Nietzsche: Sheep and Wolves
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 พ.ค. 2024
- “That which does not kill us makes us stronger”, Friedrich Nietzsche famously wrote. In this Sprouts special in collaboration with Stephen Hicks, we explore Nietzsche’s division of the world into sheep and wolves, and how our morality, what we consider as good and bad, is the result of brute biological events.
SUPPORT us to make more videos about famous philosophers!
/ sprouts 🐦:
DOWNLOAD video without ads and background music 🤫:
sproutsschools.com/video-less...
SIGN UP to our mailing list and never miss a new video from us 🔔:
eepurl.com/dNU4BQ
SOURCES and teaching resources 🎓:
sproutsschools.com/nietzsche-...
VISIT our website
www.sproutsschools.com
THANKS to our patrons
This video was made with the support of our Patrons: Margaret Grace, Jonathan Schwarz, Shao Xiang, Denis Kraus, Judy Roland, Bettina Kind, Gatsby Dkdc, Enrique Arellano Farias, Vishruth Harithsa, Nancy Bueffler, Adam G, Tetiana Gerasymova, Raman Srivastava, Daniel Kramer, David Markham, Marq Short, Scripz, Muhammad Humayun, Ginger, Tsungren Yang, Esther Chiang, Badrah, Cedric Wang, Broke, Jeffrey Cassianna, Sergei Kukhariev, Andrea Basilio Rava, kritik bhimani, Don Bone, John Zhang, Mathis Nu and all the others. Thank you! To join them visit www.patreon.com/sprouts
COLLABORATORS
Script: Stephen Hicks and Jonas Koblin
Artist: Pascal Gaggelli
Voice: Matt Abbott
Coloring: Nalin
Editing: Peera Lertsukittipongsa
Head of Partnership Programme: Selina Bador
Production: Bianka
Proofreading: Susan
Sound Design: Miguel Ojeda
Special thanks to Prof. Stephen Hicks for collaborating with us on this project.
SOUNDTRACKS
Toys Are Alive - Studio Le Bus
Nice Toys - Studio Le Bus
The Battle of 1066 - Patrick Patrikios
Nice toys - premiumbeat.com
Divine Masquerade - Jack Pierce
DIG DEEPER with these top videos, games and resources:
More reading on Slave Master Morality - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%...
Nietzsche and the Nazis by Stephen Hicks - www.stephenhicks.org/nietzsch...
Podcast on Slave Master Morality - podcasts.nu/avsnitt/the-nietz...
SOURCES
www.stephenhicks.org/wp-conte....
CLASSROOM EXERCISE
Do you feel like a sheep or a wolf? And do you think one is born as such or can one change their nature? Do Nietzsche’s arguments hold true, or at least somewhat true in the 21st century? Discuss it among friends, family, in school, or let us know in the comments below!
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
0:28 Sheep and Wolves
5:52 Ending
Support our work on public speech and education: patreon.com/sprouts
You miss one aspect, Animals kill out og hunger, not of greed, like the pathological Narcissist Mr. Superman "Übermensch" God (Emotions) is dead a Psychological Disorder, LOL
The genius minds behind this channel deserves a shout out The animation with layman's explanation The most difficult concepts can be also understood by an average mind like me
Thank you Sprouts
Welcome Santa
Except, they got it wrong in so many ways. Best is to take the difficult route and read Genealogy of Morals for oneself.
The arguments presented are very flawed however, and it seems concerning that they are presenting a philosophers personal and largely baseless opinions as if they were facts or the result of scientific studies.
Even if one ignores the false dichotomy of strong creative wolf loners and everyone else (introverts don't exist apparently), or that actual wolves are very cooperative aninals, there's an inherent deception in describing "the morality of the strong" as a form of moraliity at all.
"I should be able to do whatever I feel like if I'm strong enough to do it" isn't morality, it's abandoning any attempt at morality in favor of hedonistically going wherever ones poor impulse control takes them and then whining when such reckless actions taken at the expense of self and others comes back with consequences that bites them in the behind.
Morality is what we choose to do in defiance of our instincts - the things we do not because we want to but because they are morally better by leading to a better world.
If you stop trying to figure out what makes the world better in favor of doing whatever you feel like in the moment no matter the consequences you might as well throw away your brain entirely because you're not really using it.
To the *worthwhile person* seeing this, your dream is not dead. Don’t allow the past and current pains and hurts stop and define you. You’re more than a conqueror. Rise up and put yourself together. Keep pushing your future depends on it. I wish you all the best in life ❤️.
Had done a lot of mistakes and every time I'm uncomfortable by being tired or inpain I remember those stuffs, real hard but its thanks to these videos and the Internet that help me greatly. Thank you
💜
thank you, it is so hard…😔
💯
I think God is done with me
Having read some of Nietzsche’s books and in general enjoy philosophy, I agree that the concept of sheep and wolves is correct, but only in general. Most people act in a sheep like manner and there are many that act in an aggressive manner, but not all and not all the time. I believe a more fitting way of looking at people is in a quote from Bertrand Russel “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.”. This added to what Nietzsche said about wolves and sheep gives a clearer picture of how and why people act as they do.
Excellent point
Aaaaannd everything in-between. For this series, I think this channel should incorporate the reality of socio/psycho-paths vs people who have a conscience, into the framework.
@@sprouts Given the preponderance of socio/psycho-paths in current events and human history, I really think you should have started with that theme vs Nietzsche's super-human stuff.
