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?
@@Chris_T_3rd_Ward_504 It's not like he was utterly wrong. "That blockhead" John Stuart Mill. It's not like he was utterly wrong, but that leaves out part of the truth.
I joined a Nietzsche reading group recently after being invited by a friend. We're going through the first volume of "Human, All Too Human" right now. I read a little bit of Nietzsche in undergrad about a decade ago, and hadn't read anything by him since, so I was pretty green to his writing other than his main ideas before coming into the group. After reading through a good chunk of the first volume of "Human, All Too Human," I think Russell does capture a bit of what Nietzsche is like, and I think you can find his criticisms in his works if you go looking. But I think if you read the whole of Nietzsche, you'll find Russell's opinion is quite simplistic and incomplete. There's quite a bit of life-affirming beauty in Nietzsche as well as darkness and discussion of power. There's a really strong streak of non-conformity and individuality stressed in his writings that Russell might actually sympathize with to a certain degree. He's also always challenging and thought provoking, always asking really big questions. But yes, there's also quite a bit of misogyny, I suspect maybe even by the standards of that time. He also really does seem to have a sympathy for aristocratic forms of government and for aristocracy in general. Russell is not entirely wrong. But reading Nietzsche is not a straightforward experience. I find when I read him, I have to sit with the ideas I read for a bit. I feel like Nietzsche is trying to provoke you above all else. He has genuine convictions, but he can be a bit cryptic and difficult, so you have to sit and think them through. I think when you do that, you come to a more complex picture than the one Russell presents.
Well said!!! Most people who argue against Nietzche, who are intellectual by schools, tend to dislike Nietzche because he calls them "tools." He isn't wrong. They dwell in understanding everything without understanding why.
"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!
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!
Nah, he despises aristocracy because of the resentment it fostered among workers, which ultimately led to the rise of social unions and communism-systems he deemed a 'disease' due to their insatiable desire to cling to human society. While he critiques many aspects of these movements, it’s more accurate to say he has a distinct theory of power that diverges from those of Hegel and Marx.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
4 ปีที่แล้ว
Youre an idiot. Must have at least a masters..
4 ปีที่แล้ว +2
The "education" system is more concerned about indoctrinating children on sexual dysforia than the 3 Rs. And unlike the guilds of old where one is trained to excel at something and supplement with the other scholastic fundamentals; the "modern" just makes one generally shitty at generally everything.
@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?
@@CIA.2024-u9b 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.
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
This is such a fantastic post! Damn I love it. So relevant to our current struggles. Could say much, but I in the end am where Russell came to. Thank you.
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.
I disagree with the folks who find this so worthwhile: it is a puffed up bit of sophistry. The blather of academics who spend too much time contemplating their navels.
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 …
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.
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.
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?
In the end, Nietzsche will defeat them all no matter what "criticism" they offer. Fifty years from now, Nietzsche will be proven mostly right and be alive, and no one will really know or study Russell. After I read Nietzsche, and read other "philosophers" or "thinkers" I realized my time and effort to understand things would be much better spent re-reading Nietzsche. All subsequent "writers" (whatever the hell that really means) and their topics, Nietzsche treated them much better, deeper, and ANTICIPATED them by a century!! The point is to take the time over and over and over to UNDERSTAND Nietzsche. Take a "simple" issue, the VALUE and UTILITY of Truth; and examine it and see where it leads, it's incredible how deep he goes into it in ONE paragraph!! STARTING WITH WHAT "IS" TRUTH.
Perhaps your finial analysis of truth falls off on its consequences that rest only with shame to truthfully underpin it! Without emotion one could hardly claim Human! I hope that this has not fallen as permanent upon You Man!
@@jamesreagan8808 "I hope that this has not fallen as permanent upon You Man!" ??? What is "this" in your sentence?? And wherefrom is it "permanent"? Do yo mean "this" as in what you imagine my beliefs are??
You may be right, there is no doubt Russell's value judgements are entirely misplaced and misleading. Let the reader form his own opinions, without this Continental vs British bias.
@@jimbo43ohara51 The search and seeking of truth by itself is a horrible thing to face, it will make one grow somehow, though it is and might be an extremely "ugly" finding for our ears and minds in the soft modern eras. A person doesn't have to LIKE the truth, but he must recognise it and accept it if truth is what he or she is after. He wasn't kidding when he said he is dynamite!!
@@dancingbanana627 Yes you can READ both, but you cannot accept both. Not without obvious contradictions and judgement, one is deep the other is deepest so far. No other thinker philosopher even comes close, or I would love to hear WHO is deeper than N. in fact I have been waiting and looking for those. In a sense you can find deeper and furthering concepts but not in philosophy, but in other areas like film or good tv series treating the sinful concepts of the recent past, the sinful concepts of the antiquity past have already been proven wrong or useless. Thus exploring the utility of sin and truth or falsehood is a great starting point if you don't go too far into relativism. Nietzsche says if you're going to think you're going to have to make judgements, there is no other way to live as a self aware being.
Nietzsche’s notion of a brutal and wise aristocracy ‘protecting’ fey poets and ‘academics’ (among whose number he presumably thought himself) seems even sillier now than ever.
Philology is a word that should make a comeback. Too many today think that linguistics is just about learning or being able to speak a foreign language.
yeah, that went off the rails. much like philosophy turned into psychology. great because its started incorporating scientific testing, but shit because it forgot about the cultural underpinnings on the individual psychology. Nietzsche was adamant that most philosophers were simply talking thru their own cultural biases- not about them as he was attempting to do. that became all the worse with psychology, which often disregards the context for the individuals psychology (for example one might be having a perfectly normal psychological response to an unhealthy culture- and since the cultural isn't taken note of, the individuals normal reactions are pathologized. the same is true of modern linguistics I would say. insufficient focus on history, etymology, cultural biases and changes over time. tho that is far less my wheelhouse than philosophy and psychology I should say.
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. . .
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
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.
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
Nietzsche was precisely against this British style sentiment. It's explained painfully clearly in his books, and would come as no surprise to him. Bertrand Russell is proving that even as an atheist, he is capable of defending Christian values.
