He was trying to understand himself. I find it fascinating that so many over the years have been able to relate to him and his search for more fulfilled self awareness
Finally, somebody who gets it. Tom many people have a shallow view of Nietzsche, wanting to see him as simply a Fascist, or an advocate of random acts of violence. He was neither of those things. He had very complex, subtle and nuanced views.
Wow, what a breakdown; never seen it this way. The slave example is so spot on, being “peaceful “ under those circumstances required slaves to go against nature, to refuse the responsibility to self survive.
Ressentiment is a psychological state arising from suppressed feelings of envy and hatred that cannot be acted upon,frequently resulting in some form of humiliation. It is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration. Ressentiment was born from the normalization of slave morality, in which the focus of the man of ressentiment is never on the present. This man in turn builds a sense of hope and cleverness in a way the noble man does not. All these burning thoughts and hatred culminate in the invention of the concept of evil and the denotation of the noble man as “evil”. In Nietzsche’s view, the “bad” of master morality is an afterthought for the noble class that does not concern them much. By contrast the slaves’ ressentiment for their masters is a consuming passion, one that poisons them and makes them bitter. This ressentiment is a primary focus of the slaves energy and attention.
Moi, I believe 'ressentiment' is a 'mind virus' that probably is the result of family dynamics. Often a child feeling unfairly treated, takes on the false belief that people are 'unfair'. The alternative might be a worse option. By being resentful, you are 'fighting back' even if it's passively. All Progressive political beliefs require the demonizing the strong and finding 'excuses' for the weak and in their philosophy, it's never their fault.
Resentment is not dependent upon a slave and master dynamic. It is also about how the past affects the present and how it impacts your ability to achieve what you desire. It generally includes others besides oneself. You can be a master and still have resentment. Essentially it is things/people/events that hold you back in one way or another.
+thethikboy COMPASSION is the point of life. All mammals possess the capacity for compassionate thought and action, not only humans. We do NOT have the need to be "cruel" as put forth in the narrative. . . . When there's "piss in the mix" with human behavior, look to 2 drives: power and jealousy; those are the "drivers" of compassionless, destructive behavior. As Shakespeare said, "The quality of mercy is not strained." Greatness? Genius? Rather self absorbed, huh? 'Seems limited & fundamentally flawed. There are answers, but you won't find them here!!
Therein lies the trap. Compassion is a form of weakness and on that basis, power or tyranny takes its toll. One must be able to understand, and help according to one's abilities, and not fall into the trap of compassion.
This simple yet profound clip has helped me immensely. My own psyche has long been torn between the Christian morality(guilt) thrust upon me from an early age and my own innate sense of self. I occasionally use psychedelics in order to alter my perspective on this battle. Concise summaries such as these are very useful for this process.
I would like to add that I think Nietzsche and Leibniz + Hegel have more in common than most people think. Nietzsche accepted Boscovich’s scheme and thus rejected conventional scientific materialistic atomism. In Boscovich’s scheme, point-particles - tiny centres of force and power - engaged in what might be considered a great power struggle with all other monadic particles. Thus Nietzsche found potential “scientific” carriers for his Will to Power. Many commentators do regard Nietzsche’s Will to Power as metaphysical (Heidegger as an example), he himself regarded it as scientific, albeit not in an obvious materialistic sense. Like Boscovich, Nietzsche was kind of an immaterial physicalist (Ontologistics and others consider Nietzsche’s system as panexperientialism, like that of A.N. Whitehead’s metaphysics). “Physical” reality involves nothing but minds exerting forces on each other as a function of “physical” distance between them. If such a system is finite then it can be conceived that, over immense periods of time, the system will find itself in the same configurations that it manifested before (eternal recurrence will occur). Given that Nietzsche ascribed will - a mental quality - to point atoms, his system could be considered in Leibnizian terms. Wolfgang Müller-Lauter wrote, “Nietzsche’s ‘points of will’ remind one of Leibniz’s immaterial ‘points metaphysiques.’ Even his remarks on ‘perspectivism, by which every centre of force - and not only man - construes all the rest of the world from its own viewpoint’, call to mind Leibnizian monadology.” Nietzsche’s will-points don’t endure forever though and aren’t fixed. As Wolfgang wrote again, “To the question of what is it that brings and holds together the incessantly changing organisations of will to power in itself, and also allows them to flow apart, the final answer is: it is contradictions that make possible all aggregation as well as disintegration; indeed, such contradictions are both immanent in every organisation and they confront it ‘from outside,’ from other organisations. The will to power requires contradictions, which of course also can themselves be only will to power. ... By such dependence on contradiction, the will to power is, as Nietzsche says, originally ‘not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos,’ out of which ‘a becoming and effect ing first emerge.’ Nietzsche’s emphasis on contradiction and becoming is highly Heraclitean and Hegelian (although he preferred only to refer to Heraclitus). Nietzsche’s Will to Power can be considered a bridge between Leibniz’s mental monads and Boscovich’s physical monads. But, in general Nietzsche himself was a dialectical thinker in relation to history. He was very clear about his view that Europeans were plummeting into nihilism, and he thought the only way to handle this was to ride through it with even more intensity, so as to get that particular historical period behind us. So I think, implicitly, he was a Hegelian, or at the very least very historically orientated, and keen to surpass or negate cultural decadence through a historical process of renewal.
