Nietzsche: Why Arguing is for Weak People 

Head to squarespace.com/weltgeist to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code WELTGEIST

"Your honor stfu you weren't even there"

Arguing with a smart person is tough. Arguing with a stupid person is impossible.

Nietzsche's philosophy is a very long, very detailed series of arguments...

As one of my teachers said. "People do things because they can, they want to, and no one stops them."

Lads, if someone commands you without arguments, dismiss them without arguments.

My toddler must be reading Nietzsche.

This philosophy sounds like it works from a narrow definition of strength and power. If the definition of "power" is along the lines of "gets results," then let's not forget that a mosquito can not only bully a horse, but even kill it by means that the horse is ill equipped to understand. Casting Men of Reason as gadflies who are an annoyance to Men of Power is an admission that the hide of the horse is not as tough as it looks. Indeed, the fact that an being as tiny as a fly can hope to even annoy a being on the scale of a horse, and compel the horse to unwitting (and mostly fruitless) action in response to its bites, is a testament to the fly's outsized leverage.

"Never argue. Give only results." - Benjamin Disraeli

From Nietzsche - the guy who spent his life arguing and not commanding.

_When the great Tao is forgotten,_ _Kindness and morality arise._ _When wisdom and intelligence are born,_ _The great pretence begins._ _When there is no peace within the family,_ _Filial piety and devotion arise._ _When the country is confused and in chaos,_ _Loyal ministers appear._ -- Tao De Ching, Chapter 18 The critical insight Nietzsche makes, if not the philsophy he built upon it, is that conscious mediation in life betrays a loss of contact with the instincts. This is a phenomenon hinted at by the expression, "Ignorance is bliss." _The Tao is both named and nameless._ _As nameless it is the origin fo Heaven and Earth._ _As named it is the mother of ten thousand things._ The named Tao is the world as representation. The nameless Tao is the world as will. That world of Will is forgotten when consciousness interferes in life, for better and worse. When we consider Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, this all sounds very familiar. But unlike Nietzsche Lao Tzu was strongly pacifist, and not out of a sense of moral piety but because he, as Thucydides argues in his case, considers interdependence to be the law of nature, not domiance. _The sage, who is attuned to Tao, warns the ruler against the use of arms for conquest._ _Weapons often turn upon the wielder._ _Wherever armies are stationed, briers and thorns grow._ _Great wars are always followed by famine._ _A good general stops when he achieves his purpose._ _He does not parade his victory._ _He does not boast his ability._ _He does not feel proud._ _He rather regrets that he has not been able to prevent the war._ _He must never think of conquering others by force._ _Whatever strains with force will soon decay._ _Because it is contrary to the Tao._ _Whatever is not attuned to the Way of Tao will soon perish._ Athens won a great victory over Melos, but where is their empire today? Nietzsche fixates on the hierarchical aspects of empires and ignores their cooperative aspects. Thus he too falls victim to decadence. _Heaven is eternal; the Earth is endures._ _What is the secret to their durability?_ _They do not live for themselves only._ _That is how they can be eternal._

Nietzsche arguing why arguing is for the weak...oh the irony

Nietzsche was a genius he was someone that we still fail to understand on a personal level, and his philosophy is something we often fail to understand because before people have even ever studied it they think they already know it.

My mustache is bigger, he couldn't command me.

I love the fact that you have covered this and this is a very fascinating topic to talk about. Argumentation can have purpose but overusing it can be ridiculous and stem from insecurities. The thing is people aren't going to take this in several ways and sometimes miss the point. Nietzsche is just making a statement about how if you want to do things then do them and let your actions do the speaking. Actions and results matter. If you are secure and strong with yourself, You wouldn't prove yourself by argumentation but you would prove yourself by action alone because you can and it's something that's natural to you. Keep up the beautiful work, Weltgeist. 👍✨🔥

Dude, you’re an exceptional teacher. Entire books have failed to make clear what you so easily explained in 15 minutes.

Be wise enough to know when, where, why, and with whom you ought to do battle using words/Reason. Be strong enough to know when, where, why and with whom you ought to crush using the body/Force. Be that which you were meant to Be.

Did he just use logic to why we shouldn’t use logic?

"A lion does not concern himself with the opinions of sheep" Tywin Lannister, Nietzsche and Machiavelli of Westeros

Most people are not in a position of commanding anyone, it's not something one can choose. One can work one's way into being in such position but, until it happens, trying to "command" will just get you fired or cast away.

The great philosopher is so right. Debates, argumentation and tiresome polemics are more of a superficial spectacle. The thing is, however, that the great philosopher often ended up himself in quarrelsome debates and argumentative conflicts.

