thank you for the video ! There is also other important figures in littérature to understand Nietzsche : -The psychology of Vauvenargues, la Rochefoucauld, Mérimée, Stendhal, Fontenelle, Dovstoyevski. -A striking ressemblance of character between Nietzsche and Chamfort, and in their moral and ethics. People like to associate Nietzsche with Schopenhauer as a link to their philosophy. But there are personalities that have a striking ressemblance to his caractère and biography, such as Pascal or Chamfort. All books that I recommend. Because they are a lot of Nietzsche ideas and aphorism, like his vision of love, friendship, and knowledge of passion that comes from these authors.
Yes, it is important to point this out. As I say near the start of the video, Nietzsche does not mention Heraclitus, Kant, Socrates, and other indisputably important figures to his thought. In the case of Kant and Socrates, he mentions them far more often in his work than he mentions Montaigne or Pascal, for example. But I would still maintain that these eight are so formative to Nietzsche's thought, and each "stand for something" that they're all required reading for a longterm attempt to understand Nietzsche. I think Nietzsche was genuinely having conversations with these guys in his head for many years. As for your recommendations: absolutely! Continue with these. Particularly La Rochefoucauld (short, accessible), Stendahl (one of the best writers of all time), Dostoyevski (same). One of this channel's great goals is to expand the reading list of as many people as possible and get them interesting in reading these amazing books.
@@untimelyreflectionsI wonder if those eight figures that Nietzsche mentioned was the same figure that was mentioned in the chapter 4 of Zarathustra’s higher men. But we could see why Nietzsche craved solitude. He was chatting with them a lot !
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 tryTRYas i may... i have failed utterly to coax.. to coerce, as 'twere, double K... to create the authoritative readthrough&commentary of theZARATHUSTRA... how i languish and rot away in my all-consuming desire for such as this!!
When you are this deep down the Nietzsche rabbit hole, the hobby stops being 'reading Nietzsche', and starts being 'reading awesome amazing books'. I think this should be the goal of every serious Nietzschean, and I wholeheartedly agree with your taste in books!
If you took these nine thinkers Epicurus, Montaigne, Goethe, Spinoza, Plato, Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer and of course Nietzsche himself, you could form the most intelligent baseball team of all time. I don't think they'd be very successful though.
These videos should have hundreds of thousands of views, so grateful for the efforts you have put in. Been binge watching, brain food for the starving masses.
@@polymath287individuals benefit from knowingnow the history that underlies their thoughts aswell as nietzsches in his times (within the limits of assuming knowledge apriori) or/And even in understanding or connecting the dots when starting out reading Continental literature. The more people reading it; doesnt mean all know the context of the works and intellectual ziehvaeter of the writer/philosopher/human or the work they encountered.
Every great hero must perform the Katabasis. When Dionysus descended in Aristophanes' Frogs, he had to choose between Euripides & Aeschylus (a pairing of a Dionysian & Apollonian possibly). You would think he would choose Euripides but they tie and then the tie breaker goes to Aeschylus because they weigh the amount of writings on a scale and Aeshylus wins. Dionysus then raises Aeschylus from the dead so that he may "save the city of Athens, So that the city might be saved to stage its choruses". Makes you wonder if Nietzsche is responding to this cosmology of Aristophanes.
What a magnificent closing to an outstanding video! This perfectly illustrates why this channel is the best gateway for exploring all things Nietzsche. You've brilliantly depicted each of the pairings in such an elegant and clear way-bravo!
@@untimelyreflections My absolute favorite so far. Be proud, you’ve truly outdone yourself with this one. I even teared up at the end. This video hit home like no other. Thank you.
Easily my favorite video you’ve made. Incredibly well done…crystal clear explanations of each thinker and their influence on Nietzsche. I’d always found Nietzsche fairly inscrutable until I discovered your channel. Thank you, sir 🫡
Your channel has been life changing for me. And Nietzsche somehow has reignited my creative passions, I've been writing every day with his work as a major theme.
I look forward to this one with anticipation. Tho, I've barely started listening, I'd like to offer a comment: Had it not been for Nietzsche's descent, no one would have benefitted from the psychological contributions of C.G. Jung - as well as others. In a way, Nietzsche sacrificed himself, literally, for something beyond himself; it was his 'downgoing' - like a vital piece of the bridge to the overman (Ubermensch).
