Why Nietzsche Didn't HATE the Stoics (It's Complicated)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 сен 2024
- WATCH: Nietzsche Explained: Beyond Good and Evil (all parts):
• NIETZSCHE Explained: B...
Stoicism is becoming increasingly popular as a philosophy of life in the 21st century. Yet, another popular philosopher, Nietzsche, seems to take a big stand against Stoicism most notably in a famous passage in Beyond Good and Evil. The Stoic is accused of hypocrisy, of arguing in circles, and of denying life itself.
Yet this is not the whole picture. Aside from the famous passage in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche is more nuanced in other works, most notably The Gay Science (The Joyous Science) and his little-known work Daybreak.
In this video we take a look at Nietzsche's writings on Stoicism. We take a deeper look at a disturbing passage in Epictetus's Enchiridion, and we try to clear the fog a little bit: did Nietzsche hate the Stoics, or not? It will be seen that Nietzsche's view is more nuanced although he does have big problems with the Stoic philosophy.
Would Nietzsche prefer Caesar over Marcus Aurelius? Probably. Did he HATE Marcus Aurelius? Probably not.
If you found this video helpful, please like & subscribe. It helps out the channel a great deal. Thank you for watching! There's more Nietzsche coming.
How about you stop being degenerative to these ideas and philosophies. You literally make shit out of bias to get paid by youtube ads while the person you made the video about is against bias himself lmao
FUN FACT: Not many realize he was a CLOSET Buddhist.
Stoicism helped me so much two years ago when I quit drinking. Broadening my mind is even better, but alas I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Marcus Aurelius and the gang.
Glad to hear that!
The life of the dead lives on in the memory of the livings
@Robin Bhutungru took a look at this video and lasted 10 seconds. No man is going to happily call himself an asshole and have true pride. Being reactionary and edgy is the child's version of being manly. Men have absolutely been demasculated but if you want to change that in yourself then be honorable, not edgy. This is not the way
"the gang" haaha nice
@@ronin4160 damn, what did he say?
Stoicism is not about "Don't be sad because your kid is dead". It is about "Don't let his death to destroy your life with depression and anxiety"
Same idea, different words.
@@patsystonejones9555 No. If you interpret "Don't let his death to destroy your life with depression and anxiety" to mean "Don't be sad because your kid is dead", there is no way your frontal lobe is fully developed.
@@Tehz1359 lmao
It's important to remember how common early death was in the time of the stoics. It wasn't a question of if you'll burry a wife or a child but how many.
@@yazeedfarghal8764 it is indifference to fate, but also you'll read a lot about them being grateful about the good things that happen because of fate. At the very least, it is from seneca's perspective. There's a difference between not being consumed by "passions", like being completely destroyed or "with depression and anxiety", and being sad. Being a stoic is not about "not feeling", but rather "not feeling too much". It is kinda like "love fati", because fate is not something you can't control, so you have to love it in order to be happy.
Nietzsche's main problem with Stoicism is that you can't ONLY be a Stoic. That I agree with. Stoicism should be one facet of your worldview, but not the entire thing. Taoism contains a lot of valuable wisdom which is contradictory to Stoicism, for instance. There is no single correct way to live, however, we can idolize what we perceive to be virtuous, and the Stoics are very virtuous.
Underrated comment.
yes and yes
Does Seneca quote Epicurus more than once in his writing, and say that wisdom belongs to everyone, and is trying to show Lucilius that you can learn from anyone, and that true wisdom is true no matter who said it
Becouse happiness is concept .most stoics they either lost fortune or lost their health or control..they re coming from their experience and focus on the things we cant control and fate and so on..if someone is born to wealthy family that is less likely to happen..whoever misses something goes after that ..nietzche didnt suffer that much in terms of that therefore he seeked power …so stoicism serves as a facet of our worldview but not the entire thing ..for some people it wont be helpfull ..at least that much
couldn't think of a better comment. Amazing. I think stoicism will be useful to reach übermensch but as controling yourself and some other aspects but not as being a virtues as old stoics. I also do not agree on the values (some of them) as virtuous. Some of the these values they preach will make you meek and weak, in my opinion
It's important to remember how common early death was in the time of the stoics. It's not a question of if you'll burry a wife or a child back then but how many. The stoics didn't want you to not feel pain from losing what you love but accepting that it's going to happen and making the best of what's left.
I think the problem is that I don't like people of modern times who use stoicism. Of course not everyone, stoicism has helped many people but there is a specific type of people who use stoic concepts for everything. When that's not how you should use philosophy. We need to remember that even philosophers were people and their principles and teachings could be seen as more relevant and valid to their times rather than ours.
@@Shilpa_Kujur This is why zayathustra in Nietzsche's thus spoke Zarathustra turned his followers away because he didn't want followers. He wanted fellow thinkers. The Stoics have so much of value to stay. They're also just men that lived thousands of years ago. They can be wrong and dated too.
I don't remember the quote but it was by Socrates about he feels bad for those men who live life without knowing the full capability of their body. I have seen this quote used by people to shit on fat people or skinny people or just anyone who's not working out. Not just those idiots who think being fat or skinny is "good", but anyone who just happens to not be overly healthy. They don't care those people have their personal lives too and you don't know their circumstances People don't acknowledge the fact that he said it in a time of war. No one thinks about the culture or mindset of that time.
Another thing is I have noticed is shitting on men who are feminine or not overly masculine even if they are like that by choice or naturally. It's not like they are forced or anything, they just are that way but I would like to say not much on this because I don't want to enter a debate.
