Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals 

@Kleiner He's probably right-handed, and you're actually watching him write with is right hand.

6:45 his Boston slipped out

It's a disgrace actually. Read the text yourself and you'll understand how dumb he sounds and how Nietzsche would absolutely HATE him.

Hello there. What did Nietzsche regard as greatness? What kind of actions? What kind of achievements?

@@matthewphilip1977 Thank you. Nietzsche would have a much bigger following today if the alt-right learned to read.

I couldn’t agree more. What Nietzsche again and again condemns is the exceptional mediocrity of modernity, he urges to overcome ourselves and to live in such a way so that we bring forth something greater than ourselves. Reading Nietzsche is like an antidote to a wasted existence!

I would also prudently point out that Nietzsche never extols a hatred for physical weakness. He never folded into rants about some diseased untermensch, but he hates the letzermensch: a completely mediocre, slave minded vassal of the forces around him with no dreams or aspirations. He certainly harbors a hatred for weakness, but it is a weakness of 'soul', where 'weak' is existing merely as an object being affected, rather than generating an effect on its surroundings.

@@wyattw9727 It is the problem of the souless people, no critical thinking, no wisdom, no aspirations, no potential at all! every single one of us has the potential to be a creator, a revolutionary, a great artist or leader, that's who we really are. Naturally Powerful but easily satisfied unfortunately. That's pur only flaw.

@@rproductions7346 As Nietzsche would say one has to sometimes wage on his wretched contentment to move forward in life.

I’m so glad you said how is difficult to read I’m reading about this in my moral issues class and I’m getting very discouraged cause I don’t understand… it’s so hard the wording it’s been so long since I’ve been in school and reading this comment makes me feel better maybe I’m thinking to much into it and not looking beneath the words thank you

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!

@@profjeffreykaplan I agree 💯

I agree! And I’m a weirdo who uses the concept “Creatures of Resentment” on a fairly regular basis.

Professor Sugrue, Will Durant, Carl Jung, Walter Kauffman

There's nothing particularly deep and penetrating about recognizing the generally divergent interests of the powerful and the powerless. Nietzsche's genius was more along the lines of branding, of creating a narrative to demean and dismiss the 'slave morality' while appealing to and placating the desires of the powerful. Unsurprisingly he's been quite influential precisely because his work appeals to many influential people (whether or not they openly acknowledge it). But what Nietzsche doesn't acknowledge as explained here or other summaries I've read, is that while there is some element of self-interest (of the powerless) in the rise and acceptance of 'slave morality,' it's also the case that democracy, fairness etc. are MORE OBJECTIVE principles than those of the 'master morality.' Nietzsche portrays these two broad categories as merely different and competing systems of self-interest, and it's true that master morality might be summarized in terms of doing what's best for the powerful, but by contrast 'slave morality' can be summarized as balancing and doing what's best for EVERYONE. Subjectivity involves that which depends on a single perspective, such as simple self-interest; developing a more objective moral system would require consideration of a broader array of perspectives. While in some times and places the development and acceptance of 'slave morality'-style systems may have been motivated in part by self-interest among the weak and powerless, ultimately in consequence what it represents is a more objective moral system. Championing the merits of the more arbitrary, more subjective approach to moral thinking doesn't have quite the same philosophical appeal or rhetorical flourish as Nietzche's narrative framing would have us believe. His thinking has certainly been influential, and in some ways can be helpful for framing ideas and observing how the world works, but ultimately as actual philosophy what it amounts to is decorative window-dressing for those who think themselves better than the rest.

