Nietzsche’s DARKEST Metaphor - The Sipo Matador
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2025
- Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
Introduction to the politics of Nietzsche. In this episode, we give an unvarnished look at the aristocratic radicalism that forms up the foundation of Nietzsche's political philosophy. While many interpreters and commenters on Nietzsche have dealt with his radical politics by ignoring it altogether, by regarding Nietzsche as anti-political, or by interpreting it all away, we will instead begin by taking a hard look at Nietzsche's politics and see if we can come to an understanding of why he held this perspective. As with all things Nietzsche, his political views begin with Hellenic Greece. What we discover, in the course of this examination, is that Nietzsche's political philosophy, antithetical to our modern morality though it may be, is intertwined with his broader philosophical ideas. In this episode, we will cover the concepts of the order of rank, and the pathos of distance.
Visit us on Spotify: open.spotify.c...
#nietzsche #philosophy #ancientgreece #politicalphilosophy
I am amazed at these lectures. ( I am indebted to you.) I love philosophy, never went to college but the philosophy I love it. My papa and the books he left me, many books bought throughout my life on many subjects have been a journey.
It might take me some time, but I will get through all your lectures, and I am eternally grateful.
00:00 📜 Nietzsche's aphorism discusses the corruption of aristocracy and its sacrifice of privileges during revolutions.
02:21 🤯 Nietzsche challenges both left-wing equality and right-wing individualism, advocating for an aristocratic view of society.
03:30 🏰 Nietzsche believes that a hierarchical, caste-based society is the foundation for the select few to elevate themselves to higher duties and existence.
06:02 🌱 Nietzsche sees the breakdown of the old order, based on master morality, as a result of moral sentimentality and the rise of slave morality.
07:23 ⚡ Nietzsche's political philosophy is described as "aristocratic radicalism," emphasizing the importance of a select class of beings for society's existence.
09:57 🌿 Nietzsche's metaphor of the "sipo matador" vine illustrates how society should exist for the sake of a higher class, even if it appears parasitical.
14:46 💡 Nietzsche questions the purpose of civilization, suggesting that progress and comfort may lead to an empty existence devoid of meaning.
17:13 🎢 Nietzsche criticizes utilitarianism and the pursuit of pleasure as empty distractions in a secularized society without transcendent values.
21:54 🤔 Nietzsche defines power as the ability to strive, expand, grow, and assert oneself through struggle.
22:21 💡 Nietzsche argues that the good of the entire populace, based on utilitarianism, cannot be trusted as a basis for society since people often pursue short-term pleasures over long-term good.
23:46 🧐 Nietzsche suggests that only a minority possess the ability to obey their own willpower, recognizing and following the highest virtues, while most people need to be made to obey through force.
26:08 🏛 Nietzsche calls for a hierarchical ordering of individuals in society, arguing that only those who can obey themselves should be allowed to rule.
29:04 📚 Nietzsche believes that even consciousness itself serves as a means of communication and organization among humans, rooted in the idea of commanding and obeying.
31:34 🎓 Nietzsche criticizes the education system of his time for not instilling the virtues necessary for thriving in a rank-ordered world, emphasizing obedience, subordination, discipline, and serfdom.
34:49 🌟 Nietzsche sees the pathos of distance, the emotional sense of separation between higher and lower individuals, as essential for the advancement of mankind, leading to the creation of refined categories and distinctions.
35:41 🧐 Nietzsche asserts that morality, particularly in Universalist terms, emerges when aristocracy is in decline, and he supports a self-legislating pre-morality.
43:04 🤨 Nietzsche criticizes Socrates and his dialectic for undermining the framework of social rank ordering and authority, viewing Socrates as a clown who made himself be taken seriously.
44:00 🧠 Nietzsche argues that the trajectory of Western morality, influenced by figures like Socrates, Kant, and Christianity, is anti-life and universalistic.
45:39 🤔 Nietzsche formulates a principle that healthy morality is dominated by an instinct of life, while anti-natural morality opposes life's instincts.
46:08 🤷 Nietzsche oscillates between being seen as an immoralist or destroyer of morality and as someone who approves of a "master morality" or seeks a meta-ethical principle based on will to power.
47:19 💪 Discipline is essential for Nietzsche's ideal of an aristocracy of free spirits who can take command of society.
48:28 🕴 Nietzsche's description of an aristocratic character emphasizes physical composure, self-control, and a demeanor that conveys power and serenity.
