Excellent. Thank you. I’d add Nietzsche’s injunction to scientists to turn to the exploration of value. “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!”
The whole "pale blue dot" idea always makes my eyes roll. It's completely dependent on us considering our own size as par. I could just as easily start at the atomic level and then consider humans "colossal living universes in which billions of creatures exist to uphold the walking god. In which wars are fought and billions of cities rise and fall." It's all a game of perspective ... and the two possibilities cancel each other out .... making the size of the universe inconsequential to how one "should" regard their position and state.
This is a great point. Sagan's monologue also ignores the fact that we unavoidably _are_ the centers of our "own universe" so to speak. The immensity of the exterior world (both big and small) as relayed to us by pointer readings does not change the fact that our immediate experience of that cosmos is still the basis of all that we know. That immediate/intimate experience should be the starting point as far as how we conceptualize our "position and state." This is something the ancient philosophers/mystics seemed to understand regardless of if they derived the "proper" conclusions from it. "Pale Blue Dot" has the same problem as the "we are just apes" viewpoint. Sure, "we are just apes," apes that are the product of billions of years of evolution and that have the ability to formulate a sentence such as "we are just apes." The attempt to minimize oneself ignores the fact that the very ability to be able to do so might be the most extraordinary thing of all.
I believe that humanity cannot exist without its hypocrisy. therefore just as we can enjoy dwelling in our mind, looking for answers, others have actively used their physical bodies to keep themselves preoccupied with the momentary aspect of existence, "living". It must mean that in order to appreciate our existance to the fullest from the perspective of were just a piece of dust in the universe, we're also the universe which encompasses the existance of miniscule worlds, where we are god.
Yes, very accurate. On top of the "perspective" issue you pointed out, there is the very fact that the very picture of the pale blue dot was taken by human means developed thanks to the potential of human thought. The very ability to contemplate out own physical smallness comes from the extent of power our intellect and technology have.
@@Epiousios18 "The attempt to minimize oneself ignores the fact that the very ability to be able to do so might be the most extraordinary thing of all." Your comment reminded me of Nietzsche's "He who despises himself still respect himself as one who despises," and our highest aspiration may be "the hour of the great contempt".
The obvious retort to Sagan's moralizing is that if the world we inhabit is insignificant, then so too is the blood spilled in the attempts to conquer it. The job of the scientist is to report on the laws that govern it, not to suggest moral attitudes we should take towards it, nor towards one another.
I like to jokingly refer to Sagan as one of the "high priests" of scientism. Many treat him (and others like him) like some sort of guru or prophet without realizing the irony of doing so.
Sagan's ethical position is self-refuting in that sense. He posits that human suffering is cosmically insignificant but that the avoidance of it is a moral obligation. But maintaining such a moralistic outlook is undermined if humanity itself has no inherent cosmic value to begin with. What this tells me is that we cannot search outside ourselves for reassurance of the values we hold within. The universe is not responsible for telling us how to live our lives.
@@thewrathematician1911 It is as Nietzsche said - we killed God and live in the shadow. God was something beyond ourselves to which our behavior was accountable. The priests of our institutions have always tried to usurp god, and with science found the wonders and miracles to do so within the minds of the more numerous midwits. Of course, why should I be nice to other people? Einstein recognized a similar problem and employed meta-causality - the notion that consequences beyond our calculation would be our benefit for good behaviors - but this would merely be a belief to preserve the moral traditions, not a means as to inform what actions are or are not moral. Neither is hedonism. Forcibly hooking someone up to an orgasm machine is not moral because it compells them to experience pleasure, nor would it be moral to lure them with addiction under the auspices of free choice. Only when another is recognized as an inviolable will do morals follow logically. In prior ages, the world and we belonged to God. Another person was God's creation and to violate that person was to violate God, who would have his account on you. Because science can create such wonders as to awe the public and get them to ask for proof of God, the priests are now free to rationalize any behavior as moral as no account of conduct is expected and there is no soul to hold sacred. Why should, scientifically speaking, genocide be prohibited? Why should experiments require consent? Why should the lives expended in wars matter? If the individual human being is nothing sacred, then traditional morals are merely an obstacle to the various goals of people who have the will and means to achieve whatever manmade horror lay beyond their comprehension.
Sagan can propose what he wants, who the hell are YOU to tell him otherwise? Let me guess....you have a preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing and think the evolving, heavily denomination - Bible interpretation based dark age moral framework shouldn't be questioned by anyone?
I always find myself returning to this video when I feel like I’m at my lowest. There is something so comforting and motivating about the ending of this video. It’s very well made
A couple of points before I lose the motivation to post: 1. Gazing upon the immensity of the cosmos does not necessarily lead to thoughts of our insignificance. It is not just Nietzsche who would object to that sort of equation. I am not sure if Sagan stops at the lessons of kindness and so on, but for Kant "this experience of the irresistibility of nature's power prompts us to realize that we are weak and existentially insignificant in the grand scheme of nature. And yet, it also reveals that we transcend nature as moral agents and systematic knowers." Similarly, there are religions that exploit that same sense of awe to bring your attention back to the mystery of consciousness without which there is no Nature and no awe. 2. You say being kind to each other does not logically follow from the pale blue dot, but there is an emotional logic that most people can immediately grasp with their common sense. We all share the sense of loneliness and lostness that image evokes - at least it may have evoked these feelings the first time we laid eyes on it. And it is human (or animal) to want protection and consolation in the face of such cosmic indifference. We all display those protective instincts when we see an abandoned kitten shivering in a rain-soaked field. When it comes to the cosmos, we are all in the position of those kittens. There is no one else looking out for us other than us. So the logic is clear enough to me and others, whether it is acceptable to Nietzsche - or the Nietzsche of our imagination, since he is no longer with us - is another story. This is not to say that I completely buy into what Sagan is attempting to do. He is laying the foundations of a secular religion, one based on the vastness and mystery of the cosmos and no longer on anthropomorphic gods. Did it work? Not really. Just like we continue to perceive and act as if the Earth is stationary after being educated about its rotation and revolution, our cosmic surroundings rarely register in our day-to-day consciousness and activities. We continue to live as if we are the center of the cosmos for all intents and purposes and the occasional reminder that we are insignificant specks barely creates a blip before it vanishes.
Carl Segan have gone to a great length to explain, how irelevant the man and his endeavours. Ergo, there is also no meaning in helping others, since they are also meaningless. As well as there is no meaning(or problem) in the blood spelt by the Tyrants.
Some people are kind, and will have that kind of reaction while faced by shared suffering - be kind, join forces, take care of each other. But others will have the same kind of reaction Sagan rejected - conquer more, fight, make yourself safe first. We have seen this often in history, especially coming from the powerful ones (I personally think people who became very powerful must have a streak of psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies, a strong disregard for others). So the point is that the supposed common-sense emotional appeal of picturing ourselves alone and fragile is not granted. That image has that effect only if you are already that kind of person. It has no genuinely pedagogical or transformative power.
@@andreab380 Indeed it has no power, as we can glean from the fact that the world has only further deteriorated after that image was widely witnessed. The world is hotter and more polarized while conspiracy theories run amok. My point was that while no reaction follows "logically" from the pale blue dot, Sagan's appeal to be kind is one that makes sense to most people. At one time religion made the same appeal within a different framework (fear of God, the afterlife and so on), and now Carl makes the same argument with the help of Voyager images and so on. If there are psychopathic or autistic people that common-sense logic cannot reach, that's no fault of Sagan.
I like these videos that tackle modern issues or events with philosophies of the past (that are still relevant of course). I think Nietzsche had in mind people like you when writing his books to motivate himself. Great video, thanks for sharing
the point of sagan speech is that we should be more caring, appreciating more the wonders of life on earth. Science Is not about nihilism, its about understanding nature, which have produced us from a vastness of emptiness and dust. Thanks to science , Nietzsche can make his projection of a future superman.
I don't wish to criticize this video or its author, but I just want to point out that many of Neitzche's writings weren't serious insights, but "uncomforatble questions" he was posing not just to his readers but also to himself. He had an idea that certain insights were not readily understood because they were emotionally unappealing, and so he sought to dig up "treasure" through exploring what he felt to be the psychologically repellent. Much of what he wrote he did not actually believe, but was just "trying on" or writing "tongue in cheek". In fact he stated in one of his popular books something like: "Behold, I have strewn about diamonds and other precious gems. But beware, for amoungst these I have also strewn poisonous snakes." I.e. he knew he was likely revealing valuable insights as well as misleading and poisonous thoughts. He was a deep thinker, and full of irony and apparent self contradiction. But he was also a product of his age and limited to what he could know and understand. It is difficult, I think to fairly interpret him, and I think the best interpretations have to remain personal (i.e. what impact did he make on you?) and his judgement must be left to God. So I think a "synopsis" or characterization of Neitzche's thoughts or beliefs might be doing him an injustice of sorts. If one wants to understand what Neitzche had to say, you really need to read his writings for yourself. All that being said, I think Neitzche had one of the finest intellects and at the same time, many of the things he wrote, at least literally interpreted are simply wrong. He was human, all too human, and I for one loved him and also forgive him for his great imperfection. Cheers
Absolutely! It’s hard to deconstruct a superficiality without being faced with an accusation of superficiality. Yet FN wasn’t afraid of doing it anyway. How deep your abyss is, is dependent on how deep you’re willing to take it, while maintaining a healthy dose of irony…
At first i wasn't happy with Nietzsche's stance on science but i grew to respect his opinion. There's much coldness and nihilism in science. I feel almost obligated to agree with Nietzsche about almost everything because he's helping me fight with depression but I consider myself technocratic transhumanist and thinking of scientists as peddlers of nihilism would be pretty depressing.
Scientists are for the most part technical-minded people. I study physics (undergrad), and most physicists I know don't really seem to have any strong opinions on the interpretations of quantum mechanics - they can calculate, make experiments, advance theory, and that's the realm in which they work. They might incidentally, or maybe as an aggregate, end up peddling this or that philosophical ideal - but the average individual? I really wouldn't say so.
Could you describe your transhumanism to me? Do you want to merge us with machines, life extension, upload our consciousness to computer sort of thing? What does it mean to you?
WOOOOOOW THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR EXISTING!!!!!! Your channel is changing my life!!! I knew Nietzsche but not like this, now i'm starting to truly understand, and for the first time i'm getting filled with a desire to live, search and experience, break the status quo, one based on wisdom not simply in want. A philosophy that puts us against each other so we can transcend is AMAZING, it gives a holy meaning for our endless fights that is usually seeing as vicious, even defeat and pain become essencial for transformation. The stepping stones for the happy moments are made by this chain of Causality and Butterfly Effect that includes the bad.
