To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
A lot of people saying this argument is still valid today. But beauty can be so artificial nowadays that argument holds less and less weight imo. There's some argument there about genetics, but ugliness doesn't show you what's inside a person. Some people we think are ugly and stupid are actually much happier than us no matter how much prettier we think we are. 🤣 I've seen people with traits you would be envious of be completely miserable in the worst ways.
this point has been on my mind for some time: isn't this easily refuted by the fact that Plato, who actually wrote the books and only used Socrates to voice his ideas, was not ugly and had a noble ancestry?
Can’t find the exact quote but if Nietzsche’s series of thoughts on Socrates seem conflicted and confusing, it’s because he was the one thinker who he felt close to yet most at odds with.
I don’t believe they’re conflicted at all. Nietzsche was a philologist; and Socrates is one of the earliest surviving examples of collectivist and egalitarian philosophy in the West. Which the earlier examples being the Hermetics and the Jews, which in those days were still considered an Eastern culture (kinda still are). Bundle that in with the fact that other Egalitarian and Nihilistic philosophers hold Socrates in very high regard, and it becomes very obvious that Nietzsche needed to uproot the idol of Socrates if he had any hope of establishing his new values or “New Tables” as he put it in Zarathustra. Thats just my interpretation though.
@@sethgaston8347 He's meritocratic not egalitarian, Epicurus is egalitarian, also is he collectivist? I don't think you can firmly call him that, perhaps the later Plato is, but Socrates himself doesn't seem to have made his own political system. Perhaps we can say he is skeptical of democracy, he would also certainly be skeptical of technocracy. Like nietzhe. His radical I am the wisest because I know nothing is very close epistemologically to nihilism.
Imo I think Nietzsche was trying to attack Socrates' entire reason for his philosophy, suggesting that, had Socrates been born with the face and body of Alcibiades, would he even be a philosopher to begin with? Or would he be partying with his own self-appointed harem of women? In modern parlance, he's saying Socrates' entire argument is cope for being born ugly. Which, maybe it is! It doesn't necessarily invalidate Soc's argument itself, had it been uttered from a black sentient box that looked like nothing, would it be any less true? Maybe Socrates is just coping, but that doesn't invalidate the cope. Its sort of like saying "oh you're only swimming because you dont know how to breath underwater, cope". Well, yes, I don't want to drown. So I swim. I make logical arguments. Don't like it? Then figure out how to make me look like Alcibiades if you're so smart.
Wait, am I the only one who thinks that Nietzsche is right for calling Socrates ugly? I mean, acording to him, physiological constitution of a person played a vital role in formation of moral thoughts so it is only a corollary that Nietzsche points out why instead of the apparent world, Socrates dismissed it and advocated for the true and noble solely in the intellectual realm. Which influenced the later post-socratic philosophies and their creation of different metaphysical theories and the rest of human culture becomes a disaster due to this one man.
@1SSJA I agree. Nietzsche himself would approve of this. Perhaps Socrates himself was repulsed by his own ugliness since humans instinctively prefers beautiful things and twisted his other impulses to side for what remained beautiful in him which were his thoughts and due to lack of more psychological insights overlook what made him who he was and ended in consummation by his own inflated ego. Hence, bore the era of Will to Truth rather than Power to what's apparent and beautiful.
you're right to call anybody ugly if you feel like it, but this doesn't help you in any way. Is George Clooney the greatest philosopher then? Or are dignified and majestic looking Church Fathers, Archbishops (mostly Orthodox, of course) granted access to the Truth above a sickly Swiss goblin (I know he was German, I was at his little chalet in Switzerland)? I think people take Nietzsche's "I am the Antichrist" chest beating at face value and don't appreciate the full trajectory of his life. His last letter from the asylum was signed "The Crucified One".
@@mentalitydesignvideo I assume you have a lot of interesting thoughts I could know. Can you please explain your take on Nietzsche and elaborate more on what you meant by your second paragraph taking Nietzsche as Anti-Christ at face value?
It would be interesting to delve into this. I feel like Nietzsche is a bit too extreme in his ideas. Hes like the needjerk reaction to what the west had been lacking up to that point. I dont think the best world is created solely trough will to power, but it sure as hell isnt created trough will to truth alone. The fact that correlating someones face to their ideas is such an unacceptable idea, even considered one of the first phalacies you learn in any philosophy or logic class, yet we all incstinctively treat people with varying levels of trust depending on their looks. Nietsche reminded us that we were in one extreme of this specific axis and reminded us of the eixstence of the other extreme, now its up to us to find the best middle ground. Id like if we had more discussions on how your face affects your thoughts, beyond the very basic stuff like confidence or getting laid. For example i think we have all noticed that the ''just be normal, dont over think'' types are usually good looking, while the types that go on and on about how doomed the world is are usually ugly. Its a fascinating topic, and an aspect of physical life that clearly has a huge impact on individual mental health and in the direction a society goes, because even if you manage to build a stable life with an ugly face, theres a big chance youre making others miserable with your ways of thinking, or you've subconciously detected this so youve stopped trying to think deeply at all. If we started considering this a number 1 priority instead of a show of vanity that has to be matured out of i think we would have a near utopia on our hands. We got so much material goods, now we only need to remove the causes of self loathing so we can let ourselves enjoy all that we have. A dumb, maybe childish, but possibly powerfull example, remember how as a kid you wanted things that you now have? You had to beg for a specific toy or videogame, and got one or two a year if lucky, but now, even tho youre not specially rich, you got all the games you want, yet you just dont get into them as much? Could it be, and call me crazy, that knowing that you dont look like the protagonist, the hero, playing that game feels more like escapism, while as a kid, were you could at least logically think you might look like a hero when you grow up, playing those games felt almost like hero training, like you were playing a simulation of something you could do if the situation arose, that made it feel real. That to me is the diference in fiction, games in this case, as escapism as oposed to as inspiration. If games could be inspiration instead of escapism, wich depends on our characteristics, like looks, that would have impossible to overstate positive effects imo.
The belief that physical appearance reflects goodness or evil is found in most of the Indo-European cultures and a number of others. In a lot of those cultures they demanded that their leaders and priests had a physical intactness and beauty about them. For example, there's a story in Ireland of the deity Nuada losing an arm in battle and becoming inadmissible as king because of that. The story about Tyr losing an arm to the wolf has a similar idea to it. The Zoroastrians in Iran had a metaphysical viewpoint on physical appearance where being born ugly/deformed was a sign of having a bad spirit. There's a similar idea in a number of Middle-Eastern/African/Aboriginal cultures that also promote physical beauty as goodness, with the one major distinction being that they promote circumcision, holding that the fore-skin of the male contains a remnant of a female soul and has to be cast off at induction into manhood. This is one of the big distinctions between the two ideas where the old Indo-Europeans would regard circumcision as removing admissibility to the priesthood/nobility whereas in places like Egypt it was required for those positions. One of the best illustrations of this is found in the Mandean story about Abraham (Mandeans being a Middle-Eastern sect that hold circumcision invalidates one from the priesthood). They believe that Abraham's circumcision covenant was actually instituted because he accidently damaged his fore-skin, a physical mar that made admission to the priesthood impossible. In Judaism, it is typically held that the uncircumcised state of man is a result of the Adamic fall and that certain figures like Moses were born circumcised as a sign of restoration. Note that Judaism otherwise originally insisted upon the same sort of physical appearance/lack of mar standards for its priests and nobles as Indo-European philosophy, just with the modification of the need for circumcision. What began as a relatively minor distinction between these two lines of thought has quite possibly had a much larger philosophical impact, even effecting our viewpoint to this day. Christianity, of course, made the circumcision a internal one with the claim that one must have a circumcised heart. In essence, the teaching of slight male physical imperfection turned to belief in a fallen or tainted human form, which ended up in the belief in a naturally tainted human heart. It's the vanity of natural appearance vs. the vanity of "I've done X and gone through X rite therefore I'm better than you". And eventually the ideas of goodness and evil became so internalized, so otherworldly, that they turned into modern victim culture which itself has a hyper-focus on appearance, just in a inverted manner.
