How Betraying Your Friends Can Save You | Nietzsche
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- SUPPORT US ON PATREON:
▶ / weltgeistyt
WATCH:
▶ Nietzsche On Hamlet: • How Over-Thinking Kill...
ALSO:
▶ Nietzsche's Warning to Scientists: • Nietzsche’s Warning to...
▶ Why Nietzsche Hated Socrates: • Why Nietzsche Hated So...
▶ Why Nietzsche Hated Plato: • Why Nietzsche Hated Plato
▶ Why Nietzsche Hated Kant: • Why Nietzsche Hated Kant
OUR ANALYSES:
▶ Beyond Good and Evil: • NIETZSCHE Explained: B...
▶ The Antichrist: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Genealogy of Morals: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ Twilight of the Idols: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
▶ The Will to Power: • NIETZSCHE: Will to Pow...
▶ Daybreak: • NIETZSCHE Explained: D...
▶ The Joyful Science: • NIETZSCHE Explained: T...
Nietzsche dedicates a paragraph of the Joyful Science to Shakespeare. He praises Julius Caesar as his best tragedy, and calls Brutus “virtuous.”
Yet historically, Brutus was the prototypical traitor, even starring alongside Judas in Dante’s depiction of Hell, being eternally chewed up by one of Lucifer’s mouths.
And even though Shakespeare has Mark Antony call Brutus “the noblest Roman of them all” at the end of the play, he does so for different reasons than Nietzsche finds.
For Nietzsche, Brutus did what he did to protect the freedom and independence of his soul. He killed Caesar not for the good of Rome, at least not on a psychological level. His real reason was that Caesar presented an obstacle to his independence.
And, according to Nietzsche, no price is too high to pay for independence of soul. Not even the life of a friend can stand in the way. That’s what makes Brutus great.
Furthermore, Nietzsche praises Shakespeare for portraying Brutus in a positive light, for not casting a “shadow of suspicion” on the kind of virtue that Brutus represents. A virtue of a different character than Caesar, who could also count on Nietzsche’s admiration.
Nietzsche’s philosophy is all about growth and self-overcoming, and Nietzsche has always championed the individual. Both Caesar and Brutus represent this struggle in different ways. Caesar for making his mark on world history through sheer power of will; Brutus for fiercely pursuing the directives of his soul, even to the detriment of his friend.
The true message of the play is not the death of Caesar, the nature of politics, monarchy versus republicanism, tyranny versus freedom, but about Brutus’ dilemma in choosing between his own ideals or the life of his benefactor. He chose the former, going against morality, and beyond good and evil.
Do you enjoy these Shakespeare-Nietzsche crossovers?
Support us if you can! New exclusive video was just released for the higher tiers.
▶ www.patreon.com/WeltgeistYT
No, during my university years Friederich Nietzsche was still deemed ``insane´´ not worthy of worship.
While Brutus might have noble ideals, did his actions really bring benefit to Rome? I am reminded of a certain Robespierre and the French Revolution...
Robespierre acted against a already estabilished monarchy. Julius Cesar wanted to end a republic. These two are completely different.
Marc Anthony has the most famous monologue in the play and with the exception of Hamlet perhaps in all the plays of Shakespeare so the idea that Brutus was the main protagonist is wishful thinking on the part of Nietzsche. "The evil that men do lives after them but the good is oft interred with their bones; so let it be with Caesar." This is important to note because "the evil that men do" is actually not referring to Caesar at all but to his killers in particular Brutus. "The noble Brutus hath told you that Caesar was ambitious and if so it was a grievous fault and grievously hath Caesar answered it here by leave of Brutus and the rest and Brutus is an honorable man..." He calls Brutus "honorable" several times more after recalling Caesar's good deeds only to again say, "but Brutus is an honorable man." Each time it becomes more and more sarcastic until he finally dispels the notion that Caesar was ambitious and with it that Brutus is honorable, "Thrice I offered him a kingly crown which he thrice refused. Was this ambition? Yet Brutus says he was ambitious and sure he is an honorable man." He attacks Brutus' honor in this way because his honor was the only evidence that Brutus had presented to the Plebs to justify the coup, "Believe me for mine honor and have respect to mine honor that you may believe." Brutus' speech and everything in it only holds water if you believe in his honor but how can a man be honorable who betrays his best friend and desecrates the Senate chamber with arms and blood that was made for civil discourse and debate? Betraying his friend did not save him; it damned him. It did not bring freedom to him or his countrymen but a dozen Caesars. The two he knew were the least tyrannical of them all.
