Jordan is so right in his comments on Nietzsche's writing. I know of no author who can say so much with so few words. In the chapter 'The Four Great Errors' in Twilight of the Idols, there are only a few pages for each sub-chapter, but I found that each of those sub-chapters could be a book in itself.
Re: 1:35 Jordan, Everything in the Universe is a product of mankind's collective mind including, of course, religions, myths, fantasies, symphonies, concertos, sciences et al. Without the human mind there would be nothing; no Universe et al.
Peterson fails to recognize which "self" Nietzsche was referring to. Nietzsche understood what he knew, but he also knew he was incapable of putting what he knew into words that would explain his understanding. Jung was frightened of stepping into the understanding of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's words can only get you to the edge, and to go further requires a transcendence of the mind. Buddhists are aware of this principle, and Nietzsche was aware of Buddhism.Even though Nietzsche attempted to use the mind, with its words, to provide a direct path to enlightenment, he finally determined that it would require an "Ubermensch" to fully grasp his understanding.
@@J2DAQWST Jung was provided with understanding, but he chose to trust the knowledge of his mind. He feared that understanding would lead to madness.What he failed to achieve was the trust that accompanies understanding, if he had been willing to surrender identifying with the mind. He felt it was necessary to keep one foot planted in the "grounded" knowledge of the mind. But as it turns out, it is the mind that perceives understanding as madness.The real overcoming is when man transcends the mind. Then the mind becomes a useful tool, but is no longer an identity.
@@danmoord375 you haven't read the red book obviously. The more you talk about Jung the more evident it becomes my original comment was correct. The guy descended into madness willingly for explorative purposes and his entire work was rooted in that experience.
@@J2DAQWST I have not read the red book cover to cover, only portions of it. It was not the final word of Carl Jung. Later in his life he was aware that he could not surrender completely to what he had discovered. The fact that he referred to it as madness implies that he was fearful of it. He associated Nietzsche's madness to his understanding instead of the physical ailments that Nietzsche suffered from.Our minds are conditioned to protect us from what it doesn't know, even if it has to produce an illusion in order to convince us we might be in danger. Overcoming fear is probably our greatest obstacle to enlightenment.
@@danmoord375 "Implies that he was fearful of it" Implies only by presumption. He called it divine madness; referring to it as such in order to preemptively address that many people would criticize his work as being rooted in madness and he said basically well yes it is madness but a divine madness and anyone who would doubt it should judge it by its fruit. And no he wasn't fearful of it he went headlong into it for a matter of years during the night hours while still working his practice during the daytime. Just as a heads up, in the red book there is a story about the god Izdubar, the chapter is called "first day" and then second day, the incantations, the opening of the egg. The same story continues on into other chapters and I forget where it ends but this is a particular vision within the red book you may be interested in reading considering its obvious relevancy to Nietzsche. Also yes that is a good point about our minds protecting us from the unknown. I believe our minds are not deficient in this way but adaptive to protect us from a chaotic kind of consciousness that is not necessarily conducive to survival or socialization in the real world, especially during our younger growth at which point the confusion may overwhelm us. Perhaps larger and more prolonged doses of navigating chaos to find transcendental understanding is healthy for those wise enough to do so. But he was correct in being grounded. And I've seen plenty of people obsess over the kind of transcendental knowledge they might acquire from psychedelics (for instance); to the point they can't get enough and lose all concept of the kind of grounded reasonability that they need to properly navigate life. (See the Q-Anon shaman's interview with "channel 5" on youtube for a glaring example of why being grounded is extremely important) This may be in part why we posses an unconscious mind, to explore the unknown and if we are open to it the transcendental. But to completely overlap the unconscious mind with the conscious for a prolonged period time is madness, and I see no reason why it should be sustained indefinitely. You get in, you get out, and you take what you need and learn to live full and well within your own realistic relative position in the universe; to live in the real world, despite knowing it may be an elaborate veiled play. If Jung was reserved about his experiences in any way also know he was reserved in many small ways even while having the experiences, but not because of fear. He made a commitment to hear any spirit who would come to him in full. But he did not immediately concede to the legitimacy of every vision he wandered upon; not in mere skepticism but in discernment; understanding there is a vast difference between real and symbolic; as someone who practiced helping