I agree with a stoic mindset. But I don't really agree with the morals and ideas of living accordance to nature that stoics say of. I mean not completely, I understand where they are coming from and I agree on them with some things but I think I value individualism a lot and some stoic values in a way dictate you using their beliefs and ideas. Of course that is, if you let them dictate you. What I am saying is, I like stoicism but not the philosophers who preached them. Or atleast not their personal beliefs and worldviews.
@@TuxedoTalk Exactly my point.
That's a very cuckish mindset, no? Why accept things and let them happen to you? Fight and strive for the better, take what's yours, gamble with chances. LIVE. Don't be a doormat
Maybe the stoics realized that judging life or fate as Good or Evil is merely an opinion, and therefore they directed their philosophy towards the self to regulate emotions as much as possible, emotions, in general, define our view towards this world, so maybe there is no contradiction between Amor Fati and Stoicism.
Yeah, from what I've seen of Nietzsche he states exactly the same thing about the good and evil thing
But Nietzsche hated happiness. Something that the stoics aimed for. Nietzsche was also “Dionysian”, and the stoics were “Apollonian”
Nietzsche didn’t want you to be some passionless, vengeful rationalist. He wanted you to be creative. If man is a rational animal, then the stoics wanted you to be the best man you could. Nietzsche said that man must be surpassed.
I don't think he hated them. He was critical. The whole notion of 'amor fati' has stoic fingerprints on it.
Obviously. But clickbait is key in order to get views.
It’s a sentiment with a different meaning for Nietzsche. A Stoic’s amor fati is a resignation, where Nietzsche’s is a will to overcoming.
The fact that Stoicism is such a large school, with so many Philosophers means that there will always be teachings that not everyone who likes Stoicism will agree with wholeheartedly
I think nobody should ever just agree with an entire philosophical school. Look at the thoughts of that school, look where the arguments are convincing and implement that into your life. Look where you have to criticise the philosophy and discard those principles or replace them.
I like the fact that Nietzsche nods to stoicism used as a failsafe for those who are under extreme adversity. I believe both are useful ideologies but also situational. If I were going to prison I would use stoicism, and if I were starting a new career or life I'd adopt the ubermensch way. There's really no one size fits all philosophical position.
Must a philosophy be accepted or rejected as a whole ? Why ? Who made that rule ? Would not such a meta-philosophic view be itself just another philosophical view -- but one without any justification whatsoever ? As opposed to this absolutist view, taking what one finds useful in a philosophy for one's own unique life, appears to be the more in line with practicality and common-sense. Therefore, let no philosopher tell me that I must accept or reject him as a whole, otherwise I will insist that he prove to me that I am him, and, therefore, not really myself !
I smell what you're steppin in and i gotta say i agree ; why can't we pick what is useful for our own personal lives and situation?
@@CK...... That is what we should. But many people tend to differ. Nothing is the absolute truth and that does create confusion in some people on whether we should follow that thing or not. I must admit, I might be one of them.
Nietzsche is ignoring the huge diversity in Stoic thought.. Seneca for example in "The Natural fear of Death" explains that the impulses Nature has bestowed on us are not our enemies, but that we simply shouldnt confuse them with our selves, we should dance with them and battle with them, and ultimitely conquer them. This cant be done by logical affirmations or philosophical argument, but by deploying the Soul as a commander of your being and that, once having seen a good path for you to follow, you should stick by it like a Law. And we should admire the permanent aspects of Nature, its Laws which stand above whatever material substance it's configured in at any moment, and disregard anything fleeting and unsteady, especially since its source is from something other than ourselves.. Marcus Aurelius doesnt have a Life negatimg philosophy either.. Stoicism is very dynamic and changing and diverse..
Stoicism gives dignity and self worth to those who suffer and struggle. It is a very useful philosophy, wheter its true in a metaphysical sense is besides the point. Its true enough in a pragmatic sence and as lived experience. I find it very useful working in a hospital and dealing whit the stress that entails. Ofc its not for everyone, no practical philosophy is but recognising what is under your controll and what is not will help you deal whit sudden deaths and being around human suffering. Reminding yourself that we are all going to die and that what we fear about death is the idea of it not the fact is a blessing when you are around dying people. The stoic meets the world as it is and dont shy away from the realities of our existance, I see why Nietzsche had respect for them even though he rejected there philosophy.
Stoicism is to be indifferent to suffering. Nietzscheism is to endure and seek suffering
I think it is more to risk suffering and love it knowing it means you are truly living.
@@TehKarmalizerthat sounds exactly like the Christian Kierkegaard
Epicureanism is to avoid suffering
on the "will to truth" topic. As much of a fan as I am of Nietzsche, I think he had a needlessly extreme view on truth. He would often indicate that truth is just an interpretation, which makes sense up to a point, but that doesn't mean there is no objective truth, as he often made it sound like. And this position is also self-defeating, when you say there is no objective truth, all someone has to say is "Is that true?". Maybe I'm just not grasping it. He will often criticize people for valuing truth unquestionably, but its Nietzsche himself that also obviously values truth, perhaps much more then many other philosophers. Or is it that he was criticizing them not for their will to truth, but for pretending to have a will to truth, when it was really just will to power?
A bit of both, but mostly the latter. Mind if I use this comment in an upcoming video on viewer questions?
@@WeltgeistYT Of course you can use it, that'll be good. I know for a fact that I'm far from the only one to have trouble understanding Nietzsche here.
Thank you for all your excellent videos. I must admit, I am partial to Nietzsche's philosophy--and not because I think I am one to embody it, but because even when I am not embodying it, I still find it to be true.
