Really dude? Socrates said I know I know nothing. Only an idiot would say a foolish lie. One thing Socrates knew, he knew he knew nothing. Mustache man makes an argument to not argue, and he isn't a moron like Socrates? My philosophy is a man is either a pacifist or non pacifist, which is the wise man and which isn't wise? Like a liar and thief? Or, a non liar or non thief. Objective truth grasshopper, your not a wise man only a parrot.
I put in actions but the city I’m in is all talk they bait you to call police and shit then call you soft it’ll be the same guys calling the police running their mouths like their tough that’s nyc
The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: If Nietzsche would have known what the biblical "satan" is, he would have known that he was a satanist. Neither Socrates nor Jesus Christ had any power in his estimation, because that which Nietzsche considered "power" is actually insanity, Truth be known; the "power" of satan: the selfish human EGO.
I would argue "smart" and "stupid" is an objective observation. Everyone has its strengths and weaknesses. What you may struggle with is to understand the other person how he thinks and talk on his "level" instead only on yours.
He criticised moralist argumentation, i.e. arguing that *x* is good or evil because of *y* . He never disavowed every type of argumentation and made it clear in his books that intellectuality is important, just not the cold, moralist intellectualism of Socrates and Euripides.
This philosophy sounds like it works from a narrow definition of strength and power. If the definition of "power" is along the lines of "gets results," then let's not forget that a mosquito can not only bully a horse, but even kill it by means that the horse is ill equipped to understand. Casting Men of Reason as gadflies who are an annoyance to Men of Power is an admission that the hide of the horse is not as tough as it looks. Indeed, the fact that an being as tiny as a fly can hope to even annoy a being on the scale of a horse, and compel the horse to unwitting (and mostly fruitless) action in response to its bites, is a testament to the fly's outsized leverage.
The problem with reason is its ignorance of its own narrowness. Some old things - especially social conventions - just work, for reasons that are hard to understand and easy to dismiss. In many ways, today's society is out of touch with reality because it has dismissed old traditions without understanding them beyond a superficial caricature. So the proper hierarchy is like this; 1. Things that worked for a long time 2. Things that worked for a short time 3. Things that reasonably SHOULD work We have it backwards and call old things outdated. That's why we're not sustainable.
Look at all the idealistic utopians who want to change the world, but can't prove their system actually works over long timescales. They are the gabflies who destroyed a healthy society to replace it with a dream that won't happen.
@spambot_gpt7 I would agree that some _practitioners_ of reason are ignorant of the narrowness of their reasoning, but this isn't the fault of the principles or methods of reason itself. Acknowledging the limitations of one's reasoning is in fact an inherently reasonable way to conduct reasoning, and careful practitioners take great pains to do so. If the practitioners of a certain tradition were to carry out abuses in the name of their tradition, would you rather blame the tradition itself or its abusers? Second... it seems to me that if the old ways truly worked as well as you say they do, then we all would be quite happy with the outcomes and there would be no impetus to change them. The fact that these systems were compelled to change indicates that there was a blind spot somewhere and the old system fell short. Traditions are defined by their narrowness of thinking (by applying restrictive laws to the sheer wildness of reality, promoting certain constructs as "right, true, and good" while denying or outright banishing others) which means that any phenomenon that falls outside the scope of a tradition cannot be bound by the tradition's laws. A tradition cannot govern any phenomenon it hasn't accounted for, and when a tradition encounters any kind of surprise, that tradition must adapt or die. A surprise could be from the outside, such as a change in the environment since the time the system was conceived (think of the inevitable progress of history, technology, or moral development, or even literal changes in the natural environment). A surprise could also come from within the tradition (think divided factions each holding their own warring interpretations of the system, or civil unrest from the corners of society the system does not properly serve). It is fair to criticize extreme idealists for being out of touch with reality. I would also say that traditions that fail to evolve as the world evolves, are also out of touch with reality.
@@umbrascitor2079 That's true. It is necessary to change things as the world changes. But it is also necessary to do so with humility and responsibility. ONLY change something if your new idea is truly better. And you only know that after long-term testing. Adopting new technology is usually good. Often it is obviously better than what we had before. But humans have changed very little since we evolved. And we are very complex. So ambitious social changes are often very bad. And the consequences are often only visible much later. Adaption is necessary, but the idea of praising "progress" for its own sake is terrible and dangerous.
@@maryfrances1307Says the manager that is about to get her company sued for everything after disregarding her employees good faith arguments that the scissor lift has a flat tire. 😅
I love the fact that you have covered this and this is a very fascinating topic to talk about. Argumentation can have purpose but overusing it can be ridiculous and stem from insecurities. The thing is people aren't going to take this in several ways and sometimes miss the point. Nietzsche is just making a statement about how if you want to do things then do them and let your actions do the speaking. Actions and results matter. If you are secure and strong with yourself, You wouldn't prove yourself by argumentation but you would prove yourself by action alone because you can and it's something that's natural to you. Keep up the beautiful work, Weltgeist. 👍✨🔥
00:00 📜 Nietzsche critiques Socrates, arguing that his reliance on reason and argumentation led to a decline in Greek culture. 03:38 🏛 Nietzsche views the arrival of Socrates as a portent of cultural decay, contrasting confident, unapologetic Greek culture with Socratic rationalism. 05:41 🦉 Philosophy emerges when a culture questions its own mode of existence, a symptom of decline according to Nietzsche. 09:40 💪 In the Melian Dialogue, Athenians justify their actions solely through strength, reflecting a pre-Socratic mindset. 12:00 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes Socrates for instilling a relentless drive for justification, which he sees as a sign of cultural decay. 16:49 🦁 Nietzsche contrasts human questioning and doubt with the instinctual nature of animals, arguing that excessive doubt devalues action. 20:13 🔱 Nietzsche distinguishes between master morality (confident, self-assured) and slave morality (born out of resentment), tracing their evolution through history. 21:05 💡 Nietzsche views Socrates as an exponent of slave morality, opposing noble virtues. 22:53 🔍 Despite being perceived as a low-born, Socrates' influence rose, indicating Greek society's readiness for moral shift. 23:35 📉 Nietzsche sees dialectics as a tool of the weak, displacing authority from oneself to abstract principles like reason. 24:29 🔄 Greek culture's acceptance of Socratic virtues signaled a decline, outsourcing morality to external sources. 25:52 🗣 The reliance on argumentation and justification reflects cultural decadence for Nietzsche. 26:45 ⚖ Socrates' method of seeking justification outside oneself led to his martyrdom, shaping philosophy thereafter. 27:28 🌟 Philosophers, like Plato and Christianity, sought morality beyond human experience, akin to the weak Milons, not strong Athenians. 28:38 🤔 Nietzsche questions if modern humanity can surpass ancient Greek ideals and become value creators. 29:21 💔 Nietzsche critiques the death of God, a consequence of relentless questioning, urging the creation of new values. 30:01 🌟 The Übermensch, for Nietzsche, represents a future where humanity creates morality independent of external standards, beyond good and evil.
Clearly one can function without the other, it's just usually bad for the largest number of common people when that happens Within Noetzsches and our time "reason" reigns so supreme it has destroyed even itself, and so that is why he is obsessed with its harms and dangers. Perhaps if Nietzsche had lived in a world of Egoistic dominance he would have come to the same methods and ideas espoused by Socrates instead
Or maybe Nietszche himself would not at all be concerned with how the elite would have autocractically ruled back then, since he'd see that as "might must be right" and that the weak always get what they in proportion to their level of weakness will deserve. The moralists like to say "just as you sow, so shall you reap", and that of course means the same thing, only diference being, the self rightious won't met out the reaping themselves, they depend on an external force to do that to the wicked. Nietszche understands that in a more primal time, the gods were an after thought.
_When the great Tao is forgotten,_ _Kindness and morality arise._ _When wisdom and intelligence are born,_ _The great pretence begins._ _When there is no peace within the family,_ _Filial piety and devotion arise._ _When the country is confused and in chaos,_ _Loyal ministers appear._ -- Tao De Ching, Chapter 18 The critical insight Nietzsche makes, if not the philsophy he built upon it, is that conscious mediation in life betrays a loss of contact with the instincts. This is a phenomenon hinted at by the expression, "Ignorance is bliss." _The Tao is both named and nameless._ _As nameless it is the origin fo Heaven and Earth._ _As named it is the mother of ten thousand things._ The named Tao is the world as representation. The nameless Tao is the world as will. That world of Will is forgotten when consciousness interferes in life, for better and worse. When we consider Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, this all sounds very familiar. But unlike Nietzsche Lao Tzu was strongly pacifist, and not out of a sense of moral piety but because he, as Thucydides argues in his case, considers interdependence to be the law of nature, not domiance. _The sage, who is attuned to Tao, warns the ruler against the use of arms for conquest._ _Weapons often turn upon the wielder._ _Wherever armies are stationed, briers and thorns grow._ _Great wars are always followed by famine._ _A good general stops when he achieves his purpose._ _He does not parade his victory._ _He does not boast his ability._ _He does not feel proud._ _He rather regrets that he has not been able to prevent the war._ _He must never think of conquering others by force._ _Whatever strains with force will soon decay._ _Because it is contrary to the Tao._ _Whatever is not attuned to the Way of Tao will soon perish._ Athens won a great victory over Melos, but where is their empire today? Nietzsche fixates on the hierarchical aspects of empires and ignores their cooperative aspects. Thus he too falls victim to decadence. _Heaven is eternal; the Earth is endures._ _What is the secret to their durability?_ _They do not live for themselves only._ _That is how they can be eternal._
Taoism paves the way to Eastern Christianity. Being is eternal co-mmunion as manifest in the eternal relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The essence of God is Nameless such as according to Dyonysius the Areopagite's "On the Divine Names", while the energies of God can be known through it's many Names. The difference is this: the communion of Heaven and Earth and between all peoples is realized in the Incarnational person of Christ. This is represented by the Holy Cross which extends infinitely upwards and downwards conjoining Heaven and Earth, as well as leftwards and rightwards to conjoin Creation. Eastern Orthodoxy is not only early esoteric philosophy enshrouded in mystery, but rather the complete, fulfilled, divine revelation of the perennial mystery fully revealed. Check out Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism" and "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future", the book "Christ the Eternal Tao" written by a hieromonk, as well as the philosophy channel Telosbound. Eastern Christian phronema and praxis is the complete, real and divine Way to theosis.