They will never be forgiven
I must disagree, albeit respectfully, since you strike me as someone who has an admirable familiarity with the text.
And as such I'll do my best to present a counter argument which is also closely grounded in text and history:
Marc Atoney's argument for why Ceasar was not ambitious (& ergo why Brutus is dishonorable) is predicated on 3 assertions:
1. "He hath brought many captives home to Rome whose ransoms did the general coffers fill."
2. "When the poor had cried, Ceasar hath wept."
3. "I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse!"
My counter arguments are as follows:
1. Ceasar's generosity to the plebians goes back to when he first took the office of Aedile, where he learned to placate the mob in order to curry political power. When he later sent loot and slaves from his decade-long war in Gaul to be distributed amongst the Romans, Ceasar's political opponents saw this for what it really was: a political ploy and piece of propaganda designed to boost his popularity with the plebian block and feed his own personal ambitions.
2. This ties into the second point made by Antony: that Ceasar did this out of a heart-felt sympathy for the poor. Disregarding how this argument is predicated on hearsay, it is improbable that a political animal and genius such as Ceasar would do anything without some calculation and solely from emotion. He sent gifts to the Roman public, so that it would be a very unpopular move if the senate were to simply strip him of command.
3. To tie this into point three: that Ceasar thrice refused the presentation of the diadem ("kingly crown") during Lupercalia. It has been heavily infered since the event, by both cesarians and anti-cesarians alike, that this was a work of planned political theater which allowed Ceasar to guage public perception of a complete symbolic rise into the monarchy. Since the crowd fell dead silent, he was forced to refuse and appear "unambitious" as to recover from this miscalvulation. As Cicero once quiped to Marc Antony: "Do you intend for me to believe that you just found a diadem lying somewhere on the street?"
In addition to this, there are other historical events that can taken as supportive pieces of evidence for Ceasar's kingly ambitions. He had the senate declare that only he could wear a toga of full purple, which was a naked symbol of royalty in that era and therefore was never done in the everyday affairs of the republic (only a paltry stripe of purple was worn by senators to symbolize that they took power away from the ancient monarchy of Rome). Another piece of strong symbolism was the fact that Ceasar sat on a golden throne durring senate meetings and actively disregarded the highest office of consul by picking them out personally (sometimes without elections even).
All these things can lead one to believe that Ceasar was indeed ambitious, that there was ample evidence to infer he wanted powers that would subvert the republic and set him up for all intents and purposes the new king of Rome.
Ceasar's entreatment of the plebians was only a means to this end. He had learned the lesson of Coriolanus, that a noble roman cannot rise to power without placating the mob. Coriolanus was exiled by the plebians, because he failed to consider their power as a block. By the time of Ceasar, however, Rome's republican traditions were heavily eroded, and by the 1st scene of the Shakespeare's play, the plebs are shown to be completely pacified by bread and circus.
Therefore, I find Mark Antony's speech to be yet another cynical attempt to take advantage of the plebians, who were for a long time Ceasar's power base. It was a piece of sophistry intended to stoke the fury of the mob.
On the otherhand, I find Brutus to be acting in accordance with honor and principle. He would never supplicate to any tyrants, not even if he be a great and noble friend like Ceasar, who he justifiably saw to be exercising kingly ambitions.
@@a.wenger3964 Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I needed to find a bit of time to reply. I think that whether or not Caesar was ambitious is actually irrelevant because Brutus based on his actions had proven his dishonor thus his claim to honor was tarnished. I agree with you and with Brutus; Caesar was ambitious there seems to be no doubt. Even Marc Anthony admits this point, "...if so it was a grievous fault..." but neither Anthony nor myself believed that Caesar had crossed the line into tyranny such as Brutus' ancestors had opposed at the birth of the Republic under the Tarquinian kings therefore all of his talk of honor and so forth was clever propaganda to cover his very real crime. Caesar always found a way to beat his rivals on the battlefield or in the ballot box or dealt them dirty with some discretion but he had class, he didn't just stab people in public like a common thief. They were cowards. Inferior warriors and statesmen who could not best him but they poisoned his friend against him. Brutus could have and should have gathered the support from plebs and patricians first, spared his friend his life and asked him to step down for the sake of the Republic and prove he was not ambitious then the ball would be in Caesar's court to abdicate with grace and nobility meeting honor with honor or to prove himself a tyrant and attempt to slay the noble Brutus for daring to speak.
