Thank you for this probing and thought-provoking posting. Though I don’t always agree with Russell, it’s pure pleasure to listen to the clarity and precision of his analysis.
Then someone answers with details, as in not understanding the wole picture. Didnt he say this or that? Like it matters. And even what he said - what that what he ment. People say things to get a message sent. Saying can someone use a metafor without being said they mean it...
@@marketccess1 If you don't agree on Russell about philosophy it means you are probablly wrong. You probablly have read lots of books by Nietzsche and classical philosphy and you prefer to give value to your effort.. don't you?
Que aliás anda meio esquecido também. Ultimamente vem sendo lembrado como um apêndice ou nota de roda pé de Wittgenstein. Ah, a moda! Da minha parte, aprendi um bocado com ele quando jovem!
@Vebunkd As gross as that sounds, I don't think that would be a bad idea, with what we're doing to other people, and the earth, currently. Might I add that should such a bizarre hypothetical ever become possible, I'd volunteer myself (and everyone I cared for) amongst the first on the cull list. Mali principii malus finis.
@@gforce4063I agree that worshipping people is not good, but this person only says they look up to him. Looking up to someone does not necessarily mean believing everything they say and unquestioningly following them.
Fascinating. Way back when, I held the same opinion about Greek philosophy. I thought that way to. After reading so much of the pre-Socratics, and at the time, I kinda felt that pretty much the basics had already been done by the time of Socrates. It's simply been all pulled apart since then.
"Just look at these superfluous people! They are always ill, they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another and cannot even digest themselves"-Nieztche
Different times in different eras would dictate philosophical views. To "run over the bones of the weak and infirm" would be to deny our humanity. Humanity is what distinguishes us from the animals
@@julesseyer1993 There is absolutely no qualitative differences between human and animal only gradual differences. Evolution did not one day spit out a man out of nowhere that from then on could no longer be called an animal. Evolution does not proceed from magical apparitions. To think so, as your belief does, is childish, immature and even stupid.
@@goognamgoognw6637 I agree that humans didn't magically appear. And yes it was a evolutionary process. I never said otherwise in my comment. However unlike other animals we are capable of abstract thought. Coexisting with one another by a consensus of behavioral norms. This we have societies capable of building great cities and industry. Language, science, mathematics, and yes even philosophical views. Some of which I do not share...like you're dogmatic approach to the philosophy of others or their ideas. I wonder if you have any ideas of your own. Or do you just plaggerize the work of others, and FEEBLEMINDEDLY try to pass on it off as your own ???
Puzzling you should subscribe it to Evolve! How well did that revolve for Fred, say in his upper fifties? Who was the rib? To claim something other than broken!
Seems our souls individually is where solace is to form itself! Journeying back at facts points back at near one conclusion, support and orienting towards getting "One" done! Shame pointed towards its resolution! It must be conviction!
@@jeffbogue4748 Who the heck is this Jesus fella? Honestly, every comments section these days it's 'Jesus this' and 'Jesus that'... what's the big deal? Does he have a website? Instagram?
@@dickmonkey-king1271 The Christians created the Magna Carta, the Scientific Method and Capitalism. Pride is the highest essence of atheists, because their economic, political and scientific systems are non-existent.
Have been reading Nietzsche for almost fifty years, and I still read and admire him. There are times, however, when he seems to be very much a lost Incel of the 19th Century.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369 Some people can be read over a long period and change as you change and understand better. Often when you think you've 'got the ideas', you usually haven't.
My favorite part was when he called Nietzsche a sycophant of the aristocracy. Or that the woman would take his whip and turn it on him. Damn, son! Shots fired.
He says there is an aristocracy if character, of which you're enobled by valiant and resolute suffering.. And was definitely not a collectivist by ANY means and would not have approved of any kind of attempt by a Nation State to design society by their interpretation of his books. He said his books are NOT for the many.. And the State is Vile. Russell was dealing with PTSD from the Wars that's why hes talking like this
Nietzsche lived in 19th century Germany, which was over-run by aristocrats and artists, many of them sickly from tuberculosis and/or syphilis. How many of them dreamed of trampling over the weak? His fans probably love Machiavelli and de Sade too.
8:16 there i needed to stop to start watching slower understanding what a great pearl of internet i just found Halfdead hidden God bless you for adding this The greatest Polish of all time.
I have the feeling there are moments in everyone’s lifes where we can choose a path more likely leading to insanity and one less likely leading to insanity. but in that case nietzsche choose a path more likely leading to insanity very early in his life. of course it is questionable if we have the freedom to decide which path we go and it is questionable if nietzsche was conscious about the risk of the path he was going to take …
rather misunderstand him. Bertrand had a lot of weird and superficial interpretations of Nietzsche's figurative, metaphorical concepts, also neglecting Darvin's influence on Nietzsche's way of understanding terms like Nobleness, Aristocracy and Individualism. Also Nietzsche never considered War in it strict and literal meaning, proclaiming only happiness, lightness and freedom which might not be found in religious doctrines he always criticized, which as itself during human history led to great deal of wars.
Frederick for sure is the TRUE guardian for all rare and noble few souls . . . craving for a NEW life . . . utterly away from the dumb mob/crowd/flock. . .
absolutely. do you think _peterson_ is intellectually dishonest? deliberately misrepresenting _nietzsche_ to those who have never and most probably will never read him ...
@@longshotkdb I wouldn't go that far. I like Peterson a lot, but with a grain of salt and care to double check what he says. he is overconfident of his own beliefs, but is also very right on in a lot of areas too. his view of Dostoyevsky is solid.
@@spiralsone He is certainly a fine practitioner of post-neo-modernist platonism, but his problem is he nests all of this within a Nietzschian psychological dynamic that ignores the Jungian frameworks we all base our framatistic perceptions on: he is the Jungian archetype of the nomad - parsimonious, ephemeral, quixotic. More a metaphysical mind than a man - but perhaps he can't escape his own Jungian expectations to see the platonomodernistic forest for the trees. And all of this is nested within a solipsistic antwork weaved into a logical fabric that we have to use to understand the world as it is.
@@spiralsone No, of course not. I never speak that way. Jordan Peterson on the other hand is only capable of speaking that way, so I thought you might like it. I guess not. Honestly I don't know why you didn't like that as it has all the ingredients of a Jordan Peterson paragraph. Namedropping philosophers constantly without actually talking about what they believed. Adding "post" before random words and "modern" after others. Beefing things up as much as possible with flabby, flowery language. Making large unjustified claims. It has almost everything.
If you follow the logical conclusion of his general take on philosophy you will see that indeed he is/was a villain. To the extent you convince another person to do evil you are also evil.
Perhaps Nietzsche’a idea was to martyr himself philosophically and present the most extreme set of ideas on the other end of the compassion scale, against which all others can be measured. Nietzsche seems to restrict himself to man whose only spur for action is the inclination to predate or dominate. This reduces man to a force of nature, as opposed to a conscious being with a sense of reflection. His moral “suffering has no meaning” is very profound. And Russell’s interpretation is very helpful and masterful.
I don't think so. It is not like his ideas existed in a vacuum. People say he is not a political thinker, but you can see the politics of his time all over his work. He was responding to the much more pacific version of man put by illuminism and german idealism. His predatory idea of humanity is not that far from Hobbes. Difference being that he saw a constructive value in it, opposite to Hobbes who just wanted to contain it. He was asserting aristocratic values over any sort of egalitarian philosophy.
I was expecting the worst when I began to read Beyond Good and Evil. At first I thought 50% fascist and 50% good. The 50% bad went done to 40% then 30% and so on until it almost dissolved. Nietzsche in his writing goes beyond his own ideologies. His female housekeeper asked him why he wrote so nastily about women; he took both her hands in his and said, "You must not believe what I write."
Perhaps he meant, "You must not believe what I write, because if you do, you will stop working for me, and to be quite frank, working for me is the sole purpose of your existence."
@@omp199 -o. I now from my sudies of Nietszche that he meant it. e like being provocative and and said e hated literal truth and prerred to feel free to lie.
@@felixdevilliers1 If you accept that he was not straightforwardly honest with people, then why would you believe that he was not misleading his housekeeper?
Well, he kind of liked the unique minded. If you have a passion and belief that you believe from the bottom of your soul, you should follow it, even it makes you the enemy of the world. This was a part of Nietzche's superman. And this is something I can understand. Every self understanding individual finds himself in opposition to the herd of people at some point in his life. Nietzche pretty muchy was waring against the herd's anger and telling you to keep moving forward, even if the herd hated you for your convictions.
@@joejohnson6327As opposed to the more noble self loathing most people have? And usually losers at life don’t end up being amongst the most influential people in history
As someone who went through university, I'm very disappointed that I am unfamiliar with much of what is being talked about. Less so with the university, but more so with primary and secondary education.
@faust p Maybe he should start by spelling his name properly first before having an opinion 🤷♂️ It aint just a word but a name and if you will quote such half nonsense then spell his fxxxing name correctly first you brats. NIETZSCHE.
