Thank you for all the effort you put into these and the frequency of uploads. I drive most of the day so listening to these makes me feel like I'm exercising my brain while working.
Not even 5 minutes into the video and your analysis gave me an epiphany or revelation based on a synthesis of knowledge that I feel the need to share. You discuss Nietzsche as suggesting the necessity of lies and illusion, and in this case you mean as wearing a mask or concealing his intentions behind a mask. However, I thought about abstracting this out even further, really taking on the notion of "why not untruth?" from within this work. For several years, I have been aware of the idea that all forms of government are founded upon lies. This is apparent in The Republic with the notion of a "noble lie" that allows for the founding of the city-in-speech; Machiavelli touched on it in The Prince in terms of some great injustice or act of bloodshed; Ernest Renan also made the case that nations are formed by people learning to forget much of the atrocities of their past. For this reason, I have taken on more anarchic tendencies politically, since I did not want to support something that was founded upon lies. I of course applied this concept to the US Declaration of Independence, where it proclaims that "All men are created equal," and that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Thus, I have argued that human rights are lies, and that our international advocacy for them is the current instantiation of colonialism. However, where the epiphany has happened is in connection to my thesis research on memory. Some of the key ideas from the philosophy of memory, especially from people like Paul Ricoeur, is that memory (and history and archaeology) is not something recalled from a storage bin in our minds, but is called forth by something we interact with in the material world, taking on the needs of our current environment and moment. These recollections are biased by our past perspective, and even more so from our current social needs when we recall them. Thus, our recollections are not us summoning the past as it occurred back into consciousness, but actually its a reinterpretation, a piecing-together that has gaps filled and parts fabricated based on expectations and needs, along with biases. Where Ricoeur comes in is that all these memories (experiences in general) are pieced together to form narratives, and it is these narratives that give structure to our lives and provide meanings for us. We piece things together in a chronological order, with beginnings and ends, and give them structure, so they can structure us. They explain our past, and they provide expectations for the future. Of course, they are also influenced by our culture and collective ideas. But if these memories conjured forth are not truthful recollections, then the narratives we piece together are also lies. These narratives that guide and provide meaning for existence are lies. So as a society, as an individual, that values the truth, what is to be done? Even Nietzsche has a soft spot for honesty as a last virtue. But it seems apparent that lies serve profoundly beneficial roles. Is it possible to live a life without the influence of lies, to exist within the nakedness of truth? Is such a life even desirable? Why do we even value truth then? Is it potentially to prevent us from truly evaluating lies, which paradoxically lie at the truth of our existence? Why don't we examine lies more often then, instead of a search for an empirical, objective, scientific or even philosophic truth? "Why not untruth?"
Think you take yourself for too seriously. Reading JP will only make you worse, approaching completely unbearable, rather refer you to: 'On the Decay of the Art of Lying' - Mark Twain 'The Decay of Lying' - Oscar Wilde Also please consider that the current moment is more a function of luck -- both good & bad than truth & lies.
Interesting. I also lean toward anarchism, though I have always favored the “natural rights” and free market based systems even while I recognize that at a fundamental level these “rights” are spooks (to borrow a phrase from Stirner). I would say I probably still sympathize most with the philosophy of Hans-Hermann Hoppe rather than a socialist like Stirner or a libertarian like Rand. I also have some affinity for Konkin’s theory of Agorism, though I’m wary of some of the egalitarian sentiments of its adherents. Even though I would still call myself an anarchist, my attitude is more anti-political than anything. Which seems to be Zarathustra’s position as well.
@@tevildo9383 I'll have to look more into some of those theories. I've flirted some with anti-politics in two different ways. Back when I was getting my bachelor's, I wrote a paper questioning if political life, and politics itself, was conducive to the good life. It's a question I don't necessarily have an answer to because there hasn't been an instance of life without some form of politics. It's something inevitable due to our social nature. The second method I've delved into anti-politics more recently, would be more accurate to say I *haven't* delved into it at all. I've deleted all social media, TV, anything that would show me stuff occurring in the world. I've removed myself from thinking about and participating or even caring about real politics. Granted, I enjoy discussions like this about the nature of justice, the good, values, the good life, etc., political theory and philosophy more generally. But it has little bearing in the practical realm
You are a model of clarity. I’ve recently started following along and there is a lot of content to catch up with. The first ‘walkthrough’ I listened to was the ones on Deleuze’s book on Nietzsche. I hope you do more of Deleuze. Cheers!
