00:00 📚 Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" is an attempt to present his entire philosophy, including major ideas, for a broader audience who may not be familiar with his work. 02:44 📖 Nietzsche essentially self-published "Beyond Good and Evil," and it was one of his most successful books at the time, despite only selling 114 copies initially. 05:00 🌐 Nietzsche's main task in "Beyond Good and Evil" is to question the value of the search for truth and challenge the belief in opposite values, leading to a critique of morality and metaphysics. 07:01 🔄 Nietzsche rejects the notion of opposite values, seeing good and evil as interdependent gradations rather than mutually opposed concepts, and he argues for an immoralist perspective. 14:12 💔 Nietzsche reconceptualizes truth as an object of desire, challenging the idea that philosophers engage in disinterested, rational reasoning, and highlighting the inherent irrationality in truth-seeking. 20:47 🌍 The 19th century is characterized by a shift from the romantic idealization of human reason to a more cynical view of human nature, marked by the recognition of our animalistic origins and unconscious motivations. 22:09 📚 Nietzsche criticizes dogmatism, highlighting that it may appear solemn but is often childish and amateurish in its attempts to capture truth. 24:11 🤔 Nietzsche points out that the separation of the doer from the deed, a hallmark of dogmatism, is a seduction by grammar and a product of linguistic limitations. 29:27 💭 Nietzsche sees dogmatic philosophies like vedanta and platonism as errors that, despite their shortcomings, contributed to human culture and civilization. 42:08 🗣 Nietzsche provocatively questions whether Socrates, who influenced Plato's dogmatism, may have deserved his fate of execution, given the negative impact of Plato's ideas. 43:46 🤔 Nietzsche discusses the absence of an absolute perceiver and the role of perspective in shaping our perception of reality. 44:11 🦁 Nietzsche uses the example of lambs and birds of prey to illustrate how different perspectives shape moral perception. 45:19 🔍 Our perception of reality is influenced by our vantage point, existence, and the scale at which we exist. 46:00 ⚖ Nietzsche argues that there is no absolute judge, and beings assert themselves based on their perspectives. 46:53 🧐 Nietzsche criticizes the error of universalizing one's perspective and discusses Plato's potential corruption by Socrates. 48:02 🌍 Nietzsche describes the tension created by the conflict between immoralists and moralists in European thought. 50:33 🏹 Nietzsche views the tension of the spirit as a valuable asset, comparable to drawing a bow, which allows for the pursuit of distant goals. 51:00 📰 Nietzsche criticizes newspaper reading as shallow and argues that it hinders the experience of spiritual need and tension. 51:57 🎯 Nietzsche references Jesuitism as an attempt to resolve the tension between morality and immorality, highlighting the ends justifying the means. 01:00:01 🤔 Nietzsche questions what within us truly desires truth and the origins of our will to truth, emphasizing the enigmatic nature of this desire. 01:05:24 🤔 Nietzsche raises the question of the value of truth-seeking and why we prioritize truth over untruth, uncertainty, or ignorance in our pursuit of knowledge. 01:07:32 🤯 Nietzsche explores the paradox of questioning the value of seeking the truth when truth-seeking itself is the highest value, leading to a self-reflective process. 01:13:33 🧐 Nietzsche criticizes the metaphysicians' fundamental faith in opposite values, highlighting the need for doubt at the threshold of philosophical inquiry. 01:22:30 🌍 Nietzsche challenges the idea of opposites and questions whether our valuations are provisional perspectives or frog perspectives that fail to see the larger reality. 01:25:16 🤔 Nietzsche suggests that fundamental value for life might be ascribed to deception, selfishness, and lust, challenging traditional notions of good and revered things. 01:25:45 🧐 Nietzsche anticipates the emergence of new philosophers who will be different from traditional dogmatists and explore the dangerous possibility that seemingly opposite values share the same essence. 01:28:19 🤯 Nietzsche argues that conscious thinking, even in philosophy, is guided by instincts, challenging the idea that it's the opposite of instinctual behavior. 01:31:42 🧐 Nietzsche contends that logic and conscious thinking are driven by physiological demands for the preservation of a certain type of life rather than being purely rational processes. 01:37:22 🤯 Nietzsche explains that false judgments, including synthetic judgments a priori, are indispensable for human existence, emphasizing that truth and logic are not objective but serve pragmatic purposes. 01:46:22 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes philosophers for not being honest enough in their work and posing as if they reached their opinions through pure, divine dialectic, when it's often driven by personal desires. 01:47:34 🧐 Nietzsche acknowledges that his own truth-seeking is driven by irrational passion, just like mystics who claim inspiration, but he emphasizes the importance of honesty about this drive. 01:49:07 😄 Nietzsche criticizes philosophers for their solemnness and seriousness, contrasting it with his lighthearted approach to truth-seeking, highlighting the irony that he's the most truthful by questioning the will to truth. 01:52:06 🧙 Nietzsche critiques philosophers like Kant and Spinoza for cloaking their philosophies in complex, impenetrable forms, using it to mask their personal insecurities and vulnerabilities.
Nietzsche's genius was how he understood paradoxes of existence. Like Blake. This allowed him to move closer to a form of the wisdom of being and living more than any other thinker. As he says in Beyond Good and Evil: "'Live according to nature'? How could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourselves are and must be?"
@@alwaysgreatusa223 It sounds to me like Nietzsche is criticizing the very idea that nature and people are distinct things that behave differently. He is pointing out that, as beings within and part of nature, the processes that govern our outward behavior ARE acting as nature does. And just as the "rational" processes of nature sometimes lead to chaos, so too do the natural processes within our brains sometimes lead to chaos. In the case of what is classically called "nature", this is things like volcanoes that devastate ecosystems, in human beings it is irrational and impulsive behaviors. The fallacy is thinking that human thoughts and behavior are the lowest level of activity, and therefore our thoughts can be distinguished from nature. But we know that our thoughts are influenced by brain chemistry, which DOES behave by the so-called "rational and indifferent" processes of nature.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 But that's not what Nietzsche is saying. He is saying that the drive towards truth and rationality is just as based in our emotions and desires as anything else. As for your volcano question, you prove my point for me. Just as volcanoes seem chaotic and destructive to the environment around them, they still follow laws of nature. So too do our thoughts seem chaotic and irrational on the surface, but they are caused by laws of biochemistry. Our conscious minds are no more or less chaotic than a natural disaster, and what Nietzsche is pointing out is that you make a mistake by assuming that your conscious thoughts are the fundamental thing which is following natural laws rather than your neurochemistry, just as it is a mistake to assume that the volcano is the fundamental thing causing the destruction, rather than the magma and gases following laws of physics.
