Without the Slave Morality, we wouldn't have the drive to uplift the species and move towards the next level of civilization. Without the Master Morality, we'd just become a bunch of indolent monks. With both, in tense conflict, we can expand our civilization to the stars.
Nah, not really. Nietzsche was wrong and slave morality is literally pure pathology which must be absolutely discarded out of the gene pool. We live in 2024 and is time to discard the opinions of philosophers who based their statements on pure assumptions without evidence and we should stick to the hard data that we can verify with our technological progress.
We’ve ‘expanded our civilisation’ to blindly steamroll us into causing the 6th mass extinction, so I’d posit progress wasn’t as progressive as we once thought.
Great video once again, very rare to find RUclipsrs that actually have a deep understanding of Nietzsche, as opposed to just giving some cliched corny self-help misinterpretation of him. Thanks.
i guess when viewed through the lense of "will to power"... then, yes... cruelty... but i think the resentment of the weaker for the stronger is the ultimate source of the mentality, no?
Right, like the idea that the master is incapable of true cruelty because cruelty requires some sort of awareness, which the master lacks. It's the slaves overabundance of awareness that renders him impotent and, therefore, ultimately resentful
@Iightbeing Yeah I've been thinking about that concept a lot lately and what the exact definition of cruelty is in that context. For example, how would you compare the masters "cruelty" to the slaves. I think Nietzsche believed that the slaves cruelty was resentment that was disguised as love and compassion, designed to shame the powerful. Whereas the masters "cruelty" isn't really cruel at all. It's only cruel from the perspective of the slave. Basically the master is incapable of cruelty and any perceived cruelty perpetrated by the master would be purely inadvertent
You really do have an incredible talent for delving into the details of Nietzsche, whom I have always loved. You take a systematic approach, and I find your arguments so original and compelling. Thanks for another great video.
An interesting thing I just realized while watching this video. Ever since I first read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, when I was 21 or so years old, I have never again portrayed myself as a victim to anyone. I have never again wanted other's pity, and I felt extremely embarrassed when, perhaps in very rare occasions, I have displayed weakness.
Voltaire’s quote is a great segue into Nietzsche’s notion of truth as error, yet a necessary valuation for the continuation (becoming) of will to power.
If strength is in cunning that feeds upon weakness, then the strong can exist in and subsistence upon the weakest--and in fact seek a society in which moral weakness is utmost.
Innocence is the end of thinking. The end of thinking brings freedom from the past, from the burden of memory. Innocence cannot be attained through philosophizing; it is a quality of being that must simply be rediscovered, not invented. The only truly moral individual is one who does not know they are moral.
As an atheist or agnostic (don’t know which label is more accurate), I think that Christian morality definitely played a role in civilizing Europe. It eliminated slavery within Europe and likely made the rich more charitable with the poor, gave leaders the fear of judgement, enforced monogamy (less sexual competition to monopolize all the women, less intersex conflict, better cooperation with other men). You get folks in England like Josiah Wedgwood concerned with the well-being of his workers in a way that maybe in a non-Christian Europe would exist. You get people questioning slavery in a way that never happened in the Muslim world purely from a guilty conscience. You get people commuted to public service in ways that are exceptional. King George 3 was genuinely interested in talking to farmers and knowing how they lived to not be out of touch. Fredrick of Prussia was trying to get people on the potato because he genuinely cared about food security. When I watch rap videos and see this vulgar glorification of wealth and shit that even our billionaires don’t engage in, I wonder if our ancestors in the Viking age were similar, with their stupid jewelry and bragging about murdering more than someone else. Where would we be without Christian morality? Would we be as bad as the trashiest rappers?
Could you explain the part about Muslim world? Cause I thought you were talking about Christianity in Europe. Also, I have trouble understanding your sentence
The tension between the unconscious innocence of the past and the conscious guilt of the present sounds remarkably similar to Hegel and even Mao (see: 'On Contradiction') with regards to the development of history, or "The Unfolding of the Absolute."
I've come to similar conclusions after recently studying that Zarathustra section in Ecce Homo. I think it's my new favorite piece by him. He really lays everything out.
The tension of the bowstring can be seen from a person such as Pascal, who was for Nietzsche a superb combination of a noble man who incarnates the slave morality par excellence. It also interesting that Nietzsche wrote that France is « the most christian country » in so far as because they were the most loyal christian’s, they are also it’s best adversary. See dawn. Here we have the premise in one of my favorite Nietzschean ideas that « He who attains his ideal, precisely thereby surpasses it. » And that is precisely why Nietzsche does not advocate for a return of a master morality.
Would you ever consider exploring Nietzsche’s philosophy in relation to Buddhism? The channel Seeker to Seeker covers the overlap and I’d be interested in what your thoughts would be on it.
@@untimelyreflectionshey, I think you might be interested in a book on this topic called "Robert G Morrison - Nietzsche and Buddhism, a study in nihilism and ironic affinities" easy to find online
great video, NPG!!... i love your long-form lectures... but, honestly, your shorter ones are much better... i enjoy listening to them a few times in a row while performing other online tasks... love the visual content/classical artwork... much appreciated art thou thusly!
15:18 That passage makes clear he isn't attempting a change in the definition of decadence. He is pointing out the decline of the human condition. Man can take what is good and conflate a certain value (twisted into propaganda and cultish mantras) with the power of a social position, which, in his estimation, is contrary to good. He would be jumping up and down, asking why nobody understood him were he alive today to witness how many had read his books. He understood institutional propaganda before it was mass produced.
@@chrisvarva9847 the term "decadence" is sort of charged and can mean different things depending on who you ask. And Nietzsche does have a somewhat unique take on the phenomenon, why it occurs and how it affects civilization.
Ever gave some thought into looking into Thelema's connection with Nietzsche? There definitely is some resonance between Crowley and Nietzsche, maybe you are familiar with him through Messa.
I have a lot of Christian friends that I love dearly but they struggle to grasp this concept when we debate with each other, I'm not trying to change their minds or win, but reach understanding between our different views on life. Not sure if I'm just bad at conveying it but now I can put all that work onto this video, kekw! Cheers!
I disagree with a lot of the assertations about Christianity. To begin with, most of the complaints are about the Roman Catholic empire, with Catholicism itself being a bastardized mix of Judeo-Christianity and the then popular Pagan religions, which had to be done after the Christian uprising. The Romans took the religion, bastardized it, then used it to further it's power and control over whoever they invaded next. This included killing *actual* Christians for "heresy," preventing the largely uneducated populace from actually reading the bible, and then also keeping literacy rates down. Eventually leading to Martin Luther reading and recognizing the bible is actually for the people, they don't need to tithe, they don't need to punish themselves, they can't be excommunicated from God, etc. and he left and started his own heretic movement where he actually taught the bible to people. As a big example, the "holier than thou" crowd are hypocrites and actively going against the book's teachings. The *entire* point of everything Jesus said is mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. He often condemned priests and "holy men" for their corruption. I thing the biggest thing is on both sides people haven't actually read the bible.
does the acceptance of determinism nowadays prove that we have already entered the extra moral age? I think the acceptance of things like mental illnesses or sexual orientations are possibly the strongest example of how we implement this understanding of determinism, although we havent completed this application on everyone, since we still ascribe similar moralist claims towards bigotry or other things we still see as evil. That probably isnt so far away though, maybe a few decades more.
I would say that many people intellectually accept determinism without actually considering the way that they act against that knowledge in their daily lives. Often there is a big song and dance to somehow hold onto things like morality, guilt, the self, and so on. A desire to “prove” that we can still have these things even with determinism. Very misguided from Nietzsche’s perspective. The whole point of the free will superstition was to make moral guilt possible; if you get rid of free will but still operate from a mental framework that imputes guilt then it doesn’t really matter. You’re just moralizing with additional steps. But that’s what most determinists do, so until we overcome that it will not represent a real change.
@untimelyreflections I think a lot of the moralist beliefs that may be seen in determinists today are held in contradiction to their more determinist beliefs. In that sense i think the change is real, but that the change is happening unevenly, at the expense of consistency.
@@untimelyreflections This is the one thing that used to frustrate me when I was a Christian. They would advocate for essentially a deterministic world view when it suited them to do so. IE God was omnipotent and not one blade of grass dies without God's direct action and all of our lives go according to His divine plan. But when it came to your personal guilt for sins and moral imperfections then all of a sudden the blame was shifted 100% to you and they would say "you have free will to choose good from evil" and you will end up in hell for eternity if you make the wrong choices. Like you said they are intellectually able to grasp the concept of fate being intrinsically fixed within the construct of reality but they have a slave's Stockholm syndrome that prevents them from embracing the implications of that reality and truly freeing themselves from the yoke they place on themselves and embracing the eternal recurrence and Amor Fati.
Hegel is lurking somewhere in the background, when you come to think of it. The master morality as thesis, the slave morality as antithesis and the (possible) dawn of an extra-moral age as synthesis. "German culture, [...] an elevation and a divining refinement of the historical sense". Indeed.
@@trambly611 If dialectics is a vehicle, then Nietzsche certainly keeps the engine running but fills it with a different type of fuel... to explore new horizons.
Opposites turn into eachother on the far ends of a spectrum, therefore if one goes far enough into guilt, he will be innocent and vice versa. It is not conscious innocence that Nietzsche wishes to cultivate, but a conscious and full acceptance of guilt, removing all hope for an innocent action. In admitting complete and total guilt and occluding the possibility of innocent conduct, the guilt/innocence conflict is transcended, freeing our conscience from the Christian dialectic all together, whilst gaining an intensification of self awareness that would not be possible without this-error-that indeed has the greatest of all merits. Great video as always, keep up the good work!
"Man is evil"-so said to me for consolation, all the wisest ones. Ah, if only it be still true today! For the evil is man's best force. "Man must become better and eviler"-so do I teach. The evilest is necessary for the Superman's best. It may have been well for the preacher of the petty people to suffer and be burdened by men's sin. I, however, rejoice in great sin as my great consolation.- Such things, however, are not said for long ears. Every word, also, is not suited for every mouth. These are fine far-away things: at them sheep's claws shall not grasp! Zarathustra, The Higher Man, stanza 5.