This is a tangent, a thought I had when I was listening: 'being swept away by the idealist zeitgeist' - this is an epidemic, thinking about the shallow but strong anarchy trend of a few years ago that left most of the most ardent sharers of anarchist memes largely unaffected by the authentic ideal. Not saying they weren't sincere but perhaps we must accept the evidence that the ideals weren't sticky. Wondering if for them the zeitgeist was what they were identifying with and the evidence of belief they ferociously bandied about were nothing more than accessories for the desired identity. I think so and suspect that at any given point analysis of the distribution of beliefs in a population will be 'tainted' by these appearances.
It's worth pointing out that Marie Antoinette never said let them eat cake - the phrase actually goes back bit further than her. I'm not sure we know where it came from but it was erroneously attributed to her likely by the Jacobins, or perhaps their sympathizers after the revolution. She did a fair bit of charity work and was by first hand accounts a compassionate person by the standards of the European aristocrats of the time. Certainly there is a laundry list of criticisms to level at the Ancien Régime but I feel like she has been unfairly treated in the public consciousness and portrayed as sort of almost a comic book villain in popular culture. It's also safe to say from all the records we have that the rulers of France were well aware of the food crisis and rampant starvation threatening the kingdom. Their incompetence in dealing with it didn't stem from ignorance or even cruel indifference, rather they were part of a completely dysfunctional system run by a man who essentially wasn't up to the job.
I am inclined to agree with the sentiment at 19:30. Deeply pursuing truth will inevitably lead to you becoming "evil" from the perspective of herd morality.
wonderful, i love this series, very helpful for a second read of this genius work. would be very interested in episodes on Batailles philosophy in relation to nietzsche. a very fascinating character i would say. chapeau!
00:00 📚 Nietzsche aims to depict the new philosopher in contrast to traditional philosophers who fall into the same errors due to human nature's falsification of the world. 05:07 🔄 Nietzsche discusses the French Revolution as an event whose true meaning gets obscured by various interpretations and how interpretations can distort historical events. 11:15 🤔 Nietzsche challenges the notion that happiness and virtue are valid arguments for the truth of a doctrine, emphasizing that truth can be harmful and dangerous, requiring a level of mental and moral strength. 19:55 🌟 Nietzsche suggests that the evil and unhappy are more likely to discover certain truths, and even evil individuals who are happy are a species often overlooked and silenced by moralists. 22:26 🎭 Nietzsche discusses how ancient societies, like the Spartans, had different moral codes that might seem cruel or evil to us today, but they didn't have a bad conscience about it due to external pressures. 23:08 🤓 Nietzsche contrasts the qualities of a philosopher with those of a scholar, emphasizing that the philosopher pushes the boundaries of accepted thought, while the scholar operates within established academic limits. 29:12 🎭 Nietzsche discusses the idea that profound truths often require masking, as they may be too deep to convey with words or parables. He suggests that the opposite could be the proper disguise for the shame of a god-like being. 33:17 🤔 Nietzsche explores the concept of using rudeness or abuse to cover up delicate occurrences or generous actions, highlighting how individuals can manipulate their own memories to avoid shame and maintain a sense of privacy. 39:47 😷 Nietzsche delves into the idea that every profound spirit needs a mask, even more so due to the shallow interpretations of their words and actions by others. Masks serve as a way to protect one's inner self and maintain privacy, regardless of whether they actively create a persona. 45:07 🎭 Nietzsche suggests that human beings have both knowledge and animalistic instincts, challenging our vanity. 45:34 🎭 Some aspects of ourselves, our deepest truths, are incommunicable and must be masked, leading to true deception. 47:49 🎭 Nietzsche emphasizes the importance of testing oneself for independence and not becoming stuck to a person, Fatherland, pity, science, or one's own virtues. 55:08 🎭 Nietzsche introduces the concept of "attempters" as a new breed of philosophers who challenge established truths and resist being riddled or categorized. 01:02:27 🎭 Nietzsche asserts that the development of the human species has occurred under conditions of hardness, forcefulness, and even evil, in opposition to modern ideas of equality and goodness. 01:16:35 🕵♂ Nietzsche uses the metaphor of the "great hunt" to describe the exploration of the human soul and its experiences by philosophers and free spirits. 01:21:30 🧠 Nietzsche discusses the relationship between knowledge (science) and conscience in the human psyche, emphasizing the need for an intellectual conscience like that of Pascal. 01:25:11 🤝 Nietzsche expresses the difficulty of finding philosophical companions in the search for profound truths due to the rarity of individuals with the necessary curiosity and solitude. 