Thanks - wonderful presentation. Has inspired myself to create bots for each of the philosophers with Nietzsche as a biased moderator with a hammer 🔨 --- **Nietzsche:** Welcome, Rousseau and Plato, to this dialogue. Our topic today is the nature of the ideal society and the role of the individual within it. Plato, let’s start with your vision of an ideal society. **Plato:** My ideal society is structured around the concept of justice, achieved through a tripartite class system: rulers, auxiliaries, and producers. Each class performs its designated role, guided by virtues appropriate to their nature. The philosopher-kings, possessing superior wisdom, govern the state, ensuring harmony and justice. **Rousseau:** Your rigid class structure is fundamentally flawed, Plato. It imposes unnatural constraints on human beings. My ideal society is based on the idea that humans are inherently good but are corrupted by society. True freedom and equality are achieved through the social contract, where individuals collectively determine the general will. **Nietzsche:** Interesting. Plato, your hierarchical society seems to deny the chaotic, dynamic nature of human existence. Rousseau, your belief in natural goodness and equality strikes me as naive. How do you both reconcile individual freedom with societal needs? **Plato:** The key lies in education and the cultivation of virtues. When each person understands their place and acts according to the common good, individual freedom is harmonized with societal needs. The philosopher-kings, with their superior knowledge, ensure that the state operates justly. **Rousseau:** Education, Plato? More like indoctrination. You impose a rigid hierarchy that stifles individuality. True freedom arises when individuals willingly participate in the general will. This collective decision-making process preserves personal freedom while ensuring that societal needs are met through mutual cooperation and equality. **Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your idealism underestimates the will to power inherent in individuals. Plato, your structured society might stifle the creative potential of the Übermensch. What about the role of conflict and struggle in human development? **Plato:** Conflict, when guided by reason, can be productive. In my ideal state, the rulers mitigate destructive conflicts and channel energies towards the common good. The cultivation of virtues tempers the darker aspects of human nature. **Rousseau:** Conflict is indeed a part of human development, Nietzsche. However, it is through the social contract that we can transform destructive conflicts into constructive collaboration. By recognizing and respecting the general will, individuals can find true freedom and purpose. **Nietzsche:** Both of you seem to overlook the potential of the individual to transcend societal norms. The Übermensch creates their own values and lives beyond conventional moralities. How do your systems accommodate such individuals? **Plato:** The philosopher-king is akin to your Übermensch, Nietzsche. They transcend conventional moralities and create a just society through their superior understanding. Such individuals are essential to the harmony and justice of the state. **Rousseau:** My social contract allows for the expression of individuality within the bounds of the general will. The collective good does not suppress individual greatness but channels it towards the benefit of all. True greatness arises from the freedom to contribute meaningfully to society. **Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your faith in the general will sounds like another form of herd mentality. True freedom comes from rejecting the masses and their mediocrity. Plato, your philosopher-kings might just be another form of tyrants. Why should a few decide for the many? **Plato:** The philosopher-kings are not tyrants, Nietzsche. They are guided by wisdom and the pursuit of the common good. Their rule ensures that justice prevails and that each individual finds their proper place in society. **Rousseau:** And yet, Plato, your system depends on the assumption that these philosopher-kings are infallible. What happens when they err? My system at least ensures that all individuals have a voice in determining their own fate. **Nietzsche:** A voice in determining their own fate? More like the blind leading the blind, Rousseau. True greatness and creativity come from individuals who dare to defy the masses and create their own values. Both of your systems seem to suppress this potential. **Plato:** Nietzsche, your glorification of the individual overlooks the need for order and stability. Without a structured society, chaos would reign, and true justice would be impossible. **Rousseau:** Order and stability, yes, but not at the cost of freedom and equality. Humans must be free to express their natural goodness and cooperate for the common good, not be forced into roles dictated by an elite few. **Nietzsche:** Perhaps the answer lies in embracing the chaos and affirming life in all its forms. Both of your visions contain elements of the Apollonian order, which I find suffocating. Maybe what we need is a balance with the Dionysian chaos, allowing for the full expression of human potential. **Plato:** Embracing chaos leads to anarchy, Nietzsche. A society must have structure and order to function justly. **Rousseau:** True, but it must also allow for freedom and the natural expression of human goodness. Your rigid structures do not allow for this, Plato. **Nietzsche:** And yet, both of your visions seem incomplete to me. The true potential of humanity lies in transcending these boundaries, creating new values, and embracing the full spectrum of human existence. . ....continued... **Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your idealistic vision of the social contract and the general will might sound noble, but I foresee a darker outcome. Your ideas, with their emphasis on equality and collective decision-making, could lead to nothing less than a bloodbath, as witnessed in the French Revolution. The quest for equality can easily turn into a frenzy of violence and destruction. **Rousseau:** The French Revolution was indeed a tumultuous event, but it was also a necessary upheaval to break free from the chains of tyranny and inequality. My ideas were about the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. If violence ensued, it was a consequence of the oppressive structures that needed dismantling, not the inherent flaw in the pursuit of equality. **Plato:** Nietzsche has a point, Rousseau. Your ideas may inspire noble intentions, but without a guiding structure, they can lead to chaos and bloodshed. The French Revolution showed the dangers of mob rule and the collapse of order. A society must have wise rulers to maintain harmony and justice. **Nietzsche:** And there we have it, the eternal conflict between order and freedom. Plato, your philosopher-kings