This video is a bit later than usual, but we hope you enjoy it. An exploration of the young Nietzsche, the intellectual polar opposite of the late Nietzsche... If you found this video enjoyable, please like and subscribe or leave a comment. It really helps out with the RU-vid algorithm and such. Thank you!
Interesting - Nietzsche's uberman is united with the schopenhauer's man in service truth in Ghandi & Swami Vivekananda!? Is there any uberman who has been holder of the sword of Truth that you can think of? May be General Washington or General Ulesys Grant? Interesting thought experiment to find union of uberman & servant of truth
There is a bit of new and fresh perspective on Nietzsche today. Particularly 3+1 personified versions gave me new level of thought process. A BIG Thank you!!!
Internet is the greatest invention of all time, I am from a little village in Colombia and I am learning english through your videos, they really motivate me, learn about the point of views of the greatest minds of all time in this way actually is contemplate the universe and as per aristotle it is happines, great lesson and work bro. Thank you
That is fantastic! So much information out there for people that enjoy learning. Used to people would listen to short wave radio to get information from various sources.
Another excellent video! I especially appreciate how the "message" of this video hides under the surface and surprises us at the end! If Nietzsche, an expert in profound thinking, could change his mind so dramatically in the course of one lifetime, then what ideas do I believe today that I shall totally abandon by my life's end? The only certainty we have is that we should never be too sure of ourselves, not even so sure as to "trust" ourselves... Love it!
It would be nice to explore the various different avenues and perspectives , philosophies and cultures however when your applying it to your own philosophy like Nietzsche maybe it was a step too far , an over stretch perhaps , even Nietzsche in all his wisdom at the time was a loner and a unacknowlrdged philosopher and key thinker until he became became deranged and ‘mad’ himself and then died it wasn’t then until he became noticed
This is an extraordinary ,well explained , piece of art , you transform philosphy in something more appealing , and that is what we need in the age of constant stimuli. Only if we could replace all the crap from the social media with these kind of videos. One man can only dream about this.
Awesome video. I learned a lot. I had to go to public school long time ago, so uh... yeah. Now in my 50's. After watching this video, I can say I'm going thru a bit of a Goethe phase lol. Teaching myself all the cool stuff I missed out on. Thanks to videos creators like you! Cheers!
Thank you so much for all the work you do in these videos! I love both Schopenhauer and Nietzsche; I feel like I can never read enough of these two giants of Thought. I appreciate Nietzsche's urging people to focus on their physical bodies and this physical earth and to stop letting their hopes, fears, and beliefs about die Hinterwelten (Heavens, Utopias, Paradises, Life after Death, political systems with all their grandiose but empty promises) from obstructing their ability to become their own scales, weighers and measurers. (Perhaps if we heeded his urging, we would not only take better care of our physical health, but also the health of the planet and thus reduce its ever increasing climate change.) Per Nietzsche, man does not need redemption, salvation, nor a savior. Man simply needs to embrace amor fati--the good and the bad, the ugly and the pretty, the ups and the downs. Yet, I don't believe Nietzsche was able to fully escape the gravitational pull of die Hinterwelt. I have always found his concept "der Ubermensch" to be quite dubious and somewhat "other worldly". Why must one need an Ubermensch if one is to simply embrace amor fati? Why must one need an Ubermensch if one should focus on their bodies, this earth, and constructing their own tables of values? Or, am I reading too much into his Ubermensch? Again, thank you so much for all you do! I always look forward to your well-made videos!
Thank you. I wasn’t aware of young Nietzsche’s love of Schopenhauer. The Gay Science is the earliest work of his I’ve read. I’m deep into Emerson at the moment and I just recently discovered the great influence he had on Nietzsche.
Anyone else find a odd irony at gazing into the void of a digital screen with a video on Niche playing? Almost makes me feel like the Video is gazing back.
@Foster Twelvetrees I'll probably go for Schopenhauer if there were such a poll just because I find Schopenhauer's writing style more digestible for me, someone who has little formal training in philosophy. On the other hand, Nietzsche, for me, is the personification against complacency, which I respect greatly.