I love Nietzsche's psychological and societal analysis, but one thing I don't understand is his abolition of will to truth. Why does he not view this tension of the bowstring as an arrow trajectory towards a higher truth? How can we deny humanity's progress of understanding when compared to the past? When he says that the slave morality is damaging, what exactly is it damaging if all destruction has no purpose and is just a force for the sake of affirming itself? If our pursuit of truth is just will to power then how can we even question truth without proper premises?
"The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified." Oftentimes, the truth is ugly and people need lies in order to cope with reality. But it runs deeper than that; Nietzshce thinks that ever since Plato, Western philosophy has deluded itself thinking that we can find a "pure truth" or "truth-in-itself". In reality, people invent 'truth' in order to falsify reality to their advantage, or simply as to make things coherent out of an infinitely incoherent mess.
Nietzsche’s bias was that he didn’t recognize the ontological reality of objective transcendent principles such as truth, love, beauty, and the Good. Although he cherry-picked a few of these to bolster his attack on Platonism and Christianity. In his system, Master Morality takes on a pagan, Darwinian character, and he assumes this should be taken for granted, since there is no transcendence, only organisms vying with each other for physical space. Sly, but not very honest. Nietzsche wasn’t really a philosopher, he was more of a polemicist with an axe to grind. Some of his criticisms were valid though, and he was a great writer. Absolutely still worth engaging with his ideas, especially if you disagree with him.
If you start from "darwinist" assumption that all nature is just about survival through struggle, then "will to power" is all there is. All religion and ideology is just a tool for one class or nation to dominate over the other. Then Christianity is just a result of slves desire to usurp the masters. That is the only truth you need. But I fundamentally disagree with this. Christianity at the time made sense to people converting to it, it gave them answers to ultimate questions of purpose and meaning. So whether you are slve or master and you felt that these ideas make more sense to you then the ones you had before, you would convert. It doesn't matter if I or my class would gain "power". The morality just follows from people than changing behaviours according to this new purpose they are following. I like to view humans as conscious, rational begins, which darwinist-feudians obviously don't. They would say, there's always a hidden reason why someone would accept an ideology, and will to power is always behind it.
Nietzsche is so an Ayn Rand style libertarian. I'm reading Human, All Too Human alongside listening to these podcasts, and Nietzsche is all about the powerful/capable going their own way, setting up their own values and despising (looking over) the weak -- this is why he hates pity, envy, vanity, etc. These are all examples of the powerful seeking validation from the weak. He's an Ayn Randian libertarian.. Explains his aristocratism to a tee. Am I wrong?
@radfan7020 It would be strange not to see him as an individualist (he's a perspectivalist who despises the "herd" and I can quote you chapter and verse). On my further reading, I would only say he doesn't share Rand's admiration for capitalists (though he's an equal opportunity offender of socialists).
huh, you're right I did misunderstand it. Thank you for the correction, sir. The reframing of the slave morality's "evil" as being rooted in a sort of psychological blind spot that it creates thus creating further immoralities downstream of it were key.
*19:35** Noble Qur'an* مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍۢ ۖ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًۭا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٣٥ It is not [befitting] for Allāh to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
i haven't even watched the vid yet, but i think i intuitively get it. most of my ideas are intuitive currently, so take it with a grain of salt lol. you as an individual can be a slave to the system in a way that hinders you from reaching different stages of potential. so you have these inner barriers that you don't dare to confront, barriers which in and of themselves can be built by internal and external forces. basically i don't FULLY accept the "self-incurred immaturity" concept of kant, because of karl marx's introduction of material conditions (external forces). i say "fully" because of the fact that i think i understand "teleology", specifically when it comes to human actions. you have restricted "pathways" in life. some form of determinism? there's many ideas swirling in this head of mine that i'm still trying to mix and match where i think possible and "makes sense". but i think if i go to uni i will have definitive lingo and logical steps in making sure all of these concepts actually "interlink", for a lack of a better word. now to the video to see how wrong i was and how much i assumed just from the title 😁 edit: i'm so stupid i just skipped over morality part, and mostly thought about slave-master dynamic in hegelian sense probably in how you better yourself (the way i interpret that dynamic). but i think i get it. some people become leaders and other followers, no matter which "system" or a certain social bubbles within the system, a scientific field etc. but this isn't a barrier for "followers". they become their own leaders with time. now i'm specifically thinking in the terms of a scientific field. whoever becomes a leader first, is a teacher, who then passes on their understanding to followers who have "shed" the cult of revenge, in a post capitalist society. something like that?
I wonder for the 'Euclidean' and 'Pythagoreans' of which they don't preface any god or man for their rules.... Can we reconcile them with Master & Slave morality; "Plato said God geometrizes continually" - Plutarch . Quaes. Conv. 8.2
Very Interesting! I cant wait for another podcast btw. I would love to find out more about how Christianity affected our worldview as well as our morality and in which way it still does. I wonder if theres a way of separating the morality that is in our nature and the biases that were implemented by our culture. Ever since I have discovered Nietsche I have been trying to observe each and every moral judgment I came up with in order to classify it. More questions were born and I feel like I am unable to satisfy my curiousity.
I think that it would be a real innovation if we would be able to talk about what lies beyond good and bad AND good and evil in a strictly TRANSMORAL (not extramoral!) sense. If we are playing the master-slave dialectic in morality 1. we are still moralizing, 2. we are the slaves of certain values and ideals. Even the master morality can enslave people, just as the slave morality can liberate them. 3. If we stick to morality, then we should understand that the vertical hierarchy of master and slave is actually doesn't make sense here, and this is especially true today. The patriarchal, top-down relations of good and evil, noble and slave have been replaced by mechanical relations which have nothing to do with the concept of value at all!!! Rather, they are about the dynamics of forces and counterforces. They are purely physical and quantitative, materialistic and levelling. There can be no aesthetizing nobility, heroism or Nietzschean overmen here, but only consumers who are competing for resources and in showing-off, and who are only manifestations of hunger, just like the zombie is. The movie title Walking Dead was not a mere accident, because it contains this meaning too.
Guilty just means Responsible. So, if you commit a cruel act, consciously or not, it is you that is responsible for that act and it's consequences. A hero, who slays the anti-hero is a hero becauae he took it upon himsellf to do a cruel act (murder) that nobody else wanted to be burdened with or by evem though all recognised that the "bad guy had to go"
If Nietzsche understood western hermeticism and it's historical evolution from ancient Greek and Jewish mysticism or it's eastern analogs in taoism and confusionism he wouldn't be so dismissive of slave morality as he calls it. It's in the balancing of opposites and the meaning within suffering and limitations that real philosophy transmutes into virtue and values. Alchemy
I feel guilty when I act cruelly to a person who doesn't deserve it because I don't want that happening to me and in the world in general because I do believe that the world would be much better for me and everyone without cruelty and with compassion. Is this guilt unhelpful and an expression of the slave morality in me? It seems to me that guilt has its benefits but perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Even though I may not have free will, just me noticing that I acted in a way against my values and mentally punishing myself for it(with reasonable intensity of course) makes it less likely that such an act will be committed by me in the future so my self allows guilt and shame as an emotion. Is this harming me somehow?
If you start from a darwinist notion that organisms do everything in their self-interest, then it follows that even if they are being compassionate, it's just because they want someone to be compassionate to them. I disagree with this. People have a need for purpose, meaning, completely rational desire for existence to be logical and purposeful in the most ultimate sense. So if you are being cruel to the weak for no reason it just doesn't makes sense. It doesn't fit in any ideas of a purposeful existence.
@@antun88 Should also note that natural selection doesn't only apply with individuals, but also species generally. A genetic lineage may gain advantage at the expense of the personal benefit of some or even all of it's individuals. The only fundamental rule is that whichever 'thing' self perpetuates more effectively, wins, irrespective of the means.
So, here's what I'm getting from Nietzsche: Cruelty is inevitable? He's basically saying that people who are cruel do not make an active choice in being cruel, it's just the success of cruel instincts. Furthermore, when people cannot exhaust their instinct for cruelty, they turn it inward, causing the bad conscience. So, since cruelty is inevitable, we should not wish for no cruelty? Because that would be anti-life? Am I getting this right?
Kaufmann would have argued that the best answer is the sublimation of drives such as cruelty. I didn’t really go into this in the video, but there is arguably a thread in Nietzsche’s work that contrasts emasculation of a drive versus its sublimation. Christianity emasculates/castrates by demanding “if they eye offend thee, pluck it out”: cruelty, sensuality, pride etc have to be condemned and have an inner war waged against them. They can never truly be rooted out so there’s perpetual guilt, but the drives can be “separated from what they can do” (made reactive in Deleuze’s coinage). This is seen in the etymology of ressentiment (contains the “senti”, to feel): drives are felt but not acted. Contrast this to sublimation: the recognition that the drives exist and must be propitiated, but coupled with the innovation that as conscious/intelligent beings we can redirect the drives or satisfy them in less direct ways. Freud and others would later take this idea from Nietzsche (without crediting him). There’s also the idea that the Greeks held festivals for their “all too human”, as Nietzsche put it. The drive is satisfied in a ritual context, within given boundaries, without letting it overwhelm the society by being satisfied all the time. See also Nietzsche’s passage on the six ways of dealing with vehement drives (covered in the podcast episode I did on self-control, Daybreak 102 iirc). That being said, can we fundamentally reshape human instincts in accordance with what our rationality tells us would be a “better” state of affairs? Nietzsche would argue no, or that it would take an incredibly long timescale, and that finally if we succeeded we might well make mankind worse. Hope this helps.
Master has the right to say No, but slave don´t have this luxury, he does whatever he is ordered to do, or what the current world has to offer to him (inside limits and laws). Overman step above prevalent values, he creates his own values, and after this he can overcome negative nihilism and pessimism. Saying No and creating own values are sign of strength (and progress) You can never be master without creative and destroying., just criticize and living in the nostalgic state ( like now with Trump) is never enough.
As someone who has lived in Christian societies (of varying degrees) and non-Christian societies, I will take the Christian society any day of the weak. And I am not a down-trodden individual. I am wealthy and successful.
