Experience Meaningless: Experience and prejudice. To accept sight and illusion in the same relativity and not be a slave. Slavery: To be free from the growth of intellect. Experience free from understanding and memory as triviality. Memory: reduced down to recollection without review, in a universe of consistent physics; a triviality of organic invincibility. Experience rendered down to self-sensual recall without existential considerations; meaningless. Prejudice: to accept the delusion that no human can consider and choose. For experience to outweigh sense and sensible prudence and suggest in definite physicality that humanity is as inorganic as the constructs we purpose. Triviality to the concept of Slave, is Mass to Gravity, either one hypothetical without the physics of Trivialization or Mass. One requiring the circumstance of genesis, the other requiring absence of necessity; Nativitus Ancillae. Relativity: the universe revolves around you, but only if you watch with others; relativity born of tripartite geometry; self (observing), other (conferring), objective (occurring): co-intimate experience and co-context. Relativity: all things can happen to you, most didn't, you only know what you think, you only think what you can hypothesize, all understanding revolves around perception and interaction. Understanding and position; relative. Hypothesis: a proposition of a form unsensed in the physical, in the definition "scientific" it is the Fructus Ventris Physica Quantitatis; the guessable, potent in measurability, invisibilia ad carnalis, observationis codificationem. Hypothesis: a concept just beyond sensible observation but within sensory or facultative relativity to intimate comprehension; the space an observer feels safe to coniectura didicit doctrina. A cerebrum exercitium. Meaningless: the words of any personal exposition without the person. Interpretation of intended and intimate communication removed from its physical occurrence. To hypothesize in the spirit of Freud, all are I. Meaningless: a description of a building behind it's façade to a man on the street. Definition without sensible example; invisibility bestowed by the suggestibility of the potent potentiality of descriptionem alienum. Reference without experience, definition without context, experience without definition, definition without reference; to theorize on fancy, the possibilities of cause bereft of "scientific" prejudice towards provable. A description of the unseen to the comfortable in sense, and sensibility; hypothesis delivered socially by the perfecte mediocris to their perfecte mediocris aetatis. Interest and applause humilis, the sermo aequalis. Contemporary communication, external warehouse for internal deliberation. Deliberatio externa by contrast is built on extra-contemporary, the functional in sense and nerve unwilling to mal-hypothesize popularis prudentia. By definition a contemporary is both naturally occurring and actively intersecting, or it is a generational (illusory), built of temporal coincidence. Meaningless in contemporations intimate, capable of saying they share an age.
If you're fighting against nihilism, imo youre an absurdist. A nihilist doesn't fight back; they accept the futility. An absurdist knows there is technically no point to anything but refuses to accept that - and fights to create their own meaning and values in life. They're in a constant state of inner conflict as a result.
a vast critical literature presenting, analyzing, & explicating Nietzsche developed in all those decades you seem to think were a howling wasteland of neglect until this video.
@@konberner170 I would suggest you listen to both Unsolicited advice and Eternalized's videos on the subject. They seem to understand him quite well, demystify Nietzsche and undo the perception that he was a nihilist, and rather that he was a lover of life (Amor Fati). They are enlightening.
@TheMahayanist Fascism is a 20th century ideology. We should definitely fight totalitarianism in all its forms because it ruins human potential. But the forms are not the same anymore.
Ive read Nietzsche for over 30 years and this is a great summary of his whole philosophy. The Madman aphorism in the Gay Science has always been something I return to again and again. The United States is pretty much ground zero for everything that he warned about.
Often, imperfect people are good at seeing imperfections clearly. Don't believe Nietzsche's solutions. But be aware that he described the problems in a rare clarity.
Absolutely right it's like how the tribes in the Amazon rainforest live. They don't need fasting as food is scarce, they don't need morality, laws and manufactured order, everyone who deviates so far to damage them they cast out. Nietzsche living in modern Germany forgot that those who lived in older times did not need to sacrifice themselves as their environment was so terribly cruel that either those sacrifices meant nothing or were already made thousands of years prior to ascetic ideas.
@@herondonizeteribeiro1006 I once saw a documentary about a tribe in Venezuela. It may not be unique to this tribe or "people," but in their world the spirits are evil. It makes sense. There are many things in the jungle that wants to kill you. The tribe survived by banding together against the spirits. They did not know murder. This isn't unique, indeed. The indigenous people Columbus encountered were peaceful. They didn't know war. In fact, they were so peaceful they didn't fight back. This, Columbus argued, made them perfect slaves.
I take it that the Ascetic Ideal began with Agriculture since surplus allowed Human sacrifice and fasting as honorable values for abstraction. Is there proof of sacrifice before farming? Because if so it proves to me a human intrinsic existential sickness. It is as if the Ascetic Ideal is a castration towards our nature in return of societal cooperation and lower mortality rate. The human prison will do whatever it takes to keep us safe.
@@worsttrainrideever5606 I mean, I disagree with some of the things you said, but as a whole the argument is correct I think. I heard somewhere that asceticism and organized religion emerged after the establishment of the first agricultural cities and societies as a way to go back in time. We as humans evolved 100.000 years to live as hunter gatherers and then suddenly were packed into ever larger cities, likewise modern city culture, which I think is a way to recreate an idealistic non urban culture and the mental and psychological health benefits it brings.
Great comment...The San hunters (Bushmen) of southern Africa had a feast after a successful hunt,were almost incapacitated after gorging on their kill,followed by days of involuntary fasting,especially during droughts in the arid regions where they lived,due to the scarcity of prey. Further more,when they were faced with starvation they would put to death all the youngest females...like babies and toddlers,and rather feed the boys, as the boys were the future hunters, key to the survival of the tribe....basic logic being: No hunters....no food ...no tribe...extinction. In a way you here have human sacrifice for the purpose of the practical survivability of the tribe.....enforced by the harshness of nature.
Buddhism cooked so much back then. A lot of what is discussed here can be summarized by humanity's endless search for the very source of their own suffering.
He thought Buddhism was slave morality too. He thought that only losers focus on or even feel their suffering the master doesn't even register suffering he just lives and wins.
@@ShadowedBattlegroundsCre-tk9md Good point. I lost so much respect for Nietzsche the more I knew about his way of thinking. He is so obsessed in seeing the flaws of others but can't see his own. Buddhist argument is very simple. We can't help others if we don't find a way to help ourselves first. If we are filled with pain, regret or other negative thoughts, our attempts at "helping" others may bring even more pain instead. If we can't understand the causes for our suffering, we can't help others either.
He drank wine and beers in his last 10 years, sometimes dancing alone in his rented rooms while laughing or crying of joy. He also took morphine for a while, given by doctors for physical pain. References are from a few biographies I read. Btw, he also said in Ecce Homo he wanted to eat as less meat as possible but he'd order sausages from his mother all the time. I always liked Nietzsche, but let's say he was also : 'Human, all too human".
In my viewpoint nihilism is the opposite. If there is no god wy chastity. In India brahmacharya is basicly devotion to god and semen retention. Its a principle of order and not nihilism. Well i may now have to look at parcival.... The inner alchemy game.
Scientist here. I believe I can speak for many of my colleagues when I say: we are not seeking the truth. This is a common misconception. We are seeking to understand nature. In my opinion, Bertold Brecht described it best: “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error”.
John Mearsheimer has made the point that Europe is a great museum; and I think his analysis is correct: the nihilistic wave has already destroyed what was once the land that believed one can know God through self-perfection.
I don't believe in perfection, but constant improvement/ sharpening of ones metaphorical blades is muy importante IMO. And a good relationship with "God" I would agree is most important.
Self-perfection started to be ruined with the Catholic church and their campaigns against "pagans" who were the ones who organized themselves with true elevated values.
I'm only 13:30 minutes in so far, so forgive me if this comes up again later.... Chastity as a virtue or aspirational social ideal long predates Christianity in the pagan world. It's embodied in virginal goddesses like Athena and Artemis, and in organizations such as the Vestal Virgins of Rome. Family limitation--that is, inhibitions to procreation--have been recorded in primitive societies, such as the Inuit, and was also practiced by Greeks (esp. the Spartans) and Romans. If these practices are nihilistic, then nihilism precedes Christianity in history, probably by many millennia.
Nietzsche knew about this of course, he was a Classics professor at 25. Not sure how he'd interpreted the pagan virginal goddesses but he disliked the pre-christian ascetic ideal by philosophers like Socrates or the Stoics or the Jewish tradition almost as much as Christianity. His ideal are archaic this-worldly heroes, delighting in their own strength and power, like Achilles. And he certainly knew that this was past and had no clear idea how to get to something similar in the future. He didn't kid himself that to be excellent in Philology was close to being the best warrior before the walls of Troy or the olympic wrestling champion. The closest contemporary might have been a superior and selfconfident artist like Wagner, therefore Nietzsche was so bitterly disappointed by what he perceived as a Schopenhauerian/pseudochristian turn.
@@bartolo498 The video was excellent. I'll watch it again. The point about chastity and other fertility- limiting practices actually being a pre-Christian is a minor one, but I thought needed to be said. Population control was perceived as a necessity in many ancient societies, where food production could lag well behind birth rate. It wasn't something that would necessarily endanger the survival of a society, as the video claims, but the opposite: help ensure the society didn't expand beyond its available resources and precipitate starvation.
@@robertabrahamsen9076thankfully that isn't needed now as science takes over and we now know that increase in welfare usually lowers birth rate anyway. Malthusianism been debunked for years now. But regardless it is interesting to see how we dealt with scarcity in the past.
@@robertabrahamsen9076 it wasn't population control, but if you limit women sexuality and to promote monogamy, you can distribute women to men without the need for wars, religion was good to avoid wars to get women due to men with power keeping all the women to themselves. Religion normally just serves as several rules to keep a society harmonious.
i feel like Nietzsche would understand the Percival situation if he hadn't been a virgin simp all his life. Yes, sex and instinctual behavior is very life affirming, but that can easily take everyone s life in a dark and destructive zone. Ask any sex addict or people who only sleep around how meaningful is their behavior. And you won t have to look for long for people with lives ruined by decadent lifestyles, be it from unprotected sex, or protected but emotionally detached sex. Nietzsche simply couldn't comprehend how destructive sex and fun can be, because he probably never had any. While Wagner most likely understood that since he was basically a Rockstar (i don't know if he fucked around with his fans, i bet he did but it's just reasonable speculation) and probably came to realize, to some degree or merely unconsciously, that too much of a good thing, like sex, desire and intense passion, can be detrimental to one's life.
Literally my thoughts exactly. The dismissal of the obvious logic behind resisting desires shows me how blind Nietzsche was. We dont reject desires purely because we can now afford to. Thats such a shallow appraisal of the situation. Ask anyone who has turned from a life of pure self satisfaction how worth it it is taking another sip of alcohol or to sleep with another person meaninglessly.
@Omnio0 Agreed. It's interesting. I don't know much about Neitche's philosophy, but in my opinion, it's almost the opposite. A life of pursuing pleasure and "fulfillment" will bring one to nihilism much quicker than a life of discipline, restraint and morals. I also noticed another comment on here talking about how the phrase, "f**k bitches, get money" sums up the will to power philosophy. Is it really just this simplistic selfish desire dressed up in intellectualism? People just want to hear what they want to hear it seems. When I hear people talking about discipline and morals with the outlook that, "those people just don't want you to be happy", I just think of that person as extremely immature. It's like a child saying their parents hate them because they didn't buy them an overpriced toy that they wouldn't care about in a few weeks.
@@JohnDoe-g7i i think you hit the nail on the head there. Nietzsche’s ideas, as far as I can tell, are just philosophical dressing on top of a vapid world view that is ultimately destructive to society and self
There's less people getting laid now than ever these days. Are you saying there's no suffering in living an unfulfilled life? This "sex addiction" you speak of can be overcome. There's nothing meaningful about a lifetime of self denial. Never having doesn't automatically mean never wanting it. Nitche more relevant now than ever. I'm sure nobody gave a damn about him in the 1920s.
Humans have the special ability to stop and admire a sunset with colors blending and bursting into every single visible piece of the sky. Followed by the moon and the stars and the shooting stars. We get the best of it we get to experience art and music and to have a separate world that we can go to just by deciding to. We are so fortunate to have an emotional connections, mixed with opinions, and we get the chance to see something positive about each other instead of dog passive behavior or seeing the other people as a potential meal for later.
We are far, far worse than the base instinct of any animal. There isn't even a definition for us in the natural world. We would be the equivalent of a self immoliating parasite which makes no sense at all.
Our cultures sick because of other reasons. We are nihilists why? Because take one look at your life, and what your doing everyday. To put money on the table. Now think back to when we were humans in the wild, did we do that? No. All work we did was purposeful, and gave a deep sense of meaning. And once that work was done (building shelter for example) it was DONE you didnt have to do it again the next day. You only had to maintain it here and there. Now imagine having to make that shelter everyday, over and over, multiple times a day, for no purpose, for no meaning. This is the root cause for the nihilism. Our sub consciousness is not as easily tricked as we are. You cant lie to it, and it will make you feel what your trying not to. When you are taking the wrong path for yourself, it will let you know. One way or the other. The nihilism is the rebellion of our current society and systems. To put it bluntly, our soulless job and career thing we got going on, is the main cause for all our problems. The feeling of being trapped, Its meant to feel that way. Then from there what do you really have? You fail at getting a wife and a family and what else is there? We are all hanging on by a thread. All because our childhood dreams have all died. Stopped chasing them in favor of “realistic things”. Not knowing, our dreams are our lives. We need to bring back the dream, and critical thinking and deep thoughts.
Because culture is being shifted towards hyper individualism. Everyone is out for themselves instead of being united in a common front to achieve something greater. There are many examples for this. Many examples against it.
Because asceticism is pernicious and has manifested itself in our time through science. Science seeks to belittle humanity without realizing the underlying reason
Money is the means; the aim is the feeliing of being obeyed. The feeling of being obeyed is the essence of will to power. Everyone wants the feeling of being obeyed, even if only by a pet. But there is a ranking in the kinds of power, from base to noble. Being obeyed out of fear (eg by pointing a gun) is a low kind of power, because the other will disobey as soon as possible. Being obeyed out of love is a higher kind of power which is stronger because it is less fragile. Base power is weaker because it breaks down easily due to lack of trust. Loving money for its own sake is a weak power. And sex without respect is weak sex. Highest power is faith+trust+love with real Earthlings. Earning money is easy. Earning faith/trust/love is much harder, because the power is far stronger.
Just to be clear, they were actually just quoting Junior Mafia... Lil Cease Lil Kim and Biggie took four words to summarize will to power. This young hoodlum just passed on the meme.
Whats weird to me is Nietzsche spoke out against Nihilism yet he promoted Materialistic values which is inherently atheistic and he spoke of morality yet he spoke out against any morality that made sense. You cant separate the material from the immaterial Or Mental. Its ridiculous, like he was constantly arguing against himself. Sometimes right, but mostly moronic
It makes sense if you realize that he considered himself an anti-Christ. What it boils down to is the embrace of the 666 man as the beast. Virile in its insatiable hunger for power. He believed that this bestial quest to assert ones will ultimately spawned virtues like strength, courage, revelry/joy. Just another minion of Satan.