52:35 💡 Nietzsche sees exceptional individuals who dare to act unreasonably and against their own material interests as the driving force of culture and civilization.
57:44 😔 Nietzsche criticizes Christianity for siding with suffering and pity, seeking to invalidate other forms of joy and life's pleasures.
01:00:28 🔀 Nietzsche contrasts the common type, driven by advantage and self-preservation, with the exceptional type willing to sacrifice for something beyond material concerns.
01:05:17 🌟 Nietzsche acknowledges the role of luck and incalculable factors in the emergence of higher human beings, often leading to the squandering of potential greatness.
01:06:14 🌟 Nietzsche believes that exceptional individuals, the "exceptions," play a crucial role in the development of society, even though most of them are destroyed by random circumstances or accidents of fate.
01:07:07 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes the concept of a "good man" in society, which often aligns with weakness, sickness, failure, and suffering, as it goes against the instincts and natural qualities of exceptional individuals.
01:08:03 💥 Nietzsche advocates for the value of the "noble exception" or higher individuals who challenge societal norms and morality, as they have the power to transform society, even though they face opposition from the majority.
01:08:58 💡 Nietzsche argues that even harmful individuals can be useful for the preservation of the species, as they nurture instincts that are essential for humanity's survival, even if their methods are unconventional.
01:09:50 🔄 Nietzsche emphasizes how the strongest and most "evil" spirits often push society forward by challenging established norms, fostering innovation, and reawakening passions that might have gone dormant.
01:15:06 🏛 Nietzsche describes the rise and fall of civilizations, where superior species or aristocratic societies eventually succumb to the herd morality and weaker forces, leading to a cyclical pattern.
01:20:00 🌍 Nietzsche envisions an aristocratic society where the superior species or Olympian men exist above the rest, using the labor of the lower classes for their own elevation and the creation of value in human life.
01:27:04 🌍 Nietzsche's philosophy challenges the idea that society's values, beauty, and achievements are untainted, as they often rely on elements of exploitation and slavery.
01:28:01 🌐 A sudden undoing of the slavery system could lead to economic collapse, highlighting the complex interdependence of society's institutions.
01:29:24 🏛 Nietzsche's view of aristocracy and rank-ordered society differs from 20th-century authoritarian movements like fascism, which he saw as aberrations influenced by mass democratic energy and technology.
01:30:32 🗽 Nietzsche's distrust of the state arises from its transformation into an ideology, serving as a means rather than an end, leading to the rise of the state as an all-powerful entity.
01:31:29 💼 Nietzsche emphasizes that all political systems ultimately involve the rule of men, not abstract laws, and raises the question of who should rule, preferring individuals who manifest greater power and legacy.
01:35:08 🏛 Nietzsche idealizes aristocracy as rule by the best, with rulers focused on manifesting greater power and leaving behind a legacy, challenging conventional notions of morality and goodness.
01:36:59 💪 Nietzsche's political philosophy is deeply rooted in his understanding of life as appropriation, injury, and the will to power, which shapes his perspective on morality and politics.
This is the video on Nietzsche I always wanted. No one discusses this topic and it's the most intriguing part of Nietzsche's philosophy.
I feel like I've been listening to these podcasts for so long but there's always another one I haven't heard yet it's awesome
You need to make a video on Yukio Mishima and his connection to Nietzsche.
Yes
I’ll always remember the first time I read Patriotism. The description of seppuku made me physically ill. That’s a compliment.
I wonder how much of this rests on Nietzsche perceiving himself to be a part of the aristocracy. If a group of people better than him, by his own standards, came to him and said that they agree with his philosophy and that he should be their slave, how would he react? Would he choose what's best for Nietzsche or what's best for aristocracy, or would he consider those 2 to always be the same?
I think a lot of people believe they are elite when it’s convenient for them
I think Nietzsche considered himself a slave to some extent, given his aphorism that he who does not have 2/3s of his day to himself is a slave. That certainly describes his life as a professor. Also, in The Greek State essay fragment, he suggests that the Greeks saw any labor to be shameful - even the labor of bringing forth works of art or literature. The idea of being forced to labor in service of a god or a muse was always tinged with embarrassment. As an artist myself, I’m personally more than happy to be a slave to my muse, and I wonder if Nietzsche felt the same way.
As for a straight answer to your question, I’m not sure I can provide one. I will say that as much as he attacked romanticism, Nietzsche shares with the romantics the same desire to go back to a state of affairs that imo can’t exist anymore. Nevertheless, in studying his views we learn some valuable things about ourselves and our own political ideas. To me the scariest question is whether we *all* believe that some people - as I mention in the video, the Einsteins of the world - ought to be supported by the labor of others, and if so, what does that imply about us?