*3:59** Holy Qur'an* إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ ۖ خَلَقَهُۥ مِن تُرَابٍۢ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٥٩ Indeed, the example of Jesus to *Allāh* is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.
hey not sure if you will read this (though anyone could help me here), but I've found Nietzsche to be extremely insightful on thousands of ideas/visions of course, yet one I idea (I suspect I gravely misunderstand it), seems straight up dumb to me. The idea of the Übermensch, where we create our own values, and as said in this video, is also one free from resentment etc. Even as an ideal, it strikes me completely against my most fundamental experiences in real life. I have never met anyone who could even get CLOSE to not having resentment: hence what is the utility of an ideal that's so far away from our nature? It'd be the same as saying: "Oh guys, just don't go to war, just be nice towards one another". It doesn't work that way, and saying this won't help (even if it woud be nice if it was like that).
The Overman should not be regarded as a conception of what a human being from our time and place can become over the course of one lifetime. The Overman is a conception of what the entire species can become if we were shaped/guided by values that regard life as fundamentally good rather than fundamentally bad/unsatisfactory. Nietzsche never uses the language of becoming the Overman, he uses the language of sacrificing oneself ("going under") to bring forth the Overman. It's a goal in the distant future, a future for the entire species, not for one individual. You're correct that the idea of a human who is completely free of resentment is so outlandish that it is hard to even imagine. Nietzsche would say... that's why we have quite a lot of work to do.
I would say you're looking for a cure when what Nietzsche is offering you is a toolkit. You're never going to be free of resentment, and Nietzsche clearly held onto some resentment himself. What you do with that resentment, and understanding the culture that has impressed upon you how to manifest those emotions, is what Nietzsche has to offer. The Ubermensch serves almost as a replacement for Jesus Christ as a point of reference for people when we compare ourselves to a perfect standard. He wants us to imagine a new perfect standard. So he's not arguing for never feeling resentment, just what you choose to do with it post. Do you think people should direct it inward unto themselves with guilt and shame, believe in good and evil? Would you prefer that people see it as a natural and neutral phenomena instead, and at that one that a person can overcome either through the battle of the wills or acceptance? Where no one is suffering in damnation for eternity as a point of reference. I think we all desire for perfection, and a perfect solution to all of our problems but unfortunately it appears that everything is a work in progress, forever. I feel like Nietzsche out of a love for his people (and for himself) attempted to aid them by creating these works - such that maybe some could free themselves of the shackles of guilt that he saw had capture the whole of his culture. No philosophical system will ever be perfect and free of criticism, they are all created by man who will always be fallible in some way.
First Christianity declares physical intimacy dirty and sinful, the repression of innocent insticts breeds all kinds of psychological and cultural distortions and obsessions and then as an act of "liberation" we started to convince eachother that it is not only ok to lust for these "dirty things" but it is societies highest moral duty to oppress any mockery of such selfindulgence because Slave Morality obliges us to. . And here we are in the age of gooning
"Premoral age", "Extamoral age." Terms that show more of the lack of understanding in the user than some insight gleaned of a period of time. Those terms only serve to denigrate a moral set that does not align to our current moral set. ... which may not align to a future moral set. It is a subconscious declaration of "good" and "bad". A declaration of what each individual "should" do. A way of separating a people, from a period of time, and getting people in the present time to align themselves to your moral set by appealing to their basic human need of having a social group they belong to. When the fact of the matter is that every human is capable of holding any moral set as dictated by our experiences and our societal group. From Hitler to Ghandi, each of us is capable of it given the right circumstances. I like reading Nietzsche, but I am constantly struck by the lack of insight of his time and how it plays out in his philosophy. And I am sure that in a few hundred years, people will be saying the same thing about us.
*Holy Qur'an* About the *Creator* of all worlds *42:5 Holy Qur'an* تَكَادُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِن فَوْقِهِنَّ ۚ وَٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ أَلَآ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ ٥ The heavens almost burst apart above them [in awe of Him], and the angels glorify the praises of their Lord, and seek forgiveness for those on earth. Indeed, *Allah* is the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. *2:136 Holy Qur'an* Say, O believers, “We believe in *Allah* and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to *Allah* we all submit.”
@ouch000u I'm not sure of why you think those quotes apply to the topic I was referring to, but ...sure. Also, I see no reason to submit to an idea, a concept, that evolved from a storm/warrior god. Though, I would be interested in your perspective on the reason the faith you referenced has literally spent hundreds of years and almost countless texts on mentally jumping through hoops to try and explain the gaps exposed by logic, in a concept of an all powerful god.
@@rodcameron7140 *19:35** Noble Qur'an* مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍۢ ۖ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًۭا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٣٥ It is not [befitting] for Allāh to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is. *Glorious Qur'an* 19:36 وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ رَبِّى وَرَبُّكُمْ فَٱعْبُدُوهُ ۚ هَـٰذَا صِرَٰطٌۭ مُّسْتَقِيمٌۭ ٣٦ ˹Jesus also declared,˺ “Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him ˹alone˺. This is the Straight Path.”
So is the idea of the conscious innocence that there's no such thing as free will, there's no evil subject, but that doesn't mean there aren't evil acts? Or is it only focused on the ascribing of guilt by slave morality and rejects seeing any acts as immoral altogether?
Am I wrong, but N. didn't say that masters are aristocrats, like being a ruler by bloodline. I see it the different way, as of the one who can, should ... Must. And hate me for it, but by all examples on hand, N. should be read an discussed in his original language, respecting his context...
Here's what I think Nietzsche didn't seem to understand about Christianity. The power and the purpose of forgiveness in overcoming resentment. A person who resents someone who did them wrong has not truly forgiven them. Forgiveness is not just a mere forfeit of Vengeance it is the same radical acceptance of what has happened that informs nietzsche's very idea of Amor fati. It's so ironic the more i learn about Christianity the more parallels i see between what jesus taught and the conclusions nietzsche arrived at. It's like he was a Christian in denial 😂 he was a house divided among itself
This is pretty similar to Girard's criticism of Nietzsche, tbh. In fact, I did a video about Rene Girard and his critique of Nietzsche that you might enjoy.
Hello I am from Africa, Uganda to be specific and we are seeing a rise in the prosperity gospel preaching.. when did this portion of Christianity change back to "Master Moraility" of wealth and prosperity is Godly and being poor is brought on by the devil
I actually have to wonder if YOU get it. Don't get me wrong, I love your podcasts, but there is something very personal in Nietzsche's work that i think few understand, because they approach the study of his work as philosophy as opposed to CONFESSION. I can tell you that having been raised by a deeply Christian Presbyterian mother, that his animosity towards Christianity is a result of his own upbringing and what he perceived as the weakening effect that it had on him. His own inability to transcend Christian ethics is probably a major driving force of his philosophy. That's why his work really spoke to me. BTW I was kind of fucked up and didn't get through to the end of the video without nodding off (it was very interesting though). But I assume you probably didn't mention this point as I rarely hear it mentioned. I could be totally off here, but just adding my own perspective.
So the hope is to return master morality counsciously. Not seeing as those values as bad or natural, to see them as actually consciouslly good? If so was the only error in master morality that it is unconscious and the error in the slave morality is guilt and weakness? Did ı get it at least? :D
The hope is a post-moral age where we no longer regard individuals as essentialized “beings”, but see each phenomenon as drawing its ultimate conclusions at every perceptible moment. The master morality still has a number of prejudices, errors of thought (that we can be grateful for, just as we are with slave morality), and chief among those might be traits such as willful ignorance, hubris, or complete disregard for the weak. Just to consider the final one: how did the complete disregard for the underclass work out for the Greeks and Romans? Their entire cultures were wiped out. So there are certainly more resilient ways to manage society. That being said, N isn’t so concerned with the fate of society. His goal is the affirmation of life, and for us philosophers who are not bound by ancient moral tomes, our goal is to see the truth of human psychology. The truth is that once we gain a historical sense, the master morality seems a bit absurd, and once we overcome the free will superstition, so does the slave morality. Do not bind yourself to either one, use the critique to free your intellect from the myth of moral responsibility and then dare to evaluate your actions according to your own values.
@untimelyreflections that makes sense, thank you very much for explanation. Since the topic is a little complicated, and since English not my first language, sometimes I might get it a little bit wrong. So this explanation made put all the puzzle together. Thank you. So as I understand N still suggests us the be beyond master and slave moralities, but if he had to choose one he would have choose master morality. For him appreciation of life is more important then, consciousness and unconsciousness. At least he would have find power and beauty in Master morality more then in slave morality(which there is no beauty at all in my opinion)(I am talking about the moral codes in individual life, not the societal development) And I think that's why Nietzsche's philosophy is freeing, it is not a dialect, I see his philosophy as a framework when it comes to application of his philosophy in individuals life. And I also think, the framework he argued is very much based on life and reality(in sense of real world) And I think your interpretations of Nietzsche is very good and based on his works, not like other's who want to push their own views as they were N's. I appreciate your work. Thank you.
@@untimelyreflections The complete disregard of the weak did not destroy the Greeks but literally made them more powerful than ever and for millennia to come. Some madmen say that Greece fell after the classical era, but the Hellenic era (post Alexander the Great) was literally the most glorious period of ancient Greece, despite what the autistic German incel says. This era even survived the Romans since they culturally conquered them and the latter followed the Greek tradition in many aspects so continuing their legacy. Then, the Greeks themselves continued to innovate without stopping during their "conquered" period under Roman law and living in luxury in their main cities such as Alexandria, where philosophy had become scientific progress. Due to the nature of this era is why many coping modern philosophers, including Nietzsche, say that Greek philosophy or their culture itself was no longer worth sh 1 t, unable to see the evolution they had towards a greater form of thought: scientism, that survived in our days. This way of thought is leading us to overcome the very barriers of biology itself and turning us into literal Gods [feel envious, Nietzsche's Übermensch!]. Anyways, Nietzsche was a good thinker but limited by many things, including the ignorant and archaic era in which he still lived. He had very personal and biased methods of assessing cultures, so yes, he was absolutely wrong about the reasons of these supposed collapses of either the Greeks or the Romans. If the Greco-Romans, after thousands of years of living as peoples, turn into their demise because they had to perish, dying of old age but not because they were conquered by slave morality or something like that, however so what? Their best thinking, born directly from the concepts of rationalism and hierarchy mixed with an amoral and cold attitude, has survived today in the form of technological science and has allowed us to, as if we were gods, creating the new human, the one that is being born from AI. We are already gods without realizing it and we owe all this to the main factor of ancient Western civilization, which was its cold, amoral rationalism rooted in master morality over the world.