might prevent chaos, but they also suppress individual greatness and creativity. Rousseau, your social contract might promote equality, but it also risks unleashing the destructive forces of the masses. Neither of your visions accommodates the true nature of human beings, who thrive on struggle and the will to power. **Rousseau:** Nietzsche, you are too cynical. Human beings, when freed from oppression, can achieve great things through cooperation and mutual respect. The French Revolution's excesses were a product of extreme conditions, not a reflection of my ideals. Given the right conditions, my vision of a society based on equality and freedom is not only possible but desirable. **Plato:** Rousseau, you underestimate the potential for human folly and the need for guidance by the wise. Without a structured society and rulers who understand the nature of justice, your vision can quickly descend into chaos. The philosopher-kings ensure that order and justice are maintained, providing a stable environment where individuals can flourish. **Nietzsche:** Stability at the cost of freedom, Plato. And freedom at the cost of stability, Rousseau. Both of your systems fail to embrace the full complexity of human existence. The French Revolution, with its guillotines and reign of terror, is a testament to the dangers of unrestrained egalitarianism. Yet, a society too rigidly controlled by an elite few stifles the very essence of what it means to be human. **Rousseau:** I do not deny the dangers, Nietzsche, but we must strive for a balance where freedom and equality can coexist. The atrocities of the French Revolution were a deviation, not an inevitability. With proper education and a commitment to the general will, a just and equitable society is achievable. **Plato:** And I would argue that true justice requires wisdom and order. The philosopher-kings, through their understanding of the forms and the nature of the good, can guide society towards true harmony. Without such guidance, your egalitarian society remains a utopian dream, vulnerable to the whims of the masses. **Nietzsche:** Perhaps the answer lies not in choosing between your visions but in transcending them. Embrace the struggle, the chaos, and the creation of new values. The French Revolution's bloodbath and the stifling order of philosopher-kings both miss the point. Human beings must forge their own paths, beyond the constraints of conventional morality and societal norms. Only then can we truly affirm life in all its forms. ---
1:45:58. I have to agree there as well. In terms of the quality of the soul, Pascal is the noblest one out of all these philosophers that he enlisted. But Pascal’s biography and temper is so similar to Nietzsche’s one.
as a teenager in the early 90's I read a book on nature by epicurius, and my mind was blown that in 300ad he talked about atoms. my second mind blowing was a year later I read a book on "the grand unified force theory of everything" and couldn't understand gravity, so I asked a physics professor "I know gravity has some correlation with mass, but what IS gravity?". he said "we really don't know". that's when I realized how naive man really is in regards to reality/existence.
This was just amazing. Your work stands out, it is wonderful to have this available. I will probably listen to this particular video in its entirety at least a couple more times. Wow!
a Dionysian rage fell hard upon me... how it did move me into a towering passion... i wept hot tears profound... as i prostrated myself before the altar in the holy of holies... within the sacrificial chamber at the pinnacle of the stone temple of the presto Nietzschean god... ceaselessly chanting, "WHO IS LIKE THE KEEG?!... AND WHO IS ABLE TO MAKE WAR WITH HIM?!?!"... (you are appreciated.)
Outstanding - as always! Lots to consider and meditate upon. Your presentation and analysis Nietzsche's ideas runs deep and wide. You have a diamond mind and a golden voice. You play a mean guitar too =) Seems I'm a botched (autistic) genius. Raphael without hands - or rather, social skills. This podcast has helped me come to terms with my fate. To squander my potential. On art, music, and philosophy. On that which pleases me, rather than society. l tried. For 50 years, I tried to meet expectations of The Herd. To be useful to it in the way it demanded, rather than as I was conceived. I failed. Renaissance from ashes. This podcast has helped me understand Nietzsche's most important ideas. Helped me pierce oppressive veils of morality, judgement and dogmatic conviction. I was chained to floor. By shadow puppets. Avoid the traps of shame, pity and resentment! Embrace life and see all of it - the good, the bad and the ugly as beautiful expressions of the will of the divine.... Nature sings The Blues. Oh well... Cryin' won't help ya, and prayin' wont do ya no good.... Amore fati my friends! (and enemies...) Amore fati! =)
There's a book I'd like to hear your thoughts on as someone who's well-read on Nietzsche and German philosophy. It's The Destruction of Reason by Georg Lukacs 1954. It's a long book he talks about many 19th century German philosophers including Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Lukacs was trained in German philosophy and shows deep understanding of it. The crux of the book is that he takes these influential philosophers and puts them on a timeline, and shows how their philosophies were influenced by the historical conditions of the time and influenced each other. He disputes the claim made by his contemporaries in the post WWII period, such as Kauffman, which is still prevalent today, that Nietzsche's philosophy was just misunderstood and abused by fascists in Germany and other places. He explores the rarely discussed political dimension and implications of Nietzsche's work. His writings on Schopenhauer were also pretty on point. All in all it is an intellectually honest intelligent critique and I would like to hear your opinion on it!
@@wellsshady Well he was a philosopher who studied and was immersed in German philosophy but I'll grant you that he was an 'activist', this alone doesn't imply intellectual dishonesty. Dishonesty is when you go out of your way to misrepresent cherry-pick and misinform to support an argument that you started with. The idea that I get from your comment, that philosophical thought must be divorced from practical and political thought, is absurd
@@raucousriley143 Negative critique as opposed to what? Flattering critique? Now you could say it's a biased critique, superficial critique, dishonest critique but you need to engage with it first then tell me why you think that. I wanted essentialists to respond to it, not agree with it
Fair enough, probably interesting. I just personally trust sources more that are fond of their subjects or people they are interpreting. Kaufmann for example clearly liked Nietzsche alot, even though I think he stated he didn't agree with everything.
