For a man of action, look no further than Emerson: ruclips.net/video/fWlG-U_jySw/видео.html We hope you enjoy this video. It was a fun one to make. Do you guys like these interpretations of literature or poetry? Let us know. -WG
This channel single handedly made me a student of Nietzsche... I have yet to read Nietzsche and soon shall be doing so! Ive just ordered BG&E and GoM... I have you Weltgeist to thank for. Thank you!
12:13 The truth of this statement is best acknowledged in an abstract sense, from a vast distance away from the reality of it. I can’t imagine how horrifying it would be to remain acutely aware of it for any real length of time. I’m incredibly grateful to be relatively gifted in the art of psychological repression & self-deception. Life is scary yo
I haven't read anything of Nietzsche for many years. Then when I come back to it I see it through a lense of things learned and experience had. I am glad this channel popped up in my suggested videos. I look forward to more.
12:55 "It's up to us to fill in the gaps" I think a possible solution to the Dionysian Man's paralysis can be found in analyzing the following quote by Shakespeare: *"All the world’s a stage"* For Shakespeare, Hamlet's problem of inaction can be solved by likening man's place in the world to that of his place on the "stage". That is to say, since the world's so naturally ripe with it's many illusions, it can be seen as a platform full of potential for performance. *"All the men and women [are] merely players;* *They have their exits and their entrances;* *And one man in his time plays many parts"* In order for an actor to get to the very act of _acting_ in the first place however, he needs to find his part to play. He needs to have a role to act out. And at almost every other turn, the world so graciously provides these to him. As Hamlet himself admits near the end of the play: *"How all occasions do inform against me, And spur my dull revenge!"* *"...Examples gross as earth exhort me"* When, by happenstance, Hamlet witnesses prince Fortinbras of Norway leading an army "of such mass and charge" he is briefly shaken from his Dionysian paralysis. When he sees Fortinbras' spirit puffed "with divine ambition," where he mocks "the invisible event" of non-being, exposing "what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death and danger dare", Hamlet is inspired to play his own part because he's found in Fortinbras a role model. This causes him to vow then and there for his thought to "be bloody, or be nothing worth!" It is in his role that Hamlet finally finds his resolution, which is no longer "sicklied o'er by the pale cast of thought". Perhaps this informs what Nietzsche says later on in the _Birth of Tragedy_ : *"it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified"*
Jung mentioned that he felt as though Schopenhauer's philosophy spoke to him very deeply and so it should be unsurprising that the world as representation and the principle of individuation became core ideas in Jung's theories on consciousness. Retroactively, we can see that the apollosian principle would correspond with consciousness and the dionysian with the unconscious. The dionysian principle was very vivid to Nietzsche on account of his differentiated function of intuition, meaning that his capacity to perceive by means of the unconscious was his most conscious function. Nietzsche really was a two-headed being, as he would describe himself in _Ecce homo,_ where the appolosian and dionysian cohabited.
I planned an essay on this subject for an existentialism class on this book. It never properly came to vision but it’s nice seeing a clean and well crafted version of this topic.
However minutely compared to other more noble and natural sources of knowledge, your channel, dear Weltgeist, and those who take care to disseminate, with criterion, the works of great composers: - well, you, always know that you are performing a very valuable (and mostly unpaid) task for the bravest, meager slice of humanity, and I offer you all my gratitude from afar and without second motives. P.s. At6:03that's me!
Crime and punishment by Dostoevsky has a similar theme to Hemlet. Raskolnikov just could not be or function on a different level , therefore his pity or guilt got the better of him.
I had to do an image search for that picture of a man tearing his hair out: it's by Courbet, "A desperate man" possibly a self-portrait. There are variations on the pose with him looking up and left.
Can anyone tell me why these videos are so timely? It is making me believe i live in a solipsistic world? Or is it just RUclips algorithms? I Can't differentiate between anything now. Or am i relating to everything to my self? Aghh.. I am confused..
This analysis of Nietzsche was based on his youth's perspective where Schopenhauer so adored by him. Yet, the mature Nietzsche would surely pointed out the weakness of Hamlet and his decadence. Really loved this channel, thanks Weltgeist. ❤
Maybe this has nothing to do with the Dionysian state, but once in a while when swimming, and I mention swimming because it is the only activity that make me felt that way; you feel like you are one with the water and the world, not resisting, nor competing, nor fighting against people and elements. Where boundaries, you, me, past, futur doesn’t exist anymore. Rather there is only a present in a same place. It is like you are literally water and nothing else. In this state, everything that is heavy become light. Maybe other swimmers felt that same cathartic moment; and it has something to do with the Dionysian state.