01:26:35 🌟 Nietzsche highlights the contrast between the old philosophy's detached reason and the new perspectival philosophy's passionate quest for truth, suggesting that the latter is the only true philosophy. 01:27:30 🤔 Nietzsche examines the faith of original Christianity, contrasting it with the faith of later figures like Luther and Cromwell, and drawing parallels to Pascal's faith as a continual "suicide of Reason." 01:27:57 📖 Nietzsche discusses the idea that Christian faith is like a continual suicide of reason, requiring submission to irrational demands. 01:30:10 🤔 Nietzsche describes Christian faith as a sacrifice, involving the surrender of freedom, pride, and self-confidence, leading to self-mockery and self-mutilation. 01:30:51 😱 Nietzsche emphasizes the powerful and paradoxical formula of "God on the cross" as a gruesome superlative that challenged classical sensibilities. 01:35:21 💡 Nietzsche suggests that Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim marked a shift in perspective from collective violence to sympathizing with the innocence of the victim. 01:38:00 🏛 Nietzsche contrasts the aristocratic morality, which often denies suffering, with the slave morality, characterized by a condemnation of existence without nuance. 01:38:13 🔥 Nietzsche connects the slave rebellion, including the French Revolution, to the slave morality's pursuit of the unconditional and its rejection of opposing perspectives.
Psychopathy for the outgroup is still very much a thing. When people hear about great atrocities that happen far away, they may say they care, but they don't. It makes no difference to those who are far removed from it. They would only truly care if they saw the atrocity with their own eyes or it was committed against someone close to them. But at the same time, I don't think we can call this psychopathy. True psychopathy is having no empathy at all no matter the context, and it's an actual mental dysfunction. It's not adaptive to not have any empathy at all.
The question is this: Is the factual truth the highest thing? If I knew that a particular religion was historically inaccurate, but that it would yield the best results for myself and for society at large, then I would gladly go along with it. We are creatures that have evolved to survive, not to know the “truth”. Let’s not go against our nature lol. I don’t see the point of making an idol out of the truth. What do we owe the truth? Who is commanding us to recklessly pursue the truth at our own expense, and why should we obey them?
If you don't believe in a theistic god figure "all the suffering in the world" still has the "meaning" of being the unfortunate sideeffects of the amazing evolution from nothing into something into consciousness. If you do believe in a monotheistic creator it mainly raises the question of Theodicy
no I see 'good' and 'common' much like how Nietzsche describes the 'mediocre' - there is a realm beyond good, which Nietzsche saw, but didn't fully grasp, that hosts a variety of greater things... food is good, and common, and good food has and will continue to become more common as mankind continues to become more good, as a rule, and more exceptional in its exceptions too
great, exceptional, remarkable, perfect... such things are adjacent to one another, and only sometimes overlapping, but still carry the good like a welcome burden
'the good' is good in general, like a jack of all trades, but just good, whereas perfect is exceptional - perfect FOR, great AT, etc... like specialties, like the noble class themselves, who depend upon the good, common, indeed vulgar folk working in the wheat fields, making their bread... in turn toiling to afford the costs of their brevities
power, and freedom too, are relational, as in 'pertaining to the outward relations toward other things and people' whereas will, and responsibility, are personal
41:08 Lol "the standard Kauffman coping mechanism." Glad I'm not the only one who sees some of the problem with Kauffman. Good translator, but he feels the need to editorialize a little too much, and sanitize what he feels to be the uglier parts of Nietzsche. Give me Nietzsche, thorns and all!
Nietzsche was nuerotic, is there no better reason for why he went mad, he could never find a synthesis between his polar positions, staunch or ironic. Self critical, never a man of action, but a vortex.
5:00 Section 38
11:08 Section 39
28:47 Section 40
47:36 Section 41
54:55 Section 42
57:44 Section 43
1:01:17 Section 44
1:11:03 Start of Chapter 3: The Religious Nature
1:16:28 Section 45
1:27:16 Section 46
Metal Zarathustra headbangs another uberBeat making us headbang into becoming higher beings!
Thank you for all the effort you put into these and the frequency of uploads. I drive most of the day so listening to these makes me feel like I'm exercising my brain while working.
Not even 5 minutes into the video and your analysis gave me an epiphany or revelation based on a synthesis of knowledge that I feel the need to share. You discuss Nietzsche as suggesting the necessity of lies and illusion, and in this case you mean as wearing a mask or concealing his intentions behind a mask. However, I thought about abstracting this out even further, really taking on the notion of "why not untruth?" from within this work.
