Visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription. TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 Intro 03:34 Agreement of the wise 09:55 Why the wise are wrong 15:12 Metaphysical suffering 20:20 Asceticism 23:47 Compassion and pity 29:44 Nihilism 33:42 Conclusion
Your use of Casper David Friedrich is spot on. One of my favorite artists, I wonder if Nietzsche would have liked him. He was always complaining about northern German weather, but the perspective of Casper Friedrich and Nietzsche and his high icy mountain seems perfect!
My candidate for the Ubermensch is the Don. Leporello certainly would agree with me! After all, Nietzsche said Beyond Good and Evil, not beyond good and bad! 👍
You forget Nietzsche personified himself as the antichrist, he turned love around and violently opposed other thinkers to his idea of individuality. You like many are wearing a Nietzsche fan club badge rather than understanding him.
I don't understand but I think what he is saying is, correct me if I'm wrong; The Christian/Schopenhauer world views that, " the powerful and the rich who live life with joy, and freedom compared to the weak/poor have no value" Is the result of their inability to experience the life that those people are living. But if they were in their shoes/rich, they too would be dancing 😂
Nietzsche did not despise Schopenhauer, he in fact adapted his notion of "will" but he made it more of an optimistic notion, saying that the will gives us way towards reaching who we really are. For Schopenhauer, the will is giving us a way to ruin ourselves. For Nietzsche it is the power that makes us bloom.
Why is hard to see, he started that way, loved him as a teacher, but then realize the core of his teaching were counter to his own? It was explained very well in this video. We tend to hate those we loved more than Jose we don’t even care about.
I think perhaps Schopenhauer never saw through the veil of his own ego and conditioning, whereas Nietzsche did. Naturally when the light of our awareness is dimmed by layers and layers of baggage of the self, it becomes impossible to recognise it for the force of goodness it truly is.
Schopenhauer: Selfish action leads to suffering, therefore self-denial is best. Nietzsche: The only valuable thing is strength, endurance, growth; therefore self-overcoming is best. Though they stem from different lines of reasoning, in a practical sense I think these two prescriptions for life could coincide. I don’t see why one cannot be a Schopenhauerian outwardly in the sense of conducting oneself in a way that limits the extent to which one functions as a source of suffering for others, and at the same time be a Nietzschean inwardly in the sense of conducting oneself in a way in which one endures personal suffering and struggles to overcome personal weaknesses.
@@GreyOatmeal not exactly though. Stoicism is more “accept what suffering comes your way, alleviate it if possible or endure it with dignity, and don’t create any surplus suffering”; but Nietzsche is like “you need suffering-even more suffering, for the battle to overcome is the only worthwhile thing”.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs the main difference is in the approch to the volontas, schopenhauer dreams about a possible ataraxia, nietzsche goes in the opposite direction, for me in media stat virtus
Neitzche is the reason i have a great life. The man recontexualised the entirety of existence for me. If it wasn't for him i never would have realised that i have gotten everything ive asked for in life.
I was brought up as a pious Christian, reading bible every day, until I stumbled upon the Anti-Christ, at the tender age of 14. This ended my childhood, and told me to grow up. I now agree with what you said, he kinda is my Savior and Messiah as well. Saved me from the worthless darkness of Christianity, for ever grateful. LOL.
This reminds me of a quote from ralph waldo emerson: “People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.”
If you want to read Schopenhauer, read his essays, they give you a much better view of him as a person, he was a really decent person, someone to listen to regarding advice about learning writing, so much more!
@@rexaustin2885 He absolutely had . His ego derived from psychopathy is what drove his philosophy the same which he accused of others. He fell victim to his own perspectivism. Proof :: Beautiful people are on average treated better by society and think the world is a better place on average than common people. A narcissistic life affirmation psychological driver. @Weltgeist
What makes this so beautiful is the fact that a young, angry, and confused Nietzsche loved Schopenhauer and the older and wiser Nietzsche did not. That is why Nietzsche is the best. He grew up and into his greatness. Into himself. A truly original human being with the ability to change his mind with maturity and life experience. That is what a real adult is; or should be.
What if he had grown hating him but loving him by the end of his life? Why put so much emphasis on change itself, as opposed to, say, the simple fact of having the correct opinion to begin with?
5:08 The biggest irony is that most of our suffering comes from we making each other and ourselves miserable more than life itself. Most of the time, especially in modern age, there's nothing happening. "We suffer more often in imagination than in reality" and "it's your judgement of being insulted and harmed that hurts you."
This is a really good documentary and the best part is that the presenter is entirely fair and does not give any bias to either side. At the end of the video I learned a lot about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer but I have no idea which position Weltgeist supports. In this world of diametric opposites, that is a real achievement. Well done. Subbed!
Nietzsche started out as a follower of Schopenhauer, even to the point of saying he felt being personally addressed by him, but, as you point out, soured on him later. However, who didn't he sour against later in life?
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🎓 Nietzsche was profoundly influenced by Schopenhauer early in his career. 00:15 📚 Nietzsche expressed unwavering trust in Schopenhauer after reading just one page of his work. 00:28 🤝 Nietzsche was a devoted disciple of Schopenhauer, having studied his work extensively. 00:54 🔄 Nietzsche transitioned from being an ardent supporter to a critical detractor of Schopenhauer. 01:20 🛑 Nietzsche eventually believed one should deny Schopenhauer's representation of the world. 01:49 ❓ Nietzsche's fundamental disagreement with Schopenhauer centers on the value of life. 02:18 🧠 Both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of incorporating science into philosophy. 03:42 📖 Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" discusses the value of life and the rejection of Schopenhauer's views. 04:12 📜 Nietzsche critiqued the Western philosophical tradition’s negative valuation of life. 04:53 🏛️ Nietzsche saw the philosophy of Socrates as the beginning of a decadent tradition in Western thought. 05:19 📉 Nietzsche coined the term "consensus sapientium" to describe the pervasive philosophical pessimism about life. 06:38 🌐 Nietzsche critiqued Plato’s theory of forms for devaluing the material world in favor of a world of ideas. 07:48 👤 Schopenhauer’s concept of the will was seen as a key metaphysical knowledge by Nietzsche, distinguishing the material from the metaphysical. 08:57 💭 Nietzsche challenged the philosophical tradition that devalued material life in favor of a metaphysical "beyond world." 09:39 🤔 Nietzsche questioned the value of the consensus of philosophers, suggesting agreement does not necessarily equate to truth. 09:53 🧠 Nietzsche suggests that the consensus among philosophers might not be due to universal truth but rather a common physiological condition among them. 10:06 🤒 He proposes that what was considered wisdom might actually have been a form of sickness, specifically decadence. 10:34 🔍 Nietzsche challenges the idea that philosophical arguments are objectively derived, highlighting the influence of the philosopher's personality on their thoughts. 11:03 🔄 Nietzsche's concept of perspectivism is clarified as not equating to relativism but emphasizing the personal influence on philosophical views. 11:30 ❓ He asserts that the value of life cannot be objectively estimated, as our personal involvement skews our perspective. 12:11 🗣️ Nietzsche believes that one's stance on life's value reveals more about their personality than about life itself. 12:52 🧐 He criticizes the Western philosophical tradition, suggesting that agreement among philosophers might be due to shared "decadence" rather than discovering truth. 13:34 🗝️ This insight into the nature of philosophical inquiry underpins Nietzsche's entire philosophical framework, including his concepts of master/slave morality and the Übermensch. 14:17 ✈️ Nietzsche's disdain for the escapism of decadent thinkers leads to his rejection of Schopenhauer, who epitomized this tendency to flee from life's realities. 15:26 💥 Schopenhauer's philosophy is seen as particularly antagonistic to Nietzsche's views because it places suffering at the core of existence. 16:09 🌐 Schopenhauer’s idea of 'Will' suggests a fundamental unity of existence, which conflicts with the multiplicity and suffering of the material world. 17:19 🔴 According to Schopenhauer, suffering is inevitable due to the conflict and differentiation inherent in the material world. 19:10 ⚫️ Contrasting Leibniz's optimism, Schopenhauer declares our reality as the worst of all possible worlds, grounded in his metaphysical views. 19:38 🌊 Schopenhauer viewed the world as inherently filled with suffering to the extent that its existence hinges on this pervasive pain. 20:07 🔥 He believed the material world is a literal hell built on and perpetuated by suffering, contrasting with other philosophies and religions that offer some form of hope or redemption. 20:35 🧘 Schopenhauer advocated for asceticism, rejecting material pleasures for a lifestyle of meditation and self-denial, with no promise of heavenly reward. 21:17 🚫 Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer for endorsing a life devoid of worldly engagement and hope, seeing it as a form of extreme nihilism. 22:13 💪 Nietzsche, in contrast, promoted embracing life with all its struggles, advocating for self-growth and finding joy in existence despite suffering. 23:36 ✊ The concepts of amor fati and eternal recurrence in Nietzsche's philosophy highlight his call to passionately participate in life, opposing Schopenhauer's withdrawal into asceticism. 24:17 ❤️ Schopenhauer suggested compassion and altruism as ethical responses to life for the average person, grounded in a metaphysical unity of will among humans. 26:09 😈 He viewed egoism as a profound evil, arguing that harming others is metaphysically equivalent to harming oneself due to the interconnectedness of all beings. 27:34 🗣️ Schopenhauer secularized the concept of conscience, explaining feelings of guilt or benevolence without religious context, but as an innate human understanding of oneness. 28:29 🚫 Nietzsche opposed the valuation of pity, seeing it as a debilitating emotion that sustains what should perish and thus considers it antithetical to the affirmation of life. 29:38 🔄 Nietzsche identified pity as a practice of nihilism, which he believed was a destructive force against potential greatness in humanity and culture. 30:05 🏛️ He traced the origins of a life-denying philosophy from Plato to Schopenhauer, culminating in what he saw as a harmful ethos of compassion and metaphysical beliefs in a transcendent reality (Hinterwelt). 31:01 🔭 Nietzsche observed a growing disbelief in these metaphysical concepts, especially with advancements in natural sciences, leading to the proclamation that "God is dead." 31:44 🧬 He warned of the moral challenges that would arise in a post-God society, particularly for scientists. 32:09 🚫 Nietzsche positioned his philosophy as an urgent warning against the appeal of nihilism and the "will to nothingness." 32:38 💪 He advocated for the concept of the "will to power" as a counter to nihilism and Schopenhauer's "will to life," promoting a life-affirming philosophy. 33:20 🤐 Nietzsche hinted at the incompleteness of his work and deferred to a stronger, future philosopher - Zarathustra, the godless. 34:01 🌐 He criticized the valuation of life from a historical philosophical perspective, rejecting the negative assessment of material existence. 34:56 🚷 Nietzsche was critical of Schopenhauer's recommendation to avoid life's sufferings, interpreting it as an escalation of a history of life-denying philosophies. 35:24 🤲 He saw Schopenhauer's compassion-based ethics as exacerbating suffering, viewing pity as a celebration of life's antithesis. 35:49 ✊ Nietzsche's work aimed to establish a life-affirming philosophy, contrasting sharply with Schopenhauer's vision, and was centered on ideas like the Übermensch and amor fati. Made with HARPA AI
I believe that compassion is the only true basis for morality. In denying it and , even worse then this, mocking it, Nietzsche effectively proves that he is a nihilist, despite his supposed objections to it. What has compassion accomplished!? Everything of any value, from the abolition of slavery to equal rights for women and LGBTQ people, to a desire for world peace and the respect one must have for the individual in order to liberate them. Compassion extends even to animals and is responsible for the rise of the modern animal rights movement. The will to power? Compassion is, (or at least eventually will become), the most transformative power in the universe. It allows us to overcome our fear of death by getting us to care about the world beyond our own self interest, an interest doomed to fail due to our mortality. And Nietzsche's false belief in eternal reoccurrence is fundamentally no different than a delusional belief in an afterlife and so provides no antidote to our fear of death. The only way to defeat our fear of death is through compassion, not egoistic narcissism.