This, this is the one area my instincts feel a friction to Nietzsche's master morality. Aristocratic societies were not so pleasant to live in either. Kill all the men and enslave all the women seems a rather boorish display of power as a nation/tribe. Primal, but boorish. Or should I say, decadent?
The title is misleading. Nietzche is not against all arguments. Only against the Socratic arguments. Nietzche was a fan of the pre socratics and thet argued too and used logic. So Nietzche is not against that.
He used reasonable arguments to explain people don't need to have clearly states reasons for taking action. Dmb people in the comments making fun of hin
Nietzsche was a genius he was someone that we still fail to understand on a personal level, and his philosophy is something we often fail to understand because before people have even ever studied it they think they already know it.
The great philosopher is so right. Debates, argumentation and tiresome polemics are more of a superficial spectacle. The thing is, however, that the great philosopher often ended up himself in quarrelsome debates and argumentative conflicts.
He also said a man who must say "I am the king" is no true king. A man like Nietzsche who went on and on about "the strong" proved through his own life how weak he himself in fact was. Meanwhile, his ideological forefather and opponent, Arthur Schopenhauer, while maintaining many much more pessimistic positions, lived quite a decent life himself. Actions can speak louder than words...
@@cosmicprison9819 that's is kinda what makes him great. a weak person know how being weak sucks and see's the value of being strong. if he was a lion he would not care about us sheep and would not have written anything worthwhile to read now.
@@cosmicprison9819 Sir I have read your past comments. I want you to know that nietzsche despised politics especially fascists and right wing politics.
@gerhardvanderpoll7378 That right there pretty much sums of the truth of why people do what they do. Humans do what is instinctual and natural to them, as do dogs. Because they to. However much "reason" the motivations of humans may be couched in, does not make the simple truth of the matter any less true. People do what they do because they want to, and because they can. All of it. True for humans. True animals.
@@captainzork6109 Uh, dogs for the most part don't stand a chance without humans. Also, I am an average-size male, and I can easily overpower most dogs. Dogs require feeding and care by humans.63
Most people are not in a position of commanding anyone, it's not something one can choose. One can work one's way into being in such position but, until it happens, trying to "command" will just get you fired or cast away.
I just realised from your comment that you really can do it, but it needs to be in a way that the other person wants to since its in their best interest to do so. But this has to happen without them knowing that it is you who implanted that idea. There's a name for this phenomenon: It's called manipulation and it works
The reason the human cannot behave like the lion is that when man meets with an outcome he dislikes he may construct a way through or around it, and arguing, often with one's self is part of the construction.
@@HexFent big man kill animal, when animal too big, big man ask if man get bigger, when man cant get bigger, big man makes big weapon and kills bigger animal.
You need to combine Socrates and Nietzsche. You need to think, but you need to do. If you believe only one is 100% right you can either go down the road of overthinking and anxiety, or the other path of a destination you never wanted and many missed opportunities that you never thought of as applying to your strengths. Think and do my friends.
Be wise enough to know when, where, why, and with whom you ought to do battle using words/Reason. Be strong enough to know when, where, why and with whom you ought to crush using the body/Force. Be that which you were meant to Be.
@@lukedegraaf1186 you are honestly asking for the difference between a statement and an argument? Okay. Statement: Peaches are wonderful. Argument: Peaches are wonderful because…and…and…which means…etc, etc.
@@lukedegraaf1186Arguments are sets of statements that are put forward to support a claim or conclusion. The claim or conclusion itself can be a statement. A statement on its own is generally an assertion of something. For example, the other commenter said peaches are wonderful. They are asserting that peaches possess the quality of being wonderful. An argument can be that peaches are juicy. This is a statement to support the assertion that peaches are wonderful. This assumes juiciness is a quality of a wonderful peach.
And yet the tradition of rational argument that comes from Socrates literally transformed the weak into the strong. “Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun and they have not.”
Maxim gun comes from technological innovation which comes from the scientific method, the opposite of philosophy. Science deals with what demonstratively true. Philosophy deals with invented pretense.
@@user-cp9yo4jk9b No it's not. It's a method of objective trial and observation empty of any systematic intellectual prejudgements. Given my degree and career in science, you know actual experience as opposed to sticking my nose in a book and claiming I know truth, I'm going to put more weight on my observation than your assumption.
I've always believed there is a reason for everything. It may not be your reason or you don't understand the reason, but there is still a reason for every action of every living being on this planet.
Truth is the greatest tyrant, it is always right and it will humiliate all who resist. There are no men more powerful, none greater than even the slaves of truth.
As an Orthodox Christian, we believe that being a slave to Christ--eternal Wisdom and Logos, is many times stronger than being a slave to one's lonely mortal passions. To us, the martyrdom of the righteous is the greatest humiliation to evil. "Come, let us bow down and worship before Christ--Truth Himself."
Not a single person likes being bossed around. Self-determination is one of humans core wants and a source of intrinsic motivation. Orders from other naturally have the opposite effect unless the person has some reinterpretation (rationalisation) or coping mechanism that usually comes with age. That's why when we were teens we didn't want to do things our parents ordered even if we initially were thinking of doing them ourselves.
But you can still find this passage useful. You can try to convince your boss you deserve a raise because bla bla bla and get 100% chance of refusal. You can tell him you got a job offer, and they are going to pay better, and you are considering it, and you came to talk ask for a raise. You do not argue why you should get a raise, you just state the fact you are getting a raise.
@@redhidinghood9337I feel in your comment that you and OP have made a very big assumption, and it's not too dissimilar to the fish in the fishbowl analogy mentioned in the video. In different eras, people accepted power dynamics much more easily, and in different cultures, even today, people will look at you very oddly if you were to question "might makes right" power dynamics and you try to argue logically about an issue.
I think argumentation can be a more positive force and not merely undermine. Debate can help us to 'kick the tires' of potential beliefs we might decide to take up to find the strongest ones for any situation. It also prepares us to be more mentally flexible.
Funny, but this sort of confirmed my Catholicism and gives me more self-love. Instead of constantly acting in self-sacrifice, I can be a little more selfish and tyrannical; not because I rejected Socrtates, but because my will and strength will always be tempered by God, that I might not step over someone's life or boundaries in HIS name. Christianity could be the Happy Medium-point. For some, I suppose...
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole yea ask anyone that is nonwhite if it has ever been used that way in reality??Ever??? name a non-white people that Christianity touched that weren't raped pillaged and taught self-hate so you can pontificate as to how wonderful it is. Who are the biggest landowners on earth? The Catholic Church they did a lot of killing now you can talk with a flowery tongue.
So for the majority of human existence we've been un-human. All the things you attribute to be human were rare and far few between a couple of hundred years ago.
@@SouthpawJoe total BS no what we are seeing now is new killing kids in mass shootings kids killing themselves everyone miserable on drugs mental health issues at an all time high young people having less sex less love less friends woman and men hating each other sorry the perversion and bs that has you brainwashed has lead to this men in villages were hunting and fighting and woman were woman and when it was perverted those cultures crumbled
No. No we should not. I CAN right now, jump up and start pulling books off the shelves, then get naked and run around screaming "who wants to be a millionaire?!!" Yeah that's about the most random thing I can think of. I have the *ability* to do those things but there is a distinct lack of motive.
You do not need to deliberately think about why you should not kill another person randomly. If you really need to, you are a maniac - no one listens do they? Or they lack understanding.
I am Greek and I like your analysis. You struggle a bit with some concepts of ancient Greek philosophy, but this is expected even by the biggest non Greek philosophers (in my opinion it has to do with the translations not being 100% accurate). With that being said, I give the video a very solid 8/10 and I am subscribing.
I finished the video, and my opinion from the beggining hasn't changed, not questioning yourself is how people like my dad are created, assholes who do what they want and treat others whatever way they want without even thinking about it
I really enjoy your Nietzsche videos! I would like to know more about Alcibiades. It would be interesting to compare his character to Nietzsche's ideas about the Ubermensch.
I've been suffering with periods of intense heart throbbing anxiety for a long while now, and 10 minutes into this I felt my anxiety go away and my heart calm down. I believe you might have just cured me of my ailment. Thank you!