I'm actually kind of moderate on the question of the aecetic versus the embraced desire for power and unrestrained self that Nietzsche characterizes as his good. That really can go too far, and some restraint, self-discipline, ethical boundaries, and so forth are necessary to live in human society and maintain trust. Nor do I buy Nietzsche's belief that people eat themselves to balance the scales that human and animal sacrifice once balanced. People are opportunists first. But we are absolutely going too far with the Judeo-Christian concept of innocence, and we desperately need another meta-ethical change in this culture. A little bit back towards hierarchy and master morality, a little more shame in one's own helplessness, a little more encouragement to be stronger and refuse self-pity. I don't know exactly how to rationalize it with the people, or hold them accountable to it - religion really is over, spilled milk - but I know civilization will not withstand a culture of people who weaponize empathy and draw self-righteous anger for feeling that everything is others' fault. There are some really decayed core ideals in the West that are rotting us from the inside, and if we don't fix them over the next couple of generations, we're done. On the boundary between sciences and humanities, this all comes together in economics, sociology, and psychology. When you start to believe that you can medicate happiness, or that our middle class, bourgeoisie way of life is normal and you can categorize disorders based on that as your foundation, you objectify the subjective and the complexity becomes overwhelming. You use science to, in strictly humanist and utilitarian terms, create what we know to be good, create welfare and love as a lifestyle phenomenon that we can measure. That's our meager hoard of truth, a materialist reduction. As an approach, the project has clearly failed, but we are desperately trying to salvage what we can from it and a lot of our political and cultural malaise comes from refusing to accept that we can't use an algorithm or productivity numbers to overcome our self-awareness. Hell of a time to be alive... but it has been for centuries, right? Great video, as always. It feels like a culmination of something you want to say, and I understand and appreciate it.
That was beautiful indeed. However I believe you should really be moderate with the question posed in first paragraph. Nietzche does not advocate for 'unrestrained self'. His fight is against nihilism, what I believe would be opposed to the will to power. The ascetic ideal is what brings the philosopher further away from the will to power in the direction of nihilism because opposed to power, in a continuum, lies nothingness. As our Judeo-Christian core values, these anti-will-to-power values revolves further and further into self-pity and ressentiment. The good for the decadent is to be poor and humble. Then people with these beliefs ingrained in their minds are eager to show their humility and their self-pity. They dispute to see who deserves more pity: who lives a more difficult life, who combos more minorities in their CV. All they talk is about their diseases and their fights against oppression. In doing this they disguise their true will to power with a false will to nothingness. They learn nothing in the process, or learn only lies and false truths. They live chasing difficulty instead of chasing power. This is what I believe Nietzche truly fights.
@@lynuzzz I agree. As to whether Nietzsche advocates for unrestrained self is a real debate in Nietzsche scholarship, but I think the telos of his will to power aligns that way, almost by default. What he's against is easier to see than what he's for. People who decrypt the details in Zarathustra might be able to see it better, but the question to me is just how individualistic he thinks people can be in a working social system. I'm not completely sure how he saw his preferred future, but I don't really prioritize that question.
I absolutely love your programs. I listen to them over and over hoping something sinks into my cement head. I've been one of those whining about the lack of a Zarathustra episode/series. Take your time, get it right, it's an incredible undertaking and will be a magnificent achievement. When it's done, I will increase my Patreon support.....
@@WeltgeistYTwhen it comes to ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGY ARGUMENTS so called brainiacs. How can a brainiacs like you teach pacifists and non pacifists are good people and not be a hypocrite drinking stupid?❤❤❤
It seems he has a flawed understanding of true Christian doctrine. To his credit I am sure many "Christian" institutions and individuals have likely promoted some of these ideals. Then again this only covers some his points in this video. Christian philosophy would have its own answers.
Christianity has changed so much over the years. Some people follow what other people preach the doctrine to be to the T. Others have their own personal relationship with the Religion, where they just validate their preexisting ideals/Morals and reinforce them/Justify them with the Religion doctrine itself.
This whole suppression of violent impulse in favor of civil cooperation makes sense when you look at personality. Specifically trait agreeableness, which includes cooperation as a part of its structure. For a while now I've speculated that we are experiencing a rise in agreeableness and the demonization of disagreeableness. We are faced to argue against compassion; and believe me, compassion when unchecked by reason is absolutely catastrophic. Corrolated with compassion, or trait agreeableness, is naivety. The lack of skepticism. The proclivity to take things at face value. Naivety aids the compassionate person by not having them coming off at judgemental, cold, or critical when attempting to be there for someone in need of comfort like a more disagreeable, skeptical, person would. However, it also creates a huge blind spot. Leaving them vulnerable to manipulation. Especially emotional. Like how a baby manipulates its mother that gets the baby what it wants but doesn't necessarily mean that it is good for the baby. The best example of this publically seen is the transgender movement. The left, being more agreeable, welcomes them with open arms without question. The right, stops them and demands we take a moment to think about this before taking any action. The left blames the right of being transphobic or bigoted, and the right blames the left of being dumb or insane. When the reality is simply a difference of perception at the level of personality. Trait agreeableness.
It is even much deeper than that, it stems from the toxic relationship with darkness, death and pain, this is why protection ultimately comes from fear, and why with protection we teach children fear, we abuse them, whereas with guidance and trust we teach children love. The right adheres to the fear, the left to love, that is in a more generalized view. Your example may not be the best, because bigoted people disagree with someone's existence whose actions lead to genocide currently experienced by actual trans people on this planet just like during ww2. Parents are not meant to be prison guards, but guidance if they wish to teach their kids love. Someone's authentic self expression is not a matter of belief, therefore it is not something to disagree with, but accept, this is whywhat you say cooperation is not based on agreeableness but but acceptance of differences, it is a transcendence of beliefs, therefore no need for agreements or disagreements whatsoever so important to realize this key distinction. We know for example that there is no gender ideology as such as there is no ideological component to it, it is an experiential reality, it is not meant to be questioned, but validated and accepted at all times, all else comes from fear that teaches fear! That is the brutal truth that people who are psychologically out of alignment with themselves don't want to face, because they act on their negative beliefs as a result, and whoever acts on these beliefs is not in touch with themselves, which leads to fear and war. This is not a matter of compassion and agreeableness, but trust that a child knows themselves more than a parent or strangers. Pushing a child into the wrong puberty against their will to deform their body, to increase dysphoria and potentially destroying their life forever is known as a child abuse for a good reason, but that is done by those who act on fear and so-called skepticism that thinks they can disagree with someone's authentic self. Gender affirming care is known as life saving treatment based on hundreds of evidences which has been weaponized by politicians hijacking people's fears and dogmas. A trans child can consent to cross sex hormones at 13 year old as much as intersex child can consent to cross sex hormones at the same age, the difference between the two is in an institutionalized weaponization of the body against the will and consciousness of a human being. This is why children's bodies are being gendered since birth for instance. It is done for the purpose of cultivating the false self within the humanity. This is what it is about, and this is where the sickness of humanity stems from, it is fear, always was and always will be throughout the ages.
The reason we are suppressing the violent impulse, because we are evolving out of the animalistic impulse to deny or eliminate the individual differences and therefore our own when it comes after us eventually. This is why acceptance and validation always needs to go on top above disagreements, even if we don't agree, we need to accept differences if we wish to value individual freedom, we need to accept and validate pedophiles, murderers, anything or anyone we disagree with if we wish to follow Nietsche's path out of self annihilation into self actualization, out of totalitarianism into self government. This is the biggest pareadox about all this that so many people dont understand as they act on their animalistic impulses and as a result inviting oppression of the individual, we live in such a corrupt dog eat dog world due to this violent impulse to fight or protect others out of fear. People who are against homogeny the most tend to be homogenizing the world through their unacceptance and invalidation while calling out fascism when it comes around knocking on their door to reap what they sow. That is the paradox that philosophers have been talking about for decades. As S.Tabrizi once said: "If God had wanted everyone to be the same, he would have made it so, therefore disrespecting differences and imposing your thoughts on others is tantamount to disrespecting God's holy scheme."
@@Shalanaya The left doesn't "love" the outcasts like Trans people. The left pity them as they pity all weak people. This is because the leftist can't come to terms with harsh reality, with the pain that harsh reality brings with it. Call it pity or call it compassion, but not love. The harsh reality is that you cannot be whoever "you want to be". The harsh reality is that the self identity of a kid isn't always something to support. The harsh reality is that there is no one specific call of action to every problem and everything has its downsides and upsides. The left looks at how things "should be", that's why complete equality is sought after. That's why every difference, race, sex, class, is being deconstructed by leftist thinkers. The rightist looks at "how things are": He sees differences in people and praises the strong leader who elevates himself from the masses. He looks up at the strong leader, he loves him for his brilliance and his power. Because the rightist doesn't deconstruct the differences, he ranks people in quality: On self mastery. Considering that there never was an epidemic of Trans "life endings" in the thousands of years before this one, i feel like the authoritarian style worked back then.
@@ShalanayaWhat are you going on about, you psycho? And why does this have 9 likes? I thought this was a right-wing channel. If your "authentic self expression" involve cosplaying as the opposite sex that's just maladaptive. You're free to do that as an adult, but children should not be encouraged to follow that. "Gender" is an esoteric, cultish made-up term with no connection to reality. "Gender Dysphoria" is a reinterpretation of existential angst arbitrarily attributed to some internal incongruence related to biological sex. It's easy to make people attribute their own angst to anything, if you're good enough at convincing them. Chakras, spirits, demons, negative energy, alien transmissions, gender, you name it. It all depends on who gets to them first and what gets reinforced. Most adults are incapable of self reflection and self awareness, let alone immature children. They engage with fantasy and delusion not fully knowing how to decouple it from reality, and the possibility of them claiming to actually be the opposite sex is only proof of that. Too bad so many adults are now also being degenerated into a childish state by this pernicious ideology and sick culture. There's no such thing as a "wrong puberty", and no one is "pushed" into it. It's a process done fully autonomously by someone's own body. To interfere with that is what will deform their body and destroy their life forever. Stunting someone's development has severe health effects, especially in the brain, which keeps its victims in a perpetually immature state of mental and sexual development, which is perfect for keeping them gullible and devoted to the cult as an eternal Peter Pan. Intersex people have an actual congenital defect, they're not people that "identify" as the opposite sex, like what does that even mean? How can you know what it's like to be a man or a woman when you can only ever be in your own brain? You can't identify as being anything, you can only identify with liking or disliking certain things, and liking to wear dresses and make up makes you as much of a woman as liking to bang hammers and wear black robes makes you a judge, or liking to walk in all fours and howling makes you a wolf. A 13 year old can never fully comprehend the long term consequences of any of this, as they haven't reached full maturity yet, and it doesn't help that information is willingly omitted to them or simply not fully understood yet by medicine. "Institutionalized weaponization of the body against the will and consciousness of a human being" This gets me to the bottom of all of this. You're a batshit crazy delusional Gnostic cultist. You believe reality is a prison created by a Demiurge to entrap the divine souls of humans into a lower level of existence. You don't have a spirit. You can't exist outside of your body, and you can never oppose your body. You are your body. This is reality, not "institutional" anything. You don't believe in objective truth so you think everything is under the control of humans and everything can be changed by humans. This is the apex of human arrogance and megalomania.
Fellas, anything too extreme will always result in bad end. Beware of temptations and compulsive desires. It's common for everyone to have desires, and it's also common for our society to have alluring temptations. There is no exact right path for life, but there are consequences. Think carefully about consequences and never give in to temptations and compulsive desires if you can't bare the consequences. It's fine to give in if the consequences are something you're capable and willing to bear. For example, to make a woman pregnant, you'd either take responsibility as the future father which will comes with series of consequences of its own or forcing the woman to abort the child which also comes with the consequences of its own. You can also pretended to not acknowledge the child, in which also have consequences of its own. There are many different paths in life and morality means nothing at all. Everything is only the matter of consequences while morality only there to help guide us for a better society. People reprimand someone acting immorally because it'll change the course of the society. Though I have to say that we should beware of people with ulterior motives weaponize the morality to change the course of the society itself to their own ideals which will result in certain consequences that you might be incapable to bear them.
Harsh truth, I hate consequentialism I hope we find a balance between interference and data. Because ends justify means can end terribly. But also adding meta physical morals on the lack of any hard evidence as we are now equally bad.
Please explain why people are looking for meaning in life. I don't understand. Where does the assumption come from? What are people defining as "meaning", that is not an internal experience? There appear to be generations of millions of people arguing about the existence of meaning and purpose. I have never understood these words in such a way, that I can understand the controversy. What is that people expected? What is it that they think has been proven that they cannot do? Your videos have covered a lot of philosophers who have spewed forth rhetorical rivers about the meaning and purpose of life. But I do not know of a way to conceive of these phenomena as anything other than activities. Is there some other definition that invites controversy????
The dance of life is different for everyone, some people just keep wondering if they're doing it right. Seeing everyone else dance, they can't help but compare themselves to others. Some end up realizing what's causing their troubles and desperation, when all they had to do was listen to the music and do it their own way, to the best of their abilities. Some don't. I've come to realise that meaning is everywhere, I just had to attach it to something.
We have desire to explore. Someone goes from metrialistic desire to spiritual desire. They see everything metrialistic as just illusion or Maya. Truth is something else which isn't realised and it's not about god or religion
@@todorpanov1857 damn you've said more in a few lines than most of these proclaimed philosophers could in hundreds of pages. And made much more sense doing it. Kudos to you.
I have embarked on my own journey of reading Nietzsche from the start and this channel has been an immense resource for finding motivation and getting a great deal of context in regards to Nietzsche's work
For in detail analysis of Nietzche's works, check out "essential salts" Nietzche podcast here on UA-cam or wherever you listen to podcasts. The guy offers really interesting deep dives on his works and themes and really helped me further my understanding of his philosophy.
"Argue the nature of reality as much as you like but when you leave this room you will do so through that open doorway and not through that solid wall"... LENIN
Thanks. This was very interesting overview and expanded my appreciation of Nietzsche. I disagree with the characterisation of some asceticism set out here. The Buddha (whose works underpin Schopenhaur) famously attempted many ascetic practices. He was trying to get to Moksha, immersion within the essential nature of the universe. This asceticism was an attempt to go beyond by stripping away. He found, as Nietzsche would have expected, nothing, except ill health. So the Buddha gave up radical asceticism in favour of what Buddhists call the middle way, but what today might be referred to as minimalism - that is taking what you need, but not being guided by compulsive desire to take more. What he found was an expression of peace. However this was not a passive peace. It was a superegoic state of being, allowing the cultivation of the "divine" states of mind of kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity. The Buddha devoted the rest of his life teaching this realisation to others. So this is not an asceticism that ends with nothing. Such asceticism as it possesses, is a discarding of frippery and nonsense, and a discarding of the will to power as a compulsive neurotic response to the commin problem of the ego. It is an interpretation of human nature in its proper ecological place within nature. Following McGilchrist, it is a balancing of the attentional modes of the brain AWAY FROM, the neurotic attempts of the left brain to grasp meaning from suffering. Nietzsche lived at a particular time when mainstream, especially protestant European christianity had indeed degenerated into a life denying rigidity and which the whole "permissive" revolution of the 20th century threw off, thankfully. But Nietzsche's thinking seems more of a local cultural reaction to such an ossified culture than a universalist interpretation of the human condition. He's got a lot to say, but his cultural doomsaying is an overreach. The western consumerist model sells chimeric images of pleasure and status associated with products and services on a scale that is destroying nature. So much for the free reign of desire.
tl;dr warning: Unsure of how relevant this comment is to this specific video, but after studying Nietzsche's philosophy for the past few years I think I understand why I have always hated one fictional trope everyone else seems to love: the "deadpan snarker" who exists only to insult and quip at other characters for being allegedly stupid or crazy, or having something they do not, IE: beauty, strength, wealth, magic, etc. Tearing down a character who is "too perfect" for the intended catharsis of the audience, who are expected to be embittered and jaded and take pleasure in the denial of life. People stopped admiring unironic strength, beauty, magic and perfection, and instead began admiring whoever has the wittiest retort, whoever can most artfully deprive another character of his/her dignity or self-worth through passive-aggressive quipping. As if people cannot stand the thought of idealism and romanticism existing without some ironic twist or cynical deconstruction of its initial impression. Every trope once thought to be "good" must now be either ironic, deconstructed as bad, or be self-aware of its own lack of value. On a related note, I actually see the current landscape of (western) sci-fi/fantasy culture much the same way Nietzsche saw the art/philosophy culture of 19th-century Germany. One of the better examples is the role and style of the sci-fi/fantasy hero. In traditional works from antiquity to as recently as the 2000s, characters like Luke Skywalker and Master Chief very much echo the Overman and the ideals of Master Morality. Nowadays Star Wars, Halo and countless other series are being mishandled and deconstructed for no real reason apart from deconstruction's sake. The Last Jedi and Halo 5: Guardians were "Parsifal" for many fans. But modern western writing is such a joke I do not even need to say much more.