@@goognamgoognw6637 And these days he is in oblivion because he is a white man. Btw, what do they actually teach these days in philosophy classes in the US? Anyone left?
@@apollontheintp3257 they give scholarship to brainwashed youth to 'study' and validate degenerate theories of gender and rewriting history against white people (when really most evil in history came from banking thugs). The western spiraling down in moral stems from a minority of intelligent evil thugs controlling the currency printing presses. As long as they have that, they can corrupt anybody by cutting funds. All battles are pointless as long as they have that power and they know it.
@@apollontheintp3257 Pretty much a Monstrous White Man. I agree very much with Bertrand's adverse conclusion of this paranoid pompous barbaric bastard the end of the vid. And besides it is YOU who says your favourite boyfriend is in Oblivion. Ever heard of Libraries? According to them institutions, he ain't. Go to a few them, get some library cards and you cars read all about Neitcha till you grow old die and decompose in whatever chair you use to sit on and read all about the bastard and what that dog wrote. Black People ain't gonna stop you from doing so, so don't even bother going there for some argument if why you won't be able to.
@@apollontheintp3257 funny thing is someone like Foucault is basically a Nietzschian and isn't he a hero of the woke? The assumed aristocracy of the intellectual class and its amorality runs through much of continental philosophy.. The expert class to which the plebs are meant to bow down to in submissive reverence.. It's's all Nietzschian horseshit.
I don’t know who Stoica Nicusor is, but I like his reading of the thoughts and words of Bertrand Russell. I don’t like that Russell smoked a pipe, but admit that I have smoked quite a few in my time, and that I am also a peacenik, and have always loved the peace lovers throughout history. It seem’s like Putin is an admirer of Nietzsche, and the suffering of the plebs means nothing to him…that he considers himself a great man altering the course of history. I hope he can be put in his place by peaceful means.
Now, compare this, to the average professors lecture on Nietzsche - and to add more credit, this is Russell's personal interpretation, not a patched copy paste.
I agree with your first and third sentence. For your second, and don't know. It is his opinion after all - so I don't know if opinions can be wrong by definition. I think that several people will have several different opinions of my thoughts after all. Thanks for your reply.
You cannot compare Bertrand Russell and the average professor. Bernie was on no way, shape or form an average philosopher or man. Do you often make silly comparisons in order to end up with an undisputable conclusion? Bernie never did.
@@jonashjerpe7421 Nietzsche was not an average philosopher either. And you are the first person I ever heard call Bertrand Russell “Bernie.” I don’t know if he ever used that nickname. Maybe he did.
It's important to keep in mind that Russell is commenting on Nietzsche based on bad translations and editing available before Walter Kaufmann (sp?) in the 1950s and 60scorrected a lot of the past mistakes. Also, Russell was (understandably) strongly influenced by the fallacious Nazi adoptions of Nietzsche's catch phrases. enabled mostly by Nietzsche's sister's misappropriation of his writing. Nietzsche delighted in pushing ideas that were intentionally open to interpretation, he was the philosopher of 'what if', he was intentionally contradicting and metaphorical. There is a lot to disagree with, most of which he would disagree with too. He also wrote how to be a philosopher is to essentially be proclaiming subjective and autobiographically revealing opinions; he often wrote of his regrets about some of the more cruel things he wrote, especially about women, that he attributed to his own rage and hurt from rejections.
Russell could not read ancient greek fluently, so some passages of Nietzsche he would need translated. But he could read and write German at a fluent academic level.
@@nik8099 Nietzsche was undoubtedly sexist and racist, he just wasn't an anti-semite. Russell's take (in the history of western philosophy) is famously not a great piece of Nietzsche scholarship
@edward young How do you know Russell read "bad" translations of Nitchez?! Russell was fluent in German and did not need to read bad translations. You think someone as brilliant as him would be influenced by Nazi adaptation as you call it? Have you considered why they adopted Nitchez ideas? Why didn't Nazis adopt Schopenhauer or other German philosophers?! Why is it so wrong to just say Nitchez was a piece of sh*t just like Hitler? Why apologize for him so sincerely and justify his bad ideas with mumbo jumbo?
Only I could say is and it would side with nietzsche's view I believe but it's the idea of competition, like sports for example? Competition can be "cruel" sometimes but it's amazing when you push the human body mentally and physically against other people.
I remember the foreword in my copy of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. (probably a dutch translation, I cant quite remember) From what I recall the philosopher that wrote it praises russels analysis in general and in particular of the classic period, but also warned that Russell was a man of his time too and that he got more biased regarding philosophers of (or close to) his own time. Particulary Nietzsche.
Thankfully one of the few accounts of Nietzsche that doesn’t uncritically accept his philosophy but dissects its weaknesses. And it does acknowledge some of its predictive strengths.
Yes it's good but only as a journalist, not a philosoph. He is like a fly that circles around Nietsche's system of thoughts trying to scrutinize, taste it and do an autopsy but has no ideas of his own to oppose. The modern philosoph assumes he can just be an observer and synthesize others but it's not the proper way to oppose ideas. He will be forgotten while Nietzche's ideas won't.
Nietzsche had serious health problems for much of his life and struggled mighty with his Danish Publisher Brandies to promote Book Sales and earn Money via lectures to keep his head above water financially. He walked his talk, applying his Will to thrive through great adversity. We hear much of Nietzsche Philosophy, little about how he lived his life.
Like so many believers in the idea of übermenschen and untermenschen - he thought of himself as an example of the former, but in reality more resembled his own definition of the latter.
@@griiseknoen Despite serious health problems, Neitzche continued a gruelling Presentation Schedule for Years. From Denmark to Italy his Show was on the Road, filling up mostly University Auditoriums. Whatever people may think of his Philosophy, Nietzsche himself was an incredibly Tough and Willful Person.
@@michaelmcgarrity6987 and what happened, it all broke down at 45 under the immense strain? There is much I truly dislike about Nietzschian thought, but I do admire his yes saying in spite of incredible adversity.
@@michaelmcclure3383 He was tough. I don't know how much of his Kool aid he really believed in. I have a Book of Correspondence between Nietzsche and his Danish Publisher Brandies. There's nothing about Philosophy in the correspondence. It's mostly about Chaotic events in Europe at the time such as the Burning of Prague. Making Money off of Book Sales and Speaking engagement ticket seems a full time Job for Fred. Through all the Correspondence, I've never seen Nietzsche gripe about any of the serious Issues he had. He kind of bucked up and Walked his talk. I shall dig up the Book and read it again. Europe appears to be heading into a Crisis period again. Maybe there are Rhymes of History to be found? I personally find Nietzsche Philosophy hard to understand. I've been through Geanilogy of Morals a couple times and find it very cryptic. Perfectl to Hawk speaking engagements to explain what it all means and sell Merchandise.
What a magnificent language. I have Russell's book in my possession and I intend to read it upon my graduation from PhD 🤣🤣 (the second sentence is my poor imitation of Russell's academic style, lol)
Read Nietzsche.....an than...you don t need to read any other philosophers....It seems that Nietzsche read all the literature from all time !! Was helped by his first profession - philologist. In relation to this profession he says (in Ecce Homo ......? - A medium-sized philologist has to scroll through 200 books a day ! - Of course....that doesn't mean ,,read 200 a day" but he seems to read all greek - latin - french ....and many other (The laws of MAnu..) both philosophical and other fields - psychology .... literature ... poetry ... I know that seems incredible.....But anyway -- he has a beautiful and powerful writing ... I started to read B. Russel - The problems of philosophy...It s ok until now...I have great expectation....Because Nietzsche opera was stopped arround 1890 ....an i want to what is after that.....I know - at first time i thought - How can someone to say ,,read Nietzsche - it's enough - he cover up all..." ??(because someone told me the same...and i was distrustful. I thought that is necesary to read all authors and than to compare.....On the other hand - it is impossible to read all the authors...I don t know - Maybe that science, philology has a secret method .... With shame I admit I'm totally unknown this science...
Neitzche's ideas were inspired by the laws of Manu from India. He even stole the words like Tschandala (to describe a lowly person) which was a derived from the word 'Chandala' used to describe the untouchables or shudras in Hinduism. Neitzche's ideas were completely delusional and no doubt only a person like Hitler could only resonate with him. Manusmriti has already been disregarded in India and has proven to be an inefficient philosophy if the ultimate goal of it is for human progress. Ambedkar has written an excellent critique on his ideas. velivada.com/2017/06/02/dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-said-nietzsche/
@@osculocentric Thanks for the link but it’s not much of a critique. It just says his ideas were co-opted by Nazism and how members of his family supported Hitler. 🤔 I certainly agree with you that Nietzsche’s philosophy was a cartoon of an elitist paradise, written by a virgin bookworm who hated his own weakness and dreamed of being a wise, strong soldier and leader.