"Are not all young men ready to trust the promise of a pretty face and to infer beauty of soul from beauty of feature? An indefinable impulse leads them to believe that moral perfection must co-exist with physical perfection." - Honoré de Balzac
I've always thought Nietzsche's thoughts on Socrates were a little strange. Socrates, a pessimist? Honestly I would admire him even more if he was. But earlier in the Birth of Tragedy, he accused him of rationalistic, Apollonian optimism, and decried his formula of 'reason-virtue-happiness'. Socrates says death is a good thing but that's about as pessimistic as he gets. I'm not sure if Nietzsche correctly interpreted his final words, but I'm no Plato scholar. Other than that, I think his insights are mostly very profound; but with me I admire in Socrates everything that Nietzsche hates.
I think Nietzsche was someone who was poisoned by overcorrection. However, I think that was also a symptom of him being one of the first of his kind in a time that was much more tolerant of such an idea: the atheist philosopher.
There is a larger argument at play. It has to do with acceptance of eugenic prinicples, physiognomy, and a general consciousness of race and biology as an underlying factor in the birth and development of civilization and philosophy. Of course, by our standards all this could simply be dismissed. Socrates is a plebian element, his rationalism and critique of the city of Athens, is a sign of subversion, of degeneration. The warlike aristocratic element, the Dionyisian, is of no need of rationalist philosophy. They ruled because they were better, more vital. This is Nietzsche's line of argument.
@@brahimilyes681 the Republic talks at length about eugenics, and consciously breeding the guardians for preferred traits. Saying that Socrates is a "plebian element" is wild when he was a foil to _democratic_ Athens; or calling him subversive when the dialogues spend half of the time calling out actual subversive thinkers -- who were deemed as forerunners to postmodernism by postmodernists themselves -- , many of whom were given room to thrive by the very "trad" Athens you so adore. I feel like people should inform their view of Socrates from primary sources rather getting it secondhand from Nietzsche, who distorts history to fit a desired paradigm.
Given that Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer, I wouldn't be surprised if Schopenhauer's hieroglyph idea, that a person's face was like a hieroglyph stamped onto them, led to Nietzsche calling Socrates ugly. Maybe the line between inside and outside, superficiality and substance, is actually quite thin or even illusory. Maybe the substance of something is merely a combination of superficial faces.
Right….apparently his words hold no salt - I do not agree with Nietzsche in this sense. The logic is interesting, at best, not at all without blaring exceptions. If beauty lends itself to philosophical potential, then we are doomed - just look at the “beautiful people” of our modern society.
@@TepidTrowel The thing is, we glorify beautifull people so much that they dont even feel the need to develop philosophies, so its relegated to uglier, more insecure people that feel like they need something more to be good enough. But if you really pressed them, i think beautifull people would come ahead.
@@Joe-os3vpI should have? I don't think that's very important, given it's quite difficult to remember the exact spelling of his name. Plus i don't wanna put much effort into remembering the exact spelling of the name of this wretch.
Very interesting to consider dialects as a form of revenge or pettiness. We often see similar parallels play out amongst the disenfranchised of modernity.
"A man may look like a god on the outside, but if his words lack grace and wisdom, he is but an empty shell. Yet another, though short and ungainly, may have a gift for speech that captivates and persuades, so that his audience looks at him with delight." Homer, The Odyssey "Beauty is not in the face, but in the actions of the brave." Pre Socratic spartan saying Ancient greeks morals were not that simple or monolithic even predating the short ungainly ugly faced brave war veteran and gifted speaker Socrates, I do agree there was a moral crisis after the Peloponnesian war and post Socratic philosophy is in many ways against pre Socratic values and there was a new sort of submissiveness among the greeks that allowed for the Macedonian hegemony which only became extremely intensified during the hellenstic age and later when it came under the Romans when the greeks many of them becoming literally educated slaves, court historians writing hagiographic histories of Roman emperors, greeklings. Would all things being equal one man ugly and the other beautiful, the beautiful would be considered more virtuous to pre socratic greeks yes, it is also worth noting Xenophon who admired Socrates was a conservative and his socrates the same in apperance though different in is iconoclastic temperament. Aclibades was indeed beautiful but he was also brillant as both a strategist and a speaker. "Alcibiades was, in truth, a most able speaker; his speech captivated his hearers, and his understanding was equal to his eloquence. He had a wonderful faculty of accommodating himself to the times and circumstances in which he was placed." Xenophon Hellenica Aclibades admired Socrates and this association helped lead to his execution. The chief difference highlighted between them was not beauty to the greeks, it was excess. Aclibades was driven by passion to excess, he was radiant in his decadence , his pride became close to something else, hubris. A hubris that lead to his downfall. "Socrates, who had a great influence over Alcibiades, restrained him while he was still young and prevented his being completely corrupted by his great natural gifts and the excess of his prosperity." Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades "I admired the excellence of his character, his wisdom, his courage, and his endurance in all things. I felt that I could not endure to live the life I was leading, filled with my own imperfections, and I was convinced that I must submit to him and follow him wherever he might lead." Plato, Symposium "For he was of noble family and handsome, but these advantages were not sufficient for him; he thought he ought to be the first in everything." Plato, Alcibiades I "It was not his enemies, but his own way of living, that caused his downfall, for his luxurious and licentious habits alienated the affections of the people and gave his adversaries ample ground to attack him." Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades "Socrates, even in his trial, referred to Alcibiades and others as examples of how he tried to turn the youth toward virtue, though many of them, like Alcibiades, did not follow the path he set for them." Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades His maneuvering crossed the line into treachery all things repulsive to the greeks but also naturally dramatically intriguing and in the context of a laconaphile contingent in Athenian society perhaps not as unforgivable to them a faction socrates was associated with as opposed to the more patriotic Athenians we are more likely to imagine, whose views are closer to what is imagined in the popular imagination and were romantized in memory. "Alcibiades was, in every way, the ablest man of his time for the requirements of the state, provided he chose to be honest. His manner of life made him objects of universal observation, and caused the Athenians to commit affairs to his hands and then to be mistrustful of him in consequence of his extravagant habits and aims." Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War Pericles another great and even more admired contemporary had a head that was considered embarrassing in it's shape. His wife was a metic and possibly a madam and his son only a citizen by popular degree. The greeks were complicated. "His head was of a somewhat longish form, so that, for the most part, the statues and pictures of him are made with a helmet on, the workmen apparently being willing to avoid a peculiar and odd appearance." Plutarch, Life of Pericles His ugliness though is not a unique feature in him being a man who was listened to. Also he was not a slave, he was a freeman, and he did not have the morality of a slave. His students Plato and Xenophon had authoritarian streaks both having connections to the spartan backed thirty tyrants in all likelihood and from aristocratic backgrounds with Plato often being openly classist, they were anti populists. They were the sorts who opposed the radical democratic and fiercely patriotic views of men like Thrasybulus. "The soul of the petty tradesman, intent upon his petty concerns, cannot help but become small and warped." Plato The Republic Aclibades does not represent power he reprsented a dishonest trickster the greeks admired think of Odysseus. He also was maybe the universally intriguing hypersexual rogue, like Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron or Casanova, he was pure id, perhaps the ur Byronic hero, with charisma, talent and looks to match. He was above all things, interesting. "Odysseus, the wily and resourceful, of many wiles, who excels in cunning and craft." Homer, The Odyssey "Odysseus is a man of wit and guile, but not without reason, for he bends his words to serve the greater good. Achilles, bold and direct, would not stoop to deception, yet which serves the cause better?" Sophocles, Philoctetes The pre socractic greeks existed on a balance of reason, honor and pride. They had a complicated relationship with dishonesty. With later Socratic greek ethics playing down martial honor etc...Socrates ugliness apart from simply being the real man's appearance, highlight the power of his capabilities in all other facets, his physical strength is mentioned, his courage during war, his sharp tongue, his analytical mind and drinking prowess, despite a disarming appearance and lack of status beyond being a citizen and freeman, and that he was for the greeks considered taking payment as a sign of untrustworthyness and he did not charge for his teaching. "He who cannot live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god; a slave to necessity cannot be free." Aristotle, Politics "I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead." Homer, The Odyssey "If I had engaged in work for payment, I should have brought dishonor upon myself and my mission." Socrates in Plato's Apology His mystical disheveledness and poverty made him not unlike the wandering religous mystics who were contemporary to the Buddha, an archetype of a supremely free man outside of the social hierachy not beneath it. "No man is free who cannot command himself" Socrates in Xenophon's Memorabilia "Socrates was not only mentally superior to all men but also physically stout, enduring hunger, thirst, and cold like no other, and showing unparalleled courage in battle." Plato, Symposium Nor was he a plebian for the greeks had no such thing, he was a free man, a citizen in a polis that was not a republic but a direct democracy, there were no patricians, plebians, novos-homos or equites. There was stratification but he was above the wealthy metic as a citizen, as an Athenian he was not the lowest of the low in the context of athenian society, Socrates was not Epicurus who taught slaves and women, he was not a freed slave like Epictetus. He did not preach egalitarianism. "Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide... cities will have no rest from evils." Plato The Republic This became warped in the no longer soverign or democratic hellenstic era in the generations after Plato, the greeks now neutered, under the control or the hellenstic kings, unable to seek glory for the polis, argue in the assembly all of them idiots by the ancient greek definition, men who do not truly participate in democracy channeled their energies into more apolitical pursuits, the greeks of the classical age would surerly not see the hellenstic greeks as "free", so the ethics and reception of philosophy during the hellenstic age moved away from "master morality". "Live unnoticed." Epicurus "If you wish to be free, do not wish for anything in your control or outside of it. Do not wish to be a senator, or a consul, or a leader of men. Instead, desire to be free, and the only way to be free is to desire what is your own." Epictetus Discourses Socrates is not to blame for this shift, it is Philip the second and Alexander who reduced them. Alexander the great, the classical ubermench made his beloved greeks closer to the hellenstic last men. "You cannot afford to be idle, men of Athens, or to wait for others to act. Freedom and slavery are both before you; choose freedom, and strive to maintain it." Demosthenes Third Philippic The hellenstic greeks choose slavery, and their philosophy, their platonism and their warped image of Socrates was a product of their slave morality, rather than Socrates himself being it's harbinger or manifestation. Perhaps it is better to talk about pre and post Phillipic or Alexanderian greece and morals than pre and post Socratic.
Ah yes People trust good looking celebrities more than those who are smart ans intelligent as shjt. So true Nietzhe. U actually proven ur self right by making a false argument on ur own. What a smart move!
Nietzsche problem with Socrates is the same problem he had with every other philosopher on the planet: He wasn't as smart as Nietzsche (according to himself).
But did the presocratic not believe in a world beyond appearance? What would otherwise be the purpose of reducing all phenomena to one Arche? They might have been naive realists, but they still believed that the world has permanence beyond the subjective.
both are true, beauty is objective to a degree. Nietzsche is swinging too hard in one extreme, while Socrates might be too far on the other. Right now we pretend that knowing how to ignore someone's looks is the biggest sign of maturity, i dont think thats always the best coure of action.
Perhaps Socrates' appearance was no coincidence? Perhaps Nietzsche wasn't entirely honest with his works? Niccolo Machiavelli was not an original thinker at all, although still extremely appreciated. The Great Work continues... 93/93
Socrates was also a great warrior. A real stoic. Neitsche was a physical weakling and military failure. He pulled a tit muscle whilst mounting a horse which was his first failed attempt. No joke, look it up. That’s why he hated Socrates. No doubt he wanted desperately to be as good as Socrates but he just wasn’t. To make things worse, Neitsche’s entire philosophy is simply an inverse of Socrates philosophy which means Neitsche didn’t actually come up one single new idea. The best he could manage, in his bitter weakling hatred for his hero Socrates, was to invert his hero’s teachings. It’s incredibly sad really
The Prophet Elisha was bald. Leah was the homely sister, yet the fruitful one who birthed Judah--the line of Christ. Christ himself was described as having no beauty. That said, it is extremely difficult to see moral greatness in the physically unappealing. This prejudice cuts deeper than any other. Nietzsche probably would have regarded all non-Europeans as ugly, so it's difficult to take this position as approaching truth.
Nietzche's greatest Problem was that he attacked persons rather than ideas and he really was the Philosopher who celebrated "Unreason" Most where he ALWAYS made Assumptions which are either based on another assumption thag Correlation is causation or Other bad reasonings Socrates was Ugly therefor He did this but If that's the only reason Then why not all Humiliated mans have same Philosophy why not all Followers of Socrates Ugly?Of course he had no Evidence of his Words lastly Socrates never said That Death is so Good that one should die if you have read apology You can easily understand he ment that "Death for Virtue" is honourable and Questioning is not arguing
Nietzsche attacked ideas constantly, but most people lack the intellect to understand anything he said; which is why they just repeat silly ad hominems they read online.
Nietzsche did attacked ideas, and he unlike many thinker ls did not overlook the importance of our world affecting our thought structures. Where as most philosophers were so invested with their Will to Truth, they got distracted from realising the errors of their instincts.