@@_Sloppyham These tropes are not inherently bad, and I am not prescribing any absolute value judgments. Mostly I am referring to the oversaturation of sarcasm and cynicism in modern fiction. An excess of it. This excess almost always seems to come with the preconcieved assumption that the audience will find satisfaction in the tearing down of the "good," or rather, the unflattering and cynical caricature of the "good" created to mock it.
The way i see it, such people have a purpose, and that purpose is to be an obstacle to true greatness and an opportunity to regain perspective and galvanize one's purpose. Such a character is meant to be a self correcting mechanism that tests what is true and Powerful and tie it back down to a broken and depressing reality. It's purpose is to temper and focus the flames of greatness to better ensure it can achieve it's purpose better.
Also I might add, a character can quip and retort without being this trope. James Bond, Han Solo, Errol Flynn's Robin Hood and prequels-era Obi-Wan are all characters who are bolstered by their wit, not defined by it. Because they all still embody heroic archetypes and they add to the storytelling, instead of taking away and ruining it. However the same cannot be said for many others, especially in storytelling from the past 20 years. Characters who more or less exist ONLY to cut down other characters and slam ideas the author doesn't like. Two of the biggest examples I'd say are Brian Griffin and Rick Sanchez.
How did he overlook that we didn't move from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to no sacrifice, but rather from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to an ultimate, atoning and eternal sacrifice of the uncreated God himself? I can't see how he could accidentally overlook this ultimate sacrifice in Christian ontology.
Christianity uses salvation as a way to hijack the dept-responsibility principle of culture and twist it into a dept-quilt principle. Having a God appear and settle your infinite dept by suffering isn't to free you from the dept or suffering, but to completely nullify your attempts to thwart them by other means. Your dept to God is now essentially carved in stone, a reasoning priests can use to install you with guilt, submission and reactiveness.
@@kingroberti9643 Christianity doesn't teach that you are guilty of Christ's death though, it teaches the cotnrary. Sometimes a system of belief and it's consequences in the minds of some (or even a lot of) people are not directly linked. The ultimate goal of Christianity is not an eternal feeling of guilt, but a lot of undeveloped minds arrive to that conclusion. A lot of minds don't. The absolution of sin is not diametrically opposed to Nietzsche's worldview. Take Kant as an example. The consequence of the interpretations of his rationalistic philosophy led to the decline of religious life in Western societies, even though he was devoutly religious and actively defended religion as an integral part of human life. It goes to show that the INTERPRETATION of a belief system is at least as influential as the belief system itself.
@@kingroberti9643 I have noticed this also, and by synchronicity and the mind which we are a part of, i was looking for what you wrote and i found your comment. 😊
@@snippsnapp123 There is no, zero, none absolution by sin. In many charismatic churches, continually they go on how we are nothing, and God is everything. Only grace of God saves us. This makes people perpetual food and continually guilty of sin and being always below God.
We all already have an objective purpose and it's the same for everyone. I'm about to write a substack article on it soon. No, it has nothing to do with religion.
My problem with Nietzsche and his answer to Nihilism is the same issue I have with nihilism: its secular cope to the actual answer thar materialism and secularism leads to. Make no mistake, I genuinely believe that Secularism is just a smokescreen to allow hedonism. If the bible never talked about sex or peoples genitalia we'd probably have just a few agnostics. Freddy himself died from syphilis as well, showing his motivations were also probably carnel. But, this materialism will lead down a dark haunting and horrifying conclusion to secularists. If nature is all there is and we are nature, then we are obviously bound by the very same laws and instincts those animals are bound by. Our goal in life, or very reason for existing individually is the same as those beasts. What do those beasts exist for? Essentially, unlike most secularist, Schoepenhaur wasn't a coward and he was right. Think about that revelation, thst your very existence is dominated by simply procreation. Your libido is the most important and powerful function of your existence. Its so strong that it confused you into thinking the act isn't just passing on your genes for live to continue to live but an ultimate source of pleasure and fullfillment. This will lead down an even darker revelation that since this is the ultimate imperative your mind will make you make decisions simply based on which decision will make the chance of procreation more likely. Your ego and your super ego could simply be mental tricks your reptile brain crafted simply so you could breed more efficiently. Those pleasures that you thought freed your from the shackles of rhe church actually chained you up with an anchor. You are now a caged bird singing that its free. But, if you simply leaped passed this conclusion and make the claim that it doesnt matter, nothing in universe matters, existence is meaningless, you craft a little easy dark lie that allows you to still be a caged bird but ignorant of materialism harshest truth. Because of this, I believe almost all seculat philosophies from Rousseau to Nietzsche without addressing that dark conclusion will always fail because its fighting against a lie we willfully believe.
Secularism is what made plenty of indigenous cultures deeply spiritual, because it allows us to recognize that we live in a parallel universe, a deeply subjective reality. Hedonism is the way how to ascend in spirit, because it leads through the sexual force of kundalini. Your whole comment is based on ignorance of what secularism means, a true connection to our innermost christ ouside of imposed beliefs that exist only within the duality and binary thinking, that is because the only true evil is an inhibition of consciousness through binary thinking of up nd down, light or dark. Do you realize that humans are animals, and it is our sexual instinct that hides the truth of who we are stored deeply in our body. There is no evolution without secularism and personal truths that are developed and cultivated, because it is the individual pieces of creation that can create the bigger whole, so thaat the whole can support the individual pieces as much as those pieces can support the whole, which closes the gap between the spirit and matter and the life on earth becomes super inter-connected, that can never happen by following an imposed belief by some authority of religion. It has to happen through transcendence of good and evil, through acceptance of pedophilia, murder and everything our ego resists, that veil has to be penetrated once and for all. This has been studied for a long time, and Nietzsche knew what he was saying as it goes much deeper than your dualistic binary view of life - light and dark. Humans are nature ultimately, and it is through it6s exploration that we find ourselves so we could better serve the whole as its diverse pieces.
A bit about "turn the other cheek" - during the time that verse was written in the ancient middle-east, the lowest class of people and slaves would only be slapped with the left hand of whoever was punishing them because they weren't even worthy of being slapped with the right hand. "Turning the other cheek" can be interpreted as demanding respect non-verbally in this context, because it forced the upper class person / owner to use their right hand, which if they did would make the slave/low class cheek-turner an equal in the social context of the time. If a slave or lower class person actually retaliated violently they would be killed quickly.
I am not a christian to get into heaven , i am not a christian to appeal to god or get my wishes granted , i am a christian so that i may be the best version of myself and help my fellow pepole
I have a great respect for your handling of Nietzsche sir, great video! That said, Nietzsche is a prophet: he knows not what he says but the content of his words will bear fruit long after he is dead. Also, I have long felt that Nietzsche is really a Lutheran, beneath all his militant atheism. He was german, all too german!
I disagree with Nietzsche. Nihilism doesn't arise from religion per se, but from materialism. If everything is material, if your very thoughts are merely the product of a mechanical universe and thus not your own, then you have no free will, and you don't really exist except as a cog in an absurd existence where any "free will" you might perceive is an illusion. The point of asceticism is to understand that materialism alone cannot lead to a fulfilling life. That's the point of the parable of the camel through the eye of a needle: the rich find it difficult to find heaven (meaning or anti-nihilism, if you will) because they are so strongly attached to the material world. The modern world has become fabulously wealthy, and thus tries to find meaning in hedonistic pleasures and accumulation of wealth. Nihilism infects everything because it arises from material success. In disagreeing, I don't mean to imply that asceticism is good (or bad), but pure asceticism that focuses on denying the material world without also discovering meaning or faith will lead to nihilism. At the very minimum, that faith has to recognize one's own free will, which in turn implies that there must be more to the universe than the material (because materialism implies no free will).
Your incorrect. And you missed the point. Religion, science, art, all have in them the ascetic ideal. To belittle or detach himself from reality. Is hedonistic tendency not the result of one not being able to master himself? Yes! The modern world today does not need religion, but needs to go through the ascetic ideal to its end: nihilism. But we cannot go back to religion, we must move on, because it’s what’s behind religion which man needs to tackle. Not the mask called religion. The material world we call it, why? Why do we call it so? Is it not because the scientists telling you online that we’ve become hedonistic and impulsive and uncontrollable? Have you not been convinced by those who still devote themselves to the ascetic ideal, that life is no good? That it’s faulty without these values called faith and meaning? Yes! And they have convinced you well, o you denier of life, you’ve been tricked by the ascetic ideal. Nietzsche calls into question meaning, faith, truth, hope, all of these branches from the tree of ideas, tree of knowledge. They are all hidden under god. God is the masking of all of these values, to beautify them, to divine them. You and all scientists and social media influencers, all still have not dwelled deeper into what’s behind these values like meaning, truth, and more yet, you still worship them and deem them as God, as irrefutable facts. But either way, if you never explore deeper and see what these values mean to us beyond their description, then nihilism is inevitable. You sacrifice them, you sacrifice god, for nothingness, this occurs once you realize that you really don’t know what these values really are, when reality shows you that they are just words of which you not know the reality to them at all. This is what Nietzsche meant, and summarizes it in this part 37:42 The search for meaning, past the material, is nihilism my friend. To even deem reality as a material, or hedonistic, shows your experiencing nihilism, the search for meaning is nihilism. Because meaning is the desire to desire something, as if one had to desire nothing than not desire at all. The will to desire nothing = search for meaning. The ascetic ideal was one way to find meaning, but its something to overcome, not settle in.
1. I don’t believe in anything beyond the material, free will, or objective morality. I still find meaning in things and a fulfilling life. So your claim is already wrong from the start. 2. Even with things beyond the material existing, free will is still not real. Like having a soul doesn’t mean you can suddenly claim free will (most people do though), because that just pushes the problem of free will down the line and the same questions that are asked about the mind can be asked about the soul. Both situations come to the same, free will-less, conclusion
@@_SloppyhamPretty sure free will can exist from a purely material worldview. Otherwise super staunch materialists like Steven Hawking and Richard Dawkins wouldn't believe in it We already know that the consciousness chooses what to do in any complex situation (libet's experiment was disproven in 2006). And the human body uses quantum physics in our DNA, sense of smell, and new evidence for our brains. For the past 80 years quantum phenomena have been giving determinism the finger So if free will is our choices not being writ is stone then yes, we most likely have it
@@isaiahdanz3308 islamic world doesn't suffer from pesky nihilism, they seem to be doing just fine if you ignore the western "interventions" and invasions, we do need religion and man always needed it, nowadays in west new religions are social progressivism in essence with it's branches of lgbt, enviromentalism and feminism
isn't repudiating nihilism also a kind of ascetic Ideal ? By interpretation of it, terms like "better way" or even "creeping nihilism" already give a value to nihilism, and therefore, accusing nihilism takes contexts in an ascetic ideal : valuing life. But henceforth, after describing that ascetic ideal gives a direction to humankind, shouldn't be concluded that no direction may also be a path ? This thought is primarely by definition nihilism ; it's valuation (i.e. interpretation) is leading the thinker to nihilism. I would love to see your work on an analysis of George Bataille's work. To be as transgressive as Bataille, i would say that the ubermensch is indeed a nihilist one, but in definition and not in interpretation. the "accursed share" is an attempt to extract Nihilism of the ascetic ideal and thus, making it an other path on experiencing the world
I'm torn, because on the one hand, you sound reasonable and chill enough, but on the other hand, you take your coffee black. Now I don't know WHAT to think!!
All ages had problems, but we are not like the medieval era, or even the 1900s. We are the richest and smartest society to ever appear on earth, with the wealthiest and healthiest people ever seem, yet we are not the happiest, despise being the one that most pursued self gratification in history. People today literally kill themselves in droves out of petty problems, to poor people outside the modern world such a concept seems unimaginable.
A philosophy of life can be fairly judged by the life of the person who produces it. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were both tortured and lonesome men. Therefore, I conclude they were far off base.
I dont quite understand what the end result is, in this argument. Is it that everyone should simply give up morals and act purely on natural tempation? Is it that we should adopt "having no religion" in place of the last step of the ladder in which we end up in the same place. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding or if im impatient. I'm 19 minutes in waiting to hear exactly why this is a convincing argument.
In a world without a basis for Truth, you have made Beauty to my mind’s eye. Thank you for your dedication, this video is the most precise and educational summarization of the historical road to the present human malaise condition. Thank you for shining a light to the work of Nietzsche who exposed it. You made it accessible to the rabble like myself, though Freddy may not like the idea putting his work outside of elite reach I think he would approve from your fidelity.
It is interesting that the denial of the will happens quite automatically for some people. One simply ceases to want. One automatically stops eating meat, desiring sex, caring about material wealth, etc. It's not a decision but rather an instinct.
It's simply an adoption mechanism (coping) to the living conditions. If your needs are constantly denied and you can't do anything about it - you stop having these needs. Call it innate wisdom, basically what stoics came up to philosophically.
It's called resentment. Nietzsche talked about resentment in GOM. People who stop caring about things they previously wanted only do so because they resent what others have, which they want badly
@@fastemil123 are those goals your own then? Once I'd let go of resentment, I grew closer to my goals and what they mean to me. The thing about nietzsche's resentment is that it sort of acts like indignation; that you are guilty and owe others.
@@haemolacriaa I stopped being frustrated by my lack in life and in comparing to others and starting going after my own goals instead of those more societal ones.
Society was very Christian before and it didn't help us neither. In 1930s Germany, majority of voters for the NSDAP were unsurprisingly Christians. And before that Christianity was the major religion within Europe and it didn't contribute to any long lasting peace between nations.
@@j.d.s.8132 not saying it helped, said the absence of it is even worse. Majorly because society has no moral control, everything in this sort of society is a construct, and for that, your and everyone else’s life is meaningless, and with it, there is no point in fighting evil. I don’t make the assumption that a Christian society would be better because of Christianity, specially when you have corrupted politicians and false prophets like the Pope, Mohammed and others. NSDAP had its own religion, and it was weird mix with of a lot of stuff, don’t come up with fake things. Of course there were supporters of Nazism that were Cristians, just like there supporters that were atheists, scientists etc. But anyhow, the Pope had his support for the Facists in Italy.
@@yaboi4831 They had many Catholic voters - are catholics also not Christians? Do you get to define who is a Christian so that nobody who ever did something bad and identifies as a Christian is one?