I would love your take on Richard Rorty's observation of the similarities between Nietzsche and pragmatists like John Dewey. Or Nietzsche and Saussure, semiotics, structuralism, etc.
@@GnosticInformant spreading the gospel of The Cerberusian School of Cynicism. Eventually someone one will tell the host that the text he is talking about is a parody of Lucian! But that’s for those with ears to hear lol
This was fascinating and very well done. I think I can offer a quick but worthwhile correction: Schopenhauer didn't consider Christianity to be "the worst religious story". He saw Christianity as a profound religion of pessimism, although he also believed it was surpassed by the still more profound pessimism of Buddhism. Schopenhauer thought the New Testament was a much needed corrective to the absurd optimism of the Old Testament. I'm confident all of this is correct because I've ripped it all off of Weltgeist's videos :)
I don't know if "worst religious story" is a direct Schopenhauer quote, but profound doesn't necessarily mean good. Something terrible can also be "profound".
Nietzsche may have paired these philosophers in Hades to simultaneously sidestep their individual blind spots and achieve an elevated poetic perspective in a single aphorism -per pair..( By poetic I mean a non -objective ‘pirouette’ or ‘twist’)
A wonderful rich presentation thank you ! Btw just to say Goethe in English is a paradox he seems a lesser figure compared to Wordsworth or Coleridge, in terms of literary art, but both of those profoundly looked up to him. Is it an issue of translation? Or is that when all is said and done the genius of Goethe was not in what he wrote but in being Goethe!?
Recently been listening to a lot of your lectures both here and on Spotify. I find your work incredibly inspiring and find myself wondering whether you are an autodidact or if you have a PhD or some formal education in philosophy.
I'm not even bothering to read Cioran; what little I have was like reading Ian Brady. (He wrote a book called The Gates of Janus: Serial Killing and its Analysis)-same kind of nihilism.
Wow this passage made me realize that my day to day interactions for the last several years have been dead men from the past whom i animate within my mind. My real flesh and blood friends and acquaintances were not much insightful. Anyway i lost all of them to the MAGA cult. I am now a reclusive pariah in company of dead men of yesteryear. This was a great insightful video like always Salts🤘
I’ve read some of his work in high school and it never made sense but with your videos and breakdowns the topics become very digestible Would you ever consider covering a season in hell by Arthur Rimbaud
ja it is still funny how many young people read Nietzsche or the great others and take their words literally word for word, like for example Zarathustra´s story as a fiction novel but struggle hard to get it and leave - some of them maybe thirty years later come across their works again by chance and see then all of the sudden no line is meant literally for the present comprehension: it´s for the future - to read again...
I love this channel so much. Im too much of an idiot to fully understand and remember everything but Im smart enough to enjoy it at least. Taking notes now 😅
you areAPPRECIATED, monsieur Keeg!!... know you this, o, presto Neitzschean god... and, yes... i'm drunk @ 8:25am on Thurs, 6-6-24... (Woodford Reserve, iffff you must know)... contact me, "Nietzsche Podcast Guy"... i must meet thee in the fffffffflesh, as they say... i must know you, sir... and fete you muchly... before you are consumed in holy glowing Heraclitean fire, o, Texan demigod, thou!!... lololo... i am a slave of Fortuna... her most favoured vaunting son... i live a charmed life, double K!!... let me show my appreciation in person... let me know you, sir!!... or cast me aside like so many random anonymous netizen doglike slaves!!... lololo... be well, sir Keeg... and flourish in thy mystery!!
thank you for the video !
There is also other important figures in littérature to understand Nietzsche :
-The psychology of Vauvenargues, la Rochefoucauld, Mérimée, Stendhal, Fontenelle, Dovstoyevski.
-A striking ressemblance of character between Nietzsche and Chamfort, and in their moral and ethics. People like to associate Nietzsche with Schopenhauer as a link to their philosophy. But there are personalities that have a striking ressemblance to his caractère and biography, such as Pascal or Chamfort.
All books that I recommend. Because they are a lot of Nietzsche ideas and aphorism, like his vision of love, friendship, and knowledge of passion that comes from these authors.
Yes, it is important to point this out. As I say near the start of the video, Nietzsche does not mention Heraclitus, Kant, Socrates, and other indisputably important figures to his thought. In the case of Kant and Socrates, he mentions them far more often in his work than he mentions Montaigne or Pascal, for example. But I would still maintain that these eight are so formative to Nietzsche's thought, and each "stand for something" that they're all required reading for a longterm attempt to understand Nietzsche. I think Nietzsche was genuinely having conversations with these guys in his head for many years.
As for your recommendations: absolutely! Continue with these. Particularly La Rochefoucauld (short, accessible), Stendahl (one of the best writers of all time), Dostoyevski (same). One of this channel's great goals is to expand the reading list of as many people as possible and get them interesting in reading these amazing books.
