Nietzsche’s “Return to Nature”
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 тра 2023
- Nietzsche Podcast on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/0ZARzVC...
Patreon: www.patreon.com/untimelyreflections
Nietzsche described Napoleon as "a type of atavism" - a throwback to an earlier age, and quipped that he, not unlike Rousseau, also sought after a “return to nature”. Nietzsche and Rousseau have mutually opposed perspectives on what nature is, however, and Nietzsche is quick to note that Napoleon was not simply a 'going back', but a 'going up'. To understand why Nietzsche thought the way he did about the figure of a Napoleon or a Caesar, we will recapitulate to the entire Nietzschean understanding of the cycles of history, consider aphorisms from across his career, and examine how Goethe's conversations with Eckermann influenced Nietzsche in this respect. I intend to argue that Nietzsche meant the Caesar figure, the 'non-theoretical genius', to be a replacement for the Messiah figure in Christianity. Rather than salvation in the spiritual, abstract sense, the redeemer of man is an individual who exercises power in the physical world. All of the ideas considered this season culminate in order to explain this aspect of Nietzsche's philosophy, commonly dismissed as 'great man worship'. What we find instead is a phenomenon that Nietzsche believes to be natural, objective, and unavoidable. While this is one of the most difficult ideas of Nietzsche's to tangle with, I think we're better off for comprehending his position in this respect.
#nietzsche #philosophy #philosophypodcast #history #historyofphilosophy #napoleon
Thank you for these podcasts! I too get so much more than i would just reading Nietzsche. This really does deserve the definitive title of “the nietzsche podcast”
amen
Profoundly and simply said. ❤
...Nietzcher vs. Nurture
I'll see myself out.
Leave.
00:00 📜 Nietzsche believes in the inevitability and naturalness of hierarchy, with hierarchy being the character of all life.
01:12 🏛 Nietzsche sees figures like Napoleon or Friedrich II as Caesars, important to his philosophy, representing a recurring phenomenon in political life.
03:32 📚 Nietzsche's approach is descriptive rather than prescriptive in his political philosophy, focusing on understanding human history rather than advocating for specific ideals.
05:19 🔄 Nietzsche's concept of "Will To Power" is descriptive, revealing that all moral systems aim at self-overcoming, allowing for the evaluation of different moralities based on this telos.
09:55 🌍 Nietzsche sees the state's origins in warfare and religion, binding people together through shared worship and cooperation.
14:30 📜 As societies advance and become more prosperous, traditional morality based on power and hierarchy begins to wane, leading to social doubts and challenges.
18:47 ⚖ During times of societal collapse and chaos, figures like Caesar can emerge, leading societies in a transformation and trend reversal to restore order.
21:41 🧐 Nietzsche sees aristocracy as a social expression of the natural order of rank and hierarchy, not a system based on ideas or theory.
22:50 🤔 Society's success in extricating itself from a state of war and achieving cohesion can lead to the questioning and attempted leveling of the hierarchy, ultimately resulting in societal downfall.
25:50 🏛 The destruction of oligarchy often leads to the death of the organization and society, and a new oligarchy tends to take control to ensure survival.
29:30 ⚡ The rule of one, established by an extraordinary figure, is rarely inherited by someone of the same caliber, necessitating a focus on leaving behind a durable framework for the state.
35:25 💡 Napoleon is viewed as a return to nature in the sense that he embodies the natural instincts of domination, exploitation, and predation, challenging Rousseau's ideals of natural equality.
39:47 🔄 Nietzsche describes Napoleon as an example of a return to nature that involves going up into a lofty, free, and even terrible nature, contrasting with Rousseau's misguided idealism and morality.
42:03 🔥 Nietzsche criticizes the doctrine of equality, seeing it as a deadly poison that draws the curtain down on true justice, emphasizing that equality doesn't make unequal things equal.
43:41 🚀 Nietzsche views non-theoretical geniuses, such as political leaders, as instrumental in the progress of art and culture, existing at the boundary between civilizations.
45:18 🧨 Nietzsche describes great individuals as explosive material, the result of accumulated power, historical conditions, and physiological factors, and they arise when the tension becomes excessive.