The Dunning Kruger effect explains why ignorant are more confident than those willing to learn and realize they don't know much.
@@offonoll Well-said & worded!
If only world was that simple - explain human behavior with two stereotypes. We carry both agression and empathy, act both dominant and friendly depending on the situation. Even very agressive people tend to respect authority or power of those who are stronger than them often with lap dog obedience. And sheep-like behavior is not only a trait of a coward but mostly of a rational-thinking man. This is true for both men and animal communites.
I'm quite pleased it isn't.
i think most ppl fall on ether side of the dominant / submissive spectrum
You do realize that a generalization can still be true, right?
@@theeclectic2919 From the post, I would say that the poster is obviously intelligent enough to know that and doesn't believe this generalisation holds.
@@Gmackematix You may be right, but there are people out there who think all generalizations are invalid.
I would like to point out that wolves themselves form packs. They do not "go it alone."
I think the morality people profess tends to be very much self-serving.
No species can "go it alone." They all have hierarchies. But their modes of survival are all very different.
@@theeclectic2919 Say it to a snake.
From Abraham Lincoln’s Story “The Wolf and the Sheep"..."Lincoln goes on to give us two basic definitions of liberty. He notes that “with some, the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor” while with others liberty is where men are free to “do as they please with other men and the product of other men’s labor.” He goes on to point out that these two definitions are incompatible." ~ Niles Anderegg
good example freedom is earnt not given. u always have the ability to gain your freedom
In Nietzsche's philosophy, the 'wolf' morality is more potent and better. However, Nietzsche also taught that the 'wolf' makes decisions based only on what is best for them. There is no room in Nietzsche's beliefs to consider sacrificing the one for the many. That is why the 'sheep' morality becomes stronger over time as our social interdependence has become more essential and humanity's dependence on others becomes more important. Society has reached the point that the group's needs are more important than the needs of the individual.
😊
Nietzsche's wrong. He just compared 2 extremes.
It's wrong to be completely meek and weak, but at the same time it's also wrong to be overtly narcissistic and abusive.
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.
Nah, like all things it requires balance.
this is just a false virtue signal, the group needs are just individual needs in mass form. morality will always be the high road and by definition, only the strong can handle it, the weak will take the easy road and the only thing that makes the moral road hard is the fact that it is the lonely road, the road less traveled. because the weak can't handle it it will always be more popular to be weak and pathetic, in need of a saviour that can hold the values the weak cannot. to prove that even though you're a pos, you have something to strive for, a goal you will never reach.
There is no sacrifice in joining the many to benefit the many.
I disagree with the idea of an individual only being one. Now there are many sheeps and many wolves but there's also sheep with hearts of wolves and wolves with the heart of sheep. Haven't read the book where Nietzsche talked about this in more detail but the concept of nature vs nurture is important to also factor in when having this conversation. An example would be that people may become wolf like because they had to in order to survive their environment.
Well said
Fantastic point
You missed the whole point of the video. Nietzsche is writing about the heart not some outer manifestation of flesh. Where this video fall is there is no mention of the third individual. And that is the sheep dog. Our first responders that will run towards the fire or violence to protect the sheep. What sheep cannot vision is that the government is the wolf.
@@desertpatient I don't think I did, my interpretation is mine alone, to pretend I know exactly what Nietzsche's message was is stupid. I just think that no man is purely a wolf or purely a sheep, simple. An opinion is just an opinion my friend, glad you disagree though.
@@SGTniks And there is the other group of people that think others are "stupid". You have admitted you have not read Nietzsche. Well I have. Would it not be better before calling others stupid to have an inkling of the author? I think Nietzsche leaves much to be desired as well as the rest of the German philosophers of the time period. I would offer you an opinion that you might ponder. Before morality is a discussion topic or evolution for that matter, an understanding of what is meant in the Garden of Eden to paraphrase--now man had the knowledge of "evil". And to further the concept--now they saw each other "naked". You might enjoy the book, As a Man Thinkest in his Heart, by James Allen. If the purpose of life is to learn how to live it, perhaps thoughtful reflection might be required. What exactly is "evil"? What exactly is the concept of seeing another "naked"? In our binary universe, is there a binary to "evil"? We have good and bad/better or worse.....people get stuck on trying to define "morality"...but the cow has already left the barn. Perhaps you might dig deeper into Nietzsche and my comment. Or not.
"Real education must ultimately be limited to men who INSIST on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding." ~ Ezra Pound
So true. Most of people just proudly repeat what has been done before with a judgmental attitude. They're totally unable to acknowledge their lack of knowledge.
@@En_theo I like your response. With social media it seems even more so, just because the majority agree with something doesn't necessarily mean that it's true. A majority of people can be wrong.
Nietzsche's wrong. He just compared 2 extremes.
It's wrong to be completely meek and weak, but at the same time it's also wrong to be overtly narcissistic and abusive.
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.
who tf Ezra Pound. What authority does he have to say that knowledge should only be acquired by the inquisitive?
Wasn't that guy a fascist
An old Cherokee Chief and his grandson talking about life....
"A fight is going on inside me", he said to the boy. "It is a terrible fight and it is a fight between two wolves.
One is evil he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, self-doubt and ego.
The other one is good, joy, peace love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.
The same fight is going on inside you and inside every other person too."
The grandson then asked his grandfather,
"Which wolf will win?"
The old chief simply replied
" The one you feed."