@@untimelyreflections Assuming that supporting the Einstein's of the world brings about a meaningful progress, maybe we do have a duty to be slaves in some ways. But even if the ubermensch arrives some day, what then? is that the end of progress and everything is perfect then?
@@6ixthhydro652 No, then it's time for the Uberubermensch
@@6ixthhydro652 I don't personally conceive of the ubermensch as a literal figure in history, but as an ideal figure that stands infinitely above mankind, meaning that we could not ever "reach" it. It's the infinite limit of human greatness, the goal of goals - which means it will always stand as a goal no matter what age we're living in. In other words, no matter how great you think you are, there is some way in which you are "human all too human", and the overman stands for the value of striving to transcend those limitations, rather than flogging ourselves for them.
Interestingly. The emblem of the Fujiwara family in the Japanese aristocracy is a similar tree than the Sipo matador. It is a tree that sucks the life of other tree to grow and then they blossom flowers.
Almost halfway through the mainline series with this video. My favorite one yet. Is it weird I found this optimistic?
"that this is the case and has been the case with every society on Earth they're all based on the labor of people
who have been made into means. That this is what life is whether we like it or not and when we try to dismantle that
reality we don't actually create a society free from it we just dismantle Society." And this is why Nietzsche is not a postmodernist. Some interests must be marginalized and all cannot be treated equally. If we want to create the Best individuals, their interests must rise above the common.
The metaphor of the full life cycle of the matador plant bringing down its host tree and then finally falling down under its own weight onto the compost pile below is in line with actual descriptions of jungle/forest fertility cycles. That cycle of opulent growth feeding itself with its own decay is the reason that rainforests produce the 'black gold' soil layer, the richest, most fertile substrate on the planet, which feeds --almost effortlesly-- the next waves of hyperfertility for the myriad organisms participating in the system. Brought back to comparisons with Nietzsche's so called aristocratic leaning, we could say that he views these elite cultures as agents of massive productivity and enriching influence even centuries after their own local demise.
You should make a video on Yukio Mishima
Cheri commented 2 months back, revolving around Albama…it was so poignant so amazing…
The SIPO MATADOR tendency so all embracing… needs to be studied deeply
Lovely voice!
I wonder what Nietzsche would think of the special Olympics?
Good question
1:25:16
This is why I believe that communism -for which I have a very idiosyncratic way of understanding it, less closer to some of the classical marxists and Marxist Leninists, but closer to Marx and the descendants of left communists, in what nowadays goes by the name of 'communization'- will favor the prevalence and prestige of "the better ones" in so far as wealth, and therefore time, will not be an obstacle in regards to having to work so much, not only to fulfill basic needs, but to use it to get better artistically or scientifically, etc.
Of course it cannot be an aristocracy because it's a classless social formation, in terms of who gets to work for whom and for what. Yet, it cannot be expected that everyone will make better, greater use of their "free time" than others. Those who do will put out magnificent works, will keep advancing, and I think they will be naturally recognized and elevated symbolically, or even materially, though not in terms of wealth which would be unnecessary; those who do not, will perhaps harvest jealousy and resentment, but I don't think it will be enough to account for any sort of revolt or vengeful spite any time soon, because the "free time" of "the better ones" will not be predicated on the exploitation of "the lower ones". We can haphazard that "the lower ones" will know that they're not "gifted" and be much more smooth about accepting it, less grimm. Fate will be much more clear and transparent, because the only alternative is to believe that they can always start, or are yet to flourish, they just haven't done so. And they can design different strategies for recognizing or explaining away their shortcomings. Yet we can also speculate that the "elite", the strongest, the greater ones, will find it worthwhile to teach the "weak" and "lower" how to be better, stronger, and cultivate their instincts. A pedagogical exchange that will itself be part of the communist social drama. So even if everything is not leveled out, we can say that it raises the bar, and slowly throughout the generations a stronger and livelier, more "natural" people will be cultivated.
In my view, I think Nieztsche reifies exploitation too much, as well as the pathos of distance. You obviously need to bypass distance for there to be a pedagogical exchange. And I'm not against suffering by being against exploitation, though I do consider it a form of useless and aimless suffering. I agree with Nieztsche that suffering is unavoidable, much more when we are going to achieve something great. I believe communism implies neither the utilitarian maximization of happiness or pleasure and the total reduction of suffering, only their dislocation from the nihilistic vices of modernization and the compulsory temporality of capital which homogenises, standardizes, and *levels* every living human mode of expression, manifestation, or production, and will power according to "socially necessary labour time".