Nietzsche was very clever. An agreement is an affirmation of his claims; and a disagreement is still an affirmation of so many of his claims. We use philosophy to justify our values to ourselves, to "help us sleep at night" so to speak, and for this to be true, there doesn't need to be one philosophy that gets us there; it can be any philosophy so long as it's used in a justifying manner. By my understanding, Nietzsche didn't like Stoicism insofar as it's not an everlasting YES! to life. And yet, "Amor Fati" has to be one of the most Stoic phrases to ever be uttered. But I don't believe Nietzsche ever denied our tendency to contradict ourselves. Very clever indeed.
Still, even he was not immune to his own insights, and much of his philosophy likely comes from a man who was overburdened by physical ailments and heartbreak--who was also especially soft-spoken and polite, according to Walter Kaufmann's accounts--and so his idea of the ultimate Human being one who could suffer all this and still say YES! to life is probably so much harder than most of us could imagine.
Thanks for your awesome contributions, Weltgeist, and I will gladly come back for any number of more Nietzsche videos.
Amazing comment
The big takeaway for me regarding the Stoics is the notion of focusing exclusively on those matters over which you exert either a high degree of, or total, control. They are surprisingly few. Most circumstances we encounter in life do not at all fall into these categories. I think Nietzsche might've been sympathetic to such an attitude, as well.
Amazing video. Nietzsche aldo didnt hate Buddhism, in fact he praises it several times but also denounces it as a Nihilistic religion.
To summarize:
The word 'hate' is a misinterpretation. Nietzsche admires the stoics, but disagrees in the *degree* of neglecting emotion and passion.
Stoics: "it's not that we should care, since emotions are valuable. It's rather to have a healthy balance in mind or equanimity with negative experiences.
Cry on the regular, but don't be consumed by it."
Nietzsche: "amor fati. Sometimes "forcing" the balance is just as much of a delusion as denying realty.
Being passionate even if it means ones death.
It's almost like Nietzsche was obsessed with thanatos, the instinct to die, since he (in Zarathustra) literally recommends to 'perish' by your passion,
A.k.a. to be consumed by it."
The degree of emotion makes the difference.
The stoics prefer (mid term) rationality over passion, leading to avoid catastrophe...
But they don't consider in the meaning and beauty of catastrophe.
That's where Nietzsche declares it as superior to perish.
Personally I think Nietzsche's instincts are a little out of balance. He tries to cope with the consequences of moral/conscience (society), while romanticizing the idea of pre-conscience. Not seeing that conscience is just "different" than non-conscience thousands of years before. He lacked Eros. Love in and for life.
Some passions might be worth to perish by.
Like the fullfilled life of dying old, a natural death with lots and lots of descendants gathering around your deathbed to wish you a good 'after-life' (whatever comes).
Most however, aren't. I prefer the stoics.
I like how you worded it but I disagree most passions are worth it if you are strong
Stoics don’t believe to not grief they believe in not letting the grief control you also Stoics had lots of diversity in thought and many Stoics would often disagree with one another and it was promoted to do so it was an ever evolving philosophy at the time
Nietzsche was not an atheist. He called himself an "Honest Pagan". Nietzsche inverted all concepts, philosophies, and religious concepts to hold up the other end of the Rorschach test. Anyone quoting Nietzsche does not seem to understand that the quote says more about themselves than it says about Nietzsche.
The most important concept I ever learned when studying Nietzsche is this. You see, when Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, and most religions built a two-dimensional philosophy, Nietzsche on the other hand created a three-dimensional philosophy or religion. Aristotle and the rest created a list of ideas that could easily be put into a chart or a list of principles. When reading Nietzsche on the other hand, you have to imagine a pool of stars on the ground. From this pool of stars rises and forms a humanoid. This humanoid of stars continues to form until it can run a few steps and then shatters into the puddle of stars again. This happens over and over again for an eternity. You see Nietzsche creates these stars by creating inverted and alternate concepts than the ones we believe in. He reaffirms healthy ideas and then creates their opposites. These create the Rorschach test you personally peer into eventually.
Incredible, Nietzsche is a brother soul to me. It's incredible, I realize now, that I've been unknowingly walking parts of the same path as the great Nietzsche before.
This channel is so great. I loved this video, because I have tried to reconsile my love for both Nietzsche and the stoics for many years.
Sure Epictetus was a lave. But Marcus Aurelius was an emperor, and maybe one of the greatests by some accounts. And he held stoicism dearly, which helped him stay ethically uncorrupted by absolute power, esp. as compared to the ones who came after.
“Greatest by some accounts”
He wasn’t. Not by a long shot.
Excellent videos! Thank you. Just finished reading Beyond Good and Evil and am using these as a review of sorts... does anyone have recommendations on which Nietzsche book to read next? I've only read Beyond
The Genealogy of Morals is the next obvious choice. I'm glad you enjoy the videos. I hope they help understand Nietzsche better.
I'd love to see a deep dive into Nietzsche's take on memento mori. It's a powerful concept - how did he connect it to his broader philosophy? (Maybe Eternal Reccurrence)
I always find myself admiring both stoicism and Nietzsche's works. I think its a good idea to learn from different schools of thought and build something for yourself to live a happy purposeful life.
Nietzsche misunderstood stoic indifference. Stoicism doesn't mean to ignore/deny nature, the world and certain events but to focus your attention on what is in your control and be indifferent to what is not.
Yeah according to stoic at least epictetus quite the contrary according to him u need to acceot WHAT IS..NOT HOW IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE AND EVEN GOES ON EXPLAINING HOW IT MAKES SENSE FOR THINGS TO BE AS IT IS ..OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE .I. THINK NIETZCHE DIDNT GET IT …FOR STOICISM TRUE POWER IS OUR MIND COUNCIEESNESS
The problem with judging a philosophy is that a philosophy can have different impacts on different psychological types.