This is so perfect. The story and the desing. 10/10 perfect. Awsome!!!!
I need to see the continuation! Loved this.
I found this channel yesterday. Great breakdown 👌
"Make yourselves sheep and the wolves will eat you." ~ Benjamin Franklin
I think this is a very relevant point. It is dangerous to want to be a sheep, since there will always be wolves around. But we are tempted to forget that.
Benjamin Franklin was a massive perv. Like, massive perv.
we love your content! Good explanation
This is the second video I've seen, and I must say that I'm glad I hit the sub button. The artwork is absolutely fantastic. It really adds another dimension to the information. This topic is fascinating, because I feel myself running thru a bunch of "Yeah, but..." ideas. Much like the comment section. Like an Ayn Rand video.
So, here's my two cents. The black/white , yin/yang, wolf/sheep is always a great place to start. Because everyone knows that the world is more of a grey color, with variations of grey over time. There's a little wolf in me, a little bit of sheep in me, a bit of country and a dash of rock and roll.
Ha. Funny.
Rising above human nature is the idea, universally, in some form or another. I would argue that any culture that has any expression of art is a culture that values achievements in excellence. Excellence would go against human nature, otherwise it would not be significant. But if people get too comfortable and stupid, the appreciation of achievement declines, and the art suffers. (Hollywood, I'm looking at you.)
Morality arrives and evolves accordingly and predictably. I really like that concept . I mean, people can be very predictable. And I think that's funny, because the extremists on opposite sides of morality are much more alike than they are different. They just happen to be on opposite sides for whatever reasons.
So values and morality are not always the same. So where do values come from? To paraphrase Dennis Prager speaking on the current state of western culture. "Freedom and liberty are not human desires. They are values which means that they must be taught. But with human nature, there has always been the desire to be taken care of. And that's what the left promises." He lives by the ten commandments, arguing that the world would be a much better place is everyone played along by those ten rules. As a non Christian, I completely agree.
"God is Dead" Nietzsche, achieving excellence. Funny!
"There Will Be Blood" is free right now on TH-cam. An amazing work of art that is a story of a sheep and a wolf. A work of art that was made before things changed.
Thanks again for such great inspiring content. fantastic.
And thank you for your comment
Beautifully explained. 👌🏻
Just watching a dog, one may realize that a sheep and a woolf can live in simple creature, like a dog. Even more so for humans. There was a long tradition trying to separate humanity into these two kinds. Even Herbert Wells portrayed humanity as a group of predators and a group of sheep. But eventually this separation has never actually worked out. As the time went on, we were facing more and more social mobility. The position, nowdays is ever more dependant not only on birth, but on enviroment, and even pure luck.
So, being a "lonely wolf" is no longer a guaranteed success strategy (if it ever was), a well-connected sheep is evermore likely to eat a self-relying wolf.
Human is both a group and individual animal and there is no strategy that works in every situation.
wolfs hunt in paks, tht gives them a huge advantage, remember within a wolf pak ther is the alpha and the omega, and ther r wolves tht r cast out of the pak , maybe a better analogy is dog eat dog alpha v omega
No. A wolf is always a wolf and a sheep is always a sheep. But who you think is a sheep is often a wolf, and who you think is a wolf is often a sheep. People always hide their true selves.
To be fair, dogs as we know them have been systematically bred into being the creatures they are today.
@@markreynolds1112 The alpha/omega pack structure is to my knowledge rather outdated. That's not entirely how it works with wolves.
1st view and 1st like,really loved the content, waiting for the next part.
I just gotta say that which does not kill you very often leaves you weakened and with reduced functionality.
If one were to take it at face value then it's hardly difficult to come up with hundreds of different ways to permanently harm, but not kill oneself.
"Look at me go Nietzsche, look at how much stronger I am now that I cut off my right arm!"
I believe there are a lot of people who misunderstand Nietzsche in the comment section.
I'll list a few corrections:
Nazi ideology couldn't have been based on Nietzsches writings.
When speaking about wolves and sheeps he doesn't speak about their traits, like they are in nature but about their archetypes.
Wolfes as beings are therefore harmful to sheep by necessity. This however doesn't mean exploiting them. Rather their needs are different.
Nietzsche thought of over-exposure to the nation-state and society in general as harmfull. Which is why it would be weird if he thought of power in a society as highly important. "Selbstüberkommung"(growth above the self) through isolation, thought and shedding the chains of norms, common sense and mass-values is central to his philosophy of the "Übermensch".
Popes, kings and many other highly regarded individuals in society are more like "Übersklaven" (higher or super slaves [I can't remember if he used the exact word but the message is the same] ). If anybody wants to know more they can read "Also sprach Zarathustra".
I can give a more thorough explanation as well if someone is interested.
Thanks Nihtris - very insightful 🙏
this lesson is very necessary in current times
I agree that our species can be categorized as either sheep or wolves. However, as humans we have a tendency to always believe very highly of themselves and those who would be categorized as “sheep” would never be able to admit to themselves they are. Life is about perception, and everyone you meet is a reflection of yourself in some way. Learn to love yourself and understand yourself regardless of that be a sheep or wolf. That’s the only way we can make it out of this mess
Some of your points are valid, but saying "everyone you meet is a reflection of yourself" is ridiculous. As a thin white male, if I see an obese black woman, that's not a reflection of myself. She is who she is, and I am who I am. The fact that we are both human is irrelevant. And I am not obligated to interact with anyone. But perhaps this is just my wolf personality showing.