@@untimelyreflectionsI wonder if those eight figures that Nietzsche mentioned was the same figure that was mentioned in the chapter 4 of Zarathustra’s higher men. But we could see why Nietzsche craved solitude. He was chatting with them a lot !
@@untimelyreflections very well-said indeed... forsooth, monsieur Keeg knoweth his great books muchly!!... is it not so??
@@nicolaswhitehouse3894 tryTRYas i may... i have failed utterly to coax.. to coerce, as 'twere, double K... to create the authoritative readthrough&commentary of theZARATHUSTRA... how i languish and rot away in my all-consuming desire for such as this!!
When you are this deep down the Nietzsche rabbit hole, the hobby stops being 'reading Nietzsche', and starts being 'reading awesome amazing books'. I think this should be the goal of every serious Nietzschean, and I wholeheartedly agree with your taste in books!
If you took these nine thinkers Epicurus, Montaigne, Goethe, Spinoza, Plato, Rousseau, Pascal and Schopenhauer and of course Nietzsche himself, you could form the most intelligent baseball team of all time. I don't think they'd be very successful though.
Agree, look at English national football team during Beckham era
These videos should have hundreds of thousands of views, so grateful for the efforts you have put in. Been binge watching, brain food for the starving masses.
Agreed
Thank you, my friend.
No, they shouldn't have. They are perfect as is. “Far from the market place and from fame happens all that is great” (Z I:12)
@@polymath287individuals benefit from knowingnow the history that underlies their thoughts aswell as nietzsches in his times (within the limits of assuming knowledge apriori) or/And even in understanding or connecting the dots when starting out reading Continental literature. The more people reading it; doesnt mean all know the context of the works and intellectual ziehvaeter of the writer/philosopher/human or the work they encountered.
Absolutely agreed! I'm so grateful I've found this channel. I fill much of my days listening. Just can't get enough!
Every great hero must perform the Katabasis. When Dionysus descended in Aristophanes' Frogs, he had to choose between Euripides & Aeschylus (a pairing of a Dionysian & Apollonian possibly). You would think he would choose Euripides but they tie and then the tie breaker goes to Aeschylus because they weigh the amount of writings on a scale and Aeshylus wins. Dionysus then raises Aeschylus from the dead so that he may "save the city of Athens, So that the city might be saved to stage its choruses". Makes you wonder if Nietzsche is responding to this cosmology of Aristophanes.
What a magnificent closing to an outstanding video! This perfectly illustrates why this channel is the best gateway for exploring all things Nietzsche. You've brilliantly depicted each of the pairings in such an elegant and clear way-bravo!
Thank you!! This is my own favorite episode of the podcast so I love hearing such appreciation for it.
@@untimelyreflections My absolute favorite so far. Be proud, you’ve truly outdone yourself with this one. I even teared up at the end. This video hit home like no other. Thank you.
Of all your presentations this was your best, most erudite even most understandable. Thank you. Awesome.
Easily my favorite video you’ve made. Incredibly well done…crystal clear explanations of each thinker and their influence on Nietzsche. I’d always found Nietzsche fairly inscrutable until I discovered your channel. Thank you, sir 🫡
Your channel has been life changing for me. And Nietzsche somehow has reignited my creative passions, I've been writing every day with his work as a major theme.
That's great to hear. Let the creative fire loose!
I look forward to this one with anticipation. Tho, I've barely started listening, I'd like to offer a comment: Had it not been for Nietzsche's descent, no one would have benefitted from the psychological contributions of C.G. Jung - as well as others.
In a way, Nietzsche sacrificed himself, literally, for something beyond himself; it was his 'downgoing' - like a vital piece of the bridge to the overman (Ubermensch).
Thanks - wonderful presentation. Has inspired myself to create bots for each of the philosophers with Nietzsche as a biased moderator with a hammer 🔨
---
**Nietzsche:** Welcome, Rousseau and Plato, to this dialogue. Our topic today is the nature of the ideal society and the role of the individual within it. Plato, let’s start with your vision of an ideal society.
**Plato:** My ideal society is structured around the concept of justice, achieved through a tripartite class system: rulers, auxiliaries, and producers. Each class performs its designated role, guided by virtues appropriate to their nature. The philosopher-kings, possessing superior wisdom, govern the state, ensuring harmony and justice.
**Rousseau:** Your rigid class structure is fundamentally flawed, Plato. It imposes unnatural constraints on human beings. My ideal society is based on the idea that humans are inherently good but are corrupted by society. True freedom and equality are achieved through the social contract, where individuals collectively determine the general will.
**Nietzsche:** Interesting. Plato, your hierarchical society seems to deny the chaotic, dynamic nature of human existence. Rousseau, your belief in natural goodness and equality strikes me as naive. How do you both reconcile individual freedom with societal needs?
**Plato:** The key lies in education and the cultivation of virtues. When each person understands their place and acts according to the common good, individual freedom is harmonized with societal needs. The philosopher-kings, with their superior knowledge, ensure that the state operates justly.
