Nietzsche on Morality
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 лип 2024
- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (pron.: /ˈniːtʃə/; German: [ˈfʁiːdʁɪç ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈniːt͡sʃə]; October 15, 1844 -- August 25, 1900) was a German philosopher, poet, composer, cultural critic, and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science, displaying a fondness for metaphor, irony, and aphorism.
Nietzsche's key ideas include the "death of God", the Übermensch, the eternal recurrence, the Apollonian and Dionysian dichotomy, perspectivism, and the will to power. Central to his philosophy is the idea of "life-affirmation", which involves questioning of all doctrines that drain life's expansive energies, however socially prevalent and radical those views might be. His influence remains substantial within philosophy, notably in existentialism, post-modernism, and post-structuralism, as well as outside it. His radical questioning of the value and objectivity of truth has been the focus of extensive commentary, especially in the continental tradition.
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.e. opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."
Brian Leiter was a visiting professor at the Law School in the fall of 2006 and joined the faculty July 1, 2008, simultaneously founding the Law School's Center for Law, Philosophy & Human Values. Prior to that, he taught for more than a dozen years at the University of Texas at Austin, where he was the youngest chairholder in the history of the law school. He has also been a Visiting Professor of Law or Philosophy at Yale University, University College London, University of Paris X-Nanterre, and Oxford University.
His teaching and research interests are in general jurisprudence (including its intersection with issues in metaphysics and epistemology), moral and political philosophy (in both Anglophone and Continental traditions), and the law of evidence. His books include Objectivity in Law and Morals (Cambridge, 2001), Nietzsche on Morality (Routledge, 2002), The Future for Philosophy (Oxford, 2004), Naturalizing Jurisprudence (Oxford, 2007), The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy, and Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton, 2013). He is presently working on projects in moral psychology and meta-ethics (often in relation to Nietzsche), on 'realism' as a theme in political and legal theory, and on philosophical issues about free speech.
Elucidations is a monthly philosophy podcast recorded at the University of Chicago. Each month, a prominent philosopher sits down with our graduate student co-hosts to talk about his or her latest work and areas of philosophical expertise. The podcast covers a wide range of topics from the theoretical to the practical (including including causation, metaphor, agency, religious freedom, and moral psychology) and explores a wide range of problems from the perennial to the cutting-edge (including skepticism and experimental philosophy). Elucidations is hosted by Matt Teichman, Mark Hopwood, Jaime Edwards and Alex Langlinais.
Episode 3: Brian Leiter discusses Nietzsche on Morality [09/2009]
Brian Leiter is John P. Wilson Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values at the University of Chicago. He specializes in general jurisprudence (including its intersection with issues in metaphysics and epistemology), moral and political philosophy (in both Anglophone and Continental traditions), and the law of evidence.
© "Elucidations" Podcast 2009
© "Friedrich Nietzsche" Art by 'unknown artist' 2012
© "Music Theme" composed by Niko Nyman
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Why did Nietzsche cross the road?
Because he wanted to.
Because he had neurosyphilis and schizophrenia
His work is more an exploration of subjects instead of a final judgment on them.
this is one of the best explainations of nietzsche's take on morality as such includign all his most profound philosophical interests and intimations of the goal of his philosophy and what warranted it as a motivation. Though it has to be marked, it was only a secondary goal, one that inspired hus philosophical drive, but ultimately was a mere way towards discovering the possibility of achieving a free spirit, which for himself was the true possibility of philosophy. He was a peculiar character, a brilliant one at that
love your videos amazing
this vid was great,liked and subbed ;-)
thanks for the video, it s proved useful for me
Awesome job
Digging that Runescape music.
hahahahaha
o yeah,this is what im talking about,great job!!!
Naturalist,Naturalism? Amazing concept. Examining human nature using the scientific method and developing a rational criteria for human behavior. The Geneology of Morals is a good example of this exercise.
I had a question in a term paper that to what extent can religious morality incorporate individual freedom? Couldn't find any specific answer. What are your views on the subject?
epic video!
that video is nice.
Could you please tell me the name of the music at the beginning?
Oh my god! Thats amazing
Moral is a argument created and started,with one person seeing the a gain to itself in using it,as a mean to get a safe haven from the reality of our nature.
As morality is a evolutionary dead end,in the sense of the Darwinist idea of the survival of the fittest.
Morality only exist in man, as a way of manipulation, and is easier to understand as a self defends mechanism of Ego.
This is why moral often acts upon non morality by the ones setting the moral,often the most aggressive of the two.
Neitzsche is the bomb. indisputable, end of.
I'd love to know what music that is!
It's known as "Music Theme" composed by Niko Nyman.
Cool, thanks!
Hey! I've been looking, and I cant find it. any clue where I might find it?
I don't think that learning to be "good" (in whatever sense that any particular culture might define good) is the point of moral philosophy. Like most else that has guided human evolution, or much else that humans do, moral philosophy is a memetic tool for survival. Being "good" isn't even secondary, but tertiary.
In any proper moral system, the survival of the practitioners' group always has the highest value. Next comes truth, which has a value that overrides everything other than survival. After that come values such as justice, freedom, etc.
Justice has a value inferior to truth. That's because the pursuit of justice depends on knowing truth, or more exactly on the ability accurately to distinguish truth from falsehood.
And likewise for freedom. Without a means by which the truth can be identified after all its imposters have been found and discarded, you can't even tell whether you really are free, let alone pursue freedom with any confidence.