Our understanding of evolution has moved on since Nietzsche's time. We are neither sheep nor wolves, but apes. As a tribe, we rely people of differing abilities to help us adapt to changing circumstances. In times of conflict and doubt, however, we often turn to 'strong' men, untroubled by doubt. Decisions are easy when you're not bothered by the human cost. In times of peace, however, these people are often destructive for the tribe, often sowing the doubt and conflict (intentionally or not) for which their 'leadership' is sought.
usually the wolves in times of peace occupy high status position tht require decisive cut threw, while the sheep do ther bidding whilst getting fleeced ; ]
Great work Thank youu
I believe that we carry both personalities within our genes... And it is up to which way we will choose being a sheep or being a wolve, doing the good or doing the harm. We are a mix; a thief could be a great father or neighbour. Someone who is kind to others and do charities could be a child abuser at some point.
We are being always tested in every single situation and it is up to us to choose what to do and who to be.
(And by the soul and ˹the One˺ Who fashioned it,
then with ˹the knowledge of˺ right and wrong inspired it!
Successful indeed is the one who purifies their soul,
and doomed is the one who corrupts it!)
Quran, Surah Al shams.
Well said Mahmoud!
Thou thinking that way essentially means you completely disagree with Nietzsche. His whole idea was to divide humanity into those 2 categories. You rightfully see the complexity in people and therefore don't believe in the simple divide Nietzsche makes. At that point why not just forget Nietzsche and free yourself of his stupid categories?
@@SomeWiseGuy.
Studying someone's opinions, deeds or history. Doesn't mean that I have to agree with what he believed.
We all know about Hitler yet we don't accept his behaviours and thoughts.
@@mahmoudaktham2507
Haha indeed.
I just found it curious that you both seemed to keep to his sheep and wolf's analogy while describing how you essentially disagree with the core part of it 😂
Nietzsche sure is an interesting character. His often negative view on life has shaped his philosophy in a very different way than what we see most often. Thou it has also led him to say stupid things that given even 10 seconds of thought fall apart quite quickly.
@@SomeWiseGuy.
That is really interesting, I don't know much about him. He is away of my studying field but philosophy and psychiatry are very catchy topics, that's why I follow this channel (Sprouts) .
I used his expressions of sheep and wolves to resemble the good and evil personalities.
No. The great father who is also a thief, and the charitable person who is also a child abuser, are both wolves in sheep's clothing. Their kindness is fake, contrived, and dishonest. A wolf is still a wolf no matter what clothes you put on him.
The thing about us human beings is that we can be categorised into all sorts of animals; be it sheep, wolf, snake, lion, dog or an ass.
thers always a exchange of value between individuals which often leaves one of the partys getting fleeced
From the beginning, there was something in me wanting to learn stuff like this.
I didn't even know what to look/search for.
Now I know it was this kind of stuff the inner me always wanted to learn.
Loved your latest three videos. PLEASE don't end this series soon.
I wish I could give this video multiple Likes...
Thanks irfan!
When the student is ready the teacher appears.
More of nietche please
Wonder how the trait is past down from our parents; given, that there is no one there as a role model in the teenage years when we first start notice status and hierarchy, A precondition to nihilism when no moral code is being inculcated.
I think Nietzsche was wrong on this theory. Why? Because he sets up the wrong precondition for the “Superman” after the death of god of curse; Germany, Russia the countries abandoned morality and adopted nihilism, nothing but destructive tendencies were also inherited. As there is no role model whom they could go for guidance.
Nietzsche was wrong, clearly. His work was legitimized to support racism and genocide and eugenics. To reduce all of human society to a 1 and a 0 is prima facie absurd. It is merely another of man's great efforts to mute the word of God that we are fallen beings, prone to evil if we do not accept our Savior's commandments (to love God in the highest and to love our neighbor). In his pronunciation that "God is dead," he belies his purpose. His premise and assumptions require abandonment of Judeo-Christian principals. As the world toyed with his ideas, industrialized murder rose up in his name. That anyone would treat Nietszche as though his works were not filled with radioactivity whose half-life waits many centuries off is a danger to mankind everyhwer
@@danepatterson8107 It's not clear at all that he was wrong. You might want him to be but it's not clear at all that what you believe is true either, and that's why you have to act from faith, because it is unproveable. And that is your problem, because if it could be proved that God didn't exist, you would have nothing to cling to, and that would frighten you. Your very sense of self is resting upon it, and if it should collapse, what then? Why would you do good? If you cannot think of doing something good because that it is good, then why do it at all? One can be a good person and not believe in a particular Deity. This is the Paradox. That is the real understanding behind the Parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was not good according to the faith Jesus himself grew up. He was a heretic and an outsider but, he still recognised the Good in him. So, there is room not to believe that the world is divided into sheep and goats, or sheep and wolves. We have to look a little harder sometimes for our fellow sheep, in a different breed, as the God you understand still allows Good Samaritans to come into existence. Thus, the big philosophies like religion and science claim to be solid models like clay pots, when instead they are baskets, useful but still full of holes that we must accept. Can we accept the spaces? That sometimes we will have no answers to fill the holes? That we must have faith to live as humans with uncertainty? And tread carefully as we graze? That is the question.
No: Nietzsche was just another reductionist, and despite your lengthy diatribe, the brevity of my logic displays its simple, inescapable superiority to your own.