Of course the late Nietzsche has the ridiculous notion, as he puts it, 'I uncovered Christian morality.' That is patently absurd. There is nothing in earlier Nietzsche that is not in the profounder Christian psychologists - many English divines - apart from the atheism. The truth is you can take or leave God; if what you say is relevant or true, it simply is, no matter how you say it. Christianity is a mere formality, a sort of fashion: there were English Christians saying much of what Nietszche considered his great insights centuries before, if not in the same dress. Russell had a similarly foolish conceit, as though he were some kind of great moral vanguard because he decided there was no essential principle of being or God. Neither of them understood original Christianity or the metaphysical symbolism of the Bible anyway as is patently obvious from their writings.
People overrate modern philosophers on ethics and psychology a) because of a prejudice against religion and God, and b) because they have simply not bothered to read the Christians. I can read Earles, a devout Christian from the seventeenth century, and find a great deal of Nietzsche at his best in his witty asides. I am being deadly serious. Not that Christianity is true, only that modern rebels are deluded in their pretensions to stunning originality and insightfulness when it comes to history or human nature. But nobody reads the likes of Earles anymore.
I like Nietzsche, I admire Nietzsche - Zarathustra is one of the great books - but the slavering over him of English readers is absurd. Russell does not really understand him but I cannot help but enjoy his near contemptuous dismissal; it is almost fitting considering the ridiculous hype and overrated reputation Nietzsche has somehow accrued, and more especially Nietzsche's own laughable pretensions in his late works. I have come to understand those declamations as the sprouting of the illness that turned him into a vegetable. They are certainly not worthy of the younger Nietzsche.
Bertrand Russell is a dreamer of greener pastures. As if men are not treated, or will not be treated in the future, as chattel and livestock by their rulers. The cruelty and dominance is just much better concealed and used to manipulate more thoroughly, albeit perhaps less cruelly than in the past. It never goes away; it is only sublimated and becomes ever more "refined". But Bertrand Russell's analysis of Nietzsche is not atypical. As Nietzsche put it: Lack of the historical sense is the traditional defect in all philosophers. Philosophers often literally do not study much history, and thus are often incapable of understanding the context that many ancient philosophers came from. One important thing to know about Nietzsche was that he started as a philologist, or we might say a classics scholar. He was fluent in Ancient Greek and Latin, he read the ancient philosophers. Yet, he also read the others: Herodotus, Polybius, Suetonius, Caesar, etc, he read the ancient sources and engaged with them on a much wider level than philosophers do. And this is where Bertrand's interpretation is lacking: Nietzsche's moral claim here about 'noble men' is as descriptive a claim as it is prescriptive. Because, if one studies Roman history long enough, not through the lens of philosophy, and without passing modern moral prejudices, one is going to find that a lot of what Nietzsche says is rather uncontroversial and true claims about Roman history. The Romans were apathetic towards philosophy in the early years of the Republic. The philosopher-type was socially sidelined. Christianity did literally come from Judea. Judea was undergoing horrible religious persecution, and lost horribly in every rebellion, and Christianity did come out during this time as a reaction to Roman rule. Christianity was literally a slave morality, as it was most popular amongst slaves quite literally. Writings from the senatorial class confirm that privileged Romans did see themselves as subject to different moral rules from those beneath them. Christianity rose in parallel to the strength of the emperor, and Christianity's explosive rise did coincide with the decline of the empire. Nietzsche says that philosophers attempt to scrub this sticky historical mess from the development of moral systems. We want to think in 'universals', or have rules that apply to everyone, and it's often taken as a given that this is good. Nietzsche does not see the transition into Christian moral universalism as good. But, contrarily, this doesn't mean Nietzsche wants to rewind the clock back to a severe, Roman-style system. He's more just pointing out that humans can and do thrive without the assumptions philosophers make about our morality, and the transition to Christianity came at a cost. What he'd desire is some new morality which isn't universalized and as limiting as Christianity, but he doesn't want to achieve that through political means. What are we to think of Nietzsche's doctrines? ... Is there in them anything objective, or are they the mere power-phantasies of an invalid? Nietzsche's descriptions of the development of morality are imperfect, I don't think his readings are always spot on. But, he does have a very good point to anyone who can work to mentally escape their context and really grasp what life is like under a wholly different moral system like that of Ancient Rome. Bertrand Russell: "He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear. I am afraid my neighbor may injure me, and so I assure him that I love him. If I were stronger and bolder, I should openly display the contempt for him which of course I feel. It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear...It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power... is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbors see no necessity to tyrannize over them...." This is just nonsense. Christianity was triumphant precisely because it used nonphysical means to subvert Roman rule, a means that was turned psychologically inward. This is always the tactic of those who cannot resist openly. Here's another reason why knowing Roman history is helpful: early Rome, which Nietzsche clearly has some preference for over the 'decadence' of the roman empire, had a law which allowed anyone to legally kill a man who tried to make himself emperor. And you better believe this did happen. That's one of the ways cruelty can work in mysterious ways: Christianity was born as the first Roman emperor was born, and one could potentially see Christianity's doctrine of nonresistance as aiding the rise in autocrats. Whereas the open, brutal cruelty of early Rome was in some ways fairer, because it didn't attempt to defang your average person, it let them unleash forces against problems in societies more freely. Naively pretending to place a universal morality (in this case Christianity) as a way of uniting mankind in a gentler and better way is a sleight of hand of those who lack power and seek it for themselves. This is the type of 'universalism' and 'lack of historic sense' Nietzsche wants to fight. Bertrand Russell is another one of those "last man" types.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?!"
