuable (Even so I think that someone who has these should not be treated better than other people who don't have them. Which is at least what I thought the philosophy was implying and something that I am very much against) In my personal opinion all people while they may have different talents/abilites are all equally human and should be treated as such, it's something I try to keep this in mind because all throughout history the worst acts of violence happened because one group thought they was above another. Thank you for correcting me so we could have this friendly exchange. :)
***** (/)
Ilysanth Amaranthine what does (/) mean excectly?
***** I fucked up a post in the window on the side of the screen, and for some reason I have to go directly to the video, find my post near the bottom of the list, and that's how I'll delete it. I just decided to skip all of that and make it a null comment.
Humanity is a social species and bring pro-social helps humanity survive.
The beliefs of a psychopath: Only wealth and power matter, not the goodness of compassion.
fuck compassion
weakness
People should strive to be the best so long as they are not sabotaging others or society. However, at times it is in society's best interest to reallocate assets which may require the destruction of some of the status quo which may appear to be an effort in sabotage.
I feel bad for whoever wrote this video. It sounds like someone has no idea what authentic "Christianity" is.
+Thomas Wakefield: There is no such thing as authentic Christianity, every interpretation is subjective.
+StateoftheNihil there is no truth then? John 17:17 "sanctify them through the thy truth thy word is truth" To be fair if truth is open for interpretation your "truthful" comment has to be open for interpretation too. On a side note happy Easter, God sure went out of his way to save me I'm just so glad the empty tomb is evidence that Jesus really was God otherwise I would doubt Christianity the same way I doubt all other religions that worship dead Gods.
Thomas Wakefield: Everyone has their own interpretations of the text. The bible is not very rigid in its meaning. More oft than not, we're left wondering what it is supposed to mean.
And my comment is open to interpretation, but you also cannot ignore that my language is much more rigid than that of the bible, so there is only so much "wiggle room".
And Happy Easter to you too.
+StateoftheNihil first, thanks for keeping this a sophisticated and logical conversation. Yes, everyone surely has the God given free will to believe what they want about anything here and now otherwise God couldn't be a loving God. I've read the Bible and studied it extensively before truly believing it (and after) and don't quite understand what you meant "more oft than not." It's very specific when the context is taken into play, but when verses and passages are read without contextual information be it near or far I guess it could seem vague. But then again I guess that's just my interpretation. 😉 maybe it's just me but it seems God would be contradictory if he gave us a written "truth" and made it vague. And if I were ever to find "authentic Christianity" contradictory or Gods Word contradictory I'd disavow my belief in it because I want to believe the truth not a religion. I guess theirs a reason "Christians" were originally called Believers.
Thomas Wakefield: It is vague in the sense that people are always arguing over the meanings of the parables or arguing about why god actually destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. Everyone thinks they have the best explanation.
"WE ARE WEAK! That is good too!" .. Much LOLs
I think no. For some people chritstianity will make people stronger. Faith in Jesus and God may encourage people to make big deals. Not always, but may work. Therefore, I respect highly Nietzsche's phylosophy. Maybe he don't liked christianity, but his ideas are very useful for life.
To think this video could’ve been made 20 years and the analogies to Megaman would still make sense. Wild.
Nietzsche sounds suspiciously like a Sith Lord
You (wisecrack) make these videos with questions as the titles but do little to explore the issue, instead offering a 3-4 minute one sided half explanation, or 8 bit, should i say. I was looking forward to a more balanced in depth or revealing take, but this is not it.
Well, it's kind of the point. It's the philosophy that Nietzsche had. It was his answer to the question posed. If this was a discussion the no ammount of video time would be enough to resolve the issue. The point of this video is not to convince anyone, it is to provoke thought and to make a philosophers point of view avaliable.
The wisdom of the world is foolishness - 1 Corinthians 13:9
You can argue Nietzsche is wrong, but in my family he sure isn't. I've seen slave morality ruin lives because it has made people I care about spineless and unwilling to confront others. When confronted with a problem, the goal becomes not to fix it, but to demonstrate one's own suffering in dealing with it. Ideally, the problem never gets fixed, because then you get to be the victim and by suffering that problem, demonstrating your moral superiority. I find that personally infuriating.
I have one participation ribbon. One time I won a bike for my talents.
Both ends of the coin seem very unsatisfying.
"The stone that the builders refuse, will be the Head Corner Stone. "
Guess whose the The Ultimate Rock
Lol, the title of this video is like saying "does the position that all human being have inherent worth make us weak?" If you describe "strength" as amassing as much as you want by any means necessary then yes respecting the dignity of others could get in the way of one's goal to gain all they can.
"That's not how it ought to be!", "That's just how it is". Tell me, when was the last time *anything* improved, by you saying: "That's just how it is"?
When did complaining about how things should be ever fix anything either?
Jack Chase That's not what I meant. If there's a problem, you can either:
1)Say: "That's just how it is".
2)Complain about it.
3)Find a way to stop the problem.
Which one do you think is best?
Good point XD
I know this is two years old but whatever.
Anyway, the point being made was not complacency but rather that it's pointless to argue over how life "ought to be" since this isn't a perfect world. Although the world "ought" to be perfect and we "ought" to be able to fight for everything we believe in and after working hard enough for it we "ought" to get it, that just isn't the way the world works, and no matter how hard you try or how long you fight you can't change it.
In other words, you need to first accept the world for how it operates, the results it gets, etc before you can figure out the difference between what you can change, what you can't, and what in the world could be changed for the better.
the past 6 m0nths, by accepting reality f0r what it is you can improve plenty, funny where this is where nietzsche and buddhism join
Do one on Anarchism!
collin ohlinger
I think you mean the lack of a system will fail itself in the long run, when one arises.
collin ohlinger How would it fail?
collin ohlinger This sentence doesn't make sense.
collin ohlinger Can you give me your understanding of Anarchism?
collin ohlinger Not quite; rather one based upon the abolishment of illegitimate hierarchical institutions and constructs, and in their place replaced with that of decentralized associations within favour of free association, direct democracy and horizontalism. Basically, Libertarian Socialism.
I really agree with this video. At a quite early age, I discovered that morals are proposterous. The only things in life that is worth doing are the ones that improve your life's quality the most. Note that these acts don't necessarily have to be selfish, for example since you benefit from people liking you, and thereby shouldn't always be selfish (since no one likes a selfish person). I also believe that people follow this way of thinking, even though they might not be aware of it. We benefit (or at least cut our losses) in all that we do - whether it be getting money, improving relationships, avoiding punishment or feeling good.
With that said, I can surmise that there is no such thing as true altruism because, in the end, we are selfish beings that do everything for ourselves. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, since there is no true, universal good or evil - and, by proxy, morality. This is because, when it comes down to it, everything is made up of atoms. We're just a bunch of oxygen, carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen (among some other elements) put together, acting in a way that gives us the best chance to reproduce, since that's how genetics work. We are a happenstance, and morality is a concept that we made up to make society work better in general. And I'm not saying morals is a bad thing either - it's generally beneficial to us as a society. But in some cases, it's more worth to do something that is against our moral code, than to follow it.
I like this vid but I will say competitiveness is not everything. As a counterpoint, one can and should strive to exceptional, but that doesn't change the fact all will grow weak as time passes. I don't think true Christianity makes a man weak, but shows a man how weak he truly is and shows him how to be strong by facing the truth.