@@danepatterson8107 Don’t get me wrong. I think Nietzsche is one of those great thinkers of the modern world, he was truly way ahead of his time, there no doubt about his genius.
Twisting words to your advantage to change the fabric of reality; Nietzsche would vomit the idea when his philosophy is intending to touch the truth, and what makes us human all too human.
@@danepatterson8107 You very clearly haven't ever read Nietzsche, but here's the full quote for "God is dead" and you decide if it is anything but a terrible lament for the future with him is trying to make a system that can make up for the that fact science has, in his view, killed the common conception of God:
"God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water could we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves? Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it?"
I've been looking for this story forever
Awesome !
“What’s right or wrong for the sheep is different from what’s right or wrong for the wolf” is a thought provoking idea until you realize that humans are one species and can’t be neatly cut into two groups.
True
Hmm so it can be argued that unlike in the animal kingdom mankind's very nature, complicated at it's simplest, can make even a sheep become a wolf. Maybe this is why things have been flipped and the weak are now the rulers.
But the relationship between the sheep and the wolf almost mirrors human world relationships between the rulers and the ruled , the governed and governors only that in animal world a lot more brawn is employed to dominate while in human world more brains deployed
What makes someone weak anyway? Doesn't people consist of mixed traits? Why is it that the animal kingdom comprises of only sheeps and wolves?
Ayn Rand did a great job regarding the individual vs the collective.
Very good. Add to this that the wolves can not survive without the sheep, AND, that the sheep can not survive without the wolves.
How can sheep not survive without wolves? I never heard of a sheep eating a wolf.
@@laaaliiiluuu It doesn't imply that sheep will eat the wolves, but rather absence of wolves will destroy the idea of sheep. It is metaphorical, not literal. With no clear structure, there is chaos: former sheep won't know what to do at all.
@@abylaiashken2611 What's so wrong with chaos? I hate this obsession with order, especially because order mostly benefits those who are at the top. I actually prefer honest wild west over a fake social order that everybody just follows because they cannot handle chaos.
@@laaaliiiluuu Order does benefit the top, but if there is chaos there would be too much sacrifice. Do you really think powerful people won't get any more powerful when they can take advantage of it?
@@laaaliiiluuu And I never have stated I was obsessed with it. Both good in moderation, not extreme.
Would you do a video dedicated to the 'failed wolf' type? Those that were born wolves but savage neglect or abuse has rendered them unable to function well & they can't reach wolf potential but they utterly know they aren't sheep because they think like wovles down to their core. Thanks.
The analogy between men, sheep and wolfs gives an impression of oversimplification. There are hierarchies in all the three. And some reasonable reciprocacy can also be traced across species.
didnt relise tht sheep have a heir achy
I think he is talking about the non-psychopathic and the psychopathic people. The sheep and the wolf. The benevolent and the malevolent.
The weak and the strong, sheep and wolves although true is much more of a grey area it's not as simple as it is.
But despite what you think or who you aspire to be, one important tought is that one can't exist without the other, a society of sheeps is doomed and one of wolves would be absolute anarchy.
Everyone needs a leader and every leader needs a herd, that's what society is and will always be the only thing we can leverage a bit might be morals which are constantly adjusting to the era we live in.
morality of masters leads do dictatorship, which was basically the norm for most of human history: might = right; morality of slaves leads to equality of rights and strengthens cooperation: democracy, which has been a short, in human history, exception to the norm but also the most successful societal structure we've developed so far
Quite interesting. I never read of any of this in the books I've read of nietzhe (menschlish, alles zu menschlich). Nietzsche was a child of his time, like everyone of us. Its easy to look back and feel a bit judgy on a lot of his work (we now know for example that a lot of people who deem themselves strong and smarter than others often are the least strong and intelligent ones). But I still think Nietzsche had a lot of good points in daring to make a break with the dogmatic thinking of religion. This stuff though seems like a terribly over simplistic way of reasoning...
Nietzsche rocks!
I love Sprouts ❤️
I grew up alone in a family of 6. I knew at 9, bcuz of an event that happened to me, that I would have to learn to protect myself. My parents wouldn't. This is when I became a loner, a wolf. But not a preditor. I was prey to many bigger wolves then I until I became aware of my true inner power. Now, I am a protector of smaller wolves. I am who I needed as a child. ❤
I would argue that you are not a wolf. You are a shepherd.
@@Korica ❤️❤️
pls make sure you're paying your VO staff! 💞 I just read Anna Akana's community post on TH-cam. I don't want to spread any hate in my ignorance but wanted to comment this gentle reminderq
I haven't read Nietzsche in years but what I do remember is anger, contradictions, and over-generalizing questions philosophers have been parsing for millennia.
@Lucas De Araújo Marques amen brother Hahaah
Totally agree
Man is a moral being, and so the inherent nature is to take care of those around him, to take care of the world he live in... so that man, sheep and wolf can co-exist on this earth.
How do we take care of the world we live in - its nature, its climate, its eco-system ?
uh yea nah, look up tragedy of the commons
Where to find the previous episode?
Maquiavel wrote about "sheep and wolf" morals onto "The prince": sheep morality for personal life with wolf moral for political life.
Those who adhere to 'might makes right' only do so when they think they are in control. No-one thinks stealing is okay, only that it's okay when _they_ steal. Thus, it's not a moral system.
Compliments to the artist.
People forget that the strong and weak can interchange - "opportunity" gives people a chance.