Can you explain this? I am new to Dune, and reading through the second book right now and was hoping you could explain his dislike of the Socratic model
@@curtisbauer2803 Why is it that no matter how much peace and prosperity mankind rises to, there is always so much chaos and suffering to be found? That shouldn't spoil too much while giving you something to keep in mind while reading.
yeah, those famously weak and powerless Romans. who after absorbing Greek culture never amounted to anything. immediately becoming slaves, and not at all creating an empire that enslaved most of the ancient world. /s
@@Yura135 If it was so powerful, why is it referred to in the past tense? The Gnostic tendencies of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates is parasitic. Only after a civilization has achieved greatness and conquered its rivals in nature and culture can it engage in "the finer arts" of questioning the methods and motives for doing so, then believe itself to be the root of evil. You can see the process playing out right now in the form of critical theory. The importation of foreigners of 'superior' moral virtue to counteract the 'injustice' of 'the oppressors.' Everything which allowed us to build an unprecedented era of international cooperation among nations is not just being challenged, but decried as evil and detestable while those who claim to be paragons of moral virtue run ethical defense for cannibal gangs. All the while, the men who argued the government should be constrained in power and be governed by and for the people of a nation ... Are decried as evil and their statues removed from society - their entire lives placed under the critical theory microscope and subjected to purity testing and struggle sessions. But you're just full of misunderstood, justified outrage if you are running around and cooking/eating your political rivals, it is our culture which must be in the wrong because it didn't give captain barbecue a Tesla. It was exactly this type of thinking and process which led to the implosion of Rome as an empire.
I’ve always tried to find a balance, an imbalance really, but a working system that allows me to do both. Through journaling I reflect and develop aims and goals, and then I just try to execute on those goals without thinking. I course correct with evening journaling sessions.
I got it: Do everything you want regardless of the consequences to others as long as it benefits you, then you are strong. And also a psychopath, but strong nonetheless.
Don't take "the world is meaningless" from the guy that wanted his sister and got depressed when she married someone who wasn't in her family, all that seriously. If I need advice about unrequiting my sister, I'll ask him then.
You realize the ability to self reflect is what separates us from the other animals, right? Your argument is just might equals right. That’s the mindset of tyranny. Choose your battles wisely I guess, because you’re clearly not able to talk your way through things if you think like this.
You can self reflect without getting too deep. Hurts my brain. Managed to get me straight As despite it though 😁 Nietzsche to put it simply would rather us have more people put confidence in themselves, as we are created in the image of God. Much like how in anime every hero has their unique ability, every human being has their unique truth to uncover in themselves. By putting your methods of seeking the truth, that is within, _outside_ you put stumbling blocks for yourself on your journey to discovering your identity in Christ that is within you. The Bible is a great guide and tutorial for the game that _is_ life. We all have to choose a master in the end, there is a hierarchy in our minds and something occupies the top. Tyranny, then, becomes a semantics game at this point. Lies. If you will. As we strive to seek for truth outside of ourselves, the chaos and death and pain and misery of this world becomes inevitable, as we keep gaining in knowledge, but never coming any closer to the Truth. We muddy up the waters and let worldly spirits dictate what is and isn't sufficient evidence and sound modes of logic for the justification of whatever said truth you find within yourself. Ideally a balance would be struck at this point but... prophecy must happen. As this is the war. Only one will come out on top. Who will consume who and assimilate the other. I read the end of the Bible however, I know who won.
Technically, might does equal right. But only for those with might, and that's a select few (and often not based on talent or any other measure of "worthiness" beyond dumb luck). There's nothing written in the laws of the universe that suggests that we need to live a moral existence, beyond the fact that a fair society is best for all, and therefore the collective "satisfaction" in life is the greatest in such a society (and therefore by at least one measure it's "objectively" better. Even that could be steamrolled by some authoritarian state where you have one mad dictator.
Most Nietzche fans believe in might makes right. That's why most of them are pro hierarchy, right wing, bootlickers, capitalist 5imp, etc. The irony is if i'd come to them and bully them phisically, they'd call the police. 🤣
Nietzsche would've never thought of this if Aristotilies never questioned himself why he thought the way he did! His point off view have merit, regardless.
Dodged a bullet on that one. What a nightmare. We' be orcs basically if we went with the aristocratic model of "good is imposing your will by any means necessary"
@@c4callhow is that literally the world we live in? In what way do people just get to force their will on us? What do you think trials, lawyers, laws, and human rights are for?
@@albertmaheswara9968 They are a place where the person who can afford the better lawyer can get society to rubber stamp their accusations against their opponent.
@@albertmaheswara9968 Look at wealth distribution in the UK. Around a thousand years since William the Conqueror invaded and conquered England, and the descendants of him and his lieutenants maintain pretty much the same proportion of national wealth as they did immediately after the conquest. The legal system serves those with wealth, and those with wealth are the descendants of those with power.
Really grasshopper? In light of all the killing. Should a wise man objectively argue for free willed pacifists or non pacifists? For, instant world peace? If your a free willed non pacifist your the evil of the world, period. Philosopher Bob says so ..... peace out non pacifist evil of the world.
I think Nietzsche would have loved/hated Cormac McCarthy's books and the 2nd Amendment. He's not entirely wrong. Why should the tyrant respect what we commoners have decided our "rights" are? I suggest we try reason first, appeals to sympathy 2nd, then the force multipliers last.
“Might makes right” doesn’t take into account how might is created, generated and kept on, a tyrant can do that, but they wouldn’t last long. Just like Nietzsche btw
Recently, someone made idle death threats to two colleagues and myself when he completely misinterpreted a situation. When we explained to him what was happening and he realised he was in the wrong, he doubled down and resorts to making nothing but more and more deaths threats. The next day he called our boss and apologised. You either laugh or you cry.
Nietzsche would have converted to Christianity, eventually. Or at least, he would have developed a more profound understanding and appreciation of the Christian faith. Kierkegaard has such a beautiful and noble soul that it's impossible to resist him for very long. What is particularly striking is that both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche grew up in Lutheran families and inherited a particular Protestant spirituality which would have been based on guilt, puritan morality etc. (my guess) Having worked out all the more negative aspects of such a spirituality by himself, while remaining faithful to the Christian faith, Kierkegaard could probably have helped Nietzsche work out his own ambivalences about Christianity. You can see it already with Nietzsche's reaction to Dostoevsky, who has deep affinites with Kierkegaard, although Dostoevsky had a more apocalyptic temperament. Nietzsche is a brilliant writer and thinker, but you can definitely sense the deep pain he was in for most of his life, loosing his father at such a young age, and fearing always that he had inherited the disease that killed his father. The similarities between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov are especially striking: the horse scene; the early death of Raskolnikov's father; Raskolnikov's fascination with Napoleon and Mohammed as "superior men" and "higher natures" and his prematurely sketched proto-Nietzschean theories; his hidden resentment against his mother and sister etc. The resemblances are absolutely uncanny. It is even more uncanny when you realize that Dostoevsky published Crime and Punishment more than twenty years before Nietzsche's breakdown -- and that they, Nietzsche and Raskolnikov, were the same age at the time of the book's release (both in their early twenties)! But Dostoevsky is an uncomparably deeper psychologist than Nietzsche. In a way, you could say that he contains Nietzsche (as much as he contains Marx and Freud), more than Nietzsche contains him. At the end of the day, a Dostoevskyan reading of Nietzsche is more useful and fruitful than a Nietzschean reading of Dostoevsky. My humble two cents. EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wonder if Kierkegaard would not have been to Nietszche what Sonya was to Raskolnikov. There's this otherwordly purity to Kierkegaard's writing at times, that it's difficult to not envisage such a parallel.
Behind the wall that is one of the first things new staff learns: Never argue with an inmate and attempt to explain why a rule exists or why an order was given. Comply or face the consequences. Do not allow them to argue the "why" behind laws, rules, and orders as it is a form of manipulation, the way inmates attempt to assert a false form of authority over the real authority of the institution and its staff. Sadly those that start off attempting to explain, attempting to have a conversation will either slide into saying "because I am in charge and told you to do it" or "its the rules" or "if you don't you will lose privileges" or they will be walked over until they get fired or quit. In prisons the concepts above make very much sense. Sadly the same kind of tactics are used on patrol officers on traffic stops. There are an infinite number of arguments, some of which make no sense, which can be lodged to deter or derail the lawful interaction.
Arguing is just a waste of time, period. That's a nonstarter. All you can really do is put in the work in pursuit of the truth and maybe gain results if you're dedicated and lucky. You can have a conversation that has points of contrast that can be useful in order to broaden ones understanding. But if you find yourself arguing, then one or both parties have failed catastrophically in the pursuit of understanding the subject at hand.
I understand that justifying with reason is something Nietzsche would oppose. But opposed to arguing that seems contradictory as that feels like a form of conflict which he would prefer? In my experience arguing and reason don't often go hand in hand, so it's a bit of a pull for me. He was a great fan of the sophists as well!
I think many modern English speaking people tend to misunderstand the concept "arguing ( quarrelling ? ) " , but actually arguing and its derivative word " argument "refer to the action of exchanging reasonable statements considering the fact that only highly intelligent people are able to articulate " arguments ".
@@majidbineshgar7156 English speakers don't "misunderstand" the concept of arguing, they know there's a difference in nuance between 'argument' and 'debate'. What you're describing is closer to a debate
@@BaileyJPope Here's my argument, this is an argument as I am persuading you that your argument is wrong by presenting the following argument: argument means, "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong", meaning the word argument can be used outside the context of a quarrel
This video has really outed the fools from those willing to learn. So many just dig at the very notion rather than try to understand the point before coming to a conclusion.
This is common with philosophy lectures. People tend to get hurt when their ideals are poked at, not examining what is being criticized. That's why I don't bother reading comments because I have to sift through the chaff of comments that get boosted to the top in order to find actual interesting comments
Greek society was strong and full of brave and motivated citizens who took action, and yet they became decadent enough for a weak philosopher like Socrates to destroy them. Surely it was not the powerful and violent Greeks who were responsible for their own downfall? 🤔
Lmao pretty sure Socrates didn't "destroy" the Greek world. This comment smacks of self-fellating redditor fedora tipping lmao. He was a professional shitposter that was lucky enough to be the first man to annoyingly ask "why though?" For every single aspect of life and live in a society (founded by the ideals and characteristics he hated and constantly questioned) that was connected enough to disseminate the information throughout history
If the argument is an effective weapon against "the strong", then intellect is the Achilles heel of the man of action. To be truly strong would mean having no such imbalance of competence and therefore no special weaknesses.