others find meaning in their own dreams (not just coldly and presumptively interpreting them himself), he made it his life's passion to explore the unconscious mind and he left no stone unturned even within the context of religion and mythology because the symbolism within all ancient religion was to him yet another representation of unconscious thought that should be explored. He didn't take his vision too seriously as to preach it to the world because he also didn't take himself so seriously that he would espouse his work to be some completed works on objective truth about everything; there is a playfulness and obviously imaginativeness all about the unconscious mind which was largely what he studied in order to find discernable and highly practical truth about human nature that he couldn't find simply relying on conventional human understanding through the sciences. This practical truth was manifested in many unraveled mysteries presented on a silver platter throughout the red book; that to me seem so surreal and potent but when I reach out to grasp them with my mind its like grasping at sand and it slips through my fingers. So I've been slowly digesting instead of grasping at the concepts within. At the end of the day Jung didn't care to be recognized for genius, he instead wanted his work to have a positive effect on other people in this world; to help people. So instead of publishing the hardly digestible to anyone else on the planet red book he instead used the contents to draw from during his career to create practical works that would actually help people, not inspire them to also explore madness through various meditative practices, self hypnotism, and acting as a medium. Although he would inspire people to explore their depths which may in part be a sort of maddening experience but a necessary one for transformation.
It’s not that “one” can’t construct their own values. It’s that “you” can’t. Peterson likely understands tris distinction, but omits it for exoteric purposes. Reminds me of a certain someone saying “Heracles was real, and you aren’t”.
I want to expand the discussion of how the Bible relates to the world compass of man that describes mind, body and spirituality in the domain of order and chaos Nietzsche's fear of man’s loss of meaning and moral compass (introduced by the fall of the church) I think stems from the fear of never being saved, so what is salvation in the context of man’s history? Salvation is about reclaiming the stories we have rejected, denied or despised about oneself, furthermore discovering all that we didn't even know was there. We lose these other qualities in ourselves through conventional indoctrination and when we get caught up in the one-sided demands of the ego. Jung not only suggested that alchemical material established the historical background of our psychology, he made it crystal clear to those who had the courage to look Jung occasionally returns to the Latin dictum “In sterquiliniis invenitur”- in filth it will be found. For what does it mean to look? Intellectually comprehending something is not to be confused with integrating it into the roots of your being. To integrate the experience of filth which in this context means your unconscious is to make order of chaos The diamonds embedded in our experiences live in the unconscious i.e. the filth, so to accept the filth is to accept the darkness which consequently makes us whole, without darkness there’s no light. This process is described as navigating between order and chaos and is exemplified in the stories of the Bible, These stories thus describing the history of man and how we navigate through his field, we discover our values and therefore we cannot create them, if we truly are created in the image of God, we’ve always had the light
Nietzsche was wrong about God being dead. God isn't dead, god is obsolete. We as a society are evolving greater and greater morality, and god represents a static picture of what that moral authority is supposed to be. We need to abandon god if we want to evolve morally.
@@JohnWilliams-channel Low iq take. Your value System relies on core values that you take for granted. For religious people theese core belives are grounded in god. But youre core values arent based on rationality. They just float there. Whats So rational about equality of people for example? "Well because there is less conflict". Why is less conflict good? How is that based on rationality? You See? You have to take some presumtions. And to say that our modern presumtions are better than the Christian God, I whould disagree. That communism Was better I disagree. We cant objectivly say what presumtion is good and what is Bad. We Sadly cant base our presumtions simply on rationality. Rationality is a Tool not a foundation. My Personal presumtion for everything is that existence is good. Why? Because I feel like that. Existence is good so life is good. And on that I base darwinism. What continues to live is good. Surviving is good. And on a societal Level that means to choose those presumtions that make the society stable, harmonoius, cooperative, competetive, happy and strong. Because all theese Things make a society survive. Christianity Was good at that. Certainly. It lasted 2 thousand years and spread over much of the Planet. It kept the society stable, cooperative (you could call it Moral), happy and harmonoius. What is youre presumtion? I bet it whould do worse in my presumtion than Christianity.