This is interesting to me. Can't wait to see the continuation. I'm frustrated because I think myself being in the wolves part and wonder why our principles are condemned...
Because you think there is no alternative. Read this:
"The Fight of Two Wolves Within You"
An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life:
“A fight is going on inside me,” he said to the boy.
“It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One is evil-he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.”
He continued, “The other is good - he is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going on inside you-and inside every other person, too.”
The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf will win?”
The old Cherokee simply replied, “If you feed them right, they both win.” and the story goes on:
“You see, if I only choose to feed the white wolf, the black one will be hiding around every corner waiting for me to become distracted or weak and jump to get the attention he craves. He will always be angry and will always fight the white wolf.”
“But if I acknowledge him, he is happy and the white wolf is happy and we all win. For the black wolf has many qualities - tenacity, courage, fearlessness, strong-willed and great strategic thinking-that I have need of at times. These are the very things the white wolf lacks. But the white wolf has compassion, caring, strength and the ability to recognize what is in the best interest of all.”
“You see, son, the white wolf needs the black wolf at his side. To feed only one would starve the other and they will become uncontrollable. To feed and care for both means they will serve you well and do nothing that is not a part of something greater, something good, something of life.”
“Feed them both and there will be no more internal struggle for your attention. And when there is no battle inside, you can listen to the voices of deeper knowledge that will guide you in choosing what is right in every circumstance.”
“Peace, my son, is the Cherokee mission in life. A man or a woman who has peace inside has everything. A man or a woman who is pulled apart by the war inside him or her has nothing.”
“How you choose to interact with the opposing forces within you will determine your life. Starve one or the other or guide them both.”
The principle of the story I posted applies to favouring the Dark Wolf over the White Wolf and vice versa. The truly free person is neither led by his fears or his desires. He is truly free to live life fully, and at peace.
Appreciate your post. I always honor Native American advices. But I think here the point is different. It's about wolves and sheeps and their morality. Both might be in equilibrium in one's soul and mind, but why does today's society point fingers on wolves and not on sheeps? That's in contrast with history until the '80, more or less...
@@BigHenFor You missed the point in your own story.
How could be peace among the wolves if they are fighting in every decision? How could the white wolf/sheep be uncontrollable if it is peace ... serenity... kindness?
Is illogical to feed them both in hopes of peace because:
Romans6:16 Know ye not that to whomever ye yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants ye become whom ye obey, whether of sin which leads unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
But rather hold the black's leash, and feed the righteous one.
Question: Who told you that ' 'tenacity, courage, fearlessness, strong-willed and great strategic thinking' ' are merely qualities of the black wolf?
Meet more people and read the fathers of science, you will know what I'm talking about.
@@dukeengine1339 since the start of civilization sheep have condemned wolves moral code
I find it tough to agree that one is BORN either sheep or wolf cos that'd mean that any effort to move from one category to the other would be futile. But this goes against my personal experiences (which are mere anecdotes I may add)
I think to be a Wolf or a Sheep is rather a matter of choice than a condemnation, remember "Übermensch" from the movie "The Fight Club".
Since it was the decision to become someone else that transformed the main charakter and not a slavery, not a damning or god's karma, "The Decision" !!
I think it's also a matter of ego development. Some recoil at the collective and some embrace it. Depends on who you "think" you are.The so called wolf may have more empathy than the sheep.
^^^^THIS!^^^^
Though I agree with the concept of humanity's sheep and wolves nature l believe that there is a third nature that falls within this ideology and that is of the sheepdog because humanity is much more complicated
Oh, I like the sheepdog or shepherd dog idea!
I don't fear the wolves, i fear most the sheep who turned into wolves.
Wolves will eat your ass regardless, difference is a sheep is playing pretend to keep the real predators at a distance but, the real one has the teeth to back it up. If you mean someone who has no experience with power gets it one day then for sure they can mishandle it more that someone who has lived with and adapted with it's own innate power. Still the real wolves is more dangerous because it is more sneaky and stalk like from a distance until your guard is dropped and he pounces. A sheep would be showing you it's teeth and making all kinds of noise to intimidated you but, with no teeth to back it up. I'll always fear the Wolfe in the shadows more than the people playing pretend. It's learning to recognize the signs and symptoms to not be mislead or intimidated by a sheep in wolf costume, but also to know a real one when you see it. Like nature they're more silent and calculating...Merry Christmas! lol
Lol.. Amateur wolves over a real one? No Thank you.. 😂
Wolves are only loners some of the time and still need the pack. They are complex animals and the rest of the group interact to help regulate behaviour. That’s why a) they don’t kill each other randomly or on sight, b) why they haven’t gone extinct.
Human wolves seem to lead the others into corrupt or inconsistent self-serving behaviour and the individual pack becomes weak enough for the sheep to protect themselves and other wolves by getting get rid of them.
If the belief about sheep is they need looking after, then it is shocking when they take over. For the narrator (Nietzsche) to say this is a ‘bad’ thing, I wonder if they are a wolf?
The metaphor is not useful as wolves are free to breed and evolve while sheep are cultivated and their bloodline controlled. From this perspective, it sounds more like a justification for slavery or racism, sexism etc rather than a reflection of the real world. No oppression of others is okay, we need everyone in our pack.
Can’t wait for the next bit!
Interesting thoughts! Thank you for sharing them Cathy B!
