Great video! BTW, in Dostoevsky's crime&punishment we saw a FAILED ÜBERMENSCH (Raskolnikov) (traits like intellectual arrogance and a desire to transcend law.)
Hitler and his age is just that - Nietzsche is anti-Christian and pawed the way for Germany 1933. (Hitlers became chancellor). There's a reason that Nietzsche has been viewed as being "too cruel and too base" both in Scandinavia and non-Continental Europe.
Exactly. It’s like how Nietzsche talked about how the weak develop intelligence as a tool to compensate for lacking strength, lacking power. Raskolnikov definitely allowed his intelligence to inhibit and restrict him actually. His act of strength and power was actually his downfall, perhaps if he was truly strong he wouldn’t be ruled by his intellect so much and allow it to lead him to positions which restrict his freedom, will, and power.
@@vaughncollins1386 He believes extraordinary individuals (like himself) are exempt from moral laws, justifying his murder by viewing himself as "above" ordinary people. He associates Übermensch with brute power and the ability to dominate others. The true Übermensch thrives under pressure, not succumbing to psychological disintegration. While he experiences a form of transformation through punishment and starts to embrace human connection, his trajectory diverges significantly from the Nietzschean ideal.
Raskolnikovs downfall began with rejecting Christian values for logic, which only works in theory. The soul is too complex to thrive on logic alone. The only thing that can save him is God i.e Christian values and/or love. His first mistake was thinking that his soul was going to be just fine because he himself considered the murder to be justifiable. But he was not the one to judge that.
Nietzsche’s critique of the English was due, I believe, to their lack of spirituality and their strictly materialistic and utilitarian approach towards philosophy. Spirituality and psychology are closely linked and Nietzsche was very much concerned with psychology. He called it the queen of the sciences.
This channel deserves to have so much more eyes on it. I love the dedication you have to your script, as well as your voice. It just fits so well in my opinion. If view count were tied to video quality, this channel would be on the trending page every upload with upwards of tens of millions of views.
If only the demographics worked out. Statistically there are only about 40,000 young gifted people in America, and only 16,000 whites of the same caliber. Get to work
5:50 Victorian thinkers railed against the personification of God, not against God. This is in turn Schleiermacher and/or Hardenberg. God is not rejected, merely remythologised.
So basically Nietzsche is saying "You can't keep the conclusion because the original premises you used to come to it are wrong.". But that's a basic logically error. The fact that a conclusion can be arrived at by invalid premises doesn't mean it can't be arrived at by valid premises. Saying "Well my original reason for believing X is untrue, so X can't be true." is just wrong. If that were true then any lunatic making obviously incorrect statements about why the government is conspiring would invalidate all evidence that the government conspires. A psychic claiming I am a murderer would immediate prove my innocence no matter how many guns and DNA traces are found in my locker. It's just not good philosophy.
If you see the direction the British new athiest movement went in Neitzche's point is more obvious. He is saying they are not as smart as they think they are and not willing to question the foundation of their own beliefs. British moral philosophy lead them down a path of smugness, arrogance and faux intelectualism.
@@michaelbaker8284 The "New Atheist" movement isn't based on Christian values at all. Calling them "not as smart as they think they are" isn't an argument. And if it's true that they aren't willing to question the foundation of their own beliefs, why not just question the foundation of their beliefs? "Smugness, arrogance and faux intellectualism" aren't philosophical arguments, they're ironically what smug arrogant faux intellectuals use when they can't make a case.
@@newperve This is a youtube comment section. And I can't make my case better than Nietzsche did. All western liberalism and in particular British liberalism is founded on Christian (mostly Calvinist) moral assumptions that are taken for granted. Nietzsche's argument is that this whole thing as a house of cards without the base. He is describing how things are not making some kind of imperative statement starting with 'you can't', And even if you disagree that the British New Atheists deserve vitriol you cannot deny that there is an earned reputation there and that many feel this way about them. To call them sophomoric, arrogant and hubristic is being polite. It was a fad movement for a reason.
@@michaelbaker8284 Name one of these supposed assumptions. Don't keep telling me that use assumptions exist or that they are invalid. Give me an example. All you are doing is smearing a group of people you say make bad conclusions. It would be more convincing if you named a bad conclusion or a reason why it's bad. The New Atheist movement was based on reason and evidence not Christian assumptions. You are just wrong. But more importantly you don't understand what points your wing on after important. It didn't matter if they were smug, arrogant or "faux intellectuals", it matters of they are wrong. This is why you are a smug, arrogant faux intellectual, because you think insulting someone proves they are wrong. Of course it's possible that you are right but just too arrogant and stupid to make the case. But if you were that would be an example of something you think can't happen.
What is the 'Kantian world-in-itself'? In Kant's philosophy there is the notion of the 'thing-in-itself', of which Kant explicitly states that all we can say about it is that it exists. The whole essence of this concept lies in the fact that we cannot know anything more about it.
I am afraid you might have misunderstood the Kantian " Ding an Sich/ Thing in itself ", First of all Kant was not original in that concept as the Aristotelian " Substance " denotes an underlying essence which is exactly equal to Kant's concept and he actually borrowed and re-named that idea from George Berkeley and David Hume , the real explanation will be " however we cannot know the real underlying essence of phenomena yet our information thereabout comes from impressions formed by our senses and processed and interpreted by our intellect ( in case of humans ).
Maybe I should be more specific about the passage that my question relates to. Around 16:50 we have the discussion that the 'Übermensch' would be concerned with reality - to be understood as: not with so-called metaphysical 'Hinterwelten'. One of the examples of the latter that is being given is 'the Kantian "World-in-itself".' Firstly I wanted to point out that I am not aware of such a notion in Kant - in the meantime I've checked the Kant-Lexicon by Willaschek et all and can't find it there either. So I am supposing this is a mere terminological error and that we should understand the familiar kantian concept of 'thing-in-itself' instead. A minor terminological error in itself isn't a real problem of course. But: it is fully unclear to me in what sense the kantian 'thing-in-itself' - strictly: 'Ding an sichselbst betrachtet' - would constitute a 'Hinterwelt'. As I pointed out: Kant is very explicit about that fact that the only statement we can make about any thing from this regard is that it is. So it's unclear to me in what sense there could even be such a thing as a 'Hinterwelt' from the perspective of kantian philosophy.
@@andykerkhofs1945 The "thing-in-itself" does not matter to Nietzsche. What is more real to the human, color or the abstract idea that color is just light. It creates a seperation between what we experience, the human experience, and what is thought to be "objectively" true in an abstract way. Outside of the human experience nothing matters, it does not change our day to day lives. Nietzsche also did not believe in an objective truth. Truth is always subjective, and thus so is morality. Kant attempted to create morality based on this "objective" reality, but it will be inherently against life, as it is against the human experience. Thus the objective reality, the "thing-in-itself" becomes this hinterwelt born of pure logic/reason. It is funny because Kant attempts to create morality based on the unknowable, unachievable thing-in-itself. A full contradiction.
@insxmniac7052 That "the thing in itself" doesn't affect our daily lives is obvious from what Kant writes about it very explicitly in the CPR. All we can say about it, is that it is - full stop. It's fundamental function is to make clear that Kant does not commit to empirical idealism. How such a notion is then transformed into a so-called Hinterwelt is what is absolutely unclear to me. I am not entirely sure how I must interpret the claim that Kant attempted to create an ethics from the unknowable. The foundation of his ethics lies in the will, that's literally the opening phrase of the Groundwork. In the CPR Kant occasionally indicates that the matters being concerned in that work do not pertain to determination through the will. The more I engage with Nietzsches criticism of Kant, the more I get the impression that he never actually really read Kant.
Very interesting. A quintessentially English public intellectual Tom Holland in Dominion (essentially a work of Christian apologetics) endorses Nietzsches critique of English "liberalism" arguing it applies to new generation aetheists - the abolition of superstition is a Christian methodology; though he is far too fastidious to deal with Nietzsche's ubermensch ideas except to catgegorise them as dangerous.
This sort of morality, Christian or otherwise, is a pseudo one, because it comes from fear of punishment and not from wisdom and compassion without expecting any rewards at all.
Whenever I revisit Nietzsche, I'm always pleasantly surprised to discover that there's much more to learn from him. From my experience, there's a lot of prior knowledge needed to understand Nietzsche fully. I credit my developing perspective of his philosophy to my deepening understanding of areas that, I believe, he certainly comprehended. Do you think it's best to acquire knowledge before engaging with his work, or is revisiting him from time to time as I grow the best way to tackle his philosophy? I've only read On the Genealogy of Morality and I'd like to really dive into his work. I've watched many lectures and videos on his ideas, but I'm sure it's best to go to the source itself.
Hello, my education is in philosophy and your intuition is correct. Western philosophy is a dialog that has been happening since the Greeks. To understand Nietzsche I think its important to read the people that inspired him. Kant and Schopenhauer had a pretty big impact on his thinking. I would say to read a bit of Kierkegaard as well. His work was just making it's way into Germany at the time, but it helps contextualize what is happening in Europe at the time. Some readings for you: The Nietzsche Reader by Keith Ansell-Pearson, Existentialism: Basic Writings by Charles Guignon, Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources by Roger Ariew, Sickness onto Death and Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard, and of course Nietzsche's own work.
It's sort of like how people like how Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins will say "We don't need God to be moral! I know perfectly well what is right and wrong," thus missing the point entirely and making fools of themselves.
One cannot understand an internal combustion engine without first understanding fire. One cannot understand man without first understanding predators. Nietzsche, in particular, didn't realize that helping uncle John's broken leg would eventually help everyone or else we would have it.
This was marvelous. Thank you. I heard a lecture on Deleuze’s interpretation of Neitchze. The relationship with Marx would be interesting. As an anthropologist I would say that morality comes out of our biology and society, so the continuity is not a surprise. Not a philosophical arguments. Thanks.