The main homeric exemple of an "overman" or "superman" that comes to my mind is Tiresias. while Achilles says in the Hades "By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man (...) than rule down here over all the breathless dead.” Tiresias is very well there, he had conquered death itself. was he a freaky warrior? no, just a very wise guy, loved by the infernal Persephone. i m very sure people who read Nietzshe don't read Homer...
Some of us do. No doubt the notion of "transformation" would have appealed to the philosopher who asked us "What if truth were a woman - what then?" He'd also have appreciated the blind oracle's noble, steadfast, brave comportment in the face of derision and the wrath of kings,
Achilles represents the somewhat sulky, childlike side of the master-morality that Nietzsche detects in Homer. I'm reminded of the New Zealand Maori warrior Hone Heke, who was sullen but given to great acts of noble fury. He defied the British Empire 3 times, chopping down the flagpole they erected to hold the Union Jack aloft, and like Achilles caused no end of trouble for his people.
FYE - For Your Edutainment Martin Luther King Speech on Nietzsche’s Ressentiment Southern Christian Leadership Conference Presidential Address 16 August 1967
Although, I think he's wrong about "ressentiment." As I understand it, "ressentiment" begins with a sort of self-hate, which is then externalized and projected onto those he believes have the very qualities which he feels he lacks. It's a sort of scapegoating, in other words. And it's done in bad faith.
This is my take on Ressentiment, which I think parallels what you expressed. Ressentiment is a psychological state arising from suppressed feelings of envy and hatred that cannot be acted upon,frequently resulting in some form of humiliation. It is a sense of hostility directed at that which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration. Ressentiment was born from the normalization of slave morality, in which the focus of the man of ressentiment is never on the present. This man in turn builds a sense of hope and cleverness in a way the noble man does not. All these burning thoughts and hatred culminate in the invention of the concept of evil and the denotation of the noble man as “evil”. In Nietzsche’s view, the “bad” of master morality is an afterthought for the noble class that does not concern them much. By contrast the slaves’ ressentiment for their masters is a consuming passion, one that poisons them and makes them bitter. This ressentiment is a primary focus of the slaves energy and attention.
@Peter Jacobsson It can also be an externalization and projection onto others of qualities one hates within oneself. I'm no paragon of virtue, but my refusal to apologize for and debase myself over that of which I am not guilty makes me a convinient target for those who feel compelled to such folly themselves.
This makes sense STYLEbyMoi. I have heard more than one psychologist or behaviourist say that if people feel that they have been wronged, look out. This can generate a lot of energy in people.
Think for yourself regardless of morality or religious doctine and think and analyse trust your own judgment even if eventually you come to a similar conclusion you make your own judgment but from a place of free will (I am a gemini)
I'm not sure that the Geneology is meant to be 'historical' or just an historical example of a broader phenomenon. In 3-14, for example, Nietzsche says things like, '... such talent for righteous slander.....they have taken exclusive possession of virtue...."We alone are the good and righteous"....how keen they are to exact penance, how willing to be hangmen....vengeful creatures disguised as judges, who hold the word 'justice' in their mouths like venomous spittle......smug contemptible liars who strive to impersonate 'beautiful souls'....moral onanists....even in the hallowed halls of learning this hoarse yelping of sick hounds can be heard.' To contemporary ears, it sounds much more like a critique of a post-modernism that forges compassion into dialectical weapons. But, if you are sympathetic to using justice as venom against those perceived as oppressors, it will probably be difficult to see yourself as the successor to Pharisees and Inquisitors.