Schopenhauer is the Buddha, Nietzsche is the Monkey King. You can arrogantly follow Nietzche until life breaks you, then you will find Schopenhauer, always there at the end, your mast and hull broken, pulling into harbor. This is not to say Nietzsche's thinking had no value, he may have been a genius among ordinary people, but Schopenhauer was a genius among geniuses (he said some pretty stupid stuff himself though, so don't model yourself on any one person). This is no surprise however, Nietzsche had little education compared to Schopenhauer, the latter was sort of an alien. N and the others after S are more popular only because they were more optimistic, and that is enough for them to be more liked regardless of the fact they threw reason out the window (they were not really philosophers, N himself lambasts philosophy in favor of psychology just to be able to escape S's conclusions). Also you will be hard pressed to find a philosopher more clear than S, the guy never hid behind language, while retaining a poetic quality to his writings, reason and aesthethics in harmony, which explain what I call the "Schopenhauer effect", you read this guy and you are not the same after, he hits like a truck and you will find many that have been hit, N included. He was also a beaming example of honesty, which, again, I believe even N recognised and appreciated. Although you may disagree with his view, he was in many ways the exemplary philosopher. He lived for philosophy, and not merely to earn a living as one.
He didn’t hate. If you read the genealogy of morals you’ll see that he had a great deal of respect for the man. Only thing is he disagreed with him. Stop with the click bait
Excellent point, Nietzsche said hate is derived from impotence which is the inability to respond to injury. Hate comes from resentment, which comes about from anger festering. Hell is the imaginary revenge of the impotent. Nietzsche despised resentment, he admired the noble who said no need to forgive because he didn't remember the offense.
You misunderstand. If he didn’t respect him his hatred wouldn’t have been as intense. That doesn’t contradict anything. Of course he started out respecting and agreeing with S, but as his philosophy changed he became vehemently opposed to S. That’s not click bait, just because you disagree or misunderstand. He respected Kant too, but called him an idiot. Does that mean he didn’t think he was intelligent or had worked hard etc? No, it means his was diametrically opposed to his conclusions.
Yes it's kind of necessary if not fair, to put a strong title to attract more views. It's a not too bad mean to an end, which content is very rich so it makes you forget the initial deceit.
Maybe philosophers have a tendency to depression since thinking too much in a ruminative fashion and being obsessed with finding "ultimate answers" and definitive probe may be depressive for many...
I agree, maybe it's like what Schopenhauer mentioned in the world as Will and representation that the intelligent are susceptible to greater sufferings. But I guess this is also considered by Nietzsche as a symptom of illness or weakness.
Whenever Schopenhauer is described as 'a western philosopher' that's a sure sign that the speaker hasn't actually read him. For anyone who has actually read Schopenhauer, it is obvious that he was a Vedantist (i.e., he was a Hindu). By rejecting him as the latest 'western philosopher', Nietzsche only reveals that he's never read and comprehended Schopenhauer. Accordingly, discussions such as this one, about Nietzsche's supposed "embrace of Schopenhauer" and later supposed "rejection of Schopenhauer" are just ivory-tower nonsense -- the kind of blather that gives Philosophy a bad name.
Yes, you are correct, you describe an aspect of reality, fair enough! May I give a view from a different angle? Consider a life racked with pain, headaches nausea and whenever he was able to recover some semblance of health, he devoted his time to share with eternity brilliance at a completely different level than anything before or since. Sometimes a little gratitude becomes obligatory.
An example of a discussion about how really smart people thought about Nietzsche, When Franz Kafka met Max Brod, they stayed up all night discussing Nietzsche, actually arguing about him! I love Franz Kafka and my heart was gladdened when I found out that he admired Nietzsche.
lol when you said "when he was 30 years old, he wrote an essay called Schopenhauer as Educator" but I thought you said 13, and I was like DAMN Neitzsche was one depressed 13 year old! It was only until we got to the part when Neitzsche said "...and has been the same for nine years." when I questioned it. I was like, damn, it's even worse, he's been depressed since he was FOUR lol
Well...that wouldn't be far off. His father died in his 30s when Nietzsche was just a kid, his aunts on his father's side were themselves mentally ill, and Nietzsche himself suffered from migraines and feared throughout his life that he was going the way of his dad (he ended up dying in his 50s, but suffered a catastrophic mental breakdown in his 40s- might have been genetics, might have been STDs). Nietzsche was an extremely intelligent child so him being depressed as a kid who fears he's headed for an early grave wouldn't be surprising at all.
@@viceversa7245 The funny thing is I recently finished Nietzsche, and I have to admit that every single thing he said has merit. Including calling everyone else he disargreed with degenerates; while I don't agree with him, I understand his need to do so. Now more than ever.
You can psychologize the optimist too, not just the pessimist. If the pessimist is sadsack who cant see past his anguish, the optimist is an unthinking animal, who cant see past his programming as a creation of evolution. At least the pessimist opinion isnt the same as that of insects. The will to live is the default for animals. Life is on the side of life. If the pessimst thinks too much because of their anguish, the optimist doesnt think at all, because of their trust in their biologically set perspective.
@@VoidapparateSelf preservation is slave morality. It is better to die valiantly than live a slave. This has been shown in great cultures of the past, rather than be ruled these people would accept death instead.
I don't think Schopenhauer is about denying life. To me he is more about being ok with suffering and learning how to avoid it. If you are depressed, he can be very soothing to read. This wouldn't be the case if he really just denied life. He told people to go out into the world, but to be careful about it and that, in the end, you don't even really need it anyway. But yea, his metaphysical stuff and his views on compassion are a bit weird. Reading Nietzsche on the other hand makes you rather feel like a loser. He wants you to be a warrior, which most people simply aren't. If you aren't the Übermensch, your life gets denied. Schopenhauer helps you, while Nietzsche just makes you feel like an idiot.
Towards the end of the segment entitled 'Why the Wise are Wrong,' you say that you will place a link to your video 'How Nietzsche Took on the World,' but I don't see that link (same for the 40-minute Schopenhauer video). Additionally, shortly after that you make reference to what sounds like "thekonos," but I can't quite catch it, and Google is proving no help. Can you clarify?
Again- thank you! I wish you could make a video where you take this further and show the tension between western's Decadents, and thinkers who detached from Western decadents, such as Emerson, American Transcendentalism, and of course movements that were influenced by oriental philosophies. (perhaps Weltegeist)
14:35 I can also speculate about strangers I've never met: Nietzsche abhorred weakness because he had intimate experience with it. Seeing the weakness of others, or just assuming it in others, served as unwelcomed reminders of his own. That is what truly ruffled him up about weakness, as is likely the case with everyone who abhors it. He had hang-ups over weakness because he was himself distraught over his spot in the ruggedness pecking order. Would've probably benefitted from reading evolutionary psychology, the ultimate probing of motives, but sadly none existed at the time. And I'm not even saying he's wrong to abhor it. He's wrong to so pathetically want to insulate life from all negative traits embedded in _alive_ people. People he pathologizes via perspectivism, not evidence (medical or other) of their specific defects.
Not to mention the fact that N loved and admired Sch. before N lapsed into insanity and was paraded around the house in his nightgown by his sister for paying spectators. The insane theory of the eternal recurrence dates from his "mature" writings, too. Schopenhauer believed life is sufferring, like Buddha and most sane people, but he also believed in making the best of it through art and compassion, instead of being a proto-Nazi.
@@WeltgeistYT Yeah I read Nietzsche when I was perhaps too young and before I had any idea who Schopenhauer was. When I found Schopenhauer later in life my reaction was similar to Nietzsche's initial reaction! But I had vaguely dismissed Nietzsche in my mind as a "young man's philosopher" who was fun "philosophizing with a hammer" but maybe was more aphorisms than a coherent contribution to philosophy. Your video let me appreciate his somewhat compelling response to Schopenhauer's worldview.
