Too all the comments disagreeing! you got your own mind to make up, better to watch this form your own opinions then mindlessly use youtube to brainrot away haha
As an avid reader of this greatly misunderstood philosopher, I love this video and I have watched it many times. I think it's the best introduction I know to the genealogy and to Nietzsche's perspective on morality in general. Thank you for uploading Jonathan.
One remark- you don't understand the Bible/ Christianity (to understand it, you need another 5 years of philosophy, seeing that you have an open mind and are insightful and very intelligent). Then maybe you will be able to understand. I think it's possible...
"Poverty breeds poverty"~ philosophy And here it's mainly about mentality and awareness (socialization/ modeling/ core values/ etc.). Only few will become "transitional individuals".
No that’s what the authors of the Bible want you to believe about the Canaanite community. They are the Arabs and handful of Jews that are presently in Palestine today.
Nietzsche making truth claims while asserting there is no such thing as truth is incomprehensible. It honestly baffles me how his philosophy ever gained as much traction as it did. Mentioning him with the likes of Aristotle and Plato is insane.
Lecturers just like the sound their own voice, they lecture not to be productive, but to make themselves feel like they are smarter than their audience.
A fancy blazer, in an eloquent library, with an insane production value while speaking down onto the neofides and downtrodden. The vapid presentation puts the lack of self awareness on a silver platter. You could've used this time to take the entire crowd out under bridges and feed the people that make your life what it is. Instead you choose to double down on your vapidness and speak on society from your ivory tower, assuming most of the qualities of others without ever seeing their face.
"I'm, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolution of Beethoven's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould
Every college history graduate always has a “I can solve the fall of Rome and bring it down to one person” phase😂. Don’t worry it only lasts a few years
Inequality is natural the problem is unnatural forms of inequality. People are naturally hierarchical and the problem isn't an elite existing but an elite being disloyal to the rest of the hierarchy. Anarchy is Marxism's ultimate goal but anarchy is impossible because it goes against human nature. In anarchy communities will naturally reform and trade will eventually be reestablished. People naturally look up to their older relatives and family is the best example of a natural hierarchy. Our parents take care of and guide us and older siblings went through what we went through. A society is like a family and elites are supposed to be the elders of the family. Equality under the law is good but beyond that it has to be forced so it's immoral. Some people are richer than others and some are better authority figures and that's okay
Girard's point of the deification of science reminds me of what happened during COVID with some people referring themselves as SCIENCE and hence disagreeing with them is disagreeing with SCIENCE.
Me and my confirmation bias is really happy to have stumbled upon this video at this stage. My former self wouldn’t have gotten anything out of this since it’s really hard to grasp without a lot of philosophical legwork and the future me might shift my ethical stance. So thank you!
Morality is forced and expected to be followed by everybody. If not there is consequences. Personal responsability is out of the equation. Personal ethic is much more useful to everybody.
I don't think that shattan symbol has anything appearance of standing, you are in both of MY dominions West and East moreover your people want to be with the future and not with the demons of the past and its leaders. We will use them to wash up what they don't want and punish those that put them in such insane opposition, if its not their representation that you do. It will be easier to kill yourself, damning them to your mistakes is damning yourself to double mistakes. Troll 🧌 that because you are vulnerable in both West and East and you gamble with Arab issues on the table we hold up. You betrayed them not me
This guy is so wrong on so many points I have to write a whole essay. If radical inequality is necessary for 'greatness', 'greatness' is overrated. The 'frenzy' might not be worth it. 'But how would we get to where we are???' - it doesn't matter. Maybe slavery was necessary at some point to 'advance' civilization. So what? We stand where we are, and can decide that inequality is no longer worth it. We keep the good, discard the bad. (Of course his whole thesis is dubious, since we have plenty of research about how inequality degrades and stagnates societies, rather than improving anything. He thinks vanity is the driving force of achievement, but lots of the 'achievers' he likes actually suck. Facebook and Palantir are the foundation of the American economy? wtf are you talking about man. Palantir is evil, the ambition that created it is not something we want in society. Real anthropologists don't agree with most of what he says, and we have overwhelming evidence that status and money are terrible for people and cause acquired narcisisstic tendencies. And that highly unequal societies have much more violence and other negative results he spends very little time on. Switzerland had 500 years of peace and brotherhood. If true, that's a BETTER ACHIEVEMENT than almost any other civilization. Then he counterpoints that with competition between states. Well, that's just a game theory trap - competition is bad after all! Oh and nevermind that Switzerland managed for centuries to mostly neutralize its competitors (those seeking 'greatness' at the cost of inequality). And totally And they invented complex machinery anyway. His counterpoints to this are really, really weak. He also casually states that American military might 'protects American and Canadian interests' - that's a HUGE claim. American military efforts have frequently destabilized the world in ways that probably harms America. He seems to be a fan of American militarism. I am not. I dislike even his use of 'greatness' in very vague terms without examining whether the things he talks about ARE ACTUALLY GREAT.
Jonathan has a great understanding of Nietzsche in relation to other philosophers and thus, have very direct questions to relative thoughts that were answered as good as one can. In other words, a good understanding of controversial Nietzschean ideas.
Right from the start, this spineless slave morality man starts using ad hominem against Trump. Nietzsche would have loved Trump compared to Obama, Biden and Kamala. Trump is strength, light and forward thinking. Brian Leiter was the man nobody liked. Hence he wants to make Nietzsche his own. A liberal teddy bear.