Very instructive! For me, the heart of Russel's analysis is to be found here: King Lear on the verge of madness said : "I will do such things, what they are yet, I know not, but they shall be the terror of the Earth". This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell. It never occured to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with wich he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear there neighbors, see no neccessity to tyranise over them. Men who have conquered fear have not the frantic quality of Nietzsche artist tyran and heros who tries to enjoy music and massacre while their hearts are filled with dread of the inevitable palace revolution.
The thing that Bertrand Russell fails to see is that unsatisfatoriness, cruelty and an appetit for destruction is at the heart of every dynamic, vibrant healthy nations. No nation or empire were ever built on compassion and pardon. These are good values for established societies framed by laws and administrative forces which are the ossified remains of true free energy and vitality. Nietzsche isn't concerned with maintaing our society as it is. And for our enjoyment, he's pointing in a new direction, which is a breath of fresh air compared to the same abramanic religion overworn soporific themes. You can build on love though. Love is the only all encompassing positive value. I fall for Buddah's conclusion. I believe Russell's insight that Nietzsche philosophy is built on fear, which makes it a little less appealing to me now. Nevertheless, all evolution on a path or another is made of destruction, and wether anyone likes it or not, humans are full of love but also the most vile, cruel and unforgiving of all creatures, which is confirm everyday by our position in the natural order of thing nowadays. Very few philosopher dwell on the violence contained in human nature. Nietzsche is one of the few who acknowledge our darker qualities to show a path that is probably closer to the real human nature and which makes innumerable aspects of his philosophy still very appealling, modern and topical to this day.
Random thought. Has anyone considered the possibility that Nietzsche was influenced by William Blake? In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake says, "Prisons are built by stones of law, brothels by bricks of religion" which sounds a bit Nietzchean. Blake also said, "One law for the lion and ox is oppression" which definitely sounds Nietzchean.
Actually it is well known that Nietzsche was highly influenced by Ralph Waldo Emerson. But what no one seems to talk about is that Emerson was greatly influenced by India’s masterpiece the Bhagavad-Gita! In the Gita the main lesson is the ending of duality. Food for thought
Nietzsche and Emerson both greatly admired Montaigne. Nietzsche specifically singled him out for praise and Emerson wrote an essay about him called The Skeptic. Did Nietzsche ever mention Emerson by name?
In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake says, "Prisons are built by stones of law, brothels by bricks of religion" which sounds a bit Nietzchean. i think it sounds a lot better
@@charliechaplin7959 'Praises him as a master of prose in the Gay Science and makes an epigram for the same book out of a quote from his History essay. Needless to say Nietzsche held great admiration for him and alot of his ideas of the overman, academics and christianity ressemble what is seen in Emerson's essays (Nietzsche's copy of the first and second books of Essays is still extant with many marginal notes). Although he makes more reserved claims of Emerson in his later work he was very infuential for his early life
Russell and Nietzsche were in essence dealing with double edged swords, as all philosophers must. The idea of universal love is double edged since loving an enemy can enable him to continue his brutality . But herein lies the a potential synthesis: it is in HOW we “love” our enemy -tough love may be the solution . To abandon an abuser may wake him up. The aristocracy theme too is a double edged sword ⚔️. How can N both so beautifully liberate us from ourselves yet also agree with a slave master Paradigm ? Mediocrity can be found in both slave and master , as well as brilliance . Herein lies my attempt at synthesis: new education models that incorporate all ways of learning, more freedom of self exploration , more hands on project oriented learning and reverence and care for the natural world as a key component of curriculum . I am afraid that as much as N steered his readers from dogma he at times created a new one breaking his own rules . As with his views on women pettiness is often a symptom of early childhood deprivation of authentic education and religious programming . Another double edged sword he wielded at half the worlds population. I call this double edged sword the mechanistic vs organic (spontaneous) view of human experience.
I've read some of the comments & realise I'm not qualified to comment. ..i like to think of Russells narration or his thoughts as the number one comment by far .....
Nietzsche read the Aeneid, the Odyssey, the Iliad, all the old songs of heros and monsters. Than he looked at the men of his time, their weakness their vices. And than, he came to greatest question of all time "What happened to Garry Cooper, the strong silent type?!"
Awake-state of being is a higher level of consciousness. The ego is a zombie-like state of unconscious. A method to awaken is through Spinoza’s acknowledging of our understanding: great effort is required for its improvement. WayofSpinoza.com #Gurdjieff #Spinoza #Einstein
I wonder if someone can help with my confusion... Russell says that from Nietzsche's perspective "In a fight of all against all, the victor is likely to possess certain qualities which Nietzsche admires, such as courage, resourcefulness and strength of will. But if the men who do not possess these aristocratic qualities (who are the vast majority) band themselves together, they may win in spite of their individual inferiority. In this fight of the collective *canaille* against the aristocrats, Christianity is the ideological front, as the French Revolution is the fighting front. We ought therefore to oppose every kind of union among the individually feeble, for fear lest their combined power should outweigh that of the individually strong." However, my understanding of Nietzsche is that he takes the opposite view of Christianity; that it produces servile individuals, content with characteristics that should be rejected as vices, promoting them as virtue. So what is it? Does Christianity produce of class of beta men, who value weakness (as meekness), servility (as forgiveness). Or does it, coversely, produce the ideological basis upon which lesser men may - as a collective - overthrow their masters? My understanding is the former, but Russell seems to argue the latter.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he does view Christianity as a weakness but more so a will to power. How he describes holy men as the ultimate power seekers. They want to be God
Looking at this comment section. Good to know I'm not the only one who has the urge to go full on gibrish mode after listening to Russell for half an hour
This is such a one-sided, sophistic interpretation of Nietzche which was constructed only in justification of the Nazi ideology. For example, the dialogue Russel constructs of what Buddha would supposedly say in response to Nietzche was often exactly what Nietzche himself preached (i.e., of loving your enemy, which he described as noble in Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Meanwhile, Russel presents Nietzche as consistent (at least moreso than Schopenhauer), while his inconsistency might be in fact the most consistent thing about him - this itself could have made a better rebuttal, but Russel completely missed it.
It’s lowered my opinion of Nietzsche tenfold. I think his theories on morality are impressive, but his conclusions are simply very caught up in the trend of Darwinism (which he didn’t fully grasp, but the gist is there)
@@oxytocin1989 It's also easy to get caught up in Nietchze's obvious passion, especially for younger people looking for some philosophical model to appropriate. But I now believe that Nietzche's physical illness and rejection from women colored his thoughts a bit too much. I think many of Montaigne's Essays (which I'm currently now re-reading some of) are much better for young people to try and digest, especially today.
1. Russel: `I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him`. Thats one way to say I agree with myself, or with my own imagination. 2. In this analysis of Nietzsche, Russel refers only to the ethics of the former, and utters not a single word of roots out of which this ethics grows, that is nietzsche's philosophy of the wholesome, undivided and unconditional love of life. He was not capable of understanding it. Russel was still a pleb in his soul, despite being a `Lord` in title.
@@statu-palma-barba-cot3075 1. Russell asked if each of these arguments "could either appeal to the impartial listener" and that "I do not not know how to prove I am right" so it was just an experiment. 2. I think he understands and agrees other than essentially valuing moral happiness as the superior happiness.
Who was more afraid? Who’s philosophy was predicated more on fear? One feared weakness above all else, while the other feared power. Both fears are necessary in balance.
It is interesting for Russell to probe into the realm of Nietzsche's psychology with perhaps the same zest that Nietzsche himself probed into the psyche of the culture and the society of his age. On the other hand, while Russell may have been right in his assessment of Nietzsche's innermost fears as underlying his philosophy (i.e. when discussing Nietzsche's critique of religion, state and women) in his quest for objectivity Russell still comes across as being somewhat harsh on his assessment of Nietzsche's character. While he argues a number of valid points for and against Nietzsche's philosophy, Russell's critique of the philosopher himself falters from being definitive; in order to be so, his critique of Nietzsche's thinking would have to probe in the times and into the cultural experience that influenced and informed Nietzsche's thinking, as well as on any psychological disorder that he may have endured. (I suspect that he suffered from either GAD and/or ASD, in addition to his syphilis...) As an exposé of his reasons for disliking certain aspects from Nietzsche's philosophy as a by-product of Nietzsche's seemingly intolerant nature this chapter does succeed however, in presenting Russell's view on the subject.
Can you list in the description the date of the recording so it can be determined if this perception and analysis is pre WWII, pre other early/mid century events that should have colored his analysis.
I think that what most is interesting is the Slave Morality that people are expressing in their defenses and beliefs of what the "right" or "true" interpretation of Nietzsche is. I think Nietzsche would have welcomed any challenged to his philosophy as a test of the efficacy or his work.