The editorializing that starts right around the second half is exactly what Nietzsche would expect from a Judeo-Christian idealist: aggression is a product of fear, truly wise people have overcome their fear so they don't harm others, Nietzsche's love of power shows his weakness, universal love is real and Nietzsche not knowing it is his failure. Come on now: whenever anyone acts at large scale, there is a pathos of distance and a great opinion of oneself at work. And why divide men into 'saints by love' and 'saints by fear', when the former is just the latter after centuries of social conditioning? This is why Nietzsche doesn't bother with going into the nature versus nurture debate. It's all the same to him: over centuries, they are all products of a strenuous environment. And it's beside the point. Nietzsche's point has been that dealing with conflict directly and honestly, knowing yourself and your ultimate self-interest, leads to more resilient, dynamic, smarter, and ultimately stronger people. Those people make great societies, which like all societies, are hierarchical. Even in egalitarian revolutions, there are leaders who pull people together into those movements and drive it to maintain cohesion and establish their own power. There are no equal societies, only societies with equality as a moralistic talking point, and ultimately, the social theories of equality and the Judeo-Christian ethic have legitimacy problems because they don't really work: adhering to pieties of equality doesn't get us equality. Winners and losers still result from every large-scale action, and we still have class as always. The idea of God existed to give legitimacy to equality as a social ideal even when it didn't work, and without God, well... look around. Western civilization hates itself for its continued inequality, and that's the result of the death of God. The vulnerable hate the powerful, which was exactly Nietzsche's point: society deals with those who would ignore humanism by calling them evil and ostracizing them, which means good and evil is really just moral tribalism. That's not equality, it's just another social conflict between types, destined to become permanent class warfare. Most of this video is damning with faint praise, by someone who is exactly the kind of thinker Nietzsche had a problem with. The mustache wasn't right about everything, but this is a bad evaluation of him and 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.
What do you mean by misunderstanding, I'd like to understand, as your post imply it's relatively common. At that point, what is stopping me from replying with "As opposed to the understanding of a youtube user?". I am genuinely curious.
I never comment on youtube, but I am greatly saddened by this exposé of Nietzsche. Unfortunately, Russell, born of high-blood , with his lack of imagination and propensity for literal interpretation is doing a great injustice based on a literal and rather cursory interpretation of Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche was never truly concerned with "great individuals" like Napoleon - he didn't admire them in the sense of wanting to be like them nor did he idolize them. In such men he merely saw some of the virtues of self-actualization that he preached. He was never against democracy or morals. What he was against was imposed morality; imposed democracy; imposed dichotomies of good and evil. His uberman (the translation of super does not do it justice), is a man that is not concerned with the opinions of other but rather forms his own. He chooses his morality because wants to not because the church or the political system told him to. Only a man like this can be a true democrat (i.e. one that believes in democracy - not to be confused with the current political system). His writings are that of a man who understood too much and whose words fell of deaf ears. Admittedly, his thoughts are scattered around his books and they are not easy to interpret by merely reading one or two of them but rather the bulk of his work. In layman's terms he was on the greatest motivational speakers of all time. Don't judge him and his work based on someone else's judgement, be it Russell (whom in full disclosure I despise, but respect regardless), or the flavor of the month Peterson. Make a small investment, buy his books in hard copies, and read them in a quiet place without distractions (helps to have a pencil to take notes/underline). Then you can draw your own conclusions. In any case, good luck!
Perhaps that is the hallmark of a bad philosopher, ie one that cannot make their ideas more accessible, because the only person for whom you’re writing for is yourself at that point, now that’s not to say that just because an idea is hard to understand doesn’t necessarily make it inaccessible unless the framework of which it is to be understood is itself also obscure which would allow for wildly different interpretations that are apart from the philosophers intentions.
@@lizzyfrizzle8986 Wildly different interpretation is what makes philosophy rather fascinating. The beauty of any work of art should not be merely canned into the artists framework but rather re framed based on the viewer/reader. This is especially true with philosophy (from the Greek φίλος friend and σοφία wisdom). Wisdom is gained through two main mechanisms; observation and experience. What connects both is the processing of the above in the human mind. The processing of experiences and observations is what constitutes true wisdom. With philosophy, you are presented with the wisdom of the philosopher, but for the reader it doesn't constitute wisdom; wisdom has to be created. It therefore constitutes an experience. By not allowing a rather lax interpretation of philosophical works, it becomes nothing more than a tool when in reality it can be the end. And for Nietzsche specifically, I do not believer he ever intended for his works to be accessible in any form to the average man. It was rather a bottle-in-the-ocean message for those willing to dig through. On top of that, he preaches choice throughout all of his works. That can only be achieved through free, and not strict, interpretation. I believe it's much more beneficial to be given a half-painted canvas and completing the work yourself, than buying a painting and hanging it on your wall.
Nice point, but would you recommend that all the same to a woman? In my view, Nietzsche´s misoginy sounds very much like the ideas behinds today´s infamous incels...
@@heloisapereira633 Yes I would. Nietzsche would sound misogynistic under a cursory analysis of his work. However, if you delve deeper into the circumstances of his life you can see that he was a hopeless romantic whose feelings were never reciprocated throughout his life. He didn't hate women, rather I'd say he loved them and hated the fact that they didn't love him back. Unfortunately in our current era, of literal interpretation as I mention above, it can be used to fuel various ideologies. If you merely read one book from Nietzsche and not delve into his work, and life, his intent is lost. That's why for me at least words mean nothing and it is the intent that matters; it is truly saddening that my generation has debased these writings to fuel this constant meaningless divide. In essence, yes I would recommend all the same to a woman assuming she is willing to invest time and brain power to truly comprehend what the intent of Nietzsche's work is.
4 ปีที่แล้ว +1
He was extremely in lust with himself, and women yet sexually utterly unfulfilled via inability or incompetantance to woo, and thought himself as the comic book superman but in a sickly frame and a facist mentality if not because. How could hitler not adopt these ideas and see himself as this psychopathic egomaniacal self and all important being, thatNietzsche considers himself, of being. I dont like nor respect russel, but in this I cant see hes wrong in his evaluation of the verry troubled hubristic narsacitic man. Its no wonder he went mad from his own invective poison. Cant live like that and not. .
Nonsense! Bertrand had a lot of weird and superficial interpretations of Nietzsche's figurative, metaphorical concepts neglecting Darvin's influence on his way of understanding terms like Nobleness, Aristocracy and Individualism. Also Nietzsche never considered War in it strict and literal meaning (as also term Aristocrat), proclaiming happiness, lightness and freedom which surely might not be found in religious doctrines, which as itself during human history led to great deal of bloody wars, not mentioning evident intellectual restrictions. Nietzsche fought against any restrictions, in turn against philosophical, but managed to not create his own restrictions and borders. Nietzsche considered War first of all as a fight of intellectual conceptions, fight of ideas: with allusion to Darwin's theory but according to the thought as a basis of civilization. Bertrand hugely misinterpreted core ideas as if he didn't read even a ten percent of Nietzsche's works or was reading it too fast with one eye shut.