When evil becomes willing to shed the cloak of reason in pursuit of power, it is the duty of the righteous to do the same. Regardless of the transcendent truth, we still live in the material world which is governed by power alone.
Wrong. Good and evil are approximations of an implicit, ordering morality. Calling this subjective approximation unreal of something that is deeply real and impactful prevents meaningful agreement and understanding of how we can cooperate effectively rather than be reduced to forceful, instinctual power struggles.
Great video. The topic of arguing is a very important one as on the one hand, never argue with people whose behavior/idea change has no impact on your life. For example the rude driver on the freeway, restaurant, on the street. Just let them go. However with your children, wife, key employees where their beliefs/actions will affect your life, making a stand is important. So the question is what is the definition of arguing? Is it disagreeing with back and forth rebuttals or do you need to raise your voice and get emotional?
That would be some kind of social progressivism since the lithium is for electric cars and social media fueled smartphones: a veneer of social consciousness built on the corpses of the poor.
when you say at 24:35 "we root for the medians, we feel like they deserve to win because the athenians are power angry" that's not true, i root for the medians but i don't feel like they deserved to win, they knew they wouldn't win and still decided to fight, i admire the medeans sacrifice because they couldn't win, that's what make it beautiful, you call this a "slave" mentality but they had the choice of becoming slaves or dead and they chose death where someone with the "strenght" mentality would have seen their inferiority and would have chose to live a servile life as the athenians expected from the medeans to do, there is no strenght to do what you can against weaker than you but there is to do what you can't against stronger, the "weak" mentality is not born from weakness but from fear and the strongs fear those who are stronger when the weak knows fear is not a good thing to listen, if you have friends you can help eachother, if you have foes you can't sleep well while waiting someone stabs you
This is the weak option though just like with people who cant handle living or a bully suddenly trying to talk their way out of a fight they started when they realize they picked a fight with the wrong person.
He wrote a few of 10 most influential books ever, he turned the entire course of world philosophy, and changed the course of history. What is your bench press again?
I think we are already living in the world Nietzsche described. A world where the powerful dominate, because they can, and the rest have to stay under their heel and suffer. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his 'Master Morality' is beyond the point, it is incredibly helpful and insightful in diagnosing our own society and should be critically engaged with.
The problem is that we can discover the reasons behind natural instincts. We should not question these instincts themselves though, but instead seek their origin through how they benefit a creature in the process of natural selection, and therefore extract the truths about Nature instilled in the instincts. Reason shouldn't be used for questioning Nature, but for operating better within it. Using instinct alone is flawed since instinct is merely a xerox of a xerox of the fundamental truths of Nature propagated through natural selection, and therefore is ignorant of context or nuance. The ideal framework should be for our ultimate goals be informed by those fundamental truths of Nature, and for Reason to be used to best achieve those goals.
Not sure of I agree with the stipulation "we should not question our instincts." While I'm a strong believer in natural harmony and despise religion for breaking humanity from the natural world, I first and foremost question EVERYTHING. There are no ideas nor subjects beyond reproach. Moreover, evolution is anything but intelligently devised for future needs. Many a natural instinct that leads to extinction. Useful one year, detrimental the next. So perhaps with a caveat we can agree.
Head to squarespace.com/weltgeist to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code WELTGEIST
I can't find you on spotify.
Really dude? Socrates said I know I know nothing. Only an idiot would say a foolish lie. One thing Socrates knew, he knew he knew nothing. Mustache man makes an argument to not argue, and he isn't a moron like Socrates? My philosophy is a man is either a pacifist or non pacifist, which is the wise man and which isn't wise? Like a liar and thief? Or, a non liar or non thief. Objective truth grasshopper, your not a wise man only a parrot.
Why do we think this guy's wise? His stace is the equivalent of a child throwing a fit
I put in actions but the city I’m in is all talk they bait you to call police and shit then call you soft it’ll be the same guys calling the police running their mouths like their tough that’s nyc
The biblical prophet Elijah has returned, as prophesied, and testifies: If Nietzsche would have known what the biblical "satan" is, he would have known that he was a satanist. Neither Socrates nor Jesus Christ had any power in his estimation, because that which Nietzsche considered "power" is actually insanity, Truth be known; the "power" of satan: the selfish human EGO.
"Your honor stfu you weren't even there"
Underrated comment
I'm right - 🗿
Moreover ‘I have a gun, fuck you!”
Unironically correct. Too many armchair quarterbacks telling people how they should have boxed when they have never been punched in the face.
😂
As one of my teachers said. "People do things because they can, they want to, and no one stops them."
And the greater their access to resources, the bigger their mistakes
@@alexdavis1541 Or the higher the triumph. If are not willing to risk failure, you will never succeed.
@@alexdavis1541 yeah but they can make a million mistakes and it’s okay because they can afford to
@@ravendelacour1917 yeah but if you aren’t willing to risk success, you’ll never fail
@@iammichaeldavis The Uttermensch philosophy in a sentence.
Arguing with a smart person is tough. Arguing with a stupid person is impossible.
Considering most people are neither smart or stupid but just average
In that case
This statement just becomes a very subjective dig.
Nah, most people are stupid. The average person is stupid.
I would argue "smart" and "stupid" is an objective observation. Everyone has its strengths and weaknesses.
What you may struggle with is to understand the other person how he thinks and talk on his "level" instead only on yours.
@@Red_Neck "Average" means "stupid"
@@alexdavis1541 no average means medium (normal) like you and me😅😊
My toddler must be reading Nietzsche.
Toddler starts smoking and asking "why?" all thr time.
@@bhante1345😂😂😂
@@bhante1345 what you say is socrates
so he is saying commands instead of asking why all the time?
Our natural state is irrational and power based
Lads, if someone commands you without arguments, dismiss them without arguments.
No.
Like what you're doing now?
Hitchen's Razor, for anyone interested
It depends on if it’s an actual command. Most people confuse commanding with being a brute.
@@9box906Poor guy.
Nietzsche's philosophy is a very long, very detailed series of arguments...
I don't think Nietzsche would call himself strong.
😂
Then why should we take his advice?@@JaMeXDDD
He accepted that he was weak.
He criticised moralist argumentation, i.e. arguing that *x* is good or evil because of *y* . He never disavowed every type of argumentation and made it clear in his books that intellectuality is important, just not the cold, moralist intellectualism of Socrates and Euripides.
This philosophy sounds like it works from a narrow definition of strength and power. If the definition of "power" is along the lines of "gets results," then let's not forget that a mosquito can not only bully a horse, but even kill it by means that the horse is ill equipped to understand.
Casting Men of Reason as gadflies who are an annoyance to Men of Power is an admission that the hide of the horse is not as tough as it looks. Indeed, the fact that an being as tiny as a fly can hope to even annoy a being on the scale of a horse, and compel the horse to unwitting (and mostly fruitless) action in response to its bites, is a testament to the fly's outsized leverage.
Underrated comment
The problem with reason is its ignorance of its own narrowness.
Some old things - especially social conventions - just work, for reasons that are hard to understand and easy to dismiss.
In many ways, today's society is out of touch with reality because it has dismissed old traditions without understanding them beyond a superficial caricature.
So the proper hierarchy is like this;
1. Things that worked for a long time
2. Things that worked for a short time
3. Things that reasonably SHOULD work
We have it backwards and call old things outdated. That's why we're not sustainable.
Look at all the idealistic utopians who want to change the world, but can't prove their system actually works over long timescales.
They are the gabflies who destroyed a healthy society to replace it with a dream that won't happen.
@spambot_gpt7 I would agree that some _practitioners_ of reason are ignorant of the narrowness of their reasoning, but this isn't the fault of the principles or methods of reason itself. Acknowledging the limitations of one's reasoning is in fact an inherently reasonable way to conduct reasoning, and careful practitioners take great pains to do so. If the practitioners of a certain tradition were to carry out abuses in the name of their tradition, would you rather blame the tradition itself or its abusers?
Second... it seems to me that if the old ways truly worked as well as you say they do, then we all would be quite happy with the outcomes and there would be no impetus to change them. The fact that these systems were compelled to change indicates that there was a blind spot somewhere and the old system fell short.
Traditions are defined by their narrowness of thinking (by applying restrictive laws to the sheer wildness of reality, promoting certain constructs as "right, true, and good" while denying or outright banishing others) which means that any phenomenon that falls outside the scope of a tradition cannot be bound by the tradition's laws. A tradition cannot govern any phenomenon it hasn't accounted for, and when a tradition encounters any kind of surprise, that tradition must adapt or die. A surprise could be from the outside, such as a change in the environment since the time the system was conceived (think of the inevitable progress of history, technology, or moral development, or even literal changes in the natural environment). A surprise could also come from within the tradition (think divided factions each holding their own warring interpretations of the system, or civil unrest from the corners of society the system does not properly serve).
It is fair to criticize extreme idealists for being out of touch with reality. I would also say that traditions that fail to evolve as the world evolves, are also out of touch with reality.
@@umbrascitor2079
That's true.
It is necessary to change things as the world changes.
But it is also necessary to do so with humility and responsibility. ONLY change something if your new idea is truly better.
And you only know that after long-term testing.
Adopting new technology is usually good. Often it is obviously better than what we had before.