This was back before many of his undoctered writings were recovered and released. It was mostly right but on the Jewish thing...he actually talked about the jews being superior to the Germans, his longest lasting best friend was Jewish, he basically unfriended Wagner because of his Christian semantics and his antisemitism. He called Wagner a jew both comparing him to the original immerging of Judaism which he thinks corrupted the morality of the masses, and to poke fun at Wagners own antisemitism, which neitzsche abhorred. He loved his sister dearly but then basically disowned her after she expressed antisemitic views for a while and then married a prominent antisemite. Also he jokes and intentionally shocks riddles and SOMETIMES definitely says the opposite of what he means. He very much so PLAYS with opposites. Or he might say WORKS with them....I don't know of any other philosopher that can make almost anyone feel inspired, comforted, and connected yet also feel discouraged, uncomfortable and alien. There's something there. It's hard to cast aside and my main problem with what russel says is his complements...I do not see nietzsche as that cohesive or systematic. He constantly talks shit about his last book in every book. He's very organic and open to contrarys.
There's actually recent work that challenges the view you're putting forth, which was first introduced by Walter Kauffman in the 50s and 60s. Much of the 'doctored' work, was penned by him, most especially the WIll to Power--one of his most race focused work. He just never got to finish editing it before he went insane. The main argument his academic apologists raise is that he went on to reject the views of that book while he was still lucid.
Bertrand is very clear and his criticism is accurate to his knowledge. Today would yield even more support for the fact that success of races, nations and individuals have been proven to be primarily due to proximity to opportunities and not some innate superiority. The worship of "winners' is seriously misplaced, then and now. The idea that the warrior or billionaire "winner" with their obsessiveness, ruthlessness and lack of empathy represents an ideal we should strive to attain is just wrong. This stance doesn't mean one is pro-Christian values, on the contrary, much of Nietzsche's critique of Xtianity is accurate and agreed on by Russell. But science is now adding to our understanding of what makes for healthy minds and healthy cultures. Clearly Nietzsche was a tough talking sycophant of the "winners" and the world he promotes makes little sense as an ideal. Besides we no longer live in that type of world. Ours grows smaller and other humans are our primary environment. Nietzsches condescension of women says everything about him. He refuses to except the environmental factors leading to the situation and then blames the less fortunate instead of recognizing that the "fortune" is the primary factor in everything he wants to place the praise and blame on the "will" of the individual. Like Christians blaming sin or New Agers blaming your karma for your plight. Yet he is blind to the fact that the "will" is just another environmental factor of "fortune" which can be changed. As Russell points out, Nietzsche is arguing from an emotional place, not a factual one and in my opinion puts him closer to the religious argument than a rational one. Russell points out the difficulty in supporting the opposing idea, but today there is much more weighty information.
The success or lack of victimhood of humanity, the little there is, is due to honesty. Honest societies are knowledgeable, prosperous, wealthy, healthy, happy. Being honest is understanding that in a race only one can win regardless of effort or natural capabilities therefore being successful is doing what you can with what you got for the wellbeing of life impossibility possible miracle God. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore impossibility possible miracle God exist. I have discovered the nature of God and i can prove my claim collapsing mortality rates and skyrocketing life when my theory is known. Would you accept as a miracle the saving of infinite lives? We are God, ourselves for eternity til endless death when all life die.
It is impossible to live in perpetual love in the Gospel sense before the spirit itself seeks to liberate itself from conformity. The life of the individual is endowed with the full array of emotions to exercise, ideally, in the pursuit of happiness, pleasure, or simply freedom. The will to power is the most intense and most natural state of the noble being or Superman. That we humans shall pursue it in truth or by artificial designs really makes no difference because in the end the will to power is what matters .Here we have Nietzsche being subjected to ridicule by a nemesis who ultimately gets the last word. Power always gets the last word .We are not as clever as we think in making a case .In every case it just takes someone ignorant to his own reality as an orphan is ignorant of his/ her own parents. To train the proverbial blank slate and see it pass or fail for the benefit of morality is not only a little hypocritical, it proves the will to power is behind it.Moreover,Russell emphatically emphasizes the Western preoccupation with structure and hierarchy to channel these human attributes effectively which in of itself affirms the will to power as the basis for all human development, like the discovery of fire was/is for human development. Phenomenal, Relative,Existential.
The Value of Philosophy - Bertrand Russell
th-cam.com/video/OQGCCbndiWI/w-d-xo.html
Thank you for this probing and thought-provoking posting. Though I don’t always agree with Russell, it’s pure pleasure to listen to the clarity and precision of his analysis.
Then someone answers with details, as in not understanding the wole picture. Didnt he say this or that? Like it matters. And even what he said - what that what he ment. People say things to get a message sent. Saying can someone use a metafor without being said they mean it...
Interesting!
@@marketccess1 If you don't agree on Russell about philosophy it means you are probablly wrong. You probablly have read lots of books by Nietzsche and classical philosphy and you prefer to give value to your effort.. don't you?
Very nice upload. Many thanks!
"Aristocratic anarchism" - That basically sums up Nietzsche's world view accurately enough. Solid insights from Bertrand Russel here.
a contradiction in terms. I guess this makes it a good fit for a nietzschean ideology
Que aliás anda meio esquecido também. Ultimamente vem sendo lembrado como um apêndice ou nota de roda pé de Wittgenstein. Ah, a moda!
Da minha parte, aprendi um bocado com ele quando jovem!
I'd add "Aristocratic anarchism for boring people", Sade made a much more honest and compelling argument for the same thing a century earlier.
“Are they the mere power fantasies of an invalid?”
Oof that one stings.
Stings to who? You're the one who's making this statement, so did the quotation somehow sting you?
@@BeardLAD go back to sleep. Look at your own irony here since you're using that word.
It stings because it's true.
@@BeardLAD "hilariarse"?
Do you mean hilarious?
Such a small attack
Thank you for uploading!
Russell was such a wonderful, extraordinary person. I'm grateful to have such smart, kind people to look up to
Make a god of no man
@Vebunkd As gross as that sounds, I don't think that would be a bad idea, with what we're doing to other people, and the earth, currently.
Might I add that should such a bizarre hypothetical ever become possible, I'd volunteer myself (and everyone I cared for) amongst the first on the cull list.
Mali principii malus finis.
These words encapsulate the very essence of slave mentality.
@@gforce4063I agree that worshipping people is not good, but this person only says they look up to him. Looking up to someone does not necessarily mean believing everything they say and unquestioningly following them.
Fascinating. Way back when, I held the same opinion about Greek philosophy. I thought that way to.
After reading so much of the pre-Socratics, and at the time, I kinda felt that pretty much the basics had already been done by the time of Socrates. It's simply been all pulled apart since then.
This is a chapter from Russell's "History of Philosophy" wherein each chapter is a philosophy.
@Jason Carpenter how so?
I found this book for 25 cents at the flea market
@Jason Carpenter still a good book what have you done
@Jason Carpenter so what do you recommend I should read since your a very intelligent person
@Jason Carpenter You do sound like a student of Nietzsche 😂
Very interesting, informative and worthwhile video.
"Just look at these superfluous people! They are always ill, they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another and cannot even digest themselves"-Nieztche
He said the strong should drive their oxcarts over the bones of the weak and infirm.
Different times in different eras would dictate philosophical views. To "run over the bones of the weak and infirm" would be to deny our humanity. Humanity is what distinguishes us from the animals
@@julesseyer1993 There is absolutely no qualitative differences between human and animal only gradual differences. Evolution did not one day spit out a man out of nowhere that from then on could no longer be called an animal. Evolution does not proceed from magical apparitions. To think so, as your belief does, is childish, immature and even stupid.
@@goognamgoognw6637 I agree that humans didn't magically appear. And yes it was a evolutionary process. I never said otherwise in my comment. However unlike other animals we are capable of abstract thought. Coexisting with one another by a consensus of behavioral norms. This we have societies capable of building great cities and industry. Language, science, mathematics, and yes even philosophical views. Some of which I do not share...like you're dogmatic approach to the philosophy of others or their ideas. I wonder if you have any ideas of your own. Or do you just plaggerize the work of others, and FEEBLEMINDEDLY try to pass on it off as your own ???
Puzzling you should subscribe it to Evolve!
How well did that revolve for Fred, say in his upper fifties?
Who was the rib? To claim something other than broken!
I really like the idea of Nietzsche and Buddha having a sassy argument.
“For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him”
Seems our souls individually is where solace is to form itself!
Journeying back at facts points back at near one conclusion, support and orienting towards getting "One" done! Shame pointed towards its resolution!
It must be conviction!
@@jamesreagan8808 oh stop it.
Jesus is the only way to make heaven your home
@@jeffbogue4748 Who the heck is this Jesus fella? Honestly, every comments section these days it's 'Jesus this' and 'Jesus that'... what's the big deal? Does he have a website? Instagram?
@@dickmonkey-king1271 The Christians created the Magna Carta, the Scientific Method and Capitalism.
Pride is the highest essence of atheists, because their economic, political and scientific systems are non-existent.
“HIs opinion of woman, like any man’s, is objectivication of his attitude towards them”.. Damn. Preach that shit Bert
Have been reading Nietzsche for almost fifty years, and I still read and admire him. There are times, however, when he seems to be very much a lost Incel of the 19th Century.
Why read the same philosopher for years? Haven’t you got his ideas already? Why not broaden your mind with other writers?