​@@mithrae4525 Isn't also just sort of dumb? I like this professor. However his use of Aristotle is misplaced. Aristotle didn't talk about mercy, therefore mercy must not have been a value in the Classical world. Did anyone check on Roman law. Or perhaps this: ‘Remember, Roman, it is for you to rule the nations with your power, (that will be your skill) to crown peace with law, to spare the conquered, and subdue the proud’. (Aeneid 6.851-3)

@@sbnwnc Mercy is "compassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm." - didn't Marcus Aurelius write extensively on the importance of showing kindness, gentleness, and forgiveness towards even those who slight you? Generally speaking, one could perhaps say Roman culture was more permissive of aggression and expansion, but I believe most classical philosophers spoke on mercy without using the word - they still described it. The whole notion of apatheia and virtue ethics is about balance and restraint - necessarily they would at least consider the efficacy of doing less than was has the ability to do. I've heard it argued they cared more for justice than for mercy, as if those were at odds with each other - but I don't think they are. I don't have the immediate ciation at the moment, but I believe Aristotle argued in favor of lesser punishments on more than one occasion, demonstrating that 'mercy' under any other name was ultimately more just, wise, and balanced than maximum punishment.

@@darkmoon_dawg I didn't know all that, so thanks for posting. It goes far to prove that Nietzsche failed to check his ideas against the facts of history.

@@sbnwnc I was unfamiliar with your quote from the Aeneid, so you make me want to go back and re-read it :) thanks to you as well

Would love more videos bout Nietzsche btw!

I strongly suspect that Nietzsche took a lot from de La Rochefoucauld, who lived about 250 years before him. He left behind quite interesting memoirs and a collection of aphorisms which he named "Maxims". One of them goes like this: "No one deserves to be praised for kindness if he does not have the strength to be bad; every other form of kindness is most often merely laziness or lack of willpower."

This passage reminds me another great quote: "I don't train to fight, but rather to protect those I love."

Then how he praised Napoleon? Where was Napoleon's restraint?

The hidden word in the title that is revealed to us is that Nietzsche thinks *our* morality is for losers, since the claim is we have adopted it and are blind to the origins of where it came. According to this video at least, I haven't actually read Nietzsche's works.

​@@ayrnovem9028 he is influenced by him, read human alltoo human

I am pessimistic about deriving morals from nature; it doesn't seem to care about us at all

@@KompakterOperator Yes. And I don't think Nietzsche would disagree. But the thrust of the original post seems to me on target. Beyond Good and Evil was, after all, subtitled "Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future," not "Return to a Philosophy of the Past." He had broken through the impasse he had outlined in his Untimely Meditation "On the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life."

​@@KompakterOperatorI'm with you but allow me to put it a little differently. A phrase I hope you're all familiar with; you cannot get an ought from an is. With the advanancement of human knowledge we certainly have a deeper understanding of the world. But placing that knowledge as the base of a moral system simply can't be done. Evolution, biology, ect exists. Obviously. But that doesnt mean they are good or evil, only that they are. Until you have some "ought" as an assumption none of these empirical facts can mean anything to morality, and once you do that is the base of your new morality, not the science or knowledge being pointed at.

Throughout the European Middle Ages the Aristocratic power was generally balanced out by the power of the Church, each side generally held the other's excesses of power in check. As the enlightenment advanced the power of the Aristocracy waned & then the power of the triumphant values of The Church were gradually replaced by the power of the atheistic masses who worshipped a lowly bastardised set of values they inherited from The Church. This is why as a man of European heritage I'm a hardline Christian Traditionalist. The European Middle Ages were a great time of strength, faith & chivalry.

@@moonblaze2713 lemme guess ur an atheist

Indeed, to speak honestly and directly without hate or disdain is of the powerful. The weak cannot conceive of such things.

Bro. You think he writes all o that backwards? The video is probably mirrored.

@@hammadhussain3082 Yes, hes writing with the left hand

​@jackfrosterton4135 No he's not. Check the wedding ring. He has explained how it works before, essentially the footage of him and the whiteboard are flipped separately then layered. This creates the illusion of writing backwards.

You might like General Semantics, a forceful cult that doesn't put poisonous snakes into opponent^s mailboxes

No such thing as "implicit contradiction". In logic there is either contradiction or not. You are making false implication here, were there is non. Aristotle's methaphysical definition of a human got nothing to do with morality. Aristotle himself would say that good is whoever excels in their function. i.e. a solder who is good at killing enemies is good. Body that is strong and healthy is good. And aggression is a god think in a man. You just don't like the birds of prey, because you are such a lamb.