_"Miss Wolff:_ Doesn't Nietzsche go a step beyond Schopenhauer? For Schopenhauer emphasizes merely the mind of the intellect, including art or anything which is the cultural achievement of man, while with Nietzsche there is apparently consciousness or awareness of the body, of the earth. _"Prof. Jung:_ Ah yes, with Nietzsche we come into a new sphere; Schopenhauer is really a classical philosopher while Nietzsche is something else: with Nietzsche is something else: with Nietzsche it becomes drama. You see, Schopenhauer's philosophy had little to do with his own existence, while with Nietzsche, the man, his life and his philosophy were tragically the same. Schopenhauer makes a wonderful philosophy about the suffering of the world, and then every day he goes to his hotel and has an excellent lunch. Of course, with such a philosophy, one should deny existence, one should vanish into Nirvana. Some people once watched Schopenhauer while he was taking a walk on a hill behind Frankfurt. he was walking up and down, always murmuring to himself, and they thought he must have great secret thoughts in his mind. Then somebody went up behind and listened to him, and to his great amazement he heard: If only I had married Ann So-and-So fifty years ago! nobody knew that name but they investigated and found out that this Miss So-and-So was the daughter of a druggist who had sold the best pills against cholera, and with his death the recipe was lost. Voila! That is Schopenhauer! _"Miss Wolff:_ There was a story about one of his landladies. she was really very mean and he went to all possible courts, finally to the Supreme Court, in order to fight her. but he did not get his rights, and that was terribly important to him. _"Prof. Jung:_ Yes, he was full of contradictions. His human existence was quite apart from his philosophy, while in Nietzsche the two began to come together and in a very tragic way. So he goes really further than Schopenhauer whose philosophy is merely a mental affair, while Nietzsche feels that it concerns the whole man; to him to him it was his own immediate reality. It is impossible to be this on the one side and something entirely different on the other, to have a philosophy which has nothing to do with one's reality. Schopenhauer's philosophy is in a way also a Christian philosophy, because he accepted the likeness of Buddhism and Christianity where they coincide in the conviction that this world is a futility, the thing that should be overcome, and that the other world is the reality -- whether it is called heaven or the positive non-being in nirvana. He still believed in the non-importance of this world. But Nietzsche begins to emphasize the importance of the body by losing his belief in other worlds. as soon as the transcendent goal of life fails, the whole importance is of course in ego consciousness and in the personal life. That is inevitable." -- Jung's Seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra.
Over-thinking on unverifiable topics will lead you down a rabbit hole. If it can't be reasonably verified, don't spend too long there, at the risk of being locked in.
If we go off the basis that all is suffering for eternity, it puts all on a plateau of equality. Thus making all as meaningful or meaningless as you may wish it to be. Positive nihilism: it's what I believe brings me peace and rest when I am able to fulfil it.
It makes me wonder.... what would Schopenhauer have thought of Miles Davis' 'The Birth of Cool'?😎 😄 Thank you for another stimulating exploration of perception&intellectual abstraction 🥂👋
You should do a comparison of all writers that nietzche talks about. I watched a live play hamlet in action, and this interpretation is better than the freud one and the other one of analysis paralysis. Pricne Hamlet indeed is a true genius.