The earth being a stand in for God and a reason for constant guilt at hurting the environment was an interesting angle. You can be aware of issues without being overburdened with guilt. I know for myself it is good to be aware of guilt however it is not an enabling emotion, it is more disabling and causes more problems. I used to think without guilt one would become selfish, but that likely comes from that Christian morality which I and most westerners directly or indirectly grew up in. Life perhaps isn't a zero sum game and those who possess genius, we all have a little of that, if allowed to express, will be of great benefit to all. However that resentment which makes greatness shrink will be the wet blanket which energizes that stifling guilt for a long time.
If bad conscience is aggression turned inward, into a masochism that is mistaken for guilt; then what is compassion tuned outward into an aggression that is mistaken for sadism: compassion that kills? Bad conscience isn't guilt its a pathology. Guilt isn't pathological. An error isn't forever, unless everything you do is wrong. Bad conscience is an upheaval, a reversal, of values. Compassion that kills, righteousness that inhibits, this is bad conscience. Guilt can inhibit, but it can also drive behavior. Guilt is not precise. If Nietszche couldn't be forced to write resentment instead of ressentiment why should we believe he meant guilt when he wrote of the bad conscience?
a robust discussion. I agree Nietzsche is challenging and doesnt provide ready answers; he makes us question things in the best philosophical tradition
you should only be ashamed if you get deceived into hurting innocent people, and then not be aware of things going wrong in response. So if you sin, things dont go wrong automatically, you then get through a process of domestication, which is done by evil forces that want to keep you enslaved. they can only touch you if they can deceive you into commiting injustice towards another good soul.
He was trying to understand himself.
I find it fascinating that so many over the years have been able to relate to him and his search for more fulfilled self awareness
Finally, somebody who gets it. Tom many people have a shallow view of Nietzsche, wanting to see him as simply a Fascist, or an advocate of random acts of violence. He was neither of those things. He had very complex, subtle and nuanced views.
Ppp
Wow, what a breakdown; never seen it this way. The slave example is so spot on, being “peaceful “ under those circumstances required slaves to go against nature, to refuse the responsibility to self survive.
Ressentiment is a psychological state arising from suppressed feelings
of envy and hatred that cannot be acted upon,frequently resulting in
some form of humiliation. It is a sense of hostility directed at that
which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration. Ressentiment
was born from the normalization
of slave morality, in which the focus of the man of ressentiment is
never on the present. This man in turn builds a sense of hope and
cleverness in a way the noble man does not. All these burning thoughts
and hatred culminate in the invention of the concept of evil and the
denotation of the noble man as “evil”. In
Nietzsche’s view, the “bad” of master morality is an afterthought for
the noble class that does not concern them much. By contrast the
slaves’ ressentiment for their masters is a consuming passion, one
that poisons them and makes them bitter. This ressentiment is a primary
focus of the slaves energy and attention.
Moi, I believe 'ressentiment' is a 'mind virus' that probably is the result of family dynamics. Often a
child feeling unfairly treated, takes on the false
belief that people are 'unfair'. The alternative
might be a worse option. By being resentful, you
are 'fighting back' even if it's passively.
All Progressive political beliefs require the demonizing
the strong and finding 'excuses' for the weak and in their philosophy, it's never their fault.
Resentment is not dependent upon a slave and master dynamic.
It is also about how the past affects the present and how it impacts your ability to achieve what you desire. It generally includes others besides oneself.
You can be a master and still have resentment.
Essentially it is things/people/events that hold you back in one way or another.
@@theinfjgoyim5508 Resentment and Ressentiment are not the same thing. Anyone can feel resentment; Masters can not feel ressentiment.
crisp and clear description of ideas. admirable
compassion gets in the way of 'greatness' - the original Clingon
+thethikboy COMPASSION is the point of life. All mammals possess the capacity for compassionate thought and action, not only humans. We do NOT have the need to be "cruel" as put forth in the narrative.
. . . When there's "piss in the mix" with human behavior, look to 2 drives: power and jealousy; those are the "drivers" of compassionless, destructive behavior. As Shakespeare said, "The quality of mercy is not strained."
Greatness? Genius? Rather self absorbed, huh? 'Seems limited & fundamentally flawed. There are answers, but you won't find them here!!
Therein lies the trap. Compassion is a form of weakness and on that basis, power or tyranny takes its toll. One must be able to understand, and help according to one's abilities, and not fall into the trap of compassion.
Great interview! Very helpful, thanks for helping me understand Nietzsche further!
His quote which has immediately changed my life: Say in one sentence what it takes others a book to say...
