Excellent synthesis. Why did the sophists live such happy lives and advocate the same philosophy as Nietzsche? It's because they got paid well and were valued by society. Going through the classes cost about 200k. Gorgias commissioned a life-size solid gold statue of himself. His "On Nature and Nonexistence" says the same thing as Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.
Great point about the Sophists. My favorite anecdote is when Gorgias' students refused to pay him for his teaching by applying the lessons he taught them about sophistry and relativism
Not to be unkind, but you dont understand Nietzsche very well. Dont give up though hes extremely hard to truly understand. I give you props for your attempt.
To me it is undeniable that the feeling one gets from genuine, heartfelt understanding, and the sparkle you can see in another's eyes when they finally receive that love and warmth that no one else was giving them, makes me feel not like a slave, but rather a humble servant.
I agree completely. It's almost a cliche, but I've found real, genuine love that strikes the heart is more powerful than the most formidable of intellectual arguments
undoubtedly his physiology played a crucial role too, though I consider his overall downfall to be multifaceted with his philosophy contributing as well
Ideally love much of his philosophy and his discussions on virtue but like many he's a little too extreme and idealistic. I also admire Socrates and Jesus... I think the three of them would have had great debates and agreed on a lot more than we suspect
I disagree with the notion that his ‘ideas’ drove him mad. He was known to have many illnesses throughout his life, as he wrote about in works such as Ecce Homo.
I still believe in Will to Power, because Nietzsche outlines it as the only clear alternative to an untruthful submission to the Good. Nietzsche was right so they shunned him and let him eat himself up
No human being can know everything. No human being can do everything. No human being can be everything. That is why Nietzsche failed. Morality exists because human beings must work together and combine their strengths to achieve greatness. We read history, and oftentimes the "greatest" men write their own stories after the fact. They often omit the parts where they depended on, used and then betrayed other people whom their greatness relied upon and was built upon. Morality is boon to society and a hindrance to the individual, but from birth the individual relied upon it to be in the position to achieve greatness in the first place. The "Ubermensch" who writes does not teach himself to write or read nor does he invent the alphabet or system that allows him to do either of these things and he doesn't spread his ideas only to himself. The first "Ubermensch" to drop morality can surprise and betray the rest and claim their credit as his own. Nevertheless, to claim that one man is inherently "greater" is based on the same fallacy that claims there are "good men" and "evil men." Things like the "common good," "greatness" and "progress" are always social activities, only made possible because of collective morality. Please correct my wrong thinking. Tl;dr - Does the "Overman" push himself out of his own uterus too?
I would be curious about where your feelings on the origins of morality. It seems you're suggesting it's socially constructed? If so I would be curious as to what end society created their morals, and how you'd explain certain values that transcend across culture, time and place??
@@seanberube I dont have a very well developed idea about that, but this is what I got: I think certain morals are socially constructed. Usually ones linked to specific cultures or religious groups. Social norms (e.g. ancient Chinese belief that you shouldn't cut your hair because it links you to your family) or mores (e.g. hospitality towards travelers, strangers and foreigners in many African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian cultures) would certainly be socially constructed. I think others are sort of "evolved." Empathy has a biological, or at the very least physiological component. A social species that doesn't have some intrinsic motivation to not kill or steal from each other every time they wanted something wouldn't last very long. Not to say there aren't certain members of a species (e.g. psychopaths) who seem to lack these characteristics, but in my mind this would be comparable to a birth defect or genetic disease. However tribalism is a part of that too, and within certain societies, killing other "tribes" is not considered immoral and is even actively encouraged. It's like empathy for your tribe at the expense of outsiders, and certain "morals" are developed in order to emphasize the difference between two tribes. Oftentimes these morals can be quite arbitrary and at other times they serve some specific purpose, but these would be socially constructed. And none of the physiological limitations are hard limits either, so they can be overcome. For example, an otherwise moral starving man might kill his former ally in order to survive. Someone who can overcome this limitation would have an individual advantage over those who can't, as long as this person has the power or influence to overcome the objections to their behavior. But it doesn't mean they are inherently "more able," "more intelligent" or "more fit," it just means that they can cut corners when they need to which provides a large advantage. In my mind, it would be like someone who cheated in a race by taking a head-start or hamstringing their opponents then claiming that they are the fastest runner. Edit: My original comment was less about the social construction of morality, but about individuals claiming individual "greatness" after relying on the collective achievement of others their whole lives. Then when they have a chance, they opportunistically attempt to break away from the pack and believe they did it on their own. In this discussion, I don't think it is necessary to talk about objective morality, just achievement. Whether that morality comes from the society itself (I don't think the most important bits do, but some parts unquestionably do) or from biological necessity or from a deity is not relevant to that argument (I suspect I'm mostly likely to wrong about that, that's usually my blind-spot, i.e. sometimes I think of things as being irrelevant to certain arguments when they are very relevant.) I added in the bit about the fallacy of "good and evil" men, but that does muddle the water a bit. To clarify, I don't believe there are "good or evil" men, only "good or evil" actions (e.g. a man can be "good" a hundred times and then choose to be evil. We see this with a lot of rulers in history who were generally benevolent, but then they began to believe that benevolence was an intrinsic part of their character and any action they took to serve themselves also served benevolence.)