Should we not level guilt, almost as a social organizing principle built into the legal system, for agreed upon, excessive displays of power? Excessive in so much as they compromise provably adaptive social cooperation? It's probably a utilitarian argument, for suppression of the strong, under specific conditions. Nietzsche thought that utility wouldn't be compromised as a result of the 'advent' of the latter described, post-moral society. I think that's idealistic. You'll probably know what I mean when I say, the 'New Christians' in my online orbit, don't seem to realize they're Nietzscheans. Many of their arguments sound exactly like this vid. Christianity's dead, so is a return to the purely Dionysian, I think. It doesn't seem the latter is precisely what Nietzsche advocates. (As you seem to say later in vid). How much reasonably parameterized social utility is compromised, in the process of 'deregulating' post-moral individuals? This seems like the remaining question. I think that only Utilitarians and Nietzscheans have survived in our current culture. (By any other name).
> Should we not level guilt, almost as a social organizing principle built into the legal system, for agreed upon, excessive displays of power? Excessive in so much as they compromise provably adaptive social cooperation? I think this approach is still treating the master/slave morality as if it is an affirmative philosophical ideal. If we treat it purely as critique, then it becomes difficult to construe master/slave morality as positing a "social organizing principle". Even if your point is solely to say that the critique is wrong, because guilt has utility, utility for whom, for what purpose? Nietzsche is simply not concerned with what holds utility for the collective, because basically every philosopher is an advocate for that collective already. We can rather easily see how the collective gains utility by instrumentalizing its individual members, by exploiting them for the sake of the greater good. Most political philosophy is an endless debate over how society ought to do this, how much it ought to do this, etc. This is why Nietzsche is not a political philosopher. He is concerned with psychology, and his critique is leveled at what guilt does to the individual psychology. For Nietzsche, it is based on error, meaning that whatever argument from utility you might employ, if there is no free will (thus no moral responsibility) then from the standpoint of the individual psychology, we're falsifying the world in order to make individuals suffer. Meanwhile, society can still deter bad behaviors with consequences. What is unnecessary, a 'layered on' psychological punishment, is the labeling of the guilt of the criminal. This also leads to all sorts of ideologies that arguably cause negative social utility, like the use of the legal system to get "retribution", a completely erroneous desire in a world without libertarian free will, which causes more suffering than there would otherwise be for no reason at all. > Nietzsche thought that utility wouldn't be compromised as a result of the 'advent' of the latter described, post-moral society. I honestly don't get the sense that he felt this way or that he cared about this at all. Societies come and go. > You'll probably know what I mean when I say, the 'New Christians' in my online orbit, don't seem to realize they're Nietzscheans. Many of their arguments sound exactly like this vid. > Christianity's dead, so is a return to the purely Dionysian, I think. Well, this wasn't the point of the video, so if their arguments sounded like that, then they're saying something completely different from what Nietzsche argued. Give the modern-day Christians a break. They're frustrated and resentful, full of grievances, and full of fear at the imminent loss of their dominion. You probably wouldn't be your best self in that position either. > How much reasonably parameterized social utility is compromised, in the process of 'deregulating' post-moral individuals? > This seems like the remaining question. I can conceive of a functional, flourishing society that is post-guilt. But it doesn't really matter what we conceptualize or come to in our political theories. I don't give it much thought. Thanks for the thought-provoking comment.
@@untimelyreflections Thanks, btw great vid. The public conversation's becoming interesting, yet sort of impossible, in a certain way right now. Which has to do with determinism. People probably over-focus on scientists' compatibilism debates. Our modes of understanding begin to break down at the limits of our observational capacity. Determinism might be 'right' or 'wrong' at the quantum level. It's difficult to tell. Determinism seems to be built into human observation, to an extent. Observing static objects, or those with definite trajectories, is probably necessary for coherent observation, as such. And observation is apparently necessary, for navigating the world. (The kind of determinism we usually refer to, I think has all but been proven true in the lab, at this point. Behavioral science lab). However, I like your question, 'why psychologize?' I go back and forth on this. There's actually a good answer to this, which probably seals the deal for people. (And makes us both weird, Salts). Which is, we look at the brain, and basically see, this is what it does. Returning to the "determinist" point as well: when people are not in a semi-PTSD, semi-depressive state, or something like that, we tend to fabricate. Human subjects are very manipulable. But ask them why they picked up the red ball when subconsciously prompted, and we'll tend to immediately make up a plausible story/explanation. This extends to the kind of psychologization we're talking about. Truthfully, it's a story. (In fact, it involves the ostensibly healthy, constant human tendency, to over-attribute a certain agency, to oneself and others). We're talking about a kind of inbuilt operating system, it can be 'hacked,' but it holds up for most people, most of the time. It apparently functions to reduce neuroticism, and pessimism. Why should the fiction, with a neurological basis, be reflected in society and law? Probably the same reasons. 'Utility, for whom, for what?' I like Nietzsche's own arbiter. (I'd probably apply it differently). It's for the adaptation and survival of the species. We could pretend that's not the point. I think then, we'd die faster than other animals. I don't think we can escape this arbiter. So you can actually describe it as a kind of psychologizing illusion, which has its associated side effects, originating in a kind of widespread typical human pseudo-pathology, subsequently iterated within our social structures. The illusion of selves, agents, choice. The weight of guilt. The strain of resentment. I doubt we've 'bred fine enough human specimens' (lol) so that we don't need the failings and falsities, fed back to most people by a reflective social apparatus. To alleviate their perceived needs. To direct (partly) their confused impulses. And to give, almost therapeutic context, to their mental states. If the sheep would ever stop sheeping, maybe we could just do science and philosophy, without maintaining the artifice of the superstructure. (I have sheeped sometimes. I admit it). Easy on the Christians, yes. I will. Nice, nice Christians. No loud noises. No sudden movements.
*Holy Qur'an* About the *Creator* of all worlds *42:5 Holy Qur'an* تَكَادُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِن فَوْقِهِنَّ ۚ وَٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ أَلَآ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ ٥ The heavens almost burst apart above them [in awe of Him], and the angels glorify the praises of their Lord, and seek forgiveness for those on earth. Indeed, *Allah* is the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful. *2:136 Holy Qur'an* Say, O believers, “We believe in *Allah* and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to *Allah* we all submit.”
I am reminded of the chorus from Marilyn Manson's Irresponsible Hate Anthem. I, of course, can't quote it here, but you know how it goes, "everybody's someone else's...."
Without the Slave Morality, we wouldn't have the drive to uplift the species and move towards the next level of civilization. Without the Master Morality, we'd just become a bunch of indolent monks. With both, in tense conflict, we can expand our civilization to the stars.
Nah, not really. Nietzsche was wrong and slave morality is literally pure pathology which must be absolutely discarded out of the gene pool. We live in 2024 and is time to discard the opinions of philosophers who based their statements on pure assumptions without evidence and we should stick to the hard data that we can verify with our technological progress.
Cause thats seriously old pre world war integration dual continental empires - doesn't mean you do it now.
We’ve ‘expanded our civilisation’ to blindly steamroll us into causing the 6th mass extinction, so I’d posit progress wasn’t as progressive as we once thought.
Almost as if it's a Master-Slave dialectic. I wonder where we've heard that before?
...or into an early grave.
“To perceive the truth but be honest enough to admit the existential dangers of stripping away the lie upon which civilization is built”
“The tree of knowledge is not the tree of life”… but… “truth loves a warrior”
Great video once again, very rare to find RUclipsrs that actually have a deep understanding of Nietzsche, as opposed to just giving some cliched corny self-help misinterpretation of him. Thanks.
Hopefully this kind of content can inspire some of those people to dig into philosophy in all its complexity and nuance.
Fiending for these convos in real life
I don't think you understand Nietsche.
"Slave Morality is in fact rooted in cruelty" This is a great point that seems to get brushed over in a lot of other Nietzsche videos
i guess when viewed through the lense of "will to power"... then, yes... cruelty... but i think the resentment of the weaker for the stronger is the ultimate source of the mentality, no?
Right, like the idea that the master is incapable of true cruelty because cruelty requires some sort of awareness, which the master lacks. It's the slaves overabundance of awareness that renders him impotent and, therefore, ultimately resentful
and all cruelty springs from weakness
@Iightbeing Yeah I've been thinking about that concept a lot lately and what the exact definition of cruelty is in that context. For example, how would you compare the masters "cruelty" to the slaves. I think Nietzsche believed that the slaves cruelty was resentment that was disguised as love and compassion, designed to shame the powerful. Whereas the masters "cruelty" isn't really cruel at all. It's only cruel from the perspective of the slave. Basically the master is incapable of cruelty and any perceived cruelty perpetrated by the master would be purely inadvertent
New essentialsalts folder: Core Nietzsche concepts in under 30 mins.
Get ready for more in the coming weeks.
Yes, I appreciate this content!
@@untimelyreflections x
I can see this series going viral already
well-urged!!... let's make this hypothetical folder a digital reality, Keeg!... (((lololo)))
A good reminder of a video. The Master and slave morality is perhaps one of the most delicate passages of genealogy of morals to understand.
You really do have an incredible talent for delving into the details of Nietzsche, whom I have always loved. You take a systematic approach, and I find your arguments so original and compelling. Thanks for another great video.
An interesting thing I just realized while watching this video. Ever since I first read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, when I was 21 or so years old, I have never again portrayed myself as a victim to anyone. I have never again wanted other's pity, and I felt extremely embarrassed when, perhaps in very rare occasions, I have displayed weakness.
I think you have a very distorted idea of what Nietzsche wrote in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Sympathie is not pity. Caring about people or people caring about you is not pity, its strength
"The point is not to lament that mankind no longer celebrates cruelty, it is to show us that we never stopped" That just blew my mind 🤯
The tribe in the middle east are the cruel ones
We're no less cruel, now we just feel bad about it. humans are indeed the cruelest of animals, truly.
based humans
Humans are the best.
most humans don't feel bad about it.