Hi Weltgeist, I like your videos a lot but this one touches on some topics that I find particularly interesting, and since you're preparing a series of videos I thought I'd be cool if you could expand upon some reflections I've had about it. As literary critics point out, the Hamlet of the final Act is a different type of Hamlet, one characterized by a firm determination... But herein lies a paradox: is he determined to finally act his will, or is his will noticing a determinism in the world? Or both? As he notes in the final chapter, after his holiday abroad, "there's a divinity that shapes our ends" and "there's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow... Readiness is all". Which Divinity did Hamlet believe in? We do not know for sure, but we do know it involves some sort of auguries (like the fall of a sparrow). I find many similarities between this and Nietzsche's amor fati. Now, paradoxically enough, Nietzsche made derision of the main art for understanding auguries: astrology. Furthermore, as scholars like Richard Tarnas have pointed out, Nietzsche had an opposition (180°) between his Sun and Pluto, making him attuned to the scorpian worldview of deep transformations, suffering, will power, the instincts, and so forth. To be fair, there's no way that Nietzsche could've known this since Pluto was discovered around 1930, but still its influence on him was immense. A final note is that the scorpian archetype seems to have not one but two opposites. One in Taurus, its oppositte constellation associated with material prosperity, and the other in Apollo the Sun God, which is the way in which Nietzsche most commonly analyzes the archetype. Anyhow, it's a very big and deep topic and I can't wait to see what you make of it. Thanks for the good and enriching content, man! Peace 🙏
Thinking can go wrong but reasoning with a respect to reality is certainly always a safe path. Even when wrong, reasoning (the method of logic) will ensure a person is at least close to correct.
"Reason is necessary in the high stress of life where rapid decisions, bold action, quick and firm comprehension are needed, but if it gains the upper hand, if it confuses and hinders the intuitive, immediate discovery of what is right by the pure understanding, and at the same time prevents this from being grasped, and if it produces resolution, then it can easily ruin everything" -Schopenhauer
@@Premiseandconclusion there is no such thing as “pure understanding”.. reason is our only means of knowledge. You’re being pulled in by mystical language.
@@Premiseandconclusion there is no such thing as a priori.. there is no intrinsic value in existence.. value is objective and so is reality It’s you that’s the philosophy casual
But thats not true. In the famous monologue of "To be or not be" what stops Hamlet from acting is his reasoning and fear of dead and what lies beyond. Is the fear of pain and terror what stops him. Dionisian states are celebratory because the fear of dead has been overcomed (because the self is understand as an ilusion). That is not what happens to Hamlet, he is too much in touch with his individuation, he would like to dissolve into anger but his reasoning stops him from just acting impulsively. Hamlet doesn't act because he is too much of a modern heroe, Hamlet dreams of taking revenge without thinking but in the new era of reason his individuation stops him from acting. PD: Your channel is great, I just don't agree on Nietzche on this specific point though i love Birth of Tragedy.
stripped down, he conjectures that the final analysis =nihilism, but that is Wrong as anyone knows who has Actually experienced the described states of being. One simply then switches from one to the other at Will, not contaminating the principals of one with the other. Problem being, remaining sane thru the process
The problem of Hamlet is that he wants too much from the world. Not only should something be incidentally good, that is good "in deed" but it also has to satisfy his desire to interpret and understand. To be good in deed and in word, in interpretation. This need to understand is compelled by his mourning over the loss of his father. The need to remember, "truth" in Greek, alethe, literally means "not forget". The trouble of Hamlet and his way of thinking has to do with a fundamental disjunction between the human mind and the world. His desire for proper, just, righteous action. And for absolute and perfect satisfaction, in idea, causes him to reject unsatisfactory opportunities to act. And these opportunities continue to be unsatisfactory because any opportunity to act will be partial and incomplete in satisfying the end or desire which motivates it. Knowledge and action become incompatible if a desire for one or the other becomes too extreme, or if like Hamlet you desire both and are helplessly compelled to imagine that the only course of action worth taking is one that reciprocates his sentiment, knowledge, memory. It's also an implicit analysis of Christianity. Hamlet is the Christian hero and Claudius the Christian "villain" who is forgiven through prayer and intentions while Hamlet prays and intends Claudius to not only be punished by his own hand but also he must be damned to hell by the judgement of God. The ritual of prayer interrupting Hamlet's revenge is critical. Having to do with that earlier "disjunction" because prayer and damnation can be persuasive intercessions between desire and the world. Thanks for reading all this bae I 💕 u
It's interesting to think that Nietzsche had a detailed opinion about the themes of Hamlet even though there is no evidence that he knew any English. That's not to say that you can't get a decent understanding of a piece of writing from a translation, but it's just odd to think that a polyglot like Nietzsche would experience a translation of Shakespeare, one of the most celebrated writers of all time, and not the original text.
First of all at his time there were certainly translations of shakespears works to buy in german speaking countries. Secondly, Nietzsche was a professor of philology, so he is very familiar with all germanic languages. And english is one of them. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
There is one other point you could make about this. It's kind of ironic in a way. It is that if philosophical realism is true. you can recognize truths in a work even if you cannot read it completely. Because realism means that there are real connections between things, so it is possible to recognize truths even with incomplete understanding. That, I am guessing, is in tension with Nietzsche's radically skeptical philosophy.