Excellent use of repetition in image and text to reinforce audience learning; you show increasing sophistication of expression, and your goal appears to honestly be that of elucidation and enlightenment. You have done more for fostering an understanding of Nietzsche than anyone since Walter Kaufmann. At first, a critique of asceticism seems to be an untimely meditation indeed, as the West currently flounders in hedonism. But the recent history of a certain enthusiasm for masks and isolation at least on the part of a portion of the population, shows that there is still an appetite for asceticism among some.
Brilliant video. Presenting a thinker's thoughts is one thing but using them to interpret other events and thinkers is next level and demonstrates deep thought. I would like to see a comparison of Nietzsche to Guenon.
I don’t agree with the part that Nietzsche wants human to be the center of the universe. He wants human’s to live according to the cosmos, to be « one » with the cosmos as much intensity as possible. Nietzsche never claimed that he wanted humans to be the center of the universe.
one could understand that being "one" with the universe makes it the center. I think it can be understood as a subjective center, probably not everyone have the capabilities to "live". I dont really care for all the lifestyle tips Nietzsche is doing, so i might be totally ignorant to this.
@@iwtdkmp5081 Maybe but nevertheless it’s only a selective humans, the « ubermensch » who are capable of living life that way. But not mankind in general.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 It's the Ubermensch who will first be able to, but part of being the Ubermensch is that he gives meaning to everyone else as well
I think you are doing Carl Sagan a disservice in focusing on one aspect of his work and thinking, one line of thinking, one "speech" . He is speaking from one perspective in this quote, perhaps an inhuman perspective, to emphasise (later) the significance of the human. He is creative, curious, scientific, and dare I say poetic. In other areas of even this series he holds up the attributes of the human condition as absolutely significant, , and its potential, not just scientific potential, but the potential of being human. You could equally quote his line, paraphrasing... "We are literally the stuff of stars, a way for the universe to know itself" . It is not far from Shakespeare, and I know Nietzsche appreciated Shakespeare.
"Science enforces nihilism", this doesn't sound true to me, I feel like science has a different objective and nihilism is what you personaly feel when learning about those discoveries but you might aswell feel optimisim, awe, fear and many other things. I don't think the nihilist feeling is on science, I think that's on you. Evolution theory was not proposed with the intempt of making you feel worthles, simply reality was probed and questioned and that's the answer we found. The job of a scientist is never to find out about human concepts like morality, if you are extracting those values form astronomical studies you are using them incorrectly.
Agree with everything except that morality is off limits to science. Sagan's astronomy is not how knowledge regarding morality will be achieved though, agree.
@@jamesmark4880 yeah, I should clarify that the branches of science that study human subjects like psychology, sociology etc are still on their infancy and we are still on the fence about them being sciences or merely using science as a tool while modeling human behaviour with a more philosophical approach.
Nietzsche is not saying that science is meant to study things like the concepts of morality or human value ,what he is saying is that when we analyze and draw conclusions from these "scientific facts" we get a nihilistic world-view, analyzing science and drawing conclusions from " scientific facts" is not the same thing as doing scientific work and enquiry and discovering new "scientific facts"
@@Nana-bv1md "we get a nihilistic world-view" He was wrong, scientists are pushing for space exploration, technological advancements, life enhancing drugs etc. they all want to live and say yes to life otherwise they would just hide in a rural isolated cabin and go mad from their own isolation and die. I don't know how you can call this nihilism. It seems like whatever Nietzsche didn't like, he called it "nihilistic".
This is probably the most important video you've made so far and I fear it won't reach as many as it should. Count on me for sharing it within my reach
I present myself with the same questions. Found this video extremely suggestive to me and offered interesting ideas to think about. We are nothing individually, but as a collective, I find it so hard to be without “meaning” ( quote intentional). Imagine perceiving in all its glory a universe you were born from, just to find out that it just exists. So hard to swallow. But we always choose to believe in transcendence of some sort.
When I was a graduate student in physics, I had a general relativity professor who countered the claim that heliocentrism disproves that the Earth is at the center of the universe by making a metaphysical argument by saying that because I am a conscious being, capable of sight and senses, that I alone am the center of the universe. I think this serves as a Nietzschean counterargument to that framework and also reframes cosmology as life-affirming rather than life-negating.
having to care for a separate piece is suffering for the ego driven, wanting to care for everything is a reward of the ascetic ideal, which I feel is about dropping off bias that isn't needed in order to feel responsible
I am only a blue dot if I define myself by what is seen as my body. But the body cannot live in a vacuum, the body implies an environment, the environment implies other factors, which imply the entire current state of the entire universe. Therefore I am in a strict sense the entire universe. My existence depends on it in the way it is, just as its existence depends on me being here. This is the wisdom of the avatamsaka sutra and described with the analogy of Indra's net.
Yes, and what? What use is that realization? You exist in the universe, congratulations, do all the colors of the world fade to black for you now, knowing that they are all one in the same? I'll bet no.
@@jamesmark4880 when that realization is merely intellectual, there is no use. When it becomes an emotional and Instinctive realisation, it is all there is to attain.
This is just a cheap linguistic manipulation. No, you are not "in a strict sense the entire universe." That is the opposite of a "strict" definition. It is a definition that is so expansive as to be useless. "You" only exist as a mind and personality insofar as your physical brain is relatively intact.
@@amanakeet Again, what does that look like, emotionally and instinctively knowing that everything is the same? Do you emotionally and instinctively forget to wipe your ass because, with or without shit is the same?
@@CeramicShot you are correct there, the brain thinking that it is the universe is in fact objectively false. It depends on the line of demarcation that the brain defines for its own existence compared to what its not, i.e the rest of the universe. When the brain dies, it is not. If its existence is based in its own thoughts then, is its existence really objectively real? It is real in the thought of itself. When one contemplates about what one is excluding one's own thought, there is a flavor of pure witnessing, pure consciousness. That brings alchemical changes in one's own body, and gives one a taste of something that can't be described in "strict definitions". Time to light another spliff.
Science and Nihilism are really two different things. Science is just knowlege. Nihilism is a philosophy of meaning. It observes that there is no meaning in the universe, but that is actually incorrect. That is literal falsehood. It is true that meaning is not a measurable quality in the things around us, but that's because it is a entirely man made abstraction of the world around us. So, there is meaning, just not in the world around us. It's in our heads, and that's not to belittle it's importance. I think meaning is the most important thing to me, because without it I would have nothing to do with my life. Actually, I would say everything is in our heads. Our heads are in our heads too. Meaning is an abstraction of truth obtained through JTB (justified true belief). Just thought I would point that out.
@Freshly Made Ghosts Meaning is indeed a subjective measure, but a subjective measure must also be objective because if it wasn't it would break the laws of thermodynamics. What do you think a subjective measure is? Magic fairy dust? This is not superficial, it is actually the truth. Therefore, that declaration that there is no meaning must be false. Yes, I am here to declare that non-existance, indeed, does not exist.
1:22 I always found it weird, and horrible at times, how people think something insignificant just cause is small (and being a short person i feel personally attacked). I observed this first when i saw my mom killing flies and tiny rats with no cerimony but feeling pity of bigger animals being butchered, and even our sentinentality towards dogs but indifference towards other animals. It just felt hypocritical, horrible and cruel, does something really worth less cause It's small in comparison to other? Is because small means less of a threat or usefulness? Then, Microorganism and Atoms: allow us to introduce ourselves. Isn't this idea only a product of the human mind, our caveman instinct? In sum, i disagree with this notion.
Hypocrisy and irony is a part of human nature. Becz we can't know everything at all times, and we are not all powerful. There will always be an apparent flaw in our thinking.
Very helpful, so congratulations. Weighty note: the Christianity looked at is understandably only the schismatic Catholic/Protestant and deeply ascetic heresy. As an Orthodox I must point out that the apostolic church rejects the imbalance and the nihilism inevitably fostered by asceticism. The old church was always aware of the denaturing temptations lurking within asceticism: the stylite fathers and mothers took up the challenge knowing the dangers. Orthodoxy insists of the value of our physical being; God chose to become one of us, in the flesh. We see temporal existence as having been deified, mystically validated: we are enjoined to enjoy and value every aspect and every moment of life- because it has ultimate and transcendental value.
@@mingthan7028 Protestantism and Catholicism are internally incoherent. They don't measure up on dozens of their own self-defined metrics. Orthodoxy is, at least internally coherent. Strangely Nietszche's writings are a very good complement to someone learning about the history of the church and Orthodoxy as they transparently show the psychology of the purifying Germanic strain of Protestantism and the sickly priest figure that rules Catholicism. Both of these figures are antithetical to Orthodoxy, which is in fact the first and only true version of Christianity. It's difficult to describe to a Westerner just how watered down and perverted the Western versions of Christianity are compared to the original. In feel, theology and practice they are a totally different religion. I say this as someone raised in a Catholic family in a Protestant school and country. The first time I encountered Orthodoxy in Romania and North Macedonia it was absolutely obvious that what I had seen in the Western churches was a vastly inferior version of faith. This doesn't mean that Orthodoxy is ultimately correct - that is a question of faith - but it is at least the true version of what it purports to be - the tradition of followers that started with the apostles.
I believe you may have revealed here your own philosophy, and as Nietzsche says, the philosophy reveals something about the philosopher. A particular resistance to the scientific, that goes beyond nietzsche's own views .
Sagan "feels" that humanbeings are insignificant in a vast universe. Which comes down to that "feeling" is more important than the material world, as it has the capacity to give it the meaning. If the feeling is more important, then it doesn't really matter if we are living in a vast universe or not. What is important would be what we feel about it. We still can feel good about ourselves after a bench press even if we know about the size of the universe.
"In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of "world history"-yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die. One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts" Nietzsche Fragment, 1873: from the Nachlass
I realize some of this is due to Nietzsche's chosen semantics, but he makes a fatal flaw. The morals he speaks of are not Christian. The existed long before Christianity was a thing. They are also not arbitrary. They are creations of us and our evolution. They are millions of years in the making. The reason we give meaning to things is because we have evolved to give meaning to things. Because we evolved as social animals we evolved to have the morals we have today.
In other words: we are merely automatons of evolutionary processes, no different to animals. In fact no different to the chemical processes of an inanimate object. Like rocks in space, we are merely bundles of chemicals undergoing chemical processes. There is nothing more significant about a human being than there is about a rock. This way of thinking is the nihilism inherent in modern science.