@@basedchad6035 You don't want to compare IQs with me. Science has been studying morality since philosophers first started talking about it. We wish to understand the basis of morality in social creatures, from fish to primates. How they cooperate. We don't need some supernatural moral authority, we can study the natural moral authority, evolution. Evolution has baked morality into our phenotype. We have empathy, we have hardwired facial expression that reveal the state of our limbic system, to name a couple. We are very advanced for a moral social species. Science is not about being a moral authority, science is about discovering the natural moral authority and how that has influenced evolution. No, I think you are the one with the low IQ on this if you fail to see how morality evolves. The thing about supernatural moral authorities is that they do not evolve. They must be overthrown. God is OBSOLETE, as are your opinions.
@@JohnWilliams-channel Its also natural to hunt and kill. Especially for men. We have a drive to kill, to conquer, to dominate other men and women. We do have empathy. But look at tribes. Is that ur ideal civilisation?
@@basedchad6035 No doubt evolution has given us some obsolete artifacts, tribalism being among the chief maladaptive characteristic towards civilization. But we are armed with the knowledge of the consequences of allowing tribalism to fester without limit. So called supreme moral authorities have quite a lot of tribalism embedded within them. Before the modern era it was not unusual to religions to burn heretics and similarly force people to submit to religious dogma at the threat of death or worse. Islam has not evolved much and still recommends death to blasphemers, heretics, and apostates. Also reason does not come naturally to most people, Daniel Kahneman has written extensively about the predictable errors people make when they are searching their unconscious for answers. Reason requires considerable effort. Science considers the consequences of irrational behavior, the inability to see people more or less as equal human beings, and the way people can get manipulated by seductive appeals to the irrational ego to pit them against each other. People need to be cultivated through education if they are not going to fall victim to their own irrationality, bigotry, and racism. The politics in US is extremely polarized because there are only two political parties. One has gone completely antagonistic and offers nothing in terms of policies that do not help their wealthy sponsors. One could say that they are waging psychological warfare on the people of the US. That is why I advocate ranked choice voting, so third parties are viable because they don't become spoilers. Science not only tells us what is, it informs us through it's ability to predict consequences. If we consider evolution as a game, the object is survival, and history has made very clear that war is a game for the ruling class. How will that affect the consensus morality of people once they are aware of how they are being manipulated. For science the highest moral value is to inform, informed people will act differently than ignorant people. The enlightenment can best be summarized with the prologue of the declaration of independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. I put it to you that people can not consent if they are being lied to.
Smart but not wise. We are social animals. Any philosophy that does not adequately acknowledge this fact will collide violently with the barriers imposed on us by nature. Intense and protracted loneliness, to which Nietzshe's thought led him, drove him to madness. Mutter, ich bin dumm
What in Nietzsches philosophy runs necessarily counter to that, except the texts for the exceptional who don't connect with the common man to begin with?
Nietzsche knew this, which is why he said that herd morality is necessary and good for the herd. His issue was that the noble aristocratic people who were born to challenge the status quo of their time were being stunted by the herd mortality. Nietzsche respected the herd morality so society doesn't collapse, but he begged for the higher men to recognise that they are stunted by binary morals.