This is utter nonsense, Nietzsche attacked ideas all the time. And he never said Socrates's ugliness is "the only reason", Nietzsche had a lot of reasons for attacking him.
Actually, those of us who are not 15 years old (and I guess that is you as well) appreciate Nietzsche precisely because he gave voice (and a brilliant one too, without equal) to unreason, to base passions, to animal desires, to the beast in man. It had to come out once "Enlightenment" idiocy killed God, someone had to give it voice, even at the price of one's madness.
You mischaracterize the presocratics' fidelity to appearances and looks. Many presocratics did not trust mere appearances--the monist Parmenides, for example, invited us to question our sense--which say that the world is full of diversity when indeed the world is one. Thales, too, thought the cosmos was made of water--though it didn't look as such. Democritus said the world was made of atoms but looks like a world of things.
@@WeltgeistYTI get it. Plato’s Forms is an ideal abstraction, while Democritus and Thales, while skeptical of the senses, were materialistic and committed to phusis. Is that right?
So Alcibides was beautiful, but not a good leader. That's why having a popularity contest over looks doesn't really play out well. Beauty doesn't equal competence or loyalty which it seems Alcibides was not loyal to his own people refuting Nietzsche arguments. Athens didn't fall because of an ugly man, but good looking men who were poor leaders. Maybe he was decent general, but if you aren't loyal then you're just a Benedict Arnold. Your soldiers and citizens for that matter cannot trust someone who switches sides like that.
Nietzsche´s critique of Socrates based on his looks is fairly infantile; what about if Socrates had been a rather good-looking man? What influence might have had on his thought? BTW, Nietzsche was not precisely handsome and that makes his critique even more ludicrous.
@@arslongavitabrevis5136 Maybe go and read some Ludovici, or consider why nearly all criminals are ugly. The body and mind are not separate. Mutations of the genome affect both body and brain.
Bravo. I don’t know when he came up with these statements, but he should have included his own prejudices in his book “Beyond Good and Evil” - I don’t know if he thought himself to have any…
It's amazing that you discuss Nietzsche's vitriol as a system of ideas (which it isn't, really, an outgrowth of his own pathologies) rather that the precursor to normal internet discourse.
Il n’y a aucune preuve à ce jour que Socrate ait réellement existé.C’est la pensée de Platon qui est dans son apologie. Mais continuez à dire n’importe quoi, c’est amusant. J’aimerais bien voir la tronche des commentateurs qui pensent que la laideur n’est pas l’expression d’une âme incohérente et laide. Les exceptions existent mais elles confirment la règle. 🎉
Unironically. Idk if people act it out out of social pressure to act the way you look. Or if acting a certain way as you grow up makes you look a certain way. But ive seen people in teh same family look different and act accordingly different to an uncanny degree, i havnt found a single person who beats this rule
That means you have spent too much time listening to old people's ideas. You have acquired some of their biases and would be best served to remember all those ideas are profoundly limited by all they don't know that we do now. Don't be weird, individual variation in terms of personality, temperament and whatnot is not predictable.
@@nikeisagreekgoddess4135 Nobody said it was predictable. And your argument "that's what old people think and old people were wrong" is beyond lame and lamer.
The smoke he had for Socrates is equal to the smoke I have for Plato. I HATE platonists; all they deal with are the imaginary and baseless faith. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if most of Nietzsche's problems with Socrates are really problems with Plato, who shamelessly used his teacher to bolster his shitty ideas.
Yeah, lets listen to nietsche... who went mad and fell in love with his sister. No faitnh nothing, just plain rascalism, elevated to a philosopher... I could care less about what Neitsche thinks of anyone... what I think of Nietsche is like how many think of Hitler... Bitter and resentful, like he never scored any action (like an inkwell)... so he eventually ended with his sister... pathetic.
@RJ-ch9zf I myself have many criticisms for Nietzsche, and I even hate many aspects of his thought, but what you are saying is false... Nietzsche did not fall in love with his sister; quite the opposite, in fact. He wrote a letter to her expressing his hatred for her anti-Semetism, which he was deeply troubled by. Nietzsche's sister would later make forged works in Nietzsche's name with said anti-Semetism all over it. Secondly Nietzsche likely went mad because of a genetic disease inherited from his father. Thirdly, the Nazis misappropriated Nietzsche's ideas; although it can very much be argued that parts of his thought are fascist in nature. But Nietzsche was a virulent anti-anti-Semite, and totally opposed to the role that the state plays in fascism.
To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
Socrates: uses the most elaborate rational argumentation
Nietzsche: nah you're *ugly* so you're wrong.
Yeah Nietzsche was a manchild
Socrates served eloquent essays.
Nietzsche eeeww brutha eeeww
Nietzche the OG blackpill Incel
A lot of people saying this argument is still valid today. But beauty can be so artificial nowadays that argument holds less and less weight imo. There's some argument there about genetics, but ugliness doesn't show you what's inside a person. Some people we think are ugly and stupid are actually much happier than us no matter how much prettier we think we are. 🤣 I've seen people with traits you would be envious of be completely miserable in the worst ways.
@ yes but the world treats you better if you’re attractive
this point has been on my mind for some time: isn't this easily refuted by the fact that Plato, who actually wrote the books and only used Socrates to voice his ideas, was not ugly and had a noble ancestry?
Socrates was also of noble pedigree, and married into a noble family. He also wasn't a cripple, like Nietzsche.
Can’t find the exact quote but if Nietzsche’s series of thoughts on Socrates seem conflicted and confusing, it’s because he was the one thinker who he felt close to yet most at odds with.
I don’t believe they’re conflicted at all. Nietzsche was a philologist; and Socrates is one of the earliest surviving examples of collectivist and egalitarian philosophy in the West. Which the earlier examples being the Hermetics and the Jews, which in those days were still considered an Eastern culture (kinda still are).
Bundle that in with the fact that other Egalitarian and Nihilistic philosophers hold Socrates in very high regard, and it becomes very obvious that Nietzsche needed to uproot the idol of Socrates if he had any hope of establishing his new values or “New Tables” as he put it in Zarathustra.
Thats just my interpretation though.
“Socrates, to confess it frankly, stands so close to me that I am almost always fighting with him.”
@@sethgaston8347
He's meritocratic not egalitarian, Epicurus is egalitarian, also is he collectivist? I don't think you can firmly call him that, perhaps the later Plato is, but Socrates himself doesn't seem to have made his own political system. Perhaps we can say he is skeptical of democracy, he would also certainly be skeptical of technocracy. Like nietzhe.
His radical I am the wisest because I know nothing is very close epistemologically to nihilism.
Imo I think Nietzsche was trying to attack Socrates' entire reason for his philosophy, suggesting that, had Socrates been born with the face and body of Alcibiades, would he even be a philosopher to begin with? Or would he be partying with his own self-appointed harem of women? In modern parlance, he's saying Socrates' entire argument is cope for being born ugly. Which, maybe it is!
