Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra | The Virtues and One's Own Virtue | Core Concepts

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 2 лис 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 37

  • @galerivs
    @galerivs 5 років тому +9

    Nietzsche is so right.... i must say that i have never read anything so pure, and truthful as Nietzsche

    • @MagnumInnominandum
      @MagnumInnominandum 3 роки тому +1

      Except when He is wrong.
      I view him as an adamantine fulcrum on which to weigh man and the world for ourselves.

  • @frizider2
    @frizider2 4 роки тому +5

    If I'm not mistaken, Zarathustra was 30 years old before his ascend to 10 years of solitude in the mountains. So when listening to the wise-man I believe he is 40

  • @wildeirishpoet
    @wildeirishpoet 5 років тому +4

    Many learn this lesson through experience...

  • @RealGeass
    @RealGeass 2 роки тому +1

    Thanks Doc! Turning you’re sins into strengths is an interesting way to think. Sounds like Jung’s incorporation of the shadow into one’s self

    • @GregoryBSadler
      @GregoryBSadler  2 роки тому +4

      Always good not to try to bring Jung into stuff, I’d say

    • @Harionnn
      @Harionnn 2 роки тому

      @@GregoryBSadler touché

  • @m3xicanpolice627
    @m3xicanpolice627 28 днів тому

    Thank you

  • @MrMarktrumble
    @MrMarktrumble 5 років тому +2

    Thank you.

  • @000DAAN000
    @000DAAN000 5 років тому

    Great idea, clear explanation, thank you for these vids!

  • @revoltagainstfear
    @revoltagainstfear 4 роки тому +2

    Very clear and thoughtful overview. Every time I listen about one philosopher from different teachers I learn something new. I realize the quality of you understanding of philosophy depend on how much you read and listen about them, not reading the original text.

    • @GregoryBSadler
      @GregoryBSadler  4 роки тому +3

      Well, reading the text is pretty important

  • @vistian
    @vistian 4 роки тому

    These are great. Thanks you.

  • @ikzo7927
    @ikzo7927 5 років тому +1

    Thank you for the nice explanation. It would be nice to have a minute or so at the end where you give your personal opinion on these teachings of Nietzsche, but maybe that conflicts too much with the intent of the videos.

    • @GregoryBSadler
      @GregoryBSadler  5 років тому +1

      Yes, the videos aren't about my own views. I've plenty of other videos that are more about that

  • @udasu
    @udasu 5 років тому +4

    Like patience vs. decisiveness. The latter implying expediency, at odds with the former.

  • @TATZELWURMFORSAKEN
    @TATZELWURMFORSAKEN 3 роки тому

    Many virtues = Many "Truths"
    But "Truth" is that of each self.

  • @godofpoopholly8086
    @godofpoopholly8086 5 років тому +3

    Dear Dr. Sadler,
    I am an aspiring philosopher and student. My expedition to learn philosophy is in its infancy, and I now find myself fraught with overwhelming wonder. With this established, is it feasible to begin my private philosophical studies with Nietzsche? As a complete novice, I find it a bit unnerving, but I feel I possess the requisite courage for this undertaking. Any thoughts, criticisms, or advice?

  • @lesterknome
    @lesterknome 4 роки тому

    What about what N has to say about virtues in part 2? Does he mean to say that virtues should be an end in of themself?

  • @egeatakan9676
    @egeatakan9676 4 роки тому

    Hello Professor Sadler, I want to ask something about Nietzsche. Where do you think Nietzsche stands in ethical theory? I have been puzzling with that question for a long time. When we consider his thoughts about truths for example he seems like a non-cognitivist, claiming there are no moral facts only metaphors but he also wants us to revaluate our values and create new truths independent from the valid value judgments. But when we create our own values and name them as our goods and bads-not evils-it seems like we are adapting ethical subjectivism, which is, a cognitivist theory? I would appreciate if you answer my question. Thank you

    • @GregoryBSadler
      @GregoryBSadler  4 роки тому +2

      I'd avoid pigeonholing a complex thinker into abstract categories like those myself

  • @9441658278
    @9441658278 3 роки тому +1

    very underaated channel

  • @henryc6271
    @henryc6271 5 років тому

    Hell yeah!

  • @Cdawgthreee
    @Cdawgthreee 4 роки тому +1

    Professor Jeff Bridges over here

  • @thtruthism9375
    @thtruthism9375 5 років тому

    I think Nietzsche missed something quite important here...

    • @GregoryBSadler
      @GregoryBSadler  5 років тому +5

      Well, then say what it is. And make sure you're referencing the text, not just my video discussing it

    • @thtruthism9375
      @thtruthism9375 5 років тому

      @@GregoryBSadler will do. in time...

    • @chaowaxin10
      @chaowaxin10 3 роки тому +3

      @@thtruthism9375 is it time yet bro

    • @animant8811
      @animant8811 3 роки тому

      come on bro, when's the time?

    • @thtruthism9375
      @thtruthism9375 2 роки тому

      @@threeblindchickens I would probably have to write a 10 page essay regarding it but if I can recollect my thoughts correctly from 2 years ago (and obviously I totally could be wrong here and I'm sure that I probably am), it is that the virtues (in my opinion) aren't separate branches from separate trees but stemmed from the same root/tree (virtue)... as if to say the pinky is less virtuous than the index or the ring finger... they are there because of one another... if that makes sense...
      .
      It isn't just something that we pick and choose whether we'd have 4 or 5 fingers (virtuous)... whether index finger is more virtuous than the ring finger... if it wasn't for the ring finger, the index finger might as well be CALLED the middle finger... if it isn't for the middle and ring finger, index finger might have lot more to bear... which without the others being there to judge the other's places, either of the fingers/virtuous should be crippled by the other (war against each other)... obviously we don't hold our forks and knives with our pinky or ring fingers... but they are there because of one another...
      .
      Again, I'm sure that I'm totally wrong here but just thought that virtuous aren't separate trees but branches of one thing...
      .
      Please do correct me WHERE (not if) I'm wrong!!!