48:45 🔥 Great individuals, like Napoleon or Caesar, are compelled to expend themselves, often seen as self-sacrifice, due to their overpowering energy and lack of self-preservation instincts.
56:01 💡 Nietzsche suggests that during times of cultural dissolution and intermingling, individuals with diverse and conflicting cultural inheritances may harness this tension to become exceptional figures.
57:21 🌍 Friedrich II, named the first true European by Nietzsche, embodies the European spirit by transcending ethnicities, cultures, and religious moralities through his political actions and accomplishments.
01:05:12 🐑 Nietzsche posits that obedience has been prevalent throughout human history, resulting in a smaller number of individuals with the true capacity for command, as command and obedience are inversely related.
01:05:40 🧠 Nietzsche discusses the innate human need for obedience and the herd instinct, which leads people to follow commands from various authorities, causing hesitation and a lack of independent development.
01:07:30 💡 In modern Europe, there is a moral hypocrisy among the commanding class, who justify themselves by executing orders from higher authorities, while the gregarious European idealizes qualities like public spirit and kindness.
01:08:11 🌟 Attempts are made to replace traditional commanders with committees and representative constitutions, resulting in a new oligarchy. The appearance of an absolute ruler, like Napoleon, brings a sense of deliverance to gregarious Europeans.
01:10:19 ⚖ The collapse of discipline and the loss of the ability to command in society are seen as signs of weakening moral and cultural levels. Leaders who don't have to obey also weaken their ability to command, leading to a cycle of decline.
01:12:26 🚀 Leaders like Julius Caesar and Napoleon are characterized by their willingness to put themselves in danger, spend their wealth for the common good, and endure hardships to achieve their goals, even if it means defying the established order.
01:18:35 🔄 Napoleon acknowledges the transient nature of power, viewing himself as an instrument of Providence. He recognizes that his role is temporary and that he will ultimately be "broken" like glass.
01:20:12 🌐 Nietzsche describes great individuals as atavisms, embodying old cultural virtues that have become rare in their time. These individuals can either become great or eccentric, but they stand apart from their contemporaries.
01:24:28 🤔 Solitude and divergence from the social consensus can lead to inner strength and self-reliance, making an individual capable of extraordinary actions and transformations in society.
01:26:32 📜 Nietzsche's concept of Caesarism is explained in Gay Science #23, where he outlines the conditions for the emergence of such a genius, citing Caesar and Napoleon as examples.
01:27:13 🌟 Superstition, in times of corruption, becomes prominent, representing free-spiritedness and individuality, signaling a shift away from traditional beliefs.
01:29:02 🔮 During societal corruption, the expression of the will to power transforms from physical conquest to individualistic pursuits, leading to an explosion in the arts, sciences, and personal passions.
01:32:55 💬 Corruption is marked by the refinement of cruelty and the rise of word and reputation-based attacks, leading to a new form of malevolence.
01:35:56 💰 In times of corruption, individuals prioritize their own interests over loyalty to the Fatherland, making them susceptible to manipulation and bribery by more powerful figures.
01:36:50 🤴 The emergence of a Caesar or final Tyrant often occurs during periods of corruption, as individuals mature and the culture reaches its highest point, albeit temporarily. They exploit the societal exhaustion to establish themselves.
01:37:04 🌿 Nietzsche views corruption as a natural and cyclical process, leading to the emergence of new states and communities after the decay of the old.
And here it goes another great episode! Thanks!
More then anyone Napoleon was Nietzsche “ Will to Power” in human form then anyone else before or after. A young Corsican peasant of low government rank, who shined in military, and eventually ruled almost all of continental Europe and still his new order past the Ancient Regime of France is still felt today in its Napoleonic code. In fact I think Napoleon and Adolf Hitler give a very interesting contrast. One Adolf Hitler reason was Nationalism and the lose of Germany in World War Two, which he attributed to racial impurities of the Aryan bloodline, so he goes about to purge it of its impurities. Another in Napoleon was simply motivated by power, and when he had it within grasp simply wiped all he could of hierarchies and the old bloodline of Europe for a new meritocracy and like I said never before and never after have we seen the old ways of being disturbed so much. The old ways of estate and familial bloodlines have ever so much after the generations gained back their status. And we need a new Napoleon to upset the ordered way of thing once more. The new way is of reason and dialogue we are told, but in this it is those same elites who have rigged themselves into the DNA and essence into the system of the legal and economic class. Our times are only useful in producing the Donald Trumps, the Elon Musks and other grotesqueries, not of men and vision for the generations coming such as Napoleon was once and then life’s torch passed on.