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369 idk why you’re assuming that he hasn’t read about other philosophers lol
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369 Some people can be read over a long period and change as you change and understand better. Often when you think you've 'got the ideas', you usually haven't.
@@smkxodnwbwkdns8369 I'm guessing he does, and wants to reassess the original writing as he consumes more?
Use of the word "incel" after more than fifty years of living? You must be joking so hard here.
My favorite part was when he called Nietzsche a sycophant of the aristocracy. Or that the woman would take his whip and turn it on him. Damn, son! Shots fired.
Tell us what you really think, Bert
He says there is an aristocracy if character, of which you're enobled by valiant and resolute suffering.. And was definitely not a collectivist by ANY means and would not have approved of any kind of attempt by a Nation State to design society by their interpretation of his books. He said his books are NOT for the many.. And the State is Vile. Russell was dealing with PTSD from the Wars that's why hes talking like this
Russell got a lot right, but the whip went over his head.. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Nietzsche_paul-ree_lou-von-salome188.jpg
Nietzsche lived in 19th century Germany, which was over-run by aristocrats and artists, many of them sickly from tuberculosis and/or syphilis. How many of them dreamed of trampling over the weak? His fans probably love Machiavelli and de Sade too.
No, the woman would take the whip away before he does something thoughtless with it.
8:16 there i needed to stop to start watching slower understanding what a great pearl of internet i just found
Halfdead hidden God bless you for adding this
The greatest Polish of all time.
The best style of writing in german language.
Amazing!!!!!!!
Marvelous, concise & so needed in these trying times
🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍 he always thought for us all in ADVANCE . . . .
“Category: Gaming”
@@notWaldont Nietzsche was an incel hundreds of years before people knew what that was.
so many ppl do not try to better them selves personally today.
ty for CC
"in 1888 be became insane" that made me laugh, like he made a conscious choice to go crazy.
Some say it was due to syphilis, others that it was due to brain cancer.
@@view1st Some say
I have the feeling there are moments in everyone’s lifes where we can choose a path more likely leading to insanity and one less likely leading to insanity. but in that case nietzsche choose a path more likely leading to insanity very early in his life.
of course it is questionable if we have the freedom to decide which path we go and it is questionable if nietzsche was conscious about the risk of the path he was going to take …
The word became doesn't imply choice.
@@nickregan2874 Alan Partridge shrug gif
This is fascinating and has helped me understand Nietzsche more than I did, so thanks.
rather misunderstand him. Bertrand had a lot of weird and superficial interpretations of Nietzsche's figurative, metaphorical concepts, also neglecting Darvin's influence on Nietzsche's way of understanding terms like Nobleness, Aristocracy and Individualism. Also Nietzsche never considered War in it strict and literal meaning, proclaiming only happiness, lightness and freedom which might not be found in religious doctrines he always criticized, which as itself during human history led to great deal of wars.
@@TheDonkeyHot 🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍 simply a GREAT comment mate !! You most certainly are a true "lover" of Fredericks work . . .
Damn, this is so good.
Frederick for sure is the TRUE guardian for all rare and noble few souls . . . craving for a NEW life . . . utterly away from the dumb mob/crowd/flock. . .
Ha ha, hows that NOT going fore me . . . .
@@MitchJacob-ur6fp Counterquest: have you ever read Frederick ?
Thanks for adding this - loved it, Russell is brilliant.
Not on his analysis of an actual brilliant guy I'm afraid.
A mere projection of his own twisted leftist poor ideas.
so interesting to hear this after Jordan Peterson. Russell does not sugar coat or soften Nietzsche at all
absolutely. do you think _peterson_ is intellectually dishonest? deliberately misrepresenting _nietzsche_ to those who have never and most probably will never read him ...
@@longshotkdb I wouldn't go that far. I like Peterson a lot, but with a grain of salt and care to double check what he says. he is overconfident of his own beliefs, but is also very right on in a lot of areas too. his view of Dostoyevsky is solid.
@@spiralsone He is certainly a fine practitioner of post-neo-modernist platonism, but his problem is he nests all of this within a Nietzschian psychological dynamic that ignores the Jungian frameworks we all base our framatistic perceptions on: he is the Jungian archetype of the nomad - parsimonious, ephemeral, quixotic. More a metaphysical mind than a man - but perhaps he can't escape his own Jungian expectations to see the platonomodernistic forest for the trees. And all of this is nested within a solipsistic antwork weaved into a logical fabric that we have to use to understand the world as it is.
@@Kitties_are_pretty is this how you speak to people face to face? good god.
@@spiralsone No, of course not. I never speak that way. Jordan Peterson on the other hand is only capable of speaking that way, so I thought you might like it. I guess not.
Honestly I don't know why you didn't like that as it has all the ingredients of a Jordan Peterson paragraph. Namedropping philosophers constantly without actually talking about what they believed. Adding "post" before random words and "modern" after others. Beefing things up as much as possible with flabby, flowery language. Making large unjustified claims. It has almost everything.
Seen this on a Star Trek episodeq. The guest was Recardo Montelbon.
Incredible
I can almost admire Nietzsche for being an unironic supervillain.
He was no more a villain than a hero but your comment gave me a chuckle.
If you follow the logical conclusion of his general take on philosophy you will see that indeed he is/was a villain. To the extent you convince another person to do evil you are also evil.
all crooks try to justify their immature self importance.
@@jj4791 So Christianity and its "teacher" Jesus are totally evil.
You can add "Savage Music Critic" to Nietzsche's resume.
The most amusing feature of this video is the subtitles!
Thank you!
Perhaps Nietzsche’a idea was to martyr himself philosophically and present the most extreme set of ideas on the other end of the compassion scale, against which all others can be measured.
Nietzsche seems to restrict himself to man whose only spur for action is the inclination to predate or dominate. This reduces man to a force of nature, as opposed to a conscious being with a sense of reflection.
His moral “suffering has no meaning” is very profound. And Russell’s interpretation is very helpful and masterful.
I don't think so. It is not like his ideas existed in a vacuum.
People say he is not a political thinker, but you can see the politics of his time all over his work.
He was responding to the much more pacific version of man put by illuminism and german idealism.
His predatory idea of humanity is not that far from Hobbes. Difference being that he saw a constructive value in it, opposite to Hobbes who just wanted to contain it.
He was asserting aristocratic values over any sort of egalitarian philosophy.
I was expecting the worst when I began to read Beyond Good and Evil. At first I thought 50% fascist and 50% good. The 50% bad went done to 40% then 30% and so on until it almost dissolved. Nietzsche in his writing goes beyond his own ideologies. His female housekeeper asked him why he wrote so nastily about women; he took both her hands in his and said, "You must not believe what I write."
And he was lying to her
Most people so also most women suck in the eyes of Nietzsche, notable exceptions are Lou Salomé and Cosima Liszt.
Perhaps he meant, "You must not believe what I write, because if you do, you will stop working for me, and to be quite frank, working for me is the sole purpose of your existence."
@@omp199 -o. I now from my sudies of Nietszche that he meant it. e like being provocative and and said e hated literal truth and prerred to feel free to lie.
@@felixdevilliers1 If you accept that he was not straightforwardly honest with people, then why would you believe that he was not misleading his housekeeper?
Although I shudder at the ruthlessness of Nietzche's ideal, he sure was a powerful and unique poet and visionary.
Well, he kind of liked the unique minded. If you have a passion and belief that you believe from the bottom of your soul, you should follow it, even it makes you the enemy of the world. This was a part of Nietzche's superman. And this is something I can understand. Every self understanding individual finds himself in opposition to the herd of people at some point in his life. Nietzche pretty muchy was waring against the herd's anger and telling you to keep moving forward, even if the herd hated you for your convictions.
🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍he was for sure the TRUE guardian for all rare and noble few souls . . . creaving for a NEW life . . . utterly away from the dumb crowd/flock
He had an extremely exaggerated sense of his own importance for someone who was a total loser at life.
@@joejohnson6327bro never looked up the “things influenced by Nietzsche” article on wikipedia
@@joejohnson6327As opposed to the more noble self loathing most people have? And usually losers at life don’t end up being amongst the most influential people in history
Thank you so much
Let’s not overlook the humour in Neitzschean maxims: ‘woman - young; a cavern decked about: old; a dragon sullies out’
As someone who went through university, I'm very disappointed that I am unfamiliar with much of what is being talked about. Less so with the university, but more so with primary and secondary education.
@faust p Maybe he should start by spelling his name properly first before having an opinion 🤷♂️
It aint just a word but a name and if you will quote such half nonsense then spell his fxxxing name correctly first you brats. NIETZSCHE.
@@goognamgoognw6637 And these days he is in oblivion because he is a white man. Btw, what do they actually teach these days in philosophy classes in the US? Anyone left?
@@apollontheintp3257 they give scholarship to brainwashed youth to 'study' and validate degenerate theories of gender and rewriting history against white people (when really most evil in history came from banking thugs).
The western spiraling down in moral stems from a minority of intelligent evil thugs controlling the currency printing presses. As long as they have that, they can corrupt anybody by cutting funds. All battles are pointless as long as they have that power and they know it.