So,to the question of:"Why does a dog lick its balls..?" Nietzsche also gives an often standard reply:" BECAUSE IT CAN..!!! "

As always a balanced approach between the two philosophies is best. No extreme is good as one cannot function without the other.

The reason the human cannot behave like the lion is that when man meets with an outcome he dislikes he may construct a way through or around it, and arguing, often with one's self is part of the construction.

This comment section is the definition of ☝🏻🤓

I've always believed there is a reason for everything. It may not be your reason or you don't understand the reason, but there is still a reason for every action of every living being on this planet.

Thing is, most folks don't like it when you command and boss them about. Hence, a society dominated by arguments.

"Gish gallopy walls of text are for the weak," _Nietzsche

The fact that almost all of the comments are aggressive towards nietszche realy talks for itself.

I am Greek and I like your analysis. You struggle a bit with some concepts of ancient Greek philosophy, but this is expected even by the biggest non Greek philosophers (in my opinion it has to do with the translations not being 100% accurate). With that being said, I give the video a very solid 8/10 and I am subscribing.

I got it: Do everything you want regardless of the consequences to others as long as it benefits you, then you are strong. And also a psychopath, but strong nonetheless.

According to that statement " Arguing is for Weak People " also ignorant ,intellectually impaired people tend to not be able to argue; ergo : " Stupidity and ignorance is power "

Truth is the greatest tyrant, it is always right and it will humiliate all who resist. There are no men more powerful, none greater than even the slaves of truth.

And yet the tradition of rational argument that comes from Socrates literally transformed the weak into the strong. “Whatever happens, we have got the Maxim gun and they have not.”

I love Nietzsche as a philosopher. He's one of the greatest thinkers ever. However, I wish he wasn't popular. His philosophy of power can only apply to the strong and very few. Now we have all of these people believing they can demand people to do anything when they don't have the power to or proper intellect.

And yes, do Alcibiades.

When evil becomes willing to shed the cloak of reason in pursuit of power, it is the duty of the righteous to do the same. Regardless of the transcendent truth, we still live in the material world which is governed by power alone.

Nietzsche would make a perfect discord mod while Socrates would be banned from social media

You realize the ability to self reflect is what separates us from the other animals, right? Your argument is just might equals right. That’s the mindset of tyranny. Choose your battles wisely I guess, because you’re clearly not able to talk your way through things if you think like this.

Arguing is forceful and confrontational, while debating is more structured and aims to reach a conclusion

I've been suffering with periods of intense heart throbbing anxiety for a long while now, and 10 minutes into this I felt my anxiety go away and my heart calm down. I believe you might have just cured me of my ailment. Thank you!

Nietzsche be like : ''Reject intelligence, return to monke''.

Yes! Let’s forget what makes us human, because power is the only thing that matters!

What is actually hilarious is that Socrates was an actual soldier. How many wars did Nietzsche fight?

Dont measure your strength on how far you are above others, but on how far you can lift others up.

This video makes perfect sense, and articulates the point better than anyone else. You just earned a subscriber sir!

"angry german mustache man does what he can, the weak suffer what they must"

I finished the video, and my opinion from the beggining hasn't changed, not questioning yourself is how people like my dad are created, assholes who do what they want and treat others whatever way they want without even thinking about it

"If animals only knew the potential of saltpeter..." Said Some Guy Who Reasoned What's Good for Fireworks is Good for Throwing Lead Balls

He lost an argument before he wrote this one.

Behind the wall that is one of the first things new staff learns: Never argue with an inmate and attempt to explain why a rule exists or why an order was given. Comply or face the consequences. Do not allow them to argue the "why" behind laws, rules, and orders as it is a form of manipulation, the way inmates attempt to assert a false form of authority over the real authority of the institution and its staff. Sadly those that start off attempting to explain, attempting to have a conversation will either slide into saying "because I am in charge and told you to do it" or "its the rules" or "if you don't you will lose privileges" or they will be walked over until they get fired or quit. In prisons the concepts above make very much sense. Sadly the same kind of tactics are used on patrol officers on traffic stops. There are an infinite number of arguments, some of which make no sense, which can be lodged to deter or derail the lawful interaction.

this was timely and life changing solid work I will be joining soon.

*continues to argue why arguing is for weak people

I came to this conclusion just by pure observation. Kinda funny how fundamental truths eventually reveal themselves to those that ponder

The fact that he thinks there's not a well detailed tactical or strategic reason behind one county deciding to attack another during an all out war shows just how little Nietzsche knew about warfare.