Brutus' actions overcome the human, all-too-human compulsion to put friend, family, and tribe over one's own autonomy. His aspiration for his own lofty spiritual independance and willingness to sacrifice whatever is necessary to attain it, are what make Brutus a bridge to the Overman.
Well put, always a joy reading your comments
Why is “spiritual” invoked here? Mere survival?
Read my other comment, it's a counter argument
@@WeltgeistYT You have my deepest gratitude! Your Shakespeare videos have themselves been a joy. It would be interesting to look into a Goethe/Faust connection as well.
@@Jsinebdjsmdbej yes and no, he was hesitant during the eclipse sacrifice. but persuaded by a member of a Godhand so he's basically a herd animal but forced to do things since he is capable of it.
Brother, this is the content my mind needs. Its like lamb with sage for the body.
I think Nietzsche argues that for brutus it's the choice that's best for him even if it's a difficult one,not that it was the correct choice for rome,the people or just in general.
I have a thousand times lamented the loss of the treatise Brutus wrote upon Virtue, for it is well to learn the theory from those who best know the practice. But seeing the matter preached and the preacher are different things, I would as willingly see Brutus in Plutarch, as in a book of his own. I would rather choose to be certainly informed of the conference he had in his tent with some particular friends of his the night before a battle, than of the harangue he made the next day to his army; and of what he did in his closet and his chamber, than what he did in the public square and in the senate.
Montaigne
This video was awesome like all your other works! Please keep on doing what you are doing!
I especially liked the introduction, it was awesome.
Thanks for the kind words!
I agree but I still hate they have not real subtitles, just auto generated. That's why I prefer Fiction Beast, when I want to calm down with a cup of tea. Auto generated texts stresses me too much, and without text it's harder to get the content, so that I can't really relax.
Something to be admired and hated. After all, betrayal is betrayal, a worst of all actions, but freedom is one's natural right that cannot and should not be sacrificed for anyone at any cost.
Caesar was never going to remove Brutus' freedom,I don't know where this comes from?as a matter of fact,Caesar forgave Brutus and gave him a role to play in the new Senate,he even mentioned him in his will next to Octavian,oddly enough the only ones pushing for slavery were the Senators,Caesar was against all of this,may he keep on rotting in Dante's inferno.
Please make more videos like this. My mind is starving for mature content
Thank you for your time and effort
This put to words one of the greatest, though necessary tragedies of my life. Thank you dearly for this.
“Brutus in this respect truly acts beyond good and evil” that was so fucking colddddddddddddddd
As much as I can respect Nietzsche’s philosophical work, there’s something in the psychoanalysis of an author through his works or vice versa that really grinds my gears. Shakespeare’s plays are primarily centered around a justice which Nietzsche in other places calls part of slave morality or weakness. It’s in cases like this where one can only scratch his head at what kind of politics he would even envision if each man is to only be governed by the impulse to carry out his own will. Despite his at many times reasonable criticisms of post Socratic philosophy and their effect on the individual it is just as valid to say that no political life centered around anything but virtue or shared values can work. This impasse is like Physics without General Relativity. Everything on the macro scale works through the political, values, and virtue while on the micro Nietzsche may be more correct in its application to the individual. I’m not claiming to be extremely well educated in philosophy but this has always stuck out to me. (P.S. this is not a criticism of the video but only a humble opinion. I think you always do a great job!)
After watching a lot of your videos, which I greatly enjoyed, I have a doubt about the system of morality presented by Nietzsche and I now present to you a question about it and about your perspective on it. Does Nietzsche specifically present a preference between the master or the slave morality? Or does he offer another solution that transcends this dichotomy? What is your perspective on this issue?
Thank you 🙏🏻
Easier done than said.
Save him how? Brutus reputation then and forever a traitor. No one names their kids Brutus anymore 😂
This is bad advice for most of you
If this advice appeals to you, you must find out why.
Like all of Nietzsche
The lock and key quote, neitzsches advice was bad advice for nietzsche because he wasn't the ubermensche
Because most of us think it's a virtue to be a coward
The title of the video is a click bait. Nietzsche focused on achieving what one could become. That is the takeaway.
And yet universal slavery was the result!
He had it coming to him.🔥
Griffiiiiiiith!
Griffith was right, Guts need to watch this
This was brilliant.
This is either high satire or high irony
The sad thing is that freedom did not follow his lofty action. Monarchy still came and so the deed was for nothing. Who knows what the world would have been like if Caesar had 20 more years. Cleopatra was also taken off the world stage because of this action. Nothing but tragedy followed so I don't even know if all this prays for Brutus is warranted.