@@alwaysgreatusa223And yet many philosophers of Nietzsche's time and before claimed that seeking truth was simply objectively good. Even today this is a very common sentiment. While you or I might understand this to be the case, Nietzsche is making the point to those who still think that our drive to truth is based on indifferent logic, rather than our own desires. He's not talking to us, who understand it, he's talking to those who don't. And to answer your second question, it sounds like Nietzsche does deny that free choice. In truth, this video is my first serious dive into his work, so I don't know for sure on this, but the statement of his that you are critiquing seems to be quite clear on the point. How can we do anything other than to follow our passions? That is what makes them our passions. Even if you choose to be indifferent, it is because your passions are stirred to do so, though you might frame it as objective. Based on what I have heard so far it certainly seems to me that his point is that even to claim that Stoicism is the best choice is to care about the best choice, and is thus a non-starter, regardless of whether or not you frame it as logical.
@@alwaysgreatusa223I don't think that is the "real" issue so much as a contributing factor, and but one part of his critique of Stoicism. Furthermore, you can't conclude that will has no power from that argument. The will is simply the desire to feed one desire over another. That can be done; what I, and I believe Nietzsche, argued was that it is a fallacy to believe that the will is not a passion, as you claimed the Stoics believe. You can have a desire to act in a logical way. You can even act on that desire, and indeed act logically. But you can't say that you are truly being dispassionate, because your desire to be logical is still a desire. In other words, he's not saying that's just something humans are not capable of doing because we are ill-equipped, he is saying the idea itself is self-contradictory. It isn't that the will has no power, it's that the will is itself driven by our passions, even the will to act dispassionately, so to attempt to do so is already illogical by default.
Another 2 hours of great content. Scaling Nietzsche's cranium is a formidable task, but every episode you manage to lead the way in an impressive and humble fashion, Thanks.
I agree, and was thinking the other day that he's actually doing more than just putting the ideas in a form that helps us understand it better, he's also subtly over time giving us a better 'lens' to extract meaning from Nietzsches' content for ourselves. (a la 'teaching a man to fish rather than just giving him the fish')
I do believe Nietchze wanted a mechanism by which to allow individuals to make confident valuations, and not fall into apathetic nihilism at the sight of our own flaws and failures. So....allow me to make a confident valuation... your lectures are enlightening and inspiring....thank you so much for breakin it down. Hammer time!!!!!😊
One of my favorite things about how rediscovering Nietzsche as an adult is how even as so much of his truth speaks to me, much of it is him roasting me specifically.
I listened to something quite personal and well done on a Sunday morning while walking around the beach on June 26. Thank you for that, it meant a lot. This has been an intense, and strange past few weeks for me. My dad’s dementia, combined with my instant recall of his serial philandering, my sweet mom’s complete denial of said behavior, and the absolute inflation of my shadow as a coping mechanism, generated some manic behavior at times (nice understatement). This podcast has helped me stay grounded, and focused on My future, for change. I was gonna write about my trippy plastic Jesus/ real, yet physically diminished Jesus dream from the spring of 2004, but that’ll have to be put on pause. I want to tell that story properly, because in this world of “flesh colored Christs that glow in the dark… it’s easy to see that not much is really sacred”.
I read this work a few years ago but I wasnt that experienced in philosophy, I had read the stoics but Nietzche always seemed to have like a magnet on me, like this guy knew something I had to know in a way, I did not understand the book then, but later as I read Plato, Kant and read a lot of history concerning philosophy this book opened to me and also his other works.
Hi. I have been seriously reading Nietzsche since 1980 as a grad student in London. And have read all the secondary literature as well. I've been listening to all your "lectures" over the last few years. Without a doubt, I think your take really captures the Nietzschean ethos much better than any of the famous commentators. ( I first encountered Kaufman in the late 70's and am delighted that you too cite him. Then, he was not popular) Thanks!
Nietzsche's writings are lot more esoteric that one might think. He delibrately writes in a seducing way to the captivate the vast majority of people. I tend to think that he knew that his writings will be misused by politicians and other people, and laugh about it. Such laugh is Dionysian itself. All I could say in Nietzschean terms is a happy digestions and thank you for the videos.
Well from what I've heard about his work is that he is controversial to lure interest then he changes everything you thought he was aiming at but once he has your attention he doesn't have to aim. He's fooled me and I think those who introduce his work play along.
This is such an excellent show. It’s really sad that our institutions have faltered so badly that academics really have no chance of being able to create something of quality like this that accomplishes their goal of education more effectively than they can.
Maturity of a woman!! Mmm ❤ Nietzsche said he did not like women. That was one story, but was it because he passed with syphilis which made him go insane? Well, if that is true, I love him anyway. I laugh with Nietzsche.❤ He was a genius!!! His mother came and got him out of the mental hospital first, and she passed. His sister took care of him until he died. He loved his sister, and she betrayed Nietzche's writings as beame a part of the Nazi Party. Nietzsche must have turned over in his grave, for he disagreed with Hitler. Listen, women are not second rate citizens any longer!!! MEN WHO WANT TO RULE THE WORLD. Although, I would argue women can be evil also. Between good and evil. And Beyond Good and Evil. That is a hell of a place to be. Dante's Inferno.🔥
The syphilis stiry was made up half a century aftert he died - its purpose was to divert attention from the fact that he was insane and thus in venerating his works people are venetrating insanity. Nietzsche couldn't form a sexual relationship with a woman and may have died a virgin. @@cheri238
Been a lifetime of truth seeking and only discovering Nietzsche now, thanks to your podcast series. It's funny that we come to a lot of the same conclusions, but go about getting there in vastly different paths. Waiting to discover Nietzsche, gave me time to develop my own thoughts on all of these same subjects. It's true that we all obsessively process the same topics. Thank you sir, would love to hear how your thoughts differ from Nietzsche some time.
Such rich content. I’m just finishing my first listen and I feel like I’m the very first archaeologists to have stumbled upon a treasure trove of Paleolithic human remains and stone tools which represents almost the entire period of human prehistoric technology extending from the earliest known use of stone tools by hominini, c. 3.3 million years ago to the end of the Pleistocene , c. 11,650. Time to take out my archeological digging tools.
This was the first work of Nietzsche I ever read. While I was captivated by it, a lot of his thought was still a mystery to me. So I checked out his other works like Daybreak, Birth of Tragedy, the Gay science, and twilight of idols also happened to be one of them. Then I went back and read Beyond Good and Evil again, and I finally understood him. So even though twilight of idols isn't as all-encompassing as Beyond Good and Evil, I actually had a much easier time reading it after I read his less popular works. But maybe that's just me.
I stumbled on the "Nietzsche podcast" on Spotify and later on I found this is from the same author. Awesome job! What an absolute masterpiece of psychology analysis.