@@apollontheintp3257
Pretty much a Monstrous White Man. I agree very much with Bertrand's adverse conclusion of this paranoid pompous barbaric bastard the end of the vid.
And besides it is YOU who says your favourite boyfriend is in Oblivion. Ever heard of Libraries? According to them institutions, he ain't. Go to a few them, get some library cards and you cars read all about Neitcha till you grow old die and decompose in whatever chair you use to sit on and read all about the bastard and what that dog wrote. Black People ain't gonna stop you from doing so, so don't even bother going there for some argument if why you won't be able to.
@@apollontheintp3257 funny thing is someone like Foucault is basically a Nietzschian and isn't he a hero of the woke?
The assumed aristocracy of the intellectual class and its amorality runs through much of continental philosophy.. The expert class to which the plebs are meant to bow down to in submissive reverence.. It's's all Nietzschian horseshit.
I don’t know who Stoica Nicusor is, but I like his reading of the thoughts and words of Bertrand Russell. I don’t like that Russell smoked a pipe, but admit that I have smoked quite a few in my time, and that I am also a peacenik, and have always loved the peace lovers throughout history. It seem’s like Putin is an admirer of Nietzsche, and the suffering of the plebs means nothing to him…that he considers himself a great man altering the course of history. I hope he can be put in his place by peaceful means.
Now, compare this, to the average professors lecture on Nietzsche - and to add more credit, this is Russell's personal interpretation, not a patched copy paste.
I agree with your first and third sentence. For your second, and don't know. It is his opinion after all - so I don't know if opinions can be wrong by definition. I think that several people will have several different opinions of my thoughts after all. Thanks for your reply.
This is not an interpretation. This is a hatchet job.
You cannot compare Bertrand Russell and the average professor. Bernie was on no way, shape or form an average philosopher or man. Do you often make silly comparisons in order to end up with an undisputable conclusion? Bernie never did.
@@Wkkbooks Yes Russell’s writings about Nietzsche were particularly innaccurate.
@@jonashjerpe7421 Nietzsche was not an average philosopher either. And you are the first person I ever heard call Bertrand Russell “Bernie.” I don’t know if he ever used that nickname. Maybe he did.
I ADORE READING
Good for you 👍🏼
@@quin2392 good for u too
It's important to keep in mind that Russell is commenting on Nietzsche based on bad translations and editing available before Walter Kaufmann (sp?) in the 1950s and 60scorrected a lot of the past mistakes. Also, Russell was (understandably) strongly influenced by the fallacious Nazi adoptions of Nietzsche's catch phrases. enabled mostly by Nietzsche's sister's misappropriation of his writing. Nietzsche delighted in pushing ideas that were intentionally open to interpretation, he was the philosopher of 'what if', he was intentionally contradicting and metaphorical. There is a lot to disagree with, most of which he would disagree with too. He also wrote how to be a philosopher is to essentially be proclaiming subjective and autobiographically revealing opinions; he often wrote of his regrets about some of the more cruel things he wrote, especially about women, that he attributed to his own rage and hurt from rejections.
Yeah I was gonna say if Nietzsche was sexist, but I guess later he he realized he made that mistake.
Russell could not read ancient greek fluently, so some passages of Nietzsche he would need translated. But he could read and write German at a fluent academic level.
@@nik8099 he wouldn’t care if people thought him sexist. Sorry English
@@nik8099 Nietzsche was undoubtedly sexist and racist, he just wasn't an anti-semite. Russell's take (in the history of western philosophy) is famously not a great piece of Nietzsche scholarship
@edward young How do you know Russell read "bad" translations of Nitchez?! Russell was fluent in German and did not need to read bad translations. You think someone as brilliant as him would be influenced by Nazi adaptation as you call it? Have you considered why they adopted Nitchez ideas? Why didn't Nazis adopt Schopenhauer or other German philosophers?! Why is it so wrong to just say Nitchez was a piece of sh*t just like Hitler? Why apologize for him so sincerely and justify his bad ideas with mumbo jumbo?
works well on x0.75 speed. well enough to keep up.
Only I could say is and it would side with nietzsche's view I believe but it's the idea of competition, like sports for example?
Competition can be "cruel" sometimes but it's amazing when you push the human body mentally and physically against other people.
Splendid...
My goodness this is quite brilliant. This marks the day I became a fan of Bertrand Russell.
You'll come to curse that day.
the word "brilliant" is nonsense
I prefer happiness for the sake of happiness and what happiness is but not what is not happiness.
I remember the foreword in my copy of Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. (probably a dutch translation, I cant quite remember) From what I recall the philosopher that wrote it praises russels analysis in general and in particular of the classic period, but also warned that Russell was a man of his time too and that he got more biased regarding philosophers of (or close to) his own time. Particulary Nietzsche.
Thankfully one of the few accounts of Nietzsche that doesn’t uncritically accept his philosophy but dissects its weaknesses. And it does acknowledge some of its predictive strengths.
🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍 but mind you: Even so called "weaknesses" could be occult (hidden) s t r e n g t h s !!!
This sounds good. I may give Bertrand Russell's book a go one day.
Yes it's good but only as a journalist, not a philosoph. He is like a fly that circles around Nietsche's system of thoughts trying to scrutinize, taste it and do an autopsy but has no ideas of his own to oppose. The modern philosoph assumes he can just be an observer and synthesize others but it's not the proper way to oppose ideas. He will be forgotten while Nietzche's ideas won't.
Make no mistake concerning his premature death: The hostile church he hated so much sent him an infected whore. He was killed by design . . .
Nietzsche had serious health problems for much of his life and struggled mighty with his Danish Publisher Brandies to promote Book Sales and earn Money via lectures to keep his head above water financially. He walked his talk, applying his Will to thrive through great adversity.
We hear much of Nietzsche Philosophy, little about how he lived his life.
Like so many believers in the idea of übermenschen and untermenschen - he thought of himself as an example of the former, but in reality more resembled his own definition of the latter.
@@griiseknoen Despite serious health problems, Neitzche continued a gruelling Presentation Schedule for Years. From Denmark to Italy his Show was on the Road, filling up mostly University Auditoriums. Whatever people may think of his Philosophy, Nietzsche himself was an incredibly Tough and Willful Person.
@@michaelmcgarrity6987 and what happened, it all broke down at 45 under the immense strain?
There is much I truly dislike about Nietzschian thought, but I do admire his yes saying in spite of incredible adversity.
@@michaelmcclure3383 He was tough. I don't know how much of his Kool aid he really believed in. I have a Book of Correspondence between Nietzsche and his Danish Publisher Brandies. There's nothing about Philosophy in the correspondence. It's mostly about Chaotic events in Europe at the time such as the Burning of Prague. Making Money off of Book Sales and Speaking engagement ticket seems a full time Job for Fred.
Through all the Correspondence, I've never seen Nietzsche gripe about any of the serious Issues he had. He kind of bucked up and Walked his talk. I shall dig up the Book and read it again. Europe appears to be heading into a Crisis period again. Maybe there are Rhymes of History to be found? I personally find Nietzsche Philosophy hard to understand. I've been through Geanilogy of Morals a couple times and find it very cryptic.
Perfectl to Hawk speaking engagements to explain what it all means and sell Merchandise.
I read Beyond Good and Evil 53 yrs ago at age 16. Huge influence on me but in some ways made me too confident.
Why would you regret having been confident
@@mercutiomurphy2743 Just too confident at times when I should have been more cautious.
WOW ! I began with it almost 25 years later. I simply had NO overtime before . . .
Anyone who thinks a mustache should resemble some kind of shelter has lost it.
Does anyone know where this recording is actually from? I would love to hear Russel read the rest of the book.
Thank you
I sincerely hope you would, at least, provide the source of this audio, book, etc.
Here's the complete version bit.ly/2w9ormO
Stoica Nicusor Thank you, you awesome person.
Colin Silver
He does a chapter on hím in "History of Western Philosophy" i think ...
Stoica Nicusor “link not found”
Colin: good idea. Please search and share with us. The link given is broken.
I wonder if Bertrand Russell got his Nobel Prize for looking smart in TH-cam comments-
He didn't. What's your point?
@@ishmaelforester9825 you made it for him...
Russell seems like the type of guy that likes listening to himself talk, reminds me of Richard Dawkins
@@vikare7849 absolutely not. Far more smarter than Dawkins. Read his principia mathematica, treatise on logic.
Thank You
here a Nietzsche follower, and no professor Russel, it is not coming to and end
Can you write a simple declarative sentence properly? WTF are you saying?
can you be polite for one fcking time in your life?
My boy Bertrand sounds a bit scared of this fear-driven Nietzsche, no?
He was a VERY secret (very hidden) DRAG QUEEN ! -> Fear of Fredericks shere masculinity !!
by far the best analysis of Nietzsche I've ever come across, and thanks
Ahhh Freddy N, the 19th century's very own Gamergater.
Stoica, I do not dislike the act of presenting this discourse, but rather the ideas of both Freddy & Bert. Thank you for uploading it.