I think we are all overthinking here...sheep simply means people who follow the herd without thinking for themselves. They don't question the status quo, they don't have goals they simply exist to live in some afterlife...and they are damn many, it's the reason why developing countries are just stuck without any progress...but they are not to blame either..it's more complex than what we see on the surface
The entire concept of Nietzsche's "Sheep and Wolves" feels like an 'Appeal to Nature' making the argument that just because something is natural it is good. The reason I could see the common man as being praised, is due to this so called 'noble man' having had the curtains pulled back, showing how ugly most of them are, at the very least I'd expect this to be the case in part.
"Good" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think he's saying "all things natural are good" because he can't define what good is. No one can. Maybe humans enslaving other humans is natural and "good"? Ants and other insects do it... In nature... Is it "good"?
People want to have friends, not be distant and lonely in debatable conflictive arguments because one doesn’t know how to lose and accept :the battle is lost but the war is far from OVER…requires entertaining other thoughts and steer them your way ,making the person believe it was they’re idea they’ve concluded themselves
There has to a spectrum of sheepness and wolfness, like there are wolf's who rule only through power and strength but there are also some that lead with the best interest of the pack
Morales can be adjusted when basic needs aren't met. I'd agree that some traits would be inherited.
Interesting - just guessing the resolution: likely the sheep have more to win by teaming up so their morality will eventually dominate in any society. Apparently there is some counterforce though because otherwise the wolf-trait would have been bred out of the species in a few generations.
No, because the wolf traits in human society are sexually appealing to women as they would be better providers. "Sheep" people are only like that because they lack the means to resist. You'll notice the overthrow of the fuadal system corresponds with the technological development of weapons allowing physically weaker peoples to effectively resist physically stronger ones. Basically guns let "sheep" tell the "wolves": "We don't have to take you're shit anymore because now we can kill you to!"
@@ronmoore6598 i think your getting confused between physical physic and mentality, this video is more about the mentality of a wolf ie the guys with highly leveraged weapons as a opposed to some big fuk off alpha stud tht digs holes 4 a living including the hole of yors mrs, lol
CLASSROOM EXERCISE: Do you feel like a sheep or a wolf?
ME: I feel like a shepherd, who killed the wolf and is wearing his hide.
It sounds like the Powers That Be have somehow managed to co opt the Cristian "only the meek shall inherit the Earth" ethos without having to adopt any of its values or principles.
Morality is an absolute standard. And we feel it clearly with our emotional sense, when our emotional sense is healthy.
Like if we have a healthy sense of sight, we will perceive color clearly and truthfully.
And if we are color blind, we cannot perceive color truthfully.
Same with morality, which we perceive emotionally (conscience).
As humanity grows in love, we perceive this more clearly.
If we look just 100+ years back, slaves were something normal as to the masters as to the slaves, and today that's not the case at all. This shows our growth in love.
Morality is what helps the civilization survive best.
By posing the question as sheeps and wolves, the argument is flawed as it starts with an assumption of the system it’s trying to describe.
But Nietzche was making an important point in his work. That humans lack an overall explanation of everything that can establish a stable form of morality for all. He pointed out that with the growth of Science that Religion had lost impact, and perhaps he thought that the same would happen to Science too, because all overarching models fail to cover every eventuality. They are limited to human understanding, and there are always things beyond that. So what must a man do when confronted by the new, the strange, or the previously unknown? He has to think outside the box. He has to think for himself what is right or wrong.
@@BigHenFor while everything is limited by human understanding, morality is quite stable. There is a model for it. Most know, most will agree, but depart at specifics. But to get to that, we first need to discuss on objectivism vs. collectivism.
within myself, I see it this way
my belief system responds as
superior
my nervous system responds as
inferior
As with all dualities, it is a simplistic and limited view/explanation of morality and its evolution . . . and appeals to many for that very reason.
It’s all about the upbringing and the environment/beliefs one was brought up with. However people change drastically to adopt and serve when they have to. Begs the question if any of this really a matter of biology/physical or just a response to its environment. Even the most powerful become quiet/sheepish when they have to and that also considered a “strength”. Is this all because we love labelling things!!
Both wolves and sheep are pack animals. The difference being, the wolf can stray from the pack and still fend for himself. The sheep cannot.
sheep cant fend 4 them selves full stop
It is not a one-dimensional spectrum on which people are divided but a multidimensional one. People take up the sheep-like and wolf-like behaviours, not as a set value but based on situation and field encountered. People are sheep-like in many domains(which is expected given humans limited cognitive capacity), but they act like wolves in some. A good metric that can be formulated is how many areas and how impactful of an area one is wolf-like in.
He was right about what’s said in this video
Something which is interesting
Catching a disease , such as polio, that leaves you alive, but unable to walk, has not killed you, yet left you measurably weaker. 🤔
The sheep dog guards the sheep from the wolves only to be given to the shepherd to be eaten. Therefore I think that there are four kinds of people. the Sheppard the sheepdog the sheep and the wolves.
but isnt the Sheppard a peasant? who serves the land owner? who serves the king?
To the sheep, it appears that the sheepdog is working for them. To the shepherd, he believes the sheepdog is working for him. The sheepdog is actually working for himself, because he can never be sheep, wolf, or shepherd. We always become what we already are.
@@theeclectic2919 no because a sheep dog needs to be trained 1st, so without training he wuld become a rogue animal
Sounds like he's confusing, or intertwining, weakness with compassion. Compassionate application of the strength and power with leadership for sustainment of all would be appropriate.