When i look at the stars i think about everything that is out there waiting to be discovered.There is practically no limit to the number of possible worlds! And that is what's comforting. Not feeling "insignificant". We are anything but that. Being self aware is a VERY significant thing.
I think Carl Sagan may have identified the reason that men are cruel to one another. Mankind takes itself way too seriously and doesn't compare himself to the grand scheme of things. We see ourselves as self-important and self-righteous, which is often what creates our cruelty toward one another. I think Sagan's point was simply to address the fact that when we realize we aren't all that significant, we automatically humble ourselves in being more kind to one another, not necessarily because it's an obligation to do so. Sagan understood the usual cause of our cruelty, which stems from our perceptions of being all important. In other words, I'm not sure Sagan is saying that because we are insignificant in the universe that it follows logically that we be kind to each other. Rather, because we are insignificant, if we come to realize this, we therefore will naturally become more humble and kindness will just follow from this realization.
Being humble and kind towards a realization of that kind is only a consequence. All sorts of thing can happen, as well as cruelty also. If we are so insignificant, why don’t some people just be even more cruel, that can also be a possibility. His statement is purely a moral judgement and nothing else.
@@kendrickjahn1261 i think just like Nietzche said, only a select few « superior man » or the « ubermensch », can overcome this realization, not by kindness nor cruelty, but to live according to the cosmos.
Firstly, thank you very much for clear explanations, quiet narration, and no background music! Very much appreciated! As a huge fan of both Carl Sagan and philosophy, l agree with certain points. When l first saw the pale blue dot photo, it brought tears to my eyes and my immediate reaction was our beautiful home and all of us are vulnerable, and just hanging there in space. Imagine actually floating in space and seeing the earth from that distance, how much you would just want to get home to it and the love you'd have to see it come in to view. The whole earth and everything on it is our home. We have to care for it and each other. That said, sometimes l do get irritated by ppl crowing how insignificant man is etc...for me the deep field image gives me the opposite feeling, we are a precious gem in the cosmic sand. The often hopeless note that some science documentaries end with, is annoying, as is any kind of arrogance, like painful unnecessary experiments on animals. However all that being said, as a life long student of philosophy, it has only been in recent years that l've come to realize that scientific explanations are not the things they're trying to explain. Scientists are trying to give ppl the clearest, easiest access to nature, so that we can marvel at it. It's like they are showing us a gate and holding it open so we can get access to the greatest show on earth. Philosophy seems to help ppl access the power of thought. Unlike science, in philosophy the method of wonder and the conclusion and feeling it produces are the same: the joy of wonder and the freedom of critical thinking. Science has wonder too, but the scientist says "Don't stare in wonder at my finger pointing at the moon, stare in wonder at the moon! Be no longer afraid it's an angry god (or whatever), by knowing what it really is, it's a gift to you". If you don't care about their explaination, that's fine, but at least you know what you're dealing with.
I have always found this hatred of the self to be annoying - especially within the Christian context. It is my belief that a divine entity is responsible for our existence - there is something to be gained by our being alive and experiencing this ... thing ... we call consciosness. I call it a belief because it is a belief. But it comes with some logical consequences. The experience is exactly what it is supposed to be. Whether it is part of some process, a lesson, or all of the possibilities in one ... that is perhaps unknowable. Looking at this world and deciding it, or ourselves, are somehow flawed or imperfect is either a figure of speech or tantamount to heresy. If one lives as though this world is flawed, one is effectively declaring themselves to know how to make a more perfect existence. To declare god inadequate and to be able to claim his place as his better. This doesn't mean we should argue for stagnation - the universe would never allow us to be able to do something unintended by its divine creative force. We are meant to explore and experiment, to document and to debate. But one should be cautious when taking into one's self the notion that life is insignificant, that we are meaningless, that we are foreign to nature, etc. It is, within the christian context, the embrace of ideals rooted in claiming to know better than God. One could bypass this by claiming God to simply be malevolent or to otherwise have some utilitarian purpose for subjecting us to an imperfect experience we are supposed to reject... But there is a gap in the logic that always reminded me of that line in revelation where it said all would worship the beast and its blaspheme.
You’re suggesting Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot implies a meaninglessness and insignificance of humanity and Earth, but I don’t read it the same - sure, he’s pointing out the meaninglessness of earthly bickering and power struggles when compared to the magnificence of space, that all that we are and have and ever have been is wholly enclosed within a pixel; but to my reading he concludes that what we have is to be cherished and valued all the more so when we realise its precariousness as that tiny speck, the only place in the universe we know of where meaning exists, on that pale blue dot suspended on a sunbeam
I feel like Nietzsche uses the scientists and science interchangeably, which in my opinion is incorrect. Science as system or collection of things that are cannot have the ascetic ideal, but it's when the subjective mind of the scientists is introduced do we have the ascetic ideal for any comment on the meaning/meaninglessness of that which is, is a statement describing the mind(scientists, Carl Sagan) and not the fact of smallness of Earth in relation to the universe.
What if we took into account the implications brought about by the subject matter? From what little understanding I have, it appears Nietzsche concerns himself with the will to power (the human element) and the means from which this will manifests itself into actuality (the platonic? element). Consequently, both elements cannot be excluded from one another and its unfair to mark the interchangeable terminology as incorrect; more precise i would argue is to say the terminology is vague. I think my argument is stronger when applying the same reasoning with religion in that religion, although simply a static system or collection of traditions let's say, is not separable (I think) from the human element because religion does not exist outside the will to power of the people practicing this said system. Likewise, science is very much a human process and possibly a manifestation of people's ascetic ideal. Simply put, taking the will out of these human-made systems, to me, feels like taking the water out of a cup or the light out of a magnifying glass and only then analyzing its properties; doing so in my mind creates categorically different objects from what was initially being analyzed. Interested to hear your thoughts.
Carl Sagan my first best friend and only friend for quite some time because I was sick when I was born in the hospital never met him I hope he rests in peace.
I had started studying Buddhism and Nietzsche philosophy same time, and i studied more I felt both are similar to each other, first of all Buddhism was misunderstood by most philosopher of 18th and 19th century, Buddhism doesn't believe in asceticism like Hinduism, Buddhism philosophy especially Mahayana believe in concept of "Boddhistva"- A man of great deed who can even leave enlightenment for welfare of humanity, Buddhism also talk anarchy of human society as Dukha and meaning of life by individual value and purpose in life, tbh concept of ubermanch and boddhistva are quite similar, I hope we will see more reasearch about similarities between Buddhism and Nietzsche philosophy
While I can agree on some similarities on Nietzsche’s philosophy and Buddhism which I agree with you, there is still a notable difference between these two thinking about the attitude towards suffering. While Buddhism is about renouncing, and quitting towards suffering, Nietzsche’s philosophy is about to dive into suffering wholeheartedly, with joy and even accentuating suffering. Nietzsche’s god is Dionysos, aka the same god that we can find in Grece, hindouism, Judaism, a god that doesn’t exist in Buddhism however (certainly not Christianity also). For that instance, Nietzsche’s philosophy is contradictory to Buddhist thinking.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 Buddhism philosophy is not about renouncing and quitting suffering even though most western intellectual believe it, if you read philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, a person is expected to become a boddhistva a person who use all their power and energy to saving suffering beings in this world rather than entering into salvation, both laymen and monks in Buddhism are expected to remain part of society and serve it. Even, Nietzsche himself wrongly interpreted Buddhism, but if you deeply study Buddhism you will find it's very similar to Nietzsche philosophy
@@max-cs9ko Thanks for the info, to be completely honest, I studied Nietzsche and not Buddhism, hence why I was typing towards Nietzsche’s view on Buddhism, and subsequently there difference. I would study Buddhism more intensely one day when I have time (currently studying the Old Testament)
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 Don't take my word, but my understanding is that the Buddhist "dukkha", what has been translated as suffering, is more akin to "dissatisfaction." There's the two dart analogy from the Pali canon, which is that the first dart is to suffer some injury or pain, and the second dart is to wish you weren't feeling that feeling, and Buddhism concerns the second dart. Therefore it could be seen as a path to accept suffering rather than deny it. edit: And I think this contrasts with Nietzsche's description of ascetics because they crave pain, and craving is also something to let go of in Buddhism. Does that still end up nihilistic according to Nietzsche? I'm not sure.
1:12 I've traveled the world and we ordinary humans are no reflection of what Segan describes as "us", it's the vile creatures in control that is being described here...
Question is, why aren't we able to completely cut off this keen sense of nihilism or self denial. Because it's always been there. Humans have always worshipped something they considered to be more powerful or knowledgeable than themselves e,g elements, wizards, mountains, trees, ancestors, science, rulers e.t.c. We've always needed heroes, sages and gods. Why is this? Because we want to live and it's not possible to do it alone. Instinctively, we feel our survival and well being, on some level depends on being part of a group or tribe. A tribe requires social, political and moral consensus to keep it together. Some level of self denial is necessary to ensure this. This is where religion, philosophy and perhaps science come in. They help the society to function more harmoniously. Which makes it possible for many to survive.
Sagan was talking about perspective not the semantics of 'insignificant' or 'meanighless'. He makes not judgements in his arguement. The narrator made several poor assumptions and judgements upon Sagan.
You can find pleasure in pain; you cannot find pleasure in suffering. Suffering already includes a negative value judgment a priori, much like murder is always illegal by definition.
Even if I become the UberMansch, and overcome the great void of Nihil Monster, the thought doesn't go away, does it? "How insignificant I am?" Isn't existence is a great play between Joker vs Buddha? The snake biting it's own tail...
The universe is as insignificant to me as I am to it. The "insignificant man" has the ability to stab me, rob me, shoot me, and do to me all manners of different abuses. The "insignificant man" can also save me and give me massive opportunities. They have much more effect on my life than the outer universe. Having a sense of importance over this "speck of dust in the universe" goes perfectly along with a perfectly sensible style of logic: "Worry about what you can control".
So the moral of the story is - achieve warp drive, establish the Terran empire and pursue galactic conquest rather than limit ourselves to border skirmishes on a single planet. Kindness has never been a motive for embarking on far flung adventures. I imagine a steampunk British Empire of the stars, something backed up by muscular Christianity, respect for fierce opponents who can be persuaded to change sides and zero self doubt.