It doesn't necessarily invalidate Soc's argument itself, had it been uttered from a black sentient box that looked like nothing, would it be any less true? Maybe Socrates is just coping, but that doesn't invalidate the cope. Its sort of like saying "oh you're only swimming because you dont know how to breath underwater, cope". Well, yes, I don't want to drown. So I swim. I make logical arguments. Don't like it? Then figure out how to make me look like Alcibiades if you're so smart.
Wait, am I the only one who thinks that Nietzsche is right for calling Socrates ugly? I mean, acording to him, physiological constitution of a person played a vital role in formation of moral thoughts so it is only a corollary that Nietzsche points out why instead of the apparent world, Socrates dismissed it and advocated for the true and noble solely in the intellectual realm. Which influenced the later post-socratic philosophies and their creation of different metaphysical theories and the rest of human culture becomes a disaster due to this one man.
I wouldn't call him right but I could call him justified. I'll just call him later though
@1SSJA I agree. Nietzsche himself would approve of this. Perhaps Socrates himself was repulsed by his own ugliness since humans instinctively prefers beautiful things and twisted his other impulses to side for what remained beautiful in him which were his thoughts and due to lack of more psychological insights overlook what made him who he was and ended in consummation by his own inflated ego. Hence, bore the era of Will to Truth rather than Power to what's apparent and beautiful.
you're right to call anybody ugly if you feel like it, but this doesn't help you in any way. Is George Clooney the greatest philosopher then? Or are dignified and majestic looking Church Fathers, Archbishops (mostly Orthodox, of course) granted access to the Truth above a sickly Swiss goblin (I know he was German, I was at his little chalet in Switzerland)?
I think people take Nietzsche's "I am the Antichrist" chest beating at face value and don't appreciate the full trajectory of his life. His last letter from the asylum was signed "The Crucified One".
@@mentalitydesignvideo I assume you have a lot of interesting thoughts I could know. Can you please explain your take on Nietzsche and elaborate more on what you meant by your second paragraph taking Nietzsche as Anti-Christ at face value?
It would be interesting to delve into this. I feel like Nietzsche is a bit too extreme in his ideas. Hes like the needjerk reaction to what the west had been lacking up to that point. I dont think the best world is created solely trough will to power, but it sure as hell isnt created trough will to truth alone. The fact that correlating someones face to their ideas is such an unacceptable idea, even considered one of the first phalacies you learn in any philosophy or logic class, yet we all incstinctively treat people with varying levels of trust depending on their looks.
Nietsche reminded us that we were in one extreme of this specific axis and reminded us of the eixstence of the other extreme, now its up to us to find the best middle ground.
Id like if we had more discussions on how your face affects your thoughts, beyond the very basic stuff like confidence or getting laid. For example i think we have all noticed that the ''just be normal, dont over think'' types are usually good looking, while the types that go on and on about how doomed the world is are usually ugly. Its a fascinating topic, and an aspect of physical life that clearly has a huge impact on individual mental health and in the direction a society goes, because even if you manage to build a stable life with an ugly face, theres a big chance youre making others miserable with your ways of thinking, or you've subconciously detected this so youve stopped trying to think deeply at all.
If we started considering this a number 1 priority instead of a show of vanity that has to be matured out of i think we would have a near utopia on our hands. We got so much material goods, now we only need to remove the causes of self loathing so we can let ourselves enjoy all that we have.
A dumb, maybe childish, but possibly powerfull example, remember how as a kid you wanted things that you now have? You had to beg for a specific toy or videogame, and got one or two a year if lucky, but now, even tho youre not specially rich, you got all the games you want, yet you just dont get into them as much? Could it be, and call me crazy, that knowing that you dont look like the protagonist, the hero, playing that game feels more like escapism, while as a kid, were you could at least logically think you might look like a hero when you grow up, playing those games felt almost like hero training, like you were playing a simulation of something you could do if the situation arose, that made it feel real. That to me is the diference in fiction, games in this case, as escapism as oposed to as inspiration.
If games could be inspiration instead of escapism, wich depends on our characteristics, like looks, that would have impossible to overstate positive effects imo.
The belief that physical appearance reflects goodness or evil is found in most of the Indo-European cultures and a number of others. In a lot of those cultures they demanded that their leaders and priests had a physical intactness and beauty about them. For example, there's a story in Ireland of the deity Nuada losing an arm in battle and becoming inadmissible as king because of that. The story about Tyr losing an arm to the wolf has a similar idea to it. The Zoroastrians in Iran had a metaphysical viewpoint on physical appearance where being born ugly/deformed was a sign of having a bad spirit.
There's a similar idea in a number of Middle-Eastern/African/Aboriginal cultures that also promote physical beauty as goodness, with the one major distinction being that they promote circumcision, holding that the fore-skin of the male contains a remnant of a female soul and has to be cast off at induction into manhood. This is one of the big distinctions between the two ideas where the old Indo-Europeans would regard circumcision as removing admissibility to the priesthood/nobility whereas in places like Egypt it was required for those positions. One of the best illustrations of this is found in the Mandean story about Abraham (Mandeans being a Middle-Eastern sect that hold circumcision invalidates one from the priesthood). They believe that Abraham's circumcision covenant was actually instituted because he accidently damaged his fore-skin, a physical mar that made admission to the priesthood impossible. In Judaism, it is typically held that the uncircumcised state of man is a result of the Adamic fall and that certain figures like Moses were born circumcised as a sign of restoration. Note that Judaism otherwise originally insisted upon the same sort of physical appearance/lack of mar standards for its priests and nobles as Indo-European philosophy, just with the modification of the need for circumcision.
What began as a relatively minor distinction between these two lines of thought has quite possibly had a much larger philosophical impact, even effecting our viewpoint to this day. Christianity, of course, made the circumcision a internal one with the claim that one must have a circumcised heart. In essence, the teaching of slight male physical imperfection turned to belief in a fallen or tainted human form, which ended up in the belief in a naturally tainted human heart. It's the vanity of natural appearance vs. the vanity of "I've done X and gone through X rite therefore I'm better than you". And eventually the ideas of goodness and evil became so internalized, so otherworldly, that they turned into modern victim culture which itself has a hyper-focus on appearance, just in a inverted manner.
"Are not all young men ready to trust the promise of a pretty face and to infer beauty of soul from beauty of feature? An indefinable impulse leads them to believe that moral perfection must co-exist with physical perfection."
- Honoré de Balzac
monkey noises
I've always thought Nietzsche's thoughts on Socrates were a little strange. Socrates, a pessimist? Honestly I would admire him even more if he was. But earlier in the Birth of Tragedy, he accused him of rationalistic, Apollonian optimism, and decried his formula of 'reason-virtue-happiness'. Socrates says death is a good thing but that's about as pessimistic as he gets. I'm not sure if Nietzsche correctly interpreted his final words, but I'm no Plato scholar.
Other than that, I think his insights are mostly very profound; but with me I admire in Socrates everything that Nietzsche hates.
I think Nietzsche was someone who was poisoned by overcorrection. However, I think that was also a symptom of him being one of the first of his kind in a time that was much more tolerant of such an idea: the atheist philosopher.