Many different kinds of intellect, like who's to say Lebron James isn't a 'genius' at what he does? Or how a Katydid (bug that looks like a leaf) isn't a 'genius' for its evolutionary progression? This video reminds me of Neil Degrass Tyson talkin 'bout smartest people who've lived. He said Stephen Hawkings at top, a foot above him Einstein, then way above like 3 feet is Issac Newton :p but then again he has a science bias. I hate the culture of 'smart' and IQ is a joke but fun concept to rank things.
People who have this perspective, do so, because they don’t wanna put other people down, and incorporate everybody. That’s just not how the world is. And again, you have to define “genius”, so that you can have this argument. If you leave the definition vague, you’re not really arguing anything.
Nietzsche's thought continues to influence many important philosophers, politicians, academics, etc. Describing him as a 'failure' is simply incorrect.
neitzsche and jung are huge big fat zeros in good circumstances.....nothing that they offered has made any positive contribution to today's world......JRR Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings is more impressive and entertaining than any of the self-obsessed horseradish that jung and neitzsche ever produced, who labored mightily in a time when nothing was known about synapses and neurotransmitters. neitzsche and jung strive to be to the modern world what Homer and Aristotle were to the classical world....they want to offer an ego obsessed fiction, an imaginary narrative, that replaces what Zeus and Hera and Aphrodite so elegantly offered to the world before science
Nietzsche was full professor at 21 years old. One of the youngest at the time.
24
Yes, he was professor at 24 years, but in classical philology, there weee younger professor in different subjects
Jordan Peterson is a Positively Inspirational Motivating Person
Jung was a super genius because similar to Nikola Tesla, toward the end of his life he began to see through to the inner workings of the universe
He who is is happy and living to his instincts and will to power are relly smart
Jordan is so right in his comments on Nietzsche's writing. I know of no author who can say so much with so few words. In the chapter 'The Four Great Errors' in Twilight of the Idols, there are only a few pages for each sub-chapter, but I found that each of those sub-chapters could be a book in itself.
Re: 1:35 Jordan, Everything in the Universe is a product of mankind's collective mind including, of course, religions, myths, fantasies, symphonies, concertos, sciences et al. Without the human mind there would be nothing; no Universe et al.
Peterson fails to recognize which "self" Nietzsche was referring to. Nietzsche understood what he knew, but he also knew he was incapable of putting what he knew into words that would explain his understanding. Jung was frightened of stepping into the understanding of Nietzsche. Nietzsche's words can only get you to the edge, and to go further requires a transcendence of the mind. Buddhists are aware of this principle, and Nietzsche was aware of Buddhism.Even though Nietzsche attempted to use the mind, with its words, to provide a direct path to enlightenment, he finally determined that it would require an "Ubermensch" to fully grasp his understanding.
It seems to me you don't understand who Jung was in the slightest.
@@J2DAQWST Jung was provided with understanding, but he chose to trust the knowledge of his mind. He feared that understanding would lead to madness.What he failed to achieve was the trust that accompanies understanding, if he had been willing to surrender identifying with the mind. He felt it was necessary to keep one foot planted in the "grounded" knowledge of the mind. But as it turns out, it is the mind that perceives understanding as madness.The real overcoming is when man transcends the mind. Then the mind becomes a useful tool, but is no longer an identity.
@@danmoord375 you haven't read the red book obviously. The more you talk about Jung the more evident it becomes my original comment was correct. The guy descended into madness willingly for explorative purposes and his entire work was rooted in that experience.
@@J2DAQWST I have not read the red book cover to cover, only portions of it. It was not the final word of Carl Jung. Later in his life he was aware that he could not surrender completely to what he had discovered. The fact that he referred to it as madness implies that he was fearful of it. He associated Nietzsche's madness to his understanding instead of the physical ailments that Nietzsche suffered from.Our minds are conditioned to protect us from what it doesn't know, even if it has to produce an illusion in order to convince us we might be in danger. Overcoming fear is probably our greatest obstacle to enlightenment.