Voltaire’s quote is a great segue into Nietzsche’s notion of truth as error, yet a necessary valuation for the continuation (becoming) of will to power.
I appreciate this shorter, focused format for core concepts!
I just want to say thank you for the quality content. PLEASE continue creating.
Truly, thank you. Your podcast and posts have helped me grasp, and be grateful to, Nietzsche in a way I long felt I wanted to, but didn't.
If strength is in cunning that feeds upon weakness, then the strong can exist in and subsistence upon the weakest--and in fact seek a society in which moral weakness is utmost.
clarification not obfuscation, rather what I was hoping for. Nice video. Lots of nice long quotes
Innocence is the end of thinking. The end of thinking brings freedom from the past, from the burden of memory. Innocence cannot be attained through philosophizing; it is a quality of being that must simply be rediscovered, not invented. The only truly moral individual is one who does not know they are moral.
As an atheist or agnostic (don’t know which label is more accurate), I think that Christian morality definitely played a role in civilizing Europe. It eliminated slavery within Europe and likely made the rich more charitable with the poor, gave leaders the fear of judgement, enforced monogamy (less sexual competition to monopolize all the women, less intersex conflict, better cooperation with other men).
You get folks in England like Josiah Wedgwood concerned with the well-being of his workers in a way that maybe in a non-Christian Europe would exist. You get people questioning slavery in a way that never happened in the Muslim world purely from a guilty conscience. You get people commuted to public service in ways that are exceptional. King George 3 was genuinely interested in talking to farmers and knowing how they lived to not be out of touch. Fredrick of Prussia was trying to get people on the potato because he genuinely cared about food security.
When I watch rap videos and see this vulgar glorification of wealth and shit that even our billionaires don’t engage in, I wonder if our ancestors in the Viking age were similar, with their stupid jewelry and bragging about murdering more than someone else. Where would we be without Christian morality? Would we be as bad as the trashiest rappers?
Yes Future and T Grizzley = master morality unironically
Could you explain the part about Muslim world? Cause I thought you were talking about Christianity in Europe. Also, I have trouble understanding your sentence
The tension between the unconscious innocence of the past and the conscious guilt of the present sounds remarkably similar to Hegel and even Mao (see: 'On Contradiction') with regards to the development of history, or "The Unfolding of the Absolute."
I've come to similar conclusions after recently studying that Zarathustra section in Ecce Homo. I think it's my new favorite piece by him. He really lays everything out.
The tension of the bowstring can be seen from a person such as Pascal, who was for Nietzsche a superb combination of a noble man who incarnates the slave morality par excellence.
It also interesting that Nietzsche wrote that France is « the most christian country » in so far as because they were the most loyal christian’s, they are also it’s best adversary. See dawn.
Here we have the premise in one of my favorite Nietzschean ideas that « He who attains his ideal, precisely thereby surpasses it. »
And that is precisely why Nietzsche does not advocate for a return of a master morality.
Would you ever consider exploring Nietzsche’s philosophy in relation to Buddhism? The channel Seeker to Seeker covers the overlap and I’d be interested in what your thoughts would be on it.
I've considered this topic for another short-form video.
@@untimelyreflectionshey, I think you might be interested in a book on this topic called "Robert G Morrison - Nietzsche and Buddhism, a study in nihilism and ironic affinities" easy to find online
great video, NPG!!... i love your long-form lectures... but, honestly, your shorter ones are much better... i enjoy listening to them a few times in a row while performing other online tasks... love the visual content/classical artwork... much appreciated art thou thusly!
you can read impressively fast when you want to, Keeg... and always at a rhythmic sonorousPRESTOtempo!!
this one gonna blowup homie
This is so good, making Nietzsche more accessible to the general audience.
You should do one of these deep-dives on what exactly Nietzsche means by "décadence"
That is not a bad idea. It would have to also be a video concerning the relationship between drives/physiology and every other aspect of human life.
@@untimelyreflectionsdo you have a podcast episode covering this?
15:18 That passage makes clear he isn't attempting a change in the definition of decadence. He is pointing out the decline of the human condition. Man can take what is good and conflate a certain value (twisted into propaganda and cultish mantras) with the power of a social position, which, in his estimation, is contrary to good. He would be jumping up and down, asking why nobody understood him were he alive today to witness how many had read his books. He understood institutional propaganda before it was mass produced.
@@chrisvarva9847 the term "decadence" is sort of charged and can mean different things depending on who you ask. And Nietzsche does have a somewhat unique take on the phenomenon, why it occurs and how it affects civilization.
Beautifully succinct. Well done.
Ever gave some thought into looking into Thelema's connection with Nietzsche? There definitely is some resonance between Crowley and Nietzsche, maybe you are familiar with him through Messa.
If this video can be premise for “slave morality is a form of envy” then Zizek is right: “Don’t underestimate envy.”
Indeed. Reactive power is still power, and for some reason many people who get infatuated with Nietzsche tend to forget that.
Insightful response, thank you for that
I have a lot of Christian friends that I love dearly but they struggle to grasp this concept when we debate with each other, I'm not trying to change their minds or win, but reach understanding between our different views on life. Not sure if I'm just bad at conveying it but now I can put all that work onto this video, kekw! Cheers!
I disagree with a lot of the assertations about Christianity. To begin with, most of the complaints are about the Roman Catholic empire, with Catholicism itself being a bastardized mix of Judeo-Christianity and the then popular Pagan religions, which had to be done after the Christian uprising. The Romans took the religion, bastardized it, then used it to further it's power and control over whoever they invaded next.
This included killing *actual* Christians for "heresy," preventing the largely uneducated populace from actually reading the bible, and then also keeping literacy rates down. Eventually leading to Martin Luther reading and recognizing the bible is actually for the people, they don't need to tithe, they don't need to punish themselves, they can't be excommunicated from God, etc. and he left and started his own heretic movement where he actually taught the bible to people.
As a big example, the "holier than thou" crowd are hypocrites and actively going against the book's teachings. The *entire* point of everything Jesus said is mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. He often condemned priests and "holy men" for their corruption.
I thing the biggest thing is on both sides people haven't actually read the bible.
does the acceptance of determinism nowadays prove that we have already entered the extra moral age? I think the acceptance of things like mental illnesses or sexual orientations are possibly the strongest example of how we implement this understanding of determinism, although we havent completed this application on everyone, since we still ascribe similar moralist claims towards bigotry or other things we still see as evil. That probably isnt so far away though, maybe a few decades more.
I would say that many people intellectually accept determinism without actually considering the way that they act against that knowledge in their daily lives. Often there is a big song and dance to somehow hold onto things like morality, guilt, the self, and so on. A desire to “prove” that we can still have these things even with determinism. Very misguided from Nietzsche’s perspective. The whole point of the free will superstition was to make moral guilt possible; if you get rid of free will but still operate from a mental framework that imputes guilt then it doesn’t really matter. You’re just moralizing with additional steps. But that’s what most determinists do, so until we overcome that it will not represent a real change.
@untimelyreflections I think a lot of the moralist beliefs that may be seen in determinists today are held in contradiction to their more determinist beliefs. In that sense i think the change is real, but that the change is happening unevenly, at the expense of consistency.
@@untimelyreflections This is the one thing that used to frustrate me when I was a Christian. They would advocate for essentially a deterministic world view when it suited them to do so. IE God was omnipotent and not one blade of grass dies without God's direct action and all of our lives go according to His divine plan. But when it came to your personal guilt for sins and moral imperfections then all of a sudden the blame was shifted 100% to you and they would say "you have free will to choose good from evil" and you will end up in hell for eternity if you make the wrong choices. Like you said they are intellectually able to grasp the concept of fate being intrinsically fixed within the construct of reality but they have a slave's Stockholm syndrome that prevents them from embracing the implications of that reality and truly freeing themselves from the yoke they place on themselves and embracing the eternal recurrence and Amor Fati.
@@corbentaylor7825Will have to read that a few times to fully understand, but I think you're onto something
@@untimelyreflections The only way that they can do that is by the doctrine of original sin that still holds sway in one form or another.
This is a great nuance that is rarely discussed in Nietzsche videos Great video!
Thank you for doing this podcast, it really means a lot.
Hegel is lurking somewhere in the background, when you come to think of it. The master morality as thesis, the slave morality as antithesis and the (possible) dawn of an extra-moral age as synthesis. "German culture, [...] an elevation and a divining refinement of the historical sense". Indeed.
Precisely, Nietzsche actually fits into Hegel's dialectic as a contradiction and negation of the status quo of Christian dominance
@@trambly611 If dialectics is a vehicle, then Nietzsche certainly keeps the engine running but fills it with a different type of fuel... to explore new horizons.
excellent video. unparalaled quality on youtube!
again i enjoy your show, only had time for a short one today, thanks for doing this
Opposites turn into eachother on the far ends of a spectrum, therefore if one goes far enough into guilt, he will be innocent and vice versa. It is not conscious innocence that Nietzsche wishes to cultivate, but a conscious and full acceptance of guilt, removing all hope for an innocent action. In admitting complete and total guilt and occluding the possibility of innocent conduct, the guilt/innocence conflict is transcended, freeing our conscience from the Christian dialectic all together, whilst gaining an intensification of self awareness that would not be possible without this-error-that indeed has the greatest of all merits.
Great video as always, keep up the good work!
Wow! Sooo much information packed into this video.
Wonderful as always. Thank you.
"Man is evil"-so said to me for consolation, all the wisest ones.
Ah, if only it be still true today! For the evil is man's best force.
"Man must become better and eviler"-so do I teach.
The evilest is necessary for the Superman's best.
It may have been well for the preacher of the petty people to suffer and be burdened by men's sin.
I, however, rejoice in great sin as my great consolation.- Such things, however, are not said for long ears.
Every word, also, is not suited for every mouth. These are fine far-away things: at them sheep's claws shall not grasp!
Zarathustra, The Higher Man, stanza 5.