Practicing stoicism can manifest as both being highly proactive, or using indifference as a sort of mask to suppress your own emotions.
What the philosophy says is irrelevant. It’s how it is used in daily life and its affects we should pay attention to. How we use a philosophy can also change through different circumstances.
In my experience, stoicism has been both greatly beneficial in reaching new goals, but at the same time it can act as a rationalization for not confronting issues in life because you are emotionally suppressed and content. It made me so content, that everything could be on fire in my life but I did not really mind.
Having “tranquillity” as your top priority, and being “rational” at all times, is for robots. The chaotic mess of life, the good the bad and the ugly, are what make it exciting. Dulling the emotions is like playing the game of life wrapped in bubble wrap.
I believe that our emotions are like a compass and if we suppress them, or constantly reshape them when we experience them, reframing them as something positive, it results in an unconscious avoidance of some things.
Proactive stoicism is great. Reactive stoicism can be a coping mechanism. I know that “true stoicism” isn’t about suppressing emotions, but confronting them. It can be difficult to know whether we are suppressing emotions because it’s often unconscious.
Every philosopher has its criticism of other philosophers. Sometimes the agree on some things and disagree on others. Just as monotheistic agree on some principles but disagree on others. Epic tears was a slave but was freed. He died a free man.
I'd love to see a video on Nietzsche and Epicurus
He spoke about Epicurus in the anti Christ he hated him. He said thought he was a small spirit and only spoke to the common "botched" character that sees the greatest tragedy in "pain, even an infinitesimal and trivial pain".. You should read the book for yourself and he also talks down on Hedonism through Zarathustra
Nietzsche was actually very close to the Stoics in many ways, especially the more free thinking and original ones like Marcus Aurelius and Seneca. You can see some of his takes in his annotations of Emersons work where he mentions the stoics. He believed, like seneca, that honorable and deep suffering enobles you.
To be honest, I've never read those first passages of the Enchiridion. However, in the broader context of Stoicism I think your, and Nietzsche's, interpretation here is wrong.
The Stoics don't repudiate life, or negative experiences. Stoicism tells you that you need to accept life on its terms, including the bad things that happen to us (the obstacle if the way).
What Epictetus says about cups is that it's not the things themselves, it's our ideas of things and our attachment to them that causes suffering. I.e.: it's just a cup. This is similar to Buddhism.
In terms of humans, Stoicism says that everything dies or passes away, and that accepting this is a path to accepting loss.
And Stoicism doesn't teach anyone to be indifferent, that's a complete misconception. They speak to principles as being worthy pursuits, and of most things being indifferent to our well-being. They don't tell you to ignore all emotion, they say to disregard negative states like jealousy, angry, greed (what they called the Passions). Because these states control you and are liable to make you worse off, more closed-minded, etc.
Nietzsche was the embodiment of a victim mentality, who had problems with everything and everyone, including his family and friends. So I don't think his understanding of Stoicism seems to be that deep, nor accurate.
Embodiment of victim mentality. I'll just laugh at that sentence and move on
I agree with most of what you said, but I don't think we should disregard Nietzsche's criticism of Stoicism. The man may have had a lot of problems, but he definitely was a deep thinker, so there is a lot to consider with his words.
One thing I can say is that despite the criticisms, actually practicing stoicism in modern times will make your life infinitely better. I do not know a single person that follows stoic philosophy (even if they don't realize they are) and is worse off. If you practice the ideas the stoics wrote about, you will find they actually work. The issue I have with Nietzsche is that most of what he discusses is abstract, sure it's fun to think and ponder and ask deep questions, but reality isn't built on abstraction, so it is almost impossible to practice what he writes about. When your family is hungry, you can't feed them with ideas.
FUN FACT: Not many realize he was a CLOSET Buddhist.
Nietzsche: "Stoicism is a slave morality"
Marcus Aurelius: "allow me to introduce myself"
There have been Christian roman emperors but that doesn’t make Christianity any less of a slave morality
@@hhsdhhsss1522 Do you think those christian emperors were actually behaving as christians? Being christened doesn't mean you're a christian. Marcus Aurelius was as close to a perfect stoic sage as you will ever find, and he was very well suited for his position as emperor. Therefore, stoicism is not only a slave morality. A true christian would be very ill suited to be emperor because he would be way too mild.
@@timangar9771
Well, Emperor Julian definitely thought Constantine and his sons were morally Christian in behaviour
And yet Aurelius was indifferent to his sons shortcoming and general idiocy
@@victimofchungus2039 he more than likely knew of his sons shortcomings. Marcus died at 58 his son was roughly 19 and with him at the time of Marcuses Death. Assuming he lived just another 10 years which wasn’t entirely unheard of he would have had an extra 10 years of mentorship (during a campaign) to his son and Commodus would’ve ascended to the position at 29 instead of 19.
I’m not saying that he didn’t think things through clearly but it’s not unreasonable what he did.
Also had he chose someone else to become emperor they likely would’ve killed Commodus and Marcus knew that. Despite being a stoic he likely couldn’t have dealt with that looming over his child despite it being better for the Roman Empire.
Weltgeist team, be my guest in India once, a lot to observe here, just in case.
Much appreciated!
Stoicism is a romantic fascination; a beautiful “what if?”
Nietzsche went crazy by eating too much sugar, he was a big fan of sweet fruit I read.
I stand by your last question. Is our modern XXI century life really comparable bad. Are we suffering as much as Epictetus has? I would like to add another question. Is our situation so far away from ancient times? I mean it in the sense that maybe a lot of thins remains the same. For example, I was reading Seneca´s essay On the shortness of life, something that reminds me today´s world: "Now, you dare to say that mime writers exaggerate when they ridicule our luxury". The pointi of view from an estoic, which was Seneca, that can be seen as relevant today.