Great Video! I have a lot to think about. It does not make me happy to have the knowledge you transpired in this video. But hopefully it is good for something. I hope my thought process will lead me somewhere fruitful and productive. Thanks so much for the work you put in to create this! Nietzsche is truly strange and thought provoking. I dont know what to do with his philosophy to be honest. Where does it lead us? It is so unsatisfying to deal with his philosophy sometimes. Theres no end, no goal, no red line. Or maybe I just dont see it. I can just ponder and ponder about it every day.
Nietzsche was looking for a problem to criticise, engineers and practical English philosophy can accept "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Morals are a social construct, it seems naïve to expect some absolute justification for them beyond a consensus of ideals with a quorum. They're not mathematics to be discovered but expectations of what a society finds constructive and science has found examples of apparently altruistic behaviour even in other species. It appears shallow of Nietzsche to be dependant on a god, rather than understand how communities operate
@@RobBCactive Thanks for that answer! So do you think morals are in our nature? Are the morals we apply today just a natural thing caused by evolution? Or what do you mean it appears shallow of Nietzsche to be dependant on a god?
@@timotoys Well things like fairness and support appear natural within an in-group but people can also be hostile to an out-group. People with power often abuse it, but in general it is better to get along and be perceived as "good". A key is reputation and trust, which is why relative anonymity online leads to so much "classy" behaviour, selfishness has few consequences. Atheists don't see any problem in accepting societal norms which are beneficial, Nietzsche seems hung up on needing some authority that declares morality. But if you look at how many claimed Christians actually behave and talk, you'll see some of the most un-Christian attitudes.
@@RobBCactive Nietzsche does not seek a new God. There is no objectivity in morality. We humans are limited in our perception of reality, which is indeed objective. Your truth, and my truth, are simply our perceptions of what we believe to be reality. And where does morality arise from if not truth? Our truth? My truth? How can we decide if something is good or bad if not for calculating it's precise value as well as we can in accordance to our observations, our experience, our truth, our emotions and passions. We can be aware that our truth is not objective and faulty, but we still believe in it and act upon it as if it were objective. Thus our morality isn't good or bad, it is simply the expression of the self, as we can't possibly attest that it is or not the objective reality. Perhaps one of your virtues is evil according to my truth. Thus morality is unique and only tied to the individual that created it. The will of the individual. The will to power is merely the mechanism by which the individual expresses his morality, his truth upon reality. A reiteration of the universe, or what we perceive of it atleast. For that, power is necessary. One must be able to have power in any way, in order to exert it. Not just power in dominance or subjugation, strength, but creating art, overcoming one's obstacles, challenging societies norms and creating new values in the process, and the pursuit of knowledge. Power is just a currency for change. Thus, in order to impose your morality upon reality, one needs power. And as an individual is not like the root of a tree, but instead like a flowing river, constantly in change, so is the individuals morality. He does not argue for a morality that justifies existance. Instead it is being yourself, seperate from all ideologies and religions and pre existing moral frameworks. It is to embody the spirit of creation, innovation. The continual questioning of the existing values that are presented to you in your life by society and all else. And then imposing your unique view upon reality in whatever way possible. That is what life is. Thus to seek power, is to seek life. All that affirms power is life, all that denies it is against life.
English psyche in line with Roman , Stoic mindset ,tends to be sensible and realistic distancing oneself from emotional / romantic attitudes towards both the mundane as well as the intellectual realm .
The odd thing is that the stoic and sensible Englishman is a rather recent development. Before the 19th century the English were seen by other Europeans as a passionate and overly emotional people. Take Sir Francis Drake as an example. One does not circumnavigate the Earth in the 1570s because one is of a sensible and realistic temperament.
I agree, it doesn't. In fact when I studied molecular biology at university, the sheer complexity and unthinkable amount of random chances and events at the atomic level needed to forma single cell, the efficiency of the motor-like ATPase enzyme, countless things before evolution even, almost lends itself to a creator more than disproving one.
At the time a lot of Europeans took the idea of 'survival of the fittest' from Darwinism, and started applying it to human society and ethics (this is called Social Darwinism). It was seen as a scientific rejection of the Christian emphasis on charity and the idea of all humans being equal under God, and was one of the most significant factors in the very popular eugenics movement, scientific racism, and eventually things like Nazi racial ideology.
It doesn’t. One objection I have to this video is that in referencing Charles Darwin and evolution, it described it as a perspective that removed the hand of God from creation. It certainly does not do that, nor did Darwin think that it did so, nor were many Christians before and after Darwin opposed to the possibility of such ideas. St Augustine even suggested in Confessions that the Creation myth in Genesis may be intended to be interpreted allegorically. Doing so leaves no contradiction with evolution, or other theories of the creation of earth or the universe. He wrote this over 1000 years before Darwin.
@@TommyTipexa intelligent creator would try to make things simple. Over complexity is a sign that there is no Creator. While humanity is always trying to simplifie things, the universe becomes more complex. So God is not guiding the universe, or he is doing against the common sense.
I find it fascinating that nineteenth century men thought themselves so enlightened yet they failed to understand the Bible and Christianity and the nature of nature. Claiming to be the epitome of knowledge a study finds only ignorance.
In your understanding of Nietzsche, instead of saying yes to reliving your exact same life over and over again (which sounds like a hell not because of the suffering but because the repetition) but say yes to another life that while not exactly the same but have just as much or perhaps bit more or a bit less suffering?
That would just be another hinterwelt. If you believe there is a life better than this (realm of God, Reincarnation), and you want that instead of this life, them you are already a nihilist. Even if you are reborn in a world with suffering, you still have the chance to have a better life than this one. So the question only make sense if it refers to this life, not another.
I think there is a kind of natural law and to be in harmony with it produces best outcomes. Hard to always know what that is but you can feel it when in the flow of things.
The explanation is that human morality created Christianity, not Christianity created human morality, so it will never change much across religions or civilizations. Morality is a middle ground between reputation and self interest. It would only be a real problem if we were immortals, because in this case we wouldn't be constrained by physical needs and our morality would be a matter of choice. But as long as we need to survive, we are as moral as we have to, to achieve that. And as immoral as we need to, because we fear pain and death. God adds an afterlife to be considered, but do people ever considered it as certainty? I think the pressures of the material world always outweighed the mere possibility of an afterlife.
We all know that we were created moral creatures. The whole problem is justifying what we know and placing it on an unassailable foundation. How can we demand moral behavior in a world containing powerful people who are willing to go against their better natures?
@@JackPullen-ParadoxWe are just a large pile of, over its life time, increasingly unperfectly self-reproducing proteins. In order to get the physical resources needed for keeping this process going, we do everything - even acting morally sometimes.
@@salvador.garcia Epicurus said around 250 BC that when we exist, death is not, and when death exists, we are not. Aristotle seemed to believe something similar. So, it didn't start with the current bunch. These two did not appear to fear death, however.
Nietzche is not against laws or morality. But the specifics of christian morality (ascetism, castity, no pursue of glory, humility, etc) is what Nietzche is against it. Every society is against murder and robbery, this is not the same as christian morality since there is more to christian morality than just "dont steal, dont murd3r".
This is where my views diverge from his. Moral codes are created by people in the first place to keep ourselves safe, so we have good reasons to retain them.
I can see how this type of philosophy can go totally haywire so easily though. I find it difficult to reconcile nietzche because this type of philosophy can be used to justify anything. I think revaluing all values is important, but am I wrong in my evaluation of nietzche?
I think its important to put Nietzsche's ideas into cultural context like this, for me it reveals their idiocy. As with many German philosophers, he was hell bent on the destruction of the old world order, be that politically or philosophically. This German idealism was and still is counter-cultural in a needlessly contrarian way, and its clear how the Nietzschean mode of thinking leads to the perversion of scientific theories through ideas like racial theory and eugenics. The British, through pragmatic and humble "middle road" philosophy were able to hold onto the truths of the past (no British intellectuals are foolish/arrogant enough to let go of past morality), while using technological and intellectual advancement to their advantage. That ability has unfortunately now been lost in post-WWII Britain.
@@beltigussin81but if you dont know you are relieving the same life, it still counts? Of course since you are reborn again you would have no previous memories of your life. If you had, it could do other choices and them would not even be the same life again. So the eternal recurrance can only happen if you dont know about your previous life. Thus the boredom argument dont apply.