I remember reading this stuff as a teenager and even then feeling somewhat uncomfortable and dubious about his analysis of Nietzsche's work and opinions; since then I've read most of what Nietzsche wrote and I think that what Russel is really criticizing here is a very personal, skewed and subjective interpretation of of that Philosopher's work, one that has little or no real merit nor much connection with what Nietzsche actually thought
Why yes ! Try to get a copy of Oshos tremendously interesting work on Nietzsches Zarathustra - if you can get one ! Title = "Zarathustra: The Laughing Prophet". You won´t regret it !
Nietzsche is often misinterpreted and misunderstood and also missumarized. You indeed read better his whole work and make up your mind yourself. The same can be said of Freud and Reich.
I consider Nietzsche one of the founding fathers of contemporary philosophy, one of the 3 masters of suspicion with Marx and Freud. Their works sparked a revolution into the field of philosophy. Nietzsche in particular heavily influenced the existential school and probably the whole continental philosophy. I probably consider him one of the greatest who's ever lived with Marx, Voltaire and Epicurus. With all this being said, it's truly sad to see how most of Nietzsche's admirers nowadays look far more like a sort of "religious followers", rather than conscious individuals trying to make sense of his teachings. The do not posses the courage to question their teacher, and to move beyond his preaching. As Nietzsche himself once famously put: "every master has but one disciple, and that one becomes unfaithful to him, for he too he's destined for mastership"
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.
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.
18:05 Properly handling women is a fine art and I think Nietzsche knows more about women than Bertrand Russell ever will. Respect is the coin of the realm with women (Nietzsche said the whip). A woman will never love a man that is not capable of leaving her. With cheating being the ultimate relationship sin that no higher man would ever tolerate. Weaker men "forgive" such behavior and their cheating parters NEVER forgive them for not having the self-respect to dump them....
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.
Russell misses the fact that what Nietzsche and Schopenhauer understand - or construct rather - by the word ‘will’ are as different as chalk and cheese; that Nietzsche wrests an exclusively phenomenal world from an intricately balanced phenomenal-noumenal world in Schopenhauer and makes of it a positive ethical body of ideas stretched upon the scientific (i.e. completely non-philosophical) theory of Darwin-Spencers’ Evolution. This in the first couple of sentences. He might have added that Nietzsche appears entirely oblivious of the necessity to cooperate with others to achieve most things of any consequence and certainly the greatest from the construction of cathedrals to the making of epic films. He might also have added that Nietzsche’s ‘neo-categorical imperative’ is pretentious twaddle since the phrase is already nonsense in Kant and which is easily determined to be so by the fact that categories are neutral things and abstract nouns like ‘imperative’ have verbal force and the one cannot condition the other in any way any more than an adjective can be laid against a verb with any alteration in meaning resulting from the apposition.
Nietzsche did not smoke (or drink), and saw such escape methods as crutches that prevented a person from reaching the Übermensch. Therefore Nietzsche gave up the lesser for the greater addiction; he may as well have smoked.
He didn't need to smoke to look cool, the moustache spoke volumes! You may not have the looks, you may not have the cash, but you'll win your share of girls, if you only have a moustache!
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.
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 .....
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.
We are now in a world where only the fittest can survive. With Nietzsche I may resist my fate, whereas with Russel I may end up as an object of others' will.
@@kazkk2321 I thank you for the reply! The very fact that you and I are "using" TH-cam bears a testimony for the fact that we are being in some sense "objects of foreign will". I mean it in a broader sense.
@Kumarmangalam Patravali Yeah , that's might be righ ,but when talking about Nietzsche in the long run of history , his envious and tyranious way of thinking will lead to distruction not construction .Everyone will care about himself ,but we forget that there is the upcoming generations whom will have to take the message up .I like russel when said that the task of Philosophy is to explain the world rather than giving answers .Whenever we attempt to give answers we endup with an disastrous ideology ,in fact ,devastating.One when he or she is reading to Nietzsche has to be critical and not go blind.
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 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.
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!
“HIs opinion of woman, like any man’s, is objectivication of his attitude towards them”.. Damn. Preach that shit Bert
Well, it’s not like Nietzsche was wrong 🤷🏽♂️ Just imagine if he could see what Western females have become _today_
@@Chris_T_3rd_Ward_504 It's not like he was utterly wrong. "That blockhead" John Stuart Mill. It's not like he was utterly wrong, but that leaves out part of the truth.
I have read that he didn't have much luck with them, @ohiotatoo1.
objectification is what a human mind does, male or female.
@@kasuo7039 Sometimes, it does more.
I joined a Nietzsche reading group recently after being invited by a friend. We're going through the first volume of "Human, All Too Human" right now. I read a little bit of Nietzsche in undergrad about a decade ago, and hadn't read anything by him since, so I was pretty green to his writing other than his main ideas before coming into the group.
After reading through a good chunk of the first volume of "Human, All Too Human," I think Russell does capture a bit of what Nietzsche is like, and I think you can find his criticisms in his works if you go looking. But I think if you read the whole of Nietzsche, you'll find Russell's opinion is quite simplistic and incomplete.
There's quite a bit of life-affirming beauty in Nietzsche as well as darkness and discussion of power. There's a really strong streak of non-conformity and individuality stressed in his writings that Russell might actually sympathize with to a certain degree. He's also always challenging and thought provoking, always asking really big questions.
But yes, there's also quite a bit of misogyny, I suspect maybe even by the standards of that time. He also really does seem to have a sympathy for aristocratic forms of government and for aristocracy in general. Russell is not entirely wrong.
But reading Nietzsche is not a straightforward experience. I find when I read him, I have to sit with the ideas I read for a bit. I feel like Nietzsche is trying to provoke you above all else. He has genuine convictions, but he can be a bit cryptic and difficult, so you have to sit and think them through. I think when you do that, you come to a more complex picture than the one Russell presents.
Well said!!!
Most people who argue against Nietzche, who are intellectual by schools, tend to dislike Nietzche because he calls them "tools." He isn't wrong. They dwell in understanding everything without understanding why.
I really like the idea of Nietzsche and Buddha having a sassy argument.