You're looking at the consequences of the action of killing Caesar, Nietzsche is looking at the inner world of Brutus, the "why", which according to him is his independent and relentless yearn for freedom.
Your evolution is exciting. How about how Neitzche influenced Sartre then Foucault.
Thy evil spirit, Brutus come to tell thee, I shall see thee at Phillippi. ...Or in a sad little horsey, if one is Nietzsche.
When you have no friends at all and want the others to lose theirs.
Nietzsche had a lot of friends, more in numbers than us and more in what they would do to for him. You know nothing.
The more I read Nietzsche, I cannot shake of the sense that from time to time he( Nietzsche) very much seems like a troll to put it bluntly. Maybe( probably) I'm doing him wrong, and he is simply playing the devils advocate ( something that Slavoj Zizek often does when he challenges even he's own ideas/ideology). I do not agree with Nietzsche that the main protagonist in Shakespeare's ''Julius Caesar'' is Brutus, even thou there is a lot of emphasis on Brutus himself in that play. Simply put, even betrayed and dead the whole plot revolves around Caesar. They may have killed him physically sort of speak, but the spirit and surprisingly the ideas of Caesar did not end with him, and outlived Brutus in many ways. For better or for worse Julius Caesar represents the ''new Roman way'' (he was bold, brave, conqueror, builder of an empire, a good lawmaker with populist sentiments and an extremely good administrator, and ultimately he was know to be merciful) In a way Caesar was an embodiment of all Roman virtues in a sense( Caesar, even though with a aristocratic background was born and live his youth in slums of Rome, far from the Palatine hills of his peers, he understood the common man) . That is a stark contrast to what Brutus is, Brutus is a oligarch( that was pardoned by Caesar, yet he betrayed him twice mind you), he belongs to a class of entitled Romans that never mingled with the commons. Brutus in a sense was living in a bubble, he fetishized of saving the ''Republic'', even though people of his patrician class long killed the "Republic''( read Sula vs Marius civil war). For me Brutus represents a dangerous element in a society that will go to extremes for the sake of an ideal not thinking though the consequences ( read Nazi's and Communist's, even the most treacherous and disgusting deeds are justified if they serve a higher purpose, which in practice they never do). All of that is revealed in terms that the conspirators that indeed killed Caesar had no plan what to do after his death, probably blinded by the thirst for Caesar's blood. The whole shenanigans remind me of the communists in terms: When we implement communisms( kill Caesar) everything will necessarily be good( well it was not, and they did not have a backup plan, much like Brutus and his co-conspirators). What I'm trying to say that, Brutus tried to kill an idea... and ended up killing a man! And I think that's why the whole thing is tragic, and I think that Pethrarca understood that perfectly, that's why he put Brutus along Judah.
You very clearly are out of your depth.
Awesome!
Brutus was a republican idealist. He was seeking to emulate his glorious forefather which name he carried.
A way to end up completely alone. Is this bad? Maybe not.
Nietzsche flies perhaps too close to the sun here, and I think in some ways it's tempting for me to say that Nietzsche is psychologizing about the psyche of modernity, or the coming psyche of modernity
Often, people will claim to be defending their freedom when an honest answer would be protecting their power. Brutus and his confederates killed an unarmed Caesar not because he threatened the freedom of the Roman people. They couldn’t care less about the Roman people. In fact, the assassin senators killed Caesar to retain their power over the Roman people. A power that Caesar threatened as the people loved Caesar and his reforms to their benefit.
And rather than saving the Republic and their power in it, Caesar’s murder ushered in the age of Imperial Rome under the absolute rule of a new Caesar and sent Brutus and the other conspirators to their own deaths.
Brutus a moneylender as Bertrand Russell admits.
Teach guy with knife that instead of getting stabbed by knife so false accounting category 23 happens
2:27 GRIFFITH TIME
Then why does Nietzsche hate Christians?
It could also be argued that Christians fought for their own freedom against Roman tyranny. They might have gone about it in less violent ways but they fulfilled the same end.
If only the “Christians” fought for their own freedom physicaly and took revenge on their enemies then there would be no morality born out of weakness and ressentiment.
They are coward for “silently” building up their anger and revenge, Brutus killed caesar. Big difference
Interesting. Seneca was cast out of Rome and only then did he found his freedom.