Nietzsche hated Kant because Kant produced a damning “critique of pure reason”… yet went on to produce an “objective” verification of his presupposed moral worldview (the irony is unmatched… Kant could see the promise land, but couldn’t enter it himself) In other words, Kant acknowledges the importance, value and accuracy of the secular, materialist worldview… yet was unwilling or unable to apply his “critique of pure reason” to moral philosophy the way he applies it to natural philosophy If Kant had applied his critique of pure reason inwardly to his moral worldview, he would have seen what Nietzsche saw… that is a universe without absolute morality… a universe where good behavior has NO bearing on material outcomes
7:18.... Nietzsche doesn´t mean, that god was needlessly, because of science. That is, what parallel also happends, but totaly without god, nobody can exist - unless he´s godly enough himself. Nietzsche meant it diferent. Becauae, in his times, some scientific knowledge and capabilitys were made, that had a dramatic consequence for the brains oif humans. There was the nuclear science (and the knowledge about atoms and also the diferent types of Isotopes) and tghe thing with chemical synthesis of nervpoisons. Both had a dramatic consequence for brains. Metallions for stabilization of brainnetworks, and chemical synthesis of nervepoison for the possibikity to regulate brainactivity (for better integration of metalions). And Nietzsche meant his randomly guy seaking this strange words (gods dead. And human killed him) as a knowledge about what is realy happend: theneurodegeneration in his (and many other peoples brains, because of to much neuroactivity and networkstabilization, that overburdened the organic capability of brain-cells). So, what degenerated in hunmans brains, is primary the main networks of gods consciouseness out of the individual brain. Not, that science killed god, because humans knew it better after developement in schience. And, if yiou not have anymore yur individual connection to god (because god degenerated out of your brain), you also turn extrovert and literaly search for something meaningfull outside of you, because inside there is nothing anymore. And most possibly, Nietzsche himself got that problem....and in later times, he got problems with his mental derangement..... as a sign of realy to much degeneration. And its also sort of unfortunate pointe, because Nietzsches Father was a christian parson. And...christians have that main idea in their liturgy: they will bring the spirit (of jesus) in the peoples. And they did it over hundrets of years via metalsalt (Lead(II)acetat possibly) baked in the hosts for the gods service...And either Nietzsche pilfered some (to much) oblates from his father or christian familiys espacialy as a member of the church´s personal (parson f ex.) back then were very ambitious with their childs (and poisoned him to much) - at least that is suggesting the very distinct phenomen, that many childs of a parson-family became very famouse for something in the intellectual sphere. Just as Nietzsche, there were many famouse humans, that had parents (mostly fathers) as a parson, and that may came from the narrowness to that hosts and the christian practice, that they want to bring the spirit over the peoples with hosts for the gods service....and unfortunately those later famouse sons got a bit to much from it... And for some reason the british became cautiouse to do that, because as they did that exessively since 1478 (George Rippley - and his public message, that he knew the recipe of the "stone of wisdom" (in england more known as the "philosophers stone" (and meant most probably the recipe of Lead(II)acetat), they got a dramatic problem from it: the english sweet broke out first around 1485 (as an ursupator ran over the kingdom and stole the crown almost without resistance. Because they (upper class) immediately got sick, as the ursupator landed at the cornwall-coast. And there is another example in history: as 1908 the tunguska-event happend, that also poored out uge amount of heavy ions over the northern hemisphere and made them crazy (and as a not lfar later consequence: the spanish flu broke out....what was a mixed circumstance out of Tunguska pooring heavy ions over populations and the first world war using uge amount of chemical weapons). And also, that Rippley anouncement of the "philosophers stone" was cause of the protestant rebellion and the founding of the "jesus" focussing....mybe, because they all lost their intrinsic connection to god, so there was no other way to "be in touch with god" (over the holy spirit via his so, who made it possible to stabilize, whats left of god in their brains). So, god was killed in the brains of peoples, not killed by new ideology (science), that made the religion unnecessary. Both together are also self-amplifying processes for a "free mind" to find meaning in secular or scientific ideology (and many thing in science back then were already ideologys...because not very acurate and true, but some new knowledge was in it). In that scenario the 1485 "english sweet" for the british was the same, as the 1908 tunguska caused the civilizational breakdown for the middle europeans (first and second world war - and of course the spanish flu for all). And if you will so, then every plaque is a sign, that god is dying and then peoples get sick and die also. But.... primary, there is only Nietzsches experience of neurodegeneration and his knowledge about the problem of christian strategy to bring the holy spirit over al humans....with that metalsalt-oblates. I mean, it can explain, why Nietzsche wasn´t very enthused about christianity, because he has experienced, what christianity did hundrets of years with their believers....unfortunately a bit to much.... And only for noticing: Tschernobyl and Fukushima is in principle exactly the same cause of getting crazy and population-wide mass-psychosis.....just as the Tunguska-Event did it. And the Rippley-consequence did it (in a slightly diferent way - they firstly became in fact more intelligent and over all got more power over others....until the french ursuopator came over, who was more grown together with french catholic strategy of spiritual developement, that was sort of more stable in regards to the british population). The hole pointe is, that such a highly heavy ion-contamination cause a "zombification" of godly creatures.....and that may can cause a even more "demonstrative belief in god (or alternativlyin his son, jesus, as it is usual under protestants). And maybe th eonly cause of the dinosauers exstinction wasn´t extreme enviormental distruction by asteroid-impact, rather by producing ugely amounts of heavy ions via a process, that happend sometimes, if platin191 is contained in an impactor (platin191 will change itself to iridium191 via electron capturing - a nuclear decay-event of a uge amount of material. And that iridium was found in many geological layers of the earth and conoted to the impact, is today factual wisdom...or most possible truth. I mean, that typical "airbursts" didnot happend because of friction at the atmosphere, rather by sudden initiated process of something very powerfull. It did not burn away layer for layer, rather explodes in one ugely expansion and that only does in that extend a nuclear process. Albeit the Chicxolub-asteroid did in fact impacting in the earth crust, but that may is due to the immense mass of the impactor, whilest the latest tscheljabinsk airbursts was only some tonnes of material. And uge Mass maybe can change the reaction-threshold of that decay process of platin191 to iridium191 - whyever that happend at all).
Is morality a con? That's up to you to explore and decide and it'll inform you whether, ultimately, you agree or oppose Nietzsche's political campaign.
Thank you for this video; it was well done. I just wanted to emphasize a couple of things to make clearer Nietzsche's criticism of English moral philosophy. The best place to see this criticism in action is the 1st essay of The Genealogy of Morals and section 5 of Beyond Good and Evil, which is entitled "Natural History of Morals." You quite rightly pointed out Nietzsche's statement that "they [the English moral philosophers] have got rid of the Christian God and now feel obliged to cling more fervently to Christian morality." But why should this be so? What is going on here? Nietzsche thinks this is a natural and inevitable result of Christianity itself. Consider this: "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Christian dream were true? The question is moot. For to be a true Christian one must deny the tenability of Christianity. One must weigh the evidence; one must not deceive oneself or others. The moral atheist is the one true Christian -- for his conscience tells him that he cannot believe in an apparent falsehood. He holds "truth" above immortality -- that is, the conceptual possibility of immortality. If it wasn't for the tyranny of his need for righteousness, he would acquiesce to such a sweet seduction as the Christian afterlife. Most men would prefer a map for the soul. They want everything charted out beforehand. Man as God -- alone, embattled -- is, even for a second, a positive evil. And yet they are forced by their conscience to arrive at this position." Can you see here that Nietzsche's criticism of these English philosophers is just one instance of his deconstruction of the notion of "truth" and its desirability. He isn't so much concerned with these Englishmen as he is with that assumption which underlies all of Western philosophy since Socrates: that truth is desirable in itself and is preferable to falsehood. This last point is brought out clearly in his essay "On Truth and Falsity in their Ultramoral Sense."
There are some moral proclamations in the Holy Scripture that I utterly disagree with and which should be incorporated into a secular moral framework. Yet still, there are some that every rational human being should accept as good for the secular project.
It is an interesting perspective Nietzsche has. I think the vast majority of people retain the core aspects of Christian morality but the real question is that internal and specific to Humans or is it enforced by religion. Given many societies have independently developed similar moral frameworks I would tend to say the former. Though I concede that religion may be the institution humanity has invented to enforce this morality and as Nietzsche believes over time the absence of religion will cause moral degradation.
When we say “Nietzsche hated this or that” I think anyone who actually read Nietzsche sees that this is kind of nonesense. Nietzsche’s writing is poetic and provocational but not very systematic. Who knows what he really thought? Even if he gives a critique of one idea on one page, he may come back later and revise it, or more likely he will take issue with the naive alternative to the thing he critisized, like a lot of his sentences are of the form “such and such is bad, but the absence of it is even worse” like it’s made to provoke thought (I guess) but it’s not ever really clear that he takes a simplistic stance on an issue
My philosophy is you can believe in god you don't have to go to church to believe in him or be religious I personally don't believe in religion or any of the books written these books could have written by anyone with their own ideology on the path people should walk on? Like sins It does not take a book or religion that something is right and wrong it's conscience which tells us that Any right-minded person with common sense knows right from wrong
I'm under the impression that most of humanity shares the same basic system.. the 10 commandments would stay in place without god because they're all things people know are wrong on our own.. when you steal, cheat, kill or lie, you feel sick, your conscience bothers you.. these things being pointed out as sins are mostly universally accepted on their own, development into religion is sure to follow
The first law and second law is to worshipp only God. So this law already is against every country that supports freedom of religion. The third and fourth laws are religious law that you can follow yourself, but cannot impose on others (a thing the commandements demand), so two more useless laws. The 5 law is not a law in any country. Kids should respect their parents if they respect them too. The other 5 laws are the only laws that are followed by countries (way before the Hebrews by the way, because they are the most basic laws there is, everyone had these). So what is special in these laws again? They are either teocracy, or laws that everyone followed since away.
There are deeper reasons for this Anglo-Saxon moral superficiality. Anglo culture enshrines a weird kind of secular puritanism, which underpins modern Woke culture. Also, Christian morality is very useful for maintaining the class system and other social functions, which explains the elite's reflexive attachment to it.
My biggest issue with Nietzsche is that he only looks at the Christian morality where it agrees and ignores the portions where it disagrees. There's a simple argument to refute that. There is a core human morality and Christianity includes much of that, but it also added portions which aren't human morality. And those are the portions that many Christians cast aside You don't need a god to create the universe with laws. You just need the universe to exist with laws. You don't need a god to say that murdering each other isn't good for survival. You just need to understand that being killed is bad, so everyone agrees to not kill each other, so it decreases the odds of the individual being killed. But if you have a god that says killing certain people is OK, then you get people breaking human morality because they believe they're serving a higher morality
If there is no God then all morality is entirely subjective. We each become our own gods. We end up following our own desires - regardless of what it means to others.
English philosophy is important, though not that important to create the analytical/continental divide. That just actually reveals a bit of English provincialism
Nietzsche's "solution" for this problem, i.e. the will to power is such a bs concept and so easily seen through. "The craving for material goods (power) is not so much due to the direct pleasures of wealth, as none can be seated on more than one chair or eat himself more than sated. Rather, the value of a fortune to life consists in the rich opportunities for anchoring and distraction offered to the owner." - P. W. Zapffe
This is why all the homies dislike Nietzshe, god forbid philosophers build upon moral discussion thinking rather than just going 'whats the point, we havent changed everything and become completely different creatures'
In the Gospels the Kingdom of Heaven refers to a time on earth, not another imaginary world. In Luke 17 Jesus connects it to the time of the "Son of Man" (which is a title for Jesus himself, but also to a more perfect future evolution of mankind). Check out Luke 17:24 (KJV): " For as the lightning flashes and lights up the heavens from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in His day." It sounds like Nietzsche describing the overman, and that's not an out of context coincidence.