Nietzsche was not very smart for a supposedly smart man. Look, if your philosophy leads to madness and you die a dribbling pulp... probably not the best philosophy
You just pull that out of your ass. If you understood Nietzsche you would know that all of us eventually failing and dying is not only part of his philosophy but part of reality.
@@kentjensen4504 you don't need Nietzsche for that brother, only eyes. And, I wouldn't underestimate... what I can pull out of my ass. You don't know what I've digested.
My thoughts exactly. It's not always fair to judge a philosopher by the life they lived, but if I find that a philosopher either didn't live their philosophy (like Hume), or did live their philosophy but was a terrible person (like Sartre), then I consider that a great argument for the silliness of what they argue
His philosophy IS possible to achieve, I am explaining how in my... "Practical Guide to the Superman" series. Which the creator of this video will no doubt found interesting.
@@seanberubeHope you do find the time to check the series out. I find pretty much all discourse around Nietzsche frustrating, as people don´t really submit to the exercise of changing their outlook if it proves inferior to another, antagonistic one. I try to force people to confront Nietzsche and realize just how powerful, just how much of a new, superior world can be reached thru his works.
I think he's an unforgettable writer! But I was raised with religious dogma and bought into it for the better part of my life. His mytho poetic work Thus Spoke Zarathustra felt like a dream I'd had before. His tight rope walker "scene" was a recurring dream I'd have as a child! It represents the straight and narrow path to heaven. I think Nietzche's philosophical legacy can be seen as an experiment in defying one's inherent nature. His written philosophy was a challenge to himself. He couldn't overcome the epigenetically instilled values within his unconscious mind. As much as I dislike Nietzche as a person, I also respect and admire his spirit. I personally think he went insane from the weight of conscience knowing the effects his ideas would have on people. He couldn't kill good and evil as values within himself. And he had many years to do it! I personally see a really fascinating study in human nature, both in his life and work.
@@jono3505 It's funny how polarizing even responses to Nietzsche are! I'm with you in that I find him utterly fascinating and a great warning, though I also wouldn't recommend him to most of my loved ones because of how dangerous I think he can be. Even as one who thoroughly disagrees with him, I can't deny that he was a genius, and as you said, Zarathustra was remarkably haunting.
Excellent synthesis. Why did the sophists live such happy lives and advocate the same philosophy as Nietzsche? It's because they got paid well and were valued by society. Going through the classes cost about 200k. Gorgias commissioned a life-size solid gold statue of himself. His "On Nature and Nonexistence" says the same thing as Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense.
Great point about the Sophists. My favorite anecdote is when Gorgias' students refused to pay him for his teaching by applying the lessons he taught them about sophistry and relativism
Last hypothesis (by serious historians) leads to Syphilis not basic philo/psychology.
His symptoms and longevity after his breakdown don't seem to point to syphilis I'm pretty sure.
@@jonhoppyeah that was fake, it was an umbrella standard diagnosis given to everyone
Not to be unkind, but you dont understand Nietzsche very well. Dont give up though hes extremely hard to truly understand. I give you props for your attempt.
Most useless comment on here
@@dandavis4306 The guy is right. This is a not a good reading of Nietzsche. For those that don't see that, bring awareness to it is quite helpful.