I love Nietzsche's psychological and societal analysis, but one thing I don't understand is his abolition of will to truth. Why does he not view this tension of the bowstring as an arrow trajectory towards a higher truth? How can we deny humanity's progress of understanding when compared to the past? When he says that the slave morality is damaging, what exactly is it damaging if all destruction has no purpose and is just a force for the sake of affirming itself? If our pursuit of truth is just will to power then how can we even question truth without proper premises?
"The strength of a person's spirit would then be measured by how much 'truth' he could tolerate, or more precisely, to what extent he needs to have it diluted, disguised, sweetened, muted, falsified."
Oftentimes, the truth is ugly and people need lies in order to cope with reality. But it runs deeper than that; Nietzshce thinks that ever since Plato, Western philosophy has deluded itself thinking that we can find a "pure truth" or "truth-in-itself". In reality, people invent 'truth' in order to falsify reality to their advantage, or simply as to make things coherent out of an infinitely incoherent mess.
Nietzsche’s bias was that he didn’t recognize the ontological reality of objective transcendent principles such as truth, love, beauty, and the Good.
Although he cherry-picked a few of these to bolster his attack on Platonism and Christianity. In his system, Master Morality takes on a pagan, Darwinian character, and he assumes this should be taken for granted, since there is no transcendence, only organisms vying with each other for physical space. Sly, but not very honest.
Nietzsche wasn’t really a philosopher, he was more of a polemicist with an axe to grind. Some of his criticisms were valid though, and he was a great writer. Absolutely still worth engaging with his ideas, especially if you disagree with him.
If you start from "darwinist" assumption that all nature is just about survival through struggle, then "will to power" is all there is. All religion and ideology is just a tool for one class or nation to dominate over the other. Then Christianity is just a result of slves desire to usurp the masters. That is the only truth you need.
But I fundamentally disagree with this. Christianity at the time made sense to people converting to it, it gave them answers to ultimate questions of purpose and meaning. So whether you are slve or master and you felt that these ideas make more sense to you then the ones you had before, you would convert. It doesn't matter if I or my class would gain "power". The morality just follows from people than changing behaviours according to this new purpose they are following.
I like to view humans as conscious, rational begins, which darwinist-feudians obviously don't. They would say, there's always a hidden reason why someone would accept an ideology, and will to power is always behind it.
Nietzsche is so an Ayn Rand style libertarian. I'm reading Human, All Too Human alongside listening to these podcasts, and Nietzsche is all about the powerful/capable going their own way, setting up their own values and despising (looking over) the weak -- this is why he hates pity, envy, vanity, etc. These are all examples of the powerful seeking validation from the weak. He's an Ayn Randian libertarian.. Explains his aristocratism to a tee. Am I wrong?
no. he isn't individualist/antisocial
@radfan7020 It would be strange not to see him as an individualist (he's a perspectivalist who despises the "herd" and I can quote you chapter and verse). On my further reading, I would only say he doesn't share Rand's admiration for capitalists (though he's an equal opportunity offender of socialists).
Anakin would appreciate Nietzsche's work.
huh, you're right I did misunderstand it. Thank you for the correction, sir. The reframing of the slave morality's "evil" as being rooted in a sort of psychological blind spot that it creates thus creating further immoralities downstream of it were key.
As an egalitarian, I don't understand, but at least I do understand why I don't understand.
Egaltarian is weakenss
Nietzsche rules. You rule. Thank you sir 🙏🏻 You do a great service with this work.
*19:35** Noble Qur'an*
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍۢ ۖ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًۭا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٣٥
It is not [befitting] for Allāh to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
i haven't even watched the vid yet, but i think i intuitively get it. most of my ideas are intuitive currently, so take it with a grain of salt lol.
you as an individual can be a slave to the system in a way that hinders you from reaching different stages of potential. so you have these inner barriers that you don't dare to confront, barriers which in and of themselves can be built by internal and external forces.
basically i don't FULLY accept the "self-incurred immaturity" concept of kant, because of karl marx's introduction of material conditions (external forces).
i say "fully" because of the fact that i think i understand "teleology", specifically when it comes to human actions. you have restricted "pathways" in life. some form of determinism?
there's many ideas swirling in this head of mine that i'm still trying to mix and match where i think possible and "makes sense". but i think if i go to uni i will have definitive lingo and logical steps in making sure all of these concepts actually "interlink", for a lack of a better word.
now to the video to see how wrong i was and how much i assumed just from the title 😁
edit: i'm so stupid i just skipped over morality part, and mostly thought about slave-master dynamic in hegelian sense probably in how you better yourself (the way i interpret that dynamic). but i think i get it. some people become leaders and other followers, no matter which "system" or a certain social bubbles within the system, a scientific field etc. but this isn't a barrier for "followers". they become their own leaders with time. now i'm specifically thinking in the terms of a scientific field. whoever becomes a leader first, is a teacher, who then passes on their understanding to followers who have "shed" the cult of revenge, in a post capitalist society.
something like that?
I wonder for the 'Euclidean' and 'Pythagoreans' of which they don't preface any god or man for their rules.... Can we reconcile them with Master & Slave morality;
"Plato said God geometrizes continually" - Plutarch . Quaes. Conv. 8.2
I’ve been under the impression that the quote actually from Tertullian was from Aquinas, thanks to Rick Roderick’s series Masters of Suspicion
Very Interesting! I cant wait for another podcast
btw. I would love to find out more about how Christianity affected our worldview as well as our morality and in which way it still does.
I wonder if theres a way of separating the morality that is in our nature and the biases that were implemented by our culture.
Ever since I have discovered Nietsche I have been trying to observe each and every moral judgment I came up with in order to classify it.
More questions were born and I feel like I am unable to satisfy my curiousity.
One can understand more about another then they may know about themselve
we knew this was gonna be made sooner or later
Man what a great video really summarized a super important concept
thanks... dig your work, sir.
What does "Conscious Innocence" look like in practice? I would like to explore this in greater detail.
In this existence as a separate being, you have but two choices, go with the rest or go against it.
A Beautiful ending to a wonderful video! 🤟
I think that it would be a real innovation if we would be able to talk about what lies beyond good and bad AND good and evil in a strictly TRANSMORAL (not extramoral!) sense. If we are playing the master-slave dialectic in morality 1. we are still moralizing, 2. we are the slaves of certain values and ideals. Even the master morality can enslave people, just as the slave morality can liberate them. 3. If we stick to morality, then we should understand that the vertical hierarchy of master and slave is actually doesn't make sense here, and this is especially true today. The patriarchal, top-down relations of good and evil, noble and slave have been replaced by mechanical relations which have nothing to do with the concept of value at all!!! Rather, they are about the dynamics of forces and counterforces. They are purely physical and quantitative, materialistic and levelling. There can be no aesthetizing nobility, heroism or Nietzschean overmen here, but only consumers who are competing for resources and in showing-off, and who are only manifestations of hunger, just like the zombie is. The movie title Walking Dead was not a mere accident, because it contains this meaning too.
I didn't see this appear on my podcast feed. Neither app I use delivered the episode nor list it available to listen. Is this a RUclips exclusive?
Yes, though some of the shortform content like this may start to appear on the feed soon
@ thank you--appreciate the wisdom as always
Bruh what do you think about these “warrior philosopher” neech dudes on RUclips. I think it’s neurotic lol. Great video.
Did this evaluation come before or after the syphillis?
I feel like this ended very abruptly...?
What else should I have talked about?
Thank you for the upload
Guilty just means Responsible.
So, if you commit a cruel act, consciously or not, it is you that is responsible for that act and it's consequences.
A hero, who slays the anti-hero is a hero becauae he took it upon himsellf to do a cruel act (murder) that nobody else wanted to be burdened with or by evem though all recognised that the "bad guy had to go"
If Nietzsche understood western hermeticism and it's historical evolution from ancient Greek and Jewish mysticism or it's eastern analogs in taoism and confusionism he wouldn't be so dismissive of slave morality as he calls it.
It's in the balancing of opposites and the meaning within suffering and limitations that real philosophy transmutes into virtue and values.
Alchemy
One of your best videos
I feel guilty when I act cruelly to a person who doesn't deserve it because I don't want that happening to me and in the world in general because I do believe that the world would be much better for me and everyone without cruelty and with compassion. Is this guilt unhelpful and an expression of the slave morality in me? It seems to me that guilt has its benefits but perhaps I am misunderstanding something. Even though I may not have free will, just me noticing that I acted in a way against my values and mentally punishing myself for it(with reasonable intensity of course) makes it less likely that such an act will be committed by me in the future so my self allows guilt and shame as an emotion. Is this harming me somehow?
If you start from a darwinist notion that organisms do everything in their self-interest, then it follows that even if they are being compassionate, it's just because they want someone to be compassionate to them. I disagree with this. People have a need for purpose, meaning, completely rational desire for existence to be logical and purposeful in the most ultimate sense. So if you are being cruel to the weak for no reason it just doesn't makes sense. It doesn't fit in any ideas of a purposeful existence.
@@antun88 Should also note that natural selection doesn't only apply with individuals, but also species generally.
A genetic lineage may gain advantage at the expense of the personal benefit of some or even all of it's individuals.
The only fundamental rule is that whichever 'thing' self perpetuates more effectively, wins, irrespective of the means.
High quality content.
So, here's what I'm getting from Nietzsche: Cruelty is inevitable? He's basically saying that people who are cruel do not make an active choice in being cruel, it's just the success of cruel instincts. Furthermore, when people cannot exhaust their instinct for cruelty, they turn it inward, causing the bad conscience. So, since cruelty is inevitable, we should not wish for no cruelty? Because that would be anti-life? Am I getting this right?
Kaufmann would have argued that the best answer is the sublimation of drives such as cruelty. I didn’t really go into this in the video, but there is arguably a thread in Nietzsche’s work that contrasts emasculation of a drive versus its sublimation. Christianity emasculates/castrates by demanding “if they eye offend thee, pluck it out”: cruelty, sensuality, pride etc have to be condemned and have an inner war waged against them. They can never truly be rooted out so there’s perpetual guilt, but the drives can be “separated from what they can do” (made reactive in Deleuze’s coinage). This is seen in the etymology of ressentiment (contains the “senti”, to feel): drives are felt but not acted.