Nietzsche was still surrounded on all fronts by an overwhelming Christian religious mindset. All world religions have similar “moral values” so even if Christianity was to be erased overnight, there still will be a similar moral structure for stability of the individual in his/her interactions with others. The best survival of the individual in this chaotic world is to behave toward others as you would want them to behave toward you. A simple eye for and eye; if someone lies to you, or tries to harm you, then you must retaliate in kind…for self preservation and survival of the rational fittest.
Nietzsche is arguing that all of these moral systems are inherently wrong, whether they be based in Christianity or not, that without God all morality is subjective and baseless. Therefore, the new man who has freed himself from religion should not turn to some form of secular morality to fill the gap Christianity left, but should forge his own values and become the ubermench. Not that I agree with him, but that's what he's arguing.
Was morality a problem for the Germanic? If no, what different path / thought insulated them from this problem? Did Nietzsche single out the English culture, and if so, how was it different here to Germanic?
I’d say England has lost its moral compass. Much of that loss, I believe is a lack of leadership within Church of England by the likes of Arch Bishop Welby, who seems to want to placate all and sundry. But not Christians.
My counterpoint would be that this morality evolved independently many times on earth, and the vestigial organ example is not perfectly functional, as it still preserves its function, keeping the collective and individuals alive, and happy, our goals and morality are a mix of natural and socially created characteristics, that have adapted naturally, some parts of Christian morality may have been FROM "Christian culture", such as sodomy, as an example, which has evolved in some cultures, and LGBT individuals accepted in other cultures. Now you can take the Aztecs and their sacrifice as a counter-example. Still, again, these morals are socially taught and can be removed from the culture is seen as more of a burden for a culture/people, such as many originally Christian ideals that have slowly faded in Europe and European North America, the modern Christian and the Christian from rome would've been worlds apart. again this is just my opinion so please be respectful ^.^
All his big-brained insights are in the English poets, mystics and divines (most of whom he never read). Slave morality to the masters, for example. How the weak invented ideals of restraint and mercy to avenge themselves on the strong. Shakespeare's Richard III lays it out, where it is appropriate. In the mouth of a hunchbacked maniac on the brink of defeat. Nietzsche was brilliant but ridiculous in his later strong egoic phase.
Interesting video. I agree with his assessment of the fact that the abolishment of the believing in the supernatural has not really been fully acknowledged by society. All the other stuff about the uebermensch, is just childish ranting.
I know near nothing about philosophy. But listening to bit and bobs as made think there is not one philosophy without personal bais. And that is a problem... I suppose there a philosophy about this fact..
I agree that most of philosophy is just people attempting to rationalize the worldviews they already have, rather than truly starting with an open mind. That said, there is certainly a lot of insight to be had from each philosophy; I think a true lover of wisdom ("philosopher") should constantly be exploring new ideas and questioning their deepest beliefs. Every philosophy has something to offer, but no philosophy is complete, and we should resist the temptation to latch onto any singular ideology as the whole truth. When you get too wrapped up in the internal logic of a single ideology, it detaches you from the real world, leading to the sort of ideological extremism that dominated the politics of the 20th century.
@thenew4559 with my very limited knowledge of Freud I would had is take on human sexual repression is total rubbish and somewhat dangerous seeing how this is pushed as gold standard... so I say philosophy can be dangerous as well as useful..
Can’t help feeling that the rather pedestrian approach of the English yet-to-be moralists stands a better chance of making sense than the age of the übermensch. For the latter there is simply no evidence, while for the former, if god is dead, then maybe he didn’t invent Christian morality anyway, so we still have a chance of investigating who did. But then I’m somewhat sceptical of “grand philosophy” even though it is quite amusing?
nietzsche was 200 years ahead of his time. one only has to look at europe now to see how the utter confusion created by the death of god has come to fruition
What about the Genealogy of Nietzsche's philosophy? His father died when he was young; his brother died when he was young; his father was a preacher; he felt privileged; he is bitter.
that stuff about the ubermensch saying "yes" to being stuck in the same loop forever is so stupid and wrong, i have to side with the anglo on that one...maybe i'm missing something?? also, he doesnt see the timeless laws that christianity is trying to approiximate...its as though he thinks its just a religion someone made up 2,000 yrs ago...
there are some wrong premises Nietzsche made : 1. god is the base of morality (it is not) 2. Ubermensch like some kind of singularity (there are plenty of them in the proletarian space and even in the utilitarian anglo-saxon world) 3. one needs a refrigerator is way more important than one needs an appropriate book
The eternal loop is not something he believed, nor something someone needs to believe. Is just a cool question: if you want to relieve your life, them your life is good. If you dont want to relieve it, them your life is bad and you should improve it. Is just that type of question to hype people to improve themselves, not the foundation of his philosophy. And what timeless law christianity has? Dont steal and dont murd3r? Every society has these. Jesus actually prohibits divorce, and christianity has no law regarding slavery. No western country today supports these things. And with Old testament laws, with its stoning to d3ath and teocracy, would be illegal in every country in this world if someone tried to put that into the legal system.
What Nietzsche did not understand about Religion and morality and wisdom and why the English continued to follow Religious wisdom even after they abandoned religion was that morality and wisdom did not come from religions, religions stole it from the knowledge and wisdom gained over thousands of generations of hard-won existence and experience, and, not giving such hard-won wisdom any credit, religions claimed it as their own.
he uber man is next week , with A.I. brain and bio-engineered body , it will live IN PLACE OF our current understanding of "human" who could have guessed 100 yrs. ago where "gawdless" science would take us , but N's intuition was pretty dang good i wonder , if confronted with this "reality" , he'd approve ; but i'd guess he'd have to say yes
I do not find this vision inspiring. You say near the end that the quest of the Victorian thinkers was impossible, but the Ubermensch might be impossible, too. I don't think radical individualism can be the summum bonum. Characteristic of this idea is the reduction of value to power. But power in itself is not a thing of value. It's only the ability to get something done. We have to decide what is valuable to accomplish. Power is an accessory to that, not something that replaces it.
Head to squarespace.com/weltgeist to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code WELTGEIST
looks like he hated everyone.Guess he went insane for many good reasons.
Great video! BTW, in Dostoevsky's crime&punishment we saw a FAILED ÜBERMENSCH (Raskolnikov)
(traits like intellectual arrogance and a desire to transcend law.)
Hitler and his age is just that - Nietzsche is anti-Christian and pawed the way for Germany 1933. (Hitlers became chancellor). There's a reason that Nietzsche has been viewed as being "too cruel and too base" both in Scandinavia and non-Continental Europe.
yea exactly using nitzches philosophy as a reference for examples of it is so basic. where the dissertation?? @@michaelmcclure3383
Exactly. It’s like how Nietzsche talked about how the weak develop intelligence as a tool to compensate for lacking strength, lacking power. Raskolnikov definitely allowed his intelligence to inhibit and restrict him actually. His act of strength and power was actually his downfall, perhaps if he was truly strong he wouldn’t be ruled by his intellect so much and allow it to lead him to positions which restrict his freedom, will, and power.
@@vaughncollins1386
He believes extraordinary individuals (like himself) are exempt from moral laws, justifying his murder by viewing himself as "above" ordinary people.
He associates Übermensch with brute power and the ability to dominate others.
The true Übermensch thrives under pressure, not succumbing to psychological disintegration.
While he experiences a form of transformation through punishment and starts to embrace human connection, his trajectory diverges significantly from the Nietzschean ideal.
Raskolnikovs downfall began with rejecting Christian values for logic, which only works in theory. The soul is too complex to thrive on logic alone. The only thing that can save him is God i.e Christian values and/or love. His first mistake was thinking that his soul was going to be just fine because he himself considered the murder to be justifiable. But he was not the one to judge that.
as an English man, I really enjoyed your video, but had to stop half way through, because the cricket match got on the way again.. 😊
Nietzsche’s critique of the English was due, I believe, to their lack of spirituality and their strictly materialistic and utilitarian approach towards philosophy. Spirituality and psychology are closely linked and Nietzsche was very much concerned with psychology. He called it the queen of the sciences.
What a crock of you know what.
@@manmaje3596 If you consider William James a psychologist of any real value then perhaps…
"lack of spirituality" "strictly materialistic and utilitarian"
You have clearly never been to the shires
@@christianbateman2 Referring to their treatment of psychology…
The British are highly influenced by Aristotle
you make amazing videos damn you a nietzsche expert as a philosophy student it's really great having youtubers like you
Astoundingly great video as always my friend
This channel deserves to have so much more eyes on it. I love the dedication you have to your script, as well as your voice. It just fits so well in my opinion. If view count were tied to video quality, this channel would be on the trending page every upload with upwards of tens of millions of views.
If only the demographics worked out. Statistically there are only about 40,000 young gifted people in America, and only 16,000 whites of the same caliber. Get to work
Mind your own bro this channel bla bla bla stop kissing as so much
@@Itsuser_1234you smell
@@Itsuser_1234you will be forgotten 22 years after you die
5:50 Victorian thinkers railed against the personification of God, not against God. This is in turn Schleiermacher and/or Hardenberg. God is not rejected, merely remythologised.
Nietzsche, bro. Part of being an atheist is realising that "Gods morality" was just invented by humans.
He was more of a pagan than a atheist.
Please make a video on Nietzsche and Fredrick the II of the Holy Roman Empire.
For anyone reading this, Frederick was a fucking menace, the eternal German. Well, until they were replaced anyway...
Nietzsche phillosophy was really to disagree with everyone
Bad Conscience of their time…
And English Philosophy sucks
Very false take.
