The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe - Ethics eBook, available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe4 For an overview and introduction to Philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe Anthology paperback set, available worldwide on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
he inspires the inner cave man,the Id,the unrestrained spontaneous uninhibited person that as history teaches,will cause changes for the worse.Its been done many times,usually criminals take his advice. We instead should learn from the true wise people in history who have experienced what is right and wrong and are teaching us that wisdom and save us from making mistakes.
I think that the two best things about this channel are: - The style of explanation (a dialogue). -The last two minutes of each video. Even if I hae consumed philosiphy for years you always give an interesting insight on popular topics.
His argument was essentially "people in positions of power demonstrate the values of slave morality" A counterargument is that these people are actually masters, they have just realized that the slaves will try to overthrow them and kill them if they become aware that those in power are masters, hence they pretend, they disguise themselves as slaves out of self-preservation
@@rexthompson5909 Perhaps the argument was that the best way to view morality is as a blend of both sides, and the most virtuous of us exhibit the positive traits of both and tend to reject the negative traits of both. The interpretation you are advancing sounds rather cynical to me and doesn't sound much like master morality as I understand it.
Numerous errors: the most important are: 1. Master morality is not defined by what benefits the master, but by the characteristics of the master - truth, bravery, activity, self-reliance; 2. Will to power is the drive to be the person you are, not a desire to dominate others; 3. The idea of a mixture of characteristics shows a fundamental misunderstanding. One cannot be both liberated and motivated by ressentiment. There is no middle ground between the übermensch and the last man. Like satori, one is either enlightened or not.
You've said something because you wanted just to say something... First listen carefully, second don't paraphrase what was mentioned. What mentioned: Objective Moral Truth. This is different from gnosis and general truth, my friend.
Isn't saying the highest virtue "walking in between the two" an appeal to moderation fallacy? Certainly it can be argued that Nietzsche saw things as black or white, but that doesn't necessarily mean gray is the highest moral position or even a good/non-self contradictory position.
I personally believe there is no such thing as virtue, life is nature therefore death and violence is actually a normal part of life. I think maybe in the west we have it too good for too long
Hi guys, I really like your videos, every one of them. Nice criticism you made here of Nietzsche's morality, and I can see what you mean. I just red "Beyond good and evil" and it is true, describing the world as he sees it, he does it a lot in this kind of dualism, strong or weak, master or slave. And throughout the book he really pushes the reader to be willing to become a master, to revolt against slave morality. But talking precisely about real existing/existed morality he writes that there are two FUNDAMENTAL moralities, master and slave morality, but that "in every superior or hybrid society it's clear that it has been tried to mediate between these two moralities, and most of the time, to mix one into the other (...) - even in the same man, even in the same soul" . So he knew that standing between the two was possible, he's only trying to describe morality HISTORICALLY, I suppose - and what for him is the best attitude is the most NATURAL one (everybody was looking for the essence back then), the one that a wild human beast would follow - will to power, so master morality. Since I think you guys are cool and I like your videos I thought to share what I red. Keep uploading!! xx
I think it's a stepping stone but there's an inherent cyclical nature to this paradigm that doesn't get addressed. We've seen the revolts and know what he says to be true, but more often than not "slave morality" seems to be something methodically imposed onto a population through entities like the Catholic Church. If we could completely step out of this cycle and pretend we're more mind than matter, what would morality look like? Absolute wisdom. The only goal worth while is getting off this rock before it gets sterilized by the sun. Money, Power, Resources, Status, are all ego driven goals, petty things to be jealous over and even more petty things to strive for. There is no god, that means our survival is up to us.
In fact Nietzsche did come to a revelation that the ideal is in between both moralities of men, calling them the Ubermensch, free spirits that would have their own moral virtues and would think independently of either slave and master moralities.
@@xianseah4847 in his book beyond good and evil, he pointed out that at a certain time although not evident that it is synchrony. Both master and slave morality can occupy a single soul. So there's actually more grey area than black and white.
Perhaps Nietzsche would counter the sore throat guy by asserting that the masters occasionally indulge in displaying 'slave morality' not out of compassion or a sense of duty, but only to placate the weak and poor to avert the possibility of a revolt and thus reinforcing and perpetuating their privilege.
Yes Asad Khan In many cases people don't like to hear the truth . Insteam of me saying : -I am succesful because my work and ambition with my sole skill and vision i achived my goal . Is better for me to say : -I achived that goal just because i am lucky . The herd loves to hear that a man has no control over his destiny , and that god or some cockie monster decides their success or failure.
That’s quite the superficial juxtaposition. Why divide the two? Why even have the two when in reality it’s conflicting shades within the same soul. Nietzsche himself recognised that - see Beyond Good and Evil, 260.
What this video gets wrong is characterizing actions as either acknowledging and furthering the will to power or not when Nietzsche believes all actions are a will to power even if some are less straightforward or obvious. The slave themselves want what the master has so by making the master feel guilt or shame the slave is exercising their power on the master.