Geneology of morality = it's Evolution
This simple yet profound clip has helped me immensely. My own psyche has long been torn between the Christian morality(guilt) thrust upon me from an early age and my own innate sense of self. I occasionally use psychedelics in order to alter my perspective on this battle. Concise summaries such as these are very useful for this process.
Acid brought me here
Brilliant. Thank you.
I would like to add that I think Nietzsche and Leibniz + Hegel have more in common than most people think. Nietzsche accepted Boscovich’s scheme and thus rejected conventional scientific materialistic atomism. In Boscovich’s scheme, point-particles - tiny centres of force and power - engaged in what might be considered a great power struggle with all other monadic particles. Thus Nietzsche found potential “scientific” carriers for his Will to Power. Many commentators do regard Nietzsche’s Will to Power as metaphysical (Heidegger as an example), he himself regarded it as scientific, albeit not in an obvious materialistic sense. Like Boscovich, Nietzsche was kind of an immaterial physicalist (Ontologistics and others consider Nietzsche’s system as panexperientialism, like that of A.N. Whitehead’s metaphysics). “Physical” reality involves nothing but minds exerting forces on each other as a function of “physical” distance between them. If such a system is finite then it can be conceived that, over immense periods of time, the system will find itself in the same configurations that it manifested before (eternal recurrence will occur). Given that Nietzsche ascribed will - a mental quality - to point atoms, his system could be considered in Leibnizian terms. Wolfgang Müller-Lauter wrote, “Nietzsche’s ‘points of will’ remind one of Leibniz’s immaterial ‘points metaphysiques.’ Even his remarks on ‘perspectivism, by which every centre of force - and not only man - construes all the rest of the world from its own viewpoint’, call to mind Leibnizian monadology.”
Nietzsche’s will-points don’t endure forever though and aren’t fixed.
As Wolfgang wrote again, “To the question of what is it that brings and holds together the incessantly changing organisations of will to power in itself, and also allows them to flow apart, the final answer is: it is contradictions that make possible all aggregation as well as disintegration; indeed, such contradictions are both immanent in every organisation and they confront it ‘from outside,’ from other organisations. The will to power requires contradictions, which of course also can themselves be only will to power. ... By such dependence on contradiction, the will to power is, as Nietzsche says, originally ‘not a being, not a becoming, but a pathos,’ out of which ‘a becoming and effect ing first emerge.’
Nietzsche’s emphasis on contradiction and becoming is highly Heraclitean and Hegelian (although he preferred only to refer to Heraclitus). Nietzsche’s Will to Power can be considered a bridge between Leibniz’s mental monads and Boscovich’s physical monads.
But, in general Nietzsche himself was a dialectical thinker in relation to history. He was very clear about his view that Europeans were plummeting into nihilism, and he thought the only way to handle this was to ride through it with even more intensity, so as to get that particular historical period behind us. So I think, implicitly, he was a Hegelian, or at the very least very historically orientated, and keen to surpass or negate cultural decadence through a historical process of renewal.
Good presentation thanks
very insightful, thanks :)
The main homeric exemple of an "overman" or "superman" that comes to my mind is Tiresias. while Achilles says in the Hades "By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man (...) than rule down here over all the breathless dead.” Tiresias is very well there, he had conquered death itself. was he a freaky warrior? no, just a very wise guy, loved by the infernal Persephone. i m very sure people who read Nietzshe don't read Homer...
Some of us do. No doubt the notion of "transformation" would have appealed to the philosopher who asked us "What if truth were a woman - what then?" He'd also have appreciated the blind oracle's noble, steadfast, brave comportment in the face of derision and the wrath of kings,
Achilles represents the somewhat sulky, childlike side of the master-morality that Nietzsche detects in Homer. I'm reminded of the New Zealand Maori warrior Hone Heke, who was sullen but given to great acts of noble fury. He defied the British Empire 3 times, chopping down the flagpole they erected to hold the Union Jack aloft, and like Achilles caused no end of trouble for his people.
Thank you.. it is good he
contemplated conscience.
Humility, and pride..🤔
FYE - For Your Edutainment
Martin Luther King
Speech on Nietzsche’s Ressentiment
Southern Christian Leadership Conference Presidential Address
16 August 1967
I'd love to read or listen to this
Although, I think he's wrong about "ressentiment." As I understand it, "ressentiment" begins with a sort of self-hate, which is then externalized and projected onto those he believes have the very qualities which he feels he lacks. It's a sort of scapegoating, in other words. And it's done in bad faith.
I dig this interpretation.
Peter Jacobsson no.
This is my take on Ressentiment, which I think parallels what you expressed.