I think of it like…
The past got us here, but to go further, we must discard the old.
That was Nietzsche’s view.
A new idea would naturally have to contest many past ideas to justify its positions
So basically Nietzsche is saying "You can't keep the conclusion because the original premises you used to come to it are wrong.". But that's a basic logically error. The fact that a conclusion can be arrived at by invalid premises doesn't mean it can't be arrived at by valid premises. Saying "Well my original reason for believing X is untrue, so X can't be true." is just wrong. If that were true then any lunatic making obviously incorrect statements about why the government is conspiring would invalidate all evidence that the government conspires. A psychic claiming I am a murderer would immediate prove my innocence no matter how many guns and DNA traces are found in my locker. It's just not good philosophy.
Very well said.
If you see the direction the British new athiest movement went in Neitzche's point is more obvious. He is saying they are not as smart as they think they are and not willing to question the foundation of their own beliefs. British moral philosophy lead them down a path of smugness, arrogance and faux intelectualism.
@@michaelbaker8284 The "New Atheist" movement isn't based on Christian values at all. Calling them "not as smart as they think they are" isn't an argument. And if it's true that they aren't willing to question the foundation of their own beliefs, why not just question the foundation of their beliefs? "Smugness, arrogance and faux intellectualism" aren't philosophical arguments, they're ironically what smug arrogant faux intellectuals use when they can't make a case.
@@newperve This is a youtube comment section. And I can't make my case better than Nietzsche did. All western liberalism and in particular British liberalism is founded on Christian (mostly Calvinist) moral assumptions that are taken for granted. Nietzsche's argument is that this whole thing as a house of cards without the base. He is describing how things are not making some kind of imperative statement starting with 'you can't',
And even if you disagree that the British New Atheists deserve vitriol you cannot deny that there is an earned reputation there and that many feel this way about them. To call them sophomoric, arrogant and hubristic is being polite. It was a fad movement for a reason.
@@michaelbaker8284 Name one of these supposed assumptions. Don't keep telling me that use assumptions exist or that they are invalid. Give me an example.
All you are doing is smearing a group of people you say make bad conclusions. It would be more convincing if you named a bad conclusion or a reason why it's bad.
The New Atheist movement was based on reason and evidence not Christian assumptions. You are just wrong. But more importantly you don't understand what points your wing on after important. It didn't matter if they were smug, arrogant or "faux intellectuals", it matters of they are wrong. This is why you are a smug, arrogant faux intellectual, because you think insulting someone proves they are wrong.
Of course it's possible that you are right but just too arrogant and stupid to make the case. But if you were that would be an example of something you think can't happen.
What is the 'Kantian world-in-itself'?
In Kant's philosophy there is the notion of the 'thing-in-itself', of which Kant explicitly states that all we can say about it is that it exists.
The whole essence of this concept lies in the fact that we cannot know anything more about it.
I am afraid you might have misunderstood the Kantian " Ding an Sich/ Thing in itself ", First of all Kant was not original in that concept as the Aristotelian " Substance " denotes an underlying essence which is exactly equal to Kant's concept and he actually borrowed and re-named that idea from George Berkeley and David Hume , the real explanation will be " however we cannot know the real underlying essence of phenomena yet our information thereabout comes from impressions formed by our senses and processed and interpreted by our intellect ( in case of humans ).
The thing in itself would be something like Plotinus Monad
Maybe I should be more specific about the passage that my question relates to.
Around 16:50 we have the discussion that the 'Übermensch' would be concerned with reality - to be understood as: not with so-called metaphysical 'Hinterwelten'.
One of the examples of the latter that is being given is 'the Kantian "World-in-itself".'
Firstly I wanted to point out that I am not aware of such a notion in Kant - in the meantime I've checked the Kant-Lexicon by Willaschek et all and can't find it there either.
So I am supposing this is a mere terminological error and that we should understand the familiar kantian concept of 'thing-in-itself' instead.
A minor terminological error in itself isn't a real problem of course.
But: it is fully unclear to me in what sense the kantian 'thing-in-itself' - strictly: 'Ding an sichselbst betrachtet' - would constitute a 'Hinterwelt'.
As I pointed out: Kant is very explicit about that fact that the only statement we can make about any thing from this regard is that it is.
So it's unclear to me in what sense there could even be such a thing as a 'Hinterwelt' from the perspective of kantian philosophy.
@@andykerkhofs1945 The "thing-in-itself" does not matter to Nietzsche. What is more real to the human, color or the abstract idea that color is just light. It creates a seperation between what we experience, the human experience, and what is thought to be "objectively" true in an abstract way. Outside of the human experience nothing matters, it does not change our day to day lives. Nietzsche also did not believe in an objective truth. Truth is always subjective, and thus so is morality. Kant attempted to create morality based on this "objective" reality, but it will be inherently against life, as it is against the human experience. Thus the objective reality, the "thing-in-itself" becomes this hinterwelt born of pure logic/reason. It is funny because Kant attempts to create morality based on the unknowable, unachievable thing-in-itself. A full contradiction.
@insxmniac7052
That "the thing in itself" doesn't affect our daily lives is obvious from what Kant writes about it very explicitly in the CPR. All we can say about it, is that it is - full stop. It's fundamental function is to make clear that Kant does not commit to empirical idealism.
How such a notion is then transformed into a so-called Hinterwelt is what is absolutely unclear to me.
I am not entirely sure how I must interpret the claim that Kant attempted to create an ethics from the unknowable. The foundation of his ethics lies in the will, that's literally the opening phrase of the Groundwork. In the CPR Kant occasionally indicates that the matters being concerned in that work do not pertain to determination through the will.
The more I engage with Nietzsches criticism of Kant, the more I get the impression that he never actually really read Kant.
At 18:50 a painting of 3 women appears. Who's it by, and what's it called?
And what about the painting of the red jester at 19:51?
Faidra by Alexander Cabanel and the jester is Stańczyk by Matejko.
@@moibobo6621 Thanks!
19:52
Stańczyk during a ball at the court of Queen Bona in the face of the loss of Smolensk
Artist:Jan Matejko 1862
Very interesting. A quintessentially English public intellectual Tom Holland in Dominion (essentially a work of Christian apologetics) endorses Nietzsches critique of English "liberalism" arguing it applies to new generation aetheists - the abolition of superstition is a Christian methodology; though he is far too fastidious to deal with Nietzsche's ubermensch ideas except to catgegorise them as dangerous.
Calling Dominion 'a work of Christian apologetic' is an incredible straw man
just because Im presumin' that I could be human if I only had a heart @@freddiepatterson1045
This sort of morality, Christian or otherwise, is a pseudo one, because it comes from fear of punishment and not from wisdom and compassion without expecting any rewards at all.
Whenever I revisit Nietzsche, I'm always pleasantly surprised to discover that there's much more to learn from him.
From my experience, there's a lot of prior knowledge needed to understand Nietzsche fully. I credit my developing perspective of his philosophy to my deepening understanding of areas that, I believe, he certainly comprehended.
Do you think it's best to acquire knowledge before engaging with his work, or is revisiting him from time to time as I grow the best way to tackle his philosophy?
I've only read On the Genealogy of Morality and I'd like to really dive into his work. I've watched many lectures and videos on his ideas, but I'm sure it's best to go to the source itself.
Hello, my education is in philosophy and your intuition is correct. Western philosophy is a dialog that has been happening since the Greeks. To understand Nietzsche I think its important to read the people that inspired him. Kant and Schopenhauer had a pretty big impact on his thinking. I would say to read a bit of Kierkegaard as well. His work was just making it's way into Germany at the time, but it helps contextualize what is happening in Europe at the time. Some readings for you: The Nietzsche Reader by Keith Ansell-Pearson, Existentialism: Basic Writings by Charles Guignon, Modern Philosophy: An Anthology of Primary Sources by Roger Ariew, Sickness onto Death and Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard, and of course Nietzsche's own work.
@@bubpup321 I very much appreciate this my friend
What gave me fresh insights into Nietzsche was reading Carl Jung. Jung had a lot to say about him.
Excellent video, thanks 🙏
It's sort of like how people like how Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins will say "We don't need God to be moral! I know perfectly well what is right and wrong," thus missing the point entirely and making fools of themselves.
I thoroughly enjoyed your video. Thank you
Who’s here after watching Richard Dawkins’s self declaration as a “cultural Christian”?
‘don’t throw the baby out with the bath water,
One cannot understand an internal combustion engine without first understanding fire.
One cannot understand man without first understanding predators.
Nietzsche, in particular, didn't realize that helping uncle John's broken leg would eventually help everyone or else we would have it.
The udea if living the sane life over and over again sounds like a very scary episode of ' One Step Beyond ' to me 😱
Awesome video!
Outstanding video. Thanks
You don’t need to throw the bath water out with the baby.
I think its "you dont throw the baby out with the bath water" lol
This was marvelous. Thank you. I heard a lecture on Deleuze’s interpretation of Neitchze. The relationship with Marx would be interesting. As an anthropologist I would say that morality comes out of our biology and society, so the continuity is not a surprise. Not a philosophical arguments. Thanks.
Great Video! I have a lot to think about. It does not make me happy to have the knowledge you transpired in this video. But hopefully it is good for something. I hope my thought process will lead me somewhere fruitful and productive. Thanks so much for the work you put in to create this! Nietzsche is truly strange and thought provoking. I dont know what to do with his philosophy to be honest. Where does it lead us? It is so unsatisfying to deal with his philosophy sometimes. Theres no end, no goal, no red line. Or maybe I just dont see it. I can just ponder and ponder about it every day.
Nietzsche was looking for a problem to criticise, engineers and practical English philosophy can accept "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
Morals are a social construct, it seems naïve to expect some absolute justification for them beyond a consensus of ideals with a quorum.