I don’t think Nietzsche ever said it was black or white, yes a rich person can be a Christian but what you never seem to take into account is that Nietzsche doesn’t believe in freewill, so if a rich person was descended from slaves he has probably had their morals passed down to him generationally it’s not necessarily going to be something the rich person has the power to change. The way I interpret Nietzsche is he wants us to go through challenges and adventures which change us with the belief that the more experiences you go through the more adaptable you become to the world around you. The will to power is not only about obtaining power, it is also about using power or making expressions of power, when a artist paints a fantastic painting that is an expression of power, the artist is showing off how skilled they are, when a rich person sleeps with multiple people that is a expression of power because they are showing that they are able to act in a way that most cannot. Nietzsche did talk about how the masters showed pity towards people, he actually believed pity was acceptable in these cases because the elite where using pity as a expression of power. Another big problem is that a master and a rich person are not necessarily the same to Nietzsche, being good with money being able to manipulate money is not something Nietzsche would see as a master trait. That is more closer to Ayn Rands belief, Nietzsche was not in favour of capitalism.
Great stuff as always, you guys are a massive help especially when I am too lazy to do the reading and need a quick explanation for an essay. One question: Is the master on the right hand side meant to be Pep guardiola or is it just an accidental doppelganger?
The will to power is using morality for the greatest possible good for both the individual and the world at large. Paradoxically it becomes black and white in application by default of being the will to power.Relatively it is not black and white but simply the application of energy and power to acquire more power. So yes it is a combination of virtue, vice,positive and negative values with specific results in mind.
I must say I do not agree with the black/white criticism. I do not feel Nietzsche is looking at it in a simplistic manner. Day and night are moving into one another gradually, causing countless states of 'gray' but at the same time they are still 2 distinct entities. Likewise, although every relationship has a different measurement/dynamic in terms of authority, one is always master to a slave or slave to a master, in any relationship. If you put 2 entities together one will be stronger than the other. You mentioned that some Christians may be less prone to slave morality and some non-Christians maybe prone to slave morality. Nietzsche is not disputing this. Nietzsche is not talking about labels but about mental dynamics. Christian ethics as expounded by St Paul are per-say slave ethics. I can have master ethics and call myself a Christian, but in that case I am not imbued with St-Paul ethics, but with some other brand of Christian - or other - ethics. Although I still need to meet the first citizen of a culture that adheres or used to adhere to a monotheist religion or was dominated by it through colonization, who does not unconsciously lives according some form of slave ethics. Nietzsche uses simple, coarse, terms to describe a very subtle reality. I also have to add that in essence all of us adhere to master ethics, by birth. Slave ethics is a dis-formed,, unconscious, concealed version of the natural ethics of mankind which is just the same driven by the will to power, but inefficient, unsuccessful and creating mental suffering and impotency and actually enabling a few masters to manipulate and subdue everybody else.
I think you slightly misunderstood him, he actually agreed with what you say at the end, here is a video explaining the misunderstanding of Nietzsche: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ti9zdpLlXf0.html otherwise great video keep up the good work.
I have similar ideas as neitzche, but I agree his way of thinking is black and white. There is something to say about caring about others. Unfortunately, having compassion and empathy is useless with out the power to act upon it. Compassion gives purpose to power and power gives capability to compassion.
Hi guys, My compliments on the video. However, I don't think Nietzsche's theory about slave morality is that simple. Nietzsche wasn't saying that who's rich is master morality and who's poor is slave morality, but it is more about collective conditioning. You spoke about black and white, and, yes, Nietzsche likes to be strong in his opinion and creates contrasts. But who's rich can still be a slave and who lives humble a master. Let's see why. Let's take as an example a wealthy man that considers himself a Christian, as you said. That man can be either a master or a slave, it depends on how he sees the world. It depends on how he faces life, on if he takes risks and questions all the morals, including Christianity. Maybe that man didn't get rich challenging himself every day, thinks he's Christian, but in the act, he's selfish, or doesn't want to think much about it and just joined a collective thought. Most of the time people lie to themselves first. Sometimes they feel obliged by practicing, as you said, celibacy. I don't think in the first instance practicing celibacy because of a God is master morality, it wouldn't be even considered at that point. But practicing celibacy to challenge your capacities maybe could be considered like that. Nietzsche preached the hymn to life and urged young people not to follow without wondering and create rather than follow. A man with enough food and shelter, who chooses to live a life that is less conditioned by money, can still be a master. If he challenges himself, feels healthy and strong, meditates, knows himself inside out, he can still be a master. Is more about fulfilling your maximum potential than becoming rich. Then he was talking about charity to the homeless as pity, and a situation in which both parties are ashamed for the situation of the poor begging for money. He wasn't though against helping people, but making it actively, maybe increasing your will of power, which means challenging your capacities and time helping a person, which makes you learn something and makes you stronger. Thank you.
you are saying forgiveness isnt strenght? i mean real forgiveness where the ones who tried to hurt you and make you vengeful ultimately have no effect and you still carry on? i think its strenght, the need to get revenge ultimately takes away your power
Ure amazing thank you. I want to ask ..what ABT those in the middle..like religious ppl in power...those who seem seperated from the masters and seem close to the herd...they own the power of masters but they also are envy proof from the herd...do they take same stand of political oppressive power or are they seen in a different light...since they are seen virtuous while they actually exercise their power and enjoy riches in the dark but still get to keep status quo especially in thrild world countries for example..did nirtzche include those in the masters?