People in the world can be categorized in many ways and one of the ways it's done is based on how they view the world around them and whether or not they believe it should be different. Lots of people are content with the way the world is but some people aren't and those that want to change the way the world operates typically tend to experience a lot of struggles and hardships in life because they are antagonized and seen as people who want to disrupt the status quo. Great video btw, looking forward to the Ubermensch video :)
I've read a fair bit of Nietzche and he profoundly influenced me in my youth, but I can't help but wonder if his often desperately unhappy life might have benefited from the practice of meditation. His early hero (cantankerous though he may have been) incorporated the teachings of the vedas into his philosophy, being one of the first prominent figures to translate them in to German (as far as I can remember). Imagine if they both took some phychadelics? I jest...but still, interesting thought.
Of all the knowledge and intelligence that Nietzsche had, the thing i envy him the most are those badass moustache, you could say he had some superhuman genetics.
@yumpladukfoo you mean these are the quality's you wish to act out. We are not "meant" to be anything specific that we the point of variation. It can be said what we should no be but not what we should be
Great video. It is kinda funny Nietzsche eventually not only abandoned his two biggest influences, but goes on to attacks both of them. Schopenhauer and Wagner.
PLEASE DONT STOP MAKING VIDEOS.....Mass media has the tendency to force self annihilation of true talent, and I just dont want your channel to fizzle out into nothingness. Arthur Schopenhauer was heavily influenced by Bhagavad Gita and Nishkama Karma(work without thinking about the results) is a big component of its philosophy. Just keep making videos for their own sake. Watched all your videos and looking forward to more in the future :)
For some reason that I don't fully comprehend ---- something else I read or watched perhaps or something that I even clicked on by accident, and knowing full well that RU-vid and Google track me although I otherwise use a non trackable browser ---- I started getting notifications from this channel and also from the "Academy of Ideas" on my daily RU-vid feed. Something rubbed me the wrong way about the Academy of Ideas content however; seeing the constant parade of surreal, what some might call "degenerate" art (Bosch and similar) being used as a backdrop for almost all of the AOI presentations, devoid of context or any effort to explain the supposed relevancy,, i found myself prompted by one of your videos about allegorical versus literal interpretations and "truths', and subsequently spurred to try and find out who produces the Academy of Ideas and who funds them. This was not an easy thing to do and required several hours of searching and trying differently keyworded sentences , and skimming over or ignoring a whole host of website postings apparently meant to placate or reassure me: " move on folks, there's nothing to see here". The lack of transparency only furthered my theory that something was amiss. I finally found an article by DeSmog in the UK that clarified the origins and general funding stream of the group, which turned out to be even weirder than I expected. The Academy of ideas rose from the ashes of the British Revolutionary Communist party and it's magazine called "Living Marxism". They were sued and forced into the bankruptcy after publishing articles attempting to debunk the genocidal killings that occurred the Bosnian war, and some of these disillusioned Trotskyites somehow fell under the spell of or became co-opted by libertarian philosophy ---- and those who fund it. Managing editor Liv Reagan admitted to the journalist from DeSmog that they had gotten $300k in funding from the Koch foundation. The co-publisher of their libertarian-oriented magazine "Spiked", Claire Fox, AKA Claire Foster, actually ran for Parliament and won, on a pro-Brexit campaign. One frequent contributor has been heavily involved in pro-tobacco activism in the UK, fighting against health-warning labeling of cigarette packs!. Another contributor also writes for the libertarian magazine Reason magazine here in the States. The point I am making is that it would appear that they have an agenda which is diametrically opposed to the rigorous examination of ideas in pursuit of truth. I also came across an article by an art historian who examined and dissected an exhibition of, again, supposed ly degenerate art that was apparently hosted or promoted by the AOI. I would include more information, or some links if I was any good at the digital portion of this, but I already had a previous post from an hour ago vanish just after I posted it and then tried to edit it from clarity and fix a few grammatical errors. Anyway I am sure I have given enough to go on if anyone here wants to look into this further. I did notice one commenter below named Daniel Duvalle who also did eloquent battle with a commenter over one of the AOI presentations. I wish to say to this person, " dude, you rock!"