40 minutes to say that it's actually the people searching for meaning in life that are the nihilists from the people who think that life is inherently meaningless. Good stuff
The problem with the idolisation of Nietzsche is that he viewed the world in broad oppositions and while he was a powerful writer he wasn't a major philosopher. In spite of claiming to point the way beyond Good and Evil, his was nevertheless a manichaean, dogmatic worldview in which he choose sides. It is profoundly ironic but not unsurprising, for a virgin loner to make himself the prophet of ultra-masculinity. In the end, he belonged to the zeitgeist of his era, where the socially imposed norms of decent and indecent, sane and insane, beautiful and ugly, had become a straightjacket stifling free thinking. He wasn't alone tearing down the walls and the tautological pretence that was used to legitimise the dominant discourses of his day. This is very much an eternal problem with societies, as they swing between a rigid hierarchy of norms that favour an established power structure, and the anything-goes that brings about an opportunity for healthy change, at the risk of introducing a period of chaos. We are living through such times ourselves. The biased recuperation of Aristotelian ethics by the Church had unfortunately blinded Nietzsche in his rejection of essential, empirical principles that would otherwise have helped make sense of the socio-cultural dynamics he was criticising. And it is unfortunate that he only made a partial (as in, biased) reading of Hegel. Same with Kant : Every philosopher has blind spots and it is immature to reject their work wholesale simply because some of it is inaccurate, idiotic or biased. Today, we have a situation with the influence of French Post-modernism and post-structuralism on anglo-saxon sociopolitical thought, that is causing us to amplify and multiply puritanism into a myriad identities : It is profoundly ironic because these French schools of thought, as well as the Frankfurt school of Critical Theory, posited in the wake of Gramsci to tear down the quasi-religious hegemony of dominant discourses. These folks were highly inspired by Nietzsche and what they have unwittingly contributed to create, is a doubling-down of "dominant discourses" and self-pretend moral rectitude ; but this time creating a multi-polar hydra of conflicting social creeds, claims and identities. There is a lesson there, which must take us back to the question posed by Hobbes, in how we can possibly deal with the "Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes"... it seems that the existence of a leviathan is not only inevitable, but to an extent, desirable, because it may well embody the least form of evil. I am exaggerating, of course, because Aristotle had already analysed this a long time ago : We need a hybrid form of hierarchy - a polity - to guarantee the stability and coherence of a society, but a hierarchy that is modular and nimble enough to change according to the needs of the human psyche, without requiring war or excess turmoil. Easier said than done, and this is where it remains vital to respect mad critics like Friedrich Nietzsche, as their critique keeps us on edge. What's sad for Nietzsche and similarly obsessional intellectuals, is how it ate his well-being and rendered him mentally ill. He could have been just as critical and just as productive in the production of paradigms, while also taking things with a grain of salt. But those who adore him (I was one of those during my teenage years) like the idea of the sometimes hilarious, always tragic moustachioed madman with an immense culture and a wicked sense of sarcasm. Poor guy, though. But according to his own theory, his Sysyphian plight would be the perfect amoral playing ground for an übermensch. Too bad he didn't seem to get the meaning of Epicurean ataraxy, or the idea that "virtue" in stoicism, is not a manichaean moral state but the process of employing reason on an otherwise adiaphoric world, in the goal of self-preservation.
I don't understand your point. Nietzsche realized that the disconnect between what is good/bad for you and what is good/evil should not exist, that it was a sort of cultural disease mantained by moderns holding on to christian ethics while rejecting their metaphysics. Hence the need for a transvaluation of values and his mockery of anglo-saxon utilitarians, who still engage in their circular nonsense to this day. The conceptualization of slave morality vs master morality is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive and the ubermensch isn't any more amoral than Aristotle.
Loved your comment. I also been thinking the same thoughts about hierarchies recently. They are necessary for societal stability (the origin is seen natually in the social animals). Without them there'll be much more energy wasted on constant internal conflict. With them the energy is spent on more productive activities. You'd need to pay the premium to enact change, which safeguards from unreasonable changes. The issue with human hierarchies is that it typically allows those in power to entrench the hierarchies, making it unreasonably difficult to enact change - basically requiring voilent uprisings. Those who solve this structural problem would allow for human societies to advance further. In that vain I've been thinking, that a society should not have a single structural hierarchy but several, with the same power, which can do the same thing. The competition should keep them in check and force them to improve over time. But then the competition should be regulated, that it doesn't turn into a voilent conflict between them...
Without a belief in truth science is only a different priesthood and being a scientist is becoming a secular clergy member. This vocation comes with the power and reverence in our secular culture similar to that of priests during medieval times
Ironically, Nietzsche shows that he is opposed to all human progress, and that he himself is the most nihilistic philosopher of all, by attempting to uproot the notion of Truth or Logos, which forms culture and science. It is his philosophy that is the truly nihilistic philosophy, due to its hatred for the Good and the Truth, which are the most fundamental and necessary concepts for human development, language, art, and so on.
No. His criticism of Plato/Socrates and the system of ideals that follow from that is pretty simple. Those philosophers held that there is a true conception of everything in the Realm of Forms, and that the material world is always inferior to that concept in the realm of forms. Thus, no matter what you do on earth, it never measures up to the ideal. And the only way to access the Realm of Forms is death. This is anti-progress because there is a presupposition of the end already being determined, rather than a process that continually evolves and changes. Importantly, the idea of a supreme god or a realm of forms commits you to the idea that there is one correct interpretation of everything, one truth. And that's something that the vast majority of human civilizations didn't believe in. The Indian concept of Dharma, the Path of the Gods, is a sophisticated way of expressing an alternative to this idea of one truth. In India, the totality of the Universe can be symbolically expressed as being within the bodies of different Gods and Goddesses, such as Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Krishna, Rama, etc. And the idea is that there are different expressions of the vast multifaceted truths which are available to people of different psychologies. The "supreme truth", or Brahman, is simply the ability to understand and see through this multitude of different perspectives and expressions, to see the reality in each of them and how they interweave together. Nietzsche isn't the end all and be all of philosophy. His own comments about envisioning a race that would one day make modern man look like a monkey should tell you that. But he did see the general flaws in western philosophy that have continued to culminate and fester to this day.
@@roaringsteelmedia One thing to note is that Nietzsche was perhaps being humorous when he expressed the desire to see a species arise which would make humanity look like monkeys in comparison. But it isn't a bad thing to imagine what such a species could look like. It's what people always did with gods and those sort of beings. The thing is that a lot of those cultures put the superior beings as existing at a time before humanity. As for how you could practically evolve humanity, natural evolution is likely a dead-end at this point so you need social and technological evolution. The most likely way of improving humanity currently is through gene-therapies. For example, there's research being done that has the potential to extend the human lifespan to several hundred years. There's also research about eliminating bad genes (i.e. genetic diseases and the like) while increasing the expression of healthy genes (better health, better intelligence, etc.). That doesn't necessarily get people to the superhuman category, but it does have the potential to bring humans up to a higher consistent standard. The alternative is the sci-fi concept of cyborgs where humans and machines merge together to offer greater control of technology, perhaps creating artificial brain networks that could operate more efficiently than biological ones. The feasibility of that has not yet been demonstrated though, so it remains a concept of fiction rather than reality. Cybernetics though have definitely shown potential in replacing body parts for disabled people. One interesting point about humans is that it seems that imagining a concept and having an idea to move towards that concept is often half the battle with us. So by having the idea of evolving humanity ourselves, we actually are more likely to move towards that future than if we'd stayed content with the current form of humanity. But all this has to be guided by a rather better psychology than we have today for it to work, hence why borrowing some ideas from the better elements of human philosophy and religion are desirable while leaving behind that which is unnecessary. Nietzsche saw Indian philosophy (Hinduism and Buddhism) as philosophies that civilizations embraced near the end of their existence, having lived out the struggles that brought them there. This is contrasted with his view of the western monotheistic religions as pre-civilizational religions. At least one of his philosophical ideas was inspired by the concept of reincarnation, which is his idea of the eternal recurrence.
that’s all bollocks that’s all a luxury for the bourgeoisie, while the rest of us struggled to put food on the table and shelter our children from 2000 pound bombs. I wouldn’t give you 2 Bob for European culture ,it’s bought and paid for!
As a biochemist, it sounds to me like Nietzche had a profound misunderstanding of science. We are not looking for the "truth" but rather for models that can A) explain observed phenomena and B) successfully predict further phenomena. That's all. The fact that these models imply facts that Nietzche didn't like is not a consequence of anyone's desire for asceticism but simply the result of observations. What were scientists supposed to do, fiddle with the data until it fit Nietzche's worldview?
I wholeheartedly agree science is just trying to make the right conditions to achieve a goal and then replicate it enough times to build a solid map of how the material universe behaves in its design to help us harness it for infinite furtherance of the human race
Isn’t look for models that can explain observed phenomena and make accurate predictions about such phenomena is more or less synonymous with finding the “truth” of it? If I were to say the sun revolves around the Earth, carbohydrates are comprised of amino acids, water is made of carbon and nitrogen, I would be told those things aren’t true, because science has evidence to the contrary.
@@willb295 truth is a question of philosophy. Science doesn't deal with truth. This seems to be the point that philosophers have difficulty understanding. Science gives you a model, ideally a mathematically defined one, into which you can feed data and it spits out results. That's it, that's all. Everything else is philosophy.
Islamic culture doesn't suffer from nihilism, infact the moment you try to impose your scientific-liberal understanding of world and metaphysics as primary way to see the world, people turn fanatical radical to fight it cause they don't want to lose something that actually replace nihilism, which is God-belief, ideals, virtues, values, morality.
Ascetic ideal is the consequence of frustrated will. You need to have a generational moonshot project that inspires people. People need a challenge, a kind of fight. If they don't get that, they will fight their own minds and bodies. The West didn't have any grand goals since the fall of the Pact. So people started fighting themselves through a variety of anti-western ideologies. (Coincidentally, nihilism goes together well with corruption.)
@@soaked189When a general physiological weakness emerges. We can call it sickness or old age. In our case it is the old age! All cultures last not longer than 1200 years. We are far beyond the point of no return and a new goal for still strong people is necessary. It is pointless to look for 'guilt', rather for a new future!
From what I've seen, the root of the problem with society is sarcasm. Folks believe that wit, sarcasm and unoriginal memes are the catch-all-end-all answer to any thing they don't like... and... it causes problems.
It’s that, combined with the lack of sincerity. No one is brave enough to unload their suffering and no one is equipped to handle that suffering, because everyone is coping with it by joking and laughing.
No, I don't think so. Sarcasm isn't driven by anything particular, just a failure for the ideal to line up with the reality, and it's fine to acknowledge this is the case. Sometimes it's productive and sometimes it's not, but on the assumption that you can't fix everything and there are genuine differences of opinion making the society conflicted, it's a decent cope. When we live in a rough physical environment, we wear skins and stockpile food and build shelters. When we live in a rough social environment, the sarcasm is our shelter. Done right, we can laugh. Telling people to be completely authentic all the time makes them more fragile.
Head to squarespace.com/weltgeist to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code WELTGEIST
What a joke. You waste the world’s time peddling bad services. Create something lasting and good, not a 30 minute web hosting ad. Gross
??
lmao hypocrite shill
Hypocrite
Experience
Meaningless: Experience and prejudice. To accept sight and illusion in the same relativity and not be a slave.
Slavery: To be free from the growth of intellect. Experience free from understanding and memory as triviality.
Memory: reduced down to recollection without review, in a universe of consistent physics; a triviality of organic invincibility. Experience rendered down to self-sensual recall without existential considerations; meaningless.
Prejudice: to accept the delusion that no human can consider and choose. For experience to outweigh sense and sensible prudence and suggest in definite physicality that humanity is as inorganic as the constructs we purpose.
Triviality to the concept of Slave, is Mass to Gravity, either one hypothetical without the physics of Trivialization or Mass. One requiring the circumstance of genesis, the other requiring absence of necessity; Nativitus Ancillae.
Relativity: the universe revolves around you, but only if you watch with others; relativity born of tripartite geometry; self (observing), other (conferring), objective (occurring): co-intimate experience and co-context.
Relativity: all things can happen to you, most didn't, you only know what you think, you only think what you can hypothesize, all understanding revolves around perception and interaction. Understanding and position; relative.
Hypothesis: a proposition of a form unsensed in the physical, in the definition "scientific" it is the Fructus Ventris Physica Quantitatis; the guessable, potent in measurability, invisibilia ad carnalis, observationis codificationem.
Hypothesis: a concept just beyond sensible observation but within sensory or facultative relativity to intimate comprehension; the space an observer feels safe to coniectura didicit doctrina. A cerebrum exercitium.
Meaningless: the words of any personal exposition without the person. Interpretation of intended and intimate communication removed from its physical occurrence. To hypothesize in the spirit of Freud, all are I.
Meaningless: a description of a building behind it's façade to a man on the street. Definition without sensible example; invisibility bestowed by the suggestibility of the potent potentiality of descriptionem alienum.
Reference without experience, definition without context, experience without definition, definition without reference; to theorize on fancy, the possibilities of cause bereft of "scientific" prejudice towards provable.
A description of the unseen to the comfortable in sense, and sensibility; hypothesis delivered socially by the
perfecte mediocris to their perfecte mediocris aetatis. Interest and applause humilis, the sermo aequalis.
Contemporary communication, external warehouse for internal deliberation. Deliberatio externa by contrast is built on extra-contemporary, the functional in sense and nerve unwilling to mal-hypothesize popularis prudentia.
By definition a contemporary is both naturally occurring and actively intersecting, or it is a generational (illusory), built of temporal coincidence. Meaningless in contemporations intimate, capable of saying they share an age.
“Our culture is sick. This video is brought to you by square space.” Lmfao
And this is why we are fucked 😂
😂😂
@@Blackstar-yd3yfFONKED
ironic lol
Can you elaborate on what you think is bad about that?
Imagine fighting against Nihillism youre entire live just to be called "Nihillistic"
Lol, hilarious.
We are all bound by our fates in perpetuity with self-fulfilling prophecies
believing in change is nihilism no matter what
I think it may be safe to say that he eventually lost the fight against dat heavy-hitting nihilism
If you're fighting against nihilism, imo youre an absurdist. A nihilist doesn't fight back; they accept the futility. An absurdist knows there is technically no point to anything but refuses to accept that - and fights to create their own meaning and values in life. They're in a constant state of inner conflict as a result.
Has taken 4 decades to find someone who not only understands Nietzsche, but is able to convey key points. Well done!
a vast critical literature presenting, analyzing, & explicating Nietzsche developed in all those decades you seem to think were a howling wasteland of neglect until this video.
@@sayresrudy2644 I have read plenty of what I would call misunderstanding. But perhaps it is just that we see things similarly in our interpretation.
@@konberner170 I would suggest you listen to both Unsolicited advice and Eternalized's videos on the subject. They seem to understand him quite well, demystify Nietzsche and undo the perception that he was a nihilist, and rather that he was a lover of life (Amor Fati).
They are enlightening.
@@angelvollant864 I can see why you would like someone called "Unsolicited Advice" ;)
You're already clearly lying or weren't trying
If people don't have a useful fight to fight, they will fight themselves.
This really gives clarify to current politics.
This is the impetus for the Beastie Boys call for the Fight for the Right to Party.
@TheMahayanist Fascism is a 20th century ideology.
We should definitely fight totalitarianism in all its forms because it ruins human potential.
But the forms are not the same anymore.
@TheMahayanist yes but would you fight marxism with equal vigour and determination ?
@ianbanks2844 people that get on a soapbox about fascism are more often than not either incredibly ignorant or commies my man. Both dangerous
@@ianbanks2844 Or other, newer forms of totalitarianism?
Ive read Nietzsche for over 30 years and this is a great summary of his whole philosophy. The Madman aphorism in the Gay Science has always been something I return to again and again. The United States is pretty much ground zero for everything that he warned about.
what's the point of being warrrrning about it? Nietzsche couldn't even get the woman he wanted. He was a simp.
Often, imperfect people are good at seeing imperfections clearly.
Don't believe Nietzsche's solutions.
But be aware that he described the problems in a rare clarity.
Even he said: "When you visit a woman, remember to bring your whip."
He just failed at executing his own advice.