1:45 "what is the value of life?" That's a hard one for me. Objectively, in the sense of the universe and existence period I don't think it's anything but 1 part of the whole, so therefore effectively meaningless in totality. But for the living life is the most sacred bc they are living. And all life should be held as sacred to the living as they are all connected, but that doesn't mean you can't eat animals or cut down plants, that's part of the cycle.
Great video! Though puzzled with the analysis of the ‘Worst of all possible worlds’ stating that ‘if the world were even a tiny bit BETTER, it would cease to exist’…? Comments please
'the will to power' is stopping the analysis short imo- power without purpose is worthless.. power without regard for externalities is dangerous.. so the question is power to do WHAT? AND where does that direction come from? And what are the states beyond mere power that the power should be driven/pulled towards?
I don`t agree with Nietzche couldn`t an organised crime boss be seen as living the right way according to him, if he is dynamic, strong and lacks pity perhaps not a good thing
Wait. I'm confused. Your earlier videos suggest Schopenhauer ultimately offers redemption thru aesthetics and asceticism - thru a deep appreciation of Oneness. Happiness subsequently being attained because peace and happiness are simply the absence of the anxiety produced by the principium individuationis !!!??? Nietzsche on the other hand appears to offer nothing coherent. Could it be, ironically, that he tried and failed in asceticism and his entire philosophy is one of resentiment - and an attempt to reify and assert his ego by doing nothing truly original other than to invert Schopenhauer. And this brought only incoherence, madness for himself, and later his country?! Is Nietzsche just a failed mystic?
This is Nietzsche’s view on Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer himself believed that temporary escape from the Will (through aesthetics) and mortification of the Will (asceticism) is possible; Nietzsche disagrees.
It's a lie that Nietzsche inspired the Nazis. They would have existed and did what they did anyway, but yes, he was a loser, although very intelligent, who tried to refute Schopenhauer but failed - of course, since Schopenhauer is 100% right about how bad this world is. He (Nietzsche) suffered from stomach problems, migraine and myopia. At 35 he got disability pension and at 45 he went insane for the rest of his life. And he never got laid, unless he paid for it, while Schopenhauer at least had *some* luck with women.
I am a Schopenhauerian…no matter how Nietzsche assumes it’s decadence… One should understand that Nietzsche puts too much on interpretation when much of what is life is always in our individual sense and a sham of language which keeps us holding on the idea than the truth that we can hope life to be better than what it is but that in the end such “hope” changes nothing and that same language makes him assume Schopenhauer attitude towards life was negative for being metaphysical towards all life when it’s based on a personal relation on MY REPRESENTATION…a person reference! The-thing-in-itself is still a possible world even when with Nietzsche’s judgement is that it’s just metaphysical notion yet he trusted too much in the meaning that he attaches too much of the language he uses…take note his new use of terms like Will-to-Power, Supermensche and Amor Fati. He sounds like he is still a Schopenhauerian even with his judgment of his once teacher…by building a system of sorts that proves life is based on our personal representation…one based on embracing suffering joyfully?!? Such an idea is just a new God of sorts his own form of idealism. Funny he didn’t see how his philosophy is just as idealistic and decadent as his one time teacher relates but in another that to me is probably worse! Pessimism is honest to me because we can will yet cannot will counter the way we are as a subject towards life. The perceiver can never stand outside of his objectively completely. This is why I rather respect Schopenhauer’s position because his sense of will is unwilling to believe we can completely be objective when Nietzsche thinks we make the world positive than what it really is, more suffering. He is more of Christian than he would ever accept. Nietzsche should have smelled himself…he is just as idealist and maybe worst ascetic, when no one can be as strong…embrace all the suffering with joy- yet he still an ad-lib and a cum idealist! Think about it?…the regular man hardly can accept his take on life with a complete joy. He is like an atheist who does not want to accept the theory of evolution because in his heart it’s too negative… Nietzsche sounds more like a Schopenhauer by critiquing his teacher than Schopenhauer is irrational towards Hegel’s philosophy because he either didn’t understand it, didn’t care to understand it or worse wouldn’t understand it because he was sadly I can say jealous of Hegel’s philosophy from more than a objective reason but based on his own personal dislike for how Hegel philosophized. Schopenhauer never tried to understand or cared or debated Hegel’s ideas directly in a logical way, but Nietzsche who studied Schopenhauer deeply critiques without seeing how much he proves his once teacher’s philosophy…by expressing his own representation of life.
I think one of the primary reasons Schopenhauer wrote Hegel off without bothering to try and understand the intricacies of his philosophy is because in Hegel’s philosophy history is meaningful and approaches an ultimate goal, whereas for Schopenhauer history can have no meaning-it’s just one continuous meat grinder. Schopenhauer’s philosophy is also deeply ethical and sensitive to the suffering of individuals, while Hegel’s philosophy can be twisted into apologetics for all the untold atrocities perpetrated by man upon man throughout history. For example, the US colonizers’ treatment of native Americans was unconscionable according to Schopenhauer’s philosophy, but it can be construed as an unavoidable step in the achievement of history’s ultimate goal in Hegel’s philosophy. Also, Schopenhauer thought Hegel’s obscurantist writing style was indicative of charlatanry.
Schponeuar and other life denying philsophers feels like they have made a coping mechansim (hinterwalt) becoz life was harsh on them or they were weak to face it and extract joy out of it well if they think life is full fo suffering and pain why bother living it ,just die and you will be free from your pain but they waited for it you might say they wanted to complete their work ,but why bother about it or care anything at all if life is full of suffering and not worth living ...You have presented you work ,your idea has been spreaded you can die now and be cured but no they keep on living ...why? Dont give argument like there work was not compeleted they literaly had years to compelte it and they should have in their mind how much books to compelete by how much time and all... Also another counter argument on this could be like they have duties ,obligations towards society but when they think life is not worth living why care about anything at all in it die and you will be free...its suffering and full of pain right?..
That innate realization mentioned at 26:41 sounds a lot more like Kant's categorical imperative, and a moral system free of a religious basis was innovated, and better argued , by Kant.
I think nietzsche's criticism of philosophers based on their weakness or their own pain and suffering is unfair because pain forces you to confront reality. When you put your hand on a hot stove the pain forces you to confront the reality that you have burned your hand. When you have a huge pain in your chest that pain is forcing you to confront the reality that you're having a heart attack. To brush off pain as though it is somehow in opposition to truth is kind of boneheaded because as i just pointed out, pain often forces us to acknowledge reality. So i would say the philosophers who suffered rhe most probably have the most insight into truth. Nietzsche himself suffered a lot and formed a lot if his philosophical ideas around it as well. I find nietzsche is often guilty of a lack of self awareness when it comes to philosophical ideas he thinks he is in opposition to but ends up sort of agreeing with them without realising it
Late capitalism and climate colapse make a good point in favor of Schopenhauer's oneness agaist a will of power that's been historically understood and used in a very narcissistic and toxic manner.
Yes, not to mention the nuclear threat. What better confirmation does one need of the accuracy of the consensus sapientium and the denial of life of all those philosophies and religions than a people's whole technological aim ending up creating something that can end that very people's existence.
I think "Raven" works rather better than "crow", not complaining, you selected one of my favorite aphorisms! Excellent video. 👍 Ravens were Odin's birds.
@@WeltgeistYT he wrote a dictionary too? Busy, busy! 🤣 Judith Norman and Walter Kaufman both use "Raven" Not trying to start an argument, just a friendly suggestion. 🤔 I really appreciate your channel, you explain philosophy very well.
Why invest so much hate (or love) in a mere speculation? Speculations bring forth models, models crash or survive in confrontational with practical living. Different models survive depending on which living context. The original philosophers at the very least knew how to detach their emotions from their understanding. Nietzsche appears like a screaming animal in comparison. Nietzsche appears to be the one sick guy.
I've seen it claimed that that Anime Chaos;HEad is largely based on Schopenhauer's Philosophy, yet rejecting his Pessimism in the end with it's happy ending. I definitely got the vibe of some from of Transcendental Idealism ie Kant. But other shows in the same Universe feel more Stoic, as does Ayase's vaguely Pantheist theology.
There's a distinction between "Life" and "Life on Earth" The salient one, to this discussion, is Life on Earth. One should even further reduce it to "Life, as it is now, on Earth;" this would be opposed to some other era or a theoretical or potential life on Earth. This reduction holds 2 benefits: 1. It is easier to defend a smaller target 2. The more time we put into clarifying an understanding, the more secure we feel in the decisions we make based upon it.
One great rule to judge the value of any philosophy or spiritual teaching: It is only worth engaging with, if it 1) withstands the scrutiny of reason 2) it grows compassion and love, and 3) It leads to happiness. For understanding Schopenhauer, it is important to deeply understand Buddha (not Buddhism) and/or Advaita Vedanta. All this has noting to do with Nihilism or pessimism. There is no ‘this world’ versus a ‘Hinterworld’. There is no point to be an ‘ascetic’. What a confusion.
The sad state of American public schools is made clear in how absolutely wrong my teachers were on Nietzsche and never even mentioned Schopenhauer. What a waste of time. i think the only classes that didnt teach wrong things were my math and to a lesser extent my science classes. But nearly all my history, social studies, and such, have been mostly if not completely wrong except on the most basic data points. And this was before they got woke.
Its as if school wasn't meant to inform you, but to brainwash and make everyone uniform to each other... You might want to read some critics of modern education...
26:21 it doesn't make sense... What do you want the wolf to do? die? His views are inconsistent. I think Schopenhauer came to the conclusion that life is entirely made for and from suffering because he doesn't want to let go. I can see where Nietzsche was coming from when saying that Schopenhauer's Conclusions came as a result of illness/weakness. Why not let go? Because the wolf analogy he used can only come to the conclusion that the only answer is death, but he overlooked it.
Reading philosophy will give you success at becoming a philosopher about as much chance as going to a museum and looking at paintings will make you an artist.
"Suffering takes central stage in Schopenhauer's philosophy in a way that's simply not there in Plato..." Have you read Philebus? The Good life is the mixed life, "mixed by what?" -- pleasure and pain.