20:31 - Nietzsche wants us to regain our dignity as humans. this is the coming out of true morality and of true ethics. science and our vast universe show how meaningful life is. the world has as much enters as inhabitants - Lion Feuchtwanger. thank you for creating this video.
arguably sagan had something of a conflict between his knowledge of our place in the cosmos, and his belief in decency and morality. in the present however, the belief advocated by post-humanism moves ever closer toward a delegitimation of humanity's right to exist, and-or it's replacement by A.I. ironically, the supporters of these beliefs never apply them to themselves. they are always preached to the other, who is a "sinner"in the eyes of the new religion.
If we are insignificant, then nothing much can come from us. That thwarts our ambition. But also nothing much is required of us. That ensures our liberty.
There is another way to view the Webb telescope's deep field photo. Far from being a vindication of the ascetic ideal, it is the apotheosis of the will to power. We are insignificant animals on a mote dancing in a sunbeam -- yet we can look 13.5 billion years into the past and far beyond any former limits of our vision. Far from nihilism, these accomplishments demonstrate our vitality, our insistence that, despite our insignificance, we matter, because any being that can develop this understanding of the cosmos must matter.
Yes technological advancement, technics as Heidegger puts it, is a manifestation of will to power. Even if it gives us ample opportunity to cower into a life of asceticism, we should push forward!
Science didn't make humans great, if anything it's only made us more weak-willed and pathetic than ever. As Linkola put it for example: "By decimating its woodlands, Finland has created the grounds for prosperity. We can now thank prosperity for bringing us among other things two million cars, millions of glowing, electronic entertainment boxes, and many unneeded buildings to cover the green earth. Surplus wealth has led to gambling in the marketplace and rampant social injustice, whereby 'the common people' end up contributing to the construction of golf courses, five-star hotels, and holiday resorts, while fattening Swiss bank accounts. Besides, the people of wealthy countries are the most frustrated, unemployed, unhappy, suicidal, sedentary, worthless and aimless people in history. What a miserable exchange."
very well done. I enjoyed this video essay. I did notice that the way you present N.s views on christian morality, his insistence that to give up belief in god is to give up belief in christian morality, is somewhat at odds with his insistence on preserving the centrality of the human perspective. Shouldn't he also insist that we give that up as well?
Well, what other perspective do we have? Hasn't that been the objective of all great spiritual traditions? To transcend the human-all-too-human perspective into a wider ocean of consciousness and meaning?
He will not give up his attachment to the human. Because largely Nietzsche’s analysis is an analysis and forwarding of the Positivist philosophy and that “religion of humanity” Auguste Comte tried to establish in the post failed first French revolutionary Republic. His 3 stages of existence of the camel, the lion, and the child; are also the law of 3 stages of positivism just more mystified. His big idea about how humanity is a great overcoming and going down is also the transitional analysis of sociology going down and back up to that “highest science”, that “queen of science”. Sociology. Even the Ubermensch, the Super human, enforces Comte’s idea formulation of Altruism that he created. Those that are the most adept in this field are believed to bring new values and info to better connect humanity to increase its love for everyone in the never ending battle for “”progress””. Nietzsche is really being a Positivist Psychologist using mystical and esoteric aphorisms to get people to think in an artistic way. If anything he’s like what an intellectual called Comte’s system, ‘A Catholicism without Christianity’. Put put a bow on all this. Though he inspires many and wishes the best for humanity, Friedrich Nietzsche is nothing more than a Priest for Comte’s positivist philosophy.
Sagan´s argument doesn´t work because we are easily the most complex system in the known universe. The grand stars are quite primitive compared to a housefly, they have few elements and types of interactions. And, let us not forget that stars PRODUCE life, so it´s not like we have some antagonistic relationship with them. What is worth more all the dirt in a diamond mine or the one big diamond you find in it? Even on the most primitive level the argument fails: the scale of the stars in cubic meters or whatever does not mean for an instant that life is unimportant. Importance and value are not just about fucking size, a microchip is much more valuable than a huge pile of hay. Another argument: this dumb idea that it would be pleasant to be the creations of a superior god. It leads to the conclusion that said god, as great as he is supposed to be, is unable to create something superior to itself. the universe is therefore moving downwards, into decay, at the hands of a lousy creator. In contrast, consider how great the opposite idea is: that complexity comes from simplicity. One little primitive cell in the primitive sea was able to evolve into all the myriad lifeforms we have today, and produce humans, such weird fantastic creatures, able to produce, in laboratory conditions, temperatures much higher than the core of the Sun. The most vulgar of our ancestors is therefore much superior to the christian God, who can create only creatures inferior to itself, and them pout at them endlessly, in between frustrated tantrums where it decides to kill most of them, what a loser, what a dark idea of life! Glad it´s but the delusions of losers (aka slaves)
Well put. It's a process. Enjoy the ride and don't get caught up in the particulars. We still don't know the origin of matter and life, why there is something rather than nothing, the conditions that allow evolution to start and continue. Or where your powers of thought comes from. A bolt from the blue.
@@TorMax9 we do know all that stuff, that sort of question has within its own answer, the structure of the world is set. We know many facts about the origin of matter, and the origin of life is no mystery, look it up, it´s a chemical process that´s pretty well understood. We also know about where our powers of thought come, the causal chain, we know all this from many angles even. You´re completely mistaken in your outlook. "Enjoy the ride and don´t get caught up in the particulars" I mean, I agree life is enjoyable, but why shouldn´t we focus on particular things? It breaks my heart, this and other comment sections, these are the people inheriting Nietzsche´s work ouf.
What Nietzsche called "ascetic ideals" is more broadly known as 'idealism'. Not its political flavor, its religious and philosophical one. The mother and father of idealism in the West, particularly in Christianity, is Platonic Idealism. Plato, usually via his mouthpiece Socrates, denied that the material world was even real and later the abhorrent neoPlatonists laid out the philosophical foundations of Christianity, expanding Plato's idealism even further and... modifying it to fit Jesus et al This is why, according to Nietzsche, Socrates was a decadent, just like Jesus Christ. In direct contrast the pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, Thalis, Parmenides etc) were not idealists, they were materialists. Not in the current sense of the word, since they usually believed in gods, Fire, Logos, Water etc as the first cause of the cosmos, they were not atheists. They simply did not denigrate the world they lived in favor of a world of Ideas, Heaven, Samsara, or whatever else idealists believe in. However I do not think that meditation (except, perhaps, in Hinduism and Buddhism) is necessarily a way to undermine the material world and/or be "more ascetic". Developing a stronger mind and mastering yourself is the way to becoming Zarathustra after all. Was Nietzsche's Zarathustra (his 'uber-man') an idealist? Not at all. But he required a lot of me time, contemplation and meditation in the cave he had retreated to reach his state. Self-mastery is not idealism, it is a way to see the world as it really is and take full control of your emotions (particularly desire and lust). If you do that no-one can touch you. As Aristotle appears to suggest to his old teacher in that painting at 6:02 "Your world of Ideas teacher, if they exist, *are here on Earth,* not on some other plane we can never reach or see". Yet Plato, as you can see, points to the sky...
I love the dicotomy of Nietzsche "the universe is cold and indifferent and your mortality is useless, although we should be kind for kindness sake for within a cruel existence can only be cruler" 😂
Some look at this universe that seems empty and realize we may be the only civilization lucky enough to see it. That makes us amazingly unique and responsible to spread life. If our next discovery is trillions of existing civilizations all over never mind.
Note that those are only a subcategory of scientists. I'm pretty sure most astronomers would love to work on megastructures to tame all the stars and black holes in the universe. They just don't have infinite money.
Visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
Maybe you should take a subscription to brilliant because you seem to need a better grasp on sience
@Northern_Soul In the future, yes!
@@mooseolini1447 No, no clue who/what that is
Excellent. Thank you. I’d add Nietzsche’s injunction to scientists to turn to the exploration of value. “What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!”
@@JosiahWarren . Haha! Nice try O Champion of Resentment, paragon of weakness!!!😂
The whole "pale blue dot" idea always makes my eyes roll. It's completely dependent on us considering our own size as par. I could just as easily start at the atomic level and then consider humans "colossal living universes in which billions of creatures exist to uphold the walking god. In which wars are fought and billions of cities rise and fall."
It's all a game of perspective ... and the two possibilities cancel each other out .... making the size of the universe inconsequential to how one "should" regard their position and state.
Massively underrated comment! Also, very yes.
This is a great point. Sagan's monologue also ignores the fact that we unavoidably _are_ the centers of our "own universe" so to speak. The immensity of the exterior world (both big and small) as relayed to us by pointer readings does not change the fact that our immediate experience of that cosmos is still the basis of all that we know. That immediate/intimate experience should be the starting point as far as how we conceptualize our "position and state." This is something the ancient philosophers/mystics seemed to understand regardless of if they derived the "proper" conclusions from it.
"Pale Blue Dot" has the same problem as the "we are just apes" viewpoint. Sure, "we are just apes," apes that are the product of billions of years of evolution and that have the ability to formulate a sentence such as "we are just apes." The attempt to minimize oneself ignores the fact that the very ability to be able to do so might be the most extraordinary thing of all.
I believe that humanity cannot exist without its hypocrisy. therefore just as we can enjoy dwelling in our mind, looking for answers, others have actively used their physical bodies to keep themselves preoccupied with the momentary aspect of existence, "living". It must mean that in order to appreciate our existance to the fullest from the perspective of were just a piece of dust in the universe, we're also the universe which encompasses the existance of miniscule worlds, where we are god.
Yes, very accurate.
On top of the "perspective" issue you pointed out, there is the very fact that the very picture of the pale blue dot was taken by human means developed thanks to the potential of human thought.
The very ability to contemplate out own physical smallness comes from the extent of power our intellect and technology have.
@@Epiousios18 "The attempt to minimize oneself ignores the fact that the very ability to be able to do so might be the most extraordinary thing of all." Your comment reminded me of Nietzsche's "He who despises himself still respect himself as one who despises," and our highest aspiration may be "the hour of the great contempt".
you are one of few philosophy channels that actually know what they are talking about and you are criminally underrated.
How do you make the assessment, ' . . . . . know what they are talking about'? Or is this just an example of cognitive bias? Just curious.
نعم یا مولای
Seriously, so few people who talk about nietzsche understand his arguments
Sagan: pale blue dot!
Nietz: shut it, nerd >:(
Weltie: lemme explain
The obvious retort to Sagan's moralizing is that if the world we inhabit is insignificant, then so too is the blood spilled in the attempts to conquer it. The job of the scientist is to report on the laws that govern it, not to suggest moral attitudes we should take towards it, nor towards one another.