And returning to the question if we suffer as an ancient slave. What if today we are slaves but don´t realize about it? Or what if we are in hands frm bad people who is in power? Thats the actual need of the strength we can learn from an stoic point of view.
I think the extreme stoic advice was just a mechanism to soften the blow as hardly a normal person no matter how stoic would be able to be 100% undisturbed/indifferent by the loss of a love one.
Seneca was a senator.
Temperance is perenial as opposed to emotional volatility moving from impulse to impulse like a dumb beast.
I dont know what I am thinking but I think Neitzsche is saying that you are not prepared for life in totality by pretending to embrace it. You really have to embrace it by seeing it in its nudity however ugly or attractive it may be
Nietzsche wants to affirm life. But then he says we should value the will to power. Correct me if I am wrong but he just substituted one good and evil hierarchy for another. If you affirm life then you affirm that which makes you stronger and that which makes you weaker. The new good is now what makes you stronger and the new evil that which makes you weaker. So much for pursuing truth....
I think it says in the video to accept both the good and the bad. Will to power does not mean will to be stronger. Obviously it could be and is preferable. But it could also be to accept to be weaker. What he did not like is people hiding their weakness behind grandiose ideas, or just ideas in the case of Stoics. It's a way to hide yourself from reality. He's not pursuing truth either, that's another idea people hide behind to hide their weakness.
@@OneLine122 I have read several Nietzsche books and several intro to philosophy books since this post and the Will to Power is very clearly both the physical domination of other people and nature as well as the dominance of this will over all other wills of the individual, since we humans are made up of a multiplicity of wills each striving with the other. This dynamic creates a new good and evil in which the good makes you more powerfully both internally and externally while the evil makes you weaker. The Will to power then seems incompatible with rejoicing at everything that happens in life. He says "what doesn't kill me makes me stronger" but while that is very stirring rhetoric it simply is not the case in every instance. So it's a very strange balance the Nietzschean must walk between striving for power and welcoming all events that thwart that goal.
You also mention people hide behind ideas so they don't have to face the truth. You should know Nietzsche does not believe in the truth and completely undermines that whole concept while at the same time claiming to be the truthful one. He believes there is no objective truth only perspective influenced by the individuals Will to Power. Nietzsche blasts logic too but if we apply it here one cannot claim to tell the truth and also claim there is no truth which violates one of the main laws of noncontradiction in the field of logic. A can't be A and not A at the same time.
Of course it's more nuanced. Nuance is Nietzsche's middle name
So in shortways nietczhe said that Stoics told himself that they should indiference of life which is indifrence to power, but from act like that they become unshakable and gain power back
Nietzsche's criticism depends on his particular literal interpretation of Stoic concept of indifference. My understanding, and it is commonly explained so, is that good and evil are in stoic's eyes absolute categories. What is good is good in any circumstance. And they only see virtues as such Hence what is contextually valuable, but not good falls into the category of ETHICALLY indifferent, which does not mean it is without value.
"They draw a distinction between what is good and things which have value (axia). Some indifferent things, like health or wealth, have value and therefore are to be preferred, even if they are not good, because they are typically appropriate, fitting or suitable (oikeion) for us." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Also there is a difference in rejecting any emotion and refusing to be ruled by passions. Hence :
"Dwell on the beauty of life. Watch the stars, and see yourself running with them."
- Marcus Aurelius, Meditations
6:36 _as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. it always creates the world in its own image; it cannot do otherwise;_
sounds very much like Heidegger's hammer - once you have a hammer in your hand, everything is seen as a nail.
Beyond good and evil will be my first book by Nietzsche soon
In the question of attachment, i reason that to objects the stoics do have a point, the cup is replaceable, on the other hand, people are not.
6:56 WOOOOOOOW
And the his own philosophy is included in this makes all the more amazing, meaning or morality (aka how to behave) becomes created by us. "Become as gods!' as the Machines sing.
I actually agree with him 100% on this one.
Do you have a written version of this? I would appreciate that, thank you!
Better late than never, I suppose: weltgeist.tv/why-nietzsche-didnt-hate-the-stoics-its-complicated/
I don't think it's a coincidence that Marcus Aurelius' son turned out the way he did. An emotionally distant father will create monsters.
If your son murders someone, don't feel anything, just accept it and read more about stoicism
Epictetus > Nietzsche anyday imho
Nietzsche would have us all revert to will-to-power barbarism.
Yes. You're saying it like it's a bad thing.
Truly only an Erudite Scholar, could creat such a video 👏👏👏👏
10:00 Does Nirtzsche suppose that he's broken all the Chains that were fettered to him? Did he emancipate himself from slavery? Does a rich man who spends his life in the cycle of pillage and dissatosfaction free himself with the more power he gains when he's insatiable? A rich insatiable man is more of a slave than a poor man who lives like he's free. Theres a danger of slavery at the other spectrum of power too.. The Stoics didnt believe in a different philosophy for the rich, it worked for an Emperor just as well as for a slave.. I think Nietzsche is the one that doesnt realize the chains that are on him, the Stoics always conceded that you cant be put in any situation in which you arent chained, only by not ackownledging the chains authority can you free yourself..
Nietzsche believed that both master and slave morality were limiting philosophies, and was searching for a re-evaluation of values. he never came up with a iron clad philosophy of his own. Nietzsche wants us to discover that on our own
@@python_7179 He was wrong about Stoicism.. He made a static judgement about many things that need not be judged in one color. Read Ralph Waldo Emerson (Nietzsches favorite writer). What Emerson takes from the Stoics is the same image I get from them, and it's nothing to do with limiting your sensual experiences or expectations in the way Nietzsche describes
@@malikialgeriankabyleswag4200 literally what has been said at the start of the video: the buffet analogy. Self-ascribing to 3rd century Stoicism in modern times is absolutely ludacris and most of the time just larping, especially if it's acquired through self-help BS.
