LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Dostoevs-Qui Gon Jinn's two charges, OB-Jung Kanobe and A-Nietzschean tightrope walker, have become more powerful than you could possibly imagine... until your horizons met mine. 🥰
Nietzsche never said the suffering of “ the lesser man” didn’t matter, in fact he thought the opposite: he thought “the exceptional man” had a duty not to hurt “ the weak willed man”, to handle “the mediocre man” with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself. You accuse other people of misrepresenting the guy, yet here you are… besides, Nietzsche’s ideas would have been a lot like what people think today had he been around long enough to see the advent of the notion of D.N.A. He simply had no idea about what a genetic lottery was. He formulated these hypotheses as best as you would expect from someone working with an incomplete sample space.
The craziest part of this to me has always been that Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment before Nietzsche published most of his writings. It’s like Dostoyevsky understood that eventually someone like Nietzsche would come along and he preemptively wrote an argument against it.
Maybe he knew similar people with similar ideas, or he entertained a similar ideology to Nietzsche before taking a different conclusion. The sentiment was already there in society before Nietzsche synthesized it in his writings.
Ehhh, not really. You’re not giving enough credit to their predecessors and contemporaries. These ideas were already flowing through the intelligentsia of that time. Look at Max Stirner. He predates both of them.
Listen to "Underground Spirit" it's a four hour podcast comparing Nietzsche and Dostoyesvky. There are so many similarities between Nietzsche and the characters of Dostoyesvky - to such an extent that Nietzsche thought it was destiny.
I used to admire Nietzsche as a misunderstood paragon and creative genius. Then I read the novels of Dostoevsky and saw dark parallels to Nietzsche in Rakitin, Raskolnikov, Smerdyakov, Stepan Verkhovensky, etc. I now consider the two men to be two sides of the same coin of genius: Nietzsche the egotistically rational and deductive, and Dostoevsky the spiritually intuitive and compassionate. The irony is: the two men were fairly similar. Both were neurotic loners who failed to embody their philosophies. Both suffered nervous breakdowns and were wildly misunderstood by others. But I think they fundamentally diverged in thought by how they processed their pain. Nietzsche became defensive and bitter, whereas Dostoevsky, whilst also tempted by misanthropic streaks, ultimately chose understanding and forgiveness (or, as he would have called it, love).
@cerdic6586 "Both suffered nervous breakdowns and were wildly misunderstood by others." 🕵♂Could the cause of these nervous breakdowns be existential depression? I mean it wouldn't surprise me, because Nietzsche's quote *And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you* is imo the clearest description of an existential depression.
@@TrickyD And what do you think is the cause of existential depression? Existential depression is a good start, some may call it psychospiritual crisis. The way you handle it shows the level of maturity ouf your soul.
@@TrickyD Yes, I also read that famous quote as a reference to existential depression. It seems that both characters had a predisposition towards depression and neuroticism. Dostoyevsky's may have been partially genetic, as I recall in a biography that he was a very nervous, rebellious and sickly boy in school. But, of course, his mock execution and exile in Siberia would have traumatised him enough to compel a profound re-examination of himself and life. Nietzsche had a more conventional childhood, but was severely affected by his father's premature death, which apparently gave him a lifelong hypochondria. I think Nietzsche was probably more susceptible to existential depression due to his patrician nature driving him to solitude. But Nietzsche was a deeply conflicted soul, who clearly harboured a tenderness that his ego dared not let loose lightly. You can see this in the semi-fictional account of his descent into madness after he witnessed a horse being whipped to death in Turin. Dostoevsky had a similar experience in his youth.
@@alena-qu9vj "And what do you think is the cause of existential depression?" 🧠The realisation that you're surrounded by Existential Idiots = people with an Existential IQ
Crime and Punishment came BEFORE Nietzche's work? Dostoyevsky posing a counterargument to something that hasn't been properly articulted yet is insanely impressive
This alone is not impressive for me at all. Dostojevski did not have revolutionary ideas, but put known arguments and discussions into well-writen novels.
you're the best channel I've found to watch videos about philosophy, it encourages me to read more books and learn more and feeds my curiosity, thank you so much for making this videos.
(Real)Anti-Egalitarians accept or even respect a variety of natures (this is often overlooked) and Dostojewski would have focused on those in need/with abundaned compassion. I think they would have complimented each other quite well... But Nietzsche probably would never address Dostojewski as anything but "cattlebrain" 😅
When taken generally, the ideas of Nietzsche can be bleak indeed, yet I have always understood them in an "aiming-at-you" way. What I mean by that is that, as in the title of one of his books, Nietzsche thought of his philosophy as of a tool (the hammer) instead of a manual - thus, his writings should be considered a resource of insights from which one can get inspiration towards achieving betterment for themselves. Thus - his elitism, his books being "for the few who would understand" etc. I don't think that bleak or wrong, it's very honest and rejuvenating to me now after years of being into this philosophy as much as it had been the first time I ever read it. In my view, nietzschean writings are a call to self-overcoming in principio, to go "beyond good and evil" in a sense of truly and deeply engaging with both our light and dark sides to find possible reconciliation between the ideal of us and its reality, always to bring a person forward instead of keeping it at bay or even regressing. Great video as always, thank you for your work!
The different views Nietzsche and Dostoevsky had on Christianity were deeply shaped not only by their unique dispositions and life experiences, but also by the vastly different groups/ versions of the religion they had met. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are incredibly dissimilar in many ways, not just regarding the dogma and scriptures but also their history, the actions of their leaders etc. Eastern Europe for example was at almost constant war during the 19th century with revolutions against the Ottoman empire (during which the Orthodox Church played an important, almost heroic role and many).
And the way the church treated Nietzsche is beyond disgusting. While I do not agree with Nietzsche in many things, I can understand why when you read about his life. He lived an isolated life, in which many betrayed him and on top of that suffered chronic diseases which cause him lots of pain and then he suffered a mental breakdown in the end. Truly a horrible life, I have never seen any of his critics even mention the context of his philosophy.
@@revelation20232 of you have to ask, means you don't know much about him. Let's start by spreading a lot of lies about him, his philosophy and even his character. Only because they did not like what he said. So became shunned and isolated by his family and friends. Making him live a very isolated life, on top of already suffering a debilitatingly painful chronic disease. If you learn anything about his life, he had a horrible life and death. And the church is partly responsible for that, for all the slander they made against him. Even today, most of the lies spread by the church keep being repeated by Christians. The average Christian thinks they know Nietzsche, yet almost no Christian has ever actually read Nietzsche. All they know about him is through the lies of other Christians.
Hey Joe, just came across your YT channel and its great see your doing so well! I remember doing logic classes in 1A with you as the marker and teacher (just finished up my third year in philosophy). Genuinely think the only reason I passed logic was because of your classes and marking!
Ah man that’s awesome and congratulations! Drop me an email and we’ll catch up. Did you write a diss? If so would love to read it (I’ve just finished reading Georgia’s, who was also in your class)
This channel excels at pulling people into the ideas held by history's great thinkers. I just finished Crime and Punishment after watching a previous video on the book. And now getting a direct, and might I add unbiased, comparison between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche is like a kind of synchronic confirmation for me. I'm definitely going to continue reading both of these great men, and build my own theories and ideas.
I’m grateful to Alex O’Connor for doing a podcast with you otherwise I wouldn’t have found this channel… the amount of content you’ve provided is astounding and it’s all delicious brain food! Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas!
@phillipdino6 "Reminder that Nietzsche died alone and unloved, while Dostoyevsky had a funeral that was reportedly attended by 100,000 people" 😏LoL in the Netherlands we have this saying: "zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden" which translates to *"Soft healers make stinking wounds"* in English. This saying emphasizes that overly cautious or halfhearted measures may lead to larger problems down the line. Sometimes, decisive or even drastic action is necessary to prevent further issues. Guess who embraced the brutal truth while the other is just a soft healer which is why he was beloved by the masses. 🧠Nietzsche engaged with nihilism critically, seeking to move beyond it rather than fully embracing it. His exploration of new values and the affirmation of life remains influential in philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche did *not* fully embrace nihilism; rather, he critically engaged with it. ⚠As for Schopenhauer, his philosophical outlook was deeply influenced by pessimism, emphasizing suffering and the impermanence of existence. While he grappled with nihilistic themes, he did not offer the same affirmative alternatives that Nietzsche did. Each philosopher's response to the human condition reflects their unique worldview and intellectual journey.