For several years, I have been aware of the idea that all forms of government are founded upon lies. This is apparent in The Republic with the notion of a "noble lie" that allows for the founding of the city-in-speech; Machiavelli touched on it in The Prince in terms of some great injustice or act of bloodshed; Ernest Renan also made the case that nations are formed by people learning to forget much of the atrocities of their past. For this reason, I have taken on more anarchic tendencies politically, since I did not want to support something that was founded upon lies. I of course applied this concept to the US Declaration of Independence, where it proclaims that "All men are created equal," and that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." Thus, I have argued that human rights are lies, and that our international advocacy for them is the current instantiation of colonialism.
However, where the epiphany has happened is in connection to my thesis research on memory. Some of the key ideas from the philosophy of memory, especially from people like Paul Ricoeur, is that memory (and history and archaeology) is not something recalled from a storage bin in our minds, but is called forth by something we interact with in the material world, taking on the needs of our current environment and moment. These recollections are biased by our past perspective, and even more so from our current social needs when we recall them. Thus, our recollections are not us summoning the past as it occurred back into consciousness, but actually its a reinterpretation, a piecing-together that has gaps filled and parts fabricated based on expectations and needs, along with biases. Where Ricoeur comes in is that all these memories (experiences in general) are pieced together to form narratives, and it is these narratives that give structure to our lives and provide meanings for us. We piece things together in a chronological order, with beginnings and ends, and give them structure, so they can structure us. They explain our past, and they provide expectations for the future. Of course, they are also influenced by our culture and collective ideas. But if these memories conjured forth are not truthful recollections, then the narratives we piece together are also lies. These narratives that guide and provide meaning for existence are lies.
So as a society, as an individual, that values the truth, what is to be done? Even Nietzsche has a soft spot for honesty as a last virtue. But it seems apparent that lies serve profoundly beneficial roles. Is it possible to live a life without the influence of lies, to exist within the nakedness of truth? Is such a life even desirable? Why do we even value truth then? Is it potentially to prevent us from truly evaluating lies, which paradoxically lie at the truth of our existence? Why don't we examine lies more often then, instead of a search for an empirical, objective, scientific or even philosophic truth? "Why not untruth?"
Think you take yourself for too seriously. Reading JP will only make you worse, approaching completely unbearable, rather refer you to:
'On the Decay of the Art of Lying' - Mark Twain
'The Decay of Lying' - Oscar Wilde
Also please consider that the current moment is more a function of luck -- both good & bad than truth & lies.
@@hammerdureason8926 I've never read, nor do I intend to read any JP. I'm unsure what you're going for or where you pulled that from
Interesting. I also lean toward anarchism, though I have always favored the “natural rights” and free market based systems even while I recognize that at a fundamental level these “rights” are spooks (to borrow a phrase from Stirner). I would say I probably still sympathize most with the philosophy of Hans-Hermann Hoppe rather than a socialist like Stirner or a libertarian like Rand. I also have some affinity for Konkin’s theory of Agorism, though I’m wary of some of the egalitarian sentiments of its adherents. Even though I would still call myself an anarchist, my attitude is more anti-political than anything. Which seems to be Zarathustra’s position as well.
@@tevildo9383 I'll have to look more into some of those theories. I've flirted some with anti-politics in two different ways. Back when I was getting my bachelor's, I wrote a paper questioning if political life, and politics itself, was conducive to the good life. It's a question I don't necessarily have an answer to because there hasn't been an instance of life without some form of politics. It's something inevitable due to our social nature. The second method I've delved into anti-politics more recently, would be more accurate to say I *haven't* delved into it at all. I've deleted all social media, TV, anything that would show me stuff occurring in the world. I've removed myself from thinking about and participating or even caring about real politics. Granted, I enjoy discussions like this about the nature of justice, the good, values, the good life, etc., political theory and philosophy more generally. But it has little bearing in the practical realm
You are amazing. Thank you so much. I will listen to this one again.🦋🕊🌹
Thanks again for a great exegesis of the great philosopher.
Im gonna revisit this whole series a couple of times. Every episode is amazing! What a great book!
You are great. Impaccable tone.
You are a model of clarity. I’ve recently started following along and there is a lot of content to catch up with. The first ‘walkthrough’ I listened to was the ones on Deleuze’s book on Nietzsche. I hope you do more of Deleuze. Cheers!
