Enjoy these type of videos? Please give it a like Support this channel: www.patreon.com/eternalised RU-vid Member Perks: ru-vid.com/show-UCqos1tl0RntucGGtPXNxkkAjoin Donate a Coffee: ko-fi.com/eternalised PayPal: www.paypal.com/paypalme/eternalisedofficial Official Merch: eternalised.creator-spring.com
Awesome video! One idea for a cool video would be to essentially compile the "our present course" section of all of philosophy into one brain exploding video! Like one video that asks all the biggest questions of philosophy. Possibly "Biggest unanswered questions of philosophy".
Finally! I've been waiting for this since last year! Keep going, Sir! May I suggest some duels for the future? Sartre vs. Camus Schopenhauer vs. Nietzsche Plato vs. Aristotle Hegel vs. Kant Nietzsche vs Kant Heidegger vs. Husserl
i was thinking of reading Kierkegaard but now i just have to ! Those ideas are so relevant to today and to me personally its incredible. Thanks for this content!
That's great. You can start with a Cambridge Companion to Kierkegaard or dig right into his works, I'd suggest for beginners: The Sickness unto Death, Fear and Trembling and The Concept of Anxiety.
Amazing video.. It's Super interesting how Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were very similar and even wanted to meet each other. Too bad they both fell into madness though. :( It was also cool to see their view on Christianity as I totally agree that Christianity is not what it once was. Other than that Great video and editing!
I began studying philosophy 2 years ago by reading the philosophy of religion. the reason I began was because I got inspired by Beatniks in the 50s after post world war 2 and what made people think of life in a different way after death. Then I found with France and intellects and philosopher. I what to know the unknown. to know experience is a great journey. I say thank you for the video.
My task is new in such a way that there literally is no one in Christendom's 1800 years from whom I can learn how to go about it. *The deepest quote I have ever read.*
It doesn't say "wit", as in cleverness, but "to wit", a figure of speech which prefigures the following interpretation. And, for Nietzsche, all those things, "blessedness of peace, gentleness, the inability to be an enemy" are not virtues which he is complimenting, but weaknesses; indications of a pathological and physiological over-sensitivity to conflict. He is of course wrong. Had Christ been temperamentally averse to conflict, he would have lived out a quiet life and never have been heard from, like Nietzsche's "last man". Instead, Christ marched into the lion's den, so to speak, proclaiming truth to power, radically reinterpreting and overturning established doctrines, risking being beaten and stoned to death, driven from their midst by hostile mobs, and finally sacrificed himself in the most excruciating way to prove that his pacifism was not mere cowardice. Nietzsche gets him so wrong because Nietzsche was determined to take the most inflammatory, provocative, and controversial position he could imagine, in accordance with his narcissistic demand for attention.
its a nice re-interpretation, and would be powerfull if jesus wasn't god. Jesus as a man can be brave, jesus as a god is simply playing dressup. No real stakes ect. Same goes for Nietzsche, one can easily point out his flaws, but here i think one should destinguish the christian and christ. Nietzsche has tons of problems with christianity, but not so with christ himself. Christ like most religious leaders are excellent examples of will to power, and Nietzsche says as much. Religion is a great tool for power.
Brilliant work. I’m really impressed by how you present the ideas! Loved to see the comparison of their views towards Christianity. Appreciate the effort you put into this!
Nietzsche’s teleology seemed to climax in an elaborate self-nullification. His apex was the Overman, but he also posited that “all idealism is mendacity in the face of necessity,” and man must therefore fall in love with Fate, (amor fati). But what is Fate? Fate is an abstraction with arbitrary/indeterminate content. “Fate is nothing,” said Kierkegaard, but nevertheless, “Genius rests in the relation between Anxiety and Fate.” Nietzsche related to this grand-nothing absolutely, and so it seems that he consequently thought himself into nonbeing.
He who loves himself becomes great in himself. He who loves others becomes great through his devotion. He who loves god becomes greater than all. Every call from god is always addressed to 1 single individual. Therefore, de 1 who is called Must stand alone, Walk alone, Sit alone, Sleep alone- Alone with god. God is in us- De author of our dream. Our job is to dream big And not worry about how things might happen. Faith does not come from miracles because miracles are the result of having faith. De knight of faith is a dancer with high elevation. 5555+ feet beyond man and time I live and grow against das world And harvest what they cannot take from me with sword and fire.
whats your thoughts on nausea by sartre? is it worth a read? and how does it compare to the myth of sisyphus and genealogy of morals in terms of accessibility?
It is the most accesible of the three, quite tied to the absurdity of the Myth of Sisyphus, although it is a novel. Perhaps more tied to Camus' novels, the character is somewhat akin to Dostoevsky's Underground Man. I hear No Exit by Sartre is a good read as well, although I haven't read it yet.
Good video! One correction: Kierkegaard’s father was not a minister. He was a wealthy merchant and businessman. Nietzsche’s father was a Lutheran pastor; it was Nietzsche who would’ve followed his father’s footsteps as a clergyman, not Kierkegaard.
very good video. I started to read either/or a year ago and I really liked the aphoristic firt part. then, when the section about the asthetic way of life seemed to be naught but a lengthy review of Mozarts Don Juan, which I haven't really listened to, I put the book aside, eventhough I get where he's going with it. After I finished through my lecture of Foucault and Bataille, I'll give it another try for sure. A video on Bataille or Cioran would be great!
Both are described as "large." In fact, both have never had to work for the rent. Both were relieved of existential worries. Kiergegaard had an inheritance and never had to go to work!!! And of all things such a from acquisition - detached person founds the existential philosophy. Perhaps exactly therefore, because he did not know the naked survival on the job. Perhaps just because he did not know what love is and hard work to be able to pay all bills at the end of the month!
The way I see this video is of the question "Can man save themself from the abyss or must they obey their weak mental crutch (a belief in God) ?" Would this be correct in a general sense?
While I enjoy your videos, your statement near the end of this one regarding the expansion of the "domain of science" implied that science is approaching, or even capable of, defining morality or giving life meaning. This is pure ignorance. Meaning and morality are forever outside the domain of science. Those who believe this are in denial of their own irrationality, and pretend self-deceptively, to live by scientific morality. As I said, this pure ignorance. BELIEF IS REQUIRED OF ALL WHO LIVE
nietzsche wasn't a humanist, his beyond good and evil philosophy is anti humanist as it goes beyond value judgements and into the psychological sphere, so i dont think you can label him as anthropocentric.