You need to combine Socrates and Nietzsche. You need to think, but you need to do. If you believe only one is 100% right you can either go down the road of overthinking and anxiety, or the other path of a destination you never wanted and many missed opportunities that you never thought of as applying to your strengths. Think and do my friends.

this really puts into perspective why Frank Herbert in his Dune series decried the Socratic model, which he said became the Roman model

I don’t think we should do things just because we can.

It's all about what is appropriate for the time. Socrates is my kind of thinker. He picks apart long-standing beliefs to ensure those that remain make sense. This serves many functions but is rarely appreciated by the irritated powerful or the common man. Most of the time, it doesn't matter what your arguments are. You get say if you have power and will. Besides, logic and rationality can only get you so far if you have limited knowledge. Many a "wise" person has come to ridiculous conclusions while many a Farmer knew it was ridiculous all along. Maybe society needs a Socrates when it had fossilised institutions that have served for years but out-lasted their usefulness. And they need a Nietzsche when the intellectuals spend all their time debating and not creating or destroying anything.

Ironically, Nietzsche’s idea requires intense thought for any man to even be able to understand it, much less implement it. I’d say he’s absolutely right about the dangers of overthinking. It’s why the world is the way it is today.

Sokrates: "We should consider morality and reason." Nitche: "REEEEE! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!"

I think argumentation can be a more positive force and not merely undermine. Debate can help us to 'kick the tires' of potential beliefs we might decide to take up to find the strongest ones for any situation. It also prepares us to be more mentally flexible.

Alcibiades Yes video, please. I think this one would be similar to Cesare Borges. Please keep on bringing such gems of personalities to us.

Dodged a bullet on that one. What a nightmare. We' be orcs basically if we went with the aristocratic model of "good is imposing your will by any means necessary"

- Nietzsche was right - Why? - Because I say so. Bow or perish.

A 31:03 minute long argumentation and exposition on why arguing is for the weak

Greek society was strong and full of brave and motivated citizens who took action, and yet they became decadent enough for a weak philosopher like Socrates to destroy them. Surely it was not the powerful and violent Greeks who were responsible for their own downfall? 🤔

Amazing video, great explanation and summary! Thank you.

Nietzsche would've never thought of this if Aristotilies never questioned himself why he thought the way he did! His point off view have merit, regardless.

There's always a reason for action, for existence. The strong merely have the luxury of not needing to admit to it or even know it.

Nietzsche’s argument on why you shouldn’t argue.

00:00 📜 Nietzsche critiques Socrates, arguing that his reliance on reason and argumentation led to a decline in Greek culture. 03:38 🏛 Nietzsche views the arrival of Socrates as a portent of cultural decay, contrasting confident, unapologetic Greek culture with Socratic rationalism. 05:41 🦉 Philosophy emerges when a culture questions its own mode of existence, a symptom of decline according to Nietzsche. 09:40 💪 In the Melian Dialogue, Athenians justify their actions solely through strength, reflecting a pre-Socratic mindset. 12:00 🤔 Nietzsche criticizes Socrates for instilling a relentless drive for justification, which he sees as a sign of cultural decay. 16:49 🦁 Nietzsche contrasts human questioning and doubt with the instinctual nature of animals, arguing that excessive doubt devalues action. 20:13 🔱 Nietzsche distinguishes between master morality (confident, self-assured) and slave morality (born out of resentment), tracing their evolution through history. 21:05 💡 Nietzsche views Socrates as an exponent of slave morality, opposing noble virtues. 22:53 🔍 Despite being perceived as a low-born, Socrates' influence rose, indicating Greek society's readiness for moral shift. 23:35 📉 Nietzsche sees dialectics as a tool of the weak, displacing authority from oneself to abstract principles like reason. 24:29 🔄 Greek culture's acceptance of Socratic virtues signaled a decline, outsourcing morality to external sources. 25:52 🗣 The reliance on argumentation and justification reflects cultural decadence for Nietzsche. 26:45 ⚖ Socrates' method of seeking justification outside oneself led to his martyrdom, shaping philosophy thereafter. 27:28 🌟 Philosophers, like Plato and Christianity, sought morality beyond human experience, akin to the weak Milons, not strong Athenians. 28:38 🤔 Nietzsche questions if modern humanity can surpass ancient Greek ideals and become value creators. 29:21 💔 Nietzsche critiques the death of God, a consequence of relentless questioning, urging the creation of new values. 30:01 🌟 The Übermensch, for Nietzsche, represents a future where humanity creates morality independent of external standards, beyond good and evil.

And then there's also the fact that nietzsche somewhat liked socrates as well. For being exceptional.