I think Nietzsche is over-thinking here which gives a clue to how his thought departs from Shopenhauer. The Will is not the dionysian principle, The Will just is. Only the arrogance of the human mind believes it can label everything and come to an understanding, thereby gaining power. Principles exist in the human pysche and are expressed to greater or lesser degrees in the species.
"How overthinking kills you" The video and comment section proceeds to overthink philosophy. The irony is amazing. Wonder what Nietzche would say about this.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
For a man of action, look no further than Emerson: ruclips.net/video/fWlG-U_jySw/видео.html
We hope you enjoy this video. It was a fun one to make. Do you guys like these interpretations of literature or poetry? Let us know. -WG
A mix of both literature and poetry. Thanks for these wonderful videos.
This channel single handedly made me a student of Nietzsche... I have yet to read Nietzsche and soon shall be doing so! Ive just ordered BG&E and GoM...
I have you Weltgeist to thank for.
Thank you!
How did your Journey go? I also got inspired by this channel, reading GoM now soon BGE
12:13 The truth of this statement is best acknowledged in an abstract sense, from a vast distance away from the reality of it. I can’t imagine how horrifying it would be to remain acutely aware of it for any real length of time. I’m incredibly grateful to be relatively gifted in the art of psychological repression & self-deception. Life is scary yo
I haven't read anything of Nietzsche for many years. Then when I come back to it I see it through a lense of things learned and experience had. I am glad this channel popped up in my suggested videos. I look forward to more.
You’ve really developed as a content creator these past months, great balance between interpretation and objective presentation. Keep em coming!
12:55 "It's up to us to fill in the gaps"
I think a possible solution to the Dionysian Man's paralysis can be found in analyzing the following quote by Shakespeare:
*"All the world’s a stage"*
For Shakespeare, Hamlet's problem of inaction can be solved by likening man's place in the world to that of his place on the "stage".
That is to say, since the world's so naturally ripe with it's many illusions, it can be seen as a platform full of potential for performance.
*"All the men and women [are] merely players;*
*They have their exits and their entrances;*
*And one man in his time plays many parts"*
In order for an actor to get to the very act of _acting_ in the first place however, he needs to find his part to play. He needs to have a role to act out. And at almost every other turn, the world so graciously provides these to him.
As Hamlet himself admits near the end of the play:
*"How all occasions do inform against me, And spur my dull revenge!"*
*"...Examples gross as earth exhort me"*
When, by happenstance, Hamlet witnesses prince Fortinbras of Norway leading an army "of such mass and charge" he is briefly shaken from his Dionysian paralysis.
When he sees Fortinbras' spirit puffed "with divine ambition," where he mocks "the invisible event" of non-being, exposing "what is mortal and unsure to all that fortune, death and danger dare", Hamlet is inspired to play his own part because he's found in Fortinbras a role model. This causes him to vow then and there for his thought to "be bloody, or be nothing worth!"
It is in his role that Hamlet finally finds his resolution, which is no longer "sicklied o'er by the pale cast of thought".
Perhaps this informs what Nietzsche says later on in the _Birth of Tragedy_ :
*"it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified"*
Jung mentioned that he felt as though Schopenhauer's philosophy spoke to him very deeply and so it should be unsurprising that the world as representation and the principle of individuation became core ideas in Jung's theories on consciousness.
Retroactively, we can see that the apollosian principle would correspond with consciousness and the dionysian with the unconscious. The dionysian principle was very vivid to Nietzsche on account of his differentiated function of intuition, meaning that his capacity to perceive by means of the unconscious was his most conscious function. Nietzsche really was a two-headed being, as he would describe himself in _Ecce homo,_ where the appolosian and dionysian cohabited.
I planned an essay on this subject for an existentialism class on this book. It never properly came to vision but it’s nice seeing a clean and well crafted version of this topic.
"All action is useless"
Congratulations, you played yourself 🏅
However minutely compared to other more noble and natural sources of knowledge, your channel, dear Weltgeist, and those who take care to disseminate, with criterion, the works of great composers: - well, you, always know that you are performing a very valuable (and mostly unpaid) task for the bravest, meager slice of humanity, and I offer you all my gratitude from afar and without second motives.