@@danmoord375 "Implies that he was fearful of it" Implies only by presumption. He called it divine madness; referring to it as such in order to preemptively address that many people would criticize his work as being rooted in madness and he said basically well yes it is madness but a divine madness and anyone who would doubt it should judge it by its fruit. And no he wasn't fearful of it he went headlong into it for a matter of years during the night hours while still working his practice during the daytime.
Just as a heads up, in the red book there is a story about the god Izdubar, the chapter is called "first day" and then second day, the incantations, the opening of the egg. The same story continues on into other chapters and I forget where it ends but this is a particular vision within the red book you may be interested in reading considering its obvious relevancy to Nietzsche.
Also yes that is a good point about our minds protecting us from the unknown. I believe our minds are not deficient in this way but adaptive to protect us from a chaotic kind of consciousness that is not necessarily conducive to survival or socialization in the real world, especially during our younger growth at which point the confusion may overwhelm us. Perhaps larger and more prolonged doses of navigating chaos to find transcendental understanding is healthy for those wise enough to do so. But he was correct in being grounded. And I've seen plenty of people obsess over the kind of transcendental knowledge they might acquire from psychedelics (for instance); to the point they can't get enough and lose all concept of the kind of grounded reasonability that they need to properly navigate life. (See the Q-Anon shaman's interview with "channel 5" on youtube for a glaring example of why being grounded is extremely important) This may be in part why we posses an unconscious mind, to explore the unknown and if we are open to it the transcendental. But to completely overlap the unconscious mind with the conscious for a prolonged period time is madness, and I see no reason why it should be sustained indefinitely. You get in, you get out, and you take what you need and learn to live full and well within your own realistic relative position in the universe; to live in the real world, despite knowing it may be an elaborate veiled play.
If Jung was reserved about his experiences in any way also know he was reserved in many small ways even while having the experiences, but not because of fear. He made a commitment to hear any spirit who would come to him in full. But he did not immediately concede to the legitimacy of every vision he wandered upon; not in mere skepticism but in discernment; understanding there is a vast difference between real and symbolic; as someone who practiced helping others find meaning in their own dreams (not just coldly and presumptively interpreting them himself), he made it his life's passion to explore the unconscious mind and he left no stone unturned even within the context of religion and mythology because the symbolism within all ancient religion was to him yet another representation of unconscious thought that should be explored. He didn't take his vision too seriously as to preach it to the world because he also didn't take himself so seriously that he would espouse his work to be some completed works on objective truth about everything; there is a playfulness and obviously imaginativeness all about the unconscious mind which was largely what he studied in order to find discernable and highly practical truth about human nature that he couldn't find simply relying on conventional human understanding through the sciences. This practical truth was manifested in many unraveled mysteries presented on a silver platter throughout the red book; that to me seem so surreal and potent but when I reach out to grasp them with my mind its like grasping at sand and it slips through my fingers. So I've been slowly digesting instead of grasping at the concepts within.
At the end of the day Jung didn't care to be recognized for genius, he instead wanted his work to have a positive effect on other people in this world; to help people. So instead of publishing the hardly digestible to anyone else on the planet red book he instead used the contents to draw from during his career to create practical works that would actually help people, not inspire them to also explore madness through various meditative practices, self hypnotism, and acting as a medium. Although he would inspire people to explore their depths which may in part be a sort of maddening experience but a necessary one for transformation.
Fred continues to be misunderstood, which would probably tickle him
It’s not that “one” can’t construct their own values.
It’s that “you” can’t.
Peterson likely understands tris distinction, but omits it for exoteric purposes.
Reminds me of a certain someone saying “Heracles was real, and you aren’t”.
We aren't the type of creaters capable of doing that.
The Ubermensch is.
Nietzsche is inspiring.
I want to expand the discussion of how the Bible relates to the world compass of man that describes mind, body and spirituality in the domain of order and chaos
Nietzsche's fear of man’s loss of meaning and moral compass (introduced by the fall of the church) I think stems from the fear of never being saved, so what is salvation in the context of man’s history?