Just gold! Every time I listen to you I'm so greatful 🎉 seriously profound! I love everything about the way you communicate ...best voice, so soothing. What a find..thanks so, so much 🎉
As someone who started reading Nietzsche with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I really appreciate your explanation on Beyond Good & Evil. Per your video I probably should have started here, but will be reading this one next
At heart Nietzsche was an artist first . This propels him towards the sanctification of life . Nobody dies through the creation of , or because of , a work of art . To interpret N. through Darwinian eyes is to declare war against art , to say the least .
Didn’t Socrates talk about the quest for truth being the same as love? The desire to obtain what we lack. The movement towards it. This analogy that is being used seems to be a nod to this.
Yes, I’m in 5 minutes, I don’t know if I agree or disagree with you, but Twilight of Idols is more fragmented than Beyond Good and Evil, because it is not a book that presents his philosophy, but more of a response to his enemies and the idols, and there destruction. It is somewhat the antithesis of Beyond good and evil, formally. Beyond Good and Evil is all about presentation and affirmation of his philosophy and Twilight of the idols, a response to adversity and there destructions.
Would love to have this same level of analysis on Genealogy. Please get in touch to discuss how I could assist in making that happen! Great work! Thank you!
Yes, the catolic church was in fact a separate power kings had to reckon with (sometimes more, sometimes less). That is why many princes favoured the reformation in order to tame religion in their favour and grasp the riches of the church. Therefore these princes invented the state church which was controlled by the ruler (a model which was alive in many protestant counries until recent times).
in some way N was a topologist -- "which is the study of those relationships that have to do with shape & arrangement not measure & size ( number )" R.O.
Nietzsche's analogy or comparison when he says, If the truth s woman what then??, that is a bad choice for him bc of his relation to that woman who chose Dree (?) instead of him, we do not know fully WHY she chose the other man but she did, so the analogy to truth (don't know if it came before or after) is iffy bc it makes him NOW look resentful.
Really informative great content thank you. I have noticed that you praise Nietzsche yet possibly follow Schopenhauer's guide to life more though? Or am I being presumptuous?
I might be wrong here, but i was always under the impression that devil came from the latin Diabolus (a loan from greek Diabolos), whereas Deus/Dio is cognate with Deva. Diabolus has more to do with being a translation of accuser or Satan, meaning to throw through or throw across.
~Many a philosopher needn’t bass on a microphone on the harmonics to read Friedrich; perhaps you only need to listen to yourself think? Once heard that Mencken translated into English too.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates says that the passions were in service to wisdom. He separates passion and desire. He definitely puts wisdom before passion but doesn’t seem to reject them as whole negative. Not even desire, when satiated in moderation were negative. Am I understanding this right?
not all metaphysicians... the faith in opposite values is the foundation of the merely second dimension of physics, built upon the first: the faith in that which IS - the notion that to have knowledge of a thing is to know about what it is - the very word 'is' is the foundation of all logic, the first official 'law' thereof - the second being the definition of the word 'not' of which this aforementioned 'faith in opposite values' is based - but below both, indeed, suffused among both, like the light within water necessary to perceive it (for you are a light of awareness, though your eyes may sometimes rest), one may yet find metaphysics, which need not rely itself upon our notions of it
similarly, I respectfully disagree with your points mentioned ~1:58:00 about selfishness and selflessness - both words are *about* 'the self' and to use a mathematical analogue to illustrate this, the term 'selfish' is like a vector pointed at the origin and the term 'selfless' is like a vector pointed away from the origin, but as we both know, such one-directionality has little grounding in reality
“Nietzsche tires me. My weariness sometimes reaches the point of disgust. One cannot embrace a thinker whose ideal lies in the opposite of what he is. There is something repulsive about the weak pretending to be strong, about the weak without pity. All this is good for adolescents.” - Emil Cioran, Cahiers [P.328]
@@untimelyreflectionsI never quite bought into the Continental philosophers. They may have been more interesting than the analytic branch, but their conclusions always seem based on flimsy axioms. I only speak English, so maybe I miss the nuance of the Continental sect. Kierkegaard, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger - what the hell are they even talking about, and why should I believe them? The analytic philosophers - Russell, Frege, Godel, Turing - they, at least, seem reasonable even when wrong.
@@manofsinglebook-vj6pg a Christian would claim immortality too. But Nietzsche was far more ascetic and other-worldy than Christians of his time. He's dead and lived a sad life and was unpopular in his time. He's had fanboys unknown to him, including Nazis, edgy teenagers and Pomos. None of this suggests a model for living.
@@VidaBlue317 So the reason I prefer continental philosophy over analytical philosophy is because the latter tries to fit all of reality into this simplistic and mechanistic box. But this isn't possible. Reality is very complex, too complex for any one person to truly understand it purely through formal logic. It's like the archetypical midwit trying to be philosophical. Its hardly even philosophy. And when arguing with someone who is coming from the analytical camp, not only do they think they can simplify everything with formal logic, paradoxically enough, they will often counter with obfuscations. Like "well what even is philosophy?" "What is morality?". Not saying definitions aren't important, but that's the extent of analytical philosophy. It can't get beyond semantics. Continental philosophy is just philosophy. This is what most people mean when they bring up philosophy. But on the other hand it's such a broad categorization that it's almost meaningless. It's home to philosophers who come to wildly different conclusions with wildly different methodologies. Imagine trying to put Nietzsche into the same category as someone like Hegel. These two thinkers couldn't be more different, and yet they both fall under continental philosophy.
@@Tehz1359 Analytic philosophers DID try to fit everything into a nice logical box in the 20h century - but with their failure, came so many more interesting questions. I guess maybe the heart of it is epistemological, a prickly little branch of our subject. Anyways, the Continental crowd often resort to their own haphazard systems. The problem is their axioms are arbitrary or 'fuzzy.' Why one system or statement of truth over another, why Hegel over Schopenhaur or Heidegger? Not to say Continental peeps aren't interesting. In fact, they are more interesting on the whole, but their philosophies seem much closer to religion or literature. I love Camus, and he really hit me in the feels. And reading his work, I came away with a sense that, "yes, I've felt exactly like him." But does that help anyone make sense of the world? You know, I suppose that is a sort of truth, a feeling of shared experience 🤔 I don't know - you're the philosopher, and I'm the dabbler.