They're not mathematics to be discovered but expectations of what a society finds constructive and science has found examples of apparently altruistic behaviour even in other species. It appears shallow of Nietzsche to be dependant on a god, rather than understand how communities operate
@@RobBCactive Thanks for that answer! So do you think morals are in our nature? Are the morals we apply today just a natural thing caused by evolution? Or what do you mean it appears shallow of Nietzsche to be dependant on a god?
@@timotoys Well things like fairness and support appear natural within an in-group but people can also be hostile to an out-group. People with power often abuse it, but in general it is better to get along and be perceived as "good". A key is reputation and trust, which is why relative anonymity online leads to so much "classy" behaviour, selfishness has few consequences.
Atheists don't see any problem in accepting societal norms which are beneficial, Nietzsche seems hung up on needing some authority that declares morality. But if you look at how many claimed Christians actually behave and talk, you'll see some of the most un-Christian attitudes.
@@RobBCactive Nietzsche does not seek a new God. There is no objectivity in morality. We humans are limited in our perception of reality, which is indeed objective. Your truth, and my truth, are simply our perceptions of what we believe to be reality. And where does morality arise from if not truth? Our truth? My truth? How can we decide if something is good or bad if not for calculating it's precise value as well as we can in accordance to our observations, our experience, our truth, our emotions and passions. We can be aware that our truth is not objective and faulty, but we still believe in it and act upon it as if it were objective. Thus our morality isn't good or bad, it is simply the expression of the self, as we can't possibly attest that it is or not the objective reality. Perhaps one of your virtues is evil according to my truth. Thus morality is unique and only tied to the individual that created it. The will of the individual. The will to power is merely the mechanism by which the individual expresses his morality, his truth upon reality. A reiteration of the universe, or what we perceive of it atleast. For that, power is necessary. One must be able to have power in any way, in order to exert it. Not just power in dominance or subjugation, strength, but creating art, overcoming one's obstacles, challenging societies norms and creating new values in the process, and the pursuit of knowledge. Power is just a currency for change. Thus, in order to impose your morality upon reality, one needs power. And as an individual is not like the root of a tree, but instead like a flowing river, constantly in change, so is the individuals morality. He does not argue for a morality that justifies existance. Instead it is being yourself, seperate from all ideologies and religions and pre existing moral frameworks. It is to embody the spirit of creation, innovation. The continual questioning of the existing values that are presented to you in your life by society and all else. And then imposing your unique view upon reality in whatever way possible. That is what life is. Thus to seek power, is to seek life. All that affirms power is life, all that denies it is against life.
GREAT work
English psyche in line with Roman , Stoic mindset ,tends to be sensible and realistic distancing oneself from emotional / romantic attitudes towards both the mundane as well as the intellectual realm .
The odd thing is that the stoic and sensible Englishman is a rather recent development. Before the 19th century the English were seen by other Europeans as a passionate and overly emotional people.
Take Sir Francis Drake as an example. One does not circumnavigate the Earth in the 1570s because one is of a sensible and realistic temperament.
@@KageMinowara likewise with the Germans being regarded as uptight rule-followers.
literally incorrect
I'm sure the inhabitants of the various Mediterranean tourism islands would agree that the English are a stoic and sensible people.
@@Captain_Chair Ha, ha, ha, that was a good one and made me wonder .
Brilliant analogies, thank you!
What is the painting at 4:04 (name of artist/painting)?
How can someone think science and Christianity are against each other? How does Darwinism contradict Christianity?
I agree, it doesn't. In fact when I studied molecular biology at university, the sheer complexity and unthinkable amount of random chances and events at the atomic level needed to forma single cell, the efficiency of the motor-like ATPase enzyme, countless things before evolution even, almost lends itself to a creator more than disproving one.
At the time a lot of Europeans took the idea of 'survival of the fittest' from Darwinism, and started applying it to human society and ethics (this is called Social Darwinism). It was seen as a scientific rejection of the Christian emphasis on charity and the idea of all humans being equal under God, and was one of the most significant factors in the very popular eugenics movement, scientific racism, and eventually things like Nazi racial ideology.
It doesn’t. One objection I have to this video is that in referencing Charles Darwin and evolution, it described it as a perspective that removed the hand of God from creation. It certainly does not do that, nor did Darwin think that it did so, nor were many Christians before and after Darwin opposed to the possibility of such ideas. St Augustine even suggested in Confessions that the Creation myth in Genesis may be intended to be interpreted allegorically. Doing so leaves no contradiction with evolution, or other theories of the creation of earth or the universe. He wrote this over 1000 years before Darwin.
So God created humans and animals to suffer to further some evolution when he could desing everything perfect since the beginning?
@@TommyTipexa intelligent creator would try to make things simple. Over complexity is a sign that there is no Creator. While humanity is always trying to simplifie things, the universe becomes more complex. So God is not guiding the universe, or he is doing against the common sense.
I find it fascinating that nineteenth century men thought themselves so enlightened yet they failed to understand the Bible and Christianity and the nature of nature. Claiming to be the epitome of knowledge a study finds only ignorance.
He was a Romanticist - which basically means he could get nothing done.
Could you make videos on the topics of "democracy" and "free will" ?
Did Nietzsche have a solution to the Euthyphro dilemma? Or did he just ignore it?
In your understanding of Nietzsche, instead of saying yes to reliving your exact same life over and over again (which sounds like a hell not because of the suffering but because the repetition) but say yes to another life that while not exactly the same but have just as much or perhaps bit more or a bit less suffering?
It’s very explicitly the exact same life, down to the smallest quantum fluctuation.
That would just be another hinterwelt. If you believe there is a life better than this (realm of God, Reincarnation), and you want that instead of this life, them you are already a nihilist.
Even if you are reborn in a world with suffering, you still have the chance to have a better life than this one.
So the question only make sense if it refers to this life, not another.
Indeed, I agree with Nietzsche, I can't take seriously a culture that puts butter in their croissant.
what's wrong about that?
@@ekesandras1481Croissant is literally the most buttery bre..nevermind. Have a nice day
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 It's the same principle as drowning already fried potatoes in mayonaise. Some things are never enough.
Or that puts sexually abused girls seeking police help in the custody of strange pakistani men.
It's the little things that make a culture...
@@SycokayTrue that! When the sense of balance is missing in a diet of a culture, it’s a good sign that the arts has not been perfected yet
Nietzsche was dualistic. Ubermench balances imagination with stone cold reality. Scientific investigation with being a poet.
Plato and Aristotle truly were the greatest effort posters of all time.
I think there is a kind of natural law and to be in harmony with it produces best outcomes. Hard to always know what that is but you can feel it when in the flow of things.
The only natural law is death and war, so in a way you're correct, but likely not in the way you think.
Great summary!
The explanation is that human morality created Christianity, not Christianity created human morality, so it will never change much across religions or civilizations. Morality is a middle ground between reputation and self interest. It would only be a real problem if we were immortals, because in this case we wouldn't be constrained by physical needs and our morality would be a matter of choice. But as long as we need to survive, we are as moral as we have to, to achieve that. And as immoral as we need to, because we fear pain and death. God adds an afterlife to be considered, but do people ever considered it as certainty? I think the pressures of the material world always outweighed the mere possibility of an afterlife.
We all know that we were created moral creatures. The whole problem is justifying what we know and placing it on an unassailable foundation. How can we demand moral behavior in a world containing powerful people who are willing to go against their better natures?
@@JackPullen-ParadoxWe are just a large pile of, over its life time, increasingly unperfectly self-reproducing proteins. In order to get the physical resources needed for keeping this process going, we do everything - even acting morally sometimes.
But everyone is inmortal. Just some people on the West sometimes fear death, and I'm tired of pretending that's normal, it's not.
@@salvador.garcia Epicurus said around 250 BC that when we exist, death is not, and when death exists, we are not. Aristotle seemed to believe something similar. So, it didn't start with the current bunch. These two did not appear to fear death, however.
Nietzche is not against laws or morality. But the specifics of christian morality (ascetism, castity, no pursue of glory, humility, etc) is what Nietzche is against it.
Every society is against murder and robbery, this is not the same as christian morality since there is more to christian morality than just "dont steal, dont murd3r".
Fascinating, and sort of the theological/moral reverse equivalent of English constitutional monarchy, i.e. kings/queens without actual kings/queens!
This is where my views diverge from his. Moral codes are created by people in the first place to keep ourselves safe, so we have good reasons to retain them.
I can see how this type of philosophy can go totally haywire so easily though.
I find it difficult to reconcile nietzche because this type of philosophy can be used to justify anything.
I think revaluing all values is important, but am I wrong in my evaluation of nietzche?
No, because Nietzche is not in favor of a lawless society. Pagans societies had laws too.
This is dope 🤘
When Nietzsche was writing, lots of British had turned into Hegelians.
Had Nietzsche been Gaud, he would have eradicated humanity.
I think this entire era of philosophy will be completely ignored in a thousand years, and that classical Greek philosophy will still be explored.
100%, there is more wisdom in just one school of greek philosophy than most anything in the past 400 years
@@TommyTipex It kind of makes me question the wisdom we have been operating under for the past couple of centuries.
are you familiar with Apolloism and REM theory proposed by Mark Brahmin?
I think its important to put Nietzsche's ideas into cultural context like this, for me it reveals their idiocy. As with many German philosophers, he was hell bent on the destruction of the old world order, be that politically or philosophically. This German idealism was and still is counter-cultural in a needlessly contrarian way, and its clear how the Nietzschean mode of thinking leads to the perversion of scientific theories through ideas like racial theory and eugenics.
The British, through pragmatic and humble "middle road" philosophy were able to hold onto the truths of the past (no British intellectuals are foolish/arrogant enough to let go of past morality), while using technological and intellectual advancement to their advantage. That ability has unfortunately now been lost in post-WWII Britain.
Useful video.
I guess I’m one of the Ubermen then because I would relive my life again and again forever and ever for eternity
Try watching a film ten times then let's talk.