Salvation is about reclaiming the stories we have rejected, denied or despised about oneself, furthermore discovering all that we didn't even know was there. We lose these other qualities in ourselves through conventional indoctrination and when we get caught up in the one-sided demands of the ego.
Jung not only suggested that alchemical material established the historical background of our psychology, he made it crystal clear to those who had the courage to look
Jung occasionally returns to the Latin dictum “In sterquiliniis invenitur”- in filth it will be found.
For what does it mean to look? Intellectually comprehending something is not to be confused with integrating it into the roots of your being. To integrate the experience of filth which in this context means your unconscious is to make order of chaos
The diamonds embedded in our experiences live in the unconscious i.e. the filth, so to accept the filth is to accept the darkness which consequently makes us whole, without darkness there’s no light. This process is described as navigating between order and chaos and is exemplified in the stories of the Bible,
These stories thus describing the history of man and how we navigate through his field, we discover our values and therefore we cannot create them, if we truly are created in the image of God, we’ve always had the light
Nietzsche was wrong about God being dead. God isn't dead, god is obsolete. We as a society are evolving greater and greater morality, and god represents a static picture of what that moral authority is supposed to be. We need to abandon god if we want to evolve morally.
@@JohnWilliams-channel Low iq take.
Your value System relies on core values that you take for granted. For religious people theese core belives are grounded in god.
But youre core values arent based on rationality. They just float there. Whats So rational about equality of people for example? "Well because there is less conflict". Why is less conflict good? How is that based on rationality? You See? You have to take some presumtions. And to say that our modern presumtions are better than the Christian God, I whould disagree. That communism Was better I disagree.
We cant objectivly say what presumtion is good and what is Bad.
We Sadly cant base our presumtions simply on rationality. Rationality is a Tool not a foundation.
My Personal presumtion for everything is that existence is good. Why? Because I feel like that. Existence is good so life is good.
And on that I base darwinism. What continues to live is good. Surviving is good. And on a societal Level that means to choose those presumtions that make the society stable, harmonoius, cooperative, competetive, happy and strong. Because all theese Things make a society survive. Christianity Was good at that. Certainly. It lasted 2 thousand years and spread over much of the Planet. It kept the society stable, cooperative (you could call it Moral), happy and harmonoius.
What is youre presumtion? I bet it whould do worse in my presumtion than Christianity.
@@basedchad6035 You don't want to compare IQs with me. Science has been studying morality since philosophers first started talking about it. We wish to understand the basis of morality in social creatures, from fish to primates. How they cooperate. We don't need some supernatural moral authority, we can study the natural moral authority, evolution. Evolution has baked morality into our phenotype. We have empathy, we have hardwired facial expression that reveal the state of our limbic system, to name a couple. We are very advanced for a moral social species. Science is not about being a moral authority, science is about discovering the natural moral authority and how that has influenced evolution. No, I think you are the one with the low IQ on this if you fail to see how morality evolves. The thing about supernatural moral authorities is that they do not evolve. They must be overthrown. God is OBSOLETE, as are your opinions.
@@JohnWilliams-channel Its also natural to hunt and kill. Especially for men. We have a drive to kill, to conquer, to dominate other men and women.
We do have empathy. But look at tribes. Is that ur ideal civilisation?
@@basedchad6035 No doubt evolution has given us some obsolete artifacts, tribalism being among the chief maladaptive characteristic towards civilization. But we are armed with the knowledge of the consequences of allowing tribalism to fester without limit. So called supreme moral authorities have quite a lot of tribalism embedded within them. Before the modern era it was not unusual to religions to burn heretics and similarly force people to submit to religious dogma at the threat of death or worse. Islam has not evolved much and still recommends death to blasphemers, heretics, and apostates.
Also reason does not come naturally to most people, Daniel Kahneman has written extensively about the predictable errors people make when they are searching their unconscious for answers. Reason requires considerable effort.