Notice also that the only value higher than truth is survival. Nothing matters to the dead - not even truth. Only to something alive may anything else be good (or have value). A rock doesn't care whether you hit it with a hammer. But a mouse does.
Why the group, and not the individual? Because individuals are ephemeral. We can by no means endure as the ages pass. But the group of practitioners, having a moral system in common, which they heed and advance in the world, can indeed endure. And the most natural group is a race, which is strongest when its members hold a moral system in common; i.e. isn't factionalized, and therefore cannot be induced to attack itself.
When the group of practitioners is also a race, it gains the ability to replace its dying members with new members who are born compatible with the culture of their fellows. Because inherited are most of the human qualities that determine which memetic qualities the individual can easily acquire, or can acquire at all. Native members have the requisite temperament and innate attributes for engaging in the group's culture; they're organic, not grafted in. They belong without having to adapt, as an outsider would have to adapt though continuous exertion. (And the immigrant will in most cases be unwilling to put forth the required effort.)
What doesn't exist is worthless. What can't exist for long because of self-sabotage isn't worth much. Proper moral codes, which put the survival of the practitioners' group first in value, are therefore always better than improper moral codes, which give the highest value to anything else. A group that puts the highest moral value on anything other than survival will, sooner or later, encounter circumstances in which their survival is in conflict with whatever that other thing is. When that happens, the group will either abandon their improper moral system in favor of a proper one, or they will die off, and their improper code will vanish along with them.
I won't declare the foregoing summary of moral philosophy to be the final word in moral philosophy. I'm not that pretentious. But it appears to be self-consistent and consistent with how the world really works. If anyone discovers a flaw, I'd like to hear about it.
I think that one of the ways in which one culture can make war on another is by inducing its rival, by propaganda or by some other means, to get their moral priorities improperly sorted. Has this already happened; i.e., is such a war going on now? I suspect so, but I'll save the details for some other time.
Perfect, thank you
Content is great, but sound is too soft.
1Simply extravagant
Behold....the Syphilistic mind.
Wow... thats all i can say
It's from Niko Nyman only identify as ''Music Theme''.
@24:30 - Analytic philosophy is Kantian Analytic A Posteriori philosophy. A triangle has 3 sides is true, but useless. Nothing new is learned. But that the inside angles equal 180° is new information not inherent in the concept of a triangle. That's an example of analytic philosophy, so far as I understand it. Same with π. I don't understand why Mr Leiter says there's no such thing as analytic philosophy.
Define *"Good"*
What’s difference between morality and character, I wonder
5/5 you cant ask for more than that.
He kilLed my wolf. Banished!
a favorite from me?
Mm-kay?
great video but this guy convoluted the living shit out of nietzsche
Nietzsche was. I am.
like my dad
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Marry me? lol so hot and sing so good.
Too much peripheral commentary.
An insider of the lodge, work of evil.
Freemason? Although they’re oppressive I’m not going to be petty and act like they hold a lot of truths, wisdom, accuracy, beauty etc.
*like they don’t, I mean
Who want learn morals of man who's brain was ravaged by neurosyphilis and consequent schizophrenia.
Are you good enough to go to heaven and escape Hell? Ever lied? Ever stolen? Ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used God's name in vain or as a curse word? If you have, then God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous adulterer at heart and you must face God on judgment day. Revelation 21v8 says; "All liars will have their part in the lake of fire" The bible says; "No thief, adulterer, or blasphemer will enter" The guilty will end up in Hell. That is not God's will. You broke God's laws but Jesus paid you're fine! Repent, turn from sin, and trust in Christ alone
That makes no sense. And, the concept of morality is that I don't need you to tell me any of that. It's supposed to be "written in my heart by god", not rammed down my throat by the clergy. If you or anyone else has to tell me what to do, that's ethics. If I make a choice when I'm alone in a room in a situation I've never encountered, that may be considered morality. And if you think that any of that stuff is bad (lying, etc), then the solution is not to randomly say so to nobody in particular (I'm not doing any of that and I don't expect to go to heaven, but every person I ever met who claims to be a christian lies regularly). A better solution is to work toward a society in which there's no apparent benefit, no incentive to doing those things. I dare you to call out a liar to their face. Stop a thief. It's not going to help to wait for god to judge them after they die! If you believe you'll be judged when you die, that's fine. But, I don't need to hear about it. If you're so secure and confident in your belief, you don't need anyone else to believe it. There's nothing in the bible that says you won't make it to heaven if you haven't convinced someone else of your imaginary friend, Christ. Buddhism on the other hand, is strict. As happy as you might be able to feel, as long as there is unhappiness in any person, then you can't be fully happy (because we are all as one). In The Lotus Sutra, the Buddha says [paraphrased] "In response to a person's needs for salvation, I preach various doctrines. At all times I think to myself: How can I cause living beings to gain entry into the unsurpassed way and quickly acquire the body of a Buddha?"
Lol evolution
EXALTEDDIRT Yeah, have fun with using a fake threat to tell humanity that they will be punished for being the humans they apparently were created to be. Hopefully someone will only take this threat seriously if they hve proof of this god.
+Samuel Wolfblade if God made man in his image but said all that then he's a fucking hypocrite.
God at this point is nothing more than an obsolete conjecture, worshipped by the unfit for the purpose of castigating the strong.
Jesus is the tuth. He's the Son of God, born a man, He atoned for our sins on the cross and rose from the dead!
Johanna040713 o,rlly? :)
Johanna040713 ...but who did the rain dance to make the water fall from the sky so he could turn water into wine? That's right, the natives did.