“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
I get the distinct impression that Russell did not like Neitzsche.
Indubitably
Make no mistake concerning his premature death: The hostile church he hated so much sent him an infected whore. He was killed by design . . .
"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!
The best style of writing in german language.
"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.
Nah, he despises aristocracy because of the resentment it fostered among workers, which ultimately led to the rise of social unions and communism-systems he deemed a 'disease' due to their insatiable desire to cling to human society. While he critiques many aspects of these movements, it’s more accurate to say he has a distinct theory of power that diverges from those of Hegel and Marx.
@ghfudrs93uuu and what would you add it to? Your philosophical works that don’t exist and no one will ever read?
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
I suggest you look inward, not upward, to an academic who never left the mountaintop to go down into the valley.
@@artlessons1 hear hear..
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.
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?
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.
Thank you for uploading!
“Category: Gaming”
@@notWaldont Nietzsche was an incel hundreds of years before people knew what that was.
“The women would get the whip away from him, and he knew it.”
Thankyou Bertrand, absolutely brilliant.
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.
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.
Youre an idiot. Must have at least a masters..
The "education" system is more concerned about indoctrinating children on sexual dysforia than the 3 Rs.
And unlike the guilds of old where one is trained to excel at something and supplement with the other scholastic fundamentals; the "modern" just makes one generally shitty at generally everything.
@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?
@@CIA.2024-u9b 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.
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
so many ppl do not try to better them selves personally today.
This is such a fantastic post! Damn I love it. So relevant to our current struggles. Could say much, but I in the end am where Russell came to. Thank you.
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.
Two great minds collide.
I disagree with the folks who find this so worthwhile: it is a puffed up bit of sophistry. The blather of academics who spend too much time contemplating their navels.
"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
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 !!!
György Lukács - The Destruction of Reason has a brilliant one as well.
@@asdfasdf464 deeply flawed too
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.
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?
In the end, Nietzsche will defeat them all no matter what "criticism" they offer.
Fifty years from now, Nietzsche will be proven mostly right and be alive, and no one will really know or study Russell.
After I read Nietzsche, and read other "philosophers" or "thinkers" I realized my time and effort to understand things would be much better spent re-reading Nietzsche.
All subsequent "writers" (whatever the hell that really means) and their topics, Nietzsche treated them much better, deeper, and ANTICIPATED them by a century!!
The point is to take the time over and over and over to UNDERSTAND Nietzsche.
Take a "simple" issue, the VALUE and UTILITY of Truth; and examine it and see where it leads, it's incredible how deep he goes into it in ONE paragraph!!
STARTING WITH WHAT "IS" TRUTH.
Perhaps your finial analysis of truth falls off on its consequences that rest only with shame to truthfully underpin it! Without emotion one could hardly claim Human!
I hope that this has not fallen as permanent upon You Man!
@@jamesreagan8808
"I hope that this has not fallen as permanent upon You Man!"
???
What is "this" in your sentence?? And wherefrom is it "permanent"?
Do yo mean "this" as in what you imagine my beliefs are??
You may be right, there is no doubt Russell's value judgements are entirely misplaced and misleading. Let the reader form his own opinions, without this Continental vs British bias.
@@jimbo43ohara51
The search and seeking of truth by itself is a horrible thing to face, it will make one grow somehow, though it is and might be an extremely "ugly" finding for our ears and minds in the soft modern eras. A person doesn't have to LIKE the truth, but he must recognise it and accept it if truth is what he or she is after. He wasn't kidding when he said he is dynamite!!
@@dancingbanana627
Yes you can READ both, but you cannot accept both. Not without obvious contradictions and judgement, one is deep the other is deepest so far. No other thinker philosopher even comes close, or I would love to hear WHO is deeper than N. in fact I have been waiting and looking for those.
In a sense you can find deeper and furthering concepts but not in philosophy, but in other areas like film or good tv series treating the sinful concepts of the recent past, the sinful concepts of the antiquity past have already been proven wrong or useless. Thus exploring the utility of sin and truth or falsehood is a great starting point if you don't go too far into relativism.
Nietzsche says if you're going to think you're going to have to make judgements, there is no other way to live as a self aware being.
Nietzsche’s notion of a brutal and wise aristocracy ‘protecting’ fey poets and ‘academics’ (among whose number he presumably thought himself) seems even sillier now than ever.
Philology is a word that should make a comeback. Too many today think that linguistics is just about learning or being able to speak a foreign language.
yeah, that went off the rails. much like philosophy turned into psychology. great because its started incorporating scientific testing, but shit because it forgot about the cultural underpinnings on the individual psychology. Nietzsche was adamant that most philosophers were simply talking thru their own cultural biases- not about them as he was attempting to do. that became all the worse with psychology, which often disregards the context for the individuals psychology (for example one might be having a perfectly normal psychological response to an unhealthy culture- and since the cultural isn't taken note of, the individuals normal reactions are pathologized. the same is true of modern linguistics I would say. insufficient focus on history, etymology, cultural biases and changes over time. tho that is far less my wheelhouse than philosophy and psychology I should say.
No, it shouldn't. Discourse analysis more than accounts for any gap left by philology.
You can add "Savage Music Critic" to Nietzsche's resume.
Anyone who thinks a mustache should resemble some kind of shelter has lost it.
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 . . .
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 ?
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 🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍
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.
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 !!
Nah
Let’s not overlook the humour in Neitzschean maxims: ‘woman - young; a cavern decked about: old; a dragon sullies out’
Nietzsche, Buddha, and jehova hashing it out in court is a crossover episode that needs to happen.
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.
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 . . .
@@worldorthoorthopaedicsurge6147 You should temper it with reason. It is not a critique of the book.
@agetss358 Remember he had neurosyphilis, maybe the basis of his rantings? Same way many romantic poets had cerebral TB making them full of feelings
by far the best analysis of Nietzsche I've ever come across, and thanks
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
Nietzsche was precisely against this British style sentiment. It's explained painfully clearly in his books, and would come as no surprise to him. Bertrand Russell is proving that even as an atheist, he is capable of defending Christian values.
In a way, so did Nietzsche. His philosophy ends up a tremendous atavism and re-imagining of radical and original Christianity.