There is a larger argument at play. It has to do with acceptance of eugenic prinicples, physiognomy, and a general consciousness of race and biology as an underlying factor in the birth and development of civilization and philosophy. Of course, by our standards all this could simply be dismissed.
Socrates is a plebian element, his rationalism and critique of the city of Athens, is a sign of subversion, of degeneration. The warlike aristocratic element, the Dionyisian, is of no need of rationalist philosophy. They ruled because they were better, more vital. This is Nietzsche's line of argument.
@@brahimilyes681 the Republic talks at length about eugenics, and consciously breeding the guardians for preferred traits.
Saying that Socrates is a "plebian element" is wild when he was a foil to _democratic_ Athens; or calling him subversive when the dialogues spend half of the time calling out actual subversive thinkers -- who were deemed as forerunners to postmodernism by postmodernists themselves -- , many of whom were given room to thrive by the very "trad" Athens you so adore.
I feel like people should inform their view of Socrates from primary sources rather getting it secondhand from Nietzsche, who distorts history to fit a desired paradigm.
If beauty is a argument,
Then Plato already won it.
Given that Nietzsche was influenced by Schopenhauer, I wouldn't be surprised if Schopenhauer's hieroglyph idea, that a person's face was like a hieroglyph stamped onto them, led to Nietzsche calling Socrates ugly. Maybe the line between inside and outside, superficiality and substance, is actually quite thin or even illusory. Maybe the substance of something is merely a combination of superficial faces.
Socrates should've been handsome. Now we know.
Right….apparently his words hold no salt - I do not agree with Nietzsche in this sense. The logic is interesting, at best, not at all without blaring exceptions. If beauty lends itself to philosophical potential, then we are doomed - just look at the “beautiful people” of our modern society.
@@TepidTrowel The thing is, we glorify beautifull people so much that they dont even feel the need to develop philosophies, so its relegated to uglier, more insecure people that feel like they need something more to be good enough.
But if you really pressed them, i think beautifull people would come ahead.
Why Nietzsche hated Socialism or Capitalism are two great subjects to discuss and dips in, briefly, of Nietzsche's politics.
Nitechze isn't very much different from Plato. Like Plato, Nitechze is on the other extreme end. Both are extremists
@@Lastman1900 How can you have a Nietzsche avatar and yet not be able to spell his name?
@@Joe-os3vpI should have? I don't think that's very important, given it's quite difficult to remember the exact spelling of his name. Plus i don't wanna put much effort into remembering the exact spelling of the name of this wretch.
@@Joe-os3vpWhy would I wanna remember the exact spelling of his name? I don't worship him 😂
You have him as your profile picture.. @@Lastman1900
You don't worship Nietschze yet use his photo as your own while not even being able to spell his name... @@Lastman1900
I don't get this argument at all. How does it make Socrates bad?
It makes him ignoble in the eyes of Neitzsche.
Wundervoll Mein Freund. Gut gemacht.
I doubt anyone would swipe right on Nietzsche's mug.
Lou Salome swiped left.
Especially after he went bald
Cope. He was handsome.
@@omaiorcornodewesteros4748 ur the coper inkwell
@@RKO1988
Cope. Nietzsche mogs your old ass.
Your channel is amazing
Would Nitechze would have been Nitechze had he been born in the body of Brad Pitt? 😂 i don't think so
Nite...who?
@@Divide_et_lmperaNee-chaaa man the German with big moustache
Bruh was a sociopath.
@@BlackJesus8463😂😂😂 dude likes a world in which people with fat 👃 and big 💋 are to be seen as spiritually and physically ugly 😂😂
@@BlackJesus8463😂 only the folks with sizeable 👃 💋 are allowed to talk 😂
Dunking on Socrates for the third time 😅
lol
Very interesting to consider dialects as a form of revenge or pettiness. We often see similar parallels play out amongst the disenfranchised of modernity.
This video was great.
"A man may look like a god on the outside, but if his words lack grace and wisdom, he is but an empty shell. Yet another, though short and ungainly, may have a gift for speech that captivates and persuades, so that his audience looks at him with delight."
Homer, The Odyssey
"Beauty is not in the face, but in the actions of the brave."
Pre Socratic spartan saying
Ancient greeks morals were not that simple or monolithic even predating the short ungainly ugly faced brave war veteran and gifted speaker Socrates, I do agree there was a moral crisis after the Peloponnesian war and post Socratic philosophy is in many ways against pre Socratic values and there was a new sort of submissiveness among the greeks that allowed for the Macedonian hegemony which only became extremely intensified during the hellenstic age and later when it came under the Romans when the greeks many of them becoming literally educated slaves, court historians writing hagiographic histories of Roman emperors, greeklings.
Would all things being equal one man ugly and the other beautiful, the beautiful would be considered more virtuous to pre socratic greeks yes, it is also worth noting Xenophon who admired Socrates was a conservative and his socrates the same in apperance though different in is iconoclastic temperament. Aclibades was indeed beautiful but he was also brillant as both a strategist and a speaker.
"Alcibiades was, in truth, a most able speaker; his speech captivated his hearers, and his understanding was equal to his eloquence. He had a wonderful faculty of accommodating himself to the times and circumstances in which he was placed."
Xenophon Hellenica
Aclibades admired Socrates and this association helped lead to his execution. The chief difference highlighted between them was not beauty to the greeks, it was excess. Aclibades was driven by passion to excess, he was radiant in his decadence , his pride became close to something else, hubris. A hubris that lead to his downfall.
"Socrates, who had a great influence over Alcibiades, restrained him while he was still young and prevented his being completely corrupted by his great natural gifts and the excess of his prosperity."
Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades
"I admired the excellence of his character, his wisdom, his courage, and his endurance in all things. I felt that I could not endure to live the life I was leading, filled with my own imperfections, and I was convinced that I must submit to him and follow him wherever he might lead."
Plato, Symposium
"For he was of noble family and handsome, but these advantages were not sufficient for him; he thought he ought to be the first in everything."
Plato, Alcibiades I
"It was not his enemies, but his own way of living, that caused his downfall, for his luxurious and licentious habits alienated the affections of the people and gave his adversaries ample ground to attack him."
Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades
"Socrates, even in his trial, referred to Alcibiades and others as examples of how he tried to turn the youth toward virtue, though many of them, like Alcibiades, did not follow the path he set for them."
Plutarch, Life of Alcibiades
His maneuvering crossed the line into treachery all things repulsive to the greeks but also naturally dramatically intriguing and in the context of a laconaphile contingent in Athenian society perhaps not as unforgivable to them a faction socrates was associated with as opposed to the more patriotic Athenians we are more likely to imagine, whose views are closer to what is imagined in the popular imagination and were romantized in memory.
"Alcibiades was, in every way, the ablest man of his time for the requirements of the state, provided he chose to be honest. His manner of life made him objects of universal observation, and caused the Athenians to commit affairs to his hands and then to be mistrustful of him in consequence of his extravagant habits and aims."
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War
Pericles another great and even more admired contemporary had a head that was considered embarrassing in it's shape. His wife was a metic and possibly a madam and his son only a citizen by popular degree. The greeks were complicated.