What happened after their deaths is of no consequence to them. Heck, it doesn’t even matter what happened during their lives. They were just molecular arrangements that gave rise to egos that don’t even register as a blip in the cosmic vastness.
18:07 this is so very true I am reading Man's Search for Meaning and one thing that the author talked about is that prisoners after freedom would do something like walk on oat crops just cuz they can
I recently read 'The Conspiracy Against the Human Race' by Thomas Ligotti and found it extremely interesting but there aren't many good videos on youtube about it. It's extremely bleak philosophy so I can understand why you wouldn't but considering the quality of your content I would love to see you cover it.
I think it's telling that you described Dostoevsky's views as in part a product of his highly varied life, interacting with all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances, but don't do the same with Nietzsche. The latter's personal life was drowned in isolation and plagued with tumultuous falling outs. It's hard to avoid seeing Nietzsche's philosophy as a means of justifying his own inability to connect with others (most people are "quietly mediocre") and to give meaning to the suffering from his chronic illness (a "great educator") by defining the triumph over weakness as a prime virtue of the ubermensch. One need not imagine the self-hatred this must have brought him. I think portraying Dostoevsky and Nietzsche as two individual genius minds underplays just how influenced their respective philosophies were by their divergent life experiences, and how we might be critical of one or the other based on that.
Gawd it's the showdown I never knew I needed! This channel has been one of my go-to Philosophical content to binge and reflect on. I wish my college philosophy class was even a smidge as engaging and thought provoking as this.
You seem to misread Nietzches ideas on power and selflessness. It really does not exclude being nice to others and helping them. It guarantees, that you help others out of free will, not taking a slave mentality and not bowing to anyone at all. I have seen this difference in social workers where the drug addict can just abuse the worker and the worker does not assert anything or escalate the situation, proving that he has no selfworth. Normal person does not take abuse, no matter the situation.
Oh I take your point. I am definitely over-simplifying here (it is why I say this in the first section of the video), but I do think that while Nietzsche does not specifically exclude selflessness, on the whole he places far more emphasis on the "egoism" (to use his terminology). I go into it in more detail in other videos, I just couldn't re-hash it all within the time constraints of this one
I am afraid Nietzsche (and you by extention), do not understand what "slave mentality" means. A slave does what he is ordered to do and has no free will in it, while this christian altruistic mentality (in the sense "turn the other cheek") is the result of a supreme free will, of one's voluntary decision steming from deep compassion. It is not that they MUST do it,, the WANT to do it. It does not matter if you approve of it, it just IS NOT any SLAVE mentality.
Great! In todays world we can see how people without true value chart are both miniscule in ego but in groups / anonymity suddenly find that will to power. Christinity has that intrinsic egoism but it is a mere shadow of itself.
@@alena-qu9vj "is the result of a supreme free will, of one's voluntary decision steming from deep compassion. It is not that they MUST do it,, the WANT to do it." 🖐Some people may act out of genuine compassion & free will, while I fear that most are driven by societal pressure or fear of ostracization. Man is a herdanimal afterall 🤔I see no difference between a herdmentality and the slave mentality.
You are the future of what our new generations need. Happily overwhelmed by all the knowledge you are able to convey. Thank you for condensing and “not condensing” all of this great information in a way that is only yours. It will be cemented in digital history. Keep it up!
I hope that you will soon produce more material for your Patreon supporters. Nonetheless, take as long as you need. I'm happy to help, in however small a way, the production of these wonderful essays for the broad public via RUclips.
Congratulations on your success Joe (@unsolicited advice). My wife and I have been big fans of your channel since your first Dostoyevsky video on notes from the underground 7 months ago. We often discuss some of your videos dinner, preferring to discuss philosophy vs our mundane corporate jobs. While I’m fortunate that my wife enjoys talking philosophy, I Wanted to say thank you for making our conversations entertaining. Congratulations! Best regards from Phoenix, AZ!
This was a great comparison of the two for people that aren't immersed in philosophy. You're far, far ahead of your years in understanding these very deep and dense ideas and relaying them to a more general public. Thank you for your contributions to the world. This particular video at this time in my life inspired me to sign up for your Patreon as a show of appreciation.
I began a Christian. Moved on to strive for atheistic self perfection believing I had the potential to be the best person in the world, but then realized how prideful that was, and decided that pride was not a part of the best person if there was to ever be one so decided to forego my pride. That led me to eventually become Christian again, and I reached the of simply wanting the best for everyone. I built my own moral values and they align with what’s best for everyone. So I suppose I cycled through these two.
You aren’t building your own values if you defaulted back to Christianity. (An entire ingrained value system) if you think those two things are compatible you didn’t understand Nietzsche.
An excellent video; a much needed one even. But I'd object to say that Nietzsche only has a notable understanding of Protestantism and Catholicism. Dostoevsky, being Russian Orthodox, speaks of a Christianity that is entirely different from the Catholic and Protestant's Faith. So Nietzsche's attacks against Christianity hold up pretty well against the Protestant and Catholic faiths, but against Orthodoxy his critiques not only fall flat but even make an argument for Orthodoxy. Henceforth why my own conversion to Orthodox Christianity was largely fueled by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.
I thoroughly disagree. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not that much different in core, and I think nietszche attacks core fundaments of Christianity like the believe that there is good and evil beyond human's judgment, or that feeling guilty is wrong. Hendeforth my own conversion to atheism rather than orthodoxy was largely fueled by Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky.
@@Capt.Fail. The biggest difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is religious innovation and something called "Ecumenism." Catholicism is a big proponent of both (The "Chaldean" Catholics are a great example of Ecumenism with Papal Supremacy, Universal jurisdiction and infallibility being inventions simply not seen in the 1st millennia.) Orthodoxy is the opposite; it violently attempts to oppose Ecumenism and any religious innovation. Although Catholics have their traditionalists and Orthodox their progressives. The core of both Faiths is independent of the few exceptions.
@@mimikrama The best I could say to you is to read "Death to the World" and whatever writings you can by Fr. Seraphim Rose. If possible, visit one of his students Fr. Damascene at St. Herman's monastery in Platina California. I don't say this because I think your atheism is invalid or that you arrived at it wrongly. I think it's likely wholly justified and necessary. That's why I think you'd reap benefit from speaking to a Monk and not a meek little layman like myself.
Look up "instrumental convergence". Will to power is not just human quality, it is universal. Any intelligence, no matter what end goals it pursues, would most likely display the same behaviour in order to reach them: it will try to defend its view of the end goals and increase the amount of useful resoruces at its disposal.
in search of philosophy of mankind and its dark nature I have stumbled upon your channel recently. i have been following since the start of this summer and am quite fascinated by your style of notion. So can u give a clear conception about leo tolstoy and his idealism. love ur passion
I was hoping for this exact video, you could see this possibility from the video where unsolicitaded advice talked about similarities in raskolnikov's idea about the superior man and the ubërmensch of nietzsche. This one is going to be a banger 🔥
Great video! Could you make one comparing Ubermensch of Nietzsche and Martin Eden? I think it’s one of the best Ubermensch representations in literature.
I think both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky purposefully or not, take their ideals too far and too idealistic, it is impossible to have neither extreme, we can just hope to take what we can from these extremes because nothing is able absolute or perfect on the material world, both of them made platonic forms that we can mirror but never fully embrace it, become or achieve
11:55 🤔If you act according to your character, your own moral set of personal values, there will be no need to be above morality. This means that if one's actions are guided by their personal values and character, they inherently align with moral principles. Therefore, there would be no need to consider oneself above morality, as their actions would naturally be moral. This perspective emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and ethical conduct. It's a reminder that staying true to oneself and one's values is a fundamental aspect of morality, ie. Nietzsche's Übermensch. 🧠The Übermensch, or “overman,” is not about disregarding morality but rather about transcending the externally imposed moral codes to create one’s own. This self-created morality is inherently aligned with one’s personal values and character, making it a true reflection of one’s integrity. ♻This perspective indeed emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and ethical conduct. It’s a reminder that staying true to oneself and one’s values is a fundamental aspect of morality. It’s about being authentic and genuine in one’s actions, which is indeed a profound aspect of moral conduct. 👉In essence, Nietzsche’s Übermensch is a call for individuals to strive for a higher state of being, where actions are not dictated by societal norms but are a true reflection of one’s inner values and character. It’s about being the best version of oneself, guided by a moral compass that is uniquely one’s own. This is a powerful and inspiring concept that encourages personal growth and self-realization.