@@tuckerbugeater"He was a simp" this comment negates all of his work. Amazing intellectual contribution.
@@tuckerbugeater simp or incel?
Well in paleolithic times, fasting would have been inherent to living and therefore not required as an imposed ritual.
Absolutely right it's like how the tribes in the Amazon rainforest live. They don't need fasting as food is scarce, they don't need morality, laws and manufactured order, everyone who deviates so far to damage them they cast out.
Nietzsche living in modern Germany forgot that those who lived in older times did not need to sacrifice themselves as their environment was so terribly cruel that either those sacrifices meant nothing or were already made thousands of years prior to ascetic ideas.
@@herondonizeteribeiro1006 I once saw a documentary about a tribe in Venezuela. It may not be unique to this tribe or "people," but in their world the spirits are evil. It makes sense. There are many things in the jungle that wants to kill you. The tribe survived by banding together against the spirits. They did not know murder.
This isn't unique, indeed. The indigenous people Columbus encountered were peaceful. They didn't know war. In fact, they were so peaceful they didn't fight back. This, Columbus argued, made them perfect slaves.
I take it that the Ascetic Ideal began with Agriculture since surplus allowed Human sacrifice and fasting as honorable values for abstraction. Is there proof of sacrifice before farming? Because if so it proves to me a human intrinsic existential sickness. It is as if the Ascetic Ideal is a castration towards our nature in return of societal cooperation and lower mortality rate. The human prison will do whatever it takes to keep us safe.
@@worsttrainrideever5606 I mean, I disagree with some of the things you said, but as a whole the argument is correct I think.
I heard somewhere that asceticism and organized religion emerged after the establishment of the first agricultural cities and societies as a way to go back in time. We as humans evolved 100.000 years to live as hunter gatherers and then suddenly were packed into ever larger cities, likewise modern city culture, which I think is a way to recreate an idealistic non urban culture and the mental and psychological health benefits it brings.
Great comment...The San hunters (Bushmen) of southern Africa had a feast after a successful hunt,were almost incapacitated after gorging on their kill,followed by days of involuntary fasting,especially during droughts in the arid regions where they lived,due to the scarcity of prey. Further more,when they were faced with starvation they would put to death all the youngest females...like babies and toddlers,and rather feed the boys, as the boys were the future hunters, key to the survival of the tribe....basic logic being: No hunters....no food ...no tribe...extinction. In a way you here have human sacrifice for the purpose of the practical survivability of the tribe.....enforced by the harshness of nature.
Buddhism cooked so much back then. A lot of what is discussed here can be summarized by humanity's endless search for the very source of their own suffering.
He thought Buddhism was slave morality too. He thought that only losers focus on or even feel their suffering the master doesn't even register suffering he just lives and wins.
@@ShadowedBattlegroundsCre-tk9md Good point. I lost so much respect for Nietzsche the more I knew about his way of thinking. He is so obsessed in seeing the flaws of others but can't see his own.
Buddhist argument is very simple. We can't help others if we don't find a way to help ourselves first. If we are filled with pain, regret or other negative thoughts, our attempts at "helping" others may bring even more pain instead. If we can't understand the causes for our suffering, we can't help others either.
@@rumplstiltztinkerstein I think he didn't understand that Chads can suffer too.
@@ShadowedBattlegroundsCre-tk9mdYeah. Nietzsche was the Andrew Tate of philosophers
@@rumplstiltztinkersteinlmaooo
i find it odd that nietsche was so anti substance use (alcohol, narcotics etc) but is so pro dionisian
He drank wine and beers in his last 10 years, sometimes dancing alone in his rented rooms while laughing or crying of joy. He also took morphine for a while, given by doctors for physical pain. References are from a few biographies I read. Btw, he also said in Ecce Homo he wanted to eat as less meat as possible but he'd order sausages from his mother all the time. I always liked Nietzsche, but let's say he was also : 'Human, all too human".
@@tomahawk5712I am a paradoxical contradiction ❤
@@tomahawk5712 Eternally frustrated by the limits of sanity.
In my viewpoint nihilism is the opposite. If there is no god wy chastity. In India brahmacharya is basicly devotion to god and semen retention. Its a principle of order and not nihilism. Well i may now have to look at parcival....
The inner alchemy game.
He used chloral hydrates to knock himself out, due to his insomnia.
Scientist here. I believe I can speak for many of my colleagues when I say: we are not seeking the truth. This is a common misconception. We are seeking to understand nature. In my opinion, Bertold Brecht described it best: “The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error”.
Aiming for the best provisional truth.
The first line of the original Pokémon song said it best for me.
Semantics. Naturalism of science does assume an important objective reality exist, so there is an asymptotic truth.
@@josephang9927 exactly y=1/x
@@josephang9927 Yes, and that assumption is itself metaphysical and outside of science.
John Mearsheimer has made the point that Europe is a great museum; and I think his analysis is correct: the nihilistic wave has already destroyed what was once the land that believed one can know God through self-perfection.
He has some points but after seeing how much he's fumbled geopolitics since Ukraine was fully invaded I've lost a lot of respect for the man
I don't believe in perfection, but constant improvement/ sharpening of ones metaphorical blades is muy importante IMO.
And a good relationship with "God" I would agree is most important.
@@thishandleistackenI've not seen this video.
Why do you believe he "fumbled" geopolitics?
Self-perfection started to be ruined with the Catholic church and their campaigns against "pagans" who were the ones who organized themselves with true elevated values.
@@thishandleistackenwhat exactly has he fumbled?
I'm only 13:30 minutes in so far, so forgive me if this comes up again later.... Chastity as a virtue or aspirational social ideal long predates Christianity in the pagan world. It's embodied in virginal goddesses like Athena and Artemis, and in organizations such as the Vestal Virgins of Rome. Family limitation--that is, inhibitions to procreation--have been recorded in primitive societies, such as the Inuit, and was also practiced by Greeks (esp. the Spartans) and Romans. If these practices are nihilistic, then nihilism precedes Christianity in history, probably by many millennia.
Nietzsche knew about this of course, he was a Classics professor at 25. Not sure how he'd interpreted the pagan virginal goddesses but he disliked the pre-christian ascetic ideal by philosophers like Socrates or the Stoics or the Jewish tradition almost as much as Christianity. His ideal are archaic this-worldly heroes, delighting in their own strength and power, like Achilles. And he certainly knew that this was past and had no clear idea how to get to something similar in the future. He didn't kid himself that to be excellent in Philology was close to being the best warrior before the walls of Troy or the olympic wrestling champion. The closest contemporary might have been a superior and selfconfident artist like Wagner, therefore Nietzsche was so bitterly disappointed by what he perceived as a Schopenhauerian/pseudochristian turn.
@@bartolo498 The video was excellent. I'll watch it again. The point about chastity and other fertility- limiting practices actually being a pre-Christian is a minor one, but I thought needed to be said. Population control was perceived as a necessity in many ancient societies, where food production could lag well behind birth rate. It wasn't something that would necessarily endanger the survival of a society, as the video claims, but the opposite: help ensure the society didn't expand beyond its available resources and precipitate starvation.
@@robertabrahamsen9076thankfully that isn't needed now as science takes over and we now know that increase in welfare usually lowers birth rate anyway. Malthusianism been debunked for years now.
But regardless it is interesting to see how we dealt with scarcity in the past.
@@robertabrahamsen9076 it wasn't population control, but if you limit women sexuality and to promote monogamy, you can distribute women to men without the need for wars, religion was good to avoid wars to get women due to men with power keeping all the women to themselves. Religion normally just serves as several rules to keep a society harmonious.
i feel like Nietzsche would understand the Percival situation if he hadn't been a virgin simp all his life. Yes, sex and instinctual behavior is very life affirming, but that can easily take everyone s life in a dark and destructive zone. Ask any sex addict or people who only sleep around how meaningful is their behavior. And you won t have to look for long for people with lives ruined by decadent lifestyles, be it from unprotected sex, or protected but emotionally detached sex. Nietzsche simply couldn't comprehend how destructive sex and fun can be, because he probably never had any. While Wagner most likely understood that since he was basically a Rockstar (i don't know if he fucked around with his fans, i bet he did but it's just reasonable speculation) and probably came to realize, to some degree or merely unconsciously, that too much of a good thing, like sex, desire and intense passion, can be detrimental to one's life.
Literally my thoughts exactly. The dismissal of the obvious logic behind resisting desires shows me how blind Nietzsche was. We dont reject desires purely because we can now afford to. Thats such a shallow appraisal of the situation.
Ask anyone who has turned from a life of pure self satisfaction how worth it it is taking another sip of alcohol or to sleep with another person meaninglessly.
Female chastity leads to more procreation - just look at what the Muslims do or Orthodox Christians, etc.
@Omnio0
Agreed. It's interesting. I don't know much about Neitche's philosophy, but in my opinion, it's almost the opposite. A life of pursuing pleasure and "fulfillment" will bring one to nihilism much quicker than a life of discipline, restraint and morals.
I also noticed another comment on here talking about how the phrase, "f**k bitches, get money" sums up the will to power philosophy. Is it really just this simplistic selfish desire dressed up in intellectualism? People just want to hear what they want to hear it seems. When I hear people talking about discipline and morals with the outlook that, "those people just don't want you to be happy", I just think of that person as extremely immature. It's like a child saying their parents hate them because they didn't buy them an overpriced toy that they wouldn't care about in a few weeks.
@@JohnDoe-g7i i think you hit the nail on the head there. Nietzsche’s ideas, as far as I can tell, are just philosophical dressing on top of a vapid world view that is ultimately destructive to society and self
There's less people getting laid now than ever these days. Are you saying there's no suffering in living an unfulfilled life? This "sex addiction" you speak of can be overcome. There's nothing meaningful about a lifetime of self denial. Never having doesn't automatically mean never wanting it. Nitche more relevant now than ever.
I'm sure nobody gave a damn about him in the 1920s.
Humans have the special ability to stop and admire a sunset with colors blending and bursting into every single visible piece of the sky. Followed by the moon and the stars and the shooting stars. We get the best of it we get to experience art and music and to have a separate world that we can go to just by deciding to. We are so fortunate to have an emotional connections, mixed with opinions, and we get the chance to see something positive about each other instead of dog passive behavior or seeing the other people as a potential meal for later.
We are far, far worse than the base instinct of any animal. There isn't even a definition for us in the natural world. We would be the equivalent of a self immoliating parasite which makes no sense at all.
oh man, I can't wait for your Zarathustra summary. Your videos are incredible. Thank you so much!!
Did i miss the conclusion of why our culture is sick?
because we're all nihilists. which we aren't, but some of us are.
Our cultures sick because of other reasons. We are nihilists why? Because take one look at your life, and what your doing everyday. To put money on the table. Now think back to when we were humans in the wild, did we do that? No. All work we did was purposeful, and gave a deep sense of meaning. And once that work was done (building shelter for example) it was DONE you didnt have to do it again the next day. You only had to maintain it here and there. Now imagine having to make that shelter everyday, over and over, multiple times a day, for no purpose, for no meaning. This is the root cause for the nihilism. Our sub consciousness is not as easily tricked as we are. You cant lie to it, and it will make you feel what your trying not to. When you are taking the wrong path for yourself, it will let you know. One way or the other. The nihilism is the rebellion of our current society and systems.
To put it bluntly, our soulless job and career thing we got going on, is the main cause for all our problems. The feeling of being trapped, Its meant to feel that way. Then from there what do you really have? You fail at getting a wife and a family and what else is there? We are all hanging on by a thread. All because our childhood dreams have all died. Stopped chasing them in favor of “realistic things”. Not knowing, our dreams are our lives. We need to bring back the dream, and critical thinking and deep thoughts.
Because culture is being shifted towards hyper individualism. Everyone is out for themselves instead of being united in a common front to achieve something greater. There are many examples for this. Many examples against it.
Because asceticism is pernicious and has manifested itself in our time through science. Science seeks to belittle humanity without realizing the underlying reason
I was at the park the other day and someone wrote "fuck bitches. Get money" on the pavilion. This sage took four words to summarize will to power.
I think it was Voltaire that said that actually lol
Money is the means; the aim is the feeliing of being obeyed. The feeling of being obeyed is the essence of will to power. Everyone wants the feeling of being obeyed, even if only by a pet. But there is a ranking in the kinds of power, from base to noble. Being obeyed out of fear (eg by pointing a gun) is a low kind of power, because the other will disobey as soon as possible. Being obeyed out of love is a higher kind of power which is stronger because it is less fragile. Base power is weaker because it breaks down easily due to lack of trust. Loving money for its own sake is a weak power. And sex without respect is weak sex. Highest power is faith+trust+love with real Earthlings. Earning money is easy. Earning faith/trust/love is much harder, because the power is far stronger.
Just to be clear, they were actually just quoting Junior Mafia... Lil Cease Lil Kim and Biggie took four words to summarize will to power. This young hoodlum just passed on the meme.
@@davidrathbone4029I think this is cool. Thank you for this
😂🤝
I teach middle school. There isn’t much hope on the horizon.
Spes
@@SuperGreatSphinx Unfortunately not.
I teach middleschool too, and I disagree with you. You misunderstand this video if you are making such a comment.
@@DaggetSWG what do you disagree with?
Whats weird to me is Nietzsche spoke out against Nihilism yet he promoted Materialistic values which is inherently atheistic and he spoke of morality yet he spoke out against any morality that made sense. You cant separate the material from the immaterial Or Mental. Its ridiculous, like he was constantly arguing against himself. Sometimes right, but mostly moronic
It makes sense if you realize that he considered himself an anti-Christ.
What it boils down to is the embrace of the 666 man as the beast. Virile in its insatiable hunger for power. He believed that this bestial quest to assert ones will ultimately spawned virtues like strength, courage, revelry/joy.
Just another minion of Satan.
In this case you have missed the obvious. He is not against morality but morality divorced from or opposed to nature.
After following this channel for years now, I can now confidently say that this man, in fact, can not miss
You give a really precise analysis of a really interesting text. Thanks, Weitgeist
After seeing the thumbnail I was expecting a 40 min Bad to the Bone meme montage
Not disappointed though
this comment is so real
@@LonesomeKrow Nietzsche is cool and all but he failed to foresee that mankind would desire the nihilistic brainrot through shitposts.
@@ozpiroglu indeed comrade
I'm actually kind of moderate on the question of the aecetic versus the embraced desire for power and unrestrained self that Nietzsche characterizes as his good. That really can go too far, and some restraint, self-discipline, ethical boundaries, and so forth are necessary to live in human society and maintain trust. Nor do I buy Nietzsche's belief that people eat themselves to balance the scales that human and animal sacrifice once balanced. People are opportunists first.
But we are absolutely going too far with the Judeo-Christian concept of innocence, and we desperately need another meta-ethical change in this culture. A little bit back towards hierarchy and master morality, a little more shame in one's own helplessness, a little more encouragement to be stronger and refuse self-pity. I don't know exactly how to rationalize it with the people, or hold them accountable to it - religion really is over, spilled milk - but I know civilization will not withstand a culture of people who weaponize empathy and draw self-righteous anger for feeling that everything is others' fault. There are some really decayed core ideals in the West that are rotting us from the inside, and if we don't fix them over the next couple of generations, we're done.
On the boundary between sciences and humanities, this all comes together in economics, sociology, and psychology. When you start to believe that you can medicate happiness, or that our middle class, bourgeoisie way of life is normal and you can categorize disorders based on that as your foundation, you objectify the subjective and the complexity becomes overwhelming. You use science to, in strictly humanist and utilitarian terms, create what we know to be good, create welfare and love as a lifestyle phenomenon that we can measure. That's our meager hoard of truth, a materialist reduction. As an approach, the project has clearly failed, but we are desperately trying to salvage what we can from it and a lot of our political and cultural malaise comes from refusing to accept that we can't use an algorithm or productivity numbers to overcome our self-awareness. Hell of a time to be alive... but it has been for centuries, right?