@@sodalitia Yeah, "implicit contradiction" seems a little Hegelian, doesn't it. I think it's worth remembering that the Übermensch is an anomaly, almost a freak occurrence. The path of history is toward the Last Man, and that is not a good thing. It's also worth remembering that the simple, incessant "Yes" is the braying of Zarathustra's donkey. The struggle against the Last Man requires an ability to say "No." The "Yes" to the positive, the strong, the healthy, contains within itself a "No" to the negative, the weak, and the sickly. There is a shadow side to the "Yes."

@@sodalitia An implicit contradiction is one where the statement made does not explicitly contradict something, but does logically imply something that does.

It is indeed in the nature of the powerful to do as they will, and it is in the nature of the powerless to have done to them. They are not of the same kind, and the difference between them is greater than that between an amoeba and God.

does he really write backwards? or does he just flip the video?

Can you give me an example of a great insight of his?

Not in any appropriate way, if you are interested you might like to read up on his writings dealing with what he calls "the eternal recurrence". happy hunting.@@matthewphilip1977

And don't let your schooling get in the way of your education!

What's right is to be aggressive, vigorous, and dominant, and to acquire all those things which catch one's fancy.

@@mrosskne you sound like Callicles

I had no idea that Nietzsche was such a sensible chap. if he really said don't touch all that morality mumbo jumbo with a barge pole, good for him; all that good/evil, right/wrong morality/ethics monkey business is in reality religion, and no sooner do men (human beings become infected with religion(also sometimes called politics)than they lose what tiny possibility the might have to develop impartial reason, and that is because all the religion/morality mumbo jumbo has its roots in the emotional)like/dislike) function which either drowns out or crowds out the other functions- it's all about likes and dislikes which are relative subjective, and temporary and turns men into loose canons because the mind is helpless or powerless compared to the emotions. The real danger of morality/religion is that it variably leads to the disease I-am-right which also invariably leads to the infected being seeking to impose his religion/morality on others whether they want it or not and that way lies bullying or fascism.

It was a disaster because Nietzche was a disaster!

@@artlessons1 That's rich coming from someone that never read a word ofNietzche, which you have not, have you? You need to give reasons for that asinine remark, no man in himself can be a dister so saying"Nietzche was a disaster is the sort of thing some pignorant halfwit would sayalmost certainly fom a halfwitthat pronounces his namne neechee which is how all savages(Americans) pronounce it. You never read all of any book by Nietzche did you?

And that those views seem to be on the rise again now that the working class is losing power

Thanks! There will be a few dozen more videos, comprising an Intro to Philosophy course and a Philosophy of Law course, coming in the fall.

Thanks, that's very kind of you to say!

@@profjeffreykaplan I was just about to watch your video again when I got your thanks. There are good teachers, there are bad teachers and there are inspired thinkers. I'll need to watch a couple of more videos to say you're inspired, however, I've likely watched 7-20(!) on this good and bad, good and evil concept of Nietzsche's and yours is the only one in which I could acceptably explain the difference and the "difference that makes a difference." Thank you 🙏🏽

Have to agree with you on the moustache front. as for his ideas. Did he merely assert them, or did he back them up with something?

@@matthewphilip1977 He does back it up with logic. His works all have very good internal consistency. Besides, almost all of philosophy is just well-argued assertions.

@@nguyenhongquang6397 Thanks, nguyen. Can you give an example of one of his more famous assertions, and the logic he used to back it up? I find his idea of herd morality/masters and slaves etc, interesting, but it seemed to me mere speculation on what made people tick back when Christianity was forming.

@@matthewphilip1977 You can read Twilight of the Idols to see what he has to say. The book was written by Nietzsche himself as a primer to his philosophy. Agreeing with him or not, you may find something interesting along the way.