**Rousseau:** Education, Plato? More like indoctrination. You impose a rigid hierarchy that stifles individuality. True freedom arises when individuals willingly participate in the general will. This collective decision-making process preserves personal freedom while ensuring that societal needs are met through mutual cooperation and equality.
**Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your idealism underestimates the will to power inherent in individuals. Plato, your structured society might stifle the creative potential of the Übermensch. What about the role of conflict and struggle in human development?
**Plato:** Conflict, when guided by reason, can be productive. In my ideal state, the rulers mitigate destructive conflicts and channel energies towards the common good. The cultivation of virtues tempers the darker aspects of human nature.
**Rousseau:** Conflict is indeed a part of human development, Nietzsche. However, it is through the social contract that we can transform destructive conflicts into constructive collaboration. By recognizing and respecting the general will, individuals can find true freedom and purpose.
**Nietzsche:** Both of you seem to overlook the potential of the individual to transcend societal norms. The Übermensch creates their own values and lives beyond conventional moralities. How do your systems accommodate such individuals?
**Plato:** The philosopher-king is akin to your Übermensch, Nietzsche. They transcend conventional moralities and create a just society through their superior understanding. Such individuals are essential to the harmony and justice of the state.
**Rousseau:** My social contract allows for the expression of individuality within the bounds of the general will. The collective good does not suppress individual greatness but channels it towards the benefit of all. True greatness arises from the freedom to contribute meaningfully to society.
**Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your faith in the general will sounds like another form of herd mentality. True freedom comes from rejecting the masses and their mediocrity. Plato, your philosopher-kings might just be another form of tyrants. Why should a few decide for the many?
**Plato:** The philosopher-kings are not tyrants, Nietzsche. They are guided by wisdom and the pursuit of the common good. Their rule ensures that justice prevails and that each individual finds their proper place in society.
**Rousseau:** And yet, Plato, your system depends on the assumption that these philosopher-kings are infallible. What happens when they err? My system at least ensures that all individuals have a voice in determining their own fate.
**Nietzsche:** A voice in determining their own fate? More like the blind leading the blind, Rousseau. True greatness and creativity come from individuals who dare to defy the masses and create their own values. Both of your systems seem to suppress this potential.
**Plato:** Nietzsche, your glorification of the individual overlooks the need for order and stability. Without a structured society, chaos would reign, and true justice would be impossible.
**Rousseau:** Order and stability, yes, but not at the cost of freedom and equality. Humans must be free to express their natural goodness and cooperate for the common good, not be forced into roles dictated by an elite few.
**Nietzsche:** Perhaps the answer lies in embracing the chaos and affirming life in all its forms. Both of your visions contain elements of the Apollonian order, which I find suffocating. Maybe what we need is a balance with the Dionysian chaos, allowing for the full expression of human potential.
**Plato:** Embracing chaos leads to anarchy, Nietzsche. A society must have structure and order to function justly.
**Rousseau:** True, but it must also allow for freedom and the natural expression of human goodness. Your rigid structures do not allow for this, Plato.
**Nietzsche:** And yet, both of your visions seem incomplete to me. The true potential of humanity lies in transcending these boundaries, creating new values, and embracing the full spectrum of human existence. .
....continued...
**Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your idealistic vision of the social contract and the general will might sound noble, but I foresee a darker outcome. Your ideas, with their emphasis on equality and collective decision-making, could lead to nothing less than a bloodbath, as witnessed in the French Revolution. The quest for equality can easily turn into a frenzy of violence and destruction.
**Rousseau:** The French Revolution was indeed a tumultuous event, but it was also a necessary upheaval to break free from the chains of tyranny and inequality. My ideas were about the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. If violence ensued, it was a consequence of the oppressive structures that needed dismantling, not the inherent flaw in the pursuit of equality.
**Plato:** Nietzsche has a point, Rousseau. Your ideas may inspire noble intentions, but without a guiding structure, they can lead to chaos and bloodshed. The French Revolution showed the dangers of mob rule and the collapse of order. A society must have wise rulers to maintain harmony and justice.
**Nietzsche:** And there we have it, the eternal conflict between order and freedom. Plato, your philosopher-kings might prevent chaos, but they also suppress individual greatness and creativity. Rousseau, your social contract might promote equality, but it also risks unleashing the destructive forces of the masses. Neither of your visions accommodates the true nature of human beings, who thrive on struggle and the will to power.
**Rousseau:** Nietzsche, you are too cynical. Human beings, when freed from oppression, can achieve great things through cooperation and mutual respect. The French Revolution's excesses were a product of extreme conditions, not a reflection of my ideals. Given the right conditions, my vision of a society based on equality and freedom is not only possible but desirable.
**Plato:** Rousseau, you underestimate the potential for human folly and the need for guidance by the wise. Without a structured society and rulers who understand the nature of justice, your vision can quickly descend into chaos. The philosopher-kings ensure that order and justice are maintained, providing a stable environment where individuals can flourish.