38:30 The original sin in religion, that subterranean invention of all religious, to make us impure all, in almost all senses except perhaps excusable in that impurity as children, that original sin, the "bad conscience" seems to me the more and more I think about it, to be all human instincts and thus needs for continuation of life and earthly survival... so for mental control "they", from kings Popes, priests even as a a consequence, parents too, had to control though god all thoughts and thus actions and make the inevitable failures of containing all those instincts, make them "sins"... but many of the religious "sins", even if bad for some living entities, actually make men (humans) stronger, more capable, and the power increases over the circumstances and territory, according to the Will to Power Nietzsche described. Same for teh ever pursuit of truth, sometimes untruth, maybe even lies, do/create the same result.
Does anyone else find it sad that Nietzsche never knew the amount of recognition he would actually get? Obviously he was sure of himself, but he has an aphorism that expresses feeling small or inconsequential and unrecognized and the importance of not taking it too serious in the gay science. It can be interpreted scientifically as a rebuttal to scientific nihilism, but I think he’s also pointing to the solitude of discovering profound new truths that are far beyond the current thought horizon. It is a lonely endeavor often without recognition.
What is Nietzsche’s justification for denying the law of noncontradiction? It seems like he says that we can only prove that it is a necessity for humans to believe it, but that it might not apply to the world.
Heraclitus is who you should refer to for this. Basically, concepts aren't always mutually exclusive, they are interconnected and even dependent on each other. Reality is full of contradictions. I mean I couldn't imagine a world where there were no contradictions.
The 10⛈️Commandments of the✡️Torah give the basic🕯️, moral⚖️standard that WE=mc2 are supposed to♾️BE=mc2 🕉️in☯️Union✝️with🔯G👑D as T'ruth finds US👣BE=mc2 4 WE=mc2 find "IT"🌌The Moral😇Path is a✨Light🌅Bath🛁!
I think the part in the beginning of the introduction before he says , "Speaking Seriously" is an E.D. joke, about the other philosophers being a bunch of limp dicks.
Apropos the discussion about the will to truth. It seems like curiosity in general is that. Is curiosity ever for lies? No one is curious to not find something out. The pleasure of finding things out is the pleasure of meeting truth. Why is truth so feel good? Evolutionarily you'd think that'd be the case. Maybe also there's pleasure in seeking in general. Degenerate truth seekers! Us hedonists! But truth never comes easy, which is why no one considers truth seeking hedonic. The suffering on the path before reaching any truth prevents that. Why not lies? Because anyone can make up whatever they want with no effort. There's no reward there because there's no suffering.
if you can't see the forest for the trees then you may also not be able to see the trees for the forest. Not being able to see the trees for the forest would seem to be more Nietzschean. Of course bare existence is never entirely bare - contrary to our phenomenologists. Yet Nietzsche elevates our apparent world rather than some otherworldly justification or even explanation of it. Comments on Socrates as a criminal are rightly interpreted as a bit of Nietzschean irony. But was not Socrates a lover of fate? Otherworldly ambitions aside this comment is really directed at Plato: who may have written the dialogues as an apology for Socratic piety. The sickness of generational sin, something the Jews rejected, is brought up here to question the limits of perfection. But are we not heading back to paradise? And this coming from our post-moderns philosophers. Are not our post-colonial philosophers digging in the same sandbox? The emotions were the first to generalize and sometimes to the peril of their master: witness Hercules The bow has not slackened.
Allow me to follow up: Sir, you do not know me and in this format did not ask for this. Not accusing you of being a dim-wit but of controlling the technology. Good night. The acoustic; is this profound. This is t.a. undergrad-- Salome- goten nacht.
During the 1990s there was no Caveat, “appreciating this shall not help you pay the bills; understanding how to pay the bills shall.” No need to reply but shy of being a deeper essayist or a programmer of linguistics, defense of the anti-social, misunderstood, reclusive what? Genius-whom takes Idealism and Montaigne. This is gratuitous. Not even going to bother to research your cv. Reading to the world on UA-cam is this. You are isolating a corpus. Sounds like McGill. Sound like a yes-man that worked their way up to commentating on a misanthrope.
There is this vogue thing in America where darkness is cool; where you rather get to proselytize (which this is) the Devil from inside a jar. He was, after all, the Anti-Christ. But America is dark and so how is this purposeful but credentials. Loving the dark, pretending to be dark, wishing to be dark. Sort of glossed over not really um a Psychoanalyst. A mad one-a rather ill one that needed one; does he teach better ‘prose’ skills? Stooped to your level with the single quotations.
Why should humanity be grateful for the pyramids (which are the result of superstitious error)? What good do they bring to humanity? Many slaves died building the pyramids. Not a great example of the potential value of error.
14 million people visit Egypt to go see the Great Pyramids every year. But sure, all those people are rubes, the pyramids bring no value to humanity. Also the best scholarship suggests that slaves did not build the pyramids.
god ofKEEG!!... "...for nothing is more tassssty than a little lamb."... o, immortalKEEG... how sexual... sensuous... subversive is the low presto sonorous tone of your wicked voice!... lololo
00:00 📚 Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil" is an attempt to present his entire philosophy, including major ideas, for a broader audience who may not be familiar with his work.
02:44 📖 Nietzsche essentially self-published "Beyond Good and Evil," and it was one of his most successful books at the time, despite only selling 114 copies initially.
05:00 🌐 Nietzsche's main task in "Beyond Good and Evil" is to question the value of the search for truth and challenge the belief in opposite values, leading to a critique of morality and metaphysics.
07:01 🔄 Nietzsche rejects the notion of opposite values, seeing good and evil as interdependent gradations rather than mutually opposed concepts, and he argues for an immoralist perspective.
14:12 💔 Nietzsche reconceptualizes truth as an object of desire, challenging the idea that philosophers engage in disinterested, rational reasoning, and highlighting the inherent irrationality in truth-seeking.
20:47 🌍 The 19th century is characterized by a shift from the romantic idealization of human reason to a more cynical view of human nature, marked by the recognition of our animalistic origins and unconscious motivations.
22:09 📚 Nietzsche criticizes dogmatism, highlighting that it may appear solemn but is often childish and amateurish in its attempts to capture truth.
24:11 🤔 Nietzsche points out that the separation of the doer from the deed, a hallmark of dogmatism, is a seduction by grammar and a product of linguistic limitations.
29:27 💭 Nietzsche sees dogmatic philosophies like vedanta and platonism as errors that, despite their shortcomings, contributed to human culture and civilization.
42:08 🗣 Nietzsche provocatively questions whether Socrates, who influenced Plato's dogmatism, may have deserved his fate of execution, given the negative impact of Plato's ideas.
43:46 🤔 Nietzsche discusses the absence of an absolute perceiver and the role of perspective in shaping our perception of reality.
44:11 🦁 Nietzsche uses the example of lambs and birds of prey to illustrate how different perspectives shape moral perception.
45:19 🔍 Our perception of reality is influenced by our vantage point, existence, and the scale at which we exist.