Lets be real:
You cant build a healrhy, functional society on the ideal of Brutus/Judas as "the overman".
Society, in it's bloom, means cooperating. Not elbows.
are you also Scandinavian Bob?
Nietzsche contradicts himself in his views on Brutus.
Brutus cant have morally noble intentions, which you say nietzsche admires in him, because according to nitzsche himself every is just the will to power in disguise.
I believe, in nietzsches view Brutus rather killed caesar, as he knew this was his only powerful move to make to himself a name in history.
Brutus had higher other future before him and he might have known so.
Otherwise, does anybody remeber caesars other friends at hand, for anything other than being a friend?
lucifer is not in hell. lucifer is just venus in the sky. people don't even read anymore
23 STAB WOUNDS!!
Just another day in prison tbh
In which work did he write about this?
He wrote about it in “Thus spoke Good and Evil”
@@hacm1925 There is no such thing as "Thus spoke good and evil," either "Thus spoke Zarathustra" or "Beyond Good and Evil."
@@arammikayelyan1111 oh my bad, he wrote it in his essay “homers contest with the genealogy of morality”
@@hacm1925 Can you tell me the section number?
He talked about this in a page from "Joyful/Gay Science"
Hey bro can u make video on hindu text upanishad
The secret of death is letting go because the highest wisdom lies in detachment
Grifith approves
Sorry, Nietz, the taking of Kaiser is, was and will forever be unforgivable especially by the two Brutus. Cowards! Isn't that the weak and resentful taking the cowardly way out? They could've given libenus the command and maybe won but they took the cowardly way out. >:(
That’s history… This is more about Brutus the character in the play.
@@WeltgeistYT we would've been on the moon has Brutus and co not gone all stabie stabie, welto. Look what they did to our beautiful friend T-T but on a serious note, I think that Nietzsche would've been bit more nuanced with his analysis I suspect nietz was dealing with his own odepal ordeal which is why he's a soft spot for Brutus and Hamlet
All of this because of a stupid salad?. Ugh...
❤️🔥
Nietzsche was dumb. Sometimes
You are intellectualy a kid. Dont talk about stuff you absolutely have no idea about.
Melon call Lee
Lucifer deserves a free trial, already; we gave one to Donald Judas Trump.
Don't agree with that. The truth is somewhere in the middle between Nietzsche and Christianity.
What makes you say that?
@@datswingfromnaruto5810 Don't take me wrong friend I've been more fond of Nietzsche than Christianity but lately I've been noticing gaps in his philosophy, which makes me grow weary of him. After seeing examples in my personal experience, preserving your individuality at all cost deprives you of the ability to create meaningful and lasting relationships with other people. Would you agree that it is actually harder to engage in deep relationships and to share vulnerability than putting yourself as a priority? Individuals are strong indeed but their strength is found on their fear of being close to people. Their greatest strength and weakness at the same time. Meanwhile the compassionate puts the others as a priority which diminishes their freedom. Their greatest strength and weakness. Jesus and Nietzsche- two extremists. One deprived of love the other poisoned by his own love. Now, where is the truth? To love with all your heart or to not love at all? Still, i think it is harder to be with people that on your own. Real strength is being an individual and knowing how to love at the same time. This is the true Ubermench but it is highly contradicting and merely impossible as to love you inevitably must give part of your freedom. But maybe that is actually the more profound harder thing to do, reinventing your freedom through the others.
@@valentin137 seems Nietzsche was taking for granted the homogeneity and opportunities of a cohesive society. No man is an island and I can think of no reason to only care about oneself.
@@bryanutility9609 Exactly, we are all social creatures and going against nature will inevitably destroy you, just like body shame in Christianity
@@valentin137 I see. I just wanted to know the thought behind your comment. And yes I agree, a lone individual can be quite weak. And also a lot of the time self reliance and individuality are just used as an excuse to avoid the difficult task of being in a relationship or a society.
But thankfully, most of us don't have to make a binary choice between a friend's life and our personal freedom and most of the time just setting boundaries/having tough conversations can let us have both our freedom and friends.
EXACTLY!! I got rid of EVERYONE to be able to see clearly. Better things wait for me
This RUclips channel is a den of sociopaths
I love Nietzsche, but just remember how he died. Alone and whimpering in sorrow and insignificance.
Men en choly?
Griffith did nothing wrong.
Lol I knew there'd be a comment like this.
Haha
Lmao
Guts is the ubermech tho
@@Vectivuss I see how Gut is, but how is not Griffith as well?