To me it is undeniable that the feeling one gets from genuine, heartfelt understanding, and the sparkle you can see in another's eyes when they finally receive that love and warmth that no one else was giving them, makes me feel not like a slave, but rather a humble servant.
I agree completely. It's almost a cliche, but I've found real, genuine love that strikes the heart is more powerful than the most formidable of intellectual arguments
@@seanberube An individual who holds love without logic will eventually commit a hateful action in the name of love.
@@seanberube Coming back to this, I found someone that made me reconnect with my heart, and it was the key that made my brain blossom.
@@Jukestar that’s beautiful! I’m happy to hear :)
@@seanberube Thank you!
Surely you know better than this. He went mad because of late-stage syphilis or a brain tumor.
undoubtedly his physiology played a crucial role too, though I consider his overall downfall to be multifaceted with his philosophy contributing as well
Ideally love much of his philosophy and his discussions on virtue but like many he's a little too extreme and idealistic.
I also admire Socrates and Jesus... I think the three of them would have had great debates and agreed on a lot more than we suspect
I disagree with the notion that his ‘ideas’ drove him mad. He was known to have many illnesses throughout his life, as he wrote about in works such as Ecce Homo.
I still believe in Will to Power, because Nietzsche outlines it as the only clear alternative to an untruthful submission to the Good. Nietzsche was right so they shunned him and let him eat himself up
Hey man, great summary. Keep up the good work!
Thanks so much!
Really enjoyed this presentation.
Glad you enjoyed it :)
great video it really helped me understand him
Glad you found it helpful :)
Descent into insanity 🗿
No human being can know everything. No human being can do everything. No human being can be everything. That is why Nietzsche failed. Morality exists because human beings must work together and combine their strengths to achieve greatness. We read history, and oftentimes the "greatest" men write their own stories after the fact. They often omit the parts where they depended on, used and then betrayed other people whom their greatness relied upon and was built upon. Morality is boon to society and a hindrance to the individual, but from birth the individual relied upon it to be in the position to achieve greatness in the first place. The "Ubermensch" who writes does not teach himself to write or read nor does he invent the alphabet or system that allows him to do either of these things and he doesn't spread his ideas only to himself. The first "Ubermensch" to drop morality can surprise and betray the rest and claim their credit as his own. Nevertheless, to claim that one man is inherently "greater" is based on the same fallacy that claims there are "good men" and "evil men." Things like the "common good," "greatness" and "progress" are always social activities, only made possible because of collective morality. Please correct my wrong thinking.
Tl;dr - Does the "Overman" push himself out of his own uterus too?
Nice cope.
I would be curious about where your feelings on the origins of morality. It seems you're suggesting it's socially constructed? If so I would be curious as to what end society created their morals, and how you'd explain certain values that transcend across culture, time and place??
@@seanberube I dont have a very well developed idea about that, but this is what I got: I think certain morals are socially constructed. Usually ones linked to specific cultures or religious groups. Social norms (e.g. ancient Chinese belief that you shouldn't cut your hair because it links you to your family) or mores (e.g. hospitality towards travelers, strangers and foreigners in many African, Middle Eastern and Central Asian cultures) would certainly be socially constructed. I think others are sort of "evolved." Empathy has a biological, or at the very least physiological component. A social species that doesn't have some intrinsic motivation to not kill or steal from each other every time they wanted something wouldn't last very long. Not to say there aren't certain members of a species (e.g. psychopaths) who seem to lack these characteristics, but in my mind this would be comparable to a birth defect or genetic disease. However tribalism is a part of that too, and within certain societies, killing other "tribes" is not considered immoral and is even actively encouraged. It's like empathy for your tribe at the expense of outsiders, and certain "morals" are developed in order to emphasize the difference between two tribes. Oftentimes these morals can be quite arbitrary and at other times they serve some specific purpose, but these would be socially constructed. And none of the physiological limitations are hard limits either, so they can be overcome. For example, an otherwise moral starving man might kill his former ally in order to survive. Someone who can overcome this limitation would have an individual advantage over those who can't, as long as this person has the power or influence to overcome the objections to their behavior. But it doesn't mean they are inherently "more able," "more intelligent" or "more fit," it just means that they can cut corners when they need to which provides a large advantage. In my mind, it would be like someone who cheated in a race by taking a head-start or hamstringing their opponents then claiming that they are the fastest runner.