But humans have changed very little since we evolved. And we are very complex.
So ambitious social changes are often very bad. And the consequences are often only visible much later.
Adaption is necessary, but the idea of praising "progress" for its own sake is terrible and dangerous.
"Never argue. Give only results." - Benjamin Disraeli
Actions speak louder than words.
Them that can, do. Them that can't argue.
Slave asking why he's slaves.
"Don't argue! Only results!"
@dennisfarris4729 I agree. Arguments are generally excuses.
@@maryfrances1307Says the manager that is about to get her company sued for everything after disregarding her employees good faith arguments that the scissor lift has a flat tire. 😅
I love the fact that you have covered this and this is a very fascinating topic to talk about. Argumentation can have purpose but overusing it can be ridiculous and stem from insecurities.
The thing is people aren't going to take this in several ways and sometimes miss the point. Nietzsche is just making a statement about how if you want to do things then do them and let your actions do the speaking. Actions and results matter.
If you are secure and strong with yourself, You wouldn't prove yourself by argumentation but you would prove yourself by action alone because you can and it's something that's natural to you. Keep up the beautiful work, Weltgeist. 👍✨🔥
F everyone and everything, only I matter.
00:00 📜 Nietzsche critiques Socrates, arguing that his reliance on reason and argumentation led to a decline in Greek culture.
03:38 🏛 Nietzsche views the arrival of Socrates as a portent of cultural decay, contrasting confident, unapologetic Greek culture with Socratic rationalism.
05:41 🦉 Philosophy emerges when a culture questions its own mode of existence, a symptom of decline according to Nietzsche.
09:40 💪 In the Melian Dialogue, Athenians justify their actions solely through strength, reflecting a pre-Socratic mindset.
12:00 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes Socrates for instilling a relentless drive for justification, which he sees as a sign of cultural decay.
16:49 🦁 Nietzsche contrasts human questioning and doubt with the instinctual nature of animals, arguing that excessive doubt devalues action.
20:13 🔱 Nietzsche distinguishes between master morality (confident, self-assured) and slave morality (born out of resentment), tracing their evolution through history.
21:05 💡 Nietzsche views Socrates as an exponent of slave morality, opposing noble virtues.
22:53 🔍 Despite being perceived as a low-born, Socrates' influence rose, indicating Greek society's readiness for moral shift.
23:35 📉 Nietzsche sees dialectics as a tool of the weak, displacing authority from oneself to abstract principles like reason.
24:29 🔄 Greek culture's acceptance of Socratic virtues signaled a decline, outsourcing morality to external sources.
25:52 🗣 The reliance on argumentation and justification reflects cultural decadence for Nietzsche.
26:45 ⚖ Socrates' method of seeking justification outside oneself led to his martyrdom, shaping philosophy thereafter.
27:28 🌟 Philosophers, like Plato and Christianity, sought morality beyond human experience, akin to the weak Milons, not strong Athenians.
28:38 🤔 Nietzsche questions if modern humanity can surpass ancient Greek ideals and become value creators.
29:21 💔 Nietzsche critiques the death of God, a consequence of relentless questioning, urging the creation of new values.
30:01 🌟 The Übermensch, for Nietzsche, represents a future where humanity creates morality independent of external standards, beyond good and evil.
As always a balanced approach between the two philosophies is best. No extreme is good as one cannot function without the other.
Clearly one can function without the other, it's just usually bad for the largest number of common people when that happens
Within Noetzsches and our time "reason" reigns so supreme it has destroyed even itself, and so that is why he is obsessed with its harms and dangers. Perhaps if Nietzsche had lived in a world of Egoistic dominance he would have come to the same methods and ideas espoused by Socrates instead
Or maybe Nietszche himself would not at all be concerned with how the elite would have autocractically ruled back then, since he'd see that as "might must be right" and that the weak always get what they in proportion to their level of weakness will deserve. The moralists like to say "just as you sow, so shall you reap", and that of course means the same thing, only diference being, the self rightious won't met out the reaping themselves, they depend on an external force to do that to the wicked. Nietszche understands that in a more primal time, the gods were an after thought.
_When the great Tao is forgotten,_
_Kindness and morality arise._
_When wisdom and intelligence are born,_
_The great pretence begins._
_When there is no peace within the family,_
_Filial piety and devotion arise._
_When the country is confused and in chaos,_
_Loyal ministers appear._
-- Tao De Ching, Chapter 18
The critical insight Nietzsche makes, if not the philsophy he built upon it, is that conscious mediation in life betrays a loss of contact with the instincts. This is a phenomenon hinted at by the expression, "Ignorance is bliss."
_The Tao is both named and nameless._
_As nameless it is the origin fo Heaven and Earth._
_As named it is the mother of ten thousand things._
The named Tao is the world as representation. The nameless Tao is the world as will.
That world of Will is forgotten when consciousness interferes in life, for better and worse.
When we consider Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, this all sounds very familiar. But unlike Nietzsche Lao Tzu was strongly pacifist, and not out of a sense of moral piety but because he, as Thucydides argues in his case, considers interdependence to be the law of nature, not domiance.
_The sage, who is attuned to Tao, warns the ruler against the use of arms for conquest._
_Weapons often turn upon the wielder._
_Wherever armies are stationed, briers and thorns grow._
_Great wars are always followed by famine._
_A good general stops when he achieves his purpose._
_He does not parade his victory._
_He does not boast his ability._
_He does not feel proud._
_He rather regrets that he has not been able to prevent the war._
_He must never think of conquering others by force._
_Whatever strains with force will soon decay._
_Because it is contrary to the Tao._
_Whatever is not attuned to the Way of Tao will soon perish._
Athens won a great victory over Melos, but where is their empire today? Nietzsche fixates on the hierarchical aspects of empires and ignores their cooperative aspects. Thus he too falls victim to decadence.
_Heaven is eternal; the Earth is endures._
_What is the secret to their durability?_
_They do not live for themselves only._
_That is how they can be eternal._
interdependence does not preclude violence from occurring: especially in the economic sense at least.
But your missing the fact that the tao isnt really about wisdom of the external world, but a metaphor for the inner being and the true way of living.
Taoism paves the way to Eastern Christianity. Being is eternal co-mmunion as manifest in the eternal relation between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The essence of God is Nameless such as according to Dyonysius the Areopagite's "On the Divine Names", while the energies of God can be known through it's many Names.
The difference is this: the communion of Heaven and Earth and between all peoples is realized in the Incarnational person of Christ. This is represented by the Holy Cross which extends infinitely upwards and downwards conjoining Heaven and Earth, as well as leftwards and rightwards to conjoin Creation.
Eastern Orthodoxy is not only early esoteric philosophy enshrouded in mystery, but rather the complete, fulfilled, divine revelation of the perennial mystery fully revealed.
Check out Seraphim Rose's "Nihilism" and "Orthodoxy and the Religion of the Future", the book "Christ the Eternal Tao" written by a hieromonk, as well as the philosophy channel Telosbound. Eastern Christian phronema and praxis is the complete, real and divine Way to theosis.
This, this is the one area my instincts feel a friction to Nietzsche's master morality. Aristocratic societies were not so pleasant to live in either. Kill all the men and enslave all the women seems a rather boorish display of power as a nation/tribe. Primal, but boorish. Or should I say, decadent?
@@oshunblack6883 And what is this "external world" you speak about? Where were you when you were born into it?
From Nietzsche - the guy who spent his life arguing and not commanding.
And be sick his all life and financially depended on his sister and mother......I don't get him
@@ramisamman1095he was radically honest…
And he didn’t see himself as anything other than a person like all others - not a Ubermensche
@@ramisamman1095 wow dude, i've never heard that one before
he was the first incel... a powerless person paradoxically obsessed with the idea that individual power is the only thing that matters
Doesn't necessarily invalidate his arguments/statements. He just recognized where he stood. Honestly more admirable than most other philosophy.
Did he just use logic to why we shouldn’t use logic?
Once you lit a fire you don't need the lighter, no?
(there's issues with this metaphor, improve it/create a derivation)
I don't he ever said that
The title is misleading. Nietzche is not against all arguments. Only against the Socratic arguments. Nietzche was a fan of the pre socratics and thet argued too and used logic. So Nietzche is not against that.
"This is why you should not ignite fire near flammable materials."
* Throws lit match in a gas tank *
He used reasonable arguments to explain people don't need to have clearly states reasons for taking action.
Dmb people in the comments making fun of hin
Nietzsche was a genius he was someone that we still fail to understand on a personal level, and his philosophy is something we often fail to understand because before people have even ever studied it they think they already know it.
The great philosopher is so right. Debates, argumentation and tiresome polemics are more of a superficial spectacle. The thing is, however, that the great philosopher often ended up himself in quarrelsome debates and argumentative conflicts.
A plumber is expected to be good at installing and repairing water pipes , and a Philosopher is expected to be good at arguing .
They don’t have to be spectacle though. People turn it into that because they are weak. True argumentation, etc is power
Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky so there may be hope yet.
@@majidbineshgar7156this is how Socrates poisoned your mind
@@majidbineshgar7156And I'm not a lion. I'm just a man exercising my intellectual nature like the lion uses its teeth. I don't have to justify it.
"A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of sheep"
Tywin Lannister, Nietzsche and Machiavelli of Westeros
He also said a man who must say "I am the king" is no true king. A man like Nietzsche who went on and on about "the strong" proved through his own life how weak he himself in fact was. Meanwhile, his ideological forefather and opponent, Arthur Schopenhauer, while maintaining many much more pessimistic positions, lived quite a decent life himself. Actions can speak louder than words...