What specific books or works that you read to help you come to this interpretation of Nietzsche. I find your reading Nietzsche very great of getting a full picture of Nietzsche.
This wasn’t the focus of your outstanding overview, but I wonder if Mahayana Buddhism could be the solution Nietzsche was looking for, given that it basically has Schopenhauer’s metaphysics and retains empathy-but optimistically envisions a future of Universal Enlightenment…and it affirms that nirvana is to be found in this physical world of samsara/maya.
I wonder why Hegel is never mentioned in any of these videos. Given that Hegel rewrote Hermetic mysticism as philosophy (as per Glenn Alexander Magee in Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition) I would expect decadence, the Hinterweld and nihilism to manifest in Hegel's writings (which I have not read). Don't they do so? What, if anything, does Nietzsche have to say about Hegel?
@Anthemic Lullaby / Joshua / Dammit, I've read that book, and don't remember that. Probably because I hadn't read Magee yet. Thanks for reminding me; I'll have to check it out sometime.
12:29-12:40 _...is the problem with life, or is the problem with them?..._ Of course them being another manifestation *of life* inconveniences the life groveler who needs to tell dispositional stories about belief, to essentially offload any negative baggage, to keep it at a distance from life itself. But the sober story is not complicated at all: He speculates there is something wrong or "sick" with them. He recognizes that they are every bit as much of life, in no way detached from it, but that's the quiet part he wouldn't say aloud. So the faults or defects he thinks he's identified should be evidence of the wrong or sick features of life, not just the people. People are embedded in the world, and life does the embedding. You'd have to think they're possessed by demons, or some other _anti-life_ spooks, to make sense of these conclusions. N is the ultimate cautionary tale on how desperate some minds can get to insulate "life" as goodness from living beings as individuals, and even the truly sick individuals. But dispositionalism about belief is nonsense anyway: People's beliefs change from one generation to the next at a much greater pace and scope compared to any physical, neurological, physiological or psychological facts about them.
"Hinterwelt" hasn't completely faded away - because of the "simulation theory", meaning the real world can still be out there, and also then almost certainly unreachable and unknowable to us (even this simulation is very hard to know).
That LOTR meme where Bilbo is holding the ring saying to himself "Why not? ... Why shouldn't I keep it?" ... That is Nietzsche's entire philosophy in a nutshell.
Schopenhauer is right, while Nietzsche is wrong, because compassion hasn't the same effect as pitiness. And compassion doesn't necerssarily help society, but pitiness does. Mix compassion/empathy/... with e.g. morals, positivity ecc., and you get a knight making good deeds. Mix compassion/empathy/... with e.g. pain, negativity ecc., and you get a sadist. Of course a knighthood implies compassion/empathy/..., but sadism does so, too.
20:19 but do any of them ever distinguish between physical and psychological suffering? It gets hard tho bc it's not even bc some can be in worse conditions and feel like they are suffering less so I feel like consciousness, intelligence and/or scope/depth of experience goes into it as well. But from looking into Buddhism and Eastern practices when I was younger I always kinda thot nirvana (or whatever you want to call it) might be death bc death would be the end of suffering as well lol. I also thot the idea of getting away from everything would be good but I have come to realize I just wanted out of our society. It's sick. I feel like we should be actually living. All suffering should be natural or come from our natural environment. I believe our society today induces more psychological suffering, and much more than we should ever deal with.
I don't think the wise DENIED life, they just didn't see much point in it - it didn't really lead to depression but more melancholy, more of a neutral stance - and you can still make good decisions from a neutral POV, perhaps the best decisions. It's more so I think on Nietzsche to prove his need to affirm life, instead of being more apathetic too it. For example we don't even know if this is a simulation or real reality - this is I think a pretty important distinction that would matter in your choice of affirming this simulation or not (since would be more real and meaningful to affirm the real reality). It's a fun project of philosophy he engaged in and we all can engage in to entertain ourselves, but come one, trying to affirm life is even more ridiculous than to deny it - just instead be more neutral and careless to life, have common sense, understanding and justified compassion - have children only if you think your life has been pretty good, and that they also because of your genes will most likely have a pretty good life (also of course considering your economical situation and the genes of the person you have children with) - that's the best anyone can do.
Nihilietzsche had the (emotion based) "moral" that empathy is evil, because it contradicts the natural selection of the strongest most fabulous owner of the most fabulous object in the world (Time Bandits, blink-blink-nudge-nudge). I think that Nihilietzsche got some things wrong regarding the evolution. Empathy might actually be an evolutionary advantage in itself.
Recently finished 'Twilight of the Idols' and 'Antichrist', and this video summary is a good recap. I think a lot of people misunderstand Nietzsche (if have even read him carefully) and thus subscribe nihilism to him as well as a whole host of other misconceptions. I was surprised by his exuberant embrace of life, particularly a difficult life, especially as a means to overcome that harship and become a great one. And his condemnation of Western philosophy is hilariously articulated. Though his assessment of Socrates "pessimism" may be justified, I think it's more nuanced -- for Socrates admitted as well that only the gods knew who was better off: he in his dying or his disciples in their living. I still struggle with his condemnation for ethical values such as pity, mercy, compassion, & altruism in general, but his reasonings cohere philosophically.
I've always thought Nietzsche was correct that we're all the will to power and nothing besides but that he somehow never noticed that Christ had already beaten him to the punch by articulating what the ultimate power was and how to achieve it considering that we're fundamentally a social, collaborative animal: love thy neighbor as thyself. Nietzsche seems to think that the peak of life is in overcoming and dominating all around you while Christ says that true life is to be found in the love of and communion with those around you. Perhaps that really is the peak of life for Nietzsche and those like him, but he and his ilk will be outcompeted by the more collaborative types. If the Turin horse story is actually true, it's genuinely a question if in the end Nietzsche believed overcoming and domination were really life itself.
"Nietzsche seems to think that the peak of life is in overcoming and dominating all around you while Christ says that true life is to be found in the love of and communion with those around you." Please read more
@@branch0ie You disagree with my interpretation of Nietzsche, I assume. Overcoming and dominating in the pursuit of personal greatness seem like his essence to me, but I'm happy to be corrected.
@@zachbauman2547 The greatest form of dominance is over YOURSELF that is what Nietzsche stated. Dominance over others is not what he was talking about... ever.
@Freshly Made Ghosts It's true that it's easier to live an isolated life now moreso than in the distant past, but it's also true that the most successful people this year or next will be heavily socially networked.
@@jacobwiren8142 I'd be curious to see how Weltgeist himself would respond to your post. But at the very least, Nietzsche is at least indifferent to the domination or subjugation of others if it's necessary on your path of self-overcoming and personal greatness. His unwavering approval of Thucydides seems to be proof enough of that.
Visit brilliant.org/Weltgeist/ to get started learning STEM for free, and the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium subscription.
TIMESTAMPS:
00:00 Intro
03:34 Agreement of the wise
09:55 Why the wise are wrong
15:12 Metaphysical suffering
20:20 Asceticism
23:47 Compassion and pity
29:44 Nihilism
33:42 Conclusion
Wait a min, 20% of FREE is not much of a discount though 🤔
L
Your use of Casper David Friedrich is spot on.
One of my favorite artists, I wonder if Nietzsche would have liked him.
He was always complaining about northern German weather, but the perspective of Casper Friedrich and Nietzsche and his high icy mountain seems perfect!
My candidate for the Ubermensch is the Don.
Leporello certainly would agree with me!
After all, Nietzsche said Beyond Good and Evil, not beyond good and bad! 👍
"Why Nietzsche loved Heraclitus" when?
Nietzsche didn’t hate Schopenhauer. He loved him! But Nietzsche propounded a very different philosophy from his much-admired predecessor.
Correct.
yeah click bait ...Nietzshhhh and Hauser would both hate that,,,
You forget Nietzsche personified himself as the antichrist, he turned love around and violently opposed other thinkers to his idea of individuality. You like many are wearing a Nietzsche fan club badge rather than understanding him.
Touché! That's a more accurate depiction of what has happened I believe. The video was still pretty good! 😍
Being brought up by one of your greatest contemporaries is flattering even if it's from a critical attitude.
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who couldn’t hear the music."
Nietzsche
Heavyweight quote
To put it philosophically: king shit
Real
And handling out sweets, to celebrate the cruel and vicious deaths of others. 🇵🇸
I don't understand but I think what he is saying is, correct me if I'm wrong; The Christian/Schopenhauer world views that, " the powerful and the rich who live life with joy, and freedom compared to the weak/poor have no value"
Is the result of their inability to experience the life that those people are living. But if they were in their shoes/rich, they too would be dancing 😂
Nietzsche did not despise Schopenhauer, he in fact adapted his notion of "will" but he made it more of an optimistic notion, saying that the will gives us way towards reaching who we really are. For Schopenhauer, the will is giving us a way to ruin ourselves. For Nietzsche it is the power that makes us bloom.
That makes sense as if he was more of a student of Schopenhauer because he took off from his platform into his own becoming a philosopher himself huh?
Why is hard to see, he started that way, loved him as a teacher, but then realize the core of his teaching were counter to his own?
It was explained very well in this video. We tend to hate those we loved more than Jose we don’t even care about.
Schooenhauer is a Christian without hope and Nietzsche is basically a Satanist without noticing.
I think perhaps Schopenhauer never saw through the veil of his own ego and conditioning, whereas Nietzsche did. Naturally when the light of our awareness is dimmed by layers and layers of baggage of the self, it becomes impossible to recognise it for the force of goodness it truly is.
Schopenhauer: Selfish action leads to suffering, therefore self-denial is best.
Nietzsche: The only valuable thing is strength, endurance, growth; therefore self-overcoming is best.
Though they stem from different lines of reasoning, in a practical sense I think these two prescriptions for life could coincide. I don’t see why one cannot be a Schopenhauerian outwardly in the sense of conducting oneself in a way that limits the extent to which one functions as a source of suffering for others, and at the same time be a Nietzschean inwardly in the sense of conducting oneself in a way in which one endures personal suffering and struggles to overcome personal weaknesses.