This is a tangent, a thought I had when I was listening: 'being swept away by the idealist zeitgeist' - this is an epidemic, thinking about the shallow but strong anarchy trend of a few years ago that left most of the most ardent sharers of anarchist memes largely unaffected by the authentic ideal. Not saying they weren't sincere but perhaps we must accept the evidence that the ideals weren't sticky. Wondering if for them the zeitgeist was what they were identifying with and the evidence of belief they ferociously bandied about were nothing more than accessories for the desired identity. I think so and suspect that at any given point analysis of the distribution of beliefs in a population will be 'tainted' by these appearances.
It's worth pointing out that Marie Antoinette never said let them eat cake - the phrase actually goes back bit further than her. I'm not sure we know where it came from but it was erroneously attributed to her likely by the Jacobins, or perhaps their sympathizers after the revolution. She did a fair bit of charity work and was by first hand accounts a compassionate person by the standards of the European aristocrats of the time. Certainly there is a laundry list of criticisms to level at the Ancien Régime but I feel like she has been unfairly treated in the public consciousness and portrayed as sort of almost a comic book villain in popular culture. It's also safe to say from all the records we have that the rulers of France were well aware of the food crisis and rampant starvation threatening the kingdom. Their incompetence in dealing with it didn't stem from ignorance or even cruel indifference, rather they were part of a completely dysfunctional system run by a man who essentially wasn't up to the job.
I am inclined to agree with the sentiment at 19:30. Deeply pursuing truth will inevitably lead to you becoming "evil" from the perspective of herd morality.
Thank you 🦆
wonderful, i love this series, very helpful for a second read of this genius work. would be very interested in episodes on Batailles philosophy in relation to nietzsche. a very fascinating character i would say. chapeau!
Truly amazing
00:00 📚 Nietzsche aims to depict the new philosopher in contrast to traditional philosophers who fall into the same errors due to human nature's falsification of the world.
05:07 🔄 Nietzsche discusses the French Revolution as an event whose true meaning gets obscured by various interpretations and how interpretations can distort historical events.
11:15 🤔 Nietzsche challenges the notion that happiness and virtue are valid arguments for the truth of a doctrine, emphasizing that truth can be harmful and dangerous, requiring a level of mental and moral strength.
19:55 🌟 Nietzsche suggests that the evil and unhappy are more likely to discover certain truths, and even evil individuals who are happy are a species often overlooked and silenced by moralists.
22:26 🎭 Nietzsche discusses how ancient societies, like the Spartans, had different moral codes that might seem cruel or evil to us today, but they didn't have a bad conscience about it due to external pressures.
23:08 🤓 Nietzsche contrasts the qualities of a philosopher with those of a scholar, emphasizing that the philosopher pushes the boundaries of accepted thought, while the scholar operates within established academic limits.
29:12 🎭 Nietzsche discusses the idea that profound truths often require masking, as they may be too deep to convey with words or parables. He suggests that the opposite could be the proper disguise for the shame of a god-like being.
33:17 🤔 Nietzsche explores the concept of using rudeness or abuse to cover up delicate occurrences or generous actions, highlighting how individuals can manipulate their own memories to avoid shame and maintain a sense of privacy.
39:47 😷 Nietzsche delves into the idea that every profound spirit needs a mask, even more so due to the shallow interpretations of their words and actions by others. Masks serve as a way to protect one's inner self and maintain privacy, regardless of whether they actively create a persona.
45:07 🎭 Nietzsche suggests that human beings have both knowledge and animalistic instincts, challenging our vanity.
45:34 🎭 Some aspects of ourselves, our deepest truths, are incommunicable and must be masked, leading to true deception.
47:49 🎭 Nietzsche emphasizes the importance of testing oneself for independence and not becoming stuck to a person, Fatherland, pity, science, or one's own virtues.
55:08 🎭 Nietzsche introduces the concept of "attempters" as a new breed of philosophers who challenge established truths and resist being riddled or categorized.
01:02:27 🎭 Nietzsche asserts that the development of the human species has occurred under conditions of hardness, forcefulness, and even evil, in opposition to modern ideas of equality and goodness.
01:16:35 🕵♂ Nietzsche uses the metaphor of the "great hunt" to describe the exploration of the human soul and its experiences by philosophers and free spirits.
01:21:30 🧠 Nietzsche discusses the relationship between knowledge (science) and conscience in the human psyche, emphasizing the need for an intellectual conscience like that of Pascal.