It doesn't work with pseudo lions though
@@cosmicprison9819 that's is kinda what makes him great. a weak person know how being weak sucks and see's the value of being strong. if he was a lion he would not care about us sheep and would not have written anything worthwhile to read now.
@@subspace666 So basically, Nietzsche’s writings are just a power fantasy? 😂
@@cosmicprison9819 Sir I have read your past comments. I want you to know that nietzsche despised politics especially fascists and right wing politics.
So,to the question of:"Why does a dog lick its balls..?" Nietzsche also gives an often standard reply:" BECAUSE IT CAN..!!! "
Insightful.
The dog is strong. The man is weak. Man must give reason, dog is independent and self-sufficient
@gerhardvanderpoll7378 That right there pretty much sums of the truth of why people do what they do. Humans do what is instinctual and natural to them, as do dogs. Because they to.
However much "reason" the motivations of humans may be couched in, does not make the simple truth of the matter any less true. People do what they do because they want to, and because they can. All of it. True for humans. True animals.
@@captainzork6109 Uh, dogs for the most part don't stand a chance without humans. Also, I am an average-size male, and I can easily overpower most dogs. Dogs require feeding and care by humans.63
@@jdmayfield88 Hey alright. Nice 300 word essay
Most people are not in a position of commanding anyone, it's not something one can choose. One can work one's way into being in such position but, until it happens, trying to "command" will just get you fired or cast away.
For you, maybe. Not me. I'm different.
I just realised from your comment that you really can do it, but it needs to be in a way that the other person wants to since its in their best interest to do so. But this has to happen without them knowing that it is you who implanted that idea. There's a name for this phenomenon:
It's called manipulation and it works
@@operator-chan1887 why are you arguing? Weak
My mustache is bigger, he couldn't command me.
With great mustache comes great responsibility-Peter Griffin
You even have a better mustache as Vercingetorix in the tumbnail
Doubt you have a bigger moustache than Snitzel buddy...
No he couldn’t your eminence
No he couldn’t your eminence yours is far too glorious
"Gish gallopy walls of text are for the weak," _Nietzsche
The reason the human cannot behave like the lion is that when man meets with an outcome he dislikes he may construct a way through or around it, and arguing, often with one's self is part of the construction.
word salad make more concise - c+
@@HexFent I think what theyetti90 said is clear.
@@HexFent big man kill animal, when animal too big, big man ask if man get bigger, when man cant get bigger, big man makes big weapon and kills bigger animal.
.. and concise!
@@HexFent "ooga booga me no understand words so word salad"
You need to combine Socrates and Nietzsche. You need to think, but you need to do. If you believe only one is 100% right you can either go down the road of overthinking and anxiety, or the other path of a destination you never wanted and many missed opportunities that you never thought of as applying to your strengths. Think and do my friends.
this was timely and life changing solid work I will be joining soon.
Be wise enough to know when, where, why, and with whom you ought to do battle using words/Reason.
Be strong enough to know when, where, why and with whom you ought to crush using the body/Force.
Be that which you were meant to Be.
^This.
A balanced approach is what everyone should be aiming for.
@@CoruptedJester I completely agree
Nietzsche arguing why arguing is for the weak...oh the irony
It's a statement, not so much an argument.
@joblakelisbon what's the difference?
@@lukedegraaf1186 you are honestly asking for the difference between a statement and an argument? Okay.
Statement: Peaches are wonderful.
Argument: Peaches are wonderful because…and…and…which means…etc, etc.
@@lukedegraaf1186Arguments are sets of statements that are put forward to support a claim or conclusion. The claim or conclusion itself can be a statement. A statement on its own is generally an assertion of something. For example, the other commenter said peaches are wonderful. They are asserting that peaches possess the quality of being wonderful. An argument can be that peaches are juicy. This is a statement to support the assertion that peaches are wonderful. This assumes juiciness is a quality of a wonderful peach.
@stevendunbar3752 that's where my confusion is, a statement asserts some proposition. To me; that's an argument.
And yet the tradition of rational argument that comes from Socrates literally transformed the weak into the strong. “Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun and they have not.”
Maxim gun comes from technological innovation which comes from the scientific method, the opposite of philosophy. Science deals with what demonstratively true. Philosophy deals with invented pretense.
the scientific method is a philosophical idea. do not talk about things you won't even do basic research on
@@ravendelacour1917the scientific method is a philosophical idea. do not talk about things you won't even do basic research on
Nietzsche loved Dostoevsky so there may be hope yet.
@@user-cp9yo4jk9b No it's not. It's a method of objective trial and observation empty of any systematic intellectual prejudgements. Given my degree and career in science, you know actual experience as opposed to sticking my nose in a book and claiming I know truth, I'm going to put more weight on my observation than your assumption.
Dude, you’re an exceptional teacher. Entire books have failed to make clear what you so easily explained in 15 minutes.
Yes. It's beyond Reaganonics. Beyond Bidenomics. It's Nitetzche-nomics!
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole This makes me feel like you don't know what -nomics is short for.
@@richm368 No, I was just thinking of Sabienomics.
Those tend to run a big long 😂
However, it was biased and partially wrong.
I've always believed there is a reason for everything. It may not be your reason or you don't understand the reason, but there is still a reason for every action of every living being on this planet.
total causality would agree with you
Truth is the greatest tyrant, it is always right and it will humiliate all who resist. There are no men more powerful, none greater than even the slaves of truth.
As an Orthodox Christian, we believe that being a slave to Christ--eternal Wisdom and Logos, is many times stronger than being a slave to one's lonely mortal passions. To us, the martyrdom of the righteous is the greatest humiliation to evil.
"Come, let us bow down and worship before Christ--Truth Himself."
@@AwesomeWholesomehmm.... Are you describing Plato's theory of forms?
Alcibiades Yes video, please. I think this one would be similar to Cesare Borges. Please keep on bringing such gems of personalities to us.
"If animals only knew the potential of saltpeter..." Said Some Guy Who Reasoned What's Good for Fireworks is Good for Throwing Lead Balls
Thing is, most folks don't like it when you command and boss them about. Hence, a society dominated by arguments.
Not a single person likes being bossed around. Self-determination is one of humans core wants and a source of intrinsic motivation. Orders from other naturally have the opposite effect unless the person has some reinterpretation (rationalisation) or coping mechanism that usually comes with age. That's why when we were teens we didn't want to do things our parents ordered even if we initially were thinking of doing them ourselves.
You do when it's your loved ones. Where there is harmony.
Arguments? Did you mean propaganda?
But you can still find this passage useful. You can try to convince your boss you deserve a raise because bla bla bla and get 100% chance of refusal. You can tell him you got a job offer, and they are going to pay better, and you are considering it, and you came to talk ask for a raise. You do not argue why you should get a raise, you just state the fact you are getting a raise.
@@redhidinghood9337I feel in your comment that you and OP have made a very big assumption, and it's not too dissimilar to the fish in the fishbowl analogy mentioned in the video. In different eras, people accepted power dynamics much more easily, and in different cultures, even today, people will look at you very oddly if you were to question "might makes right" power dynamics and you try to argue logically about an issue.
This video makes perfect sense, and articulates the point better than anyone else. You just earned a subscriber sir!
Amazing video, great explanation and summary! Thank you.
I think argumentation can be a more positive force and not merely undermine. Debate can help us to 'kick the tires' of potential beliefs we might decide to take up to find the strongest ones for any situation. It also prepares us to be more mentally flexible.
Yes! Let’s forget what makes us human, because power is the only thing that matters!
Funny, but this sort of confirmed my Catholicism and gives me more self-love. Instead of constantly acting in self-sacrifice, I can be a little more selfish and tyrannical; not because I rejected Socrtates, but because my will and strength will always be tempered by God, that I might not step over someone's life or boundaries in HIS name. Christianity could be the Happy Medium-point. For some, I suppose...
@@Acoustic-Rabbit-Hole yea ask anyone that is nonwhite if it has ever been used that way in reality??Ever??? name a non-white people that Christianity touched that weren't raped pillaged and taught self-hate so you can pontificate as to how wonderful it is. Who are the biggest landowners on earth? The Catholic Church they did a lot of killing now you can talk with a flowery tongue.
So for the majority of human existence we've been un-human.
All the things you attribute to be human were rare and far few between a couple of hundred years ago.
@@SouthpawJoe total BS no what we are seeing now is new killing kids in mass shootings kids killing themselves everyone miserable on drugs mental health issues at an all time high young people having less sex less love less friends woman and men hating each other sorry the perversion and bs that has you brainwashed has lead to this men in villages were hunting and fighting and woman were woman and when it was perverted those cultures crumbled
Power is EXACTLY what makes us human
I don’t think we should do things just because we can.
No. No we should not.
I CAN right now, jump up and start pulling books off the shelves, then get naked and run around screaming "who wants to be a millionaire?!!"
Yeah that's about the most random thing I can think of.
I have the *ability* to do those things but there is a distinct lack of motive.
You do not need to deliberately think about why you should not kill another person randomly. If you really need to, you are a maniac - no one listens do they? Or they lack understanding.
We never do things just because we can, we do things because we want to.
@@vermin5367 so genocide is okay if one wishes to do it and has the means to commit it. Sure mate.
Written like a true furry.
An excellent presentation!!!
Thank you for sharing.
I am Greek and I like your analysis. You struggle a bit with some concepts of ancient Greek philosophy, but this is expected even by the biggest non Greek philosophers (in my opinion it has to do with the translations not being 100% accurate). With that being said, I give the video a very solid 8/10 and I am subscribing.