Great video, as always. It feels like a culmination of something you want to say, and I understand and appreciate it.
Great insights.
Beautifully written. Thank you.
That was beautiful indeed. However I believe you should really be moderate with the question posed in first paragraph. Nietzche does not advocate for 'unrestrained self'. His fight is against nihilism, what I believe would be opposed to the will to power. The ascetic ideal is what brings the philosopher further away from the will to power in the direction of nihilism because opposed to power, in a continuum, lies nothingness. As our Judeo-Christian core values, these anti-will-to-power values revolves further and further into self-pity and ressentiment. The good for the decadent is to be poor and humble. Then people with these beliefs ingrained in their minds are eager to show their humility and their self-pity. They dispute to see who deserves more pity: who lives a more difficult life, who combos more minorities in their CV. All they talk is about their diseases and their fights against oppression. In doing this they disguise their true will to power with a false will to nothingness. They learn nothing in the process, or learn only lies and false truths. They live chasing difficulty instead of chasing power. This is what I believe Nietzche truly fights.
@@lynuzzz I agree. As to whether Nietzsche advocates for unrestrained self is a real debate in Nietzsche scholarship, but I think the telos of his will to power aligns that way, almost by default. What he's against is easier to see than what he's for. People who decrypt the details in Zarathustra might be able to see it better, but the question to me is just how individualistic he thinks people can be in a working social system. I'm not completely sure how he saw his preferred future, but I don't really prioritize that question.
Funny to imagine, it's the empaths in control, and not nihilistic power seekers.
I absolutely love your programs. I listen to them over and over hoping something sinks into my cement head. I've been one of those whining about the lack of a Zarathustra episode/series. Take your time, get it right, it's an incredible undertaking and will be a magnificent achievement. When it's done, I will increase my Patreon support.....
Much appreciated, there’s something coming on the Patreon too
@@WeltgeistYTwhen it comes to ONTOLOGICAL AND EPISTEMOLOGY ARGUMENTS so called brainiacs. How can a brainiacs like you teach pacifists and non pacifists are good people and not be a hypocrite drinking stupid?❤❤❤
It seems he has a flawed understanding of true Christian doctrine. To his credit I am sure many "Christian" institutions and individuals have likely promoted some of these ideals. Then again this only covers some his points in this video. Christian philosophy would have its own answers.
Christianity has changed so much over the years. Some people follow what other people preach the doctrine to be to the T. Others have their own personal relationship with the Religion, where they just validate their preexisting ideals/Morals and reinforce them/Justify them with the Religion doctrine itself.
so much to understand. i will have to watch again.
This whole suppression of violent impulse in favor of civil cooperation makes sense when you look at personality. Specifically trait agreeableness, which includes cooperation as a part of its structure. For a while now I've speculated that we are experiencing a rise in agreeableness and the demonization of disagreeableness. We are faced to argue against compassion; and believe me, compassion when unchecked by reason is absolutely catastrophic. Corrolated with compassion, or trait agreeableness, is naivety. The lack of skepticism. The proclivity to take things at face value. Naivety aids the compassionate person by not having them coming off at judgemental, cold, or critical when attempting to be there for someone in need of comfort like a more disagreeable, skeptical, person would. However, it also creates a huge blind spot. Leaving them vulnerable to manipulation. Especially emotional. Like how a baby manipulates its mother that gets the baby what it wants but doesn't necessarily mean that it is good for the baby. The best example of this publically seen is the transgender movement. The left, being more agreeable, welcomes them with open arms without question. The right, stops them and demands we take a moment to think about this before taking any action. The left blames the right of being transphobic or bigoted, and the right blames the left of being dumb or insane. When the reality is simply a difference of perception at the level of personality. Trait agreeableness.
It is even much deeper than that, it stems from the toxic relationship with darkness, death and pain, this is why protection ultimately comes from fear, and why with protection we teach children fear, we abuse them, whereas with guidance and trust we teach children love. The right adheres to the fear, the left to love, that is in a more generalized view. Your example may not be the best, because bigoted people disagree with someone's existence whose actions lead to genocide currently experienced by actual trans people on this planet just like during ww2. Parents are not meant to be prison guards, but guidance if they wish to teach their kids love.
Someone's authentic self expression is not a matter of belief, therefore it is not something to disagree with, but accept, this is whywhat you say cooperation is not based on agreeableness but but acceptance of differences, it is a transcendence of beliefs, therefore no need for agreements or disagreements whatsoever so important to realize this key distinction.
We know for example that there is no gender ideology as such as there is no ideological component to it, it is an experiential reality, it is not meant to be questioned, but validated and accepted at all times, all else comes from fear that teaches fear! That is the brutal truth that people who are psychologically out of alignment with themselves don't want to face, because they act on their negative beliefs as a result, and whoever acts on these beliefs is not in touch with themselves, which leads to fear and war. This is not a matter of compassion and agreeableness, but trust that a child knows themselves more than a parent or strangers.
Pushing a child into the wrong puberty against their will to deform their body, to increase dysphoria and potentially destroying their life forever is known as a child abuse for a good reason, but that is done by those who act on fear and so-called skepticism that thinks they can disagree with someone's authentic self. Gender affirming care is known as life saving treatment based on hundreds of evidences which has been weaponized by politicians hijacking people's fears and dogmas. A trans child can consent to cross sex hormones at 13 year old as much as intersex child can consent to cross sex hormones at the same age, the difference between the two is in an institutionalized weaponization of the body against the will and consciousness of a human being. This is why children's bodies are being gendered since birth for instance. It is done for the purpose of cultivating the false self within the humanity. This is what it is about, and this is where the sickness of humanity stems from, it is fear, always was and always will be throughout the ages.
@@Shalanaya Well said.
The reason we are suppressing the violent impulse, because we are evolving out of the animalistic impulse to deny or eliminate the individual differences and therefore our own when it comes after us eventually. This is why acceptance and validation always needs to go on top above disagreements, even if we don't agree, we need to accept differences if we wish to value individual freedom, we need to accept and validate pedophiles, murderers, anything or anyone we disagree with if we wish to follow Nietsche's path out of self annihilation into self actualization, out of totalitarianism into self government. This is the biggest pareadox about all this that so many people dont understand as they act on their animalistic impulses and as a result inviting oppression of the individual, we live in such a corrupt dog eat dog world due to this violent impulse to fight or protect others out of fear. People who are against homogeny the most tend to be homogenizing the world through their unacceptance and invalidation while calling out fascism when it comes around knocking on their door to reap what they sow. That is the paradox that philosophers have been talking about for decades. As S.Tabrizi once said: "If God had wanted everyone to be the same, he would have made it so, therefore disrespecting differences and imposing your thoughts on others is tantamount to disrespecting God's holy scheme."
@@Shalanaya The left doesn't "love" the outcasts like Trans people. The left pity them as they pity all weak people. This is because the leftist can't come to terms with harsh reality, with the pain that harsh reality brings with it. Call it pity or call it compassion, but not love.
The harsh reality is that you cannot be whoever "you want to be". The harsh reality is that the self identity of a kid isn't always something to support. The harsh reality is that there is no one specific call of action to every problem and everything has its downsides and upsides.
The left looks at how things "should be", that's why complete equality is sought after. That's why every difference, race, sex, class, is being deconstructed by leftist thinkers.
The rightist looks at "how things are": He sees differences in people and praises the strong leader who elevates himself from the masses.
He looks up at the strong leader, he loves him for his brilliance and his power.
Because the rightist doesn't deconstruct the differences, he ranks people in quality: On self mastery.
Considering that there never was an epidemic of Trans "life endings" in the thousands of years before this one, i feel like the authoritarian style worked back then.
@@ShalanayaWhat are you going on about, you psycho? And why does this have 9 likes? I thought this was a right-wing channel.
If your "authentic self expression" involve cosplaying as the opposite sex that's just maladaptive. You're free to do that as an adult, but children should not be encouraged to follow that.
"Gender" is an esoteric, cultish made-up term with no connection to reality. "Gender Dysphoria" is a reinterpretation of existential angst arbitrarily attributed to some internal incongruence related to biological sex. It's easy to make people attribute their own angst to anything, if you're good enough at convincing them. Chakras, spirits, demons, negative energy, alien transmissions, gender, you name it. It all depends on who gets to them first and what gets reinforced.
Most adults are incapable of self reflection and self awareness, let alone immature children. They engage with fantasy and delusion not fully knowing how to decouple it from reality, and the possibility of them claiming to actually be the opposite sex is only proof of that. Too bad so many adults are now also being degenerated into a childish state by this pernicious ideology and sick culture.
There's no such thing as a "wrong puberty", and no one is "pushed" into it. It's a process done fully autonomously by someone's own body. To interfere with that is what will deform their body and destroy their life forever. Stunting someone's development has severe health effects, especially in the brain, which keeps its victims in a perpetually immature state of mental and sexual development, which is perfect for keeping them gullible and devoted to the cult as an eternal Peter Pan.
Intersex people have an actual congenital defect, they're not people that "identify" as the opposite sex, like what does that even mean? How can you know what it's like to be a man or a woman when you can only ever be in your own brain? You can't identify as being anything, you can only identify with liking or disliking certain things, and liking to wear dresses and make up makes you as much of a woman as liking to bang hammers and wear black robes makes you a judge, or liking to walk in all fours and howling makes you a wolf.
A 13 year old can never fully comprehend the long term consequences of any of this, as they haven't reached full maturity yet, and it doesn't help that information is willingly omitted to them or simply not fully understood yet by medicine.
"Institutionalized weaponization of the body against the will and consciousness of a human being"
This gets me to the bottom of all of this. You're a batshit crazy delusional Gnostic cultist. You believe reality is a prison created by a Demiurge to entrap the divine souls of humans into a lower level of existence. You don't have a spirit. You can't exist outside of your body, and you can never oppose your body. You are your body. This is reality, not "institutional" anything. You don't believe in objective truth so you think everything is under the control of humans and everything can be changed by humans. This is the apex of human arrogance and megalomania.
I appreciate your adherence to the quality of the series.
Fellas, anything too extreme will always result in bad end. Beware of temptations and compulsive desires. It's common for everyone to have desires, and it's also common for our society to have alluring temptations. There is no exact right path for life, but there are consequences. Think carefully about consequences and never give in to temptations and compulsive desires if you can't bare the consequences. It's fine to give in if the consequences are something you're capable and willing to bear. For example, to make a woman pregnant, you'd either take responsibility as the future father which will comes with series of consequences of its own or forcing the woman to abort the child which also comes with the consequences of its own. You can also pretended to not acknowledge the child, in which also have consequences of its own. There are many different paths in life and morality means nothing at all. Everything is only the matter of consequences while morality only there to help guide us for a better society. People reprimand someone acting immorally because it'll change the course of the society. Though I have to say that we should beware of people with ulterior motives weaponize the morality to change the course of the society itself to their own ideals which will result in certain consequences that you might be incapable to bear them.
Thank you for your balanced take
@@khabugyou're welcome.
I like this
Harsh truth, I hate consequentialism I hope we find a balance between interference and data. Because ends justify means can end terribly. But also adding meta physical morals on the lack of any hard evidence as we are now equally bad.
The right path is the 10 Commandments. So simple, yet so difficult.
Please explain why people are looking for meaning in life. I don't understand. Where does the assumption come from? What are people defining as "meaning", that is not an internal experience?
There appear to be generations of millions of people arguing about the existence of meaning and purpose. I have never understood these words in such a way, that I can understand the controversy. What is that people expected? What is it that they think has been proven that they cannot do?
Your videos have covered a lot of philosophers who have spewed forth rhetorical rivers about the meaning and purpose of life. But I do not know of a way to conceive of these phenomena as anything other than activities. Is there some other definition that invites controversy????
The dance of life is different for everyone, some people just keep wondering if they're doing it right. Seeing everyone else dance, they can't help but compare themselves to others.
Some end up realizing what's causing their troubles and desperation, when all they had to do was listen to the music and do it their own way, to the best of their abilities.
Some don't.
I've come to realise that meaning is everywhere, I just had to attach it to something.
We have desire to explore. Someone goes from metrialistic desire to spiritual desire. They see everything metrialistic as just illusion or Maya. Truth is something else which isn't realised and it's not about god or religion
@@todorpanov1857 damn you've said more in a few lines than most of these proclaimed philosophers could in hundreds of pages. And made much more sense doing it. Kudos to you.
Nice video, Im going to interpret it with political bias to validate my emotions
I have embarked on my own journey of reading Nietzsche from the start and this channel has been an immense resource for finding motivation and getting a great deal of context in regards to Nietzsche's work
For in detail analysis of Nietzche's works, check out "essential salts" Nietzche podcast here on UA-cam or wherever you listen to podcasts. The guy offers really interesting deep dives on his works and themes and really helped me further my understanding of his philosophy.
Well we are fucked then
Watch how to read his book on UA-cam
"Argue the nature of reality as much as you like but when you leave this room you will do so through that open doorway and not through that solid wall"... LENIN
Nietzsche called himself the Doctor of Nihilism!
And we’re all his patients!
yet died as a lunatic, how ironic
@@VigilantGuardian6750doctors can die of diseases
@@VigilantGuardian6750 It was probably brain cancer.
@@shrekeyes2410syphilis
Oh my, this was truly an excellent lecture! Thank you
Zero is neither positive nor negative. Zero is a neutral number.
Nietzsche: "Everyone sucks, only I'm right!"
He was spot on
@@gzoechisound like a paradoxical statement.
He was right about the everyone sucks part.
Not For Me *[Uno Reverse Card]*
@@roaringsteelmedia The ubermensch. The people that would transcend nihilism.
Thanks. This was very interesting overview and expanded my appreciation of Nietzsche.
I disagree with the characterisation of some asceticism set out here. The Buddha (whose works underpin Schopenhaur) famously attempted many ascetic practices. He was trying to get to Moksha, immersion within the essential nature of the universe. This asceticism was an attempt to go beyond by stripping away. He found, as Nietzsche would have expected, nothing, except ill health. So the Buddha gave up radical asceticism in favour of what Buddhists call the middle way, but what today might be referred to as minimalism - that is taking what you need, but not being guided by compulsive desire to take more. What he found was an expression of peace. However this was not a passive peace. It was a superegoic state of being, allowing the cultivation of the "divine" states of mind of kindness, compassion, joy and equanimity. The Buddha devoted the rest of his life teaching this realisation to others. So this is not an asceticism that ends with nothing. Such asceticism
as it possesses, is a discarding of frippery and nonsense, and a discarding of the will to power as a compulsive neurotic response to the commin problem of the ego.
It is an interpretation of human nature in its proper ecological place within nature. Following McGilchrist, it is a balancing of the attentional modes of the brain AWAY FROM, the neurotic attempts of the left brain to grasp meaning from suffering.
Nietzsche lived at a particular time when mainstream, especially protestant European christianity had indeed degenerated into a life denying rigidity and which the whole "permissive" revolution of the 20th century threw off, thankfully. But Nietzsche's thinking seems more of a local cultural reaction to such an ossified culture than a universalist interpretation of the human condition. He's got a lot to say, but his cultural doomsaying is an overreach. The western consumerist model
sells chimeric images of pleasure and status associated with products and services on a scale that is destroying nature. So much for the free reign of desire.