Nope. Nietzsche had his own definite idea of what Ubermensch should look like, for instance he should take a whip when going to women. He is the perfect example that a fundamentaly sick person could have a very strange concept of "moral" values and society cannot depend on on some illusional "personal integrity" without societal norms. True reflection of inner values and character of some humans could terrify you to death. In fact, this is the main danger of the sloppy Nietzschean "philosophy". Many a powerful psychopath thinks himself an Ubermensch above morality and makes our world to a hell on Earth.
You should explain this to people like Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Polpot, Mussolini, Putin, Xi, and the millions of lackeys that follow them. They are all definitely following their character and personal sets of ethics. But it turns out once you subtract the Judeo Christian ideal that every person has value because everyone is created equal in the image of God, you don’t always get behavior which you would like.
@@alena-qu9vj "True reflection of inner values and character of some humans could terrify you to death." 🤔Maybe, but I'm convinced that a true reflection of your inner values & character automatically excludes the psychopaths, sociopaths and the Existential Idiots = people whose Existential IQ < 25 so will always choose 💵, or any other shortterm goal, over the survival of humanity. Existential Idiots are those people who'll glady become a millionaire by poluting the environment. *Psychopaths, sociopaths & Existential Idiots are still herdanimals, while the Übermensch isn't.* "Many a powerful psychopath thinks himself an Ubermensch above morality and makes our world to a hell on Earth." 😏Funny, the question isn't whether you believe that you're goin' to Heaven when you die, but if Hell exists here on Earth. And if Hell does indeed exist here on Earth what are you gonna do about it? 😓 *People who do nothing to alleviate the suffering here on Earth because they believe it is all goin' accordin' to Gods plan might as well be the cause of all the suffering here on Earth.*
@@mbmurphy777 "They are all definitely following their character and personal sets of ethics." 🤔True, but all of them are still herdanimals while the Übermensch is not. Even the master of slaves still is a herdanimal because he depends on the herd, without the herd the master is worthless.
I really do wish if only Doestsky and Nietzche chance to meet with Viktor Frankl. He survived Nazi Constitution camp and valued his Inner strenght above all and use it to help others rather than elitizing himself.
As a man who is called to be a contemplative Benedictine monk these videos really help me out, thank you. We live in a time where this kind of deep thought is not promoted anymore.
Fascinating overview. I, too, see Nietzsche as primarily narcissistic and Dostoevsky as the opposite, a socially oriented person. The problem of the later is that he doesn't clearly separate Jesus the symbol from the church (institution). I suspect a deeper reading would refute this observation. I really appreciate the work you do and the even handed approach you take. I hope you never change.
Some fringe intellectuals have attempted to divorce Dostoyevsky from an authentic Christian faith, but all attempts are completely futile, and any plain reading of his works or life show this separation impossible.
I found your channel yesterday by seeing the video on what everyone gets wrong about Nietzsche and I found it a very good video. In this video, I am a bit disappointed because I find there is a big discrepancy between what most of us consider as power and the complexity of Nietzsche's concept of power, and by not clarifying this complexity his philosophy gets misunderstood. So I find that this clarification is missing and thereby it is a misrepresented picture of his philosophy. Sorry for my harsh criticism, I just find Nietzsche's philosophy has enormous value when engaged with it on a deep level but at the same time can lead to very dangerous results by not going deep enough and misunderstanding it.
I take your point - I did clarify it is a massive oversimplification. I get to do a more in-depth treatment of his ideas with more adequate nuance in my individual videos on his works. It’s why I kept saying that this was just a brief overview and that I was simplifying the ideas throughout.
@unsolicitedadvice9198 I get the fact that in such a video you need to oversimplify. I will watch your other videos about him and praise or criticize you in the comments 😅. Jokes aside I enjoyed getting more insight into Dostoevsky and I see you cover a range of interesting topics in your channel. So I will certainly watch more of your content.
I truly think explaining Nietzche briefly is very hard without constantly going into rabbit holes to explain the words, thoughts and mindset behind them is very hard.
While I laud this video of contrasting the philosophers all the while trying to go deep into their own philosophies, I fear it showed Nietzsche in a more black and white view of egoism, aristocracy, elitism vs egalitarianism and selflessness when Nietzsche has a lot to offer than just egoism, aristocracy, and elitism. For those who want to know more about Nietzsche's view, I suggest watching Unsolicited Advice's vids about him which gives him more justice.
I'd say Dostoevsky's ideals are more agreeable and great to live by, but Nietzsche's message about how we need more Ubermensch and why many people don't get to that point in their life is very true. For me the goal wouldn't be power as much as self fulfillment. Kids develop many interests as they grow up, but in our education system we do not separate those with motivation or skill from those who do the bare minimum, resulting in classes that appeal to the lowest common denominator at the detriment of those with potential. I specially like Nietzsche's idea about the camel, how we should become strong in that instead of avoiding things outside our comfort zone, we should strive for a heavier and heavier burden. I'd say as a society we've grown too complacent and have forgotten the joy of a work well done, a challenge overcome or an incredible life experience that will be received with the respect of our peers. Living that way feels great, and I'm looking forward to more challenges and adversities that will test my physical and mental strenght as well as my problem solving skills
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 In my old years knowing both since the mid 70s Dostoyevsky RESONATES with time. Nietsche does not.at all. TIme tells things with clarity.
11:12 I like that I drew the same connection myself before you even said it. That being above moral law and ethics sounds like what crime and punishment was about. And I know that thanks to your channel 🫡
I always understood that "power" according to Nietzsche is mainly power over yourself. Which is why I think they are not contradicting each other about the resentment. Dostojevskij's book characters definitely lack the power over themselves.
I think he means both. His praise of Napoleon for being a conqueror does not quite make sense if he just means inner power, but his praise of Goethe does not fit if he just means outer power
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 that is true. But I can imagine him not liking a person who is socially powerful but personally weak. But he does respect the other way around which is why I think that power over oneself is more important for him
" ..Dostojevskij's book characters definitely lack the power over themselves...." So?? Does that mean that Dostoevski personaly does not appreciate power over oneself?? Dostoevski is an artist, writer above all and describes the real life, real characters. That makes him much more trustworthy than Nietzsche fantasizing about fictional Ubermansch and not mastering his own personal life at all.
@@alena-qu9vj chill bro. I personally dislike Nietzsche's philosophy too. Im just saying that in this particular instance I think they both are saying something similar. It wasnt an attack on Dostojevskij (hes literally my favorite writer so...)
@@gaghhuh2943 Chiling 😁 Anyway, I see the Dostojevskij's mastery precisely in the psychological accuracy in describing the characters which may not be in accordance with his personal arrangement. As it goes: When two are saying the same thing, it is not the same... For me it only matters WHO is saying, not WHAT is said - even if is not a popular attitude.
Nietzsche was actually a big Dostoevsky fan boy in his later life before the madness took over. Check out the Martyr Made podcast. He has a 5 hour episode about the two that both goes through Nietzsche's fascination with Dostoevsky and a comparison between the two
I read "Crime and Punishment" twice. The second time immediately after the first searching for clues about why Rodion Raskolnikov might have wanted to pay the virtual ultimate price for his transgression. My take away was that Dostoevsky plotted Raskolnikov's fate as a farce. In spite of keeping a secret like his murdering the pawn broker from the world, no one else (or real) would have been so self-effacing as to willingly sacrifice themselves to Raskolnikov's fate. I also got the idea that the conclusion was what it was because the more likely outcome of Raskolnikov choking down his guilt and living with it, which would have been the sensibly more likely continuation of the narrative wouldn't have gotten past censorship, so Dostoevsky upended the hopeful conclusion and made Raskolnikov a fool to the contemporary readers of the time. Perhaps priming them to pursue actionable justice.