PS, a clarification: the artist I mentioned into my other post is Eduardo Ayres Soares; he wrote an article titled "Is Modern Art Degenerated?" for Medium (Jun 14th 2020) after watching a RU-vid video from the Academy of Ideas titled "Modern Art and the Decline of Civilization". Well worth reading; he doesn't just refute the AOI's assertions, he *deflates* them. Anyway, we've seen this sort of Romantic, "cultural purity" movement before, most notably some 90 years ago, in Germany; it did not end well. Oh, FWIW, I'm not even a college graduate, just a lifelong bookworm and asker of questions ---- some dumb, some naive, some hopefully resulting in a flash of insight......
A good prelude for a better understanding of his later philosophy even though I think he is projecting more himself at this time into the Schopenhauerian man. For example, "His courage...once used:" sounds as though he is really talking about himself. You're right though, thirty years old, quite astonishing.
Goethe , both in his breath of vision , his wide ranging interests and capabilities and his intellectual reach was heads and shoulders above the other two individuals , who no doubt were both endowed with a genius of sorts , but can , in no way , claim an equality of status , with the peerless Goethe .
Rousseau could also reach a wide range of subjects. If i make no mistake, besides philosophy and sociology, he also wrote about education, political economy and biology. Plus, he was a musician.
There's an unnamed fourth man, though named only once in Nietzsche's works, one who he wrote only dislike, but probably plagiarized or borrowed heavily from, Philipp Mainlander; the philosopher of the will to death; a philosopher we English speakers only know of because Nietzsche mentions him; a philosopher I look forward to reading when the scholarly translation is finalized.
@@theDanWshowPhilip Mainlander's two volume work "The Philosophy Of Redemption" as well as his collected poetry; here are some videos on him and his philosophy, below 👇. ru-vid.com/group/PL2fw8PSLtug-qIKNQKaK_yJXsbNVMlFlv
@@noheroespublishing1907 Thank you so much and thanks for your video content. I'm chasing down a thought and your videos have been helpful, especially in exploring concepts like will to power.
@@theDanWshow I didn't make the videos, just compiled them from the very few english speaking attempts at looking at poor translations of his work; I've been extremely interested in Mainlander ever since hearing about his views, which I find extremely romantically agreeable, and also the fact that I am a person who philosophically is most in agreement with the pessimists and nihilists, while simultaneously being very much on the Left of the political spectrum. Mainlander is viewed as quite the exception of the pessimist philosophers because he is both the mostly extreme pessimist, and Left Wing, which is viewed as odd because many of the pessimists are either reactionary or viewed as reactionary; Mainlander is an interesting outlier in this, which both fascinates me and confirms that it is indeed possible to be both of these things and that others also think similarly.
@@noheroespublishing1907 I hear you. It is like coming and going at the same time. I still see great significance to the struggle of all life. And I know that the same struggle for existence is being played out without emotion or pain by planets and stars. And so, I think, the thing that separates us is consciousness. Humans are no longer simple animals. We are bound to a body and the natural world but our will to power is shaping complex systems that may kill us or save us. Many predictions are made for the end of mankind, many of which are overcome by wisdom - if wisdom can react fast enough. Nevertheless the end will come and when it comes it may mean nothing - or maybe our small struggle means everything.
It is said that foucault was 22 or something when he first encountered this book and was reading an essay from this book, "The uses and abuses of history" which lead to his philosphical freedom , according to his partner.
8:30 YEEEAH!!!! Its beautiful and totally epitomize who he was, but it's also scary how our truth is exactly that, "ours", and we believe so intensily to bme real.