I don't think any figure in world history since Napoleon has even come close to embodying the Will to Power as much as he did. Not Hitler. Not any Communist leaders. Certainly no Americans.
Bro you did it 💪🏼
The most important concept I ever learned when studying Nietzsche is this. You see, when Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, and most religions built a two-dimensional philosophy, Nietzsche on the other hand created a three-dimensional philosophy or religion. Aristotle and the rest created a list of ideas that could easily be put into a chart or a list of principles. When reading Nietzsche on the other hand, you have to imagine a pool of stars on the ground. From this pool of stars rises and forms a humanoid. This humanoid of stars continues to form until it can run a few steps and then shatters into the puddle of stars again. This happens over and over again for an eternity. You see Nietzsche creates these stars by creating inverted and alternate concepts than the ones we believe in. He reaffirms healthy ideas and then creates their opposites. These create the Rorschach test you personally peer into eventually. It’s the point of the balancing pole of the tightrope walker in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Do you mean Nietzche was playing both sides? He was self devil advocating?
Thank you for this
love your podcast Keegan, I run my own gardening business and it helps me get through the day as I work.
I think Napoléon is also a man of arts and science. He was great in mathematics and 2 years younger than his peers in the best officer school in France. He wrote poetry, love stories, novellas.
I believe he is a pragmatic egalitarian, he was a revolutionary on Robespierre side for a while, he believed in competence and fairer hierarchies. His meritocratic officer corps and army is an example of that. He has made a tremendous impact on european law with the Napoleonic code. This man was both a realist and a great theorist.
Anthony Duval: Very well explained, I concur completely. Napoleon was an exceptionally competent, capable, intelligent, and talented man. As you say, very well rounded in his broad interests too. And indeed very pragmatic, and a pragmatic egalitarian, as you mention. As an emperor, he brought and established more of the goals of the Revolution into actual practice than the new formed Congress of citizens did just prior to his reign; they were good at exacting revenge and chopping off heads but proved entirely inept at actually governing. We have Napoleon to thank for basically all forms of modern municipal institutions of government functioning to this day. With the power vacuum left in that body’s implosion, in stepped Napoleon to fill it. His main two objectives were to create a Pan Continental European economic force to counter the power of Great Britain, and to, as stated, establish in practice the goals of the Revolution throughout. His failing, however, was in moving to do so too fast and overtake more territory in too short of time, grossly overrunning available revenue to do so, with the invasion of Russia out of Poland being a big failure. This all eventually led to his down fall leaving so much I f continental bankrupt for decades to come.
Fantastic, Thank you!
You do realise that this picture is not of Napoleon, but the Duke of Wellington, his nemesis. And those troops are English infantry. Perhaps it was a deliberate irony?
“I am the instrument of providence, she will use me as long as I accomplish her designs, then she will break me like a glass.”
- N. Bonaparte
I’ve been binging lately and was wondering if you improvise or write down everything before, or bullet point?
LETS GOOOOOO
Gamers will say "Let's goooo" but sit in the same place for six hours.
you forgot to talk about the system of the castes.
Only Marxian Dogmatists think in terms of Castes and Classes, Nietzsche talked about races and racial preservation which todays Genetic Engineers talk about from all the evidence from hard sciences.