Edit: My original comment was less about the social construction of morality, but about individuals claiming individual "greatness" after relying on the collective achievement of others their whole lives. Then when they have a chance, they opportunistically attempt to break away from the pack and believe they did it on their own. In this discussion, I don't think it is necessary to talk about objective morality, just achievement. Whether that morality comes from the society itself (I don't think the most important bits do, but some parts unquestionably do) or from biological necessity or from a deity is not relevant to that argument (I suspect I'm mostly likely to wrong about that, that's usually my blind-spot, i.e. sometimes I think of things as being irrelevant to certain arguments when they are very relevant.) I added in the bit about the fallacy of "good and evil" men, but that does muddle the water a bit. To clarify, I don't believe there are "good or evil" men, only "good or evil" actions (e.g. a man can be "good" a hundred times and then choose to be evil. We see this with a lot of rulers in history who were generally benevolent, but then they began to believe that benevolence was an intrinsic part of their character and any action they took to serve themselves also served benevolence.)
@@TaxidermiedMessiah Nice ad hominem.
@@Dnichols619 You know who loves “working together”? Parasites.
Nietzsche was not very smart for a supposedly smart man. Look, if your philosophy leads to madness and you die a dribbling pulp... probably not the best philosophy
You just pull that out of your ass. If you understood Nietzsche you would know that all of us eventually failing and dying is not only part of his philosophy but part of reality.
@@kentjensen4504 you don't need Nietzsche for that brother, only eyes. And, I wouldn't underestimate... what I can pull out of my ass. You don't know what I've digested.
My thoughts exactly. It's not always fair to judge a philosopher by the life they lived, but if I find that a philosopher either didn't live their philosophy (like Hume), or did live their philosophy but was a terrible person (like Sartre), then I consider that a great argument for the silliness of what they argue
@@seanberube So you admit you can’t actually assess the ideas themselves.
@@kentjensen4504 That's quite an interesting conclusion to arrive at my friend!
Can’t say I agree much with Nietzche.
No one cares
I would consider that a good thing lol
@@seanberube no one cares
Anytime someone criticizes Nietzsche, i check his Profile and it always says: Im a Christian 😂
Given that he also wrote, "The Antichrist," I'd say it's only natural he and Christians will continuously be at odds :)
That's all good and all, but why are you saying "Overman" and not "Superman" when the latter is clearer and sounds more cool? 😎 🤔
This is a very fair critique of my video, and I suppose I'll have to explain this shortcoming to Jesus one day🤦♂
Superman is a terrible translation. There is no single word in English for it & the closest we can get is over & beyond.
His philosophy IS possible to achieve, I am explaining how in my...
"Practical Guide to the Superman" series.
Which the creator of this video will no doubt found interesting.
thanks for the recommendation my friend :)
@@seanberubeHope you do find the time to check the series out. I find pretty much all discourse around Nietzsche frustrating, as people don´t really submit to the exercise of changing their outlook if it proves inferior to another, antagonistic one. I try to force people to confront Nietzsche and realize just how powerful, just how much of a new, superior world can be reached thru his works.
He wasn't the most brilliant nor a genious.
Thanks. Completely forgettable writer. I wrote a paper (pen and ruled paper), then never thought of him again.😂
I think he's an unforgettable writer! But I was raised with religious dogma and bought into it for the better part of my life. His mytho poetic work Thus Spoke Zarathustra felt like a dream I'd had before. His tight rope walker "scene" was a recurring dream I'd have as a child! It represents the straight and narrow path to heaven. I think Nietzche's philosophical legacy can be seen as an experiment in defying one's inherent nature. His written philosophy was a challenge to himself. He couldn't overcome the epigenetically instilled values within his unconscious mind. As much as I dislike Nietzche as a person, I also respect and admire his spirit. I personally think he went insane from the weight of conscience knowing the effects his ideas would have on people. He couldn't kill good and evil as values within himself. And he had many years to do it! I personally see a really fascinating study in human nature, both in his life and work.
@@jono3505 It's funny how polarizing even responses to Nietzsche are! I'm with you in that I find him utterly fascinating and a great warning, though I also wouldn't recommend him to most of my loved ones because of how dangerous I think he can be.
Even as one who thoroughly disagrees with him, I can't deny that he was a genius, and as you said, Zarathustra was remarkably haunting.