You're completely missing the point and it's hilarious. Do you not realize he's criticising all-knowing, all-according, all-encompassing, all-whateverthefuck prejudices philosophers have conjured up in order to make sense of their own world but pass it on as some universal truth? He shits on Kant, Epictetus, Stoics, Descartes, Spinoza, Hegel and anyone who thought like them. Plus, contrary to your simpleton comment, he wasn't a hedonist and he despised hedonists, yet another reason you should go read something before you write long winded comments refuting it.
@@prs_81 Have you actually read his Geneology of Morals you clown or did you just watch this video? These aren't the only problems he has with Stoicism. He dislikes the fact they 'impose' any kind of moral order on Nature, he says any moral perspective is a poison. I find it weird because he also says Emerson was his favorite writer but Emerson believed Nature was made of our moral impulses and our moral impulses were made of Nature. I understand his reservations by the way but he made too many generalizations in my opinion and that's what made it easy to mislead nihilists like you when they read his work.
This seems abit silly, everyday you will deal with people who are busy bodies, arrogant self important etc and stoicism shows you to see it in a better perspective a compassionate way, also to be aware you’ve committed these very things yourself so you should excuse them, seems pretty logical and practical to me, no? Also yes if a family member passes or Ill etc is crying snd falling apart going to help anyone? Don’t get me wrong you are going to feel pretty f ing bad but what would you say to a work colleague or friend who had the same thing, you say “it’ll be ok there in a better place. There be watching down on you etc” there is nothing you can do. if you don’t except it you will live in pain. I’m open to anything and understand people are all very different but this is a simple basic philosophy. Perhaps it suits certain people better.
This was my thoughts too. Stoicism isn't uncaring it is not letting things get in your way of being the best person you can be.
Great video. But I don't agree that Nietzsche introduced amor fati. He rather popularized it.
No Big secret, Nietzsche despises morals, so he despises stoic morals. Anything else stoic might (or might not) be OK.
Well, nietzsche was clearly a decadent.
Daybreak does not contain the passage on Epictetus you quoted. He does not mention him at all in that book. Can you tell me what your source was?
He mentions him four times, including in that section 546 quoted in the video. You can find Daybreak (translated as Dawn of the Day) on Gutenberg and do a ctrl+F to check for yourself.
To take what is useful and discarding what is not is good to me though...
Where did you find the paintings from?
3:57 I like the stoic philosophy, but this is too much
Why? Wanting someone to feel bad about something they have no control over means wanting people to feel bad, to hurt. Why would you want me to be hurt by something I have no control over? Why are you wishing pain upon me, upon us?
I think you are over looking the quote. "Being disturbed" means not being able to function correctly. It does not mentions feelings. You can avoid being disturbed while *feeling* sad .
@@monstar5746 ah I see I thought he was talking about feelings.
Anyway I don't want anyone to feel pain, I said that it's too much because I think it's impossible for someone to "not be disturbed" by the death of a loved one, but if we're not talking about feelings then I agree
"Love of Fate" well Nietzche would really hate Mawaru Penguindrum.
This reading of Nietzsche skimps on the fact that the Stoics do have amor fati as a concept which relates to indifference and to volition (otherwise called will or free will). A love of fate entails an acceptance of fate. Nietzsche has not read all of the Stoics, except Epictetus, whom he both admires and criticizes, so he does not actually see this, even as he opines Stoicism is applicable to certain forms of life but not others, and even as he makes use of amor fati. The opposite of Stoicism is Epicureanism which allows for the indulgence of the bare minimum sensations, and of great aims in life, for self-betterment and to avoid living in want. The Stoics argue convincingly that to indulge in pleasure entails wanting more, and modern neuroscience shows that one cannot find satiety with the same levels of pleasure forever. Both argue against achieving power because of its consequences. Nietzsche critiques this position as life-denying, but ultimately does not consider consequences to the ability for others subjugated by power to affirm life, e.g. how Napoleon hurt people in the process and interfered with their potential for life-affirmation. One could say even that, in Nietzsche's ethics, a person to idolize could include such figures as Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin, considering the manner of their rise to power, which, if you've read, would have entailed a lot of self-overcoming. Nietzsche's ethics and ontology of will to power is well-served when tied together with the ethics of traditions he critiques, because, as I see it, he has no real answer to a gross excess of volition, e.g. if one's path to being an authentic self entails becoming an Anton Chigurh, an amoral serial killer in No Country for Old Men, or to the possibility of an individualistic Hobbesian state of anarchy. Without the traditions he critiques, Nietzsche falls ultimately to the depravity of postmodernism and poststructuralism, if social reality and all reality really only entail wills to power. Just think of the geopolitical ramifications, the US-China-Russia triangle and the wars and potential wars it breeds under the helms of two world-historical individuals and a State ruled by ressentiment (China-Philippines, Russia-Ukraine). What if indifference were used instead as a tool for the affirmation of life from start to finish by every individual? Everyone would be self-actualized faster, even in a hierarchy of smaller and greater achievements, in a radically more egalitarian society (without the false utopia of equal outcomes) where nothing is done in excess for or against anyone, except what is permissible in unavoidable scenarios (which must still be defined and defended as to its unavoidability). We would have no wars, except competitions on who renders themselves great by dint of personal achievement in any unique endeavor.
How do you define indifference? Indifference to what? Depending on the meaning it's just mere abstraction.