Platos Republic and Nietzsche ideas are interesting in similarties. Also interesting re: Will to Power etc
Make our oughts based on the is - gem right there
After Julius was Caesar Augustus. It is funny that he was an exception to the rule you based on other exceptional rulers that were followed by someone unable to maintain the greatness of that newly established dynasty. Of course, after Augustus, things quickly appeared to go downhill quickly. I still agree to the accurateness of that rule in general. Coincidentally a similar idea came up in conversation of imagining the abolishment of inheritance. It is a dramatically emotional initial negative response most people, I believe would feel, but to venture beyond the tantrums of the next few generations that would directly affect or affect through a living memory, but in this days situation: influence seems to coincide with financial abundance. This would be okay if the individuals with this power accomplished something great themselves, but all too often, there was once a great patriarch that forged his way into riches through greatness, but since that time, the ancestors seem to succumb to decadence, loss of purpose, and boredom all mixed with a feeling of entitlement to power they possess but are not worthy or equal to the task of wielding in a sane, balanced, and healthy manner. Now I am not pushing any agendas here, just outlining what seems to be a parallel from both Nietzsche's empire perspective and todays corporate perspective.
Is that Wellington in the picture? And what’s battle is that?
Battle of Waterloo, 1815
@@aidanknight1574 Richard Sharpe's finest hour.
I'm always happy to discover channels that explain Nietzsche's writing the way it is meant to be explained (you have long legs my friend 😉)
1:15:00
I’ve heard the Ottoman Turks were the new “Roman” empire. As many referred to themselves and identified as Romans. Like poet Maulana Jalaludin Rumi (Rumi colloquially is Rum which is Roman)
I was born in the 70s and I've been straining my brain trying to identify a true Great Man of my lifetime. I'm still at a loss. I guess we have to die off and let the next generations identify the Great Men
Lee Kuan Yew, perhaps?
Bob Dylan
@@Brewens Um... *No!*
@@Brewens not bad never considered Dylan. Bruce Dickinson was actually one I was considering. He is a Renaissance man of sorts. Performing artist musician, poet,fencer, commercial jet pilot, brewmaster, private scholar, etc. It is not an easy choice. I will absolutely not consider any political figure 🐐🤺
@@phillipjordan1010 lol no those things are basically hobbies for man of leisure. Brewmaster? Trivial. Scholar? Did he translate an unknown tongue like Michael Ventris did? Come on. He's just a boomer musician.
geez this sounds familiar... around 1:32:38
Trumpism. Putin Fascists. Neo confederate christian nationalists....
@@Raydensheraj
You sound homosexual
43:00
I feel like I can. “sense” each time you have to endure some words that might be regarded as negative to Christianity. 53:11
And I don’t blame you.
Whats NOT negative about a big lie?
26:00
17:34 but many well known empires lasted more than a couple of hundred years, like the romans or chinese. something interesting that i'm noticing is that in the bronze age the avg life spam of many of their "iconic" empires was even higher: minoan thalassocracy 500 around years, mycenaeans around 500, hittites 500, new kingdom of egypt 500 as well
23:00
Barabbas was the earthly king that the masses chose, guided by the priest class. The punshment was handed out by the state.
Wow.
Caesar was not an exception in Roman culture. He was the direct product of centuries of Roman Aristocratic Energy and Force. Napoleon was an exception, an aberration, as Nietzsche refers to him.
I really enjoy your discussions of Nietzsche but you’ve missed the fundamental essence of the Roman Aristocracy. Their entire identity and reality was based upon and defined by Honor and Virtuosity in the most conspicuously PUBLIC form possible. There was no option to recline into a “private” life, as we understood it. This was the essence of the Mos Maiorum., the Way of the Ancestors. This was why Caesar was murdered by his friends. This was why Augustus was so careful to describe himself as First Citizen, not king.
That's a very important point namely: less decisive, less resolute, and more self-doubting, more doubting at society at large. And therefore LESS EFFECTIVE! This is all weakness and we see it in American Society Today.
Definitely sounds like some Boomer ranting at a cloud.
But go on, tell us how you're SO strong & everyone else is so weak with your objectively incorrect takes.
@@user-ce4kg6wx8y Objectively incorrect? Boy U blind a bat!
@@user-ce4kg6wx8y age = experience and know how. This is well known.
@@user-ce4kg6wx8y Also learn about societies rise and fall all which is explained in the talk!
These aren't truly Nietzsche's opinions. They are all his lies. A mirror to our reality. The whole point of the tightrope walker is to represent the balance we must find for ourselves.