Now I understand why I'm "different"
Food for thought ...sheep and wolves.
Thanks.
I find it a rather simplistic way of thinking about human behavior.
Author: … and those who are loners
Author: draws a pack-animal - wolf
🤔
what I feel fred overlooks, is that everyone consists of good and evil and it only takes a spark in either direction to switch on evil. when that spark comes, the people who have just want to be left alone will unleash an evil the likes of have been seldom seen. it will be biblical and those who created the spark will reap the whirlwind. I wait for your next video.
"Somehow"? Not at all, it has been a deliberate strategy.
Morality is not to be used in the individual level but for the group of people to establish a set of rules to survive in the group. It functions as a collective understanding as part of an agreement on what is right and wrong. Morality is not part of nature but a human's made concept. I think Nietzsche mixed some of his thoughts. It is not about the wolf-strong and the sheep-weak, it is about those people that run their lives looking for short term benefits and the dismissal of the consequences vs those people that have learned to stop and think several outcomes, can factor in empathy, and are able to decide the best long term benefit for everyone.
He did not say “that which does not kill us makes us stronger”. What he did say is “what does not destroy us makes us stronger”. Subtle but very important difference. If the first were true, PTSD would not be a thing.
Bram Stoker’s Dracula: A novel about a “wolf” from the perspective of “sheep”.
Interesting concept well explained. I think the idea is too simplistic however. Some creatures, and some humans, are neither like sheep or like wolves.
Even if we look closer on wolves as they realy are, not as someone imagines them, we shell see diferent behaviours. Volves are not always lonely, they have packs, social roles, duties etc. And their lonely state is nor the best, neither most productive part of their lives. So, it is oversimplification with the purpose to justify some old ideas that were falling apart even in the times of Nietzsche.
I think there is a flaw, sheep and wolves are two different species, while humans are same species, they should be either wolves or sheep not a mix -following Nizche argument-, another thing is, there are common moral codes regardless power: honesty, truth, justice,...
It makes sense for sheep nature to be praised when people live ultra-social societies. No animal in this world has to live with millions of non-kins in a city in harmony.
"Anyone who's a sheep is fired! Who's a sheep?"
I like the subtle irony! If you shout, "I'm a sheep!" it means you're actually a wolf, indicated by your bravery to speak up. If you meekly mumble, "Not me. I'm not a sheep" like everyone else in the room, you ARE a sheep. Everyone declaring they are NOT a sheep are sheep. And the one proudly proclaiming he IS a sheep is really a wolf, and keeps his job.
@@theeclectic2919 A wolf in sheep's clothing.
I think there are a lot of people in between . Not quite a sheep , not quite a wolf
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.
~Sartre
Wahh want more
I had a similar thought that included three elements:
The herd
The dog
The Herder
The aggressiveness of "wolf" used to be optimal for survival in distant past, when your individual capabilities as a hunter / warrior / explorer / whatever else daredevil where highly valued by the tribe and brought you babes, munchies and respect+; as the society progressed, tribal hunter-warriors became less relevant, social interactions ("friends / relatives in the right places") and artificial class division into nobles, clergy, peasantry etc. greatly diminished individual assertiveness factor in gaining status; these days intellectual capabilities and buisness initiative became the major factor, putting "wolves" even further down the line, into the streets ("hoods") and third-world poverty stricken regions, where might still has a chance to "make right". The only chances modern wolves have in highly developed areas are politics and finance-related enterprise, where the aggressive way of thinking, amoral approach for personal/corporate benefits and fear/shock-resistance lets one gain huge rewards - but you can't just jump in those "from the streets", driven purely by "I won't back down" factor.
Not so sure about this theory. Looking back across my 50 years, I have been both sheep and wolf many times, depending on circumstances. How does his theory account for this? Shouldn't a single individual be primarily one or the other?
Being primarily one is a question only you can answer... Which do you default to??
I could guess 🤫
The casting of strength opposite humility and meekness is corrosive and simply inaccurate. The opposite of humility is not strength, it is pride.
Humility, at its root, is the ability to understand the actual status of oneself relative to others coupled with an appreciation for goodness wherever it is found. A genuinely humble person isn't chronically self-deprecating, as is so often depicted in popular culture, but one who can appreciate goodness wherever it is found and enact it.
The humble are the bosses that are willing to genuinely listen to their staff, consider what they believe, and try to implement solutions based on the feedback of their staff. A prideful boss, far from being strong, will not listen to their staff and allow their staff to gather in rebellion against them. Pride, in a very real sense, is a state of blindness - an inability to sense ones self and surroundings as they actually are.
The heroic are not merely those that let others step all over them nor are they merely the 'strong' who gain heroism through feats of grandeur and exploitation. They are those that know when to fight, and when not to. They don't fight every battle, because not every battle is worth fighting. They don't run from every battle, because some battles need to be fought. They don't exploit others because that destroys the social fabric they live in. In a word, the heroic are the wise.
Also, the archetypal symbol that Nietzsche is using is self-defeating. Wolves are pack animals, not lone animals. Lone wolves almost never survive for long. They need a 'herd' to be a part of and conform to in order to survive.
Best comment, right there.
Cheers man! Beautifully written.
The sheep tend to use morality in an attempt to guilt wolves into conformity. However, there is nothing moral about weakness. Being too cowardly or unable to do “bad” things is not moral, it’s just weakness.
sounds like something stalin would say.
They all have there roles in society.
Strong is happiness.full stop