It makes sense that he only read notes from the underground to praise Dostoyevsky. After going through the ideas of Demons and Brother Karamazov I was confused as to why nietzsche would take a liking to the russian novelist as his ideas leaned towards christian and away from what Nietzsches philosophy was built on.
Two sides of the same coin. Optimism and cynicism. It's a chaotic but beautiful dance of human nature. How we optimists can easily become cynical beings... but with the right circumstances, we swing back to optimism. The subjectivity in both philosophies leaves room for thought and how we approach them. Each have their own symbolisms and analysis, but that's fine. We can never find a finality anyway.
18:29 🖐Nietzsche's ultimate human drive isn't will to power, but to be yourself, a true individual ie. not be a herdanimal like 99.99% of mankind. Nietzsche admires Jesus, because he wasn't a slave, nor was he a master. 😇Jesus simply was true to his character.
@@alena-qu9vj "Jesus was true his character, while Nietzsche certainly was not true to his Ubermensch." 😐True, but at least Nietzsche existed, while Jesus could very well be only a fictional character.
@@alena-qu9vj "But it is not Nietzsche's personal due, is it?" 🙄True, but it is easy for a fictional character to be true to their nature and nearly impossible for a living human being. Evidence for this fact is that only people with a strong character overcome their existential depression.
Again, a great video! You seem to keep Nietzches ubermench (the few) as quasi-godlike, but I think saint is a better analogy and in my opinion fits this world like a glove, considering Nietzche was really considering a replacement for christianity.
Nietzsche to me is an optimist if you regard his view of the world. All is suffering and chaos, yet people are able endure, to bear it all. Amor Fati, has there ever been a more optimistic credo?
You raise an excellent point! Funnily enough I was going to talk about Amor Fati in more detail here but I desperately wanted to keep the video under half an hour. Obviously I am painting in really broad strokes in this video, and skimming over a lot of nuance. It is always an interesting trade-off to make when scripting these
It's Nietzsche, you can raise both points on his philosophy: both optimistic and pessimistic, always contradicting himself and making you think! I skimmed through some parts out of time pressure but the video was great! Thank you!
Nietzsche's "optimism" ist just empty words. You can prattle what you want, if you do not LIVE your optimism, your blabber is just a psychological compensation. Same as "Ubermensch" is just Nietzesche's compensation for his own sick reality.
@@alena-qu9vj "You can prattle what you want, if you do not LIVE your optimism, your blabber is just a psychological compensation." 😏LoL I dunno about Nietzsche, but the Übermensch isn't an optimist or pessimist, he's a pragmatist. Ask anyone if a glas ½ filled with water is ½ full or ½ empty. An optimist will answer that the glas is ½ full, while a pessimist will answer that the glas is ½ empty. 🧠Only a pragmatist will declare that a glas ½ full = ½ empty.
Th3 first book that Nietzsche read is Crime and punishment and in French translation lHe literally said we shall all become Roskolnikoff. Then he read the posesed.He basically read everything exvept Brothers Kharazamoff because he weny full Cathatonic before ue could
I think the key difference is that nietzsche's exposure to christianity was mostly the protestant denominations which is the ancestor of the prudish and life denying evangelical christianity that plagued america. Orthodox christianity is a much stronger and more masculine denomination that produces much more robust men than protestantism
I found the comparison between these two quite interesting. However, your video seemed a bit reductive, especially in its treatment of Nietzsche's philosophy. Upon examining his complete body of work, it becomes clear that he cannot be neatly categorized as either an optimist or a cynic. This is likely why there are such vastly different interpretations of his ideas to this day.
I take your point - I did clarify it is a massive oversimplification. I get to do a more in-depth treatment of his ideas with more adequate nuance in my individual videos on his works
@@alena-qu9vj Yeah its difficult to figure out what he actually believed cuz his writings were one big thought experiment. Which is why it seems like he contradicted himself so much, he'd take an idea, run with it and probably didnt internalize it before doing the same in another direction.
I remember a scene from a Russian novel about the protagonist destroying a desk in a dealers gallery. This desk was something that they had coveted. And I can not for the life of me remember what book it is in......
14:21 i dont think they disagree that much...i just think nietzsche was mlore focused towards individual development within the current society that being lives in to rise above it. and dostoevsky more on our human evolution and what society should look like and treath one another..
No they definitely disagreed a lot. Dostoyevsky would have found Nietzsche to be fundamentally flawed in terms of his philosophy and final conclusions about humanity and Christianity
@@t.bo.e2487 both are small and closed minded views, but nietsche speaks more towards the ego, The main thing I get from Nietsche is that you have to be immune to the thoughts and preferences of the majority so that you can grow yourself.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS:
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Very informative and well written episode. Than you.
Dostoevs-Qui Gon Jinn's two charges, OB-Jung Kanobe and A-Nietzschean tightrope walker, have become more powerful than you could possibly imagine... until your horizons met mine. 🥰
Bro Make a video on philosophy of blood Meridien
@@UniversalDisciple anything else we can serve you?
Nietzsche never said the suffering of “ the lesser man” didn’t matter, in fact he thought the opposite: he thought “the exceptional man” had a duty not to hurt “ the weak willed man”, to handle “the mediocre man” with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself. You accuse other people of misrepresenting the guy, yet here you are… besides, Nietzsche’s ideas would have been a lot like what people think today had he been around long enough to see the advent of the notion of D.N.A. He simply had no idea about what a genetic lottery was. He formulated these hypotheses as best as you would expect from someone working with an incomplete sample space.
The craziest part of this to me has always been that Dostoyevsky wrote Crime and Punishment before Nietzsche published most of his writings. It’s like Dostoyevsky understood that eventually someone like Nietzsche would come along and he preemptively wrote an argument against it.
Maybe he knew similar people with similar ideas, or he entertained a similar ideology to Nietzsche before taking a different conclusion. The sentiment was already there in society before Nietzsche synthesized it in his writings.
Ehhh, not really. You’re not giving enough credit to their predecessors and contemporaries. These ideas were already flowing through the intelligentsia of that time. Look at Max Stirner. He predates both of them.
@@kevinbeck8836 pretty much.
Listen to "Underground Spirit" it's a four hour podcast comparing Nietzsche and Dostoyesvky. There are so many similarities between Nietzsche and the characters of Dostoyesvky - to such an extent that Nietzsche thought it was destiny.
Agreed. I picked up on this when I read Crime and Punishment
I think Nieztche called Dostoyevsky the only psychologist he had anything to learn from, but we only know he read the notes from the underground
Yeah, I think there is some speculation he read Crime and Punishment as well, but I don't know how much evidence there is for that
He actually read a very distorted version of mixed with another story of dostoyevsky , however it still kept the main ideas.
How tf do y'all know what he precisely read lol @@Agro50
@@Mayanksabsurddd Historians found letters to his friend and found a copy of the book he read
@@MayanksabsurdddHe wrote about reading it
I used to admire Nietzsche as a misunderstood paragon and creative genius. Then I read the novels of Dostoevsky and saw dark parallels to Nietzsche in Rakitin, Raskolnikov, Smerdyakov, Stepan Verkhovensky, etc. I now consider the two men to be two sides of the same coin of genius: Nietzsche the egotistically rational and deductive, and Dostoevsky the spiritually intuitive and compassionate. The irony is: the two men were fairly similar. Both were neurotic loners who failed to embody their philosophies. Both suffered nervous breakdowns and were wildly misunderstood by others. But I think they fundamentally diverged in thought by how they processed their pain. Nietzsche became defensive and bitter, whereas Dostoevsky, whilst also tempted by misanthropic streaks, ultimately chose understanding and forgiveness (or, as he would have called it, love).
@cerdic6586
"Both suffered nervous breakdowns and were wildly misunderstood by others."
🕵♂Could the cause of these nervous breakdowns be existential depression?
I mean it wouldn't surprise me, because Nietzsche's quote *And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you* is imo the clearest description of an existential depression.
@@TrickyD And what do you think is the cause of existential depression?
Existential depression is a good start, some may call it psychospiritual crisis. The way you handle it shows the level of maturity ouf your soul.