1:40 "Bedouin" literally means Nomad, non-sedentary. 🤦
He's clarifying that classically the term has been used to refer to only the Arab nomads but Khaldun is describing it as descriptor to clarify the concept for the western audience, bro
هو وضح معنى كلمة بدوي تقريبا في فيديو ابن خلدون ب إسهاب
و زاد في هالفيديو وضح شن يقصد بالكلمة
the model of evolution as random mutation is being challenged. Mutations may happen as a result of actions.
I think that the video is misinterpreting Nietzsche’s idea of “The Will to Power” and notion of “self-Overcoming.” Nietzsche didn’t mean for these to be applied within the dogmas of established moral beliefs, as the video mentions “Christians needing to self-overcome their sinful nature,” etc. He meant for these concepts to be applied to life itself, all life, even the nature of the universe, as a pure form of striving to become all one can at enhancing one’s ability to live strong, capable, confident, and thus be able to get as much out of life as one can, and, on life’s terms alone. I state ‘a pure form’ of this meaning it’s disassociated from any other contrived moral belief, ideology and its dogma, other than that which an individual might contrive for one’s self alone.
What I cite in this episode comes straight out of Nietzsche, see Zarathustra "On the Thousand and One Goals", where Nietzsche describes all religions as manifestations of self-overcoming:
"No people could live without first esteeming; but if they want to preserve themselves, then they must not esteem as their neighbor esteems. Much that was good to one people was scorn and infamy to another: thus I found it. Much I found called evil here, and decked with purple honors there. Never did one neighbor understand the other: ever was his soul amazed at the neighbor’s delusion and wickedness.
A tablet of the good hangs over every people. Behold, it is the tablet of their overcomings; behold, it is the voice of their will to power.
Praiseworthy is whatever seems difficult to a people; whatever seems indispensable and difficult is called good; and whatever liberates even out of the deepest need, the rarest, and most difficult - that they call holy.
Whatever makes them rule and triumph and shine, to the awe and envy of their neighbors, that is to them the high, the first, the measure, the meaning of all things.
Verily, my brother, once you have recognized the need and land and sky and neighbor of a people, you may also guess the law of their overcomings, and why they climb to their hope on this ladder..."
Kaufmann's commentary on the passage:
“That Kant’s ethic as well as say, the Ten Commandments exhibits this character seems clear; and the element of self-overcoming is no less essential to the utilitarian position. The force and plausibility of utilitarianism are inseparable from its insistence that the individual must overcome himself and subordinate his own interests to those of the greatest number. In so-called primitive moral codes, too, the element of self-control and the disciplining of the inclinations is invariably present. Self-overcoming may thus be considered the common essence of all moral codes, from totem and taboo to the ethics of the Buddha.”
@@untimelyreflections Kaufmann is projecting here, and over-speculating in doing so. In this chapter of Thus Sprach Zarathustra, all through it it refers to “the peoples” and makes clear the separation of “the herd” relative to “the ego.” It’s an account of the cyclical nature of civilizations throwing off (“overcoming”) one value system for another, within the dichotomy of master and slave morality, with the “valuer” creating the new scheme being the ones or one, and the “herd” accepting the package deal as that being their sublimate “will to power.” It is only dealing with such in the aggregate sense. Kauffman and you in your remarks I’m critical of, seem to want to take it down into the micro level of individuals’s attempts at trying to live more pious lives according to the “tablets that hang over them,” invoking Kant, who Nietzsche was highly critical of, and claiming this is an exacting of their will to power and self overcoming in Nietzsche’s terms, which is a misconstruing of them. To do this is insignificant to the point and purpose of the novel, and only serves to confound. What you’re describing is fanaticism. I said ‘their sublimate will to power,’ because we must remember the point of this novel. Zarathustra is trying to enlighten the people of there being the dawning of the new age, the age of the Ubermench, which, he comes to realize the people still can’t fathom and are not ready for yet, even though he himself is and has become. The chapter ends with these paragraphs.
“Many lands saw Zarathustra, and many peoples: no greater power did Zarathustra find on earth than the creations of the loving ones-good and bad as they called.
Verily, a prodigy is this power of praising and blaming. Tell me, ye brethren, who will master it for me? Who will put a fetter upon the thousand necks of this animal?