Literally came down here to see if anyone said exactly this
I like to jokingly refer to Sagan as one of the "high priests" of scientism. Many treat him (and others like him) like some sort of guru or prophet without realizing the irony of doing so.
Sagan's ethical position is self-refuting in that sense. He posits that human suffering is cosmically insignificant but that the avoidance of it is a moral obligation. But maintaining such a moralistic outlook is undermined if humanity itself has no inherent cosmic value to begin with. What this tells me is that we cannot search outside ourselves for reassurance of the values we hold within. The universe is not responsible for telling us how to live our lives.
@@thewrathematician1911
It is as Nietzsche said - we killed God and live in the shadow.
God was something beyond ourselves to which our behavior was accountable. The priests of our institutions have always tried to usurp god, and with science found the wonders and miracles to do so within the minds of the more numerous midwits.
Of course, why should I be nice to other people? Einstein recognized a similar problem and employed meta-causality - the notion that consequences beyond our calculation would be our benefit for good behaviors - but this would merely be a belief to preserve the moral traditions, not a means as to inform what actions are or are not moral.
Neither is hedonism. Forcibly hooking someone up to an orgasm machine is not moral because it compells them to experience pleasure, nor would it be moral to lure them with addiction under the auspices of free choice.
Only when another is recognized as an inviolable will do morals follow logically. In prior ages, the world and we belonged to God. Another person was God's creation and to violate that person was to violate God, who would have his account on you.
Because science can create such wonders as to awe the public and get them to ask for proof of God, the priests are now free to rationalize any behavior as moral as no account of conduct is expected and there is no soul to hold sacred.
Why should, scientifically speaking, genocide be prohibited? Why should experiments require consent? Why should the lives expended in wars matter? If the individual human being is nothing sacred, then traditional morals are merely an obstacle to the various goals of people who have the will and means to achieve whatever manmade horror lay beyond their comprehension.
Sagan can propose what he wants, who the hell are YOU to tell him otherwise? Let me guess....you have a preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing and think the evolving, heavily denomination - Bible interpretation based dark age moral framework shouldn't be questioned by anyone?
I always find myself returning to this video when I feel like I’m at my lowest. There is something so comforting and motivating about the ending of this video. It’s very well made
Glad to hear it
A couple of points before I lose the motivation to post:
1. Gazing upon the immensity of the cosmos does not necessarily lead to thoughts of our insignificance. It is not just Nietzsche who would object to that sort of equation. I am not sure if Sagan stops at the lessons of kindness and so on, but for Kant "this experience of the irresistibility of nature's power prompts us to realize that we are weak and existentially insignificant in the grand scheme of nature. And yet, it also reveals that we transcend nature as moral agents and systematic knowers." Similarly, there are religions that exploit that same sense of awe to bring your attention back to the mystery of consciousness without which there is no Nature and no awe.
2. You say being kind to each other does not logically follow from the pale blue dot, but there is an emotional logic that most people can immediately grasp with their common sense. We all share the sense of loneliness and lostness that image evokes - at least it may have evoked these feelings the first time we laid eyes on it. And it is human (or animal) to want protection and consolation in the face of such cosmic indifference. We all display those protective instincts when we see an abandoned kitten shivering in a rain-soaked field. When it comes to the cosmos, we are all in the position of those kittens. There is no one else looking out for us other than us. So the logic is clear enough to me and others, whether it is acceptable to Nietzsche - or the Nietzsche of our imagination, since he is no longer with us - is another story. This is not to say that I completely buy into what Sagan is attempting to do. He is laying the foundations of a secular religion, one based on the vastness and mystery of the cosmos and no longer on anthropomorphic gods. Did it work? Not really. Just like we continue to perceive and act as if the Earth is stationary after being educated about its rotation and revolution, our cosmic surroundings rarely register in our day-to-day consciousness and activities. We continue to live as if we are the center of the cosmos for all intents and purposes and the occasional reminder that we are insignificant specks barely creates a blip before it vanishes.
Carl Segan have gone to a great length to explain, how irelevant the man and his endeavours.
Ergo, there is also no meaning in helping others, since they are also meaningless. As well as there is no meaning(or problem) in the blood spelt by the Tyrants.
@@reuvenpolonskiy2544 🥵
@@reuvenpolonskiy2544 plss let me in phiwosiper 🥺🥺 uwu
Some people are kind, and will have that kind of reaction while faced by shared suffering - be kind, join forces, take care of each other.
But others will have the same kind of reaction Sagan rejected - conquer more, fight, make yourself safe first.
We have seen this often in history, especially coming from the powerful ones (I personally think people who became very powerful must have a streak of psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies, a strong disregard for others).
So the point is that the supposed common-sense emotional appeal of picturing ourselves alone and fragile is not granted. That image has that effect only if you are already that kind of person. It has no genuinely pedagogical or transformative power.
@@andreab380 Indeed it has no power, as we can glean from the fact that the world has only further deteriorated after that image was widely witnessed. The world is hotter and more polarized while conspiracy theories run amok. My point was that while no reaction follows "logically" from the pale blue dot, Sagan's appeal to be kind is one that makes sense to most people. At one time religion made the same appeal within a different framework (fear of God, the afterlife and so on), and now Carl makes the same argument with the help of Voyager images and so on. If there are psychopathic or autistic people that common-sense logic cannot reach, that's no fault of Sagan.
I like these videos that tackle modern issues or events with philosophies of the past (that are still relevant of course). I think Nietzsche had in mind people like you when writing his books to motivate himself.
Great video, thanks for sharing
Great quality content. It may be worth noting that subtitles has "aesthetic" ideal for "ascetic" ideal everywhere...
I’d like to hear more of comparing the aesthetic vs. ascetic use of art, from Nietzsche’s POV but not entirely.
the point of sagan speech is that we should be more caring, appreciating more the wonders of life on earth. Science Is not about nihilism, its about understanding nature, which have produced us from a vastness of emptiness and dust. Thanks to science , Nietzsche can make his projection of a future superman.
I don't wish to criticize this video or its author, but I just want to point out that many of Neitzche's writings weren't serious insights, but "uncomforatble questions" he was posing not just to his readers but also to himself. He had an idea that certain insights were not readily understood because they were emotionally unappealing, and so he sought to dig up "treasure" through exploring what he felt to be the psychologically repellent. Much of what he wrote he did not actually believe, but was just "trying on" or writing "tongue in cheek". In fact he stated in one of his popular books something like:
"Behold, I have strewn about diamonds and other precious gems. But beware, for amoungst these I have also strewn poisonous snakes." I.e. he knew he was likely revealing valuable insights as well as misleading and poisonous thoughts.
He was a deep thinker, and full of irony and apparent self contradiction. But he was also a product of his age and limited to what he could know and understand. It is difficult, I think to fairly interpret him, and I think the best interpretations have to remain personal (i.e. what impact did he make on you?) and his judgement must be left to God. So I think a "synopsis" or characterization of Neitzche's thoughts or beliefs might be doing him an injustice of sorts. If one wants to understand what Neitzche had to say, you really need to read his writings for yourself.
All that being said, I think Neitzche had one of the finest intellects and at the same time, many of the things he wrote, at least literally interpreted are simply wrong. He was human, all too human, and I for one loved him and also forgive him for his great imperfection.
Cheers
Absolutely! It’s hard to deconstruct a superficiality without being faced with an accusation of superficiality. Yet FN wasn’t afraid of doing it anyway. How deep your abyss is, is dependent on how deep you’re willing to take it, while maintaining a healthy dose of irony…
I read Nietzsche pretty thoroughly but don't necessarily lionize him. My attitude being, he could be wrong. Some I like about him, some I don't.
Reading all these comments makes me realize how insanely genius Nietzsche was - not in the cliche sens, but genius as in unorthodox and misunderstood.
@@christopherhamilton3621 I don't know man, plunge too deep and you might just not return
Which of Nietszche's insights weren't serious?
At first i wasn't happy with Nietzsche's stance on science but i grew to respect his opinion. There's much coldness and nihilism in science. I feel almost obligated to agree with Nietzsche about almost everything because he's helping me fight with depression but I consider myself technocratic transhumanist and thinking of scientists as peddlers of nihilism would be pretty depressing.
Scientists are for the most part technical-minded people.
I study physics (undergrad), and most physicists I know don't really seem to have any strong opinions on the interpretations of quantum mechanics - they can calculate, make experiments, advance theory, and that's the realm in which they work.
They might incidentally, or maybe as an aggregate, end up peddling this or that philosophical ideal - but the average individual? I really wouldn't say so.
Peddlers of arrogance I'd say.
Transhumanism is extremely contrary and different to Nietzsche’s overcoming of mankind.
Could you describe your transhumanism to me? Do you want to merge us with machines, life extension, upload our consciousness to computer sort of thing? What does it mean to you?
Stone Cold.....Crazy
انا اشكرك! اشكرك جدًا وبصدق. كلامك بليغ، حيوي، مُفهم بالمعاني، وفي نفس الوقت، يتحمل مسؤولية نقل العلم بجدية.
WOOOOOOW THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR EXISTING!!!!!! Your channel is changing my life!!! I knew Nietzsche but not like this, now i'm starting to truly understand, and for the first time i'm getting filled with a desire to live, search and experience, break the status quo, one based on wisdom not simply in want. A philosophy that puts us against each other so we can transcend is AMAZING, it gives a holy meaning for our endless fights that is usually seeing as vicious, even defeat and pain become essencial for transformation. The stepping stones for the happy moments are made by this chain of Causality and Butterfly Effect that includes the bad.
cool!
Excellent use of repetition in image and text to reinforce audience learning; you show increasing sophistication of expression, and your goal appears to honestly be that of elucidation and enlightenment. You have done more for fostering an understanding of Nietzsche than anyone since Walter Kaufmann. At first, a critique of asceticism seems to be an untimely meditation indeed, as the West currently flounders in hedonism. But the recent history of a certain enthusiasm for masks and isolation at least on the part of a portion of the population, shows that there is still an appetite for asceticism among some.
Thank you for the kind words
14:44 Nietzsche cuts down the modern Reddit bugman 150 years before it even exists
I really love this channel, makes Nietzsche more entertaining and engaging than he already is
Brilliant video. Presenting a thinker's thoughts is one thing but using them to interpret other events and thinkers is next level and demonstrates deep thought. I would like to see a comparison of Nietzsche to Guenon.
I don’t agree with the part that Nietzsche wants human to be the center of the universe. He wants human’s to live according to the cosmos, to be « one » with the cosmos as much intensity as possible. Nietzsche never claimed that he wanted humans to be the center of the universe.
one could understand that being "one" with the universe makes it the center. I think it can be understood as a subjective center, probably not everyone have the capabilities to "live".