Oh, thank you. I was wondering if anyone else was as revolted by his writings as I am now feeling. It's not just the moral revulsion, though I will admit to that, but also an intellectual revulsion at Nietzsche's ignorant rewriting of history. The worst part may be the stunning arrogance dripping from Nietzsche's words, as if he cannot imagine any intelligent person disagreeing with him. He seems the sort to judge any who refute him as small minded fools without even bothering to answer their points.

or his skills to flip the recording in his editing software

Thanks! Unfortunately, I am not talented enough to write backward. Here is a video I just made explaining how the board works.

Mirrored playback

Truly we live in a society

If you think Genealogy was hard try Beyond Good and Evil lol

Uberboyo has a lot of Neitzsche videos.

He did not wear that mustache when he was lucid. The photos of him w the walrus mustache were done by his sister, after he went mad.

Are You love to arguing or agreeing with Nietzsche ?

@@laz5590 I'm curious as to why The Gay Science was of particular interest. In Ecce Homo, Our Pal Nietzsche criticized the aphoristic books for placing too much confidence in science. Perhaps they tempt the unwary reader toward scientism. But I don't know whether he would say the same about Book V of The Gay Science, which was written in 1886 after Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil. But I will venture an opinion that On the Genealogy of Morals is exactly the WRONG place to start with Nietzsche. After all, it was subtitled "A Polemic," and it suffers from all the weaknesses of a polemic. OPN himself said that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was his great gift to the world, but I don't think that's the place to start either. My choice(s) are Beyond Good and Evil and Twilight of the Idols. In each of those books he covers a wide array of topics, so they give a cooler, clearer account of his matured philosophy. Since his Untimely Meditation "Schopenhauer as Educator" takes the philosopher's life as the sure guide to his thought, a case could be made that the practical working out of OPN's philosophy is Ecce Homo. But there are a couple of drawbacks. First, about half the book is a retraction (in the Augustinian sense) of his earlier published works, which the readers can only appreciate fully if they some prior knowledge of those works. And second, it's stylistically overblown to the extent that a newcomer might think Nietzsche was self-aggrandizing. To my mind, he was self-aware enough to understand his proper place--an untimely one. "Some men are born posthumously."

@@construct3 it wasn't an answer to my question !

@@laz5590 No, it wasn't an answer to your question. I don't pretend to speak for the original commenter. Instead I asked a more pointed and particular question of the original commenter I think, and I offered some alternatives. I thought you might have a passing interest, so I went back and added a tag for you. What do you think of my suggestions?

@construct3 Yes , i have a "passing interest," but not on Your level ! Maybe 20 years from now , till then ...

Thanks!

Generosity is the idea of an abundant and overflowing nature. It's a giving force by the sheer fact of yourself. To more explain in more understandable a manner, it's charity without pity: rather than "You are in a bad spot, so I help you" it is "You are around me so I benefit you" Does this make sense?

@@voxsvoxs4261 EXCELLENT explanation!

Strength in numbers, the power of the herd.

“Human history would be nothing but a record of stupidity save for the cunning contributions of the weak”

​@@roygbiv176 was about to say that. In so many countries we've seen the people walk into the government house and overthrow their rulers by themselves.

The flaw of the physically powerful is that they do not have to be clever or resort to cunning. Add to this the fact that hereditary aristocratic societies tend to ossify and stagnate, as the heirs become weak through the luxury that their forbears obtained for them.

I caught that as well. Nietzsche writes beautifully,, but reviewing Nietzsce outside of context and implications is a dangerous exercise.

He is kind of right about the Jewish conspiracy, though; in this specific context. Early Christianity was for the most part a very political anti-Roman underground movement as well, conspiring against the Roman Empire.

@@uzefulvideos3440 But Nietzsche's argument is about a 2000 year long conspiracy in which the same people who crucified Christ could supposedly foresee that his cult would become a dominant world religion. This is simply daft.

​@@peterbreughel4440 they didnt forsee it coming they made it come and they used it for that purpose

@@teoteo3522 Even more absurd than I thought.

Nietzsche would agree, I think, at least that it is a baser part of our nature that we should not permit to be the dominant philosophy...

FWIW Nietzsche probably would hate the word pity there, I meant show kindness more than actual pity