That's a funny observation and you're right. Russell is the typical victim of Nietzsche's rants, even down to being English.
Of course the late Nietzsche has the ridiculous notion, as he puts it, 'I uncovered Christian morality.' That is patently absurd. There is nothing in earlier Nietzsche that is not in the profounder Christian psychologists - many English divines - apart from the atheism. The truth is you can take or leave God; if what you say is relevant or true, it simply is, no matter how you say it. Christianity is a mere formality, a sort of fashion: there were English Christians saying much of what Nietszche considered his great insights centuries before, if not in the same dress. Russell had a similarly foolish conceit, as though he were some kind of great moral vanguard because he decided there was no essential principle of being or God. Neither of them understood original Christianity or the metaphysical symbolism of the Bible anyway as is patently obvious from their writings.
People overrate modern philosophers on ethics and psychology a) because of a prejudice against religion and God, and b) because they have simply not bothered to read the Christians. I can read Earles, a devout Christian from the seventeenth century, and find a great deal of Nietzsche at his best in his witty asides. I am being deadly serious. Not that Christianity is true, only that modern rebels are deluded in their pretensions to stunning originality and insightfulness when it comes to history or human nature. But nobody reads the likes of Earles anymore.
I like Nietzsche, I admire Nietzsche - Zarathustra is one of the great books - but the slavering over him of English readers is absurd. Russell does not really understand him but I cannot help but enjoy his near contemptuous dismissal; it is almost fitting considering the ridiculous hype and overrated reputation Nietzsche has somehow accrued, and more especially Nietzsche's own laughable pretensions in his late works. I have come to understand those declamations as the sprouting of the illness that turned him into a vegetable. They are certainly not worthy of the younger Nietzsche.
"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")
I ADORE READING
Good for you 👍🏼
@@quin2392 good for u too
Bertrand Russell is a dreamer of greener pastures. As if men are not treated, or will not be treated in the future, as chattel and livestock by their rulers. The cruelty and dominance is just much better concealed and used to manipulate more thoroughly, albeit perhaps less cruelly than in the past. It never goes away; it is only sublimated and becomes ever more "refined". But Bertrand Russell's analysis of Nietzsche is not atypical. As Nietzsche put it: Lack of the historical sense is the traditional defect in all philosophers.
Philosophers often literally do not study much history, and thus are often incapable of understanding the context that many ancient philosophers came from. One important thing to know about Nietzsche was that he started as a philologist, or we might say a classics scholar. He was fluent in Ancient Greek and Latin, he read the ancient philosophers. Yet, he also read the others: Herodotus, Polybius, Suetonius, Caesar, etc, he read the ancient sources and engaged with them on a much wider level than philosophers do.
And this is where Bertrand's interpretation is lacking: Nietzsche's moral claim here about 'noble men' is as descriptive a claim as it is prescriptive. Because, if one studies Roman history long enough, not through the lens of philosophy, and without passing modern moral prejudices, one is going to find that a lot of what Nietzsche says is rather uncontroversial and true claims about Roman history. The Romans were apathetic towards philosophy in the early years of the Republic. The philosopher-type was socially sidelined. Christianity did literally come from Judea. Judea was undergoing horrible religious persecution, and lost horribly in every rebellion, and Christianity did come out during this time as a reaction to Roman rule. Christianity was literally a slave morality, as it was most popular amongst slaves quite literally. Writings from the senatorial class confirm that privileged Romans did see themselves as subject to different moral rules from those beneath them. Christianity rose in parallel to the strength of the emperor, and Christianity's explosive rise did coincide with the decline of the empire.
Nietzsche says that philosophers attempt to scrub this sticky historical mess from the development of moral systems. We want to think in 'universals', or have rules that apply to everyone, and it's often taken as a given that this is good. Nietzsche does not see the transition into Christian moral universalism as good. But, contrarily, this doesn't mean Nietzsche wants to rewind the clock back to a severe, Roman-style system. He's more just pointing out that humans can and do thrive without the assumptions philosophers make about our morality, and the transition to Christianity came at a cost. What he'd desire is some new morality which isn't universalized and as limiting as Christianity, but he doesn't want to achieve that through political means.
What are we to think of Nietzsche's doctrines? ... Is there in them anything objective, or are they the mere power-phantasies of an invalid?
Nietzsche's descriptions of the development of morality are imperfect, I don't think his readings are always spot on. But, he does have a very good point to anyone who can work to mentally escape their context and really grasp what life is like under a wholly different moral system like that of Ancient Rome.
Bertrand Russell: "He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear. I am afraid my neighbor may injure me, and so I assure him that I love him. If I were stronger and bolder, I should openly display the contempt for him which of course I feel. It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear...It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power... is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbors see no necessity to tyrannize over them...."
This is just nonsense. Christianity was triumphant precisely because it used nonphysical means to subvert Roman rule, a means that was turned psychologically inward. This is always the tactic of those who cannot resist openly.
Here's another reason why knowing Roman history is helpful: early Rome, which Nietzsche clearly has some preference for over the 'decadence' of the roman empire, had a law which allowed anyone to legally kill a man who tried to make himself emperor. And you better believe this did happen. That's one of the ways cruelty can work in mysterious ways: Christianity was born as the first Roman emperor was born, and one could potentially see Christianity's doctrine of nonresistance as aiding the rise in autocrats. Whereas the open, brutal cruelty of early Rome was in some ways fairer, because it didn't attempt to defang your average person, it let them unleash forces against problems in societies more freely. Naively pretending to place a universal morality (in this case Christianity) as a way of uniting mankind in a gentler and better way is a sleight of hand of those who lack power and seek it for themselves. This is the type of 'universalism' and 'lack of historic sense' Nietzsche wants to fight. Bertrand Russell is another one of those "last man" types.
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
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.
@@Triple_J.1 So Christianity and its "teacher" Jesus are totally evil.
@@Triple_J.1😂 what an endearingly stupid comment.
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.
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.
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
LMAO! The plot twist at the end! Sopranos inspired?
Do any photos of Russell as a younger man exist?