Stoicism basically
@@GreyOatmeal not exactly though. Stoicism is more “accept what suffering comes your way, alleviate it if possible or endure it with dignity, and don’t create any surplus suffering”; but Nietzsche is like “you need suffering-even more suffering, for the battle to overcome is the only worthwhile thing”.
@@CrazyLinguiniLegs the main difference is in the approch to the volontas, schopenhauer dreams about a possible ataraxia, nietzsche goes in the opposite direction, for me in media stat virtus
This is essentially what many Zen masters say
This is well put like yin and yang a balance
Neitzche is the reason i have a great life. The man recontexualised the entirety of existence for me. If it wasn't for him i never would have realised that i have gotten everything ive asked for in life.
I was brought up as a pious Christian, reading bible every day, until I stumbled upon the Anti-Christ, at the tender age of 14.
This ended my childhood, and told me to grow up. I now agree with what you said, he kinda is my Savior and Messiah as well.
Saved me from the worthless darkness of Christianity, for ever grateful. LOL.
This reminds me of a quote from ralph waldo emerson: “People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.”
If you want to read Schopenhauer, read his essays, they give you a much better view of him as a person, he was a really decent person, someone to listen to regarding advice about learning writing, so much more!
Yes, this is what I tell "newbies" to (his) philosophy as well. (Btw, we've covered a lot of his essays on the channel)
I am starting to wonder if both of them understood the same thing very well, but Nietzsche had some underlying psychopathy.
@@rexaustin2885
He absolutely had .
His ego derived from psychopathy is what drove his philosophy the same which he accused of others.
He fell victim to his own perspectivism.
Proof :: Beautiful people are on average treated better by society and think the world is a better place on average than common people.
A narcissistic life affirmation psychological driver.
@Weltgeist
@@rexaustin2885i dont think so
Obit anus, abit onus...yes quite decent guy.
What makes this so beautiful is the fact that a young, angry, and confused Nietzsche loved Schopenhauer and the older and wiser Nietzsche did not. That is why Nietzsche is the best. He grew up and into his greatness. Into himself. A truly original human being with the ability to change his mind with maturity and life experience. That is what a real adult is; or should be.
You see this in so much of his writing! A unique trait of N's corpus
Was that before or after the horse incident?
What if he had grown hating him but loving him by the end of his life? Why put so much emphasis on change itself, as opposed to, say, the simple fact of having the correct opinion to begin with?
@@MonkeyDIvan what on earth is a correct opinion? If something is correct then it is not an opinion it is a fact
When he went crazy 😜
5:08 The biggest irony is that most of our suffering comes from we making each other and ourselves miserable more than life itself. Most of the time, especially in modern age, there's nothing happening. "We suffer more often in imagination than in reality" and "it's your judgement of being insulted and harmed that hurts you."
The battlefield is in your mind.
In Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio, the Cricket has a portrait of Schopenhauer on his wall. Loved that subtle detail.
Dr. Peterson might have something to say about that.
@@rosemarietolentino3218 I'm sure he would, but I don't care for his sophistry.
This is a really good documentary and the best part is that the presenter is entirely fair and does not give any bias to either side. At the end of the video I learned a lot about Nietzsche and Schopenhauer but I have no idea which position Weltgeist supports. In this world of diametric opposites, that is a real achievement. Well done. Subbed!
Absolute good comment.
Absolutely fantastic video. Entertaining and digestible. Bravo!
Nietzsche started out as a follower of Schopenhauer, even to the point of saying he felt being personally addressed by him, but, as you point out, soured on him later. However, who didn't he sour against later in life?
Syphilis will do that to you.
@@Neo-Midgar Yeah, something else was going.
@@Neo-Midgar Yea not everything you don't understand is due to his illness it's also not clear what illness he had
“The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends,"-Nietzsche
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎓 Nietzsche was profoundly influenced by Schopenhauer early in his career.
00:15 📚 Nietzsche expressed unwavering trust in Schopenhauer after reading just one page of his work.
00:28 🤝 Nietzsche was a devoted disciple of Schopenhauer, having studied his work extensively.
00:54 🔄 Nietzsche transitioned from being an ardent supporter to a critical detractor of Schopenhauer.
01:20 🛑 Nietzsche eventually believed one should deny Schopenhauer's representation of the world.
01:49 ❓ Nietzsche's fundamental disagreement with Schopenhauer centers on the value of life.
02:18 🧠 Both Nietzsche and Schopenhauer emphasized the importance of incorporating science into philosophy.
03:42 📖 Nietzsche's "Twilight of the Idols" discusses the value of life and the rejection of Schopenhauer's views.
04:12 📜 Nietzsche critiqued the Western philosophical tradition’s negative valuation of life.
04:53 🏛️ Nietzsche saw the philosophy of Socrates as the beginning of a decadent tradition in Western thought.
05:19 📉 Nietzsche coined the term "consensus sapientium" to describe the pervasive philosophical pessimism about life.
06:38 🌐 Nietzsche critiqued Plato’s theory of forms for devaluing the material world in favor of a world of ideas.
07:48 👤 Schopenhauer’s concept of the will was seen as a key metaphysical knowledge by Nietzsche, distinguishing the material from the metaphysical.
08:57 💭 Nietzsche challenged the philosophical tradition that devalued material life in favor of a metaphysical "beyond world."
09:39 🤔 Nietzsche questioned the value of the consensus of philosophers, suggesting agreement does not necessarily equate to truth.
09:53 🧠 Nietzsche suggests that the consensus among philosophers might not be due to universal truth but rather a common physiological condition among them.
10:06 🤒 He proposes that what was considered wisdom might actually have been a form of sickness, specifically decadence.
10:34 🔍 Nietzsche challenges the idea that philosophical arguments are objectively derived, highlighting the influence of the philosopher's personality on their thoughts.
11:03 🔄 Nietzsche's concept of perspectivism is clarified as not equating to relativism but emphasizing the personal influence on philosophical views.
11:30 ❓ He asserts that the value of life cannot be objectively estimated, as our personal involvement skews our perspective.
12:11 🗣️ Nietzsche believes that one's stance on life's value reveals more about their personality than about life itself.
12:52 🧐 He criticizes the Western philosophical tradition, suggesting that agreement among philosophers might be due to shared "decadence" rather than discovering truth.
13:34 🗝️ This insight into the nature of philosophical inquiry underpins Nietzsche's entire philosophical framework, including his concepts of master/slave morality and the Übermensch.
14:17 ✈️ Nietzsche's disdain for the escapism of decadent thinkers leads to his rejection of Schopenhauer, who epitomized this tendency to flee from life's realities.
15:26 💥 Schopenhauer's philosophy is seen as particularly antagonistic to Nietzsche's views because it places suffering at the core of existence.
16:09 🌐 Schopenhauer’s idea of 'Will' suggests a fundamental unity of existence, which conflicts with the multiplicity and suffering of the material world.
17:19 🔴 According to Schopenhauer, suffering is inevitable due to the conflict and differentiation inherent in the material world.
19:10 ⚫️ Contrasting Leibniz's optimism, Schopenhauer declares our reality as the worst of all possible worlds, grounded in his metaphysical views.
19:38 🌊 Schopenhauer viewed the world as inherently filled with suffering to the extent that its existence hinges on this pervasive pain.
20:07 🔥 He believed the material world is a literal hell built on and perpetuated by suffering, contrasting with other philosophies and religions that offer some form of hope or redemption.
20:35 🧘 Schopenhauer advocated for asceticism, rejecting material pleasures for a lifestyle of meditation and self-denial, with no promise of heavenly reward.
21:17 🚫 Nietzsche criticized Schopenhauer for endorsing a life devoid of worldly engagement and hope, seeing it as a form of extreme nihilism.
22:13 💪 Nietzsche, in contrast, promoted embracing life with all its struggles, advocating for self-growth and finding joy in existence despite suffering.
23:36 ✊ The concepts of amor fati and eternal recurrence in Nietzsche's philosophy highlight his call to passionately participate in life, opposing Schopenhauer's withdrawal into asceticism.
24:17 ❤️ Schopenhauer suggested compassion and altruism as ethical responses to life for the average person, grounded in a metaphysical unity of will among humans.
26:09 😈 He viewed egoism as a profound evil, arguing that harming others is metaphysically equivalent to harming oneself due to the interconnectedness of all beings.
27:34 🗣️ Schopenhauer secularized the concept of conscience, explaining feelings of guilt or benevolence without religious context, but as an innate human understanding of oneness.
28:29 🚫 Nietzsche opposed the valuation of pity, seeing it as a debilitating emotion that sustains what should perish and thus considers it antithetical to the affirmation of life.
29:38 🔄 Nietzsche identified pity as a practice of nihilism, which he believed was a destructive force against potential greatness in humanity and culture.
30:05 🏛️ He traced the origins of a life-denying philosophy from Plato to Schopenhauer, culminating in what he saw as a harmful ethos of compassion and metaphysical beliefs in a transcendent reality (Hinterwelt).
31:01 🔭 Nietzsche observed a growing disbelief in these metaphysical concepts, especially with advancements in natural sciences, leading to the proclamation that "God is dead."
31:44 🧬 He warned of the moral challenges that would arise in a post-God society, particularly for scientists.
32:09 🚫 Nietzsche positioned his philosophy as an urgent warning against the appeal of nihilism and the "will to nothingness."
32:38 💪 He advocated for the concept of the "will to power" as a counter to nihilism and Schopenhauer's "will to life," promoting a life-affirming philosophy.
33:20 🤐 Nietzsche hinted at the incompleteness of his work and deferred to a stronger, future philosopher - Zarathustra, the godless.
34:01 🌐 He criticized the valuation of life from a historical philosophical perspective, rejecting the negative assessment of material existence.
34:56 🚷 Nietzsche was critical of Schopenhauer's recommendation to avoid life's sufferings, interpreting it as an escalation of a history of life-denying philosophies.
35:24 🤲 He saw Schopenhauer's compassion-based ethics as exacerbating suffering, viewing pity as a celebration of life's antithesis.