Contrast this to sublimation: the recognition that the drives exist and must be propitiated, but coupled with the innovation that as conscious/intelligent beings we can redirect the drives or satisfy them in less direct ways. Freud and others would later take this idea from Nietzsche (without crediting him). There’s also the idea that the Greeks held festivals for their “all too human”, as Nietzsche put it. The drive is satisfied in a ritual context, within given boundaries, without letting it overwhelm the society by being satisfied all the time. See also Nietzsche’s passage on the six ways of dealing with vehement drives (covered in the podcast episode I did on self-control, Daybreak 102 iirc).
That being said, can we fundamentally reshape human instincts in accordance with what our rationality tells us would be a “better” state of affairs? Nietzsche would argue no, or that it would take an incredibly long timescale, and that finally if we succeeded we might well make mankind worse. Hope this helps.
Master has the right to say No, but slave don´t have this luxury, he does whatever he is ordered to do, or what the current world has to offer to him (inside limits and laws). Overman step above prevalent values, he creates his own values, and after this he can overcome negative nihilism and pessimism. Saying No and creating own values are sign of strength (and progress) You can never be master without creative and destroying., just criticize and living in the nostalgic state ( like now with Trump) is never enough.
geez, u r blowing up Keegan
Listening...
As someone who has lived in Christian societies (of varying degrees) and non-Christian societies, I will take the Christian society any day of the weak. And I am not a down-trodden individual. I am wealthy and successful.
*3:59** Holy Qur'an*
إِنَّ مَثَلَ عِيسَىٰ عِندَ ٱللَّهِ كَمَثَلِ ءَادَمَ ۖ خَلَقَهُۥ مِن تُرَابٍۢ ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٥٩
Indeed, the example of Jesus to *Allāh* is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.
Awesome video, learned alot
hey not sure if you will read this (though anyone could help me here), but I've found Nietzsche to be extremely insightful on thousands of ideas/visions of course, yet one I idea (I suspect I gravely misunderstand it), seems straight up dumb to me. The idea of the Übermensch, where we create our own values, and as said in this video, is also one free from resentment etc. Even as an ideal, it strikes me completely against my most fundamental experiences in real life. I have never met anyone who could even get CLOSE to not having resentment: hence what is the utility of an ideal that's so far away from our nature? It'd be the same as saying: "Oh guys, just don't go to war, just be nice towards one another". It doesn't work that way, and saying this won't help (even if it woud be nice if it was like that).
The Overman should not be regarded as a conception of what a human being from our time and place can become over the course of one lifetime. The Overman is a conception of what the entire species can become if we were shaped/guided by values that regard life as fundamentally good rather than fundamentally bad/unsatisfactory. Nietzsche never uses the language of becoming the Overman, he uses the language of sacrificing oneself ("going under") to bring forth the Overman. It's a goal in the distant future, a future for the entire species, not for one individual. You're correct that the idea of a human who is completely free of resentment is so outlandish that it is hard to even imagine. Nietzsche would say... that's why we have quite a lot of work to do.
@@untimelyreflections nice, appreciate the detailed response, love your videos
I would say you're looking for a cure when what Nietzsche is offering you is a toolkit. You're never going to be free of resentment, and Nietzsche clearly held onto some resentment himself. What you do with that resentment, and understanding the culture that has impressed upon you how to manifest those emotions, is what Nietzsche has to offer. The Ubermensch serves almost as a replacement for Jesus Christ as a point of reference for people when we compare ourselves to a perfect standard. He wants us to imagine a new perfect standard. So he's not arguing for never feeling resentment, just what you choose to do with it post. Do you think people should direct it inward unto themselves with guilt and shame, believe in good and evil? Would you prefer that people see it as a natural and neutral phenomena instead, and at that one that a person can overcome either through the battle of the wills or acceptance? Where no one is suffering in damnation for eternity as a point of reference.
I think we all desire for perfection, and a perfect solution to all of our problems but unfortunately it appears that everything is a work in progress, forever. I feel like Nietzsche out of a love for his people (and for himself) attempted to aid them by creating these works - such that maybe some could free themselves of the shackles of guilt that he saw had capture the whole of his culture. No philosophical system will ever be perfect and free of criticism, they are all created by man who will always be fallible in some way.
Overman achieves conscious innocence, yes?
First Christianity declares physical intimacy dirty and sinful, the repression of innocent insticts breeds all kinds of psychological and cultural distortions and obsessions and then as an act of "liberation" we started to convince eachother that it is not only ok to lust for these "dirty things" but it is societies highest moral duty to oppress any mockery of such selfindulgence because Slave Morality obliges us to. . And here we are in the age of gooning
"Premoral age", "Extamoral age." Terms that show more of the lack of understanding in the user than some insight gleaned of a period of time.
Those terms only serve to denigrate a moral set that does not align to our current moral set. ... which may not align to a future moral set.
It is a subconscious declaration of "good" and "bad". A declaration of what each individual "should" do. A way of separating a people, from a period of time, and getting people in the present time to align themselves to your moral set by appealing to their basic human need of having a social group they belong to.
When the fact of the matter is that every human is capable of holding any moral set as dictated by our experiences and our societal group. From Hitler to Ghandi, each of us is capable of it given the right circumstances.
I like reading Nietzsche, but I am constantly struck by the lack of insight of his time and how it plays out in his philosophy. And I am sure that in a few hundred years, people will be saying the same thing about us.
*Holy Qur'an* About the *Creator* of all worlds
*42:5 Holy Qur'an*
تَكَادُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِن فَوْقِهِنَّ ۚ وَٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ أَلَآ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ ٥
The heavens almost burst apart above them [in awe of Him], and the angels glorify the praises of their Lord, and seek forgiveness for those on earth. Indeed, *Allah* is the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
*2:136 Holy Qur'an*
Say, O believers, “We believe in *Allah* and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to *Allah* we all submit.”
@ouch000u I'm not sure of why you think those quotes apply to the topic I was referring to, but ...sure.
Also, I see no reason to submit to an idea, a concept, that evolved from a storm/warrior god.
Though, I would be interested in your perspective on the reason the faith you referenced has literally spent hundreds of years and almost countless texts on mentally jumping through hoops to try and explain the gaps exposed by logic, in a concept of an all powerful god.
@@rodcameron7140
*19:35** Noble Qur'an*
مَا كَانَ لِلَّهِ أَن يَتَّخِذَ مِن وَلَدٍۢ ۖ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥٓ ۚ إِذَا قَضَىٰٓ أَمْرًۭا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُۥ كُن فَيَكُونُ ٣٥
It is not [befitting] for Allāh to take a son; exalted is He! When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
*Glorious Qur'an*
19:36
وَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ رَبِّى وَرَبُّكُمْ فَٱعْبُدُوهُ ۚ هَـٰذَا صِرَٰطٌۭ مُّسْتَقِيمٌۭ ٣٦
˹Jesus also declared,˺ “Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him ˹alone˺. This is the Straight Path.”
How would Rust Cohle explain this to Marty?
So is the idea of the conscious innocence that there's no such thing as free will, there's no evil subject, but that doesn't mean there aren't evil acts? Or is it only focused on the ascribing of guilt by slave morality and rejects seeing any acts as immoral altogether?
But what of love?
Am I wrong, but N. didn't say that masters are aristocrats, like being a ruler by bloodline. I see it the different way, as of the one who can, should ... Must. And hate me for it, but by all examples on hand, N. should be read an discussed in his original language, respecting his context...
You always give me “oh shit” 💡 moments Ty sir
thanks for explaning
Here's what I think Nietzsche didn't seem to understand about Christianity. The power and the purpose of forgiveness in overcoming resentment. A person who resents someone who did them wrong has not truly forgiven them. Forgiveness is not just a mere forfeit of Vengeance it is the same radical acceptance of what has happened that informs nietzsche's very idea of Amor fati. It's so ironic the more i learn about Christianity the more parallels i see between what jesus taught and the conclusions nietzsche arrived at. It's like he was a Christian in denial 😂 he was a house divided among itself
This is pretty similar to Girard's criticism of Nietzsche, tbh. In fact, I did a video about Rene Girard and his critique of Nietzsche that you might enjoy.
To laugh at the absurdity of the abyss is to rise beyond morality. That is the Ubermensche.
Master morality is against everything in 2024
He advocated masochism and sadism. He wasn't really better than what he criticised.
Is Buddhism a Master morality?
Hello I am from Africa, Uganda to be specific and we are seeing a rise in the prosperity gospel preaching.. when did this portion of Christianity change back to "Master Moraility" of wealth and prosperity is Godly and being poor is brought on by the devil
I think that by naming it master and slave morality he shot himself in the foot because the names alone invite misunderstanding.
It’s a response to Hegel’s master-slave dialectic
I actually have to wonder if YOU get it. Don't get me wrong, I love your podcasts, but there is something very personal in Nietzsche's work that i think few understand, because they approach the study of his work as philosophy as opposed to CONFESSION. I can tell you that having been raised by a deeply Christian Presbyterian mother, that his animosity towards Christianity is a result of his own upbringing and what he perceived as the weakening effect that it had on him. His own inability to transcend Christian ethics is probably a major driving force of his philosophy. That's why his work really spoke to me. BTW I was kind of fucked up and didn't get through to the end of the video without nodding off (it was very interesting though). But I assume you probably didn't mention this point as I rarely hear it mentioned. I could be totally off here, but just adding my own perspective.
Only WHO can prevent forest fires?
You have selected, “you”, referring to me. The correct answer is, “you”!
Nietzsche. and Kierkegaard know st Paul but.Kierkegaard keeps.silence... General speaking. Henrich.Heine. talked about Christianitybefore....
In Austin if you’re around?
So the hope is to return master morality counsciously. Not seeing as those values as bad or natural, to see them as actually consciouslly good? If so was the only error in master morality that it is unconscious and the error in the slave morality is guilt and weakness? Did ı get it at least? :D
The hope is a post-moral age where we no longer regard individuals as essentialized “beings”, but see each phenomenon as drawing its ultimate conclusions at every perceptible moment. The master morality still has a number of prejudices, errors of thought (that we can be grateful for, just as we are with slave morality), and chief among those might be traits such as willful ignorance, hubris, or complete disregard for the weak. Just to consider the final one: how did the complete disregard for the underclass work out for the Greeks and Romans? Their entire cultures were wiped out. So there are certainly more resilient ways to manage society.