"His head was of a somewhat longish form, so that, for the most part, the statues and pictures of him are made with a helmet on, the workmen apparently being willing to avoid a peculiar and odd appearance."
Plutarch, Life of Pericles
His ugliness though is not a unique feature in him being a man who was listened to. Also he was not a slave, he was a freeman, and he did not have the morality of a slave. His students Plato and Xenophon had authoritarian streaks both having connections to the spartan backed thirty tyrants in all likelihood and from aristocratic backgrounds with Plato often being openly classist, they were anti populists. They were the sorts who opposed the radical democratic and fiercely patriotic views of men like Thrasybulus.
"The soul of the petty tradesman, intent upon his petty concerns, cannot help but become small and warped."
Plato The Republic
Aclibades does not represent power he reprsented a dishonest trickster the greeks admired think of Odysseus. He also was maybe the universally intriguing hypersexual rogue, like Oscar Wilde, Lord Byron or Casanova, he was pure id, perhaps the ur Byronic hero, with charisma, talent and looks to match. He was above all things, interesting.
"Odysseus, the wily and resourceful, of many wiles, who excels in cunning and craft."
Homer, The Odyssey
"Odysseus is a man of wit and guile, but not without reason, for he bends his words to serve the greater good. Achilles, bold and direct, would not stoop to deception, yet which serves the cause better?"
Sophocles, Philoctetes
The pre socractic greeks existed on a balance of reason, honor and pride. They had a complicated relationship with dishonesty. With later Socratic greek ethics playing down martial honor etc...Socrates ugliness apart from simply being the real man's appearance, highlight the power of his capabilities in all other facets, his physical strength is mentioned, his courage during war, his sharp tongue, his analytical mind and drinking prowess, despite a disarming appearance and lack of status beyond being a citizen and freeman, and that he was for the greeks considered taking payment as a sign of untrustworthyness and he did not charge for his teaching.
"He who cannot live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god; a slave to necessity cannot be free."
Aristotle, Politics
"I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead."
Homer, The Odyssey
"If I had engaged in work for payment, I should have brought dishonor upon myself and my mission."
Socrates in Plato's Apology
His mystical disheveledness and poverty made him not unlike the wandering religous mystics who were contemporary to the Buddha, an archetype of a supremely free man outside of the social hierachy not beneath it.
"No man is free who cannot command himself"
Socrates in Xenophon's Memorabilia
"Socrates was not only mentally superior to all men but also physically stout, enduring hunger, thirst, and cold like no other, and showing unparalleled courage in battle."
Plato, Symposium
Nor was he a plebian for the greeks had no such thing, he was a free man, a citizen in a polis that was not a republic but a direct democracy, there were no patricians, plebians, novos-homos or equites. There was stratification but he was above the wealthy metic as a citizen, as an Athenian he was not the lowest of the low in the context of athenian society, Socrates was not Epicurus who taught slaves and women, he was not a freed slave like Epictetus. He did not preach egalitarianism.
"Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide... cities will have no rest from evils."
Plato The Republic
This became warped in the no longer soverign or democratic hellenstic era in the generations after Plato, the greeks now neutered, under the control or the hellenstic kings, unable to seek glory for the polis, argue in the assembly all of them idiots by the ancient greek definition, men who do not truly participate in democracy channeled their energies into more apolitical pursuits, the greeks of the classical age would surerly not see the hellenstic greeks as "free", so the ethics and reception of philosophy during the hellenstic age moved away from "master morality".
"Live unnoticed."
Epicurus
"If you wish to be free, do not wish for anything in your control or outside of it. Do not wish to be a senator, or a consul, or a leader of men. Instead, desire to be free, and the only way to be free is to desire what is your own."
Epictetus Discourses
Socrates is not to blame for this shift, it is Philip the second and Alexander who reduced them. Alexander the great, the classical ubermench made his beloved greeks closer to the hellenstic last men.
"You cannot afford to be idle, men of Athens, or to wait for others to act. Freedom and slavery are both before you; choose freedom, and strive to maintain it."
Demosthenes Third Philippic
The hellenstic greeks choose slavery, and their philosophy, their platonism and their warped image of Socrates was a product of their slave morality, rather than Socrates himself being it's harbinger or manifestation. Perhaps it is better to talk about pre and post Phillipic or Alexanderian greece and morals than pre and post Socratic.
Can you make a video about Thus Spoke Zarathustra? I started reading it, but is really complex
Another awesome video!❤
Ah yes
People trust good looking celebrities more than those who are smart ans intelligent as shjt. So true Nietzhe. U actually proven ur self right by making a false argument on ur own. What a smart move!
Nietzsche problem with Socrates is the same problem he had with every other philosopher on the planet: He wasn't as smart as Nietzsche (according to himself).
When is zarathustra vid dropping
But did the presocratic not believe in a world beyond appearance?
What would otherwise be the purpose of reducing all phenomena to one Arche?
They might have been naive realists, but they still believed that the world has permanence beyond the subjective.
both are true, beauty is objective to a degree. Nietzsche is swinging too hard in one extreme, while Socrates might be too far on the other. Right now we pretend that knowing how to ignore someone's looks is the biggest sign of maturity, i dont think thats always the best coure of action.
Perhaps Socrates' appearance was no coincidence?
Perhaps Nietzsche wasn't entirely honest with his works?
Niccolo Machiavelli was not an original thinker at all, although still extremely appreciated.
The Great Work continues...
93/93
Socrates was also a great warrior. A real stoic.
Neitsche was a physical weakling and military failure. He pulled a tit muscle whilst mounting a horse which was his first failed attempt. No joke, look it up.
That’s why he hated Socrates. No doubt he wanted desperately to be as good as Socrates but he just wasn’t.
To make things worse, Neitsche’s entire philosophy is simply an inverse of Socrates philosophy which means Neitsche didn’t actually come up one single new idea. The best he could manage, in his bitter weakling hatred for his hero Socrates, was to invert his hero’s teachings.
It’s incredibly sad really
Without Nietzsche there would be no contrast to the Truth
"And if you haven't been to a logic class why not ..." lol nice segue to your sponsor
Are you Dutch?
German
The Prophet Elisha was bald. Leah was the homely sister, yet the fruitful one who birthed Judah--the line of Christ. Christ himself was described as having no beauty. That said, it is extremely difficult to see moral greatness in the physically unappealing. This prejudice cuts deeper than any other. Nietzsche probably would have regarded all non-Europeans as ugly, so it's difficult to take this position as approaching truth.
Why is this video stuck under 1000 views?
It's not.
Nietzsche predicted mogging and mewing 🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫 BYE BYE
Nietzche's greatest Problem was that he attacked persons rather than ideas and he really was the Philosopher who celebrated "Unreason" Most where he ALWAYS made Assumptions which are either based on another assumption thag Correlation is causation or Other bad reasonings
Socrates was Ugly therefor He did this but If that's the only reason Then why not all Humiliated mans have same Philosophy why not all Followers of Socrates Ugly?Of course he had no Evidence of his Words lastly Socrates never said That Death is so Good that one should die if you have read apology You can easily understand he ment that "Death for Virtue" is honourable and Questioning is not arguing
Nietzsche attacked ideas constantly, but most people lack the intellect to understand anything he said; which is why they just repeat silly ad hominems they read online.