If one believes God exist ; how can such a person have a strong belief in the efficacy of human nature n desire to lead one to a higher self? Does this dampen the desire for power honor and sexual gratification? Is it that a person should change a feeling of God’s existence , to then focus on the efficacy of human nature and desire to become a higher man? Can the two co-exist? Or will it be a never-ending clash…#unanswered questions
We know from evolutionary psychology & game theory a general structure of “ethics” that spans the human type. We can see how these measured instincts are adapted to various situations. It can at least lend explication to most moral values we’ve seen throughout history. Too bad Nietzsche didn’t live long enough to see the empirical data.
@@bfarzady5212 Nothing we measure is independent from humans who measure. In any case morality is an issue affecting humans & thus that’s like saying biology & human biology should be independent of humans. Morality is biology.
@@bryanutility9609 So in other words, human morality is relative to our evolving biological selves and if some humans enjoy inflicting torture on others so much so that it outweighs the victims suffering, it may in fact be justified? Or, if one human has no sense of justice or respect for the categorical imperative their actions are justified due to their unique biology and psychological makeup? That is not what moral realists believe.
Philosophy only appeals to lunatics, tyrants and suicidals, and only begets dead, static ideals (I.e. conclusions) which are the source of the failure of individuals and societies. Tyrants, fools, and suicidals... which one are you? P.S. BREAKING NEWS! I hear some Austrian painter actually managed to pull the hat trick!!!
Hi Jonathan. Great video on the legend. I was wondering man, do you have an email? I wanted to send you a philosophical/personal development work that I wrote that thought you may like, thanks 🦉🦉
I shared this with all of my stripper friends. And we are literally addicted to just chill. You bring insight to people you may not have ever even considered. Johnathon, you truly have the gift of the gab when it comes to speaking and interviewing. Thank you so much for all of the hard work you put in.
When you speak about what lies in every human heart, speak only of your own. You're only showing the world that you don't know anything for yourself... but rather that you need to site authors like Russo in a weak attempt to make any of this garbage true.
Rousseau is a clown. Left his own kids in the orphanage to lecture the world on morality. Equality is demonstrably non-existent but money leads to delusions because it separates us from problems. In Rousseau's case, this was embraced! He separated himself from his own children to enjoy money and intellectual masturbation.
Marx?! The only value Marx ever contributed was in outlining the hierarchical structure and dominative mechanisms of Capitalist societies. Otherwise, he was a quack and an exemplar of ressentiment. How does Mr. Leiter reconcile the ostensible subjectivism of Nietzsche with Marx’s “Labor Theory of Value”? How does he reconcile the notions of aristocratic radicalism with those of humanism and socialism?
Oooh, but what a brave man you are! 😂 I’ve been reading Nietzsche for twenty-five years, including a huge range of the secondary literature, and Leiter’s diagnosis of N.’s thought is entirely fair and non-controversial. Leiter is not mischaracterizing his work. N. is a complex, often opaque, sometimes contradictory thinker. Discerning a substantive what we might call political or ideological theory from N. beyond a few often-cited remarks from his oeuvre is a fool’s errand. It is possible that you have fallen under the sway of a particular, dare I say (appropriately) ‘perspective’, on N. that aligns with your ideological biases. An example of such distorted readings began with N.’s sister Elisabeth’s early control over his archive and have manifested in different ways in both academic scholarship and popular culture ever since. But please, if you have a more fulsome response to Leiter’s presentation, citing extensively from N.’s writings, please share with us.
@@EyeByBrian You, yourself, are not free from that. You esteem yourself as superior to this individual, think of yourself as the privileged proprietor of a certain “understanding” of Nietzsche while having had no opportunity to verify that for yourself, and you are all too content to cite your long study of Nietzsche in an attempt at bolstering your authority in the mind of that individual who’s comment you responded to; however, this course of action only spells insecurity and vanity, as well as a baseness of perspective. For all intents and purposes, you and this individual are at approximately the same position. You are both feeble-minded grass-grazers focused more on taking comfort in others than affirming and acting upon your own cupidity. It is the fault of your own myopia, not of Nietzsche’s prose, if you cannot glean from his work his overabundantly apparent political stance. That you use terms like “discernment” illustrates the laziness and the half-hearted ambition with which you’ve set out into the sea that is his oeuvre. When taking that into account, it comes as no surprise to me that your voyage has only been partly bountiful. I do commend you for even setting out in the first place. It takes a certain strength of spirit; but, alas… Your spirit, it would seem, is still not free, and turns back on itself in every other moment of your pitiful existence. There may yet be time for you, but the odds are stacked sorely against you. You must abandon everything and everyone, and set before yourself only yourself, if you are to give to yourself what you futilely attempt to take from Nietzsche and others.
@@morrink Are you in a good place? I ask because in order to take morality into consideration, one first need to be in a good enough place to foster empathy.
Some people are ‘higher expressions’ than others, at least to those that value cultural refinement over and above all else-those that pursue creative endeavors while lending no credence to the concerns of others have more value, utility, etc. to a culture than those that saddle themselves with sentimentalities in every waking moment of their lives… The latter bog a culture down, diminish its quality-and the tension between the two is ultimately what lends to the invention of moral positions like egalitarianism or inegalitarianism… And ‘God’, far from being dead, has only changed faces and hands. His new name is-‘Man’! The secular humanism of Mr. Leiter is the modern Christianity, and is precisely the soil out of which such ideologies as socialism grow. In the ever-prescient words of Stirner, “[O]ur atheists are pious people…”
Nietzsche even predicted the rise of secular egalitarian morality as we see in the modern day left, the worship of science & the Silicon Valley nerd is clearly the last man.