I do think that Amazon workers suffer similarly to Epictetus. However, they can unionize against their masters. Working people have done it in the 20th Century even though they often were shot when doing so. They clearly have a better philosophy than stoicism.
I swear, I’ve never seen someone who’s a proponent of Nietzsche make one of these videos from the point of view of actually understanding what traditional stoicism is. Not only do they, but Nietzsche himself seem to get Lowercase Stoicism and upper case Stoicism really confused. It’s understandable for Nietzsche because that was a growing form of stoicism in his time so it’s understandable that he critiqued what he saw being practiced, but the fact that it seems virtually no one that studies him or makes these videos contextualizes this just gives the impression of being biased or lacking the discipline of research. It seems that anyone that follows him feels they have to inherently challenge stoicism, as if it is a tenant to existentialism. It’s very non intellectual and misleading. There is just no other excuse, people who follow him bring up the same points about stoicism it’s a slave mentality, having no emotion is a horrible way to live, to endure pain is nonsense, etc. Like if you really think that’s what ancient stoics meant with their words and exemplified with their practice then that just leaves me wondering of your level of comprehension.
Ryan holiday has entered the chat.
Nietzsche himself, by trying to relate the priest to the stoic and to the scientist and scholar shows himself to be a believer in the metaphysical belief In truth’s value. Tells them all they overvalue truth by telling them what he believes is true.
BIG THINK: what if your stoicism is based not on seeing nature falsely to cope but on truths given in the Bible? Like for example, not a sparrow falls down without the approval of Almighty?
Neither Nietzsche nor you do not understand stoicism at all!!!
Oh shut up
Amor Fati was a stoic thing before Nietzsche... so... what?
No one with common sense can hate Stoicism.
Who and what is the painting at 1:42?
2:57 EXACTLY!!!!! People take the parts they want and ignore all the contexts and mistakes. People who calls themselves stoics today, like Ryan Holiday, actually follow a modern reinterpretation of the philosophy - a philosophy that was that was almost a religious cult.
The stoics dont want to be indifferent to nature, but to be according to nature. In doing so they value being imperturbable
So what would be the preferable known philosophy of nietzche?
ligma
can you make a guide on how to start studying all these philosophy ? I want to study Hinduism, Stoicism, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Christianity etc etc. But where should I start? (Right now I planning to start with Plato and Kant (basics only) to study Schopenhauer then Nietzsche. Talking about Hinduism - well I'm born in Hindu family and I know the basics. What do you think of my approach? any suggestion?
To start with Plato is good
Start with Fydor Doestoeyevsky
Start with Fear and Trembling by Kierkegaard, Dostojevski is of the same cloth
I like both F.Nietzsche and M.Aurelius. Christianity is NOT stoic. Not only stoic. To me it has a depressing vibe, I was very unhappy as a Christian. Check Evola, he is a mix of Stoicism and Nietzsheanism combined, for most part.
stoicism prepares you for the inevitable
Another excellent video. I always thought stoicism was similar to spinoza's philosophy.
Thank you. Spinoza's psychological theories concerning the "passions" are very interesting. Good subject for a future video perhaps. I'm glad you enjoyed it.
Wow, not many Nietzsche fans in the comments 😂 I’ll put my hand up ✋ about the Stoics cowardice, I agree with Grumpy Walrus.
I think for neurotic people it's a wonderful tool to become more functional. Nietzsche wouldn't have thought that Cognitive Behaviour Therapy be created and be 1 of the most effective treatments used in psychology.
It's funny how Stoics weren't that interested in science, but science is interested in Stoicism.
I see philosophy like software for the brain. Even though truth stands above all, I think the absolute ultimate truthful world view needs to take into account inherit variety of personality, biology and the result of the application of the world view on a personal, interpersonal, societal and global level.
The philosophy should be adaptive, like the cells in your body using the same source code (dna) which dynamically adjusts to it's position in the body. The body is humanity, the cell are the individuals and the dna is the world view we run on.
Christianity DOES NOT deny the existing world, after all, God created the world before the fall "and said that it was good"
Christianity was born out of stoicism, the additional components of Christianity like heaven/hell, retribution/damnation, self-loathe and other such supposedly pragmatic lies, attracted a lot of people to Christianity.
Nietzsche completely lacked/disregarded empathy (until the breakdown during the horse incident) and so disregards anything which isn't beneficial to his own self. He aspires to be kind of a perfect psychopath and so accepts and even endorse stoicism only when it's the only option left. This matches so much with an emotionless psychopath.
The Nietzschean answer to the pity/compassion problem would be to say that it's okay to be compassionate and empathic, so long as it's not done out of a sense of ressentiment. Nietzsche is asking us to do something very difficult: embrace suffering as a part of life, embrace it with gusto and enthusiasm. Pity, or compassion, is the exact opposite. When you're compassionate with someone, you're telling them "it's okay to feel sad" and you feel sad with them. Nietzsche would say that whatever is causing compassion, should be viewed as an opportunity to exercise your strength/will to power instead. "What doesn't kill me, makes me stronger."
Of course, it's up to you, the reader, to decide whether or not that is a noble path worth taking. As you mentioned with the horse-incident, you could say Nietzsche fell short of his own ideal too.
@@WeltgeistYT Thanks for a great reply. I understand this path, and I think it's perfectly okay for a young ambitious person striving to obtain his goals.
But I guess that there's a group of people who truly aren't ambitious and just want to stay comfortable and safe till they die. Nietzsche might call these people the "last men" and view them negatively, but I believe that there's nothing wrong with them. I mean one can be a good hearted smart existential nihilist who just wants live a monotonous life with minimum trouble and suffering (someone like Schopenhauer or Kant or maybe even Hume). For this type of people, it would be ideal to avoid suffering and maximize compassion. They may or may not be doing something overly heroic thing which a ambitious pain embracing Nietzschean may be doing, but they are still content with their life. I don't know I'm just typing thoughts here, but it's an interesting topic.