That being said, N isn’t so concerned with the fate of society. His goal is the affirmation of life, and for us philosophers who are not bound by ancient moral tomes, our goal is to see the truth of human psychology. The truth is that once we gain a historical sense, the master morality seems a bit absurd, and once we overcome the free will superstition, so does the slave morality. Do not bind yourself to either one, use the critique to free your intellect from the myth of moral responsibility and then dare to evaluate your actions according to your own values.
@untimelyreflections that makes sense, thank you very much for explanation. Since the topic is a little complicated, and since English not my first language, sometimes I might get it a little bit wrong. So this explanation made put all the puzzle together. Thank you.
So as I understand N still suggests us the be beyond master and slave moralities, but if he had to choose one he would have choose master morality. For him appreciation of life is more important then, consciousness and unconsciousness. At least he would have find power and beauty in Master morality more then in slave morality(which there is no beauty at all in my opinion)(I am talking about the moral codes in individual life, not the societal development)
And I think that's why Nietzsche's philosophy is freeing, it is not a dialect, I see his philosophy as a framework when it comes to application of his philosophy in individuals life. And I also think, the framework he argued is very much based on life and reality(in sense of real world)
And I think your interpretations of Nietzsche is very good and based on his works, not like other's who want to push their own views as they were N's. I appreciate your work. Thank you.
@@untimelyreflections The complete disregard of the weak did not destroy the Greeks but literally made them more powerful than ever and for millennia to come. Some madmen say that Greece fell after the classical era, but the Hellenic era (post Alexander the Great) was literally the most glorious period of ancient Greece, despite what the autistic German incel says. This era even survived the Romans since they culturally conquered them and the latter followed the Greek tradition in many aspects so continuing their legacy. Then, the Greeks themselves continued to innovate without stopping during their "conquered" period under Roman law and living in luxury in their main cities such as Alexandria, where philosophy had become scientific progress. Due to the nature of this era is why many coping modern philosophers, including Nietzsche, say that Greek philosophy or their culture itself was no longer worth sh 1 t, unable to see the evolution they had towards a greater form of thought: scientism, that survived in our days. This way of thought is leading us to overcome the very barriers of biology itself and turning us into literal Gods [feel envious, Nietzsche's Übermensch!]. Anyways, Nietzsche was a good thinker but limited by many things, including the ignorant and archaic era in which he still lived. He had very personal and biased methods of assessing cultures, so yes, he was absolutely wrong about the reasons of these supposed collapses of either the Greeks or the Romans. If the Greco-Romans, after thousands of years of living as peoples, turn into their demise because they had to perish, dying of old age but not because they were conquered by slave morality or something like that, however so what? Their best thinking, born directly from the concepts of rationalism and hierarchy mixed with an amoral and cold attitude, has survived today in the form of technological science and has allowed us to, as if we were gods, creating the new human, the one that is being born from AI. We are already gods without realizing it and we owe all this to the main factor of ancient Western civilization, which was its cold, amoral rationalism rooted in master morality over the world.
Why IIIII or why I DONT.
Should we not level guilt, almost as a social organizing principle built into the legal system, for agreed upon, excessive displays of power?
Excessive in so much as they compromise provably adaptive social cooperation?
It's probably a utilitarian argument, for suppression of the strong, under specific conditions.
Nietzsche thought that utility wouldn't be compromised as a result of the 'advent' of the latter described, post-moral society.
I think that's idealistic.
You'll probably know what I mean when I say, the 'New Christians' in my online orbit, don't seem to realize they're Nietzscheans.
Many of their arguments sound exactly like this vid.
Christianity's dead, so is a return to the purely Dionysian, I think.
It doesn't seem the latter is precisely what Nietzsche advocates. (As you seem to say later in vid).
How much reasonably parameterized social utility is compromised, in the process of 'deregulating' post-moral individuals?
This seems like the remaining question.
I think that only Utilitarians and Nietzscheans have survived in our current culture. (By any other name).
> Should we not level guilt, almost as a social organizing principle built into the legal system, for agreed upon, excessive displays of power?
Excessive in so much as they compromise provably adaptive social cooperation?
I think this approach is still treating the master/slave morality as if it is an affirmative philosophical ideal. If we treat it purely as critique, then it becomes difficult to construe master/slave morality as positing a "social organizing principle". Even if your point is solely to say that the critique is wrong, because guilt has utility, utility for whom, for what purpose? Nietzsche is simply not concerned with what holds utility for the collective, because basically every philosopher is an advocate for that collective already. We can rather easily see how the collective gains utility by instrumentalizing its individual members, by exploiting them for the sake of the greater good. Most political philosophy is an endless debate over how society ought to do this, how much it ought to do this, etc. This is why Nietzsche is not a political philosopher. He is concerned with psychology, and his critique is leveled at what guilt does to the individual psychology. For Nietzsche, it is based on error, meaning that whatever argument from utility you might employ, if there is no free will (thus no moral responsibility) then from the standpoint of the individual psychology, we're falsifying the world in order to make individuals suffer.
Meanwhile, society can still deter bad behaviors with consequences. What is unnecessary, a 'layered on' psychological punishment, is the labeling of the guilt of the criminal. This also leads to all sorts of ideologies that arguably cause negative social utility, like the use of the legal system to get "retribution", a completely erroneous desire in a world without libertarian free will, which causes more suffering than there would otherwise be for no reason at all.
> Nietzsche thought that utility wouldn't be compromised as a result of the 'advent' of the latter described, post-moral society.
I honestly don't get the sense that he felt this way or that he cared about this at all. Societies come and go.
> You'll probably know what I mean when I say, the 'New Christians' in my online orbit, don't seem to realize they're Nietzscheans.
Many of their arguments sound exactly like this vid.
> Christianity's dead, so is a return to the purely Dionysian, I think.
Well, this wasn't the point of the video, so if their arguments sounded like that, then they're saying something completely different from what Nietzsche argued.
Give the modern-day Christians a break. They're frustrated and resentful, full of grievances, and full of fear at the imminent loss of their dominion. You probably wouldn't be your best self in that position either.
> How much reasonably parameterized social utility is compromised, in the process of 'deregulating' post-moral individuals?
> This seems like the remaining question.
I can conceive of a functional, flourishing society that is post-guilt. But it doesn't really matter what we conceptualize or come to in our political theories. I don't give it much thought.
Thanks for the thought-provoking comment.
@@untimelyreflections Thanks, btw great vid.
The public conversation's becoming interesting, yet sort of impossible, in a certain way right now.
Which has to do with determinism.
People probably over-focus on scientists' compatibilism debates.
Our modes of understanding begin to break down at the limits of our observational capacity.
Determinism might be 'right' or 'wrong' at the quantum level. It's difficult to tell.
Determinism seems to be built into human observation, to an extent.
Observing static objects, or those with definite trajectories, is probably necessary for coherent observation, as such.
And observation is apparently necessary, for navigating the world.
(The kind of determinism we usually refer to, I think has all but been proven true in the lab, at this point.
Behavioral science lab).
However, I like your question, 'why psychologize?'
I go back and forth on this.
There's actually a good answer to this, which probably seals the deal for people. (And makes us both weird, Salts).
Which is, we look at the brain, and basically see, this is what it does.
Returning to the "determinist" point as well: when people are not in a semi-PTSD, semi-depressive state, or something like that, we tend to fabricate.
Human subjects are very manipulable. But ask them why they picked up the red ball when subconsciously prompted, and we'll tend to immediately make up a plausible story/explanation.
This extends to the kind of psychologization we're talking about.
Truthfully, it's a story.
(In fact, it involves the ostensibly healthy, constant human tendency, to over-attribute a certain agency, to oneself and others).
We're talking about a kind of inbuilt operating system, it can be 'hacked,' but it holds up for most people, most of the time.
It apparently functions to reduce neuroticism, and pessimism.
Why should the fiction, with a neurological basis, be reflected in society and law?
Probably the same reasons.
'Utility, for whom, for what?'
I like Nietzsche's own arbiter. (I'd probably apply it differently).
It's for the adaptation and survival of the species.
We could pretend that's not the point. I think then, we'd die faster than other animals. I don't think we can escape this arbiter.
So you can actually describe it as a kind of psychologizing illusion, which has its associated side effects, originating in a kind of widespread typical human pseudo-pathology, subsequently iterated within our social structures.
The illusion of selves, agents, choice. The weight of guilt. The strain of resentment.
I doubt we've 'bred fine enough human specimens' (lol) so that we don't need the failings and falsities, fed back to most people by a reflective social apparatus.
To alleviate their perceived needs. To direct (partly) their confused impulses.
And to give, almost therapeutic context, to their mental states.
If the sheep would ever stop sheeping, maybe we could just do science and philosophy, without maintaining the artifice of the superstructure.
(I have sheeped sometimes. I admit it).
Easy on the Christians, yes. I will.
Nice, nice Christians.
No loud noises. No sudden movements.
I thought I did, but I don't.
Tacitus.Roman historian told.something.about.Jew... He.told.that.Moses.tranformed. Egypt.God.Into. Devil
*Holy Qur'an* About the *Creator* of all worlds
*42:5 Holy Qur'an*
تَكَادُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٰتُ يَتَفَطَّرْنَ مِن فَوْقِهِنَّ ۚ وَٱلْمَلَـٰٓئِكَةُ يُسَبِّحُونَ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّهِمْ وَيَسْتَغْفِرُونَ لِمَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ ۗ أَلَآ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ هُوَ ٱلْغَفُورُ ٱلرَّحِيمُ ٥
The heavens almost burst apart above them [in awe of Him], and the angels glorify the praises of their Lord, and seek forgiveness for those on earth. Indeed, *Allah* is the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
*2:136 Holy Qur'an*
Say, O believers, “We believe in *Allah* and what has been revealed to us; and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants; and what was given to Moses, Jesus, and other prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them. And to *Allah* we all submit.”
I am reminded of the chorus from Marilyn Manson's Irresponsible Hate Anthem. I, of course, can't quote it here, but you know how it goes, "everybody's someone else's...."
I don’t think he did daily devotion