I dont really care for all the lifestyle tips Nietzsche is doing, so i might be totally ignorant to this.
@@iwtdkmp5081 Maybe but nevertheless it’s only a selective humans, the « ubermensch » who are capable of living life that way. But not mankind in general.
The irony is that the basis of the Christian ethic IS living in accordance with the order of the cosmos ie the logos, or God.
@@dp1381 How ironic, right? Our ancestors knew these truths long ago.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 It's the Ubermensch who will first be able to, but part of being the Ubermensch is that he gives meaning to everyone else as well
I think you are doing Carl Sagan a disservice in focusing on one aspect of his work and thinking, one line of thinking, one "speech" . He is speaking from one perspective in this quote, perhaps an inhuman perspective, to emphasise (later) the significance of the human. He is creative, curious, scientific, and dare I say poetic. In other areas of even this series he holds up the attributes of the human condition as absolutely significant, , and its potential, not just scientific potential, but the potential of being human.
You could equally quote his line, paraphrasing... "We are literally the stuff of stars, a way for the universe to know itself" . It is not far from Shakespeare, and I know Nietzsche appreciated Shakespeare.
Yeah, hear, here. That's right.
Not really did Nietzsche appreciate Shakespeare.
"Science enforces nihilism", this doesn't sound true to me, I feel like science has a different objective and nihilism is what you personaly feel when learning about those discoveries but you might aswell feel optimisim, awe, fear and many other things. I don't think the nihilist feeling is on science, I think that's on you.
Evolution theory was not proposed with the intempt of making you feel worthles, simply reality was probed and questioned and that's the answer we found.
The job of a scientist is never to find out about human concepts like morality, if you are extracting those values form astronomical studies you are using them incorrectly.
Yes great point!
Agree with everything except that morality is off limits to science. Sagan's astronomy is not how knowledge regarding morality will be achieved though, agree.
@@jamesmark4880 yeah, I should clarify that the branches of science that study human subjects like psychology, sociology etc are still on their infancy and we are still on the fence about them being sciences or merely using science as a tool while modeling human behaviour with a more philosophical approach.
Nietzsche is not saying that science is meant to study things like the concepts of morality or human value ,what he is saying is that when we analyze and draw conclusions from these "scientific facts" we get a nihilistic world-view, analyzing science and drawing conclusions from " scientific facts" is not the same thing as doing scientific work and enquiry and discovering new "scientific facts"
@@Nana-bv1md "we get a nihilistic world-view" He was wrong, scientists are pushing for space exploration, technological advancements, life enhancing drugs etc. they all want to live and say yes to life otherwise they would just hide in a rural isolated cabin and go mad from their own isolation and die. I don't know how you can call this nihilism. It seems like whatever Nietzsche didn't like, he called it "nihilistic".
Your videos are just brilliant. You manage to explain appallingly difficult things in such didadic, easy way. Thank you!
This is probably the most important video you've made so far and I fear it won't reach as many as it should. Count on me for sharing it within my reach
I present myself with the same questions. Found this video extremely suggestive to me and offered interesting ideas to think about. We are nothing individually, but as a collective, I find it so hard to be without “meaning” ( quote intentional). Imagine perceiving in all its glory a universe you were born from, just to find out that it just exists. So hard to swallow. But we always choose to believe in transcendence of some sort.
Superb. So nice to see the Nietzsche I've known for forty years here!
When I was a graduate student in physics, I had a general relativity professor who countered the claim that heliocentrism disproves that the Earth is at the center of the universe by making a metaphysical argument by saying that because I am a conscious being, capable of sight and senses, that I alone am the center of the universe. I think this serves as a Nietzschean counterargument to that framework and also reframes cosmology as life-affirming rather than life-negating.
having to care for a separate piece is suffering for the ego driven, wanting to care for everything is a reward of the ascetic ideal, which I feel is about dropping off bias that isn't needed in order to feel responsible
Great presentation
Thank you!
I am only a blue dot if I define myself by what is seen as my body. But the body cannot live in a vacuum, the body implies an environment, the environment implies other factors, which imply the entire current state of the entire universe.
Therefore I am in a strict sense the entire universe. My existence depends on it in the way it is, just as its existence depends on me being here.
This is the wisdom of the avatamsaka sutra and described with the analogy of Indra's net.
Yes, and what? What use is that realization? You exist in the universe, congratulations, do all the colors of the world fade to black for you now, knowing that they are all one in the same? I'll bet no.
@@jamesmark4880 when that realization is merely intellectual, there is no use. When it becomes an emotional and Instinctive realisation, it is all there is to attain.
This is just a cheap linguistic manipulation. No, you are not "in a strict sense the entire universe." That is the opposite of a "strict" definition. It is a definition that is so expansive as to be useless. "You" only exist as a mind and personality insofar as your physical brain is relatively intact.
@@amanakeet Again, what does that look like, emotionally and instinctively knowing that everything is the same? Do you emotionally and instinctively forget to wipe your ass because, with or without shit is the same?
@@CeramicShot you are correct there, the brain thinking that it is the universe is in fact objectively false. It depends on the line of demarcation that the brain defines for its own existence compared to what its not, i.e the rest of the universe. When the brain dies, it is not. If its existence is based in its own thoughts then, is its existence really objectively real? It is real in the thought of itself. When one contemplates about what one is excluding one's own thought, there is a flavor of pure witnessing, pure consciousness. That brings alchemical changes in one's own body, and gives one a taste of something that can't be described in "strict definitions". Time to light another spliff.
Science and Nihilism are really two different things. Science is just knowlege. Nihilism is a philosophy of meaning. It observes that there is no meaning in the universe, but that is actually incorrect. That is literal falsehood. It is true that meaning is not a measurable quality in the things around us, but that's because it is a entirely man made abstraction of the world around us. So, there is meaning, just not in the world around us. It's in our heads, and that's not to belittle it's importance. I think meaning is the most important thing to me, because without it I would have nothing to do with my life. Actually, I would say everything is in our heads. Our heads are in our heads too. Meaning is an abstraction of truth obtained through JTB (justified true belief). Just thought I would point that out.
@Freshly Made Ghosts Meaning is indeed a subjective measure, but a subjective measure must also be objective because if it wasn't it would break the laws of thermodynamics. What do you think a subjective measure is? Magic fairy dust? This is not superficial, it is actually the truth. Therefore, that declaration that there is no meaning must be false. Yes, I am here to declare that non-existance, indeed, does not exist.
1:22 I always found it weird, and horrible at times, how people think something insignificant just cause is small (and being a short person i feel personally attacked). I observed this first when i saw my mom killing flies and tiny rats with no cerimony but feeling pity of bigger animals being butchered, and even our sentinentality towards dogs but indifference towards other animals. It just felt hypocritical, horrible and cruel, does something really worth less cause It's small in comparison to other? Is because small means less of a threat or usefulness? Then, Microorganism and Atoms: allow us to introduce ourselves. Isn't this idea only a product of the human mind, our caveman instinct?
In sum, i disagree with this notion.
Hypocrisy and irony is a part of human nature. Becz we can't know everything at all times, and we are not all powerful. There will always be an apparent flaw in our thinking.
Sagan didn’t live long enough to see himself become the villain… which he is now for withholding the truth.
Have you considered expanding into videos on Philipp Mainländer? or perhaps Peter Wessel Zapffe?
Amazing essay. Very well thought out and thought provoking.
Thank you, much appreciated
Every time I watch a video of yours I am grateful and amazed that I can watch it for free
Very helpful, so congratulations. Weighty note: the Christianity looked at is understandably only the schismatic Catholic/Protestant and deeply ascetic heresy. As an Orthodox I must point out that the apostolic church rejects the imbalance and the nihilism inevitably fostered by asceticism. The old church was always aware of the denaturing temptations lurking within asceticism: the stylite fathers and mothers took up the challenge knowing the dangers. Orthodoxy insists of the value of our physical being; God chose to become one of us, in the flesh. We see temporal existence as having been deified, mystically validated: we are enjoined to enjoy and value every aspect and every moment of life- because it has ultimate and transcendental value.
Caths and Prots will say the same thing as you said to defend the faith. Not much different
@@mingthan7028 Protestantism and Catholicism are internally incoherent. They don't measure up on dozens of their own self-defined metrics. Orthodoxy is, at least internally coherent. Strangely Nietszche's writings are a very good complement to someone learning about the history of the church and Orthodoxy as they transparently show the psychology of the purifying Germanic strain of Protestantism and the sickly priest figure that rules Catholicism. Both of these figures are antithetical to Orthodoxy, which is in fact the first and only true version of Christianity. It's difficult to describe to a Westerner just how watered down and perverted the Western versions of Christianity are compared to the original. In feel, theology and practice they are a totally different religion. I say this as someone raised in a Catholic family in a Protestant school and country. The first time I encountered Orthodoxy in Romania and North Macedonia it was absolutely obvious that what I had seen in the Western churches was a vastly inferior version of faith.
This doesn't mean that Orthodoxy is ultimately correct - that is a question of faith - but it is at least the true version of what it purports to be - the tradition of followers that started with the apostles.
Unbelievable video reminding us to not give in to the vanity of the world! To put ourselves at center stage even though we will all perish anyway
I believe you may have revealed here your own philosophy, and as Nietzsche says, the philosophy reveals something about the philosopher. A particular resistance to the scientific, that goes beyond nietzsche's own views .
Sagan "feels" that humanbeings are insignificant in a vast universe.
Which comes down to that "feeling" is more important than the material world, as it has the capacity to give it the meaning.
If the feeling is more important, then it doesn't really matter if we are living in a vast universe or not. What is important would be what we feel about it.
We still can feel good about ourselves after a bench press even if we know about the size of the universe.
Brilliant video! Keep doing your work!
Too much blood has been spilled on this Earth...
When there is a whole UNIVERSE to CONQUER!
"In some remote corner of the universe, poured out
and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a
star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was
the highest and most mendacious minute of "world
history"-yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few
breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.
One might invent such a fable and still not have
illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and
flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect
appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not
exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have
happened. For this intellect has no further mission that
would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only
its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the
world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with
the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through
the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself
the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so
despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be
blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of
knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the
proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees
on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all
sides on his actions and thoughts" Nietzsche Fragment, 1873: from the Nachlass
I realize some of this is due to Nietzsche's chosen semantics, but he makes a fatal flaw. The morals he speaks of are not Christian. The existed long before Christianity was a thing. They are also not arbitrary. They are creations of us and our evolution. They are millions of years in the making. The reason we give meaning to things is because we have evolved to give meaning to things. Because we evolved as social animals we evolved to have the morals we have today.