@@TrickyD Yes, I also read that famous quote as a reference to existential depression. It seems that both characters had a predisposition towards depression and neuroticism. Dostoyevsky's may have been partially genetic, as I recall in a biography that he was a very nervous, rebellious and sickly boy in school. But, of course, his mock execution and exile in Siberia would have traumatised him enough to compel a profound re-examination of himself and life.
Nietzsche had a more conventional childhood, but was severely affected by his father's premature death, which apparently gave him a lifelong hypochondria. I think Nietzsche was probably more susceptible to existential depression due to his patrician nature driving him to solitude. But Nietzsche was a deeply conflicted soul, who clearly harboured a tenderness that his ego dared not let loose lightly. You can see this in the semi-fictional account of his descent into madness after he witnessed a horse being whipped to death in Turin. Dostoevsky had a similar experience in his youth.
@@alena-qu9vj
"And what do you think is the cause of existential depression?"
🧠The realisation that you're surrounded by Existential Idiots = people with an Existential IQ
@@TrickyD Well, and the really "smart" ones are able to find a meaning in that, while the arrogant ones stop midway.
Crime and Punishment came BEFORE Nietzche's work? Dostoyevsky posing a counterargument to something that hasn't been properly articulted yet is insanely impressive
Yes!
How is it an counter argument to nietzche? Dare you to explain
This alone is not impressive for me at all. Dostojevski did not have revolutionary ideas, but put known arguments and discussions into well-writen novels.
@@PW-qi1giwell-written is a bit of an understatement. They’re genius works.
I would argue that since he is only exploring human perspectives, it was inevitable that there will be two opposites at some point
Finally! i had the topic of Nietzsche vs Dostoevsky forever in my mind, i am indescribably amused to know you made a video on it!
Ah well I hope you like it! They are a wonderful philosophical pairing
Was just thinking about it a few days haha
you're the best channel I've found to watch videos about philosophy, it encourages me to read more books and learn more and feeds my curiosity, thank you so much for making this videos.
Ah thank you! That is very kind of you to say
I second that
I don't think they'd agree, but I imagine they would respect eachother greatly.
Indeed.
Nah, Dostoevsky didn't really respect people with egoistic philosophy.
@@TheRealXMobno
No
(Real)Anti-Egalitarians accept or even respect a variety of natures (this is often overlooked)
and Dostojewski would have focused on those in need/with abundaned compassion. I think they would have complimented each other quite well...
But Nietzsche probably would never address Dostojewski as anything but "cattlebrain" 😅
When taken generally, the ideas of Nietzsche can be bleak indeed, yet I have always understood them in an "aiming-at-you" way.
What I mean by that is that, as in the title of one of his books, Nietzsche thought of his philosophy as of a tool (the hammer) instead of a manual - thus, his writings should be considered a resource of insights from which one can get inspiration towards achieving betterment for themselves.
Thus - his elitism, his books being "for the few who would understand" etc.
I don't think that bleak or wrong, it's very honest and rejuvenating to me now after years of being into this philosophy as much as it had been the first time I ever read it.
In my view, nietzschean writings are a call to self-overcoming in principio, to go "beyond good and evil" in a sense of truly and deeply engaging with both our light and dark sides to find possible reconciliation between the ideal of us and its reality, always to bring a person forward instead of keeping it at bay or even regressing.
Great video as always, thank you for your work!
Beautifully put
The different views Nietzsche and Dostoevsky had on Christianity were deeply shaped not only by their unique dispositions and life experiences, but also by the vastly different groups/ versions of the religion they had met. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches are incredibly dissimilar in many ways, not just regarding the dogma and scriptures but also their history, the actions of their leaders etc.
Eastern Europe for example was at almost constant war during the 19th century with revolutions against the Ottoman empire (during which the Orthodox Church played an important, almost heroic role and many).
And the way the church treated Nietzsche is beyond disgusting. While I do not agree with Nietzsche in many things, I can understand why when you read about his life. He lived an isolated life, in which many betrayed him and on top of that suffered chronic diseases which cause him lots of pain and then he suffered a mental breakdown in the end. Truly a horrible life, I have never seen any of his critics even mention the context of his philosophy.
@@farrex0 how did the Church mistreat him?
@@revelation20232 of you have to ask, means you don't know much about him. Let's start by spreading a lot of lies about him, his philosophy and even his character. Only because they did not like what he said.
So became shunned and isolated by his family and friends. Making him live a very isolated life, on top of already suffering a debilitatingly painful chronic disease. If you learn anything about his life, he had a horrible life and death. And the church is partly responsible for that, for all the slander they made against him. Even today, most of the lies spread by the church keep being repeated by Christians. The average Christian thinks they know Nietzsche, yet almost no Christian has ever actually read Nietzsche. All they know about him is through the lies of other Christians.
Few in this comment section have read Dostoyevsky and fewer have read Nietzsche
And 99,99% not in russian AND german
NAME THREE SONGS
Even fewer did understand
Have you?? 🫵
How do you know?
It's always a pleasure to take in your presentations. I have been taken to places I otherwise could never have gone. Thank you!
Nice video as always
Could you cover eastern philosophers, like Lao Tzu or Confucius by any chance?
Great Courses has a great series on Eastern thinkers, I really enjoyed it!
Hey Joe, just came across your YT channel and its great see your doing so well! I remember doing logic classes in 1A with you as the marker and teacher (just finished up my third year in philosophy). Genuinely think the only reason I passed logic was because of your classes and marking!
Ah man that’s awesome and congratulations! Drop me an email and we’ll catch up. Did you write a diss? If so would love to read it (I’ve just finished reading Georgia’s, who was also in your class)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 a diss? I think I went to school in the wrong era.
this is amazing! looking forward to your next video.
Thank you!
This channel excels at pulling people into the ideas held by history's great thinkers.
I just finished Crime and Punishment after watching a previous video on the book. And now getting a direct, and might I add unbiased, comparison between Dostoevsky and Nietzsche is like a kind of synchronic confirmation for me.
I'm definitely going to continue reading both of these great men, and build my own theories and ideas.
I’m grateful to Alex O’Connor for doing a podcast with you otherwise I wouldn’t have found this channel… the amount of content you’ve provided is astounding and it’s all delicious brain food! Thanks a lot for sharing your ideas!
hope you're having a good day, Joe. cheers for all your hard work and these insightful videos
Thank you for watching them! I hope you are also having a good day
Your video about Dostoevsky are insightful and deep. Thank you so much for spreading intelligence and sharing the knowledge.
Reminder that Nietzsche died alone and unloved, while Dostoyevsky had a funeral that was reportedly attended by 100,000 people
@phillipdino6
"Reminder that Nietzsche died alone and unloved, while Dostoyevsky had a funeral that was reportedly attended by 100,000 people"
😏LoL in the Netherlands we have this saying: "zachte heelmeesters maken stinkende wonden" which translates to *"Soft healers make stinking wounds"* in English. This saying emphasizes that overly cautious or halfhearted measures may lead to larger problems down the line. Sometimes, decisive or even drastic action is necessary to prevent further issues.
Guess who embraced the brutal truth while the other is just a soft healer which is why he was beloved by the masses.
🧠Nietzsche engaged with nihilism critically, seeking to move beyond it rather than fully embracing it. His exploration of new values and the affirmation of life remains influential in philosophy. Friedrich Nietzsche did *not* fully embrace nihilism; rather, he critically engaged with it.
⚠As for Schopenhauer, his philosophical outlook was deeply influenced by pessimism, emphasizing suffering and the impermanence of existence. While he grappled with nihilistic themes, he did not offer the same affirmative alternatives that Nietzsche did. Each philosopher's response to the human condition reflects their unique worldview and intellectual journey.
That many wanted to see him buried! Not nice!
guess what both died.... their Philosophical views isn't tired to how many individuals attended their burial or are you just shallow in thinking
What happened after their deaths is of no consequence to them. Heck, it doesn’t even matter what happened during their lives. They were just molecular arrangements that gave rise to egos that don’t even register as a blip in the cosmic vastness.
Thank you. I honest to God needed this, it is a key to unlocking my thinking after being stuck on Nietzsche for a very long time.