Very funny that someone should decide that they are special and above other humans.
@@beltigussin81but if you dont know you are relieving the same life, it still counts?
Of course since you are reborn again you would have no previous memories of your life. If you had, it could do other choices and them would not even be the same life again. So the eternal recurrance can only happen if you dont know about your previous life. Thus the boredom argument dont apply.
As an Englishman I would have watched the whole video but I had to make some tea and cucumber sandwiches and play some croquet on the lawn.
Are there numerous contrasting moralities available out there? Were the prior practices all that foreign?
Nietzsche hated Kant because Kant produced a damning “critique of pure reason”… yet went on to produce an “objective” verification of his presupposed moral worldview (the irony is unmatched… Kant could see the promise land, but couldn’t enter it himself)
In other words, Kant acknowledges the importance, value and accuracy of the secular, materialist worldview… yet was unwilling or unable to apply his “critique of pure reason” to moral philosophy the way he applies it to natural philosophy
If Kant had applied his critique of pure reason inwardly to his moral worldview, he would have seen what Nietzsche saw… that is a universe without absolute morality… a universe where good behavior has NO bearing on material outcomes
Didn't Neitch eventually go insane? He went too far down the rabbit hole battling the infinite and got lost somewhere in his own mind.
he probably suffered from a brain tumor just as his father did
He had an illness
He was an incel
7:18.... Nietzsche doesn´t mean, that god was needlessly, because of science. That is, what parallel also happends, but totaly without god, nobody can exist - unless he´s godly enough himself.
Nietzsche meant it diferent. Becauae, in his times, some scientific knowledge and capabilitys were made, that had a dramatic consequence for the brains oif humans. There was the nuclear science (and the knowledge about atoms and also the diferent types of Isotopes) and tghe thing with chemical synthesis of nervpoisons. Both had a dramatic consequence for brains. Metallions for stabilization of brainnetworks, and chemical synthesis of nervepoison for the possibikity to regulate brainactivity (for better integration of metalions).
And Nietzsche meant his randomly guy seaking this strange words (gods dead. And human killed him) as a knowledge about what is realy happend: theneurodegeneration in his (and many other peoples brains, because of to much neuroactivity and networkstabilization, that overburdened the organic capability of brain-cells).
So, what degenerated in hunmans brains, is primary the main networks of gods consciouseness out of the individual brain. Not, that science killed god, because humans knew it better after developement in schience. And, if yiou not have anymore yur individual connection to god (because god degenerated out of your brain), you also turn extrovert and literaly search for something meaningfull outside of you, because inside there is nothing anymore. And most possibly, Nietzsche himself got that problem....and in later times, he got problems with his mental derangement..... as a sign of realy to much degeneration.
And its also sort of unfortunate pointe, because Nietzsches Father was a christian parson. And...christians have that main idea in their liturgy: they will bring the spirit (of jesus) in the peoples. And they did it over hundrets of years via metalsalt (Lead(II)acetat possibly) baked in the hosts for the gods service...And either Nietzsche pilfered some (to much) oblates from his father or christian familiys espacialy as a member of the church´s personal (parson f ex.) back then were very ambitious with their childs (and poisoned him to much) - at least that is suggesting the very distinct phenomen, that many childs of a parson-family became very famouse for something in the intellectual sphere. Just as Nietzsche, there were many famouse humans, that had parents (mostly fathers) as a parson, and that may came from the narrowness to that hosts and the christian practice, that they want to bring the spirit over the peoples with hosts for the gods service....and unfortunately those later famouse sons got a bit to much from it...
And for some reason the british became cautiouse to do that, because as they did that exessively since 1478 (George Rippley - and his public message, that he knew the recipe of the "stone of wisdom" (in england more known as the "philosophers stone" (and meant most probably the recipe of Lead(II)acetat), they got a dramatic problem from it: the english sweet broke out first around 1485 (as an ursupator ran over the kingdom and stole the crown almost without resistance. Because they (upper class) immediately got sick, as the ursupator landed at the cornwall-coast.
And there is another example in history: as 1908 the tunguska-event happend, that also poored out uge amount of heavy ions over the northern hemisphere and made them crazy (and as a not lfar later consequence: the spanish flu broke out....what was a mixed circumstance out of Tunguska pooring heavy ions over populations and the first world war using uge amount of chemical weapons).
And also, that Rippley anouncement of the "philosophers stone" was cause of the protestant rebellion and the founding of the "jesus" focussing....mybe, because they all lost their intrinsic connection to god, so there was no other way to "be in touch with god" (over the holy spirit via his so, who made it possible to stabilize, whats left of god in their brains).
So, god was killed in the brains of peoples, not killed by new ideology (science), that made the religion unnecessary. Both together are also self-amplifying processes for a "free mind" to find meaning in secular or scientific ideology (and many thing in science back then were already ideologys...because not very acurate and true, but some new knowledge was in it).
In that scenario the 1485 "english sweet" for the british was the same, as the 1908 tunguska caused the civilizational breakdown for the middle europeans (first and second world war - and of course the spanish flu for all). And if you will so, then every plaque is a sign, that god is dying and then peoples get sick and die also. But.... primary, there is only Nietzsches experience of neurodegeneration and his knowledge about the problem of christian strategy to bring the holy spirit over al humans....with that metalsalt-oblates. I mean, it can explain, why Nietzsche wasn´t very enthused about christianity, because he has experienced, what christianity did hundrets of years with their believers....unfortunately a bit to much....
And only for noticing: Tschernobyl and Fukushima is in principle exactly the same cause of getting crazy and population-wide mass-psychosis.....just as the Tunguska-Event did it. And the Rippley-consequence did it (in a slightly diferent way - they firstly became in fact more intelligent and over all got more power over others....until the french ursuopator came over, who was more grown together with french catholic strategy of spiritual developement, that was sort of more stable in regards to the british population).
The hole pointe is, that such a highly heavy ion-contamination cause a "zombification" of godly creatures.....and that may can cause a even more "demonstrative belief in god (or alternativlyin his son, jesus, as it is usual under protestants).
And maybe th eonly cause of the dinosauers exstinction wasn´t extreme enviormental distruction by asteroid-impact, rather by producing ugely amounts of heavy ions via a process, that happend sometimes, if platin191 is contained in an impactor (platin191 will change itself to iridium191 via electron capturing - a nuclear decay-event of a uge amount of material. And that iridium was found in many geological layers of the earth and conoted to the impact, is today factual wisdom...or most possible truth. I mean, that typical "airbursts" didnot happend because of friction at the atmosphere, rather by sudden initiated process of something very powerfull. It did not burn away layer for layer, rather explodes in one ugely expansion and that only does in that extend a nuclear process. Albeit the Chicxolub-asteroid did in fact impacting in the earth crust, but that may is due to the immense mass of the impactor, whilest the latest tscheljabinsk airbursts was only some tonnes of material. And uge Mass maybe can change the reaction-threshold of that decay process of platin191 to iridium191 - whyever that happend at all).
Is morality a con? That's up to you to explore and decide and it'll inform you whether, ultimately, you agree or oppose Nietzsche's political campaign.
If morality is a con, then there's nothing wrong with being conned.
Thank you for this video; it was well done. I just wanted to emphasize a couple of things to make clearer Nietzsche's criticism of English moral philosophy. The best place to see this criticism in action is the 1st essay of The Genealogy of Morals and section 5 of Beyond Good and Evil, which is entitled "Natural History of Morals." You quite rightly pointed out Nietzsche's statement that "they [the English moral philosophers] have got rid of the Christian God and now feel obliged to cling more fervently to Christian morality." But why should this be so? What is going on here? Nietzsche thinks this is a natural and inevitable result of Christianity itself. Consider this: "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Christian dream were true? The question is moot. For to be a true Christian one must deny the tenability of Christianity. One must weigh the evidence; one must not deceive oneself or others. The moral atheist is the one true Christian -- for his conscience tells him that he cannot believe in an apparent falsehood. He holds "truth" above immortality -- that is, the conceptual possibility of immortality. If it wasn't for the tyranny of his need for righteousness, he would acquiesce to such a sweet seduction as the Christian afterlife. Most men would prefer a map for the soul. They want everything charted out beforehand. Man as God -- alone, embattled -- is, even for a second, a positive evil. And yet they are forced by their conscience to arrive at this position." Can you see here that Nietzsche's criticism of these English philosophers is just one instance of his deconstruction of the notion of "truth" and its desirability. He isn't so much concerned with these Englishmen as he is with that assumption which underlies all of Western philosophy since Socrates: that truth is desirable in itself and is preferable to falsehood. This last point is brought out clearly in his essay "On Truth and Falsity in their Ultramoral Sense."
There are some moral proclamations in the Holy Scripture that I utterly disagree with and which should be incorporated into a secular moral framework. Yet still, there are some that every rational human being should accept as good for the secular project.
It is an interesting perspective Nietzsche has. I think the vast majority of people retain the core aspects of Christian morality but the real question is that internal and specific to Humans or is it enforced by religion. Given many societies have independently developed similar moral frameworks I would tend to say the former. Though I concede that religion may be the institution humanity has invented to enforce this morality and as Nietzsche believes over time the absence of religion will cause moral degradation.
When we say “Nietzsche hated this or that” I think anyone who actually read Nietzsche sees that this is kind of nonesense. Nietzsche’s writing is poetic and provocational but not very systematic. Who knows what he really thought? Even if he gives a critique of one idea on one page, he may come back later and revise it, or more likely he will take issue with the naive alternative to the thing he critisized, like a lot of his sentences are of the form “such and such is bad, but the absence of it is even worse” like it’s made to provoke thought (I guess) but it’s not ever really clear that he takes a simplistic stance on an issue
My philosophy is you can believe in god you don't have to go to church to believe in him or be religious
I personally don't believe in religion or any of the books written these books could have written by anyone with their own ideology on the path people should walk on?