The editorializing that starts right around the second half is exactly what Nietzsche would expect from a Judeo-Christian idealist: aggression is a product of fear, truly wise people have overcome their fear so they don't harm others, Nietzsche's love of power shows his weakness, universal love is real and Nietzsche not knowing it is his failure. Come on now: whenever anyone acts at large scale, there is a pathos of distance and a great opinion of oneself at work. And why divide men into 'saints by love' and 'saints by fear', when the former is just the latter after centuries of social conditioning? This is why Nietzsche doesn't bother with going into the nature versus nurture debate. It's all the same to him: over centuries, they are all products of a strenuous environment.
And it's beside the point. Nietzsche's point has been that dealing with conflict directly and honestly, knowing yourself and your ultimate self-interest, leads to more resilient, dynamic, smarter, and ultimately stronger people. Those people make great societies, which like all societies, are hierarchical. Even in egalitarian revolutions, there are leaders who pull people together into those movements and drive it to maintain cohesion and establish their own power. There are no equal societies, only societies with equality as a moralistic talking point, and ultimately, the social theories of equality and the Judeo-Christian ethic have legitimacy problems because they don't really work: adhering to pieties of equality doesn't get us equality. Winners and losers still result from every large-scale action, and we still have class as always. The idea of God existed to give legitimacy to equality as a social ideal even when it didn't work, and without God, well... look around. Western civilization hates itself for its continued inequality, and that's the result of the death of God. The vulnerable hate the powerful, which was exactly Nietzsche's point: society deals with those who would ignore humanism by calling them evil and ostracizing them, which means good and evil is really just moral tribalism. That's not equality, it's just another social conflict between types, destined to become permanent class warfare.
Most of this video is damning with faint praise, by someone who is exactly the kind of thinker Nietzsche had a problem with. The mustache wasn't right about everything, but this is a bad evaluation of him and his work.
Does anyone know where this recording is actually from? I would love to hear Russel read the rest of the book.
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.
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.
The typical academic’s misunderstanding of Nietzsche in a nutshell.
Hahahahahahahaha I like you ahahaha
What do you mean by misunderstanding, I'd like to understand, as your post imply it's relatively common.
At that point, what is stopping me from replying with "As opposed to the understanding of a youtube user?". I am genuinely curious.
Seen this on a Star Trek episodeq. The guest was Recardo Montelbon.
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.
this chapter says a lot about Russell and a little about Nietzsche
I never comment on youtube, but I am greatly saddened by this exposé of Nietzsche. Unfortunately, Russell, born of high-blood , with his lack of imagination and propensity for literal interpretation is doing a great injustice based on a literal and rather cursory interpretation of Nietzsche's work. Nietzsche was never truly concerned with "great individuals" like Napoleon - he didn't admire them in the sense of wanting to be like them nor did he idolize them. In such men he merely saw some of the virtues of self-actualization that he preached.
He was never against democracy or morals. What he was against was imposed morality; imposed democracy; imposed dichotomies of good and evil. His uberman (the translation of super does not do it justice), is a man that is not concerned with the opinions of other but rather forms his own. He chooses his morality because wants to not because the church or the political system told him to. Only a man like this can be a true democrat (i.e. one that believes in democracy - not to be confused with the current political system). His writings are that of a man who understood too much and whose words fell of deaf ears. Admittedly, his thoughts are scattered around his books and they are not easy to interpret by merely reading one or two of them but rather the bulk of his work.
In layman's terms he was on the greatest motivational speakers of all time. Don't judge him and his work based on someone else's judgement, be it Russell (whom in full disclosure I despise, but respect regardless), or the flavor of the month Peterson. Make a small investment, buy his books in hard copies, and read them in a quiet place without distractions (helps to have a pencil to take notes/underline). Then you can draw your own conclusions. In any case, good luck!
Perhaps that is the hallmark of a bad philosopher, ie one that cannot make their ideas more accessible, because the only person for whom you’re writing for is yourself at that point, now that’s not to say that just because an idea is hard to understand doesn’t necessarily make it inaccessible unless the framework of which it is to be understood is itself also obscure which would allow for wildly different interpretations that are apart from the philosophers intentions.
@@lizzyfrizzle8986 Wildly different interpretation is what makes philosophy rather fascinating. The beauty of any work of art should not be merely canned into the artists framework but rather re framed based on the viewer/reader. This is especially true with philosophy (from the Greek φίλος friend and σοφία wisdom). Wisdom is gained through two main mechanisms; observation and experience. What connects both is the processing of the above in the human mind. The processing of experiences and observations is what constitutes true wisdom. With philosophy, you are presented with the wisdom of the philosopher, but for the reader it doesn't constitute wisdom; wisdom has to be created. It therefore constitutes an experience. By not allowing a rather lax interpretation of philosophical works, it becomes nothing more than a tool when in reality it can be the end. And for Nietzsche specifically, I do not believer he ever intended for his works to be accessible in any form to the average man. It was rather a bottle-in-the-ocean message for those willing to dig through. On top of that, he preaches choice throughout all of his works. That can only be achieved through free, and not strict, interpretation. I believe it's much more beneficial to be given a half-painted canvas and completing the work yourself, than buying a painting and hanging it on your wall.
Nice point, but would you recommend that all the same to a woman? In my view, Nietzsche´s misoginy sounds very much like the ideas behinds today´s infamous incels...
@@heloisapereira633 Yes I would. Nietzsche would sound misogynistic under a cursory analysis of his work. However, if you delve deeper into the circumstances of his life you can see that he was a hopeless romantic whose feelings were never reciprocated throughout his life. He didn't hate women, rather I'd say he loved them and hated the fact that they didn't love him back. Unfortunately in our current era, of literal interpretation as I mention above, it can be used to fuel various ideologies. If you merely read one book from Nietzsche and not delve into his work, and life, his intent is lost. That's why for me at least words mean nothing and it is the intent that matters; it is truly saddening that my generation has debased these writings to fuel this constant meaningless divide. In essence, yes I would recommend all the same to a woman assuming she is willing to invest time and brain power to truly comprehend what the intent of Nietzsche's work is.
He was extremely in lust with himself, and women yet sexually utterly unfulfilled via inability or incompetantance to woo, and thought himself as the comic book superman but in a sickly frame and a facist mentality if not because. How could hitler not adopt these ideas and see himself as this psychopathic egomaniacal self and all important being, thatNietzsche considers himself, of being.