A thousand goals have there been hitherto, for a thousand peoples have there been. Only the fetter for the thousand necks is still lacking; there is lacking the one goal. As yet humanity hath not a goal.
But pray tell me, my brethren, if the goal of humanity be still lacking, is there not also still lacking-humanity itself?”
The ending of the chapter all has to do with the true overcoming of this repeating cycle of civilization. No more the contrasting, conflicting, at odds value systems and moralities of one group to their neighbors’. But the one goal of humanity, which Zarathustra represents; the Ubermench, where each individual, “the latest creation,” is the prodigy to create their own values for themself. Then and only then will there be humanity, naturally, genuinely, purely, each ever overcoming themself, “never being but always becoming,” and pursuing their will to power, just like all other things.
@@randstrickfaden4148 > It is only dealing with such in the aggregate sense. Kauffman and you in your remarks I’m critical of, seem to want to take it down into the micro level of individuals’s attempts at trying to live more pious lives according to the “tablets that hang over them,” invoking Kant, who Nietzsche was highly critical of, and claiming this is an exacting of their will to power and self overcoming in Nietzsche’s terms, which is a misconstruing of them. To do this is insignificant to the point and purpose of the novel, and only serves to confound.
I think you're confused about what is actually being argued here, and probably even more confused about what Nietzsche is saying.
For one, the world is will to power and nothing besides: every action is driven by will to power, even actions which are weak and self-undermining. As to how this could be, it's explained in the Genealogy: world-denying philosophies are expressed by those who are downtrodden or oppressed by the world. The first premise of your argument falls apart in consideration of N's broader philosophy, which explicitly makes power the function of morality. See the many, many passages in HATH & Daybreak where morality is considered as the power of the herd, crushing down the individuals. So of course each form of morality was driven by will to power, b/c in N's philosophy, everything is.
> Zarathustra is trying to enlighten the people of there being the dawning of the new age, the age of the Ubermench...
> No more the contrasting, conflicting, at odds value systems and moralities of one group to their neighbors’. But the one goal of humanity, which Zarathustra represents...
And here you are making Nietzsche into a dogmatist by suggesting that he denies all perspective and thus turns truth on her head. The idea that Nietzsche intended to introduce a universalist morality based on will to power is completely contradicted by Nietzsche's numerous claims that perspective is the basic condition of life and that conflict and contrast between competing organisms and groups is ever recurring. There's great irony in your accusation that I'm suggesting Nietzsche agreed with Kant (who you point out he was "highly critical of", as I've covered in numerous places on the show). It's completely missing the point, but I would also suggest that you're basically turning Nietzsche into a Kantian with your interpretation.
I agree that he indeed intends to enlighten a number of free spirits to the idea that will to power is in fact, the *one goal* which all these moralities have served, allowing them to be in a position similar to that which you've described here: that of creative self-legislation. But the meaning of the passage is not to convert everyone to a new "one goal" (read: dogmatic universalist philosophy which N explicitly rejects), b/c that would be asking people to be other than what they are. Rather, the "one goal" is the driving principle behind what all of these moral systems are doing, even though the adherents of these systems would deny this fact and fail to understand the deepest instincts behind their own behavior.
> Then and only then will there be humanity, naturally, genuinely, purely, each ever overcoming themself, “never being but always becoming,” and pursuing their will to power, just like all other things.
Don't we all wish for that, brother. But the point of Nietzsche's philosophy isn't a hinterland, which I fear you've turned this idea into.