35:49 ✊ Nietzsche's work aimed to establish a life-affirming philosophy, contrasting sharply with Schopenhauer's vision, and was centered on ideas like the Übermensch and amor fati.
Made with HARPA AI
Nobody reading all of that
I believe that compassion is the only true basis for morality. In denying it and , even worse then this, mocking it, Nietzsche effectively proves that he is a nihilist, despite his supposed objections to it. What has compassion accomplished!? Everything of any value, from the abolition of slavery to equal rights for women and LGBTQ people, to a desire for world peace and the respect one must have for the individual in order to liberate them. Compassion extends even to animals and is responsible for the rise of the modern animal rights movement. The will to power? Compassion is, (or at least eventually will become), the most transformative power in the universe. It allows us to overcome our fear of death by getting us to care about the world beyond our own self interest, an interest doomed to fail due to our mortality. And Nietzsche's false belief in eternal reoccurrence is fundamentally no different than a delusional belief in an afterlife and so provides no antidote to our fear of death. The only way to defeat our fear of death is through compassion, not egoistic narcissism.
Fantastic work as always, Weltegeist.
Thank you!
What's the E stand for?
Schopenhauer is the Buddha, Nietzsche is the Monkey King.
You can arrogantly follow Nietzche until life breaks you, then you will find Schopenhauer, always there at the end, your mast and hull broken, pulling into harbor.
This is not to say Nietzsche's thinking had no value, he may have been a genius among ordinary people, but Schopenhauer was a genius among geniuses (he said some pretty stupid stuff himself though, so don't model yourself on any one person).
This is no surprise however, Nietzsche had little education compared to Schopenhauer, the latter was sort of an alien. N and the others after S are more popular only because they were more optimistic, and that is enough for them to be more liked regardless of the fact they threw reason out the window (they were not really philosophers, N himself lambasts philosophy in favor of psychology just to be able to escape S's conclusions).
Also you will be hard pressed to find a philosopher more clear than S, the guy never hid behind language, while retaining a poetic quality to his writings, reason and aesthethics in harmony, which explain what I call the "Schopenhauer effect", you read this guy and you are not the same after, he hits like a truck and you will find many that have been hit, N included. He was also a beaming example of honesty, which, again, I believe even N recognised and appreciated.
Although you may disagree with his view, he was in many ways the exemplary philosopher. He lived for philosophy, and not merely to earn a living as one.
He didn’t hate. If you read the genealogy of morals you’ll see that he had a great deal of respect for the man. Only thing is he disagreed with him. Stop with the click bait
agreed, book 3 of genealogy of morals professes his respect for the ascetic priest
Excellent point, Nietzsche said hate is derived from impotence which is the inability to respond to injury.
Hate comes from resentment, which comes about from anger festering.
Hell is the imaginary revenge of the impotent.
Nietzsche despised resentment, he admired the noble who said no need to forgive because he didn't remember the offense.
It's understandable, strong worded titles give more views, and given the quality of his videos I thimk it's fair
You misunderstand. If he didn’t respect him his hatred wouldn’t have been as intense. That doesn’t contradict anything.
Of course he started out respecting and agreeing with S, but as his philosophy changed he became vehemently opposed to S.
That’s not click bait, just because you disagree or misunderstand.
He respected Kant too, but called him an idiot. Does that mean he didn’t think he was intelligent or had worked hard etc? No, it means his was diametrically opposed to his conclusions.
Yes it's kind of necessary if not fair, to put a strong title to attract more views. It's a not too bad mean to an end, which content is very rich so it makes you forget the initial deceit.
Maybe philosophers have a tendency to depression since thinking too much in a ruminative fashion and being obsessed with finding "ultimate answers" and definitive probe may be depressive for many...
I agree, maybe it's like what Schopenhauer mentioned in the world as Will and representation that the intelligent are susceptible to greater sufferings. But I guess this is also considered by Nietzsche as a symptom of illness or weakness.
Perhaps it's the other way round!
Depression/Dismay/Disappointment etc. cometh first.
Philosophising is a by product of coping with it.
Very interesting comments
Whenever Schopenhauer is described as 'a western philosopher' that's a sure sign that the speaker hasn't actually read him. For anyone who has actually read Schopenhauer, it is obvious that he was a Vedantist (i.e., he was a Hindu). By rejecting him as the latest 'western philosopher', Nietzsche only reveals that he's never read and comprehended Schopenhauer. Accordingly, discussions such as this one, about Nietzsche's supposed "embrace of Schopenhauer" and later supposed "rejection of Schopenhauer" are just ivory-tower nonsense -- the kind of blather that gives Philosophy a bad name.
Hmmm, one of these great philosophers died at age 55 after 11 years of insanity, the other remained active, lucid and healthy until age 72....
Yes, you are correct, you describe an aspect of reality, fair enough!
May I give a view from a different angle?
Consider a life racked with pain, headaches nausea and whenever he was able to recover some semblance of health, he devoted his time to share with eternity brilliance at a completely different level than anything before or since.
Sometimes a little gratitude becomes obligatory.
I think you’d enjoy our video on Ecce Homo
One was just much, much saner than the other.
I guess
That's the effect of poodles
Schopenhauer is talking about dharma, which he refers to as the will.
An example of a discussion about how really smart people thought about Nietzsche,
When Franz Kafka met Max Brod, they stayed up all night discussing Nietzsche, actually arguing about him!
I love Franz Kafka and my heart was gladdened when I found out that he admired Nietzsche.
Where can I read about this? I'm also a big Kafka fan and I haven't run into that.
@@CeramicShot Nietzsche and Expressionism: The Neue Mensch in Kafka, Kaiser, and Strauss. Marion Stoll Adams
@@LeWaterEnjoyer Thanks a lot.
I appreciate the effort you put into this analysis. Subscribed.
Thank you. Welcome
lol when you said "when he was 30 years old, he wrote an essay called Schopenhauer as Educator" but I thought you said 13, and I was like DAMN Neitzsche was one depressed 13 year old! It was only until we got to the part when Neitzsche said "...and has been the same for nine years." when I questioned it. I was like, damn, it's even worse, he's been depressed since he was FOUR lol
Well...that wouldn't be far off. His father died in his 30s when Nietzsche was just a kid, his aunts on his father's side were themselves mentally ill, and Nietzsche himself suffered from migraines and feared throughout his life that he was going the way of his dad (he ended up dying in his 50s, but suffered a catastrophic mental breakdown in his 40s- might have been genetics, might have been STDs). Nietzsche was an extremely intelligent child so him being depressed as a kid who fears he's headed for an early grave wouldn't be surprising at all.
@@jonathancampbell5231poor man...
“One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil.”
Cannot find the promised link in the description - at 13:50 - "How Nietzsche Took on the World"
Schoppy living in this fool's head rent free.
Low key the whole point of philosophy brother
@@viceversa7245 The funny thing is I recently finished Nietzsche, and I have to admit that every single thing he said has merit. Including calling everyone else he disargreed with degenerates; while I don't agree with him, I understand his need to do so. Now more than ever.
Great video! Thank you! I greatly enjoyed it!
Glad you enjoyed it!
another great video, I'm learning a lot from your content, keep them coming!
Bro, apparently Nietzsche hated everyone. I don't think he hated anyone, he just disagreed with them and wasn't afraid of expressing this.
He loved women, pacifists, and socialists.
You can psychologize the optimist too, not just the pessimist. If the pessimist is sadsack who cant see past his anguish, the optimist is an unthinking animal, who cant see past his programming as a creation of evolution. At least the pessimist opinion isnt the same as that of insects. The will to live is the default for animals. Life is on the side of life. If the pessimst thinks too much because of their anguish, the optimist doesnt think at all, because of their trust in their biologically set perspective.
Nietzsche's attempt at criticizing schopenhauer motivated by pure self preservation reeks of slave morality.
@@VoidapparateSelf preservation is slave morality. It is better to die valiantly than live a slave. This has been shown in great cultures of the past, rather than be ruled these people would accept death instead.
Or find beauty in strife no need to be pessimistic its an emotion
Both man and animals can suffer from overthinkinging, all it requires is putting a nervous system under chronic stress.
Nietzche's Moustache
Cancels Out
Schopenhauer's Sideburns
Could you imagine the wisdom of a man
with Nietzsche's moustache
and Schopenhauer's burns?
@@Selderij Like Hagrid?
It would've been SO interesting to read, what Schopenhauer would've responded to Nietzsche.
I don't think Schopenhauer is about denying life. To me he is more about being ok with suffering and learning how to avoid it. If you are depressed, he can be very soothing to read. This wouldn't be the case if he really just denied life. He told people to go out into the world, but to be careful about it and that, in the end, you don't even really need it anyway. But yea, his metaphysical stuff and his views on compassion are a bit weird.
Reading Nietzsche on the other hand makes you rather feel like a loser. He wants you to be a warrior, which most people simply aren't. If you aren't the Übermensch, your life gets denied. Schopenhauer helps you, while Nietzsche just makes you feel like an idiot.
Towards the end of the segment entitled 'Why the Wise are Wrong,' you say that you will place a link to your video 'How Nietzsche Took on the World,' but I don't see that link (same for the 40-minute Schopenhauer video). Additionally, shortly after that you make reference to what sounds like "thekonos," but I can't quite catch it, and Google is proving no help. Can you clarify?
Good work!
Fantastic video and content. Dense and concise. Bravo!
Again- thank you! I wish you could make a video where you take this further and show the tension between western's Decadents, and thinkers who detached from Western decadents, such as Emerson, American Transcendentalism, and of course movements that were influenced by oriental philosophies. (perhaps Weltegeist)
14:35 I can also speculate about strangers I've never met: Nietzsche abhorred weakness because he had intimate experience with it. Seeing the weakness of others, or just assuming it in others, served as unwelcomed reminders of his own. That is what truly ruffled him up about weakness, as is likely the case with everyone who abhors it. He had hang-ups over weakness because he was himself distraught over his spot in the ruggedness pecking order. Would've probably benefitted from reading evolutionary psychology, the ultimate probing of motives, but sadly none existed at the time.