18:07 this is so very true
I am reading Man's Search for Meaning and one thing that the author talked about is that prisoners after freedom would do something like walk on oat crops just cuz they can
Bro! You’re quite a courageous young man 💯
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Much appreciated 🙏🏼
I recently read 'The Conspiracy Against the Human Race' by Thomas Ligotti and found it extremely interesting but there aren't many good videos on youtube about it. It's extremely bleak philosophy so I can understand why you wouldn't but considering the quality of your content I would love to see you cover it.
I think it's telling that you described Dostoevsky's views as in part a product of his highly varied life, interacting with all sorts of people in all sorts of circumstances, but don't do the same with Nietzsche. The latter's personal life was drowned in isolation and plagued with tumultuous falling outs.
It's hard to avoid seeing Nietzsche's philosophy as a means of justifying his own inability to connect with others (most people are "quietly mediocre") and to give meaning to the suffering from his chronic illness (a "great educator") by defining the triumph over weakness as a prime virtue of the ubermensch. One need not imagine the self-hatred this must have brought him.
I think portraying Dostoevsky and Nietzsche as two individual genius minds underplays just how influenced their respective philosophies were by their divergent life experiences, and how we might be critical of one or the other based on that.
Gawd it's the showdown I never knew I needed! This channel has been one of my go-to Philosophical content to binge and reflect on. I wish my college philosophy class was even a smidge as engaging and thought provoking as this.
I couldn't agree more with your comparison between the Ubermensch vs. Christianity. You've definitely got me interested, thanks!
You seem to misread Nietzches ideas on power and selflessness. It really does not exclude being nice to others and helping them. It guarantees, that you help others out of free will, not taking a slave mentality and not bowing to anyone at all.
I have seen this difference in social workers where the drug addict can just abuse the worker and the worker does not assert anything or escalate the situation, proving that he has no selfworth.
Normal person does not take abuse, no matter the situation.
Oh I take your point. I am definitely over-simplifying here (it is why I say this in the first section of the video), but I do think that while Nietzsche does not specifically exclude selflessness, on the whole he places far more emphasis on the "egoism" (to use his terminology).
I go into it in more detail in other videos, I just couldn't re-hash it all within the time constraints of this one
I am afraid Nietzsche (and you by extention), do not understand what "slave mentality" means. A slave does what he is ordered to do and has no free will in it, while this christian altruistic mentality (in the sense "turn the other cheek") is the result of a supreme free will, of one's voluntary decision steming from deep compassion. It is not that they MUST do it,, the WANT to do it. It does not matter if you approve of it, it just IS NOT any SLAVE mentality.
Great! In todays world we can see how people without true value chart are both miniscule in ego but in groups / anonymity suddenly find that will to power.
Christinity has that intrinsic egoism but it is a mere shadow of itself.
@@alena-qu9vj
"is the result of a supreme free will, of one's voluntary decision steming from deep compassion. It is not that they MUST do it,, the WANT to do it."
🖐Some people may act out of genuine compassion & free will, while I fear that most are driven by societal pressure or fear of ostracization. Man is a herdanimal afterall
🤔I see no difference between a herdmentality and the slave mentality.
@@alena-qu9vjslave Morality,,, do you think you would slap Napoleon Bonaparte and Go scot free or Julius Cesar
You are the future of what our new generations need. Happily overwhelmed by all the knowledge you are able to convey. Thank you for condensing and “not condensing” all of this great information in a way that is only yours. It will be cemented in digital history. Keep it up!
I hope that you will soon produce more material for your Patreon supporters. Nonetheless, take as long as you need. I'm happy to help, in however small a way, the production of these wonderful essays for the broad public via RUclips.
I absolutely love your Dostoevsky videos, could always make longer ones 😅 but that’s just wishful thinking. Thank you for your work
I’m so happy that I found your channel! One of the greatest channels here:)
Congratulations on your success Joe (@unsolicited advice). My wife and I have been big fans of your channel since your first Dostoyevsky video on notes from the underground 7 months ago. We often discuss some of your videos dinner, preferring to discuss philosophy vs our mundane corporate jobs. While I’m fortunate that my wife enjoys talking philosophy, I Wanted to say thank you for making our conversations entertaining. Congratulations! Best regards from Phoenix, AZ!
The intellectual relationship😁
This was a great comparison of the two for people that aren't immersed in philosophy. You're far, far ahead of your years in understanding these very deep and dense ideas and relaying them to a more general public. Thank you for your contributions to the world. This particular video at this time in my life inspired me to sign up for your Patreon as a show of appreciation.
I began a Christian. Moved on to strive for atheistic self perfection believing I had the potential to be the best person in the world, but then realized how prideful that was, and decided that pride was not a part of the best person if there was to ever be one so decided to forego my pride. That led me to eventually become Christian again, and I reached the of simply wanting the best for everyone. I built my own moral values and they align with what’s best for everyone. So I suppose I cycled through these two.
You aren’t building your own values if you defaulted back to Christianity. (An entire ingrained value system) if you think those two things are compatible you didn’t understand Nietzsche.
An excellent video; a much needed one even. But I'd object to say that Nietzsche only has a notable understanding of Protestantism and Catholicism. Dostoevsky, being Russian Orthodox, speaks of a Christianity that is entirely different from the Catholic and Protestant's Faith.
So Nietzsche's attacks against Christianity hold up pretty well against the Protestant and Catholic faiths, but against Orthodoxy his critiques not only fall flat but even make an argument for Orthodoxy.
Henceforth why my own conversion to Orthodox Christianity was largely fueled by Nietzsche and Dostoevsky.
Do you happen to mind explaining some of the key differences or pointing to somewhere that does?
👏👏👏👏 Orthodoxy has to be understood in a different light compared to Western Catholicism & Protestantism. I think you’ve made a good point.
I thoroughly disagree. Catholicism and Orthodoxy are not that much different in core, and I think nietszche attacks core fundaments of Christianity like the believe that there is good and evil beyond human's judgment, or that feeling guilty is wrong.
Hendeforth my own conversion to atheism rather than orthodoxy was largely fueled by Nietzsche and Dostoyevsky.
@@Capt.Fail. The biggest difference between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is religious innovation and something called "Ecumenism." Catholicism is a big proponent of both (The "Chaldean" Catholics are a great example of Ecumenism with Papal Supremacy, Universal jurisdiction and infallibility being inventions simply not seen in the 1st millennia.) Orthodoxy is the opposite; it violently attempts to oppose Ecumenism and any religious innovation. Although Catholics have their traditionalists and Orthodox their progressives. The core of both Faiths is independent of the few exceptions.
@@mimikrama The best I could say to you is to read "Death to the World" and whatever writings you can by Fr. Seraphim Rose. If possible, visit one of his students Fr. Damascene at St. Herman's monastery in Platina California. I don't say this because I think your atheism is invalid or that you arrived at it wrongly. I think it's likely wholly justified and necessary. That's why I think you'd reap benefit from speaking to a Monk and not a meek little layman like myself.
You do seriously amazing work here!
Look up "instrumental convergence". Will to power is not just human quality, it is universal. Any intelligence, no matter what end goals it pursues, would most likely display the same behaviour in order to reach them: it will try to defend its view of the end goals and increase the amount of useful resoruces at its disposal.
I really really like the ubermench concept.
Ah I have a whole video on it if you want to check it out :)
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I would! What's the video name?
Lol never say that to uneducated leftists….
@@jibbobdion5072 Nietzsche's Most Dangerous Idea | The Übermensch
@@ReX0r how's it dangerous?
in search of philosophy of mankind and its dark nature I have stumbled upon your channel recently. i have been following since the start of this summer and am quite fascinated by your style of notion.
So can u give a clear conception about leo tolstoy and his idealism. love ur passion
I was hoping for this exact video, you could see this possibility from the video where unsolicitaded advice talked about similarities in raskolnikov's idea about the superior man and the ubërmensch of nietzsche. This one is going to be a banger 🔥
Incredible analysis. Thanks you oh so much for the good time.
I love your videos so much :) Thanks, and have a good day!!
Well, this is gonna be interesting!
I hope you like it :)
Absolutely fantastic video. Very clear, and very interesting to learn about! I'll definitely have to bookmark Nietzsche and Dostoevsky for the future.