P.s. At6:03that's me!
"the dizzying supply of choice" fantastic wording
glad to see you refer to Girard!
The lengthy, profoundly written road to explaining decision paralysis, its cause, and its purpose.
Crime and punishment by Dostoevsky has a similar theme to Hemlet. Raskolnikov just could not be or function on a different level , therefore his pity or guilt got the better of him.
Wow. Loved it.
So THAT'S what Nietzsche meant about the "Dionysian."
This is the best video about Nietzsche I've ever seen. Probably because I always preferred Schopenhauer.
I like Schopenhauer too, Nietzsche is okay.
I'm interested to see if you can one day do Spinoza.
Hell yes!
For sure. I'm certain they've got something in the pipeline.
@@ehlowgovna I got somthing brown in my pipeline and it s struggling to make its way out
@@Bouldah get some fiber in your diet
I had to do an image search for that picture of a man tearing his hair out: it's by Courbet, "A desperate man"
possibly a self-portrait. There are variations on the pose with him looking up and left.
Can anyone tell me why these videos are so timely? It is making me believe i live in a solipsistic world? Or is it just RUclips algorithms? I Can't differentiate between anything now. Or am i relating to everything to my self? Aghh.. I am confused..
This analysis of Nietzsche was based on his youth's perspective where Schopenhauer so adored by him. Yet, the mature Nietzsche would surely pointed out the weakness of Hamlet and his decadence.
Really loved this channel, thanks Weltgeist. ❤
Please upload regularly
Maybe this has nothing to do with the Dionysian state, but once in a while when swimming, and I mention swimming because it is the only activity that make me felt that way; you feel like you are one with the water and the world, not resisting, nor competing, nor fighting against people and elements. Where boundaries, you, me, past, futur doesn’t exist anymore. Rather there is only a present in a same place. It is like you are literally water and nothing else. In this state, everything that is heavy become light. Maybe other swimmers felt that same cathartic moment; and it has something to do with the Dionysian state.
The meaning of life is to see the unseen because seeing the unseen is enlightenment 🎉
“The training is nothing! Will is everything! The will to act.” - Ra's Al Ghul
_"Miss Wolff:_ Doesn't Nietzsche go a step beyond Schopenhauer? For Schopenhauer emphasizes merely the mind of the intellect, including art or anything which is the cultural achievement of man, while with Nietzsche there is apparently consciousness or awareness of the body, of the earth.
_"Prof. Jung:_ Ah yes, with Nietzsche we come into a new sphere; Schopenhauer is really a classical philosopher while Nietzsche is something else: with Nietzsche is something else: with Nietzsche it becomes drama. You see, Schopenhauer's philosophy had little to do with his own existence, while with Nietzsche, the man, his life and his philosophy were tragically the same. Schopenhauer makes a wonderful philosophy about the suffering of the world, and then every day he goes to his hotel and has an excellent lunch. Of course, with such a philosophy, one should deny existence, one should vanish into Nirvana. Some people once watched Schopenhauer while he was taking a walk on a hill behind Frankfurt. he was walking up and down, always murmuring to himself, and they thought he must have great secret thoughts in his mind. Then somebody went up behind and listened to him, and to his great amazement he heard: If only I had married Ann So-and-So fifty years ago! nobody knew that name but they investigated and found out that this Miss So-and-So was the daughter of a druggist who had sold the best pills against cholera, and with his death the recipe was lost. Voila! That is Schopenhauer!
_"Miss Wolff:_ There was a story about one of his landladies. she was really very mean and he went to all possible courts, finally to the Supreme Court, in order to fight her. but he did not get his rights, and that was terribly important to him.
_"Prof. Jung:_ Yes, he was full of contradictions. His human existence was quite apart from his philosophy, while in Nietzsche the two began to come together and in a very tragic way. So he goes really further than Schopenhauer whose philosophy is merely a mental affair, while Nietzsche feels that it concerns the whole man; to him to him it was his own immediate reality. It is impossible to be this on the one side and something entirely different on the other, to have a philosophy which has nothing to do with one's reality. Schopenhauer's philosophy is in a way also a Christian philosophy, because he accepted the likeness of Buddhism and Christianity where they coincide in the conviction that this world is a futility, the thing that should be overcome, and that the other world is the reality -- whether it is called heaven or the positive non-being in nirvana. He still believed in the non-importance of this world. But Nietzsche begins to emphasize the importance of the body by losing his belief in other worlds. as soon as the transcendent goal of life fails, the whole importance is of course in ego consciousness and in the personal life. That is inevitable."