Ressentiment is a psychological state arising from suppressed feelings of envy and hatred that cannot be acted upon,frequently resulting in some form of humiliation. It is a sense of hostility directed at that
which one identifies as the cause of one’s frustration. Ressentiment was born from the normalization
of slave morality, in which the focus of the man of ressentiment is never on the present. This man in turn builds a sense of hope and cleverness in a way the noble man does not. All these burning thoughts and hatred culminate in the invention of the concept of evil and the denotation of the noble man as “evil”. In
Nietzsche’s view, the “bad” of master morality is an afterthought for the noble class that does not concern them much. By contrast the slaves’ ressentiment for their masters is a consuming passion, one
that poisons them and makes them bitter. This ressentiment is a primary focus of the slaves energy and attention.
@Peter Jacobsson
It can also be an externalization and projection onto others of qualities one hates within oneself. I'm no paragon of virtue, but my refusal to apologize for and debase myself over that of which I am not guilty makes me a convinient target for those who feel compelled to such folly themselves.
This makes sense STYLEbyMoi. I have heard more than one psychologist or behaviourist say that if people feel that they have been wronged, look out. This can generate a lot of energy in people.
do ou think ressentiment for the masses (in a good way) could be the recent outing of psychopaths??
Sounds like a very smart man.
Think for yourself regardless of morality or religious doctine and think and analyse trust your own judgment even if eventually you come to a similar conclusion you make your own judgment but from a place of free will (I am a gemini)
I'm not sure that the Geneology is meant to be 'historical' or just an historical example of a broader phenomenon.
In 3-14, for example, Nietzsche says things like, '... such talent for righteous slander.....they have taken exclusive possession of virtue...."We alone are the good and righteous"....how keen they are to exact penance, how willing to be hangmen....vengeful creatures disguised as judges, who hold the word 'justice' in their mouths like venomous spittle......smug contemptible liars who strive to impersonate 'beautiful souls'....moral onanists....even in the hallowed halls of learning this hoarse yelping of sick hounds can be heard.'
To contemporary ears, it sounds much more like a critique of a post-modernism that forges compassion into dialectical weapons. But, if you are sympathetic to using justice as venom against those perceived as oppressors, it will probably be difficult to see yourself as the successor to Pharisees and Inquisitors.
I’ve been reading nietzsche
Real Shit
The earth being a stand in for God and a reason for constant guilt at hurting the environment was an interesting angle. You can be aware of issues without being overburdened with guilt. I know for myself it is good to be aware of guilt however it is not an enabling emotion, it is more disabling and causes more problems.
I used to think without guilt one would become selfish, but that likely comes from that Christian morality which I and most westerners directly or indirectly grew up in.
Life perhaps isn't a zero sum game and those who possess genius, we all have a little of that, if allowed to express, will be of great benefit to all. However that resentment which makes greatness shrink will be the wet blanket which energizes that stifling guilt for a long time.
13:06. "I consider myself an atheist, I believe in God" ..??
😂😂 i was looking for someone to point that out
If bad conscience is aggression turned inward, into a masochism that is mistaken for guilt; then what is compassion tuned outward into an aggression that is mistaken for sadism: compassion that kills?
Bad conscience isn't guilt its a pathology. Guilt isn't pathological. An error isn't forever, unless everything you do is wrong. Bad conscience is an upheaval, a reversal, of values. Compassion that kills, righteousness that inhibits, this is bad conscience. Guilt can inhibit, but it can also drive behavior. Guilt is not precise.
If Nietszche couldn't be forced to write resentment instead of ressentiment why should we believe he meant guilt when he wrote of the bad conscience?
Rope (1948) anyone?
a robust discussion. I agree Nietzsche is challenging and doesnt provide ready answers; he makes us question things in the best philosophical tradition
the genealogy of moles?
Was it guilt that drove him to purposefully contact siphylis ?
you should only be ashamed if you get deceived into hurting innocent people, and then not be aware of things going wrong in response.
So if you sin, things dont go wrong automatically, you then get through a process of domestication, which is done by evil forces that want to keep you enslaved. they can only touch you if they can deceive you into commiting injustice towards another good soul.
Shakespeare - cultured? A Warwickshire ill educated country boy.
How can somebody be a facist when he was so moved by the flocking of a 🐎. I wonder...................
Nietzsche wasn't fascist. His work was used by nazis and has been massively deformed and misinterpretted.
Garbage in, garbage out, he "knows" psychology and philosophy as much as my dog does.
If that is the case I'd like to hear a better approach from you. ;)
So much mental bullshit, blablabla