Science considers the consequences of irrational behavior, the inability to see people more or less as equal human beings, and the way people can get manipulated by seductive appeals to the irrational ego to pit them against each other. People need to be cultivated through education if they are not going to fall victim to their own irrationality, bigotry, and racism.
The politics in US is extremely polarized because there are only two political parties. One has gone completely antagonistic and offers nothing in terms of policies that do not help their wealthy sponsors. One could say that they are waging psychological warfare on the people of the US. That is why I advocate ranked choice voting, so third parties are viable because they don't become spoilers.
Science not only tells us what is, it informs us through it's ability to predict consequences. If we consider evolution as a game, the object is survival, and history has made very clear that war is a game for the ruling class. How will that affect the consensus morality of people once they are aware of how they are being manipulated. For science the highest moral value is to inform, informed people will act differently than ignorant people.
The enlightenment can best be summarized with the prologue of the declaration of independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
I put it to you that people can not consent if they are being lied to.
Carl Jung gave us the mbti!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Smart but not wise. We are social animals. Any philosophy that does not adequately acknowledge this fact will collide violently with the barriers imposed on us by nature. Intense and protracted loneliness, to which Nietzshe's thought led him, drove him to madness. Mutter, ich bin dumm
Was in aller Welt erzählst du da?
What in Nietzsches philosophy runs necessarily counter to that, except the texts for the exceptional who don't connect with the common man to begin with?
Nietzsche knew this, which is why he said that herd morality is necessary and good for the herd. His issue was that the noble aristocratic people who were born to challenge the status quo of their time were being stunted by the herd mortality. Nietzsche respected the herd morality so society doesn't collapse, but he begged for the higher men to recognise that they are stunted by binary morals.
Many different kinds of intellect, like who's to say Lebron James isn't a 'genius' at what he does? Or how a Katydid (bug that looks like a leaf) isn't a 'genius' for its evolutionary progression? This video reminds me of Neil Degrass Tyson talkin 'bout smartest people who've lived. He said Stephen Hawkings at top, a foot above him Einstein, then way above like 3 feet is Issac Newton :p but then again he has a science bias. I hate the culture of 'smart' and IQ is a joke but fun concept to rank things.
My view on genius is that it is to be absurdly superior at whatever it is you’re presupposed to do
Neil Degrass Tyson is a moron who thinks philosophy is useless.
People who have this perspective, do so, because they don’t wanna put other people down, and incorporate everybody. That’s just not how the world is. And again, you have to define “genius”, so that you can have this argument. If you leave the definition vague, you’re not really arguing anything.
I take it to mean life changing, Nietzsche and Jung changed the way we think.
waffle
Nietzsche for all his intelligence lived a mediocre life and died sad, insane, lonely, and broke. In other words, Nietzsche was a failure.
Nietzsche's thought continues to influence many important philosophers, politicians, academics, etc. Describing him as a 'failure' is simply incorrect.
Even Leonardo Da Vinci was not taken seriously before 18th century.
@@autoagent1220 In that case Marx’s philosophy is way more successful
@@joefreeman3772 ok
@@MB-pj8sb based
neitzsche and jung are huge big fat zeros in good circumstances.....nothing that they offered has made any positive contribution to today's world......JRR Tolkien's Lord Of The Rings is more impressive and entertaining than any of the self-obsessed horseradish that jung and neitzsche ever produced, who labored mightily in a time when nothing was known about synapses and neurotransmitters.
neitzsche and jung strive to be to the modern world what Homer and Aristotle were to the classical world....they want to offer an ego obsessed fiction, an imaginary narrative, that replaces what Zeus and Hera and Aphrodite so elegantly offered to the world before science
Weird how there isn't an argument to be found in all of that text of yours.
@@mouwersorexactly what I what I was thinking,, comparing it to lord of the rings 😂