What a magnificent language. I have Russell's book in my possession and I intend to read it upon my graduation from PhD 🤣🤣 (the second sentence is my poor imitation of Russell's academic style, lol)
It's a normal sentence
nice
I have read lots of Russell but this is an introduction to Ntetzche which is very good!
Read Nietzsche.....an than...you don t need to read any other philosophers....It seems that Nietzsche read all the literature from all time !! Was helped by his first profession - philologist. In relation to this profession he says (in Ecce Homo ......? - A medium-sized philologist has to scroll through 200 books a day ! - Of course....that doesn't mean ,,read 200 a day" but he seems to read all greek - latin - french ....and many other (The laws of MAnu..)
both philosophical and other fields - psychology .... literature ... poetry ... I know that seems incredible.....But anyway -- he has a beautiful and powerful writing ... I started to read B. Russel - The problems of philosophy...It s ok until now...I have great expectation....Because Nietzsche opera was stopped arround 1890 ....an i want to what is after that.....I know - at first time i thought - How can someone to say ,,read Nietzsche - it's enough - he cover up all..." ??(because someone told me the same...and i was distrustful. I thought that is necesary to read all authors and than to compare.....On the other hand - it is impossible to read all the authors...I don t know - Maybe that science, philology has a secret method ....
With shame I admit I'm totally unknown this science...
Chandra Raj This is a terrible introduction to Nietzsche. Few misunderstood Nietzsche as badly as Russell.
Neitzche's ideas were inspired by the laws of Manu from India. He even stole the words like Tschandala (to describe a lowly person) which was a derived from the word 'Chandala' used to describe the untouchables or shudras in Hinduism.
Neitzche's ideas were completely delusional and no doubt only a person like Hitler could only resonate with him. Manusmriti has already been disregarded in India and has proven to be an inefficient philosophy if the ultimate goal of it is for human progress.
Ambedkar has written an excellent critique on his ideas.
velivada.com/2017/06/02/dr-babasaheb-ambedkar-said-nietzsche/
@@osculocentric Thanks for the link but it’s not much of a critique. It just says his ideas were co-opted by Nazism and how members of his family supported Hitler. 🤔 I certainly agree with you that Nietzsche’s philosophy was a cartoon of an elitist paradise, written by a virgin bookworm who hated his own weakness and dreamed of being a wise, strong soldier and leader.
Very instructive! For me, the heart of Russel's analysis is to be found here:
King Lear on the verge of madness said : "I will do such things, what they are yet, I know not, but they shall be the terror of the Earth". This is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell. It never occured to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with wich he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear there neighbors, see no neccessity to tyranise over them. Men who have conquered fear have not the frantic quality of Nietzsche artist tyran and heros who tries to enjoy music and massacre while their hearts are filled with dread of the inevitable palace revolution.
The thing that Bertrand Russell fails to see is that unsatisfatoriness, cruelty and an appetit for destruction is at the heart of every dynamic, vibrant healthy nations. No nation or empire were ever built on compassion and pardon. These are good values for established societies framed by laws and administrative forces which are the ossified remains of true free energy and vitality. Nietzsche isn't concerned with maintaing our society as it is. And for our enjoyment, he's pointing in a new direction, which is a breath of fresh air compared to the same abramanic religion overworn soporific themes.
You can build on love though. Love is the only all encompassing positive value. I fall for Buddah's conclusion. I believe Russell's insight that Nietzsche philosophy is built on fear, which makes it a little less appealing to me now. Nevertheless, all evolution on a path or another is made of destruction, and wether anyone likes it or not, humans are full of love but also the most vile, cruel and unforgiving of all creatures, which is confirm everyday by our position in the natural order of thing nowadays. Very few philosopher dwell on the violence contained in human nature. Nietzsche is one of the few who acknowledge our darker qualities to show a path that is probably closer to the real human nature and which makes innumerable aspects of his philosophy still very appealling, modern and topical to this day.
Nietzsche power is not power over someone, but only yourself.
@@HorukAI You made my day ! He is a real friend. . . writing to strenghten the individual - opposed to the group !
from where is this taken?
Random thought. Has anyone considered the possibility that Nietzsche was influenced by William Blake? In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake says, "Prisons are built by stones of law, brothels by bricks of religion" which sounds a bit Nietzchean. Blake also said, "One law for the lion and ox is oppression" which definitely sounds Nietzchean.
Actually it is well known that Nietzsche was highly influenced by Ralph Waldo Emerson. But what no one seems to talk about is that Emerson was greatly influenced by India’s masterpiece the Bhagavad-Gita!
In the Gita the main lesson is the ending of duality.
Food for thought
He was inspired by Emerson for sure.
Nietzsche and Emerson both greatly admired Montaigne. Nietzsche specifically singled him out for praise and Emerson wrote an essay about him called The Skeptic.
Did Nietzsche ever mention Emerson by name?
In "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell" Blake says, "Prisons are built by stones of law, brothels by bricks of religion" which sounds a bit Nietzchean.
i think it sounds a lot better
@@charliechaplin7959 'Praises him as a master of prose in the Gay Science and makes an epigram for the same book out of a quote from his History essay. Needless to say Nietzsche held great admiration for him and alot of his ideas of the overman, academics and christianity ressemble what is seen in Emerson's essays (Nietzsche's copy of the first and second books of Essays is still extant with many marginal notes). Although he makes more reserved claims of Emerson in his later work he was very infuential for his early life
Russell and Nietzsche were in essence dealing with double edged swords, as all philosophers must. The idea of universal love is double edged since loving an enemy can enable him to continue his brutality . But herein lies the a potential synthesis: it is in HOW we “love” our enemy -tough love may be the solution . To abandon an abuser may wake him up. The aristocracy theme too is a double edged sword ⚔️. How can N both so beautifully liberate us from ourselves yet also agree with a slave master Paradigm ? Mediocrity can be found in both slave and master , as well as brilliance . Herein lies my attempt at synthesis: new education models that incorporate all ways of learning, more freedom of self exploration , more hands on project oriented learning and reverence and care for the natural world as a key component of curriculum . I am afraid that as much as N steered his readers from dogma he at times created a new one breaking his own rules . As with his views on women pettiness is often a symptom of early childhood deprivation of authentic education and religious programming . Another double edged sword he wielded at half the worlds population. I call this double edged sword the mechanistic vs organic (spontaneous) view of human experience.
Very well said
@@tranglomango thank you
i like views of nietzche which are expressed in the video....
I've read some of the comments & realise I'm not qualified to comment. ..i like to think of Russells narration or his thoughts as the number one comment by far .....
Nietzsche read the Aeneid, the Odyssey, the Iliad, all the old songs of heros and monsters. Than he looked at the men of his time, their weakness their vices. And than, he came to greatest question of all time "What happened to Garry Cooper, the strong silent type?!"
I heard Gary cooper was gay.
Guy was an interior decorator
Nietzsche and his enthusiasts are a bit like holy books and their readers: he's to be taken literally when it suits, but not when it doesn't.
jonathanjonathan You do realize that you're acting exactly like what he describes Nietzsche's fans to act? Lol
Well, few literary matters are to, or not to, always be taken literally
He's only a man with opinions that reflect the culture at the time. Why should anyone be considered to be flawless?
Awake-state of being is a higher level of consciousness. The ego is a zombie-like state of unconscious. A method to awaken is through Spinoza’s acknowledging of our understanding: great effort is required for its improvement. WayofSpinoza.com #Gurdjieff #Spinoza #Einstein
Lewis Almeida. You are into Spinoza and Gurdjieff.
Good stuff.
Ever looked into Emanuel Swedenborg ?
‘If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’
I wonder if someone can help with my confusion...
Russell says that from Nietzsche's perspective "In a fight of all against all, the victor is likely to possess certain qualities which Nietzsche admires, such as courage, resourcefulness and strength of will. But if the men who do not possess these aristocratic qualities (who are the vast majority) band themselves together, they may win in spite of their individual inferiority. In this fight of the collective *canaille* against the aristocrats, Christianity is the ideological front, as the French Revolution is the fighting front. We ought therefore to oppose every kind of union among the individually feeble, for fear lest their combined power should outweigh that of the individually strong."
However, my understanding of Nietzsche is that he takes the opposite view of Christianity; that it produces servile individuals, content with characteristics that should be rejected as vices, promoting them as virtue.
So what is it? Does Christianity produce of class of beta men, who value weakness (as meekness), servility (as forgiveness). Or does it, coversely, produce the ideological basis upon which lesser men may - as a collective - overthrow their masters? My understanding is the former, but Russell seems to argue the latter.
I don't see them as mutually exclusive concepts. An ideology could produce both weak individuals and a cohesive, strong collective.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he does view Christianity as a weakness but more so a will to power. How he describes holy men as the ultimate power seekers. They want to be God
@@DuncanL7979 🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍
18:03 maybe except Goethe!
He also liked Emerson. Whitman has Nietzschean elements, but with the hatred drained away.