46:00 ⚖ Nietzsche argues that there is no absolute judge, and beings assert themselves based on their perspectives.
46:53 🧐 Nietzsche criticizes the error of universalizing one's perspective and discusses Plato's potential corruption by Socrates.
48:02 🌍 Nietzsche describes the tension created by the conflict between immoralists and moralists in European thought.
50:33 🏹 Nietzsche views the tension of the spirit as a valuable asset, comparable to drawing a bow, which allows for the pursuit of distant goals.
51:00 📰 Nietzsche criticizes newspaper reading as shallow and argues that it hinders the experience of spiritual need and tension.
51:57 🎯 Nietzsche references Jesuitism as an attempt to resolve the tension between morality and immorality, highlighting the ends justifying the means.
01:00:01 🤔 Nietzsche questions what within us truly desires truth and the origins of our will to truth, emphasizing the enigmatic nature of this desire.
01:05:24 🤔 Nietzsche raises the question of the value of truth-seeking and why we prioritize truth over untruth, uncertainty, or ignorance in our pursuit of knowledge.
01:07:32 🤯 Nietzsche explores the paradox of questioning the value of seeking the truth when truth-seeking itself is the highest value, leading to a self-reflective process.
01:13:33 🧐 Nietzsche criticizes the metaphysicians' fundamental faith in opposite values, highlighting the need for doubt at the threshold of philosophical inquiry.
01:22:30 🌍 Nietzsche challenges the idea of opposites and questions whether our valuations are provisional perspectives or frog perspectives that fail to see the larger reality.
01:25:16 🤔 Nietzsche suggests that fundamental value for life might be ascribed to deception, selfishness, and lust, challenging traditional notions of good and revered things.
01:25:45 🧐 Nietzsche anticipates the emergence of new philosophers who will be different from traditional dogmatists and explore the dangerous possibility that seemingly opposite values share the same essence.
01:28:19 🤯 Nietzsche argues that conscious thinking, even in philosophy, is guided by instincts, challenging the idea that it's the opposite of instinctual behavior.
01:31:42 🧐 Nietzsche contends that logic and conscious thinking are driven by physiological demands for the preservation of a certain type of life rather than being purely rational processes.
01:37:22 🤯 Nietzsche explains that false judgments, including synthetic judgments a priori, are indispensable for human existence, emphasizing that truth and logic are not objective but serve pragmatic purposes.
01:46:22 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes philosophers for not being honest enough in their work and posing as if they reached their opinions through pure, divine dialectic, when it's often driven by personal desires.
01:47:34 🧐 Nietzsche acknowledges that his own truth-seeking is driven by irrational passion, just like mystics who claim inspiration, but he emphasizes the importance of honesty about this drive.
01:49:07 😄 Nietzsche criticizes philosophers for their solemnness and seriousness, contrasting it with his lighthearted approach to truth-seeking, highlighting the irony that he's the most truthful by questioning the will to truth.
01:52:06 🧙 Nietzsche critiques philosophers like Kant and Spinoza for cloaking their philosophies in complex, impenetrable forms, using it to mask their personal insecurities and vulnerabilities.
Nietzsche's genius was how he understood paradoxes of existence. Like Blake. This allowed him to move closer to a form of the wisdom of being and living more than any other thinker. As he says in Beyond Good and Evil: "'Live according to nature'? How could you not do that? Why make a principle of what you yourselves are and must be?"
He just contradicts himself a lot
@@alwaysgreatusa223 It sounds to me like Nietzsche is criticizing the very idea that nature and people are distinct things that behave differently. He is pointing out that, as beings within and part of nature, the processes that govern our outward behavior ARE acting as nature does. And just as the "rational" processes of nature sometimes lead to chaos, so too do the natural processes within our brains sometimes lead to chaos. In the case of what is classically called "nature", this is things like volcanoes that devastate ecosystems, in human beings it is irrational and impulsive behaviors. The fallacy is thinking that human thoughts and behavior are the lowest level of activity, and therefore our thoughts can be distinguished from nature. But we know that our thoughts are influenced by brain chemistry, which DOES behave by the so-called "rational and indifferent" processes of nature.
@@alwaysgreatusa223 But that's not what Nietzsche is saying. He is saying that the drive towards truth and rationality is just as based in our emotions and desires as anything else.
As for your volcano question, you prove my point for me. Just as volcanoes seem chaotic and destructive to the environment around them, they still follow laws of nature. So too do our thoughts seem chaotic and irrational on the surface, but they are caused by laws of biochemistry. Our conscious minds are no more or less chaotic than a natural disaster, and what Nietzsche is pointing out is that you make a mistake by assuming that your conscious thoughts are the fundamental thing which is following natural laws rather than your neurochemistry, just as it is a mistake to assume that the volcano is the fundamental thing causing the destruction, rather than the magma and gases following laws of physics.
@@alwaysgreatusa223And yet many philosophers of Nietzsche's time and before claimed that seeking truth was simply objectively good. Even today this is a very common sentiment. While you or I might understand this to be the case, Nietzsche is making the point to those who still think that our drive to truth is based on indifferent logic, rather than our own desires. He's not talking to us, who understand it, he's talking to those who don't.
And to answer your second question, it sounds like Nietzsche does deny that free choice. In truth, this video is my first serious dive into his work, so I don't know for sure on this, but the statement of his that you are critiquing seems to be quite clear on the point. How can we do anything other than to follow our passions? That is what makes them our passions. Even if you choose to be indifferent, it is because your passions are stirred to do so, though you might frame it as objective. Based on what I have heard so far it certainly seems to me that his point is that even to claim that Stoicism is the best choice is to care about the best choice, and is thus a non-starter, regardless of whether or not you frame it as logical.
@@alwaysgreatusa223I don't think that is the "real" issue so much as a contributing factor, and but one part of his critique of Stoicism.
Furthermore, you can't conclude that will has no power from that argument. The will is simply the desire to feed one desire over another. That can be done; what I, and I believe Nietzsche, argued was that it is a fallacy to believe that the will is not a passion, as you claimed the Stoics believe. You can have a desire to act in a logical way. You can even act on that desire, and indeed act logically. But you can't say that you are truly being dispassionate, because your desire to be logical is still a desire.
In other words, he's not saying that's just something humans are not capable of doing because we are ill-equipped, he is saying the idea itself is self-contradictory. It isn't that the will has no power, it's that the will is itself driven by our passions, even the will to act dispassionately, so to attempt to do so is already illogical by default.
Another 2 hours of great content. Scaling Nietzsche's cranium is a formidable task, but every episode you manage to lead the way in an impressive and humble fashion, Thanks.