-- Jung's Seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra.
thanks for sharing
Over-thinking on unverifiable topics will lead you down a rabbit hole. If it can't be reasonably verified, don't spend too long there, at the risk of being locked in.
"Just why is Hamlet so hesitant?" Cause it's murder. It's kind of a big deal.
The Dionysian man sounds like a gnostic concept.
Quick question. Do you do voiceovers for the Einzèlganger channel. You sound like the same person.
If we go off the basis that all is suffering for eternity, it puts all on a plateau of equality. Thus making all as meaningful or meaningless as you may wish it to be.
Positive nihilism: it's what I believe brings me peace and rest when I am able to fulfil it.
It makes me wonder....
what would Schopenhauer have thought of Miles Davis' 'The Birth of Cool'?😎
😄
Thank you for another stimulating exploration of perception&intellectual abstraction 🥂👋
You should do a comparison of all writers that nietzche talks about.
I watched a live play hamlet in action, and this interpretation is better than the freud one and the other one of analysis paralysis.
Pricne Hamlet indeed is a true genius.
Could you make a video about Kant's philosophy?
The boring one?
Did you like Bernardo Kastrup's book on Schopenhauer's Metaphysics?
'Decoding Schopenhauer's Metaphysics'
We reviewed it: ruclips.net/video/iyRhwbtdYWc/видео.html
@@WeltgeistYT Ah, right. It seems I forgot (I think because I saw the video before reading the book); I saw it. Will rewatch now then, thanks.
Thanks!
Hi Weltgeist, I like your videos a lot but this one touches on some topics that I find particularly interesting, and since you're preparing a series of videos I thought I'd be cool if you could expand upon some reflections I've had about it.
As literary critics point out, the Hamlet of the final Act is a different type of Hamlet, one characterized by a firm determination... But herein lies a paradox: is he determined to finally act his will, or is his will noticing a determinism in the world? Or both? As he notes in the final chapter, after his holiday abroad, "there's a divinity that shapes our ends" and "there's a special providence in the fall of a sparrow... Readiness is all".
Which Divinity did Hamlet believe in? We do not know for sure, but we do know it involves some sort of auguries (like the fall of a sparrow). I find many similarities between this and Nietzsche's amor fati. Now, paradoxically enough, Nietzsche made derision of the main art for understanding auguries: astrology. Furthermore, as scholars like Richard Tarnas have pointed out, Nietzsche had an opposition (180°) between his Sun and Pluto, making him attuned to the scorpian worldview of deep transformations, suffering, will power, the instincts, and so forth. To be fair, there's no way that Nietzsche could've known this since Pluto was discovered around 1930, but still its influence on him was immense.
A final note is that the scorpian archetype seems to have not one but two opposites. One in Taurus, its oppositte constellation associated with material prosperity, and the other in Apollo the Sun God, which is the way in which Nietzsche most commonly analyzes the archetype.
Anyhow, it's a very big and deep topic and I can't wait to see what you make of it. Thanks for the good and enriching content, man! Peace 🙏
This is seriously my favorite channel on RUclips 💙 A channel of will, if you'd take that as a compliment 😉😅
Thinking can go wrong but reasoning with a respect to reality is certainly always a safe path. Even when wrong, reasoning (the method of logic) will ensure a person is at least close to correct.
"Reason is necessary in the high stress of life where rapid decisions, bold action, quick and firm comprehension are needed, but if it gains the upper hand, if it confuses and hinders the intuitive, immediate discovery of what is right by the pure understanding, and at the same time prevents this from being grasped, and if it produces resolution, then it can easily ruin everything" -Schopenhauer
@@Premiseandconclusion there is no such thing as “pure understanding”.. reason is our only means of knowledge. You’re being pulled in by mystical language.
@@Premiseandconclusion there is also no good reason to “ruin everything”.. so there’s that too.
@@Premiseandconclusion there is no such thing as a priori.. there is no intrinsic value in existence.. value is objective and so is reality
It’s you that’s the philosophy casual
@@Premiseandconclusion should I say supernatural rather than mystical?