I finished the video, and my opinion from the beggining hasn't changed, not questioning yourself is how people like my dad are created, assholes who do what they want and treat others whatever way they want without even thinking about it
He is living his best life, true to his nature.
Have you ever question yourself what your dad went throu to act like that?
@@betinsky2678doesn't matter, having a sad and tragic anime backstory doesn't mean you get to be an ass
@@Witnessmoothat means OP can punch his dad in the face, right? Just being true to his nature
Lmao daddy issues manchild your father sounds like a Chad
This comment section is the definition of ☝🏻🤓
So is this video.
@bennymountain1 Nah he just explains, but that comment section tho...
Poindexters
True
@Le___K just like nietzsche he didn't understand Socrates. Stoicism is the only to actually be free
"angry german mustache man does what he can, the weak suffer what they must"
Turns out men of Eagleland and Bearland were stronger..
Austrian *
@@bezkintsakintsa357 and?
I really enjoy your Nietzsche videos! I would like to know more about Alcibiades. It would be interesting to compare his character to Nietzsche's ideas about the Ubermensch.
I've been suffering with periods of intense heart throbbing anxiety for a long while now, and 10 minutes into this I felt my anxiety go away and my heart calm down.
I believe you might have just cured me of my ailment. Thank you!
Go see a doctor sir
this really puts into perspective why Frank Herbert in his Dune series decried the Socratic model, which he said became the Roman model
Can you explain this? I am new to Dune, and reading through the second book right now and was hoping you could explain his dislike of the Socratic model
@@curtisbauer2803keep reading until God emperor, then come back with questions
@@curtisbauer2803
Why is it that no matter how much peace and prosperity mankind rises to, there is always so much chaos and suffering to be found?
That shouldn't spoil too much while giving you something to keep in mind while reading.
yeah, those famously weak and powerless Romans. who after absorbing Greek culture never amounted to anything. immediately becoming slaves, and not at all creating an empire that enslaved most of the ancient world. /s
@@Yura135
If it was so powerful, why is it referred to in the past tense?
The Gnostic tendencies of Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates is parasitic. Only after a civilization has achieved greatness and conquered its rivals in nature and culture can it engage in "the finer arts" of questioning the methods and motives for doing so, then believe itself to be the root of evil.
You can see the process playing out right now in the form of critical theory. The importation of foreigners of 'superior' moral virtue to counteract the 'injustice' of 'the oppressors.' Everything which allowed us to build an unprecedented era of international cooperation among nations is not just being challenged, but decried as evil and detestable while those who claim to be paragons of moral virtue run ethical defense for cannibal gangs. All the while, the men who argued the government should be constrained in power and be governed by and for the people of a nation ... Are decried as evil and their statues removed from society - their entire lives placed under the critical theory microscope and subjected to purity testing and struggle sessions. But you're just full of misunderstood, justified outrage if you are running around and cooking/eating your political rivals, it is our culture which must be in the wrong because it didn't give captain barbecue a Tesla.
It was exactly this type of thinking and process which led to the implosion of Rome as an empire.
He is trying to justify the reason not to justify
And yes, do Alcibiades.
I’ve always tried to find a balance, an imbalance really, but a working system that allows me to do both. Through journaling I reflect and develop aims and goals, and then I just try to execute on those goals without thinking. I course correct with evening journaling sessions.
Very thorough content! Thanks
I got it: Do everything you want regardless of the consequences to others as long as it benefits you, then you are strong. And also a psychopath, but strong nonetheless.
I think you have it backwards. You are strong, and therefore you do as you wish. Doing as you wish does not make you strong.
The fact that almost all of the comments are aggressive towards nietszche realy talks for itself.
I agree
Because you must agree with and approve of Neitszche or there is something wrong with you? 😂😂😂
Don't take "the world is meaningless" from the guy that wanted his sister and got depressed when she married someone who wasn't in her family, all that seriously. If I need advice about unrequiting my sister, I'll ask him then.
Funny thing is… people love to disavow him, but trans people are pretty much born of his worst ideas for justification
@@hooligan9794 Not what they said. You can disagree with him without being "aggressive". How dumb are you? LMFAO
You realize the ability to self reflect is what separates us from the other animals, right? Your argument is just might equals right. That’s the mindset of tyranny. Choose your battles wisely I guess, because you’re clearly not able to talk your way through things if you think like this.
You can self reflect without getting too deep. Hurts my brain. Managed to get me straight As despite it though 😁
Nietzsche to put it simply would rather us have more people put confidence in themselves, as we are created in the image of God. Much like how in anime every hero has their unique ability, every human being has their unique truth to uncover in themselves. By putting your methods of seeking the truth, that is within, _outside_ you put stumbling blocks for yourself on your journey to discovering your identity in Christ that is within you. The Bible is a great guide and tutorial for the game that _is_ life. We all have to choose a master in the end, there is a hierarchy in our minds and something occupies the top. Tyranny, then, becomes a semantics game at this point. Lies. If you will.
As we strive to seek for truth outside of ourselves, the chaos and death and pain and misery of this world becomes inevitable, as we keep gaining in knowledge, but never coming any closer to the Truth.
We muddy up the waters and let worldly spirits dictate what is and isn't sufficient evidence and sound modes of logic for the justification of whatever said truth you find within yourself.
Ideally a balance would be struck at this point but... prophecy must happen. As this is the war. Only one will come out on top. Who will consume who and assimilate the other. I read the end of the Bible however, I know who won.
You know nietszche can't read this, right?
Technically, might does equal right. But only for those with might, and that's a select few (and often not based on talent or any other measure of "worthiness" beyond dumb luck). There's nothing written in the laws of the universe that suggests that we need to live a moral existence, beyond the fact that a fair society is best for all, and therefore the collective "satisfaction" in life is the greatest in such a society (and therefore by at least one measure it's "objectively" better. Even that could be steamrolled by some authoritarian state where you have one mad dictator.
Most Nietzche fans believe in might makes right. That's why most of them are pro hierarchy, right wing, bootlickers, capitalist 5imp, etc.
The irony is if i'd come to them and bully them phisically, they'd call the police. 🤣
Please make a video about Alcibiades. I didn't know about him until I watched this video and the metaphor is amazing
Very insightful video, I think Nietzche is my favorite philosopher lol
Good vid broski
Nietzsche would've never thought of this if Aristotilies never questioned himself why he thought the way he did! His point off view have merit, regardless.
Was Socrates just annoying the ruling order or was he pointing out via reason the decadence that Nietzsche claims Athens was suffering?
Scott is an interesting dude and a great guest, thanks for having him on! You’re doing great, Zuby, keep it up!
He lost an argument before he wrote this one.
He's coping and seething.
@@bhante1345so are you
22:30 - yes! I'd love a video on Alcibiades!
Dodged a bullet on that one. What a nightmare. We' be orcs basically if we went with the aristocratic model of "good is imposing your will by any means necessary"
Thats literally the world you currently live in, and you have always lived in.
@@c4callhow is that literally the world we live in? In what way do people just get to force their will on us?
What do you think trials, lawyers, laws, and human rights are for?
@@albertmaheswara9968 They are a place where the person who can afford the better lawyer can get society to rubber stamp their accusations against their opponent.
@@decus9544 Aren't you being overly cynical of our justice system?
And how is that a rebuddle to what I said?
@@albertmaheswara9968 Look at wealth distribution in the UK. Around a thousand years since William the Conqueror invaded and conquered England, and the descendants of him and his lieutenants maintain pretty much the same proportion of national wealth as they did immediately after the conquest.
The legal system serves those with wealth, and those with wealth are the descendants of those with power.
One of the best videos I ever watched !!!! you earned you self a subscribe
Really grasshopper? In light of all the killing. Should a wise man objectively argue for free willed pacifists or non pacifists? For, instant world peace? If your a free willed non pacifist your the evil of the world, period. Philosopher Bob says so ..... peace out non pacifist evil of the world.
Sure! Please do a vid on Alcibiades. Thanks so much in advance!
I think Nietzsche would have loved/hated Cormac McCarthy's books and the 2nd Amendment. He's not entirely wrong. Why should the tyrant respect what we commoners have decided our "rights" are? I suggest we try reason first, appeals to sympathy 2nd, then the force multipliers last.
If you argue by the fallacy you will die by the fallacy
“Might makes right” doesn’t take into account how might is created, generated and kept on, a tyrant can do that, but they wouldn’t last long.
Just like Nietzsche btw
@@EldenRingBuildsArchive no one lasts long my dude , but only a few last in power , while many last in subjugation and deprived of true power.
Doubt is the only window to the light of truth in an otherwise darkened house.
Toilets eat poop to justify their existence
Arguments and reasons is better than just command.
Says the sheep.
It's a language barrier. Reasoning and arguments aren't always compatible. Λόγος (Logic, reasoning, ability to speak) isn't the source of arguments.
Yes, Alcibiades is an interesting character.
Wait. Didn’t you already make this video?
when 'talking like crazy'
is the only card you got left LOL
Recently, someone made idle death threats to two colleagues and myself when he completely misinterpreted a situation. When we explained to him what was happening and he realised he was in the wrong, he doubled down and resorts to making nothing but more and more deaths threats. The next day he called our boss and apologised. You either laugh or you cry.
@@bhante1345
take advantage
by recording on phone and upload for $$
Arguments are like battles of attrition in blitzkreig
🎉 great topic ! No time to watch the video now but later on this evening I will bring out the popcorn.
*continues to argue why arguing is for weak people
😂 good one
He is COMMANDING the content lol
And then there's also the fact that nietzsche somewhat liked socrates as well. For being exceptional.