Nietzsche did attacked ideas, and he unlike many thinker ls did not overlook the importance of our world affecting our thought structures. Where as most philosophers were so invested with their Will to Truth, they got distracted from realising the errors of their instincts.
This is utter nonsense, Nietzsche attacked ideas all the time. And he never said Socrates's ugliness is "the only reason", Nietzsche had a lot of reasons for attacking him.
Actually, those of us who are not 15 years old (and I guess that is you as well) appreciate Nietzsche precisely because he gave voice (and a brilliant one too, without equal) to unreason, to base passions, to animal desires, to the beast in man. It had to come out once "Enlightenment" idiocy killed God, someone had to give it voice, even at the price of one's madness.
You mischaracterize the presocratics' fidelity to appearances and looks. Many presocratics did not trust mere appearances--the monist Parmenides, for example, invited us to question our sense--which say that the world is full of diversity when indeed the world is one. Thales, too, thought the cosmos was made of water--though it didn't look as such. Democritus said the world was made of atoms but looks like a world of things.
The point is rather they didn’t believe in a Hinterwelt, world beyond the senses, like Plato did
@@WeltgeistYTI get it. Plato’s Forms is an ideal abstraction, while Democritus and Thales, while skeptical of the senses, were materialistic and committed to phusis. Is that right?
2:16 where does he say that? 😂
In the Parerga and Paralipomena, his essay collection
Is Nietzsche glorifying narcissism?
So Alcibides was beautiful, but not a good leader. That's why having a popularity contest over looks doesn't really play out well. Beauty doesn't equal competence or loyalty which it seems Alcibides was not loyal to his own people refuting Nietzsche arguments. Athens didn't fall because of an ugly man, but good looking men who were poor leaders. Maybe he was decent general, but if you aren't loyal then you're just a Benedict Arnold. Your soldiers and citizens for that matter cannot trust someone who switches sides like that.
how ironic
Nietzche is to the western philosophy what Socrates is to the ancient Greek philosophy.
@@howdareyou5800 No he isn't.
@Joe-os3vp the only thing I know is that I dunno a thing 😂
In what way
The other extreme representing the forgotten side that no one wants to hear but needs to.
@@tomk2720 both said that a golden age of philosophy was begging when in fact was ending both were the pinnacle of their respective philosophy world
Nietzsche´s critique of Socrates based on his looks is fairly infantile; what about if Socrates had been a rather good-looking man? What influence might have had on his thought? BTW, Nietzsche was not precisely handsome and that makes his critique even more ludicrous.
What are you talking about... he was a gigachad!
He never saw the guy but a wrote a book about hearsay. Bruh was a genius.
After the rejection from the Russian poetess it all went downhill from there 😢
@@arslongavitabrevis5136 Maybe go and read some Ludovici, or consider why nearly all criminals are ugly. The body and mind are not separate. Mutations of the genome affect both body and brain.
Bravo. I don’t know when he came up with these statements, but he should have included his own prejudices in his book “Beyond Good and Evil” - I don’t know if he thought himself to have any…
Vielleicht geht’s besser auf deutsch?
It's amazing that you discuss Nietzsche's vitriol as a system of ideas (which it isn't, really, an outgrowth of his own pathologies) rather that the precursor to normal internet discourse.
Il n’y a aucune preuve à ce jour que Socrate ait réellement existé.C’est la pensée de Platon qui est dans son apologie. Mais continuez à dire n’importe quoi, c’est amusant. J’aimerais bien voir la tronche des commentateurs qui pensent que la laideur n’est pas l’expression d’une âme incohérente et laide. Les exceptions existent mais elles confirment la règle. 🎉
Greeks in times of Alcibiades: *mindset so stupid it became largely self-destrucrive*
Nietzsche: Gawd dang, they were so based back then!
I think physiognomy is a lot more true than people are comfortable admitting to be honest.
lol ok bruh
Unironically. Idk if people act it out out of social pressure to act the way you look. Or if acting a certain way as you grow up makes you look a certain way. But ive seen people in teh same family look different and act accordingly different to an uncanny degree, i havnt found a single person who beats this rule
@@dkt2365 True. Good breeding versus bad breeding.
That means you have spent too much time listening to old people's ideas. You have acquired some of their biases and would be best served to remember all those ideas are profoundly limited by all they don't know that we do now. Don't be weird, individual variation in terms of personality, temperament and whatnot is not predictable.
@@nikeisagreekgoddess4135 Nobody said it was predictable. And your argument "that's what old people think and old people were wrong" is beyond lame and lamer.
Says a man who was rejected 4 times by the person he loved 😂
So you're implying that if a man gets rejected by a woman then it must be because he is ugly. Very lowbrow remark.
money also matters in a dictatorship of the inbred
She was a player and very sought after at the time. Give our boy a chance
@@Joe-os3vp Not necessarily, but let´s face it, Nietzsche was NOT good-looking. He was not in a position to be a judge of Beauty. 😁😁
@@Joe-os3vp Denial isn't proof.
well Nietzsche had an ugly personality and views
How much you wanna bet Jesus and Muhammad were 6'6" chads? 😂
Tbh the whole point of Jesus is being Meek, thats why hes always portrayed with that long, tired face, that inspires imperfection and weakness.
@aguspuig6615 no one would've worshipped a short ugly man. He must have been 6'6" with rare good looks
@aguspuig6615 no one would've worshipped a short below average man. He must have been 6'6" with rare good looks
Pretty privilege
The smoke he had for Socrates is equal to the smoke I have for Plato. I HATE platonists; all they deal with are the imaginary and baseless faith. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if most of Nietzsche's problems with Socrates are really problems with Plato, who shamelessly used his teacher to bolster his shitty ideas.
Well I've never seen such vitriolic anti-Platonism in my life... except in Nietzsche's works of course.
Socrates corrupted Athenian young men. In more ways than one. Lots to dislike about this questionable-looking logic-chopper.
@@ConnorThompson-w2k Very good! 😂😂😂
Yeah, lets listen to nietsche... who went mad and fell in love with his sister. No faitnh nothing, just plain rascalism, elevated to a philosopher... I could care less about what Neitsche thinks of anyone... what I think of Nietsche is like how many think of Hitler... Bitter and resentful, like he never scored any action (like an inkwell)... so he eventually ended with his sister... pathetic.
@RJ-ch9zf I myself have many criticisms for Nietzsche, and I even hate many aspects of his thought, but what you are saying is false... Nietzsche did not fall in love with his sister; quite the opposite, in fact. He wrote a letter to her expressing his hatred for her anti-Semetism, which he was deeply troubled by. Nietzsche's sister would later make forged works in Nietzsche's name with said anti-Semetism all over it. Secondly Nietzsche likely went mad because of a genetic disease inherited from his father. Thirdly, the Nazis misappropriated Nietzsche's ideas; although it can very much be argued that parts of his thought are fascist in nature. But Nietzsche was a virulent anti-anti-Semite, and totally opposed to the role that the state plays in fascism.