The master and slave morality have a different interpretation of the word better. A person can be strong, powerful well off (master morality good) and still assert the slave interpretation of better, and while they can achieve status and well being in society promoting these values, they are, when the big picture is considered, on a path to nowhere. A person can be both ambitious and humble? Of course, but they can't both be prideful and humble. That would be hypocrisy, and when they try to assert themselves as good, of the first rank, not of the popular moral good, they will get cut down. They are only allowed to further the vindictive poison of the herd which lowers the entire group. Trying to bring up everyone and yourself is really exactly what Nietzsche's writings are trying to achieve. A lot of red herrings and mental gymnastics are going on in the last part. Kind of missing a key point of the philosophy, the fact this is the exact danger of the slave morality, is only when it corrupts strong individuals and stops humanity from reaching its full potential. His philosophy is dedicated toward the strong and optimistic in shedding the values that are of no use, humility, Christian values, giving to the downtrodden because they are downtrodden (not the same as giving to a downtrodden person because you believe you can better their situation and see good in them, that the master morality would see in themselves. The giving is not driven by sympathy with failure.) The fact that a philosopher who has such deep insights into ourselves and our psychology, the correct origin of our moral values, the ones that have been for the most part unquestioningly digested by great masses of people for millenniums and then gets called a black and white thinker is the exact reason many of us can't hold up your definition of good and feel any sense of justice.
Just a quick comment on those that are in positions of power but demonstrate slavish virtues. N addresses these people in the first treatise of the genealogy of morality - they are nobles with a higher sense of purity - the priests who founded Christianity. N believes that all of our actions are at least partly egoistic. Hence, powerful people doing 'virtuous' deeds are doing so with partly selfish intentions based on a misconception of morality.
I am not so sure that Ubermensch needs a fancy car or to show it off. I know plenty herd who are running to get the latest model car. Many of the best are not interested in great wealth {although they may posses it: Henry Cavendish}. It is beneath them
You cut off the video at a very wrong time!!! I want the counter argument of the last presented argument!!! Pls!! Make a video on that and send it to me!!!! Or atleast dm. Do whatever but I want the answer to it!
Slave is bondage to ones own sins and you serve them in weakness. Well Master is following the one that created you with courage Strength Character Morals So it depends on how you look at it.
The criticism at the end is wrong. Nietzsche said there were more than two groups (masters, slaves, creatives and the enlightened) so it's not a binary view.
The problem is that christianism is not about being weak, you're only good if you have the option to be bad and decide not to do so when it's not necessary. Christ could have been the emperor of the world if he would have wanted so, if you are powerful is easier to be a tyrant, if you are powerful it's hard to continue being powerful without being a tyrant. You cannot say that Christianism is based on the idea of weakness (even when some people want to see morality in their weakness) because Christianism is full of stoic ideas, few people can be stronger than a stoic.
I am not sure that the purple joker guy is serious or just messing aroun... Because duality is everywhere around . To me what the joker guy says sounds like a lazy argument...
Neitzsche no doubt had a intelligent mind but did nt practise the master theory himself. he died insane poor and a part if the heard. though i admire his psychological observations alot of what he said can not fit in with how we see morality.
I have never been so digested at watching this video, that agreeing thing in the background mademe want to shout. And the final argument against Nietzsche morality, made me throw up. Firstly anything can be black and white take negative and positive number, differ by magnitudes. Secondly all moralities start as a master morality(for the master have the confidence to begin one, to posit new values as Nietzsche calls it).And then as a result, master morality becomes slave morality, there is no in between, only the strength one believes in a morality
I have never been so disgusted at watching this video, that agreeing thing in the background made me want to shout. And the final argument against Nietzsche morality, made me throw up. Firstly anything can be black and white take negative and positive numbers, differ instead by magnitudes. Secondly all moralities start as a master morality(for the master have the confidence to begin one, to posit new values as Nietzsche calls it).And then as a result, master morality becomes slave morality, there is no in between, only the strength one believes in a morality. And to even have the audacity to say such a petty argument against one of the most influential philosophers of all time, is disgusting to be on a philosophical chanel. How dare you already misinterpret a already misinterpreted man.