And I'm not even saying he's wrong to abhor it. He's wrong to so pathetically want to insulate life from all negative traits embedded in _alive_ people. People he pathologizes via perspectivism, not evidence (medical or other) of their specific defects.
Not to mention the fact that N loved and admired Sch. before N lapsed into insanity and was paraded around the house in his nightgown by his sister for paying spectators. The insane theory of the eternal recurrence dates from his "mature" writings, too. Schopenhauer believed life is sufferring, like Buddha and most sane people, but he also believed in making the best of it through art and compassion, instead of being a proto-Nazi.
@@2Hot2 All true, and done so pompously too.
@@2Hot2 so was Schopenhauer more reasonable in your opinion?
@@villll Everything in Schopenhauer makes sense, just not "common sense", or it woiuldn't be revelatory.
Anyone who likens Nietzsche to Nazism whatsoever clearly doesn't have a grasp on what his actual writings conveyed.
This is excellent and very helpful-thank you very much!
Glad it was helpful!
@@WeltgeistYT Yeah I read Nietzsche when I was perhaps too young and before I had any idea who Schopenhauer was. When I found Schopenhauer later in life my reaction was similar to Nietzsche's initial reaction! But I had vaguely dismissed Nietzsche in my mind as a "young man's philosopher" who was fun "philosophizing with a hammer" but maybe was more aphorisms than a coherent contribution to philosophy. Your video let me appreciate his somewhat compelling response to Schopenhauer's worldview.
1:45 "what is the value of life?" That's a hard one for me. Objectively, in the sense of the universe and existence period I don't think it's anything but 1 part of the whole, so therefore effectively meaningless in totality. But for the living life is the most sacred bc they are living. And all life should be held as sacred to the living as they are all connected, but that doesn't mean you can't eat animals or cut down plants, that's part of the cycle.
Your video I very pleasant to listen. Thank you very much for this wonderful time. I learned a lot of thing ! Continue ❤️ !
Thanks!
I wish i know the name of the artworks that are displayed in the video.
Great video! Though puzzled with the analysis of the ‘Worst of all possible worlds’ stating that ‘if the world were even a tiny bit BETTER, it would cease to exist’…? Comments please
That you so much, fantastic work!
'the will to power' is stopping the analysis short imo- power without purpose is worthless.. power without regard for externalities is dangerous.. so the question is power to do WHAT? AND where does that direction come from? And what are the states beyond mere power that the power should be driven/pulled towards?
Brilliant explanation of these contrasting philosophies.
Thank you!
I don`t agree with Nietzche couldn`t an organised crime boss be seen as living the right way according to him, if he is dynamic, strong and lacks pity perhaps not a good thing
Wait. I'm confused. Your earlier videos suggest Schopenhauer ultimately offers redemption thru aesthetics and asceticism - thru a deep appreciation of Oneness. Happiness subsequently being attained because peace and happiness are simply the absence of the anxiety produced by the principium individuationis !!!??? Nietzsche on the other hand appears to offer nothing coherent. Could it be, ironically, that he tried and failed in asceticism and his entire philosophy is one of resentiment - and an attempt to reify and assert his ego by doing nothing truly original other than to invert Schopenhauer. And this brought only incoherence, madness for himself, and later his country?! Is Nietzsche just a failed mystic?
This is Nietzsche’s view on Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer himself believed that temporary escape from the Will (through aesthetics) and mortification of the Will (asceticism) is possible; Nietzsche disagrees.
@@WeltgeistYT Oh. OK. Many thanks. Love yr videos. I use them in teaching my high school philosophy class. Many thanks.
It's a lie that Nietzsche inspired the Nazis. They would have existed and did what they did anyway, but yes, he was a loser, although very intelligent, who tried to refute Schopenhauer but failed - of course, since Schopenhauer is 100% right about how bad this world is. He (Nietzsche) suffered from stomach problems, migraine and myopia. At 35 he got disability pension and at 45 he went insane for the rest of his life. And he never got laid, unless he paid for it, while Schopenhauer at least had *some* luck with women.
@@WeltgeistYT do you have german channel. You guys are or do speak german, right? I wish
@@jackdarby2168 No German channel no
I am a Schopenhauerian…no matter how Nietzsche assumes it’s decadence…
One should understand that Nietzsche puts too much on interpretation when much of what is life is always in our individual sense and a sham of language which keeps us holding on the idea than the truth that we can hope life to be better than what it is but that in the end such “hope” changes nothing and that same language makes him assume Schopenhauer attitude towards life was negative for being metaphysical towards all life when it’s based on a personal relation on MY REPRESENTATION…a person reference!
The-thing-in-itself is still a possible world even when with Nietzsche’s judgement is that it’s just metaphysical notion yet he trusted too much in the meaning that he attaches too much of the language he uses…take note his new use of terms like Will-to-Power, Supermensche and Amor Fati.
He sounds like he is still a Schopenhauerian even with his judgment of his once teacher…by building a system of sorts that proves life is based on our personal representation…one based on embracing suffering joyfully?!? Such an idea is just a new God of sorts his own form of idealism.
Funny he didn’t see how his philosophy is just as idealistic and decadent as his one time teacher relates but in another that to me is probably worse!
Pessimism is honest to me because we can will yet cannot will counter the way we are as a subject towards life.
The perceiver can never stand outside of his objectively completely.
This is why I rather respect Schopenhauer’s position because his sense of will is unwilling to believe we can completely be objective when Nietzsche thinks we make the world positive than what it really is, more suffering. He is more of Christian than he would ever accept.
Nietzsche should have smelled himself…he is just as idealist and maybe worst ascetic, when no one can be as strong…embrace all the suffering with joy- yet he still an ad-lib and a cum idealist!
Think about it?…the regular man hardly can accept his take on life with a complete joy.
He is like an atheist who does not want to accept the theory of evolution because in his heart it’s too negative…
Nietzsche sounds more like a Schopenhauer by critiquing his teacher than Schopenhauer is irrational towards Hegel’s philosophy because he either didn’t understand it, didn’t care to understand it or worse wouldn’t understand it because he was sadly I can say jealous of Hegel’s philosophy from more than a objective reason but based on his own personal dislike for how Hegel philosophized.
Schopenhauer never tried to understand or cared or debated Hegel’s ideas directly in a logical way, but Nietzsche who studied Schopenhauer deeply critiques without seeing how much he proves his once teacher’s philosophy…by expressing his own representation of life.
I am a Nietzschean
I believe it's ultimately a question of the individual's temperament. That being said, I am a Nietzschean
Where is your will to power man? I thought about it a lot, zyzz has a mastar morlity
I think one of the primary reasons Schopenhauer wrote Hegel off without bothering to try and understand the intricacies of his philosophy is because in Hegel’s philosophy history is meaningful and approaches an ultimate goal, whereas for Schopenhauer history can have no meaning-it’s just one continuous meat grinder.
Schopenhauer’s philosophy is also deeply ethical and sensitive to the suffering of individuals, while Hegel’s philosophy can be twisted into apologetics for all the untold atrocities perpetrated by man upon man throughout history. For example, the US colonizers’ treatment of native Americans was unconscionable according to Schopenhauer’s philosophy, but it can be construed as an unavoidable step in the achievement of history’s ultimate goal in Hegel’s philosophy.
Also, Schopenhauer thought Hegel’s obscurantist writing style was indicative of charlatanry.
Schponeuar and other life denying philsophers feels like they have made a coping mechansim (hinterwalt) becoz life was harsh on them or they were weak to face it and extract joy out of it
well if they think life is full fo suffering and pain why bother living it ,just die and you will be free from your pain but they waited for it you might say they wanted to complete their work ,but why bother about it or care anything at all if life is full of suffering and not worth living ...You have presented you work ,your idea has been spreaded you can die now and be cured but no they keep on living ...why?
Dont give argument like there work was not compeleted they literaly had years to compelte it and they should have in their mind how much books to compelete by how much time and all...
Also another counter argument on this could be like they have duties ,obligations towards society but when they think life is not worth living why care about anything at all in it die and you will be free...its suffering and full of pain right?..
That innate realization mentioned at 26:41 sounds a lot more like Kant's categorical imperative, and a moral system free of a religious basis was innovated, and better argued , by Kant.
Pity and compassion are not synonyms.
I think nietzsche's criticism of philosophers based on their weakness or their own pain and suffering is unfair because pain forces you to confront reality. When you put your hand on a hot stove the pain forces you to confront the reality that you have burned your hand. When you have a huge pain in your chest that pain is forcing you to confront the reality that you're having a heart attack. To brush off pain as though it is somehow in opposition to truth is kind of boneheaded because as i just pointed out, pain often forces us to acknowledge reality. So i would say the philosophers who suffered rhe most probably have the most insight into truth. Nietzsche himself suffered a lot and formed a lot if his philosophical ideas around it as well. I find nietzsche is often guilty of a lack of self awareness when it comes to philosophical ideas he thinks he is in opposition to but ends up sort of agreeing with them without realising it
Did Nietzsche ever engage with Hegel? Or was he even really aware of his thought?
Perfect channel to feed me my shower thoughts at any time and place
0:28
Philip Mainlander: "Am I a joke to you?"
Very good!!!
Thanks so much for these videos!
You’re very welcome
1:27 I think is a natural process from being scientific and questioning everything. It just fits too much with him, very Zarathustra.
Excellent, Excellent, Excellent Video!
Im with Arthur on this one. Just be kind while you're alive and dont create more life.
Very well done!
Thank you for watching
Late capitalism and climate colapse make a good point in favor of Schopenhauer's oneness agaist a will of power that's been historically understood and used in a very narcissistic and toxic manner.
Yes, not to mention the nuclear threat. What better confirmation does one need of the accuracy of the consensus sapientium and the denial of life of all those philosophies and religions than a people's whole technological aim ending up creating something that can end that very people's existence.