@@untimelyreflections No, you’re misinterpreting what I’m saying. I’m not remotely suggesting Nietzsche is advocating one perspective or morality for all, as the goal Zarathustra is referring to is for each to establish for themself their own perspectives and moralities throughout their life. And elsewhere Nietzsche says “this one is always becoming, never being,” as their life experiences following their will to power will lead to an ever amending and shifting of values, morals, and the like for themselves. I don’t think we’re really at odds here, essentialsalts, my criticism is only with the examples of individual members of “the herd” doing things you call “overcoming” in order to live up the the demands of the “tablets hanging over them.” Certainly you can construe will to power and self overcoming to mean these efforts by individuals and not be wrong, agreed. Certainly, if they’re that overtaken by the tenants of their “tablet” they’ll be demonstrative of such behavior, and to them that pursuit is their active will to power and achievement when they overcome what they perceive as flaws in themselves. I get what you’re saying. But I state again, that this is pretty insignificant to the more salient examples of importance pertaining to the bigger examples of will to power and overcoming whole tablets of moral values for others, as you seem to acknowledge with me in your last post here, that are contrived by the most masterful among them “that finds their advantage in the advantage of the herd.” And then how that would, eventually, might, “I write this book for everyone and no one,” lead to the time of the Ubermenchen. When Zarathustra asks “brethren, who will be this master for me? Who will lay fetter upon the thousand necks of this animal?” He’s stating that there isn’t anyone else to do so other than he for himself, and each, of those like him, for themself as master of themself. This brings one’s will to power and self overcoming in unison with all other living things of the natural universe if not the universe itself for all we know. For whatever degree Nietzsche cites examples of individuals pursuing their petty interest congruent with the “tablets hanging over them” according to their will to power, and overcoming what they perceive as personal flaws, his much more significant focus is on the bigger picture of civilization, thus humanity, overcoming itself, this tendency to allow others, the masterful, prodigious few to determine their morality and values for them, and by doing so exploit the them for their own interests, yes, to serve them and their power, agreed. This is my interest in what his philosophy deals with. Just from our back n forth here, essentialsalts, I’m confident you understand this as well, and I no longer feel you don’t understand Nietzsche’s meaning of will to power and self-overcoming, on all levels. I was thinking you didn’t initially simply because of you introducing the concepts by applying them to the most meager examples. But on second thought, now, for any of your listeners unfamiliar with them and Nietzsche’s work more broadly speaking, twas probably a good thing you did introduce the concepts with the examples you did. I should’ve been more reflective in my thought before posting my initial response. For that I apologize. Best to you, a very good channel!
Just by reading this discussion I thought I could offer some context that might be helpful.
The one goal for the thousand necks of TZE is the Ubermensch. The "thousand and one goals" refers to the various interpretations around the singular "norm" of the overman. Nietzsche conceptualized the Ubemensch as "tables of values" which means there is not a single personification of the Ubermensch. The one goal is to overcome ourselves towards the overman but each people get to create their own ideal of the overman according to their own aspirations and the particular circumstances they find themselves in. If you read Nietzsche's The Gay Science section 143 (The Greatest Advantage of Polytheism) it becomes obvious that the overman ideal is a polytheistic framework within a secular context. In polytheism there is "one goal" but different people have their own interpretation of what the ideal human being is which is personified in the folk gods of competing tribes.
There was only one norm, man; and every people thought that it possessed this one ultimate norm. But above and outside, in some distant overworld, one was permitted to behold a plurality of norms; one god was not considered a denial of another god, nor blasphemy against him. GS 143
Nietzsche was very careful not to define what the Ubermensch is because this would have undermined its purpose as a singular goal that allows for multiple pathways towards self overcoming. This is why Zarathustra refers to the Ubermensch as a ghost. It is a ghost because it has yet to be embodied in diverse forms.
This ghost that runs after you, my brother, is more beautiful than you; why do you not give him your flesh and bones? TSZ, On love of the neighbor
The use of the term norm has both individual and pluralistic connotations. Having different competiting ideals allows for individuals to break with the customs of their group and to pursue individualistic goals. As Nietzsche says of polytheism,
It was here that the luxury of individuals was first permitted; it was here that one first honored the rights of individuals. GS 143
This does not introduce relativism. Each interpretation of the one "norm" is supposed to appeal to the aspirations of a people so you can't speak of a definitive pathway towards self-overcoming. But this doesn't mean they are all equal. The one's that offer the best advantage to a people will emerge victorious and new competitors will be generated so the process can continue. Nietzsche was using the Darwinian model which explains the pragmatic competitive context surrounding the one "norm" of the overman. I think it is pretty clear that the Ubermensch follows Nietzsche's description of polytheism in GS.