I vehemently disagree, communism has never resulted in the flourishing of greater works, quite the opposite. Communism is by nature iconoclastic , which in turn demands the extrication of intellectual and creative people lest they threaten the dominant ideology. Capitalism is little better , it warps the value into a commodity and in turn favour banal over production of garbage… with the occasional great works. Suffice to say that for the state to dictate labour is shameful will never happen in a communism, given the hammer and sickle not the pen or the paint brush is the iconography of the political movement .
I feel like the discussion at the end about the necessity of laborers and the desire to allow potentially great people (who may be members of the “slave” class) realize that potential could be seen as an endorsement of capitalism. Perhaps I just prefer to see it that way; I won’t pretend to be unprejudiced. I consider myself a capitalist and egoist, but my views are aligned more with Hoppe than Rand (Hoppe’s critique of government, and democracy in particular, makes far more sense to me both philosophically and psychologically than Rand’s minarchist stance). Theoretically, an “anarchist” (anarchy meaning simply “without a centralized monopoly on force”, I’m not implying egalitarianism or the lack of a social hierarchy) society of egoists founded on mutual respect of property “rights” (I know rights don’t truly exist metaphysically from an egoist standpoint) could produce essentially a meritocratic aristocracy. You have your “masters” (property owners, shareholders, executives, etc) and “slaves” (workers, tenants, and so forth), but a purely “free” capitalist system should encourage individuals from any social strata to increase their material power through providing some value to society in any way they can.
I guess to some extent this begs the question of whether “masters” really require unwilling slaves to be noble. And should the masses accept slavery or is it right for a slave to pursue his own power as well (is it possible to create noble and/or free spirits in the lower classes, encouraging the will to power without giving in to resentment?). And is it perhaps preferable for the rulers over the weak to instead be leaders of the strong? I also struggle to see the virtue in nobles attempting to impose virtues on the weak through force, and similarly I don’t see why the slaves should want to serve. These last two ideas seem to almost lean towards an aristocratic form of utilitarianism that I like no more than the typical liberal brand because it seems to imply a universal moral duty to serve power rather than attaining it for one’s self.
The best!
55:05 nah
Check if this is all spot on or if some what has been enunciated below fauls to accord with what us generally taught.
Philosophy must be defined. A definitum or the thing that we define need not have only one definition but more than one. We usually define by name for which is the sane as the etymological definition and for the Greek "philosophia" this is "love of Wisdom". Wisdom is a form if knowledge and must be able to distinguish one form of knowledge from the other; opinion as a form of knowledge can be distinguished from other forms of knowledge form from it's being probable and not necessary. Wisdom is highest knowledge of the causes of things. Philosophy is nominally defined as the love of the highest knowledge of the causes of things.
It's divided as a disciplines and as order in things to which they pertain to. As disciplines they are Rational Philosophy, Moral Philosophy and Natural Philosophy and as order in things to which they pertain are Natural Philosophy, Logical Philosophy and Moral Philosophy. Natural philosophy and Moral Philosophy are divided further. Natural philosophy includes Metaphysics and Mathematics among with General Physics and Sciences subordinated to it like Metrology, Psychology and so on. Mathematics into Arithematic, Mysic, Geometry abd Astronomy. Moral Philosophy is divided into Monastic Ethics, Domestic Ethics and Political Science.
Real definition( opposed to the nominal definition) of Philosophy is to be found in the quality called habit or skill. The skill in the soul taken as primary analogate explains why we predicte of some men "philosophers" and this skill expressed in their works will also explain why we predicte of some works "philosophical" and so on. We must be able to distinguish the skill from other skills that are similar till it forms a satisfactory definition for our definitum.
Nature goes on forever for everyone and everything to return as everyone and everything an infinite number of times through evolutionary processes. 🌌
People with high intelligence still need to dedicate themselves to achievement or nothing is achieved. There are other character traits that leads to achievement not only intelligence.