100% on point.
Exactly. Heremeticism predates all major religions and is much more simple to comprehend.
In other words: we are merely automatons of evolutionary processes, no different to animals. In fact no different to the chemical processes of an inanimate object. Like rocks in space, we are merely bundles of chemicals undergoing chemical processes. There is nothing more significant about a human being than there is about a rock.
This way of thinking is the nihilism inherent in modern science.
You haven’t read the book, have you?
When i look at the stars i think about everything that is out there waiting to be discovered.There is practically no limit to the number of possible worlds! And that is what's comforting. Not feeling "insignificant". We are anything but that. Being self aware is a VERY significant thing.
Self-affirmation and self-indulgence does not work, and the more one engages in them, the emptier one feels.
Did not see that coming.
Pure Gold.
I think Carl Sagan may have identified the reason that men are cruel to one another. Mankind takes itself way too seriously and doesn't compare himself to the grand scheme of things. We see ourselves as self-important and self-righteous, which is often what creates our cruelty toward one another. I think Sagan's point was simply to address the fact that when we realize we aren't all that significant, we automatically humble ourselves in being more kind to one another, not necessarily because it's an obligation to do so. Sagan understood the usual cause of our cruelty, which stems from our perceptions of being all important. In other words, I'm not sure Sagan is saying that because we are insignificant in the universe that it follows logically that we be kind to each other. Rather, because we are insignificant, if we come to realize this, we therefore will naturally become more humble and kindness will just follow from this realization.
Being humble and kind towards a realization of that kind is only a consequence. All sorts of thing can happen, as well as cruelty also. If we are so insignificant, why don’t some people just be even more cruel, that can also be a possibility. His statement is purely a moral judgement and nothing else.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 Yeah, may be what's going on. And of course it can go the other way. In fact, we see that happening quite a lot today.
@@kendrickjahn1261 i think just like Nietzche said, only a select few « superior man » or the « ubermensch », can overcome this realization, not by kindness nor cruelty, but to live according to the cosmos.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 I don't know what "living according to the cosmos" even means. We are emotionless? Don't really get it.
@@kendrickjahn1261 living accordingly to nature and cosmos. Ecology is exactly that thinking
This is is perfect timing since i have been deep into astronomy lately
Firstly, thank you very much for clear explanations, quiet narration, and no background music! Very much appreciated! As a huge fan of both Carl Sagan and philosophy, l agree with certain points. When l first saw the pale blue dot photo, it brought tears to my eyes and my immediate reaction was our beautiful home and all of us are vulnerable, and just hanging there in space. Imagine actually floating in space and seeing the earth from that distance, how much you would just want to get home to it and the love you'd have to see it come in to view. The whole earth and everything on it is our home. We have to care for it and each other. That said, sometimes l do get irritated by ppl crowing how insignificant man is etc...for me the deep field image gives me the opposite feeling, we are a precious gem in the cosmic sand. The often hopeless note that some science documentaries end with, is annoying, as is any kind of arrogance, like painful unnecessary experiments on animals.
However all that being said, as a life long student of philosophy, it has only been in recent years that l've come to realize that scientific explanations are not the things they're trying to explain. Scientists are trying to give ppl the clearest, easiest access to nature, so that we can marvel at it. It's like they are showing us a gate and holding it open so we can get access to the greatest show on earth. Philosophy seems to help ppl access the power of thought. Unlike science, in philosophy the method of wonder and the conclusion and feeling it produces are the same: the joy of wonder and the freedom of critical thinking. Science has wonder too, but the scientist says "Don't stare in wonder at my finger pointing at the moon, stare in wonder at the moon! Be no longer afraid it's an angry god (or whatever), by knowing what it really is, it's a gift to you". If you don't care about their explaination, that's fine, but at least you know what you're dealing with.
great video!
I love your videos
You're great man. Love the content
''If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all of its aspects. Not just the dogmatic, narrow view of ascetic idealists''
I have always found this hatred of the self to be annoying - especially within the Christian context. It is my belief that a divine entity is responsible for our existence - there is something to be gained by our being alive and experiencing this ... thing ... we call consciosness. I call it a belief because it is a belief. But it comes with some logical consequences.
The experience is exactly what it is supposed to be. Whether it is part of some process, a lesson, or all of the possibilities in one ... that is perhaps unknowable.
Looking at this world and deciding it, or ourselves, are somehow flawed or imperfect is either a figure of speech or tantamount to heresy. If one lives as though this world is flawed, one is effectively declaring themselves to know how to make a more perfect existence. To declare god inadequate and to be able to claim his place as his better.
This doesn't mean we should argue for stagnation - the universe would never allow us to be able to do something unintended by its divine creative force. We are meant to explore and experiment, to document and to debate.
But one should be cautious when taking into one's self the notion that life is insignificant, that we are meaningless, that we are foreign to nature, etc. It is, within the christian context, the embrace of ideals rooted in claiming to know better than God. One could bypass this by claiming God to simply be malevolent or to otherwise have some utilitarian purpose for subjecting us to an imperfect experience we are supposed to reject...
But there is a gap in the logic that always reminded me of that line in revelation where it said all would worship the beast and its blaspheme.
You’re suggesting Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot implies a meaninglessness and insignificance of humanity and Earth, but I don’t read it the same - sure, he’s pointing out the meaninglessness of earthly bickering and power struggles when compared to the magnificence of space, that all that we are and have and ever have been is wholly enclosed within a pixel; but to my reading he concludes that what we have is to be cherished and valued all the more so when we realise its precariousness as that tiny speck, the only place in the universe we know of where meaning exists, on that pale blue dot suspended on a sunbeam
One is a small speck in the vastness of the Universe, but that same Universe is contained in each of our heads!
Fantastic quality
Please bring more videos, Herr. I cant wait to devour them all 🤣
I feel like Nietzsche uses the scientists and science interchangeably, which in my opinion is incorrect. Science as system or collection of things that are cannot have the ascetic ideal, but it's when the subjective mind of the scientists is introduced do we have the ascetic ideal for any comment on the meaning/meaninglessness of that which is, is a statement describing the mind(scientists, Carl Sagan) and not the fact of smallness of Earth in relation to the universe.
What if we took into account the implications brought about by the subject matter? From what little understanding I have, it appears Nietzsche concerns himself with the will to power (the human element) and the means from which this will manifests itself into actuality (the platonic? element). Consequently, both elements cannot be excluded from one another and its unfair to mark the interchangeable terminology as incorrect; more precise i would argue is to say the terminology is vague. I think my argument is stronger when applying the same reasoning with religion in that religion, although simply a static system or collection of traditions let's say, is not separable (I think) from the human element because religion does not exist outside the will to power of the people practicing this said system. Likewise, science is very much a human process and possibly a manifestation of people's ascetic ideal. Simply put, taking the will out of these human-made systems, to me, feels like taking the water out of a cup or the light out of a magnifying glass and only then analyzing its properties; doing so in my mind creates categorically different objects from what was initially being analyzed. Interested to hear your thoughts.
Fantastic video!
Amaziiing as always :)
Thank you!
Carl Sagan my first best friend and only friend for quite some time because I was sick when I was born in the hospital never met him I hope he rests in peace.
But the archetypes that stand behind all religions and cultures were, in fact, worlds. They were literally planets. See Velikovsy or David Talbott.
Nice video 👍
Excellent video! Never would’ve considered this perspective. 10/10
Glad to hear it
I had started studying Buddhism and Nietzsche philosophy same time, and i studied more I felt both are similar to each other, first of all Buddhism was misunderstood by most philosopher of 18th and 19th century, Buddhism doesn't believe in asceticism like Hinduism, Buddhism philosophy especially Mahayana believe in concept of "Boddhistva"- A man of great deed who can even leave enlightenment for welfare of humanity, Buddhism also talk anarchy of human society as Dukha and meaning of life by individual value and purpose in life, tbh concept of ubermanch and boddhistva are quite similar, I hope we will see more reasearch about similarities between Buddhism and Nietzsche philosophy
While I can agree on some similarities on Nietzsche’s philosophy and Buddhism which I agree with you, there is still a notable difference between these two thinking about the attitude towards suffering. While Buddhism is about renouncing, and quitting towards suffering, Nietzsche’s philosophy is about to dive into suffering wholeheartedly, with joy and even accentuating suffering. Nietzsche’s god is Dionysos, aka the same god that we can find in Grece, hindouism, Judaism, a god that doesn’t exist in Buddhism however (certainly not Christianity also). For that instance, Nietzsche’s philosophy is contradictory to Buddhist thinking.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 Buddhism philosophy is not about renouncing and quitting suffering even though most western intellectual believe it, if you read philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism, a person is expected to become a boddhistva a person who use all their power and energy to saving suffering beings in this world rather than entering into salvation, both laymen and monks in Buddhism are expected to remain part of society and serve it. Even, Nietzsche himself wrongly interpreted Buddhism, but if you deeply study Buddhism you will find it's very similar to Nietzsche philosophy
@@max-cs9ko Thanks for the info, to be completely honest, I studied Nietzsche and not Buddhism, hence why I was typing towards Nietzsche’s view on Buddhism, and subsequently there difference. I would study Buddhism more intensely one day when I have time (currently studying the Old Testament)
@Boulanger screenshoted, thanks for the advice.
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 Don't take my word, but my understanding is that the Buddhist "dukkha", what has been translated as suffering, is more akin to "dissatisfaction." There's the two dart analogy from the Pali canon, which is that the first dart is to suffer some injury or pain, and the second dart is to wish you weren't feeling that feeling, and Buddhism concerns the second dart. Therefore it could be seen as a path to accept suffering rather than deny it.
edit: And I think this contrasts with Nietzsche's description of ascetics because they crave pain, and craving is also something to let go of in Buddhism. Does that still end up nihilistic according to Nietzsche? I'm not sure.
1:12 I've traveled the world and we ordinary humans are no reflection of what Segan describes as "us", it's the vile creatures in control that is being described here...
Question is, why aren't we able to completely cut off this keen sense of nihilism or self denial. Because it's always been there. Humans have always worshipped something they considered to be more powerful or knowledgeable than themselves e,g elements, wizards, mountains, trees, ancestors, science, rulers e.t.c. We've always needed heroes, sages and gods. Why is this? Because we want to live and it's not possible to do it alone. Instinctively, we feel our survival and well being, on some level depends on being part of a group or tribe. A tribe requires social, political and moral consensus to keep it together. Some level of self denial is necessary to ensure this. This is where religion, philosophy and perhaps science come in. They help the society to function more harmoniously. Which makes it possible for many to survive.