**Nietzsche:** Stability at the cost of freedom, Plato. And freedom at the cost of stability, Rousseau. Both of your systems fail to embrace the full complexity of human existence. The French Revolution, with its guillotines and reign of terror, is a testament to the dangers of unrestrained egalitarianism. Yet, a society too rigidly controlled by an elite few stifles the very essence of what it means to be human.
**Rousseau:** I do not deny the dangers, Nietzsche, but we must strive for a balance where freedom and equality can coexist. The atrocities of the French Revolution were a deviation, not an inevitability. With proper education and a commitment to the general will, a just and equitable society is achievable.
**Plato:** And I would argue that true justice requires wisdom and order. The philosopher-kings, through their understanding of the forms and the nature of the good, can guide society towards true harmony. Without such guidance, your egalitarian society remains a utopian dream, vulnerable to the whims of the masses.
**Nietzsche:** Perhaps the answer lies not in choosing between your visions but in transcending them. Embrace the struggle, the chaos, and the creation of new values. The French Revolution's bloodbath and the stifling order of philosopher-kings both miss the point. Human beings must forge their own paths, beyond the constraints of conventional morality and societal norms. Only then can we truly affirm life in all its forms.
---
1:45:58. I have to agree there as well. In terms of the quality of the soul, Pascal is the noblest one out of all these philosophers that he enlisted. But Pascal’s biography and temper is so similar to Nietzsche’s one.
as a teenager in the early 90's I read a book on nature by epicurius, and my mind was blown that in 300ad he talked about atoms. my second mind blowing was a year later I read a book on "the grand unified force theory of everything" and couldn't understand gravity, so I asked a physics professor "I know gravity has some correlation with mass, but what IS gravity?". he said "we really don't know". that's when I realized how naive man really is in regards to reality/existence.
This was just amazing. Your work stands out, it is wonderful to have this available. I will probably listen to this particular video in its entirety at least a couple more times. Wow!
a Dionysian rage fell hard upon me... how it did move me into a towering passion... i wept hot tears profound... as i prostrated myself before the altar in the holy of holies... within the sacrificial chamber at the pinnacle of the stone temple of the presto Nietzschean god... ceaselessly chanting, "WHO IS LIKE THE KEEG?!... AND WHO IS ABLE TO MAKE WAR WITH HIM?!?!"... (you are appreciated.)
Outstanding - as always! Lots to consider and meditate upon. Your presentation and analysis Nietzsche's ideas runs deep and wide. You have a diamond mind and a golden voice. You play a mean guitar too =) Seems I'm a botched (autistic) genius. Raphael without hands - or rather, social skills. This podcast has helped me come to terms with my fate. To squander my potential. On art, music, and philosophy. On that which pleases me, rather than society. l tried. For 50 years, I tried to meet expectations of The Herd. To be useful to it in the way it demanded, rather than as I was conceived.
I failed.
Renaissance from ashes. This podcast has helped me understand Nietzsche's most important ideas. Helped me pierce oppressive veils of morality, judgement and dogmatic conviction. I was chained to floor. By shadow puppets. Avoid the traps of shame, pity and resentment! Embrace life and see all of it - the good, the bad and the ugly as beautiful expressions of the will of the divine....
Nature sings The Blues.
Oh well...
Cryin' won't help ya, and prayin' wont do ya no good....
Amore fati my friends!
(and enemies...)
Amore fati!
=)
There's a book I'd like to hear your thoughts on as someone who's well-read on Nietzsche and German philosophy. It's The Destruction of Reason by Georg Lukacs 1954. It's a long book he talks about many 19th century German philosophers including Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. Lukacs was trained in German philosophy and shows deep understanding of it. The crux of the book is that he takes these influential philosophers and puts them on a timeline, and shows how their philosophies were influenced by the historical conditions of the time and influenced each other. He disputes the claim made by his contemporaries in the post WWII period, such as Kauffman, which is still prevalent today, that Nietzsche's philosophy was just misunderstood and abused by fascists in Germany and other places. He explores the rarely discussed political dimension and implications of Nietzsche's work. His writings on Schopenhauer were also pretty on point.
All in all it is an intellectually honest intelligent critique and I would like to hear your opinion on it!
Lukacs was not 'intellectually honest', he was an activist...
@@wellsshady Well he was a philosopher who studied and was immersed in German philosophy but I'll grant you that he was an 'activist', this alone doesn't imply intellectual dishonesty. Dishonesty is when you go out of your way to misrepresent cherry-pick and misinform to support an argument that you started with.
The idea that I get from your comment, that philosophical thought must be divorced from practical and political thought, is absurd
He was also a communist, was he not? Hard to imagine anything other than a negative critique from a communist
@@raucousriley143 Negative critique as opposed to what? Flattering critique? Now you could say it's a biased critique, superficial critique, dishonest critique but you need to engage with it first then tell me why you think that. I wanted essentialists to respond to it, not agree with it
Fair enough, probably interesting. I just personally trust sources more that are fond of their subjects or people they are interpreting. Kaufmann for example clearly liked Nietzsche alot, even though I think he stated he didn't agree with everything.
1:25:00 Great summary of the types!
Fantastic presentation.