Guys i am really into Schopenhauer , i have watched many videos inculding the video in the channel about where to start reading shapenhauer , guys please anyone help me out what to read first , many of the videos say first you have to read plato and then Kundt to understand Shopenhauer . This has really got me confused . Please help a brother out . Thanks peeps .
long live the UBERMENSCH. I think the path of Nietzsche being a student of Schopenhauer, later on developing critique for Schopenhauer's philosophy is a very natural and was bound to happen. *At some point the student will surpass or be equal to he's master's level or journey off in he's own path for meaning* It is natural that the student often will not see eye to eye with he's master and that is the breaking point where the student will grow to become he's own man. Schopenhauer will always be an important and a key figure in Nietzsche's life. Here is my philosophy based on the path of mastery. *Isn't the path to become a master one which involves planting a seed which will one day surpass you in growth and fullness? for the seed that grows must be taller than it's planter so that it may produce seedlings that will be taller than itself. LONG LIVE THE UBERMENSCH
Kierkegaard was contemporary with Nietzsche but neither knew of each other and Kierkegaard wrote on Schopenhauer, I would of liked to have known what they made of other.
Because once he realized that the 'outer' world is illusory, [to the 'ordinary' mind], he took the next step, understanding that there is no reason to conflict with that illusion. At this point, the inner & outer illusion fall away & the nature of 'reality' crystallizes, which is beyond duality, beyond conception. A state in which ordinary minds cannot conceive & vehemently deny. This only is the distinction.
This goes to show how minuscule Nietzsche's awareness and perspective were, owing to how little of the world he knew outside of his navel and a handful of books.
He's a bit to Shoppy what Martin Luther was to religion. Both rejected ascetism, both rejected metaphysics. It was the individual with his Bible and reason. Do we know why he changed suddenly? maybe you could do a video on that.
But Amor Fati is simply a different, more sophisticated expression of the way of negation or renunciation. After all, how many people can be a Napoleon, he is an outlier, so they cannot, by definition. Amor fati gives the lie to such an idea.
“Zur Übermenschlichen” simply put; would be the next post-evolution of present day man. Not reachable or attainable by aspiration or adherents, however, not unlike Demigods knowable through abstraction by those antecedents who dare to image them
Thanks a lot for this video. It really is fascinating to hear about Nietzsche's early philosophy. I think hardly anybody reads Nietzsche nowadays, and those who do tend to only look at his later works. I think it is interesting to trace when his opinion of Schopenhauer changed. In a way, Nietzsche's sicknesses and isolation made him an unwilling ascetic, much like Schopenhauer's man, but then, he emerged with his Amor fati.
Indeed, what is the fate of one for whom illness and poor health are common? What is the fate of an asthmatic like me? I YEARN for good health! I ENVY good health! A healthy body has everything it needs! A healthy MIND has everything it needs! We should ALWAYS appreciate and seek out good health, and we should NEVER throw it away carelessly!
I love the irony of his views, how can a person go from embracing a such a blatant example of bad conciousness and the denial of the will with not a doubt in his heart to developing a philosophy that wholeheartedly accepts life in all it's multiplicity in less than a decade? I cannot help but think this is one the funniest jokes in his entire works! And as always, great work! This channel has not let my expectations down ever since It's beginning!
That has puzzled me also...for a long time. Yet, I just love the vigor of his writings, they do something that i don't quite understand to my subconscious....when i gave up trying to make Nietzsche's vision's fit my so-called understanding of what we humans are supposed to be doing with our precious lives and let his writings percolate with difficulty, pain and perplexcity.....it brings me back to the most amazing idea of a lifetime --- "Amor Fati"!
If only Friedrich's later personal life, specifically his inner one would have shown encouraging results, then his later ideas would have spiritual substance to back it up. As it unfolded his merit is mostly to be a sparring partner for aspiring minds - he did not have the answeres, he was using what in India is referred to as neti-neti which he also understood in theory to apply to life-negating practices. What he actually reached spiritually is an entirely different thing from his theoretically driven mind. A mentor, but not a Master.
And then Nietzsche encountered Max Stirner and went all to pieces. Most since have also broken upon the rock of Stirn(er)’s Unique and “creative nothing.”