Amazing video 😊😊
Another great video :) sharing this one with lots of friends + family, thanks
Absolutely wonderful interpretation and expression
Man how do you put out so much high quality content so frequently?
Great video! Could you make one comparing Ubermensch of Nietzsche and Martin Eden? I think it’s one of the best Ubermensch representations in literature.
Love your videos...keep up the good work!!
I think both Nietzsche and Dostoevsky purposefully or not, take their ideals too far and too idealistic, it is impossible to have neither extreme, we can just hope to take what we can from these extremes because nothing is able absolute or perfect on the material world, both of them made platonic forms that we can mirror but never fully embrace it, become or achieve
dostoesvsky points out the idealistic elements of his own world view with his main character in the idiot. by how the world treats said character.
Meaningful & relevant thesis, well written, powerfully presented. Thank you!
11:55
🤔If you act according to your character, your own moral set of personal values, there will be no need to be above morality. This means that if one's actions are guided by their personal values and character, they inherently align with moral principles. Therefore, there would be no need to consider oneself above morality, as their actions would naturally be moral. This perspective emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and ethical conduct. It's a reminder that staying true to oneself and one's values is a fundamental aspect of morality, ie. Nietzsche's Übermensch.
🧠The Übermensch, or “overman,” is not about disregarding morality but rather about transcending the externally imposed moral codes to create one’s own. This self-created morality is inherently aligned with one’s personal values and character, making it a true reflection of one’s integrity.
♻This perspective indeed emphasizes the importance of personal integrity and ethical conduct. It’s a reminder that staying true to oneself and one’s values is a fundamental aspect of morality. It’s about being authentic and genuine in one’s actions, which is indeed a profound aspect of moral conduct.
👉In essence, Nietzsche’s Übermensch is a call for individuals to strive for a higher state of being, where actions are not dictated by societal norms but are a true reflection of one’s inner values and character. It’s about being the best version of oneself, guided by a moral compass that is uniquely one’s own. This is a powerful and inspiring concept that encourages personal growth and self-realization.
This.
Nope. Nietzsche had his own definite idea of what Ubermensch should look like, for instance he should take a whip when going to women. He is the perfect example that a fundamentaly sick person could have a very strange concept of "moral" values and society cannot depend on on some illusional "personal integrity" without societal norms. True reflection of inner values and character of some humans could terrify you to death. In fact, this is the main danger of the sloppy Nietzschean "philosophy". Many a powerful psychopath thinks himself an Ubermensch above morality and makes our world to a hell on Earth.
You should explain this to people like Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Polpot, Mussolini, Putin, Xi, and the millions of lackeys that follow them. They are all definitely following their character and personal sets of ethics. But it turns out once you subtract the Judeo Christian ideal that every person has value because everyone is created equal in the image of God, you don’t always get behavior which you would like.
@@alena-qu9vj
"True reflection of inner values and character of some humans could terrify you to death."
🤔Maybe, but I'm convinced that a true reflection of your inner values & character automatically excludes the psychopaths, sociopaths and the Existential Idiots = people whose Existential IQ < 25 so will always choose 💵, or any other shortterm goal, over the survival of humanity. Existential Idiots are those people who'll glady become a millionaire by poluting the environment.
*Psychopaths, sociopaths & Existential Idiots are still herdanimals, while the Übermensch isn't.*
"Many a powerful psychopath thinks himself an Ubermensch above morality and makes our world to a hell on Earth."
😏Funny, the question isn't whether you believe that you're goin' to Heaven when you die, but if Hell exists here on Earth. And if Hell does indeed exist here on Earth what are you gonna do about it?
😓 *People who do nothing to alleviate the suffering here on Earth because they believe it is all goin' accordin' to Gods plan might as well be the cause of all the suffering here on Earth.*
@@mbmurphy777
"They are all definitely following their character and personal sets of ethics."
🤔True, but all of them are still herdanimals while the Übermensch is not.
Even the master of slaves still is a herdanimal because he depends on the herd, without the herd the master is worthless.
Fantastic presentation.
Reading only these two guys' works tell you everything you'd ever need to know about the world
Always great, thank you
I really do wish if only Doestsky and Nietzche chance to meet with Viktor Frankl. He survived Nazi Constitution camp and valued his Inner strenght above all and use it to help others rather than elitizing himself.
Disorganized wills; that is a mind opener
Great video, thank you.
As a man who is called to be a contemplative Benedictine monk these videos really help me out, thank you. We live in a time where this kind of deep thought is not promoted anymore.
Thanks … these lectures are incredible
Great video!
Fascinating overview. I, too, see Nietzsche as primarily narcissistic and Dostoevsky as the opposite, a socially oriented person. The problem of the later is that he doesn't clearly separate Jesus the symbol from the church (institution). I suspect a deeper reading would refute this observation. I really appreciate the work you do and the even handed approach you take. I hope you never change.
Christ and the Church are mostly inseparable in Orthodox Christianity. Which was Dostoevsky's Faith.
Some fringe intellectuals have attempted to divorce Dostoyevsky from an authentic Christian faith, but all attempts are completely futile, and any plain reading of his works or life show this separation impossible.
The church is not necessarily a “material” thing as you might think of it
Great work Joe! Giorgos here :)
Very good content!
Bless you for cranking up my old brain!
I found your channel yesterday by seeing the video on what everyone gets wrong about Nietzsche and I found it a very good video.
In this video, I am a bit disappointed because I find there is a big discrepancy between what most of us consider as power and the complexity of Nietzsche's concept of power, and by not clarifying this complexity his philosophy gets misunderstood. So I find that this clarification is missing and thereby it is a misrepresented picture of his philosophy.
Sorry for my harsh criticism, I just find Nietzsche's philosophy has enormous value when engaged with it on a deep level but at the same time can lead to very dangerous results by not going deep enough and misunderstanding it.
I take your point - I did clarify it is a massive oversimplification. I get to do a more in-depth treatment of his ideas with more adequate nuance in my individual videos on his works. It’s why I kept saying that this was just a brief overview and that I was simplifying the ideas throughout.
@unsolicitedadvice9198 I get the fact that in such a video you need to oversimplify. I will watch your other videos about him and praise or criticize you in the comments 😅.
Jokes aside I enjoyed getting more insight into Dostoevsky and I see you cover a range of interesting topics in your channel. So I will certainly watch more of your content.
I truly think explaining Nietzche briefly is very hard without constantly going into rabbit holes to explain the words, thoughts and mindset behind them is very hard.
Me, who has shipped Hawthorne and Melville: "Hey Ferb, I know what we're going to do today-"
While I laud this video of contrasting the philosophers all the while trying to go deep into their own philosophies, I fear it showed Nietzsche in a more black and white view of egoism, aristocracy, elitism vs egalitarianism and selflessness when Nietzsche has a lot to offer than just egoism, aristocracy, and elitism. For those who want to know more about Nietzsche's view, I suggest watching Unsolicited Advice's vids about him which gives him more justice.
I'd say Dostoevsky's ideals are more agreeable and great to live by, but Nietzsche's message about how we need more Ubermensch and why many people don't get to that point in their life is very true. For me the goal wouldn't be power as much as self fulfillment.
Kids develop many interests as they grow up, but in our education system we do not separate those with motivation or skill from those who do the bare minimum, resulting in classes that appeal to the lowest common denominator at the detriment of those with potential.
I specially like Nietzsche's idea about the camel, how we should become strong in that instead of avoiding things outside our comfort zone, we should strive for a heavier and heavier burden. I'd say as a society we've grown too complacent and have forgotten the joy of a work well done, a challenge overcome or an incredible life experience that will be received with the respect of our peers. Living that way feels great, and I'm looking forward to more challenges and adversities that will test my physical and mental strenght as well as my problem solving skills
Thank you for your work.
Thank you! That is very kind
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 In my old years knowing both since the mid 70s Dostoyevsky RESONATES with time. Nietsche does not.at all. TIme tells things with clarity.
amazing explanation！
11:12 I like that I drew the same connection myself before you even said it. That being above moral law and ethics sounds like what crime and punishment was about.