In polytheism the free-spiriting and many-spiriting of man attained its first preliminary form-the strength to create for ourselves our own new eyes-and ever again new eyes that are even more our own: hence man alone among all the animals has no eternal horizons and perspectives. GS 143
Hope this was useful. It was an interesting and civil discussion which is so rare these days. Also enjoying @untimelyreflections videos, there's few UA-camrs that have more than a superficial understanding of Nietzsche.
You are like a priest for Nietzsche and he is Zarathustra.
HOW DOES HE DEFINE ARISTOCRACY? NEPATISM FAILS. POWER IS A PARASITE TO MERIT.
The more I learn of Nietzsche the more I dislike and find reprehensible.
Merit brings power.
Sounds like modern America today in 2023.
Ask this guy what his philosophy has resulted in, just like any other philosopher. They use language to hide, they’re weak.
They can just tell you what other people did, how pathetic, they should just be ants :$
What do you mean, as in, we don't know his personal philosophy? I got the impression he was more of a lecturer. @@user-sn2uf3lm5s
IF THE MILITARY IS THE ULTIMATE FOR OF SOCIETY, THEN THE ECONOMICS OF THE MILITARY IS THE ULTIMATE FORM OF ECONOMICS. RANK AND CLASS ORDANIZE MEN IN IT. IS THIS A RIGHT IS MIGHT SYSTEM?
Every system is a might makes right system. The might may be creative, "spiritual," persuasive, brute force,etc. But it's all that
My Dad came to America in the 60's with very little education and barely spoke and wrote english. But what He did have was a passion for making something of his life...primarily financially with NO excuses. And He SUCCEEDED. You don't see that in American Children Today because of our weak feministic society. People will and do come from other countries running circles around American Kids....
"Weak feministic society" is only a phrase used by one who considers themselves some sort of "alpha".
Believing these things enough to spew them where we can all see is an obvious self-report.
I wouldn't be surprised if this person even has some unprovable deity they worship.
fruits of a degenerating empire
🇮🇹❤
If your father had so much gumption, why couldn't he make a go of it in Italy? What were his _excuses_ for not SUCCEEDING in his native land?
my Dad moved out of Italy after they lost WW2 so there was very little opportunity for uneducated folks in Italy at the time. He first went to Australia then finally the USA. Better paying jobs for hard workers. Get it? And by the way still collects a little pension from Australia for his time there...
Lots of cultures have been egalitarian. These cultures developed quite naturally and did very well. Nietzshe was wrong on this topic
This is an oversimplification for a couple reasons.
In one sense, you may actually be understating the case: not just some, but most cultures have been “more egalitarian” at their outset. It was the aggregation into larger and larger social groups for the purposes of warfare that ended this period in human history. But, for likely hundreds of thousands of years, the vast majority of mankind lived in relatively egalitarian social arrangements, where group violence by the collective put down any upstart dictators.
But, on the other hand, this is the point where your interpretation of humanity breaks down for me. To say that this way of life was “successful” is incorrect, since they were outcompeted by hierarchical, domineering societies. Ever since the large, organized state with a dictator arose, the egalitarian model had been steadily done away with. Life isn’t some static reality, it’s a dynamic evolution. The direction of human history is clearly towards hierarchy. Now, we could argue then whether what Nietzsche advocates is actually a “return to nature”. But to me its clear that the elimination of egalitarianism was a natural inevitability, and I can be charitable enough to see why Nietzsche would frame things that way.
@essentialsalts appreciate your response,but philosophy alone is not sufficient to debate equality vs hierarchy. One needs to consider the vast works of cultural anthropology .especially the ethnographies that don't make the n.y. times #1 best seller list.( brought to us by the current dominant hierarchical power structure). Egalitarianism should not be dismissed so easily as "utopian ".
@@dagoo1462 I think egalitarianism is possible, but only on a smaller scale, or when removed from society at large. Large-scale societies are complex, and thus require organization, which requires oligarchal direction. I think that the very nature of your argument hinges on looking to the more obscure & small-scale examples, which I completely agree exist and should be considered relevant. But I think human beings behave in a completely different fashion past the point of forming ultra-social bonds (here referring to groupings of millions or hundreds of millions of people).
This is an amazing podcast that almost feels revelatory to me, as if you are possessed by the muses. Are you not disgusted?! ;)