I disagree with using the term "classic conservatism" to mean the newer definition created as a demonization. Collectivism and inorganic heiararchal top down rule of all aspects by experts/aristocracy is the definition of communism and goal of socialism. Same as calling the anti-capitalist tribal collective of The National Socialists German Workers Party "right wing". And calling conservatism/right Fascist while Hitler and Mussolini were both socialists. As we can see today with the Democrats merge the power of the state and corporations to censor attack their political opposition, same as Mussolini had defined fascism.
please, go read marx
@@jidiplaygames1244 Why would I care to read the writings of an aristocrat that caused so much death and suffering by spreading his ignorance? The aristocrats and most corrupt always use the mental midgets of society to subvert the society into giving their wallets to the aristocrats to hold for them. The sky is falling, the whole world needs to pay a carbon tax to the personal jet owners..
I think it would be better to study actual political theory rather than learning ot from libertarian youtubers. You cannot understand world history and politics by simply "measuring" through the lense of a simplistic idea of individualism vs collectivism.
@@csabas.6342 I'm sorry for not being indoctrinated . I don't need a Marxist professor to indoctrinate me. I know that if you do not control the fruits of your labor then you re a slave.
We
Did the name Sipo matador was given by the colonizers? Because it sounds like brazilian or spanish.
It sounds like that to me also.
Matador means "Bull fighter" in Spanish and literally translates to " killer" but have no idea what Sipo means
@@otmanighoulassen6177 Sipo is a indigenous word. Sipo, Sipó or Cipó probably means the same thing.
[...] Common name for climbing and woody plants, with long, flexible branches that wrap around tree trunks as if they were ropes; [...]
Strangler fig, found all over the place.
The most significant blindspot in Nietszche's work as far as politics went was his total economic illiteracy. This applies to most philosophers, psychologists, and intellectuals in general. Almost all in fact.
Nietszche had no idea for example that the fastest way for a civilisation to gain ascension was through a true market economy in which people are permitted to trade with each other with a minimum of intervention and state control. This has been proven time and time again, Singapore in the 20th century and 19th century Britain and America would be obvious examples.
Systems in which the so-called elites are distant from the consequences of decisions and which significantly limit people's ability to trade with each other over time lose ground and invariably make poor decisions, over the years becoming more impoverished.
The economy itself is, on one level, a mechanism of will to power which actually allows people to participate on a much wider level than just the aristocracy. It also provides discipline and structure to the populace.
In the economy, intelligence and wisdom is distributed through the population, with each participant having a small level of knowledge about his role. Thinkers don't generally like to consider average IQ people as having important knowledge, but in reality, the consequential knowledge of a society is distributed, not centralized in a small group of luminaries.
Those that inherit great riches are generally some of the weakest out their if you take away the things outside themselves, that have supported them most of them would crumble. Many are largely out of touch the the feelings and circumstances that give rise to great art. Real war is fought in the dirt, pressure makes or breaks someone.
Genghis, Borgia ( soft g in both words)
I think El Sipo Matador sounds better
And yet it's the Christians who send a man to the moon.
I will go out on a limb and say Islam is the revaluation of values Nietzsche spoke of
Do elaborate
@@BasedYeeter42 where to start? So many. As a Muslim myself and having started reading Nietzsche when I was 17 now 37 along with the Prophet Muhammad and Rumi I would consider Nietzsche as one of my teachers. Islam’s morality is antithetical to “Christianity “ the same critiques made in The Quran about “Christianity “ are almost the same ones used by Nietzsche. So many of his aphorisms echo those of the Quran. In Islam there is no equal morality among men not to mention the natural antagonism that exists between them. Nothing egalitarian. The Quran is something to understand in terms of psychological/physiological effects. It rejects material casualty. It’s not systemised. Some verses are known by others. There’s always a “higher” interpretation. Our faith is “There is no GOD except Reality”
Nietzsche is deeply flawed , like Hegel and nowhere is this more apparent than in this topic. Sadly there are few who have critiqued him and brought forward the next iteration. This , along with Hegel , is key to understanding the evils of the 20th century.
Holy fuck FR you are talking about Ayn Rand within the first 5 minutes?
Austin for sure. FO bye bye.
Ahhhhh the masses must be used for the sake of the few, but for what higher purpose. 😂. ? Nietszche does not say, nor explain what "highest" means, or what will be manifested, is it aesthetics? Is it knowledge? Is it the source of protection for the masses themselves ? Is it so that the overman can become manifest? Or is it because the most supreme form of hedonism can materialize? What for? What for? What for? 😂. Nietszche does not say.
I think that a good example of the higher purpose that Nietzsche was proposing was Einstein and other intellectuals like him. If the commons find the purpose satisfying and meaningful, then don't they have a duty to be the slaves for the sake of a few?