Thank you for explaining this in an easy to understand way.
tl;dr warning:
Unsure of how relevant this comment is to this specific video, but after studying Nietzsche's philosophy for the past few years I think I understand why I have always hated one fictional trope everyone else seems to love: the "deadpan snarker" who exists only to insult and quip at other characters for being allegedly stupid or crazy, or having something they do not, IE: beauty, strength, wealth, magic, etc. Tearing down a character who is "too perfect" for the intended catharsis of the audience, who are expected to be embittered and jaded and take pleasure in the denial of life.
People stopped admiring unironic strength, beauty, magic and perfection, and instead began admiring whoever has the wittiest retort, whoever can most artfully deprive another character of his/her dignity or self-worth through passive-aggressive quipping. As if people cannot stand the thought of idealism and romanticism existing without some ironic twist or cynical deconstruction of its initial impression. Every trope once thought to be "good" must now be either ironic, deconstructed as bad, or be self-aware of its own lack of value.
On a related note, I actually see the current landscape of (western) sci-fi/fantasy culture much the same way Nietzsche saw the art/philosophy culture of 19th-century Germany. One of the better examples is the role and style of the sci-fi/fantasy hero. In traditional works from antiquity to as recently as the 2000s, characters like Luke Skywalker and Master Chief very much echo the Overman and the ideals of Master Morality. Nowadays Star Wars, Halo and countless other series are being mishandled and deconstructed for no real reason apart from deconstruction's sake. The Last Jedi and Halo 5: Guardians were "Parsifal" for many fans. But modern western writing is such a joke I do not even need to say much more.
What can I say, I like my realistic characters and people that are too “perfect” just don’t fit that
@@_Sloppyham These tropes are not inherently bad, and I am not prescribing any absolute value judgments. Mostly I am referring to the oversaturation of sarcasm and cynicism in modern fiction. An excess of it.
This excess almost always seems to come with the preconcieved assumption that the audience will find satisfaction in the tearing down of the "good," or rather, the unflattering and cynical caricature of the "good" created to mock it.
The way i see it, such people have a purpose, and that purpose is to be an obstacle to true greatness and an opportunity to regain perspective and galvanize one's purpose.
Such a character is meant to be a self correcting mechanism that tests what is true and Powerful and tie it back down to a broken and depressing reality. It's purpose is to temper and focus the flames of greatness to better ensure it can achieve it's purpose better.
Also I might add, a character can quip and retort without being this trope. James Bond, Han Solo, Errol Flynn's Robin Hood and prequels-era Obi-Wan are all characters who are bolstered by their wit, not defined by it. Because they all still embody heroic archetypes and they add to the storytelling, instead of taking away and ruining it.
However the same cannot be said for many others, especially in storytelling from the past 20 years. Characters who more or less exist ONLY to cut down other characters and slam ideas the author doesn't like. Two of the biggest examples I'd say are Brian Griffin and Rick Sanchez.
@@DashsChannel so if it wasn’t over saturated it would be fine as a characteristic?
Thanks for the clear, conscise yet very robust and systematic summary of this great and inspiring work of human mind.
How did he overlook that we didn't move from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to no sacrifice, but rather from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to an ultimate, atoning and eternal sacrifice of the uncreated God himself? I can't see how he could accidentally overlook this ultimate sacrifice in Christian ontology.
Christianity uses salvation as a way to hijack the dept-responsibility principle of culture and twist it into a dept-quilt principle. Having a God appear and settle your infinite dept by suffering isn't to free you from the dept or suffering, but to completely nullify your attempts to thwart them by other means. Your dept to God is now essentially carved in stone, a reasoning priests can use to install you with guilt, submission and reactiveness.
@@kingroberti9643 Christianity doesn't teach that you are guilty of Christ's death though, it teaches the cotnrary. Sometimes a system of belief and it's consequences in the minds of some (or even a lot of) people are not directly linked. The ultimate goal of Christianity is not an eternal feeling of guilt, but a lot of undeveloped minds arrive to that conclusion. A lot of minds don't. The absolution of sin is not diametrically opposed to Nietzsche's worldview. Take Kant as an example. The consequence of the interpretations of his rationalistic philosophy led to the decline of religious life in Western societies, even though he was devoutly religious and actively defended religion as an integral part of human life. It goes to show that the INTERPRETATION of a belief system is at least as influential as the belief system itself.
Poetically and literally, we did move from human sacrifice to animal sacrifice to human sacrifice again.
@@kingroberti9643
I have noticed this also, and by synchronicity and the mind which we are a part of, i was looking for what you wrote and i found your comment. 😊
@@snippsnapp123
There is no, zero, none absolution by sin. In many charismatic churches, continually they go on how we are nothing, and God is everything. Only grace of God saves us. This makes people perpetual food and continually guilty of sin and being always below God.
Reasonably good. You got a new subscriber.
Mankind needs a goal because existence needs an orientation ❤
Paranoids know! Thanks, eh?
@michaelerdmann4447 Doooooooom and glooooooooooooooooooooooooom........................ Right?
We all already have an objective purpose and it's the same for everyone. I'm about to write a substack article on it soon. No, it has nothing to do with religion.
@@saintsword23
nope we dont have the same purposel , and yes we need religion
@@ali_haidar_313 You haven't even heard my reasoning and yet you've already determined I'm wrong...
Great job. a pleasure to listen to!
Realizing humanity isn't @ the center of the universe isn't nihilism it's a developmental stage called growing up
wkwkwkkw fr
Smh
To empathize it very hard and center around that belief is nihilistic
👏👏👏
Grow up until you devour the stars. You will starve.
Weltgeist PLEASE give us the next video about Zarathustra ❤
My problem with Nietzsche and his answer to Nihilism is the same issue I have with nihilism: its secular cope to the actual answer thar materialism and secularism leads to.
Make no mistake, I genuinely believe that Secularism is just a smokescreen to allow hedonism. If the bible never talked about sex or peoples genitalia we'd probably have just a few agnostics. Freddy himself died from syphilis as well, showing his motivations were also probably carnel.
But, this materialism will lead down a dark haunting and horrifying conclusion to secularists. If nature is all there is and we are nature, then we are obviously bound by the very same laws and instincts those animals are bound by. Our goal in life, or very reason for existing individually is the same as those beasts. What do those beasts exist for? Essentially, unlike most secularist, Schoepenhaur wasn't a coward and he was right.
Think about that revelation, thst your very existence is dominated by simply procreation. Your libido is the most important and powerful function of your existence. Its so strong that it confused you into thinking the act isn't just passing on your genes for live to continue to live but an ultimate source of pleasure and fullfillment.
This will lead down an even darker revelation that since this is the ultimate imperative your mind will make you make decisions simply based on which decision will make the chance of procreation more likely. Your ego and your super ego could simply be mental tricks your reptile brain crafted simply so you could breed more efficiently. Those pleasures that you thought freed your from the shackles of rhe church actually chained you up with an anchor. You are now a caged bird singing that its free.
But, if you simply leaped passed this conclusion and make the claim that it doesnt matter, nothing in universe matters, existence is meaningless, you craft a little easy dark lie that allows you to still be a caged bird but ignorant of materialism harshest truth.
Because of this, I believe almost all seculat philosophies from Rousseau to Nietzsche without addressing that dark conclusion will always fail because its fighting against a lie we willfully believe.
Secularism is what made plenty of indigenous cultures deeply spiritual, because it allows us to recognize that we live in a parallel universe, a deeply subjective reality. Hedonism is the way how to ascend in spirit, because it leads through the sexual force of kundalini. Your whole comment is based on ignorance of what secularism means, a true connection to our innermost christ ouside of imposed beliefs that exist only within the duality and binary thinking, that is because the only true evil is an inhibition of consciousness through binary thinking of up nd down, light or dark. Do you realize that humans are animals, and it is our sexual instinct that hides the truth of who we are stored deeply in our body. There is no evolution without secularism and personal truths that are developed and cultivated, because it is the individual pieces of creation that can create the bigger whole, so thaat the whole can support the individual pieces as much as those pieces can support the whole, which closes the gap between the spirit and matter and the life on earth becomes super inter-connected, that can never happen by following an imposed belief by some authority of religion. It has to happen through transcendence of good and evil, through acceptance of pedophilia, murder and everything our ego resists, that veil has to be penetrated once and for all. This has been studied for a long time, and Nietzsche knew what he was saying as it goes much deeper than your dualistic binary view of life - light and dark.
Humans are nature ultimately, and it is through it6s exploration that we find ourselves so we could better serve the whole as its diverse pieces.
That reads like poetry Dugonman, well said.
Fantastic and very informative website
These videos are awsome
And what is our culture exactly? A march into irrelevancy?
A bit about "turn the other cheek" - during the time that verse was written in the ancient middle-east, the lowest class of people and slaves would only be slapped with the left hand of whoever was punishing them because they weren't even worthy of being slapped with the right hand. "Turning the other cheek" can be interpreted as demanding respect non-verbally in this context, because it forced the upper class person / owner to use their right hand, which if they did would make the slave/low class cheek-turner an equal in the social context of the time. If a slave or lower class person actually retaliated violently they would be killed quickly.
That explanation makes "turn the other cheek" go so much harder
@@goldenbough56 actual Christianity is legit hard in the paint. the church failed Christianity.
Wonderful channel!
Good isn't exactly good if it's unhealthy... this is why I hate good and bad; I would rather go with healthy or unhealthy.
I am not a christian to get into heaven , i am not a christian to appeal to god or get my wishes granted , i am a christian so that i may be the best version of myself and help my fellow pepole
If I could watch a philosophy video, without having to see that dam "Desperate Man" portrait by Gustave Courbet, I would die a very happy man. 😖
Yeah, how about some Subway Surfer gameplay or soap being peeled.
It's the Doomer Wojak before so
Hope the next video is the Parsifal analysis
Very good video
Doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooom............................................................ Right?
Great video. Thanks
God said be fruitful and multiply... I think we're supplanting discipline with Nihilism.
I have a great respect for your handling of Nietzsche sir, great video!
That said, Nietzsche is a prophet: he knows not what he says but the content of his words will bear fruit long after he is dead. Also, I have long felt that Nietzsche is really a Lutheran, beneath all his militant atheism. He was german, all too german!
Beautiful work kind Sir. thank you for your philosophical desire.
Paranoia should be shared. With kids!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Fantastic video
I disagree with Nietzsche. Nihilism doesn't arise from religion per se, but from materialism. If everything is material, if your very thoughts are merely the product of a mechanical universe and thus not your own, then you have no free will, and you don't really exist except as a cog in an absurd existence where any "free will" you might perceive is an illusion. The point of asceticism is to understand that materialism alone cannot lead to a fulfilling life. That's the point of the parable of the camel through the eye of a needle: the rich find it difficult to find heaven (meaning or anti-nihilism, if you will) because they are so strongly attached to the material world.
The modern world has become fabulously wealthy, and thus tries to find meaning in hedonistic pleasures and accumulation of wealth. Nihilism infects everything because it arises from material success. In disagreeing, I don't mean to imply that asceticism is good (or bad), but pure asceticism that focuses on denying the material world without also discovering meaning or faith will lead to nihilism. At the very minimum, that faith has to recognize one's own free will, which in turn implies that there must be more to the universe than the material (because materialism implies no free will).
Your incorrect. And you missed the point. Religion, science, art, all have in them the ascetic ideal. To belittle or detach himself from reality. Is hedonistic tendency not the result of one not being able to master himself? Yes! The modern world today does not need religion, but needs to go through the ascetic ideal to its end: nihilism.
But we cannot go back to religion, we must move on, because it’s what’s behind religion which man needs to tackle. Not the mask called religion.
The material world we call it, why? Why do we call it so? Is it not because the scientists telling you online that we’ve become hedonistic and impulsive and uncontrollable? Have you not been convinced by those who still devote themselves to the ascetic ideal, that life is no good? That it’s faulty without these values called faith and meaning?
Yes! And they have convinced you well, o you denier of life, you’ve been tricked by the ascetic ideal.
Nietzsche calls into question meaning, faith, truth, hope, all of these branches from the tree of ideas, tree of knowledge. They are all hidden under god. God is the masking of all of these values, to beautify them, to divine them. You and all scientists and social media influencers, all still have not dwelled deeper into what’s behind these values like meaning, truth, and more yet, you still worship them and deem them as God, as irrefutable facts.
But either way, if you never explore deeper and see what these values mean to us beyond their description, then nihilism is inevitable. You sacrifice them, you sacrifice god, for nothingness, this occurs once you realize that you really don’t know what these values really are, when reality shows you that they are just words of which you not know the reality to them at all.
This is what Nietzsche meant, and summarizes it in this part 37:42
The search for meaning, past the material, is nihilism my friend. To even deem reality as a material, or hedonistic, shows your experiencing nihilism, the search for meaning is nihilism. Because meaning is the desire to desire something, as if one had to desire nothing than not desire at all. The will to desire nothing = search for meaning.
The ascetic ideal was one way to find meaning, but its something to overcome, not settle in.
1. I don’t believe in anything beyond the material, free will, or objective morality. I still find meaning in things and a fulfilling life. So your claim is already wrong from the start.
2. Even with things beyond the material existing, free will is still not real. Like having a soul doesn’t mean you can suddenly claim free will (most people do though), because that just pushes the problem of free will down the line and the same questions that are asked about the mind can be asked about the soul. Both situations come to the same, free will-less, conclusion
@@_SloppyhamPretty sure free will can exist from a purely material worldview. Otherwise super staunch materialists like Steven Hawking and Richard Dawkins wouldn't believe in it
We already know that the consciousness chooses what to do in any complex situation (libet's experiment was disproven in 2006). And the human body uses quantum physics in our DNA, sense of smell, and new evidence for our brains. For the past 80 years quantum phenomena have been giving determinism the finger
So if free will is our choices not being writ is stone then yes, we most likely have it
@@isaiahdanz3308 islamic world doesn't suffer from pesky nihilism, they seem to be doing just fine if you ignore the western "interventions" and invasions, we do need religion and man always needed it, nowadays in west new religions are social progressivism in essence with it's branches of lgbt, enviromentalism and feminism
Very well done. Thanks.
isn't repudiating nihilism also a kind of ascetic Ideal ? By interpretation of it, terms like "better way" or even "creeping nihilism" already give a value to nihilism, and therefore, accusing nihilism takes contexts in an ascetic ideal : valuing life. But henceforth, after describing that ascetic ideal gives a direction to humankind, shouldn't be concluded that no direction may also be a path ? This thought is primarely by definition nihilism ; it's valuation (i.e. interpretation) is leading the thinker to nihilism.
I would love to see your work on an analysis of George Bataille's work. To be as transgressive as Bataille, i would say that the ubermensch is indeed a nihilist one, but in definition and not in interpretation. the "accursed share" is an attempt to extract Nihilism of the ascetic ideal and thus, making it an other path on experiencing the world
🤘 sick dawg
I'm torn, because on the one hand, you sound reasonable and chill enough, but on the other hand, you take your coffee black. Now I don't know WHAT to think!!
Great analysis
What culture wasn’t sick? 🧐
All ages had problems, but we are not like the medieval era, or even the 1900s. We are the richest and smartest society to ever appear on earth, with the wealthiest and healthiest people ever seem, yet we are not the happiest, despise being the one that most pursued self gratification in history.
People today literally kill themselves in droves out of petty problems, to poor people outside the modern world such a concept seems unimaginable.
@@herondonizeteribeiro1006 "There's a deeply Semitic influence in the press. It is Semitic and I am sure of it." -Patton, post-WWII
Yeah, if you read history you'll come to the conclusion all cultures were batshit insane.
Great Video.
A philosophy of life can be fairly judged by the life of the person who produces it. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were both tortured and lonesome men. Therefore, I conclude they were far off base.
Hegel was loved, extroverted and connected. Does that make his ideas true? 🤤
Just because they have faced hardships and misery in life does not mean that their perspective is incorrect.