I agree, and was thinking the other day that he's actually doing more than just putting the ideas in a form that helps us understand it better, he's also subtly over time giving us a better 'lens' to extract meaning from Nietzsches' content for ourselves. (a la 'teaching a man to fish rather than just giving him the fish')
I do believe Nietchze wanted a mechanism by which to allow individuals to make confident valuations, and not fall into apathetic nihilism at the sight of our own flaws and failures. So....allow me to make a confident valuation... your lectures are enlightening and inspiring....thank you so much for breakin it down. Hammer time!!!!!😊
Only if you think it so~Shakespeare
One of my favorite things about how rediscovering Nietzsche as an adult is how even as so much of his truth speaks to me, much of it is him roasting me specifically.
Instructions unclear; I just built a homemade rocket in my backyard and launched the contents of my home library into the Sun
Just use a lighter nerd
I have just started this episode and I'm happy that I have no idea what this is about
Ubertoyo.
The BOYOOOOOO
😆😂
I listened to something quite personal and well done on a Sunday morning while walking around the beach on June 26. Thank you for that, it meant a lot. This has been an intense, and strange past few weeks for me. My dad’s dementia, combined with my instant recall of his serial philandering, my sweet mom’s complete denial of said behavior, and the absolute inflation of my shadow as a coping mechanism, generated some manic behavior at times (nice understatement). This podcast has helped me stay grounded, and focused on My future, for change. I was gonna write about my trippy plastic Jesus/ real, yet physically diminished Jesus dream from the spring of 2004, but that’ll have to be put on pause. I want to tell that story properly, because in this world of “flesh colored Christs that glow in the dark… it’s easy to see that not much is really sacred”.
I read this work a few years ago but I wasnt that experienced in philosophy, I had read the stoics but Nietzche always seemed to have like a magnet on me, like this guy knew something I had to know in a way, I did not understand the book then, but later as I read Plato, Kant and read a lot of history concerning philosophy this book opened to me and also his other works.
Hi. I have been seriously reading Nietzsche since 1980 as a grad student in London. And have read all the secondary literature as well. I've been listening to all your "lectures" over the last few years. Without a doubt, I think your take really captures the Nietzschean ethos much better than any of the famous commentators. ( I first encountered Kaufman in the late 70's and am delighted that you too cite him. Then, he was not popular) Thanks!
Thank you so much for these words. Is there anything among the secondary literature you would particularly recommend?
@@untimelyreflectionsPeppa pig bedtime stories
Nietzsche's writings are lot more esoteric that one might think. He delibrately writes in a seducing way to the captivate the vast majority of people. I tend to think that he knew that his writings will be misused by politicians and other people, and laugh about it. Such laugh is Dionysian itself. All I could say in Nietzschean terms is a happy digestions and thank you for the videos.
English please
Well from what I've heard about his work is that he is controversial to lure interest then he changes everything you thought he was aiming at but once he has your attention he doesn't have to aim. He's fooled me and I think those who introduce his work play along.
There is nothing either good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.
- Shakespeare
Thinking makes everything so
What a horseshit quote 😂😂😂😂
You know evil when you encounter it. You know it because it resides in your own heart.
@Earthad23 Thank you for your thought.
@@MrJamesdryable I’ve got plenty more where that came from.
This is such an excellent show. It’s really sad that our institutions have faltered so badly that academics really have no chance of being able to create something of quality like this that accomplishes their goal of education more effectively than they can.
The education system rewards herd morality, why would it place value in Nietzsche?
I think it would take some maturity as the narrator explains the lit.
Maturity of a woman!! Mmm
❤
Nietzsche said he did not like women. That was one story, but was it because he passed with syphilis which made him go insane? Well, if that is true, I love him anyway. I laugh with Nietzsche.❤ He was a genius!!!
His mother came and got him out of the mental hospital first, and she passed. His sister took care of him until he died. He loved his sister, and she betrayed Nietzche's writings as beame a part of the Nazi Party. Nietzsche must have turned over in his grave, for he disagreed with Hitler.
Listen, women are not second rate citizens any longer!!! MEN WHO WANT TO RULE THE WORLD. Although, I would argue women can be evil also.
Between good and evil. And Beyond Good and Evil. That is a hell of a place to be. Dante's Inferno.🔥
The syphilis stiry was made up half a century aftert he died - its purpose was to divert attention from the fact that he was insane and thus in venerating his works people are venetrating insanity. Nietzsche couldn't form a sexual relationship with a woman and may have died a virgin. @@cheri238
thank you for this. as a bit of an idiot myself ive found this very fun. keep working hard. hope this comment doesnt deter you
Been a lifetime of truth seeking and only discovering Nietzsche now, thanks to your podcast series.
It's funny that we come to a lot of the same conclusions, but go about getting there in vastly different paths.
Waiting to discover Nietzsche, gave me time to develop my own thoughts on all of these same subjects.
It's true that we all obsessively process the same topics.
Thank you sir, would love to hear how your thoughts differ from Nietzsche some time.
Thank you for the TEMPO and gentle voice. Please don't speed up. Thank you for this. Good wishes.
Like butta..
Such rich content. I’m just finishing my first listen and I feel like I’m the very first archaeologists to have stumbled upon a treasure trove of Paleolithic human remains and stone tools which represents almost the entire period of human prehistoric technology extending from the earliest known use of stone tools by hominini, c. 3.3 million years ago to the end of the Pleistocene , c. 11,650. Time to take out my archeological digging tools.
This was the first work of Nietzsche I ever read. While I was captivated by it, a lot of his thought was still a mystery to me. So I checked out his other works like Daybreak, Birth of Tragedy, the Gay science, and twilight of idols also happened to be one of them. Then I went back and read Beyond Good and Evil again, and I finally understood him. So even though twilight of idols isn't as all-encompassing as Beyond Good and Evil, I actually had a much easier time reading it after I read his less popular works. But maybe that's just me.
I think Twilight of the Idols and The Gay Science are two of the best books to start with.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs
I agree ❤
I stumbled on the "Nietzsche podcast" on Spotify and later on I found this is from the same author. Awesome job! What an absolute masterpiece of psychology analysis.
Brilliant! Thank you! Looking forward to the next episode…
Hey really excited to see this! I know this probably your favorite book so looking forward to a good one...
Each book after the Zarathustra interprets the Zarathustra to greater and greater quickening.
Just gold! Every time I listen to you I'm so greatful 🎉 seriously profound! I love everything about the way you communicate ...best voice, so soothing. What a find..thanks so, so much 🎉
Your edification is immense the value tremendous , your work is excellent
I’m extremely thankful to have found your UA-cam channel.
As someone who started reading Nietzsche with Thus Spoke Zarathustra, I really appreciate your explanation on Beyond Good & Evil. Per your video I probably should have started here, but will be reading this one next
For me Nietzsche is the greatest interpreter of life. I feel like he saw life as what it was
Looking forward to more.