It is a mystery to me how so many people, ones far more proficient in Nietzsche than I, can insist that he was a nihilist. It is not simply wrong, but further, it fail to even scratch at the surface of the complexity that is the full panorama of Nietzsche's writing. I'm not even sure the word "atheist" really describes him either -- though invariably that is the one almost everyone uses. No, I don't mean that he was secretly going to Mass every Sunday, I just mean that he chose Greek Gods (Apollo and Dionysus) as his exemplars of certain archetypes, and a Persian religious prophet (Zarathustra) as his own messenger. Here his (close to) final words as being a "Yay-sayer" to life, seems to thwart all the attempts to depict him as an atheistic existential nihilist and forerunner of Sartre and Foucault (in their respective dissipated miseries). The one thing that I have taken to doing is to reading Nietzsche's own reviews of his works in Ecce Homo, and then going back and reading over (admittedly not cover to cover), the works themselves to see how the two voices compare. One can wonder how his thought would have evolved had he a few more decades of lucid life, but then, many great thinkers and artists (and he thought of himself as both clearly) reach their apogee about the time madness struck him, so while he may have gone on to great things, perhaps God had a plan in silencing him when He did. His oeuvre has managed to confound multiple generations since he died on the cusp of the 20th century, and will keep doing that very thing for the foreseeable future.
Very surprised that you would say that perhaps God, who, famously, according to Nietzsche himself, is dead, saw fit to render Nietzsche insane upon encountering a maltreated horse., which regrettable incident should not happen if an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God truly exists.
@@bernardliu8526 If you mean the comment on his atheism, then it is best quote him in full, in its most popular iteration: The quote is multifaceted, but it is not really about God, per se, it's about humanity, it's about what is left for humanity to believe in after it has lost its faith, which he describes as dangerous move toward nihilism. The point is really that Nietzsche is complex, and it is insufficient to say "atheist" and think that really describes his thoughts on the matter of theism or divinity, or faith in those things. Sometimes people confuse his undeniable anti-Christianity with a simplified atheism, since that's how it often shows up in other more mundane atheists, like Bertrand Russell.
So Schopenhauer's metaphysics might be accurate but how he advocates to deal with it Nietzsche disagrees with, and this is why it's possible to admire both men and consider both correct?
As in all that can be of time ; To have A philosophy in certain disciplines only negates Open Ness to why from every philosopher to add A question of what we are raised to believe. And as we grow and mature in age to reject those first taught believed ideals. In this future we have not changed our knowledge of our animal desires. We have masked in technology to believe in our fears of all physical activity in why we must develop slowly. Searching for answers is just A mind to seek beyond that in what we know of our time on Earth. Until we find, Our brains in A removed state in this world of conflict & Confusion.
Not only does Nietzsche realize the error of his earlier ways and change his views on Schopenhauer, but also on Goethe as well. Goethe is considered more inline with the overman ideal later on. I get the sense that Nietzsche eventually worked out some of his own demons and realized that he made errors in judgement base on his own weakness, bitterness, resentment, etc.
Goethe was the great thinker, who was destined to fade away with the old misunderstood consciousnesses of the past, kind of like Dionysus. When our thinking becomes detached from the source, it's not hard to see why certain thinkers are no longer Relevant, and others are Revered.
Nietzsche's conception of an Ubermensch is completely aristocratic. Nietzsche despises democracy, for him, the Ubermensch would reject democracy and exert a purely aristocratic and cruel morality. He's almost the polar opposite to what Rousseau considers ideal.
@@1Plebeian as nietzsche says, the übermensch wont be an slave neither it will be a master, it will have completely different values. Rousseaus' conception of an ideal man is what nietzsche would call slave morality and an resentiment with the world. Nietzsche writes that Man is more of an ape than an ape. He actually writes that given the choice, the last man, the weak men, would rather be an ape than be themselves. They lack amor fati and would rather be something of a laughtstock than to take upon them the fate that had been given to him.
Yet again I find myself comparing your videos to Jordan Peterson. Read both his books and they help but I feel he romanticizes the past. Very good video and you keep Nietzsche with the times. Thank you per usual.
Nietzsche is absolutely wrong about all three of them! How can you not know that?? - Rousseau did not want to return to nature, but to get to a higher social stage. Goethe was absolutely a man of action ("in the beginning there was the act" Faust), but reasonable, not forceful action. And Schopenhauer did not want to embrace the world of suffering but deny it, deny the will. - So, Nietzsche is completely wrong. Only when he denied Schopenhauer later he was half-right..