And I know that thanks to your channel 🫡
I always understood that "power" according to Nietzsche is mainly power over yourself. Which is why I think they are not contradicting each other about the resentment. Dostojevskij's book characters definitely lack the power over themselves.
I think he means both. His praise of Napoleon for being a conqueror does not quite make sense if he just means inner power, but his praise of Goethe does not fit if he just means outer power
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 that is true. But I can imagine him not liking a person who is socially powerful but personally weak. But he does respect the other way around which is why I think that power over oneself is more important for him
" ..Dostojevskij's book characters definitely lack the power over themselves...."
So?? Does that mean that Dostoevski personaly does not appreciate power over oneself?? Dostoevski is an artist, writer above all and describes the real life, real characters. That makes him much more trustworthy than Nietzsche fantasizing about fictional Ubermansch and not mastering his own personal life at all.
@@alena-qu9vj chill bro. I personally dislike Nietzsche's philosophy too. Im just saying that in this particular instance I think they both are saying something similar. It wasnt an attack on Dostojevskij (hes literally my favorite writer so...)
@@gaghhuh2943 Chiling 😁 Anyway, I see the Dostojevskij's mastery precisely in the psychological accuracy in describing the characters which may not be in accordance with his personal arrangement.
As it goes: When two are saying the same thing, it is not the same... For me it only matters WHO is saying, not WHAT is said - even if is not a popular attitude.
Nietzsche was actually a big Dostoevsky fan boy in his later life before the madness took over. Check out the Martyr Made podcast. He has a 5 hour episode about the two that both goes through Nietzsche's fascination with Dostoevsky and a comparison between the two
Awesome...
It was immensely thought provoking.
Question:
People try to defend Nietzsche from Hitler.
How Hitler misunderstood Nietzsche?
I found it interesting to listen to Jordan Peterson‘s collegiate lectures on Dostoyevsky and Nietzche which can be found on his website playlists.
So fascinating!
I read "Crime and Punishment" twice. The second time immediately after the first searching for clues about why Rodion Raskolnikov might have wanted to pay the virtual ultimate price for his transgression. My take away was that Dostoevsky plotted Raskolnikov's fate as a farce. In spite of keeping a secret like his murdering the pawn broker from the world, no one else (or real) would have been so self-effacing as to willingly sacrifice themselves to Raskolnikov's fate. I also got the idea that the conclusion was what it was because the more likely outcome of Raskolnikov choking down his guilt and living with it, which would have been the sensibly more likely continuation of the narrative wouldn't have gotten past censorship, so Dostoevsky upended the hopeful conclusion and made Raskolnikov a fool to the contemporary readers of the time. Perhaps priming them to pursue actionable justice.
The more I learn about Nietzsche, the more I like the man. There, said it.
Dostoevsky may have been the greatest thinker - he can counter-argue his own worldview just as convincingly as if that was his own view
It makes sense that he only read notes from the underground to praise Dostoyevsky. After going through the ideas of Demons and Brother Karamazov I was confused as to why nietzsche would take a liking to the russian novelist as his ideas leaned towards christian and away from what Nietzsches philosophy was built on.
I like that you have a timestamp for spoilers.
Very nice indeed! Thank you ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
I think the sweet spot is between these two philosophies.
Two sides of the same coin.
Optimism and cynicism.
It's a chaotic but beautiful dance of human nature. How we optimists can easily become cynical beings... but with the right circumstances, we swing back to optimism.
The subjectivity in both philosophies leaves room for thought and how we approach them. Each have their own symbolisms and analysis, but that's fine. We can never find a finality anyway.
I cant think of Neitzsche without drawing the parallels of his theory with Viltrumite civilization
I’m a new fan of Dostoyevsky ❤️
18:29
🖐Nietzsche's ultimate human drive isn't will to power, but to be yourself, a true individual ie. not be a herdanimal like 99.99% of mankind.
Nietzsche admires Jesus, because he wasn't a slave, nor was he a master.
😇Jesus simply was true to his character.
Jesus was true his character, while Nietzsche certainly was not true to his Ubermensch.
@@alena-qu9vj
"Jesus was true his character, while Nietzsche certainly was not true to his Ubermensch."
😐True, but at least Nietzsche existed, while Jesus could very well be only a fictional character.
@@TrickyD But it is not Nietzsche's personal due, is it? 😁
@@alena-qu9vj "But it is not Nietzsche's personal due, is it?"
🙄True, but it is easy for a fictional character to be true to their nature and nearly impossible for a living human being.
Evidence for this fact is that only people with a strong character overcome their existential depression.
Again, a great video! You seem to keep Nietzches ubermench (the few) as quasi-godlike, but I think saint is a better analogy and in my opinion fits this world like a glove, considering Nietzche was really considering a replacement for christianity.
13:58 I love your channel and your audience, I'm gonna comment on ALL your videos for years until I reach your level of subscribers.
Nietzsche to me is an optimist if you regard his view of the world. All is suffering and chaos, yet people are able endure, to bear it all. Amor Fati, has there ever been a more optimistic credo?
You raise an excellent point! Funnily enough I was going to talk about Amor Fati in more detail here but I desperately wanted to keep the video under half an hour. Obviously I am painting in really broad strokes in this video, and skimming over a lot of nuance. It is always an interesting trade-off to make when scripting these
It's Nietzsche, you can raise both points on his philosophy: both optimistic and pessimistic, always contradicting himself and making you think! I skimmed through some parts out of time pressure but the video was great! Thank you!
Nietzsche's "optimism" ist just empty words. You can prattle what you want, if you do not LIVE your optimism, your blabber is just a psychological compensation. Same as "Ubermensch" is just Nietzesche's compensation for his own sick reality.
@@alena-qu9vjjust because he lived a hard life, doesn’t mean his philosophy is somehow invalid. That’s a massive fallacy.
@@alena-qu9vj
"You can prattle what you want, if you do not LIVE your optimism, your blabber is just a psychological compensation."
😏LoL I dunno about Nietzsche, but the Übermensch isn't an optimist or pessimist, he's a pragmatist.
Ask anyone if a glas ½ filled with water is ½ full or ½ empty.
An optimist will answer that the glas is ½ full, while a pessimist will answer that the glas is ½ empty.
🧠Only a pragmatist will declare that a glas ½ full = ½ empty.
Th3 first book that Nietzsche read is Crime and punishment and in French translation lHe literally said we shall all become Roskolnikoff.
Then he read the posesed.He basically read everything exvept Brothers Kharazamoff because he weny full Cathatonic before ue could
I think the key difference is that nietzsche's exposure to christianity was mostly the protestant denominations which is the ancestor of the prudish and life denying evangelical christianity that plagued america. Orthodox christianity is a much stronger and more masculine denomination that produces much more robust men than protestantism
I found the comparison between these two quite interesting. However, your video seemed a bit reductive, especially in its treatment of Nietzsche's philosophy. Upon examining his complete body of work, it becomes clear that he cannot be neatly categorized as either an optimist or a cynic. This is likely why there are such vastly different interpretations of his ideas to this day.
I take your point - I did clarify it is a massive oversimplification. I get to do a more in-depth treatment of his ideas with more adequate nuance in my individual videos on his works
Some may think that this just meant that he had no mature opinion and no power over his manio/depressive phases.
@@alena-qu9vj Yeah its difficult to figure out what he actually believed cuz his writings were one big thought experiment. Which is why it seems like he contradicted himself so much, he'd take an idea, run with it and probably didnt internalize it before doing the same in another direction.
#teamDostoevsky
17:56 "ABBA - I Still Have Faith In You"
I remember a scene from a Russian novel about the protagonist destroying a desk in a dealers gallery. This desk was something that they had coveted. And I can not for the life of me remember what book it is in......
14:21 i dont think they disagree that much...i just think nietzsche was mlore focused towards individual development within the current society that being lives in to rise above it. and dostoevsky more on our human evolution and what society should look like and treath one another..
No they definitely disagreed a lot.
Dostoyevsky would have found Nietzsche to be fundamentally flawed in terms of his philosophy and final conclusions about humanity and Christianity
@@t.bo.e2487 both are small and closed minded views, but nietsche speaks more towards the ego, The main thing I get from Nietsche is that you have to be immune to the thoughts and preferences of the majority so that you can grow yourself.