Recently stumbled upon your channel and have really been enjoying your content! Thanks for everything you share!❤
this is the best youtube channel ever
Tremendous timing, finally got around to reading it but it's not the easiest book for the not-so-scholarly person haha
Great podcast!
"Fuck it dude, lets go bowling"
Well, at least you have an ethos
This site is delightful
At heart Nietzsche was an artist first . This propels him towards the sanctification of life . Nobody dies through the creation of , or because of , a work of art . To interpret N. through Darwinian eyes is to declare war against art , to say the least .
Didn’t Socrates talk about the quest for truth being the same as love? The desire to obtain what we lack. The movement towards it. This analogy that is being used seems to be a nod to this.
Yes, I’m in 5 minutes, I don’t know if I agree or disagree with you, but Twilight of Idols is more fragmented than Beyond Good and Evil, because it is not a book that presents his philosophy, but more of a response to his enemies and the idols, and there destruction. It is somewhat the antithesis of Beyond good and evil, formally. Beyond Good and Evil is all about presentation and affirmation of his philosophy and Twilight of the idols, a response to adversity and there destructions.
Thank you for your work 🙏
Would love to have this same level of analysis on Genealogy. Please get in touch to discuss how I could assist in making that happen! Great work! Thank you!
Loving this analysis, ty bro.
In the near future,can you possibly make episodes such as this on Kierkegaard's Either/Or
Brilliant explanation btw fking loved this ;)
Yes, the catolic church was in fact a separate power kings had to reckon with (sometimes more, sometimes less). That is why many princes favoured the reformation in order to tame religion in their favour and grasp the riches of the church. Therefore these princes invented the state church which was controlled by the ruler (a model which was alive in many protestant counries until recent times).
Awesome work!
I bet this guy Keagan has an IQ of 137 or better.This stuff is killing me and changing my life..
in some way N was a topologist -- "which is the study of those relationships that have to do with shape & arrangement not measure & size ( number )" R.O.
I love your take.. It Kinda guides my interpretation or gives me alternative #Am_Invested💕
Will you cover Heidegger at some point in the Nietzsche podcast?
Possibly. I'm scared, though. That would be a Herculean task.
Heidegger was almost a fraud. Move on.
moral judgements have an overlap with judicial judgements and anyone can see why one exists to justify the other.
Beauty is irrational, after all. And what more than life to project the shadow of beauty.
your videos are genius!!!!!!!!!! thanks so so so much!!!!
Nietzsche's analogy or comparison when he says, If the truth s woman what then??, that is a bad choice for him bc of his relation to that woman who chose Dree (?) instead of him, we do not know fully WHY she chose the other man but she did, so the analogy to truth (don't know if it came before or after) is iffy bc it makes him NOW look resentful.
Really informative great content thank you. I have noticed that you praise Nietzsche yet possibly follow Schopenhauer's guide to life more though? Or am I being presumptuous?
Yes
I might be wrong here, but i was always under the impression that devil came from the latin Diabolus (a loan from greek Diabolos), whereas Deus/Dio is cognate with Deva. Diabolus has more to do with being a translation of accuser or Satan, meaning to throw through or throw across.
thank you
How would Plato describe “corruption of the youth”? Is it a crime punishable by death?
~Many a philosopher needn’t bass on a microphone on the harmonics to read Friedrich; perhaps you only need to listen to yourself think? Once heard that Mencken translated into English too.
In Plato’s Republic, Socrates says that the passions were in service to wisdom. He separates passion and desire. He definitely puts wisdom before passion but doesn’t seem to reject them as whole negative. Not even desire, when satiated in moderation were negative. Am I understanding this right?
Thanks
not all metaphysicians... the faith in opposite values is the foundation of the merely second dimension of physics, built upon the first: the faith in that which IS - the notion that to have knowledge of a thing is to know about what it is - the very word 'is' is the foundation of all logic, the first official 'law' thereof - the second being the definition of the word 'not' of which this aforementioned 'faith in opposite values' is based - but below both, indeed, suffused among both, like the light within water necessary to perceive it (for you are a light of awareness, though your eyes may sometimes rest), one may yet find metaphysics, which need not rely itself upon our notions of it
(if someone speaks to me in Spanish I speak to them in Spanish as best I can)
similarly, I respectfully disagree with your points mentioned ~1:58:00 about selfishness and selflessness - both words are *about* 'the self' and to use a mathematical analogue to illustrate this, the term 'selfish' is like a vector pointed at the origin and the term 'selfless' is like a vector pointed away from the origin, but as we both know, such one-directionality has little grounding in reality
“Nietzsche tires me. My weariness sometimes reaches the point of disgust. One cannot embrace a thinker whose ideal lies in the opposite of what he is. There is something repulsive about the weak pretending to be strong, about the weak without pity. All this is good for adolescents.” - Emil Cioran, Cahiers [P.328]
So true.
@@untimelyreflectionsI never quite bought into the Continental philosophers. They may have been more interesting than the analytic branch, but their conclusions always seem based on flimsy axioms.
I only speak English, so maybe I miss the nuance of the Continental sect. Kierkegaard, Hegel, Nietzsche, Heidegger - what the hell are they even talking about, and why should I believe them?
The analytic philosophers - Russell, Frege, Godel, Turing - they, at least, seem reasonable even when wrong.
@@manofsinglebook-vj6pg a Christian would claim immortality too. But Nietzsche was far more ascetic and other-worldy than Christians of his time. He's dead and lived a sad life and was unpopular in his time. He's had fanboys unknown to him, including Nazis, edgy teenagers and Pomos. None of this suggests a model for living.
@@VidaBlue317 So the reason I prefer continental philosophy over analytical philosophy is because the latter tries to fit all of reality into this simplistic and mechanistic box. But this isn't possible. Reality is very complex, too complex for any one person to truly understand it purely through formal logic. It's like the archetypical midwit trying to be philosophical. Its hardly even philosophy. And when arguing with someone who is coming from the analytical camp, not only do they think they can simplify everything with formal logic, paradoxically enough, they will often counter with obfuscations. Like "well what even is philosophy?" "What is morality?". Not saying definitions aren't important, but that's the extent of analytical philosophy. It can't get beyond semantics.
Continental philosophy is just philosophy. This is what most people mean when they bring up philosophy. But on the other hand it's such a broad categorization that it's almost meaningless. It's home to philosophers who come to wildly different conclusions with wildly different methodologies. Imagine trying to put Nietzsche into the same category as someone like Hegel. These two thinkers couldn't be more different, and yet they both fall under continental philosophy.