Really like the channel
Thank you
Great quality application of Nietzsche to modern science, thank you!
What did Nietzsche think about Darwinism?
Some good ideas for what canvas prints to deck my walls with
this channel is fantastisc! Thanks man!
Thank you for doing this
😂Nietzche is the ultimate roaster.
Ironically, we and he also draw pleasure from roasting and criticizing each other.
Thanks, interesting!
Sagan was talking about perspective not the semantics of 'insignificant' or 'meanighless'. He makes not judgements in his arguement. The narrator made several poor assumptions and judgements upon Sagan.
Perfect video, just on time.
You can find pleasure in pain; you cannot find pleasure in suffering. Suffering already includes a negative value judgment a priori, much like murder is always illegal by definition.
There is a major error in this video: the transcript uses the word “aesthetic” while the material being discussed is about the “ascetic.”
Even if I become the UberMansch, and overcome the great void of Nihil Monster,
the thought doesn't go away, does it?
"How insignificant I am?"
Isn't existence is a great play between Joker vs Buddha?
The snake biting it's own tail...
Everything is matter
Yet nothing matters
Would love to see this channel cover Fydor Dostoevsky's work more as it does with Nietzche.
The universe is as insignificant to me as I am to it. The "insignificant man" has the ability to stab me, rob me, shoot me, and do to me all manners of different abuses. The "insignificant man" can also save me and give me massive opportunities. They have much more effect on my life than the outer universe.
Having a sense of importance over this "speck of dust in the universe" goes perfectly along with a perfectly sensible style of logic: "Worry about what you can control".
So the moral of the story is - achieve warp drive, establish the Terran empire and pursue galactic conquest rather than limit ourselves to border skirmishes on a single planet. Kindness has never been a motive for embarking on far flung adventures.
I imagine a steampunk British Empire of the stars, something backed up by muscular Christianity, respect for fierce opponents who can be persuaded to change sides and zero self doubt.
The ending always puts a smile on my face.
Glad to hear it
Remarkable work, Man!
Thank you.
20:31 - Nietzsche wants us to regain our dignity as humans.
this is the coming out of true morality and of true ethics.
science and our vast universe show how meaningful life is.
the world has as much enters as inhabitants - Lion Feuchtwanger.
thank you for creating this video.
arguably sagan had something of a conflict between his knowledge of our place in the cosmos, and his belief in decency and morality. in the present however, the belief advocated by post-humanism moves ever closer toward a delegitimation of humanity's right to exist, and-or it's replacement by A.I. ironically, the supporters of these beliefs never apply them to themselves. they are always preached to the other, who is a "sinner"in the eyes of the new religion.
Utilizing consciousness and calling ourselves merely Sentient (the ability to have qualitative experience) is abhorrent.
great video
If we are insignificant, then nothing much can come from us. That thwarts our ambition. But also nothing much is required of us. That ensures our liberty.
The aspect of religion being one of the ideals that should be beliefs religion is a belief that should be categorized as such
There is another way to view the Webb telescope's deep field photo. Far from being a vindication of the ascetic ideal, it is the apotheosis of the will to power. We are insignificant animals on a mote dancing in a sunbeam -- yet we can look 13.5 billion years into the past and far beyond any former limits of our vision. Far from nihilism, these accomplishments demonstrate our vitality, our insistence that, despite our insignificance, we matter, because any being that can develop this understanding of the cosmos must matter.
Because we can express our will onto the universe even if the universe is indifferent to us we might be the only species to have come this far.
Yes technological advancement, technics as Heidegger puts it, is a manifestation of will to power. Even if it gives us ample opportunity to cower into a life of asceticism, we should push forward!
Science didn't make humans great, if anything it's only made us more weak-willed and pathetic than ever. As Linkola put it for example: "By decimating its woodlands, Finland has created the grounds for prosperity. We can now thank prosperity for bringing us among other things two million cars, millions of glowing, electronic entertainment boxes, and many unneeded buildings to cover the green earth. Surplus wealth has led to gambling in the marketplace and rampant social injustice, whereby 'the common people' end up contributing to the construction of golf courses, five-star hotels, and holiday resorts, while fattening Swiss bank accounts. Besides, the people of wealthy countries are the most frustrated, unemployed, unhappy, suicidal, sedentary, worthless and aimless people in history. What a miserable exchange."
@@Tomviel don't forget we don't place value on the internal experience anymore and we are seeking more of a material experience.
@@iforget6940 What is the difference between "internal" and "material" experience and what are the implications?
comment for the algorithm. great video, thank you
very well done. I enjoyed this video essay. I did notice that the way you present N.s views on christian morality, his insistence that to give up belief in god is to give up belief in christian morality, is somewhat at odds with his insistence on preserving the centrality of the human perspective. Shouldn't he also insist that we give that up as well?
Well, what other perspective do we have? Hasn't that been the objective of all great spiritual traditions? To transcend the human-all-too-human perspective into a wider ocean of consciousness and meaning?
He will not give up his attachment to the human. Because largely Nietzsche’s analysis is an analysis and forwarding of the Positivist philosophy and that “religion of humanity” Auguste Comte tried to establish in the post failed first French revolutionary Republic.
His 3 stages of existence of the camel, the lion, and the child; are also the law of 3 stages of positivism just more mystified.
His big idea about how humanity is a great overcoming and going down is also the transitional analysis of sociology going down and back up to that “highest science”, that “queen of science”. Sociology.
Even the Ubermensch, the Super human, enforces Comte’s idea formulation of Altruism that he created. Those that are the most adept in this field are believed to bring new values and info to better connect humanity to increase its love for everyone in the never ending battle for “”progress””.
Nietzsche is really being a Positivist Psychologist using mystical and esoteric aphorisms to get people to think in an artistic way. If anything he’s like what an intellectual called Comte’s system, ‘A Catholicism without Christianity’.
Put put a bow on all this. Though he inspires many and wishes the best for humanity, Friedrich Nietzsche is nothing more than a Priest for Comte’s positivist philosophy.
Sagan´s argument doesn´t work because we are easily the most complex system in the known universe. The grand stars are quite primitive compared to a housefly, they have few elements and types of interactions. And, let us not forget that stars PRODUCE life, so it´s not like we have some antagonistic relationship with them. What is worth more all the dirt in a diamond mine or the one big diamond you find in it? Even on the most primitive level the argument fails: the scale of the stars in cubic meters or whatever does not mean for an instant that life is unimportant. Importance and value are not just about fucking size, a microchip is much more valuable than a huge pile of hay.
Another argument: this dumb idea that it would be pleasant to be the creations of a superior god. It leads to the conclusion that said god, as great as he is supposed to be, is unable to create something superior to itself. the universe is therefore moving downwards, into decay, at the hands of a lousy creator. In contrast, consider how great the opposite idea is: that complexity comes from simplicity. One little primitive cell in the primitive sea was able to evolve into all the myriad lifeforms we have today, and produce humans, such weird fantastic creatures, able to produce, in laboratory conditions, temperatures much higher than the core of the Sun. The most vulgar of our ancestors is therefore much superior to the christian God, who can create only creatures inferior to itself, and them pout at them endlessly, in between frustrated tantrums where it decides to kill most of them, what a loser, what a dark idea of life! Glad it´s but the delusions of losers (aka slaves)
Fax
Well put. It's a process. Enjoy the ride and don't get caught up in the particulars. We still don't know the origin of matter and life, why there is something rather than nothing, the conditions that allow evolution to start and continue. Or where your powers of thought comes from. A bolt from the blue.
@@TorMax9 we do know all that stuff, that sort of question has within its own answer, the structure of the world is set. We know many facts about the origin of matter, and the origin of life is no mystery, look it up, it´s a chemical process that´s pretty well understood. We also know about where our powers of thought come, the causal chain, we know all this from many angles even. You´re completely mistaken in your outlook. "Enjoy the ride and don´t get caught up in the particulars" I mean, I agree life is enjoyable, but why shouldn´t we focus on particular things? It breaks my heart, this and other comment sections, these are the people inheriting Nietzsche´s work ouf.
@@jamesmark4880 FAX lol like the fax machines? Where you trying to make "facts" sound "black" ?
@@botero01 less letters
What Nietzsche called "ascetic ideals" is more broadly known as 'idealism'. Not its political flavor, its religious and philosophical one. The mother and father of idealism in the West, particularly in Christianity, is Platonic Idealism. Plato, usually via his mouthpiece Socrates, denied that the material world was even real and later the abhorrent neoPlatonists laid out the philosophical foundations of Christianity, expanding Plato's idealism even further and... modifying it to fit Jesus et al
This is why, according to Nietzsche, Socrates was a decadent, just like Jesus Christ. In direct contrast the pre-Socratics (Heraclitus, Thalis, Parmenides etc) were not idealists, they were materialists. Not in the current sense of the word, since they usually believed in gods, Fire, Logos, Water etc as the first cause of the cosmos, they were not atheists. They simply did not denigrate the world they lived in favor of a world of Ideas, Heaven, Samsara, or whatever else idealists believe in.
However I do not think that meditation (except, perhaps, in Hinduism and Buddhism) is necessarily a way to undermine the material world and/or be "more ascetic". Developing a stronger mind and mastering yourself is the way to becoming Zarathustra after all. Was Nietzsche's Zarathustra (his 'uber-man') an idealist? Not at all.
But he required a lot of me time, contemplation and meditation in the cave he had retreated to reach his state. Self-mastery is not idealism, it is a way to see the world as it really is and take full control of your emotions (particularly desire and lust). If you do that no-one can touch you.
As Aristotle appears to suggest to his old teacher in that painting at 6:02 "Your world of Ideas teacher, if they exist, *are here on Earth,* not on some other plane we can never reach or see". Yet Plato, as you can see, points to the sky...
I love the dicotomy of Nietzsche "the universe is cold and indifferent and your mortality is useless, although we should be kind for kindness sake for within a cruel existence can only be cruler" 😂
Some look at this universe that seems empty and realize we may be the only civilization lucky enough to see it. That makes us amazingly unique and responsible to spread life. If our next discovery is trillions of existing civilizations all over never mind.
Amazing, thank you
Note that those are only a subcategory of scientists. I'm pretty sure most astronomers would love to work on megastructures to tame all the stars and black holes in the universe. They just don't have infinite money.