01:25:11 🤝 Nietzsche expresses the difficulty of finding philosophical companions in the search for profound truths due to the rarity of individuals with the necessary curiosity and solitude.
01:26:35 🌟 Nietzsche highlights the contrast between the old philosophy's detached reason and the new perspectival philosophy's passionate quest for truth, suggesting that the latter is the only true philosophy.
01:27:30 🤔 Nietzsche examines the faith of original Christianity, contrasting it with the faith of later figures like Luther and Cromwell, and drawing parallels to Pascal's faith as a continual "suicide of Reason."
01:27:57 📖 Nietzsche discusses the idea that Christian faith is like a continual suicide of reason, requiring submission to irrational demands.
01:30:10 🤔 Nietzsche describes Christian faith as a sacrifice, involving the surrender of freedom, pride, and self-confidence, leading to self-mockery and self-mutilation.
01:30:51 😱 Nietzsche emphasizes the powerful and paradoxical formula of "God on the cross" as a gruesome superlative that challenged classical sensibilities.
01:35:21 💡 Nietzsche suggests that Jesus' role as a sacrificial victim marked a shift in perspective from collective violence to sympathizing with the innocence of the victim.
01:38:00 🏛 Nietzsche contrasts the aristocratic morality, which often denies suffering, with the slave morality, characterized by a condemnation of existence without nuance.
01:38:13 🔥 Nietzsche connects the slave rebellion, including the French Revolution, to the slave morality's pursuit of the unconditional and its rejection of opposing perspectives.
I came looking just for this as I wanted insight on a specific portion. Thank you.
This was very helpful
Psychopathy for the outgroup is still very much a thing. When people hear about great atrocities that happen far away, they may say they care, but they don't. It makes no difference to those who are far removed from it. They would only truly care if they saw the atrocity with their own eyes or it was committed against someone close to them. But at the same time, I don't think we can call this psychopathy. True psychopathy is having no empathy at all no matter the context, and it's an actual mental dysfunction. It's not adaptive to not have any empathy at all.
How can you think of a little kid in Africa and not be overcome with a
Empathy? You seem to be detached from
Little boy in Africa with no remote control car 😭😭😭😭😭
The question is this: Is the factual truth the highest thing? If I knew that a particular religion was historically inaccurate, but that it would yield the best results for myself and for society at large, then I would gladly go along with it. We are creatures that have evolved to survive, not to know the “truth”. Let’s not go against our nature lol.
I don’t see the point of making an idol out of the truth. What do we owe the truth? Who is commanding us to recklessly pursue the truth at our own expense, and why should we obey them?
Where did you find that cover image? Who is the artist of that painting?
See the video description: Episode art: Henri Lievens - The Wild Hunt of Odin
#40 The cowsrd projects strength or feigns morality. 😊
If you don't believe in a theistic god figure "all the suffering in the world" still has the "meaning" of being the unfortunate sideeffects of the amazing evolution from nothing into something into consciousness.
If you do believe in a monotheistic creator it mainly raises the question of Theodicy
no I see 'good' and 'common' much like how Nietzsche describes the 'mediocre' - there is a realm beyond good, which Nietzsche saw, but didn't fully grasp, that hosts a variety of greater things... food is good, and common, and good food has and will continue to become more common as mankind continues to become more good, as a rule, and more exceptional in its exceptions too
great, exceptional, remarkable, perfect... such things are adjacent to one another, and only sometimes overlapping, but still carry the good like a welcome burden
'the good' is good in general, like a jack of all trades, but just good, whereas perfect is exceptional - perfect FOR, great AT, etc... like specialties, like the noble class themselves, who depend upon the good, common, indeed vulgar folk working in the wheat fields, making their bread... in turn toiling to afford the costs of their brevities
to put it sharply: I have found more power in symbiosis than independence, and more Will in responsibility than freedom
freedom is like "you won't" and responsibility is like "I Will"
power, and freedom too, are relational, as in 'pertaining to the outward relations toward other things and people' whereas will, and responsibility, are personal
why did he leave a comment? no reason: because i felt like it (to feel is a great reason)
41:08
Lol "the standard Kauffman coping mechanism." Glad I'm not the only one who sees some of the problem with Kauffman. Good translator, but he feels the need to editorialize a little too much, and sanitize what he feels to be the uglier parts of Nietzsche.
Give me Nietzsche, thorns and all!
Nietzsche was nuerotic, is there no better reason for why he went mad, he could never find a synthesis between his polar positions, staunch or ironic. Self critical, never a man of action, but a vortex.