@@Tehz1359 Analytic philosophers DID try to fit everything into a nice logical box in the 20h century - but with their failure, came so many more interesting questions. I guess maybe the heart of it is epistemological, a prickly little branch of our subject.
Anyways, the Continental crowd often resort to their own haphazard systems. The problem is their axioms are arbitrary or 'fuzzy.' Why one system or statement of truth over another, why Hegel over Schopenhaur or Heidegger?
Not to say Continental peeps aren't interesting. In fact, they are more interesting on the whole, but their philosophies seem much closer to religion or literature.
I love Camus, and he really hit me in the feels. And reading his work, I came away with a sense that, "yes, I've felt exactly like him." But does that help anyone make sense of the world?
You know, I suppose that is a sort of truth, a feeling of shared experience 🤔 I don't know - you're the philosopher, and I'm the dabbler.
There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
Albert Einstein
38:30
The original sin in religion, that subterranean invention of all religious, to make us impure all, in almost all senses except perhaps excusable in that impurity as children, that original sin, the "bad conscience" seems to me the more and more I think about it, to be all human instincts and thus needs for continuation of life and earthly survival... so for mental control "they", from kings Popes, priests even as a a consequence, parents too, had to control though god all thoughts and thus actions and make the inevitable failures of containing all those instincts, make them "sins"... but many of the religious "sins", even if bad for some living entities, actually make men (humans) stronger, more capable, and the power increases over the circumstances and territory, according to the Will to Power Nietzsche described. Same for teh ever pursuit of truth, sometimes untruth, maybe even lies, do/create the same result.
Does anyone else find it sad that Nietzsche never knew the amount of recognition he would actually get? Obviously he was sure of himself, but he has an aphorism that expresses feeling small or inconsequential and unrecognized and the importance of not taking it too serious in the gay science.
It can be interpreted scientifically as a rebuttal to scientific nihilism, but I think he’s also pointing to the solitude of discovering profound new truths that are far beyond the current thought horizon. It is a lonely endeavor often without recognition.
01:02:00
What is Nietzsche’s justification for denying the law of noncontradiction? It seems like he says that we can only prove that it is a necessity for humans to believe it, but that it might not apply to the world.
Heraclitus is who you should refer to for this. Basically, concepts aren't always mutually exclusive, they are interconnected and even dependent on each other. Reality is full of contradictions. I mean I couldn't imagine a world where there were no contradictions.
1:32:51
1:01:50
The 10⛈️Commandments of the✡️Torah give the basic🕯️, moral⚖️standard that WE=mc2 are supposed to♾️BE=mc2 🕉️in☯️Union✝️with🔯G👑D as T'ruth finds US👣BE=mc2 4 WE=mc2 find "IT"🌌The Moral😇Path is a✨Light🌅Bath🛁!
I think the part in the beginning of the introduction before he says , "Speaking Seriously" is an E.D. joke, about the other philosophers being a bunch of limp dicks.
Apropos the discussion about the will to truth. It seems like curiosity in general is that. Is curiosity ever for lies? No one is curious to not find something out. The pleasure of finding things out is the pleasure of meeting truth. Why is truth so feel good? Evolutionarily you'd think that'd be the case. Maybe also there's pleasure in seeking in general. Degenerate truth seekers! Us hedonists! But truth never comes easy, which is why no one considers truth seeking hedonic. The suffering on the path before reaching any truth prevents that. Why not lies? Because anyone can make up whatever they want with no effort. There's no reward there because there's no suffering.
Beyond good there is only evil.
Cool story bro
if you can't see the forest for the trees then you may also not be able to see the trees for the forest. Not being able to see the trees for the forest would seem to be more Nietzschean. Of course bare existence is never entirely bare - contrary to our phenomenologists. Yet Nietzsche elevates our apparent world rather than some otherworldly justification or even explanation of it. Comments on Socrates as a criminal are rightly interpreted as a bit of Nietzschean irony. But was not Socrates a lover of fate? Otherworldly ambitions aside this comment is really directed at Plato: who may have written the dialogues as an apology for Socratic piety. The sickness of generational sin, something the Jews rejected, is brought up here to question the limits of perfection. But are we not heading back to paradise? And this coming from our post-moderns philosophers. Are not our post-colonial philosophers digging in the same sandbox? The emotions were the first to generalize and sometimes to the peril of their master: witness Hercules The bow has not slackened.
Allow me to follow up: Sir, you do not know me and in this format did not ask for this. Not accusing you of being a dim-wit but of controlling the technology. Good night. The acoustic; is this profound. This is t.a. undergrad-- Salome- goten nacht.
During the 1990s there was no Caveat, “appreciating this shall not help you pay the bills; understanding how to pay the bills shall.” No need to reply but shy of being a deeper essayist or a programmer of linguistics, defense of the anti-social, misunderstood, reclusive what? Genius-whom takes Idealism and Montaigne. This is gratuitous. Not even going to bother to research your cv. Reading to the world on UA-cam is this. You are isolating a corpus. Sounds like McGill. Sound like a yes-man that worked their way up to commentating on a misanthrope.
There is this vogue thing in America where darkness is cool; where you rather get to proselytize (which this is) the Devil from inside a jar. He was, after all, the Anti-Christ. But America is dark and so how is this purposeful but credentials. Loving the dark, pretending to be dark, wishing to be dark. Sort of glossed over not really um a Psychoanalyst. A mad one-a rather ill one that needed one; does he teach better ‘prose’ skills? Stooped to your level with the single quotations.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
50:07
24:00
11:00
I thought it was going to be a straight reading of the book. Not somebody's take on it
Why should humanity be grateful for the pyramids (which are the result of superstitious error)? What good do they bring to humanity? Many slaves died building the pyramids. Not a great example of the potential value of error.
14 million people visit Egypt to go see the Great Pyramids every year.
But sure, all those people are rubes, the pyramids bring no value to humanity.
Also the best scholarship suggests that slaves did not build the pyramids.
So does the Nietz think a priori synthetic truth is possible or not, I wouldn’t think so but... ?I never thought Kant proved what he thinks he proved.
Somehow l think he couldn't proof it without a computer
@@BrigitteTucker-vn9bf not sure what you mean, could you elaborate?
More like "Faith In Opposite: Non-value and Value".
My sexual desire has been at a peek for most of my life but as I enter my late to mid-60s it's abating a bit thank God!
god ofKEEG!!... "...for nothing is more tassssty than a little lamb."... o, immortalKEEG... how sexual... sensuous... subversive is the low presto sonorous tone of your wicked voice!... lololo
i rage, monsieurKEEG!!... o, how i rage muchly... and you must feed my raging Nietzschean soul (must you not?!) lolo
I think all his work is bullshit. Thats about it.
35:00