Looking at this comment section. Good to know I'm not the only one who has the urge to go full on gibrish mode after listening to Russell for half an hour
Source please.
This is such a one-sided, sophistic interpretation of Nietzche which was constructed only in justification of the Nazi ideology. For example, the dialogue Russel constructs of what Buddha would supposedly say in response to Nietzche was often exactly what Nietzche himself preached (i.e., of loving your enemy, which he described as noble in Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Meanwhile, Russel presents Nietzche as consistent (at least moreso than Schopenhauer), while his inconsistency might be in fact the most consistent thing about him - this itself could have made a better rebuttal, but Russel completely missed it.
Shocking to see a thinker as effective as Russell deconstruct the great Nietzsche like this, but also very sobering.
It’s lowered my opinion of Nietzsche tenfold. I think his theories on morality are impressive, but his conclusions are simply very caught up in the trend of Darwinism (which he didn’t fully grasp, but the gist is there)
@@oxytocin1989 It's also easy to get caught up in Nietchze's obvious passion, especially for younger people looking for some philosophical model to appropriate. But I now believe that Nietzche's physical illness and rejection from women colored his thoughts a bit too much. I think many of Montaigne's Essays (which I'm currently now re-reading some of) are much better for young people to try and digest, especially today.
@@macbrewster9977 Really
1. Russel: `I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him`. Thats one way to say I agree with myself, or with my own imagination. 2. In this analysis of Nietzsche, Russel refers only to the ethics of the former, and utters not a single word of roots out of which this ethics grows, that is nietzsche's philosophy of the wholesome, undivided and unconditional love of life. He was not capable of understanding it. Russel was still a pleb in his soul, despite being a `Lord` in title.
@@statu-palma-barba-cot3075 1. Russell asked if each of these arguments "could either appeal to the impartial listener" and that "I do not not know how to prove I am right" so it was just an experiment. 2. I think he understands and agrees other than essentially valuing moral happiness as the superior happiness.
Who was more afraid? Who’s philosophy was predicated more on fear? One feared weakness above all else, while the other feared power. Both fears are necessary in balance.
The true words of someone who doesn't know two craps about Russell. His philosophy little has to do with fear and power.
could you give the name of the narrator?
I'd rather hang out with Bert over Fred any day.
You are just a coward. A real "homme" with testicles would hang out with BOTH of them !!
It is interesting for Russell to probe into the realm of Nietzsche's psychology with perhaps the same zest that Nietzsche himself probed into the psyche of the culture and the society of his age. On the other hand, while Russell may have been right in his assessment of Nietzsche's innermost fears as underlying his philosophy (i.e. when discussing Nietzsche's critique of religion, state and women) in his quest for objectivity Russell still comes across as being somewhat harsh on his assessment of Nietzsche's character.
While he argues a number of valid points for and against Nietzsche's philosophy, Russell's critique of the philosopher himself falters from being definitive; in order to be so, his critique of Nietzsche's thinking would have to probe in the times and into the cultural experience that influenced and informed Nietzsche's thinking, as well as on any psychological disorder that he may have endured. (I suspect that he suffered from either GAD and/or ASD, in addition to his syphilis...)
As an exposé of his reasons for disliking certain aspects from Nietzsche's philosophy as a by-product of Nietzsche's seemingly intolerant nature this chapter does succeed however, in presenting Russell's view on the subject.
Apparently his critique here is based on the versions of Nietzche that were edited
Very insightful.
Can you list in the description the date of the recording so it can be determined if this perception and analysis is pre WWII, pre other early/mid century events that should have colored his analysis.
It's post second world war because he mentions the concentration camps and their existence was known/fully comprehend only after the war.
19:25 - that's an interesting point
Jeez, that's a funny username, you've got! Really funny. Hahaha
@@johnjustice8478 Was it the 389 that got you?
I think that what most is interesting is the Slave Morality that people are expressing in their defenses and beliefs of what the "right" or "true" interpretation of Nietzsche is. I think Nietzsche would have welcomed any challenged to his philosophy as a test of the efficacy or his work.
What a blow to Nietzsche😂😉
Nietzcsche was the first incel. But man could he write.
I thought Schopenhauer was the first one, since Nietzsche was somewhat influenced by Schopenhauer early in his life.
This was back before many of his undoctered writings were recovered and released. It was mostly right but on the Jewish thing...he actually talked about the jews being superior to the Germans, his longest lasting best friend was Jewish, he basically unfriended Wagner because of his Christian semantics and his antisemitism. He called Wagner a jew both comparing him to the original immerging of Judaism which he thinks corrupted the morality of the masses, and to poke fun at Wagners own antisemitism, which neitzsche abhorred. He loved his sister dearly but then basically disowned her after she expressed antisemitic views for a while and then married a prominent antisemite. Also he jokes and intentionally shocks riddles and SOMETIMES definitely says the opposite of what he means. He very much so PLAYS with opposites. Or he might say WORKS with them....I don't know of any other philosopher that can make almost anyone feel inspired, comforted, and connected yet also feel discouraged, uncomfortable and alien. There's something there. It's hard to cast aside and my main problem with what russel says is his complements...I do not see nietzsche as that cohesive or systematic. He constantly talks shit about his last book in every book. He's very organic and open to contrarys.
strong and thoughful analysis. Thanks!
I was looking among the comments for someone to point this out. Thank you for commenting.
FOff
There's actually recent work that challenges the view you're putting forth, which was first introduced by Walter Kauffman in the 50s and 60s. Much of the 'doctored' work, was penned by him, most especially the WIll to Power--one of his most race focused work. He just never got to finish editing it before he went insane. The main argument his academic apologists raise is that he went on to reject the views of that book while he was still lucid.
The hatred of liberals, socialists, and misogyny, have never been really doubted at any point though, to my knowledge, at least.
Light candles
"As I grew weary of the search and chase/I learned to find/And since the wind blows in my face/I sail with every wind." ("The Gay Science")
Bertrand is very clear and his criticism is accurate to his knowledge. Today would yield even more support for the fact that success of races, nations and individuals have been proven to be primarily due to proximity to opportunities and not some innate superiority. The worship of "winners' is seriously misplaced, then and now.
The idea that the warrior or billionaire "winner" with their obsessiveness, ruthlessness and lack of empathy represents an ideal we should strive to attain is just wrong. This stance doesn't mean one is pro-Christian values, on the contrary, much of Nietzsche's critique of Xtianity is accurate and agreed on by Russell. But science is now adding to our understanding of what makes for healthy minds and healthy cultures. Clearly Nietzsche was a tough talking sycophant of the "winners" and the world he promotes makes little sense as an ideal.
Besides we no longer live in that type of world. Ours grows smaller and other humans are our primary environment. Nietzsches condescension of women says everything about him. He refuses to except the environmental factors leading to the situation and then blames the less fortunate instead of recognizing that the "fortune" is the primary factor in everything he wants to place the praise and blame on the "will" of the individual. Like Christians blaming sin or New Agers blaming your karma for your plight. Yet he is blind to the fact that the "will" is just another environmental factor of "fortune" which can be changed.
As Russell points out, Nietzsche is arguing from an emotional place, not a factual one and in my opinion puts him closer to the religious argument than a rational one. Russell points out the difficulty in supporting the opposing idea, but today there is much more weighty information.
The success or lack of victimhood of humanity, the little there is, is due to honesty. Honest societies are knowledgeable, prosperous, wealthy, healthy, happy. Being honest is understanding that in a race only one can win regardless of effort or natural capabilities therefore being successful is doing what you can with what you got for the wellbeing of life impossibility possible miracle God. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore impossibility possible miracle God exist. I have discovered the nature of God and i can prove my claim collapsing mortality rates and skyrocketing life when my theory is known. Would you accept as a miracle the saving of infinite lives? We are God, ourselves for eternity til endless death when all life die.
Was Russell the funniest mathematical logician ever? I think probably so.
He was the most mathematical and secret drag queen ever . . .
@@AL_THOMAS_777 must have been a lesbian then?
It is impossible to live in perpetual love in the Gospel sense before the spirit itself seeks to liberate itself from conformity. The life of the individual is endowed with the full array of emotions to exercise, ideally, in the pursuit of happiness, pleasure, or simply freedom. The will to power is the most intense and most natural state of the noble being or Superman. That we humans shall pursue it in truth or by artificial designs really makes no difference because in the end the will to power is what matters .Here we have Nietzsche being subjected to ridicule by a nemesis who ultimately gets the last word. Power always gets the last word .We are not as clever as we think in making a case .In every case it just takes someone ignorant to his own reality as an orphan is ignorant of his/ her own parents. To train the proverbial blank slate and see it pass or fail for the benefit of morality is not only a little hypocritical, it proves the will to power is behind it.Moreover,Russell emphatically emphasizes the Western preoccupation with structure and hierarchy to channel these human attributes effectively which in of itself affirms the will to power as the basis for all human development, like the discovery of fire was/is for human development. Phenomenal, Relative,Existential.
“The women would get the whip away from him, and he knew it.”