I dont like nor respect russel, but in this I cant see hes wrong in his evaluation of the verry troubled hubristic narsacitic man. Its no wonder he went mad from his own invective poison. Cant live like that and not.
.
"What happens to the rest, is of no account". Nice man.
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?
Marvelous, concise & so needed in these trying times
🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍 he always thought for us all in ADVANCE . . . .
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?
Nonsense! Bertrand had a lot of weird and superficial interpretations of Nietzsche's figurative, metaphorical concepts neglecting Darvin's influence on his way of understanding terms like Nobleness, Aristocracy and Individualism. Also Nietzsche never considered War in it strict and literal meaning (as also term Aristocrat), proclaiming happiness, lightness and freedom which surely might not be found in religious doctrines, which as itself during human history led to great deal of bloody wars, not mentioning evident intellectual restrictions. Nietzsche fought against any restrictions, in turn against philosophical, but managed to not create his own restrictions and borders. Nietzsche considered War first of all as a fight of intellectual conceptions, fight of ideas: with allusion to Darwin's theory but according to the thought as a basis of civilization. Bertrand hugely misinterpreted core ideas as if he didn't read even a ten percent of Nietzsche's works or was reading it too fast with one eye shut.
I remember reading this stuff as a teenager and even then feeling somewhat uncomfortable and dubious about his analysis of Nietzsche's work and opinions; since then I've read most of what Nietzsche wrote and I think that what Russel is really criticizing here is a very personal, skewed and subjective interpretation of of that Philosopher's work, one that has little or no real merit nor much connection with what Nietzsche actually thought
Why yes ! Try to get a copy of Oshos tremendously interesting work on Nietzsches Zarathustra - if you can get one ! Title = "Zarathustra: The Laughing Prophet". You won´t regret it !
@@AL_THOMAS_777 Thank you.
Nietzsche is often misinterpreted and misunderstood and also missumarized. You indeed read better his whole work and make up your mind yourself. The same can be said of Freud and Reich.
@@AL_THOMAS_777 OSHO love MONEY so much, pay atention who believe, the guy is fake but inteligent
@@Eris123451 was a pleasure fore me ! And please leave some comment here what that book-handgrenade has done to you mate . . .
Ok this isnt Russell's voice but someone's voiceover for that part of the works (written) of russell
I consider Nietzsche one of the founding fathers of contemporary philosophy, one of the 3 masters of suspicion with Marx and Freud. Their works sparked a revolution into the field of philosophy. Nietzsche in particular heavily influenced the existential school and probably the whole continental philosophy. I probably consider him one of the greatest who's ever lived with Marx, Voltaire and Epicurus. With all this being said, it's truly sad to see how most of Nietzsche's admirers nowadays look far more like a sort of "religious followers", rather than conscious individuals trying to make sense of his teachings. The do not posses the courage to question their teacher, and to move beyond his preaching. As Nietzsche himself once famously put: "every master has but one disciple, and that one becomes unfaithful to him, for he too he's destined for mastership"
🙌 👏 🙏 🤝 👍
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.
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.
Bertrand Russell roasting incels and proto-incels
18:05 Properly handling women is a fine art and I think Nietzsche knows more about women than Bertrand Russell ever will. Respect is the coin of the realm with women (Nietzsche said the whip). A woman will never love a man that is not capable of leaving her. With cheating being the ultimate relationship sin that no higher man would ever tolerate. Weaker men "forgive" such behavior and their cheating parters NEVER forgive them for not having the self-respect to dump them....
Damn, this is so good.
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
Nietzsche had the remains of several meals in his mustache.
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 !!
27:18 didn't quite understand how does it relate to Nazism????
Russell misses the fact that what Nietzsche and Schopenhauer understand - or construct rather - by the word ‘will’ are as different as chalk and cheese; that Nietzsche wrests an exclusively phenomenal world from an intricately balanced phenomenal-noumenal world in Schopenhauer and makes of it a positive ethical body of ideas stretched upon the scientific (i.e. completely non-philosophical) theory of Darwin-Spencers’ Evolution.
This in the first couple of sentences.
He might have added that Nietzsche appears entirely oblivious of the necessity to cooperate with others to achieve most things of any consequence and certainly the greatest from the construction of cathedrals to the making of epic films. He might also have added that Nietzsche’s ‘neo-categorical imperative’ is pretentious twaddle since the phrase is already nonsense in Kant and which is easily determined to be so by the fact that categories are neutral things and abstract nouns like ‘imperative’ have verbal force and the one cannot condition the other in any way any more than an adjective can be laid against a verb with any alteration in meaning resulting from the apposition.
twiddle twaddle twoddle, what's lurking in my bottle?
Nietzsche did not smoke (or drink), and saw such escape methods as crutches that prevented a person from reaching the Übermensch. Therefore Nietzsche gave up the lesser for the greater addiction; he may as well have smoked.
He didn't need to smoke to look cool, the moustache spoke volumes!
You may not have the looks,
you may not have the cash,
but you'll win your share of girls, if you only have a moustache!
It is rumored though, that he had a whole bunch of SEVERE medications in his toilet . . .for his "migraine- headaches " . . .
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 !
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 .....
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.
could you give the name of the narrator?
We are now in a world where only the fittest can survive. With Nietzsche I may resist my fate, whereas with Russel I may end up as an object of others' will.
best comment
Why and how? This is an interesting comment.
@@kazkk2321 I thank you for the reply! The very fact that you and I are "using" TH-cam bears a testimony for the fact that we are being in some sense "objects of foreign will". I mean it in a broader sense.
@Kumarmangalam Patravali Yeah , that's might be righ ,but when talking about Nietzsche in the long run of history , his envious and tyranious way of thinking will lead to distruction not construction .Everyone will care about himself ,but we forget that there is the upcoming generations whom will have to take the message up .I like russel when said that the task of Philosophy is to explain the world rather than giving answers .Whenever we attempt to give answers we endup with an disastrous ideology ,in fact ,devastating.One when he or she is reading to Nietzsche has to be critical and not go blind.
@@aminaaminabb7897 Thank you for your interesting reply! I never said to follow Nietzsche blindly.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all in it 33:01
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
‘If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?’
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
12:04 is a serious burn