Like sins
It does not take a book or religion that something is right and wrong it's conscience which tells us that
Any right-minded person with common sense knows right from wrong
I'm under the impression that most of humanity shares the same basic system.. the 10 commandments would stay in place without god because they're all things people know are wrong on our own.. when you steal, cheat, kill or lie, you feel sick, your conscience bothers you.. these things being pointed out as sins are mostly universally accepted on their own, development into religion is sure to follow
History disagrees
The first law and second law is to worshipp only God. So this law already is against every country that supports freedom of religion.
The third and fourth laws are religious law that you can follow yourself, but cannot impose on others (a thing the commandements demand), so two more useless laws.
The 5 law is not a law in any country. Kids should respect their parents if they respect them too.
The other 5 laws are the only laws that are followed by countries (way before the Hebrews by the way, because they are the most basic laws there is, everyone had these).
So what is special in these laws again? They are either teocracy, or laws that everyone followed since away.
There are deeper reasons for this Anglo-Saxon moral superficiality. Anglo culture enshrines a weird kind of secular puritanism, which underpins modern Woke culture. Also, Christian morality is very useful for maintaining the class system and other social functions, which explains the elite's reflexive attachment to it.
Ironically, even "Zarathustra" mimics Christian orthodoxy. He is a Moses-like figure.
My biggest issue with Nietzsche is that he only looks at the Christian morality where it agrees and ignores the portions where it disagrees.
There's a simple argument to refute that. There is a core human morality and Christianity includes much of that, but it also added portions which aren't human morality. And those are the portions that many Christians cast aside
You don't need a god to create the universe with laws. You just need the universe to exist with laws. You don't need a god to say that murdering each other isn't good for survival. You just need to understand that being killed is bad, so everyone agrees to not kill each other, so it decreases the odds of the individual being killed.
But if you have a god that says killing certain people is OK, then you get people breaking human morality because they believe they're serving a higher morality
If there is no God then all morality is entirely subjective. We each become our own gods. We end up following our own desires - regardless of what it means to others.
I think Nitche's reference was to Adam Smith version of morality and his hypocratic approach to morality.
English philosophy is important, though not that important to create the analytical/continental divide. That just actually reveals a bit of English provincialism
Nietzsche's "solution" for this problem, i.e. the will to power is such a bs concept and so easily seen through. "The craving for material goods (power) is not so much due to the direct pleasures of wealth, as none can be seated on more than one chair or eat himself more than sated. Rather, the value of a fortune to life consists in the rich opportunities for anchoring and distraction offered to the owner." - P. W. Zapffe
This is why all the homies dislike Nietzshe, god forbid philosophers build upon moral discussion thinking rather than just going 'whats the point, we havent changed everything and become completely different creatures'
" shop keepers"
😅😅😂
In the Gospels the Kingdom of Heaven refers to a time on earth, not another imaginary world. In Luke 17 Jesus connects it to the time of the "Son of Man" (which is a title for Jesus himself, but also to a more perfect future evolution of mankind). Check out Luke 17:24 (KJV): " For as the lightning flashes and lights up the heavens from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in His day." It sounds like Nietzsche describing the overman, and that's not an out of context coincidence.
Nietzsche was still surrounded on all fronts by an overwhelming Christian religious mindset. All world religions have similar “moral values” so even if Christianity was to be erased overnight, there still will be a similar moral structure for stability of the individual in his/her interactions with others. The best survival of the individual in this chaotic world is to behave toward others as you would want them to behave toward you. A simple eye for and eye; if someone lies to you, or tries to harm you, then you must retaliate in kind…for self preservation and survival of the rational fittest.
Nietzsche is arguing that all of these moral systems are inherently wrong, whether they be based in Christianity or not, that without God all morality is subjective and baseless. Therefore, the new man who has freed himself from religion should not turn to some form of secular morality to fill the gap Christianity left, but should forge his own values and become the ubermench.
Not that I agree with him, but that's what he's arguing.
Was morality a problem for the Germanic?
If no, what different path / thought insulated them from this problem?
Did Nietzsche single out the English culture, and if so, how was it different here to Germanic?
I’d say England has lost its moral compass. Much of that loss, I believe is a lack of leadership within Church of England by the likes of Arch Bishop Welby, who seems to want to placate all and sundry. But not Christians.
i suggest you to read this short text, easily found on the Internet: "nietzsche, france, and england."
As an Englishman i must say it sounds like Nietzsche should have read more Edmund Burke.
Nietzsche hated just about everything though.
Bad Conscience of their time…
But unlike many, he loved Life.
My counterpoint would be that this morality evolved independently many times on earth, and the vestigial organ example is not perfectly functional, as it still preserves its function, keeping the collective and individuals alive, and happy, our goals and morality are a mix of natural and socially created characteristics, that have adapted naturally, some parts of Christian morality may have been FROM "Christian culture", such as sodomy, as an example, which has evolved in some cultures, and LGBT individuals accepted in other cultures.
Now you can take the Aztecs and their sacrifice as a counter-example. Still, again, these morals are socially taught and can be removed from the culture is seen as more of a burden for a culture/people, such as many originally Christian ideals that have slowly faded in Europe and European North America, the modern Christian and the Christian from rome would've been worlds apart.
again this is just my opinion so please be respectful ^.^
All his big-brained insights are in the English poets, mystics and divines (most of whom he never read). Slave morality to the masters, for example. How the weak invented ideals of restraint and mercy to avenge themselves on the strong. Shakespeare's Richard III lays it out, where it is appropriate. In the mouth of a hunchbacked maniac on the brink of defeat. Nietzsche was brilliant but ridiculous in his later strong egoic phase.
thank you!
Interesting video. I agree with his assessment of the fact that the abolishment of the believing in the supernatural has not really been fully acknowledged by society. All the other stuff about the uebermensch, is just childish ranting.
I know near nothing about philosophy. But listening to bit and bobs as made think there is not one philosophy without personal bais. And that is a problem... I suppose there a philosophy about this fact..
I agree that most of philosophy is just people attempting to rationalize the worldviews they already have, rather than truly starting with an open mind. That said, there is certainly a lot of insight to be had from each philosophy; I think a true lover of wisdom ("philosopher") should constantly be exploring new ideas and questioning their deepest beliefs. Every philosophy has something to offer, but no philosophy is complete, and we should resist the temptation to latch onto any singular ideology as the whole truth. When you get too wrapped up in the internal logic of a single ideology, it detaches you from the real world, leading to the sort of ideological extremism that dominated the politics of the 20th century.
@thenew4559 with my very limited knowledge of Freud I would had is take on human sexual repression is total rubbish and somewhat dangerous seeing how this is pushed as gold standard... so I say philosophy can be dangerous as well as useful..
Can’t help feeling that the rather pedestrian approach of the English yet-to-be moralists stands a better chance of making sense than the age of the übermensch. For the latter there is simply no evidence, while for the former, if god is dead, then maybe he didn’t invent Christian morality anyway, so we still have a chance of investigating who did. But then I’m somewhat sceptical of “grand philosophy” even though it is quite amusing?
Too ban Nietzsche didn't get to read Ragnar Redbeard (Arthur Desmond - English guy).
nietzsche was 200 years ahead of his time. one only has to look
at europe now to see how the utter confusion created by the death
of god has come to fruition
What about the Genealogy of Nietzsche's philosophy? His father died when he was young; his brother died when he was young; his father was a preacher; he felt privileged; he is bitter.
next do 'why the English still hate Nietsche'
that stuff about the ubermensch saying "yes" to being stuck in the same loop forever is so stupid and wrong, i have to side with the anglo on that one...maybe i'm missing something??
also, he doesnt see the timeless laws that christianity is trying to approiximate...its as though he thinks its just a religion someone made up 2,000 yrs ago...
there are some wrong premises Nietzsche made : 1. god is the base of morality (it is not) 2. Ubermensch like some kind of singularity (there are plenty of them in the proletarian space and even in the utilitarian anglo-saxon world) 3. one needs a refrigerator is way more important than one needs an appropriate book
@@nps3b very good. as i like to say, "ubermensch is dickless" lol
The eternal loop is not something he believed, nor something someone needs to believe. Is just a cool question: if you want to relieve your life, them your life is good. If you dont want to relieve it, them your life is bad and you should improve it. Is just that type of question to hype people to improve themselves, not the foundation of his philosophy.
And what timeless law christianity has? Dont steal and dont murd3r? Every society has these. Jesus actually prohibits divorce, and christianity has no law regarding slavery. No western country today supports these things. And with Old testament laws, with its stoning to d3ath and teocracy, would be illegal in every country in this world if someone tried to put that into the legal system.
@@sonofcronos7831 you dont get what i said. nvm
@@natmanprime4295 you literaly just said that is "stupid amd wrong" and gave no reason of why it is stupid and wrong.
Oh a new video I see?!!!
What Nietzsche did not understand about Religion and morality and wisdom and why the English continued to follow Religious wisdom even after they abandoned religion was that morality and wisdom did not come from religions, religions stole it from the knowledge and wisdom gained over thousands of generations of hard-won existence and experience, and, not giving such hard-won wisdom any credit, religions claimed it as their own.
Ties in with the book Dominion by Tom Holland .
This ethical insouciance is not exclusive of the English... the prosaic English.
he uber man is next week , with A.I. brain and bio-engineered body , it will live IN PLACE OF our current understanding of "human"
who could have guessed 100 yrs. ago where "gawdless" science would take us , but N's intuition was pretty dang good
i wonder , if confronted with this "reality" , he'd approve ; but i'd guess he'd have to say yes
I do not find this vision inspiring. You say near the end that the quest of the Victorian thinkers was impossible, but the Ubermensch might be impossible, too. I don't think radical individualism can be the summum bonum. Characteristic of this idea is the reduction of value to power. But power in itself is not a thing of value. It's only the ability to get something done. We have to decide what is valuable to accomplish. Power is an accessory to that, not something that replaces it.
word Ubermench ate millions