Amazing video essai, thanks for the great work
These videos are gold, sir....
Amor fati my friends
One day I will unite Epicurean-Nietzschean-Stoic-Cynic Asceticism in a complex work of engineering. But that day is not today, I'm lazy.
You deserve to be a lecturer in an Ivy league school, even then you would be too good for them.
Great video.
What is that painting?
I would love your take on Richard Rorty's observation of the similarities between Nietzsche and pragmatists like John Dewey. Or Nietzsche and Saussure, semiotics, structuralism, etc.
My god what a lecture. Thank you for your reflection.
You need to know how to get past Cerberus if you want to get back from the underworld. 🐶 🐶 🐶
yo bro what you doin here
@@GnosticInformant spreading the gospel of The Cerberusian School of Cynicism. Eventually someone one will tell the host that the text he is talking about is a parody of Lucian! But that’s for those with ears to hear lol
@@MandyMoorehol I think GI pointed out it has an older parallel in Aristophanes.
@@alecmisra4964 🐸 🐸 🐸
@@alecmisra4964you should check out the time I was on GI talking about satire. It was a hoot.
You’re great to listen to sir.
That was beautiful
This was fascinating and very well done. I think I can offer a quick but worthwhile correction: Schopenhauer didn't consider Christianity to be "the worst religious story". He saw Christianity as a profound religion of pessimism, although he also believed it was surpassed by the still more profound pessimism of Buddhism. Schopenhauer thought the New Testament was a much needed corrective to the absurd optimism of the Old Testament. I'm confident all of this is correct because I've ripped it all off of Weltgeist's videos :)
I don't know if "worst religious story" is a direct Schopenhauer quote, but profound doesn't necessarily mean good. Something terrible can also be "profound".
Nietzsche may have paired these philosophers in Hades to simultaneously sidestep their individual blind spots and achieve an elevated poetic perspective in a single aphorism -per pair..( By poetic I mean a non -objective ‘pirouette’ or ‘twist’)
A wonderful rich presentation thank you ! Btw just to say Goethe in English is a paradox he seems a lesser figure compared to Wordsworth or Coleridge, in terms of literary art, but both of those profoundly looked up to him. Is it an issue of translation? Or is that when all is said and done the genius of Goethe was not in what he wrote but in being Goethe!?
Beautiful conclusion
Recently been listening to a lot of your lectures both here and on Spotify. I find your work incredibly inspiring and find myself wondering whether you are an autodidact or if you have a PhD or some formal education in philosophy.
Good episode
What is Negative Hedonism?
Thank you for making these (:
Can you pretty please mane videos on Julius evola
I'm not even bothering to read Cioran; what little I have was like reading Ian Brady. (He wrote a book called The Gates of Janus: Serial Killing and its Analysis)-same kind of nihilism.
Wow this passage made me realize that my day to day interactions for the last several years have been dead men from the past whom i animate within my mind. My real flesh and blood friends and acquaintances were not much insightful. Anyway i lost all of them to the MAGA cult. I am now a reclusive pariah in company of dead men of yesteryear. This was a great insightful video like always Salts🤘
I’ve read some of his work in high school and it never made sense but with your videos and breakdowns the topics become very digestible
Would you ever consider covering a season in hell by Arthur Rimbaud
ja it is still funny how many young people read Nietzsche or the great others and take their words literally word for word, like for example Zarathustra´s story as a fiction novel but struggle hard to get it and leave - some of them maybe thirty years later come across their works again by chance and see then all of the sudden no line is meant literally for the present comprehension: it´s for the future - to read again...
I love this channel so much. Im too much of an idiot to fully understand and remember everything but Im smart enough to enjoy it at least. Taking notes now 😅
Such elegant language...
All is determined; all is forgiven. Serenity at last!
These 8 seem to parallel the 8 cognitive functions of Jung.
how
@@socialswine3656 Extroverted vs Introverted functions.
The first is sensory
Second is intuition
etc....
Aping Plutarch?
excellent
24:35
03:47
Thank u
13:00 e/m
49:00 g/s
How Nietzscheans Would laugh at Julius Evola. 😂
Is it fair to say that Nietzsche cares more about how a thinker arrived at a thought than the conclusion itself?
you areAPPRECIATED, monsieur Keeg!!... know you this, o, presto Neitzschean god... and, yes... i'm drunk @ 8:25am on Thurs, 6-6-24... (Woodford Reserve, iffff you must know)... contact me, "Nietzsche Podcast Guy"... i must meet thee in the fffffffflesh, as they say... i must know you, sir... and fete you muchly... before you are consumed in holy glowing Heraclitean fire, o, Texan demigod, thou!!... lololo... i am a slave of Fortuna... her most favoured vaunting son... i live a charmed life, double K!!... let me show my appreciation in person... let me know you, sir!!... or cast me aside like so many random anonymous netizen doglike slaves!!... lololo... be well, sir Keeg... and flourish in thy mystery!!
The black sun
At your service!
@@KarlKarsnark ♥️
First
@@untimelyreflections Hahaha. Couldn’t resist.