Another interesting point is that mediocrity is often increased when in groups, as everyone in the group ignore their common mistakes or are not even aware about them as everyone's doing it and why think about something which is followed by everyone in the group. Nietzsche emphasized a lot about avoiding the herd mentality because of this phenomena, and I guess, there were times in his own life where he was stuck between choosing excellence and company/friends.
I mean even my writing this comment would probably be frowned upon by Nietzsche if I had an option of using that time for improving myself through something which I believe to be more uncomfortable but more productive than writing this.
Hey Sunil I don't think Nietzsche was a psychopath as u r suggesting he probably was a simp and an emotional guy ....if former was the case he would have manipulated the girl he fell in love with to sleep with him....and moreover Nietzsche was against over glorification of rationality the Appolonian side of us... instead asked us to embrace dyonisian side the mad irrational and passionate side aswell and strike a balance between both if possible.... Nietzsche proposed a pro active approach to life to counter nihilism which definitely requires certain amount of aggression and madness....his major issue with stoicism is however the stoic claims of living according to nature which obviously isn't fully correct as they are doing the same thing which a religion does in the sense of controlling the naturally inherited aggression desires etc. Which is neither bad nor good but the point that it is according to nature is wrong...and amor fati I think is more of a medication when the situations just go out of hand....coming to the psychopath thing I think stoics are closer to the definition given there indifference and detachment which makes it easier for the person to manipulate the emotional lot... definitely I am not against that aswell it's beyond good and evil and a matter of personal choice
Wasn’t St Paul himself influenced by stoicism? I know Christians in the late Roman Empire were extremely big fans of Seneca. St. Jerome even listed Seneca as a Christian author.
1.25x Playback speed
I don't understand this passage because he talks about the will to 'causa prima' as if it's something out of our reach or something of arrogance, and as if something that it were possible to dispense with if we wanted to. But then he said he felt more at home in Emersons essays than anywhere, and that "man is to be understood by nothing but his whole history" and "as the forest is contained folded in one acorn, so the whole of history and art and civilisation lie already in the first man".. I disagree that it's some over reach to ENRICH nature with our moral order. Why should we see the universe or nature as something above us or in contempt of us. Fuck Nature. I am a piece of Nature with life and reason.. Why am I less than this arbitrary "Nature"??
I hate the stoics.
Nietsche never understood that evil is a human construct.
You won't find evil in nature besides our definition of evil.
Did you ever heard about Chimpanzees wars in Uganda? Check on RUclips
@@tomeryaha6151
I heard about it 3 days ago.
Strange. Isn't it?
I thought about changing my post.
But I decided to think more deeply about my position.
And I currently have ways to less informations about the motivations of this kind of war.
Many deeds that you'd call evil didn't have an evil motivation.
@@T4GTR43UM3R
They were the first animals who been observed planing murder and after that celebrated the kill :(
@@tomeryaha6151
I thought about this topic for several days now.
And it is pretty hard to share my view on this. But I try it.
My problem is the fact that a psychopath for example isn't able to feel empathy.
Therefore a psychopath can't choose between a good and an evil action. Cause the consequences don't appear within a psychopathic brain.
We judge actions of psychopaths as evil. Though wouldn't an evil deed imply the possibility to choose between a good and an evil deed? Wouldn't it be necessary to be a good person to do the real evil?
But a good person doesn't do evil deeds by the intention of beeing evil.
A good person would have good intentions. Though things can turn out pretty badly.
The worst deeds in this world have more often good intentions.
How should I classify evil with that fact in mind.
Because the "doing harm = evil", "doing no harm = good" is a ways too simply classification imho.
And I currently tend to avoid classifications in that manner.
I see the world in the simple state of beeing and moving through time and space while all things are constantly changing.
If you don’t believe evil exists in human nature, you’re insanely ignorant
Makes me wonder if he wrote any critique(s) of Taoism, or specific passages in the Tao de Ching?
One of my philosophical wet-dream fantasies is to have Nietzsche and Lao-Tzu (or whomever it was that wrote the TdC)
over for a very long dinner.
Theres a video about western and eastern philosopher rap battle, its maybe a joke but very acurate in the idea of each philosopher
Most of his criticisms are based on misunderstandings of Stoicism. That's not to say his conclusions are wrong-- that's up to you. But he seems to have misunderstood the philosophy.
In my opinion, the philosophy on Thus Spoke Zarathustra is similiar to Stoicism
How so? Can you explain?
WOW what a lot of rubbish about the stoics. Go read Marcus Aurelius. Nietzsche was a nut. His life was a battleground, disaster, a life of running away.
Love it.
Thank you
Wow, Epictetus sure gave some terrible advice, lol.
Christianity (according to Nietzsche) : a slave -morality based upon the foolish hope that a slave will one day be free !
The Coming of the Overman : a slave-morality based upon the even more foolish hope that a slave will one day become a master and slave-holder himself !
Stoicism makes a big noise about fate and by the same token free will , yet modern science says free will is a myth !!
Science has never gotten anything wrong.
Everyone is a stoic until they are thrown into the brazen bull.
When tf is a man going to get thrown int the brazen bull?
Is this dovahhhaty?
No but cool channel!
@@WeltgeistYT the voice is similar, bro, I am glad I found yours too! Subbing :) ❤️👊
Thanks!
@@WeltgeistYT 👊 keep em comin
You don't understand at all
Neither does your mother