But thats not true. In the famous monologue of "To be or not be" what stops Hamlet from acting is his reasoning and fear of dead and what lies beyond. Is the fear of pain and terror what stops him. Dionisian states are celebratory because the fear of dead has been overcomed (because the self is understand as an ilusion). That is not what happens to Hamlet, he is too much in touch with his individuation, he would like to dissolve into anger but his reasoning stops him from just acting impulsively.
Hamlet doesn't act because he is too much of a modern heroe, Hamlet dreams of taking revenge without thinking but in the new era of reason his individuation stops him from acting.
PD: Your channel is great, I just don't agree on Nietzche on this specific point though i love Birth of Tragedy.
stripped down, he conjectures that the final analysis =nihilism, but that is Wrong as anyone knows who has Actually experienced the described states of being.
One simply then switches from one to the other at Will, not contaminating the principals of one with the other.
Problem being, remaining sane thru the process
The whole point of philosophy is to decide whether to commit suicide or not - Seneca
Your mind is so powerful
This video reminded me of the Bhagavad Gita
The problem of Hamlet is that he wants too much from the world. Not only should something be incidentally good, that is good "in deed" but it also has to satisfy his desire to interpret and understand. To be good in deed and in word, in interpretation. This need to understand is compelled by his mourning over the loss of his father. The need to remember, "truth" in Greek, alethe, literally means "not forget". The trouble of Hamlet and his way of thinking has to do with a fundamental disjunction between the human mind and the world. His desire for proper, just, righteous action. And for absolute and perfect satisfaction, in idea, causes him to reject unsatisfactory opportunities to act. And these opportunities continue to be unsatisfactory because any opportunity to act will be partial and incomplete in satisfying the end or desire which motivates it. Knowledge and action become incompatible if a desire for one or the other becomes too extreme, or if like Hamlet you desire both and are helplessly compelled to imagine that the only course of action worth taking is one that reciprocates his sentiment, knowledge, memory.
It's also an implicit analysis of Christianity. Hamlet is the Christian hero and Claudius the Christian "villain" who is forgiven through prayer and intentions while Hamlet prays and intends Claudius to not only be punished by his own hand but also he must be damned to hell by the judgement of God. The ritual of prayer interrupting Hamlet's revenge is critical. Having to do with that earlier "disjunction" because prayer and damnation can be persuasive intercessions between desire and the world. Thanks for reading all this bae I 💕 u
thats a cool lion you got there bud
thank you
It's interesting to think that Nietzsche had a detailed opinion about the themes of Hamlet even though there is no evidence that he knew any English.
That's not to say that you can't get a decent understanding of a piece of writing from a translation, but it's just odd to think that a polyglot like Nietzsche would experience a translation of Shakespeare, one of the most celebrated writers of all time, and not the original text.
First of all at his time there were certainly translations of shakespears works to buy in german speaking countries. Secondly, Nietzsche was a professor of philology, so he is very familiar with all germanic languages. And english is one of them.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_languages
There is one other point you could make about this. It's kind of ironic in a way. It is that if philosophical realism is true. you can recognize truths in a work even if you cannot read it completely. Because realism means that there are real connections between things, so it is possible to recognize truths even with incomplete understanding. That, I am guessing, is in tension with Nietzsche's radically skeptical philosophy.
I think Nietzsche is over-thinking here which gives a clue to how his thought departs from Shopenhauer. The Will is not the dionysian principle, The Will just is. Only the arrogance of the human mind believes it can label everything and come to an understanding, thereby gaining power. Principles exist in the human pysche and are expressed to greater or lesser degrees in the species.
99% of worlds population does not have this problem...
Here Nietzsche becomes victim to the same abstractions he will later denounce.
Actually no, it’s just syphilis
C E R T A I N B E D R O O M
A C T I V I T I E S
what a video!
Awesome
Amor fati!
oh yes
This bloke doesn’t get philosophy at all
"How overthinking kills you"
The video and comment section proceeds to overthink philosophy. The irony is amazing. Wonder what Nietzche would say about this.
I think you are overthinking this. There is a lot of thinking in philosophy, think before you comment.
U so big brain
@@TheAndyPantster True.
Well you have to think to understand how overthinking kills you?
The comments defending this are just too funny.
Thanks for this:)
I really enjoy your content.
Thank you
I subbed
Welcome aboard