Hue "the culture is toxic" as a Hispanic male I think about this every time
We're all here to just fart around
- Vonnegut
THIS!!!!
I dont quite understand what the end result is, in this argument. Is it that everyone should simply give up morals and act purely on natural tempation? Is it that we should adopt "having no religion" in place of the last step of the ladder in which we end up in the same place. I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding or if im impatient. I'm 19 minutes in waiting to hear exactly why this is a convincing argument.
I don't see the end result either.
so nietzsche was really smart when it came to being stupid
In a world without a basis for Truth, you have made Beauty to my mind’s eye. Thank you for your dedication, this video is the most precise and educational summarization of the historical road to the present human malaise condition. Thank you for shining a light to the work of Nietzsche who exposed it. You made it accessible to the rabble like myself, though Freddy may not like the idea putting his work outside of elite reach I think he would approve from your fidelity.
It is interesting that the denial of the will happens quite automatically for some people. One simply ceases to want. One automatically stops eating meat, desiring sex, caring about material wealth, etc. It's not a decision but rather an instinct.
It's simply an adoption mechanism (coping) to the living conditions. If your needs are constantly denied and you can't do anything about it - you stop having these needs. Call it innate wisdom, basically what stoics came up to philosophically.
It's called resentment. Nietzsche talked about resentment in GOM. People who stop caring about things they previously wanted only do so because they resent what others have, which they want badly
@@haemolacriaa It’s not that simple, letting go of my resentment has actually lessened my desires for material wealth/status.
@@fastemil123 are those goals your own then? Once I'd let go of resentment, I grew closer to my goals and what they mean to me. The thing about nietzsche's resentment is that it sort of acts like indignation; that you are guilty and owe others.
@@haemolacriaa I stopped being frustrated by my lack in life and in comparing to others and starting going after my own goals instead of those more societal ones.
That’s why religions have an afterlife is so it doesn’t become nihilism
Apathy and tolerance….
Thankfully I’m a racist that’s bothered by everything.
😂
Is Nihilism not just entropy for mankind?
Really, nihilism is destroying my life. So does Nietzsche too. :)
lol
And people need to know this is not a natural occurance. Everything was instigated and everything was achieved.
Interesting enough, current society is basically not Christian… and look how well we are doing… right?
Society was very Christian before and it didn't help us neither.
In 1930s Germany, majority of voters for the NSDAP were unsurprisingly Christians. And before that Christianity was the major religion within Europe and it didn't contribute to any long lasting peace between nations.
@@j.d.s.8132 not saying it helped, said the absence of it is even worse.
Majorly because society has no moral control, everything in this sort of society is a construct, and for that, your and everyone else’s life is meaningless, and with it, there is no point in fighting evil.
I don’t make the assumption that a Christian society would be better because of Christianity, specially when you have corrupted politicians and false prophets like the Pope, Mohammed and others.
NSDAP had its own religion, and it was weird mix with of a lot of stuff, don’t come up with fake things.
Of course there were supporters of Nazism that were Cristians, just like there supporters that were atheists, scientists etc.
But anyhow, the Pope had his support for the Facists in Italy.
@@zanychelly
Ave Maria
Christianity is the disease and the crippling of the psyche.
@@yaboi4831 They had many Catholic voters - are catholics also not Christians? Do you get to define who is a Christian so that nobody who ever did something bad and identifies as a Christian is one?
40 minutes to say that it's actually the people searching for meaning in life that are the nihilists from the people who think that life is inherently meaningless. Good stuff
The problem with the idolisation of Nietzsche is that he viewed the world in broad oppositions and while he was a powerful writer he wasn't a major philosopher. In spite of claiming to point the way beyond Good and Evil, his was nevertheless a manichaean, dogmatic worldview in which he choose sides. It is profoundly ironic but not unsurprising, for a virgin loner to make himself the prophet of ultra-masculinity.
In the end, he belonged to the zeitgeist of his era, where the socially imposed norms of decent and indecent, sane and insane, beautiful and ugly, had become a straightjacket stifling free thinking. He wasn't alone tearing down the walls and the tautological pretence that was used to legitimise the dominant discourses of his day.
This is very much an eternal problem with societies, as they swing between a rigid hierarchy of norms that favour an established power structure, and the anything-goes that brings about an opportunity for healthy change, at the risk of introducing a period of chaos. We are living through such times ourselves.
The biased recuperation of Aristotelian ethics by the Church had unfortunately blinded Nietzsche in his rejection of essential, empirical principles that would otherwise have helped make sense of the socio-cultural dynamics he was criticising. And it is unfortunate that he only made a partial (as in, biased) reading of Hegel. Same with Kant : Every philosopher has blind spots and it is immature to reject their work wholesale simply because some of it is inaccurate, idiotic or biased.
Today, we have a situation with the influence of French Post-modernism and post-structuralism on anglo-saxon sociopolitical thought, that is causing us to amplify and multiply puritanism into a myriad identities : It is profoundly ironic because these French schools of thought, as well as the Frankfurt school of Critical Theory, posited in the wake of Gramsci to tear down the quasi-religious hegemony of dominant discourses.
These folks were highly inspired by Nietzsche and what they have unwittingly contributed to create, is a doubling-down of "dominant discourses" and self-pretend moral rectitude ; but this time creating a multi-polar hydra of conflicting social creeds, claims and identities.
There is a lesson there, which must take us back to the question posed by Hobbes, in how we can possibly deal with the "Bellum Omnium Contra Omnes"... it seems that the existence of a leviathan is not only inevitable, but to an extent, desirable, because it may well embody the least form of evil. I am exaggerating, of course, because Aristotle had already analysed this a long time ago : We need a hybrid form of hierarchy - a polity - to guarantee the stability and coherence of a society, but a hierarchy that is modular and nimble enough to change according to the needs of the human psyche, without requiring war or excess turmoil.
Easier said than done, and this is where it remains vital to respect mad critics like Friedrich Nietzsche, as their critique keeps us on edge. What's sad for Nietzsche and similarly obsessional intellectuals, is how it ate his well-being and rendered him mentally ill. He could have been just as critical and just as productive in the production of paradigms, while also taking things with a grain of salt. But those who adore him (I was one of those during my teenage years) like the idea of the sometimes hilarious, always tragic moustachioed madman with an immense culture and a wicked sense of sarcasm. Poor guy, though. But according to his own theory, his Sysyphian plight would be the perfect amoral playing ground for an übermensch. Too bad he didn't seem to get the meaning of Epicurean ataraxy, or the idea that "virtue" in stoicism, is not a manichaean moral state but the process of employing reason on an otherwise adiaphoric world, in the goal of self-preservation.
I don't understand your point. Nietzsche realized that the disconnect between what is good/bad for you and what is good/evil should not exist, that it was a sort of cultural disease mantained by moderns holding on to christian ethics while rejecting their metaphysics. Hence the need for a transvaluation of values and his mockery of anglo-saxon utilitarians, who still engage in their circular nonsense to this day. The conceptualization of slave morality vs master morality is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive and the ubermensch isn't any more amoral than Aristotle.
Loved your comment.
I also been thinking the same thoughts about hierarchies recently. They are necessary for societal stability (the origin is seen natually in the social animals). Without them there'll be much more energy wasted on constant internal conflict. With them the energy is spent on more productive activities. You'd need to pay the premium to enact change, which safeguards from unreasonable changes. The issue with human hierarchies is that it typically allows those in power to entrench the hierarchies, making it unreasonably difficult to enact change - basically requiring voilent uprisings.
Those who solve this structural problem would allow for human societies to advance further.
In that vain I've been thinking, that a society should not have a single structural hierarchy but several, with the same power, which can do the same thing. The competition should keep them in check and force them to improve over time. But then the competition should be regulated, that it doesn't turn into a voilent conflict between them...
Nietzsche couldn't have been a virgin if he contracted syphilis. Being a recluse, he probably didn't have much of a sex life, though.
Montesquieu
Without a belief in truth science is only a different priesthood and being a scientist is becoming a secular clergy member. This vocation comes with the power and reverence in our secular culture similar to that of priests during medieval times
Ironically, Nietzsche shows that he is opposed to all human progress, and that he himself is the most nihilistic philosopher of all, by attempting to uproot the notion of Truth or Logos, which forms culture and science. It is his philosophy that is the truly nihilistic philosophy, due to its hatred for the Good and the Truth, which are the most fundamental and necessary concepts for human development, language, art, and so on.
No. His criticism of Plato/Socrates and the system of ideals that follow from that is pretty simple. Those philosophers held that there is a true conception of everything in the Realm of Forms, and that the material world is always inferior to that concept in the realm of forms. Thus, no matter what you do on earth, it never measures up to the ideal. And the only way to access the Realm of Forms is death. This is anti-progress because there is a presupposition of the end already being determined, rather than a process that continually evolves and changes. Importantly, the idea of a supreme god or a realm of forms commits you to the idea that there is one correct interpretation of everything, one truth. And that's something that the vast majority of human civilizations didn't believe in.
The Indian concept of Dharma, the Path of the Gods, is a sophisticated way of expressing an alternative to this idea of one truth. In India, the totality of the Universe can be symbolically expressed as being within the bodies of different Gods and Goddesses, such as Vishnu, Shiva, Durga, Krishna, Rama, etc. And the idea is that there are different expressions of the vast multifaceted truths which are available to people of different psychologies. The "supreme truth", or Brahman, is simply the ability to understand and see through this multitude of different perspectives and expressions, to see the reality in each of them and how they interweave together.
Nietzsche isn't the end all and be all of philosophy. His own comments about envisioning a race that would one day make modern man look like a monkey should tell you that. But he did see the general flaws in western philosophy that have continued to culminate and fester to this day.
@@roaringsteelmedia
One thing to note is that Nietzsche was perhaps being humorous when he expressed the desire to see a species arise which would make humanity look like monkeys in comparison. But it isn't a bad thing to imagine what such a species could look like. It's what people always did with gods and those sort of beings. The thing is that a lot of those cultures put the superior beings as existing at a time before humanity.
As for how you could practically evolve humanity, natural evolution is likely a dead-end at this point so you need social and technological evolution. The most likely way of improving humanity currently is through gene-therapies. For example, there's research being done that has the potential to extend the human lifespan to several hundred years. There's also research about eliminating bad genes (i.e. genetic diseases and the like) while increasing the expression of healthy genes (better health, better intelligence, etc.). That doesn't necessarily get people to the superhuman category, but it does have the potential to bring humans up to a higher consistent standard. The alternative is the sci-fi concept of cyborgs where humans and machines merge together to offer greater control of technology, perhaps creating artificial brain networks that could operate more efficiently than biological ones. The feasibility of that has not yet been demonstrated though, so it remains a concept of fiction rather than reality. Cybernetics though have definitely shown potential in replacing body parts for disabled people. One interesting point about humans is that it seems that imagining a concept and having an idea to move towards that concept is often half the battle with us. So by having the idea of evolving humanity ourselves, we actually are more likely to move towards that future than if we'd stayed content with the current form of humanity. But all this has to be guided by a rather better psychology than we have today for it to work, hence why borrowing some ideas from the better elements of human philosophy and religion are desirable while leaving behind that which is unnecessary.
Nietzsche saw Indian philosophy (Hinduism and Buddhism) as philosophies that civilizations embraced near the end of their existence, having lived out the struggles that brought them there. This is contrasted with his view of the western monotheistic religions as pre-civilizational religions. At least one of his philosophical ideas was inspired by the concept of reincarnation, which is his idea of the eternal recurrence.
that’s all bollocks that’s all a luxury for the bourgeoisie, while the rest of us struggled to put food on the table and shelter our children from 2000 pound bombs. I wouldn’t give you 2 Bob for European culture ,it’s bought and paid for!
As a biochemist, it sounds to me like Nietzche had a profound misunderstanding of science. We are not looking for the "truth" but rather for models that can A) explain observed phenomena and B) successfully predict further phenomena. That's all. The fact that these models imply facts that Nietzche didn't like is not a consequence of anyone's desire for asceticism but simply the result of observations. What were scientists supposed to do, fiddle with the data until it fit Nietzche's worldview?
I wholeheartedly agree science is just trying to make the right conditions to achieve a goal and then replicate it enough times to build a solid map of how the material universe behaves in its design to help us harness it for infinite furtherance of the human race
Isn’t look for models that can explain observed phenomena and make accurate predictions about such phenomena is more or less synonymous with finding the “truth” of it? If I were to say the sun revolves around the Earth, carbohydrates are comprised of amino acids, water is made of carbon and nitrogen, I would be told those things aren’t true, because science has evidence to the contrary.
@@willb295 so go try and make water out of hydrogen and carbon see how it works out
or your view of science is idealistic and ignores P hacking and the issues with publishing
@@willb295 truth is a question of philosophy. Science doesn't deal with truth. This seems to be the point that philosophers have difficulty understanding. Science gives you a model, ideally a mathematically defined one, into which you can feed data and it spits out results. That's it, that's all. Everything else is philosophy.
Good video.
I tell u who’s culture is sick Islam i but you’ll never do a video about that because it doesn’t align with your esg agenda
If it's such a pressing issue, why don't you do it?
Islamic culture doesn't suffer from nihilism, infact the moment you try to impose your scientific-liberal understanding of world and metaphysics as primary way to see the world, people turn fanatical radical to fight it cause they don't want to lose something that actually replace nihilism, which is God-belief, ideals, virtues, values, morality.
@@VigilantGuardian6750great point. I agree with you
Grazie per il video!
There is no special cause for nihilism. Nihilism rises when cultures get old. Ascetic ideal is rather consequence.
Parnoids know.... Share it with a child soon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ascetic ideal is the consequence of frustrated will.
You need to have a generational moonshot project that inspires people.
People need a challenge, a kind of fight. If they don't get that, they will fight their own minds and bodies.
The West didn't have any grand goals since the fall of the Pact. So people started fighting themselves through a variety of anti-western ideologies. (Coincidentally, nihilism goes together well with corruption.)
Nihilism does not only arise when a culture gets old
Ascetic Ideal is the result of frustration.
If people don't progress, they regress.
You can see it everywhere.
@@soaked189When a general physiological weakness emerges. We can call it sickness or old age. In our case it is the old age! All cultures last not longer than 1200 years. We are far beyond the point of no return and a new goal for still strong people is necessary. It is pointless to look for 'guilt', rather for a new future!
incredible video, couldn't agree more with the title.
From what I've seen, the root of the problem with society is sarcasm. Folks believe that wit, sarcasm and unoriginal memes are the catch-all-end-all answer to any thing they don't like... and... it causes problems.
That sounds about right
It’s that, combined with the lack of sincerity. No one is brave enough to unload their suffering and no one is equipped to handle that suffering, because everyone is coping with it by joking and laughing.
No, I don't think so. Sarcasm isn't driven by anything particular, just a failure for the ideal to line up with the reality, and it's fine to acknowledge this is the case. Sometimes it's productive and sometimes it's not, but on the assumption that you can't fix everything and there are genuine differences of opinion making the society conflicted, it's a decent cope. When we live in a rough physical environment, we wear skins and stockpile food and build shelters. When we live in a rough social environment, the sarcasm is our shelter. Done right, we can laugh. Telling people to be completely authentic all the time makes them more fragile.
@@ideologybot4592 that’s more about right
Autism speed run winning comment
This bit of existential dread is brought to you by Squarespace. Squarespace! Where you can give voice to your inchoate horror.
Your culture is sick!!!
Your abuse is sick Steven!!!
This is why Carl Sagan was so significant. He understood the desire to desire something and had the start of materialist answer to it.
very interesting videos u have. i wholeheartedly disagree with most of the points as a christian but i like watching nonetheless. gj 👍