What do you think would happen if Nietzsche and Kierkegaard had a discusion?
Nietzsche would have converted to Christianity, eventually. Or at least, he would have developed a more profound understanding and appreciation of the Christian faith. Kierkegaard has such a beautiful and noble soul that it's impossible to resist him for very long. What is particularly striking is that both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche grew up in Lutheran families and inherited a particular Protestant spirituality which would have been based on guilt, puritan morality etc. (my guess) Having worked out all the more negative aspects of such a spirituality by himself, while remaining faithful to the Christian faith, Kierkegaard could probably have helped Nietzsche work out his own ambivalences about Christianity.
You can see it already with Nietzsche's reaction to Dostoevsky, who has deep affinites with Kierkegaard, although Dostoevsky had a more apocalyptic temperament. Nietzsche is a brilliant writer and thinker, but you can definitely sense the deep pain he was in for most of his life, loosing his father at such a young age, and fearing always that he had inherited the disease that killed his father.
The similarities between Nietzsche and Dostoevsky's Raskolnikov are especially striking: the horse scene; the early death of Raskolnikov's father; Raskolnikov's fascination with Napoleon and Mohammed as "superior men" and "higher natures" and his prematurely sketched proto-Nietzschean theories; his hidden resentment against his mother and sister etc. The resemblances are absolutely uncanny. It is even more uncanny when you realize that Dostoevsky published Crime and Punishment more than twenty years before Nietzsche's breakdown -- and that they, Nietzsche and Raskolnikov, were the same age at the time of the book's release (both in their early twenties)!
But Dostoevsky is an uncomparably deeper psychologist than Nietzsche. In a way, you could say that he contains Nietzsche (as much as he contains Marx and Freud), more than Nietzsche contains him. At the end of the day, a Dostoevskyan reading of Nietzsche is more useful and fruitful than a Nietzschean reading of Dostoevsky.
My humble two cents.
EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wonder if Kierkegaard would not have been to Nietszche what Sonya was to Raskolnikov. There's this otherwordly purity to Kierkegaard's writing at times, that it's difficult to not envisage such a parallel.
@@derfelcadarn8230 🤣
Behind the wall that is one of the first things new staff learns: Never argue with an inmate and attempt to explain why a rule exists or why an order was given. Comply or face the consequences. Do not allow them to argue the "why" behind laws, rules, and orders as it is a form of manipulation, the way inmates attempt to assert a false form of authority over the real authority of the institution and its staff.
Sadly those that start off attempting to explain, attempting to have a conversation will either slide into saying "because I am in charge and told you to do it" or "its the rules" or "if you don't you will lose privileges" or they will be walked over until they get fired or quit. In prisons the concepts above make very much sense.
Sadly the same kind of tactics are used on patrol officers on traffic stops. There are an infinite number of arguments, some of which make no sense, which can be lodged to deter or derail the lawful interaction.
The essence of a sheeple society.
Arguing is just a waste of time, period. That's a nonstarter. All you can really do is put in the work in pursuit of the truth and maybe gain results if you're dedicated and lucky. You can have a conversation that has points of contrast that can be useful in order to broaden ones understanding. But if you find yourself arguing, then one or both parties have failed catastrophically in the pursuit of understanding the subject at hand.
A 31:03 minute long argumentation and exposition on why arguing is for the weak
I understand that justifying with reason is something Nietzsche would oppose. But opposed to arguing that seems contradictory as that feels like a form of conflict which he would prefer? In my experience arguing and reason don't often go hand in hand, so it's a bit of a pull for me. He was a great fan of the sophists as well!
I think many modern English speaking people tend to misunderstand the concept "arguing ( quarrelling ? ) " , but actually arguing and its derivative word " argument "refer to the action of exchanging reasonable statements considering the fact that only highly intelligent people are able to articulate " arguments ".
@@majidbineshgar7156 English speakers don't "misunderstand" the concept of arguing, they know there's a difference in nuance between 'argument' and 'debate'. What you're describing is closer to a debate
@@BaileyJPope Here's my argument, this is an argument as I am persuading you that your argument is wrong by presenting the following argument: argument means, "a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong", meaning the word argument can be used outside the context of a quarrel
Justifying anything is all ready wrong cause people will find reason to do anything
@@huehuehueyno this is rhetoric
This video has really outed the fools from those willing to learn.
So many just dig at the very notion rather than try to understand the point before coming to a conclusion.
This is common with philosophy lectures. People tend to get hurt when their ideals are poked at, not examining what is being criticized. That's why I don't bother reading comments because I have to sift through the chaff of comments that get boosted to the top in order to find actual interesting comments
This was interesting. Thank you
That was really good. Thank you.
Greek society was strong and full of brave and motivated citizens who took action, and yet they became decadent enough for a weak philosopher like Socrates to destroy them. Surely it was not the powerful and violent Greeks who were responsible for their own downfall? 🤔
Lmao pretty sure Socrates didn't "destroy" the Greek world. This comment smacks of self-fellating redditor fedora tipping lmao. He was a professional shitposter that was lucky enough to be the first man to annoyingly ask "why though?" For every single aspect of life and live in a society (founded by the ideals and characteristics he hated and constantly questioned) that was connected enough to disseminate the information throughout history
If the argument is an effective weapon against "the strong", then intellect is the Achilles heel of the man of action.
To be truly strong would mean having no such imbalance of competence and therefore no special weaknesses.
When evil becomes willing to shed the cloak of reason in pursuit of power, it is the duty of the righteous to do the same. Regardless of the transcendent truth, we still live in the material world which is governed by power alone.
This is super random, but this spoke to me in a confusing time, thank you.
Darkness and Light are brothers. They both serve the father’s kingdom.
Evil and good aren't real, it's subjective. Righteous people are either naive or manipulative
Wrong. Good and evil are approximations of an implicit, ordering morality.
Calling this subjective approximation unreal of something that is deeply real and impactful prevents meaningful agreement and understanding of how we can cooperate effectively rather than be reduced to forceful, instinctual power struggles.
Great video. The topic of arguing is a very important one as on the one hand, never argue with people whose behavior/idea change has no impact on your life. For example the rude driver on the freeway, restaurant, on the street. Just let them go. However with your children, wife, key employees where their beliefs/actions will affect your life, making a stand is important. So the question is what is the definition of arguing? Is it disagreeing with back and forth rebuttals or do you need to raise your voice and get emotional?
i dont think Nietzsche would like to live in his own world.
Nietzsche. The philosophy of African lithium mines.
That would be some kind of social progressivism since the lithium is for electric cars and social media fueled smartphones: a veneer of social consciousness built on the corpses of the poor.
when you say at 24:35 "we root for the medians, we feel like they deserve to win because the athenians are power angry" that's not true, i root for the medians but i don't feel like they deserved to win, they knew they wouldn't win and still decided to fight, i admire the medeans sacrifice because they couldn't win, that's what make it beautiful, you call this a "slave" mentality but they had the choice of becoming slaves or dead and they chose death where someone with the "strenght" mentality would have seen their inferiority and would have chose to live a servile life as the athenians expected from the medeans to do, there is no strenght to do what you can against weaker than you but there is to do what you can't against stronger, the "weak" mentality is not born from weakness but from fear and the strongs fear those who are stronger when the weak knows fear is not a good thing to listen, if you have friends you can help eachother, if you have foes you can't sleep well while waiting someone stabs you
This is the weak option though just like with people who cant handle living or a bully suddenly trying to talk their way out of a fight they started when they realize they picked a fight with the wrong person.
Your videos are beyond good :)
excellent presentation. thank you
Good vibes from Brasil, dude😊
What was Nietzsche' max bench press again?
The small and weak dude told me not to listen to small and weak dudes….what do I do
He wrote a few of 10 most influential books ever, he turned the entire course of world philosophy, and changed the course of history. What is your bench press again?
You read his books, before you comment. Can you read more than 3 lines of text with understanding? Then give it a try
@@Adam-nu7biOk, but what was his bench? Because that’s what matters
@@Adam-nu7biall that doesnt matter, what is his bench
Nietzsche be like : ''Reject intelligence, return to monke''.
Man is an animal
Reject monke, advance to crab.
@@bhante1345 Sidewalk to crab you mean. 😂
No. He's talking about having a moral reason for things, not how high you can score on Raven's Progressive Matrices.
Arguing is forceful and confrontational, while debating is more structured and aims to reach a conclusion
I think we are already living in the world Nietzsche described. A world where the powerful dominate, because they can, and the rest have to stay under their heel and suffer. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his 'Master Morality' is beyond the point, it is incredibly helpful and insightful in diagnosing our own society and should be critically engaged with.
this bring "ignorance is bliss" to a whole new level
The problem is that we can discover the reasons behind natural instincts. We should not question these instincts themselves though, but instead seek their origin through how they benefit a creature in the process of natural selection, and therefore extract the truths about Nature instilled in the instincts. Reason shouldn't be used for questioning Nature, but for operating better within it. Using instinct alone is flawed since instinct is merely a xerox of a xerox of the fundamental truths of Nature propagated through natural selection, and therefore is ignorant of context or nuance. The ideal framework should be for our ultimate goals be informed by those fundamental truths of Nature, and for Reason to be used to best achieve those goals.
Not sure of I agree with the stipulation "we should not question our instincts."
While I'm a strong believer in natural harmony and despise religion for breaking humanity from the natural world, I first and foremost question EVERYTHING. There are no ideas nor subjects beyond reproach. Moreover, evolution is anything but intelligently devised for future needs. Many a natural instinct that leads to extinction. Useful one year, detrimental the next. So perhaps with a caveat we can agree.