Was Socrates just annoying the ruling order or was he pointing out via reason the decadence that Nietzsche claims Athens was suffering?

The man that only respects power will only concern himself with violence. A man that only respects scholarship will concern himself with theory. A man that respects both can impose his philosophy on those around him with the force of his will.

Despite all his references to antiquity, Nietzsche was very grounded in his own time. Rationalism, irrationalism, racism, imperialism, socialism, etc. It's more about XIX century Europe than anything else.

He is trying to justify the reason not to justify

The problem is that we can discover the reasons behind natural instincts. We should not question these instincts themselves though, but instead seek their origin through how they benefit a creature in the process of natural selection, and therefore extract the truths about Nature instilled in the instincts. Reason shouldn't be used for questioning Nature, but for operating better within it. Using instinct alone is flawed since instinct is merely a xerox of a xerox of the fundamental truths of Nature propagated through natural selection, and therefore is ignorant of context or nuance. The ideal framework should be for our ultimate goals be informed by those fundamental truths of Nature, and for Reason to be used to best achieve those goals.

If the argument is an effective weapon against "the strong", then intellect is the Achilles heel of the man of action. To be truly strong would mean having no such imbalance of competence and therefore no special weaknesses.

Arguing is just a waste of time, period. That's a nonstarter. All you can really do is put in the work in pursuit of the truth and maybe gain results if you're dedicated and lucky. You can have a conversation that has points of contrast that can be useful in order to broaden ones understanding. But if you find yourself arguing, then one or both parties have failed catastrophically in the pursuit of understanding the subject at hand.

As a thinker, I appreciate mindsets that differ from mine. Listening to this, however, I keep waiting for some sort of disclaimer - whether in the middle or at the end - to the effect that the speaker or website creator is merely presenting the ideas, and not necessarily endorsing them. I shall persevere to this end of this with that fervent hope.

Nietzsche was a weak dude who was constantly pushed around. Idk why he gets such respect when he can clearly be read as a powerless man coping. He had some interesting ideas but it’s weird he is idolized.

A man who thinks for himself and believes in himself stands out from the herd.

The endless labyrinths of intellectualism is one of the pitfalls to avoid in Buddhist teaching, along with slaking of the passions and indulgence of the emotions. Comparing Western thought to Indigenous worldview, the key difference is Western disconnection. A culture that has achieved so much in terms of wealth inequality and environmental destruction could only have come about with a complete disconnection. Nietzsche appears to identify the mechanism of this disconnection and I'm reminded of a Star Trek quote: '...you can use logic to justify anything. That's its strength, and its flaw.'

"Find the reason for what your enemy is doing, then one-up them by making them fall into a trap." - Professor Sun Tzu. "There's a reason why humans trap animals, and not the other way around." - Some Guy Who Decided to Wait Outside the Cave While His Idiot Friends Charged Inside, and it Was That Guy Who Made It Home, Got the Chicks, and Had Children Who Told the Tale.

The irony in all this is that in order to convince his readers, Neitzsche must engage in arguments

Sure! Please do a vid on Alcibiades. Thanks so much in advance!

Doubt is the only window to the light of truth in an otherwise darkened house.

Who is weak or strong? The guy who gives the punch, or the guy who sues him after and makes him pay max damages?

Keep in mind the masses can also "do what thou wilt" If arguments are meaningless then so is your life. Bigger Grug had a bigger rock. Suit yourself, but that doesn't sound like a game I'd like to play with my life

Everyone argues. To say it's wholly a weak action is wrong.

22:30 - yes! I'd love a video on Alcibiades!

No wonder Hitler liked Nietzsche.

this bring "ignorance is bliss" to a whole new level

If the "Realpolitik" lost to socratic way, doesn't mean that the "realpolitik" was weak? And so it must suffer what it must?

if the master morality was so superior why then did a slave morality appear? it feels like Nietzsche just gives preference to the potency, to phisicality, but humans are more much complex, we are out potencies as much as we are our impotences

Choosing not to argue is weakness, as you simply give in and allow those who you know are wrong to get away with saying and believing their wrong ideas, taking the easy and lazy way out for yourself.

I think Nietzsche would have loved/hated Cormac McCarthy's books and the 2nd Amendment. He's not entirely wrong. Why should the tyrant respect what we commoners have decided our "rights" are? I suggest we try reason first, appeals to sympathy 2nd, then the force multipliers last.

This might makes right notion isn't morality, it's the definition of amoral. Doing things because you can isn't virtuous, virtue is not doing the things when you could.

A child asking why to every answer needs to be told at some point “that is not a valid question. You could ask “how” instead”.