Am I going crazy or are the suggested videos not linked in the description? I see others are linked but not the ones mentioned in the video
I think "Raven" works rather better than "crow", not complaining, you selected one of my favorite aphorisms!
Excellent video. 👍
Ravens were Odin's birds.
I use the Gutenberg translation in my videos, thank you for the comment!
@@WeltgeistYT he wrote a dictionary too?
Busy, busy! 🤣
Judith Norman and Walter Kaufman both use "Raven"
Not trying to start an argument, just a friendly suggestion. 🤔
I really appreciate your channel, you explain philosophy very well.
Why invest so much hate (or love) in a mere speculation? Speculations bring forth models, models crash or survive in confrontational with practical living. Different models survive depending on which living context. The original philosophers at the very least knew how to detach their emotions from their understanding. Nietzsche appears like a screaming animal in comparison. Nietzsche appears to be the one sick guy.
I've seen it claimed that that Anime Chaos;HEad is largely based on Schopenhauer's Philosophy, yet rejecting his Pessimism in the end with it's happy ending. I definitely got the vibe of some from of Transcendental Idealism ie Kant. But other shows in the same Universe feel more Stoic, as does Ayase's vaguely Pantheist theology.
Ayase? Thanks.
@@numbersix8919 You're Welcome
There's a distinction between "Life" and "Life on Earth"
The salient one, to this discussion, is Life on Earth.
One should even further reduce it to "Life, as it is now, on Earth;" this would be opposed to some other era or a theoretical or potential life on Earth.
This reduction holds 2 benefits:
1. It is easier to defend a smaller target
2. The more time we put into clarifying an understanding, the more secure we feel in the decisions we make based upon it.
I just wanted to tell you, that your German pronounciation is spot on.
One great rule to judge the value of any philosophy or spiritual teaching: It is only worth engaging with, if it 1) withstands the scrutiny of reason 2) it grows compassion and love, and 3) It leads to happiness. For understanding Schopenhauer, it is important to deeply understand Buddha (not Buddhism) and/or Advaita Vedanta. All this has noting to do with Nihilism or pessimism. There is no ‘this world’ versus a ‘Hinterworld’. There is no point to be an ‘ascetic’. What a confusion.
The sad state of American public schools is made clear in how absolutely wrong my teachers were on Nietzsche and never even mentioned Schopenhauer. What a waste of time. i think the only classes that didnt teach wrong things were my math and to a lesser extent my science classes. But nearly all my history, social studies, and such, have been mostly if not completely wrong except on the most basic data points. And this was before they got woke.
Its as if school wasn't meant to inform you, but to brainwash and make everyone uniform to each other... You might want to read some critics of modern education...
Cuz they didn’t want you to commit a suicide lol
Go woke go broke mfs every morning 💰⬇️
Woke is evil incarnate
Good job, thank you
26:21 it doesn't make sense... What do you want the wolf to do? die? His views are inconsistent. I think Schopenhauer came to the conclusion that life is entirely made for and from suffering because he doesn't want to let go. I can see where Nietzsche was coming from when saying that Schopenhauer's
Conclusions came as a result of illness/weakness. Why not let go? Because the wolf analogy he used can only come to the conclusion that the only answer is death, but he overlooked it.
Studies in pessimism is a great bedtime read brute
Reading philosophy will give you success at becoming a philosopher about as much chance as going to a museum and looking at paintings will make you an artist.
but the mind is the canvas for philosophy and living gives us the tools. Not the same with art.
"Suffering takes central stage in Schopenhauer's philosophy in a way that's simply not there in Plato..." Have you read Philebus?
The Good life is the mixed life, "mixed by what?" -- pleasure and pain.
Great video again
Well done
What specific books or works that you read to help you come to this interpretation of Nietzsche. I find your reading Nietzsche very great of getting a full picture of Nietzsche.
This wasn’t the focus of your outstanding overview, but I wonder if Mahayana Buddhism could be the solution Nietzsche was looking for, given that it basically has Schopenhauer’s metaphysics and retains empathy-but optimistically envisions a future of Universal Enlightenment…and it affirms that nirvana is to be found in this physical world of samsara/maya.
Doctorate level scholar understood multiple ideologies at the same time.
I wonder why Hegel is never mentioned in any of these videos.
Given that Hegel rewrote Hermetic mysticism as philosophy (as per Glenn Alexander Magee in Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition) I would expect decadence, the Hinterweld and nihilism to manifest in Hegel's writings (which I have not read). Don't they do so? What, if anything, does Nietzsche have to say about Hegel?
@Anthemic Lullaby / Joshua / Dammit, I've read that book, and don't remember that. Probably because I hadn't read Magee yet. Thanks for reminding me; I'll have to check it out sometime.
Great video as always
Thank you for the kind words, and the support
This video is fantastic
12:29-12:40 _...is the problem with life, or is the problem with them?..._
Of course them being another manifestation *of life* inconveniences the life groveler who needs to tell dispositional stories about belief, to essentially offload any negative baggage, to keep it at a distance from life itself. But the sober story is not complicated at all: He speculates there is something wrong or "sick" with them. He recognizes that they are every bit as much of life, in no way detached from it, but that's the quiet part he wouldn't say aloud. So the faults or defects he thinks he's identified should be evidence of the wrong or sick features of life, not just the people. People are embedded in the world, and life does the embedding. You'd have to think they're possessed by demons, or some other _anti-life_ spooks, to make sense of these conclusions. N is the ultimate cautionary tale on how desperate some minds can get to insulate "life" as goodness from living beings as individuals, and even the truly sick individuals.
But dispositionalism about belief is nonsense anyway: People's beliefs change from one generation to the next at a much greater pace and scope compared to any physical, neurological, physiological or psychological facts about them.
"Hinterwelt" hasn't completely faded away - because of the "simulation theory", meaning the real world can still be out there, and also then almost certainly unreachable and unknowable to us (even this simulation is very hard to know).
That LOTR meme where Bilbo is holding the ring saying to himself "Why not? ... Why shouldn't I keep it?" ... That is Nietzsche's entire philosophy in a nutshell.
@@regionaltyrann4325 this comment is sus
Dmb
Dumb reductionist.
Schopenhauer is right, while Nietzsche is wrong, because compassion hasn't the same effect as pitiness.
And compassion doesn't necerssarily help society, but pitiness does.
Mix compassion/empathy/... with e.g. morals, positivity ecc., and you get a knight making good deeds.
Mix compassion/empathy/... with e.g. pain, negativity ecc., and you get a sadist.
Of course a knighthood implies compassion/empathy/..., but sadism does so, too.
20:19 but do any of them ever distinguish between physical and psychological suffering? It gets hard tho bc it's not even bc some can be in worse conditions and feel like they are suffering less so I feel like consciousness, intelligence and/or scope/depth of experience goes into it as well.
But from looking into Buddhism and Eastern practices when I was younger I always kinda thot nirvana (or whatever you want to call it) might be death bc death would be the end of suffering as well lol. I also thot the idea of getting away from everything would be good but I have come to realize I just wanted out of our society. It's sick. I feel like we should be actually living. All suffering should be natural or come from our natural environment. I believe our society today induces more psychological suffering, and much more than we should ever deal with.
21:11 Not exactly
21:16 He does not recommend that.
I don't think the wise DENIED life, they just didn't see much point in it - it didn't really lead to depression but more melancholy, more of a neutral stance - and you can still make good decisions from a neutral POV, perhaps the best decisions. It's more so I think on Nietzsche to prove his need to affirm life, instead of being more apathetic too it. For example we don't even know if this is a simulation or real reality - this is I think a pretty important distinction that would matter in your choice of affirming this simulation or not (since would be more real and meaningful to affirm the real reality). It's a fun project of philosophy he engaged in and we all can engage in to entertain ourselves, but come one, trying to affirm life is even more ridiculous than to deny it - just instead be more neutral and careless to life, have common sense, understanding and justified compassion - have children only if you think your life has been pretty good, and that they also because of your genes will most likely have a pretty good life (also of course considering your economical situation and the genes of the person you have children with) - that's the best anyone can do.
thanks for presenting the tension. Its a paradigm of hating the one who has helped you the most as observed by Jung .
I love this channel so much!!!
Thank you!
Nihilietzsche had the (emotion based) "moral" that empathy is evil, because it contradicts the natural selection of the strongest most fabulous owner of the most fabulous object in the world (Time Bandits, blink-blink-nudge-nudge). I think that Nihilietzsche got some things wrong regarding the evolution. Empathy might actually be an evolutionary advantage in itself.
Schopenhauer making a critique of Nietzsche would have been far more interesting.
Recently finished 'Twilight of the Idols' and 'Antichrist', and this video summary is a good recap.
I think a lot of people misunderstand Nietzsche (if have even read him carefully) and thus subscribe nihilism to him as well as a whole host of other misconceptions.
I was surprised by his exuberant embrace of life, particularly a difficult life, especially as a means to overcome that harship and become a great one. And his condemnation of Western philosophy is hilariously articulated. Though his assessment of Socrates "pessimism" may be justified, I think it's more nuanced -- for Socrates admitted as well that only the gods knew who was better off: he in his dying or his disciples in their living.
I still struggle with his condemnation for ethical values such as pity, mercy, compassion, & altruism in general, but his reasonings cohere philosophically.
I've always thought Nietzsche was correct that we're all the will to power and nothing besides but that he somehow never noticed that Christ had already beaten him to the punch by articulating what the ultimate power was and how to achieve it considering that we're fundamentally a social, collaborative animal: love thy neighbor as thyself.
Nietzsche seems to think that the peak of life is in overcoming and dominating all around you while Christ says that true life is to be found in the love of and communion with those around you.
Perhaps that really is the peak of life for Nietzsche and those like him, but he and his ilk will be outcompeted by the more collaborative types.
If the Turin horse story is actually true, it's genuinely a question if in the end Nietzsche believed overcoming and domination were really life itself.
"Nietzsche seems to think that the peak of life is in overcoming and dominating all around you while Christ says that true life is to be found in the love of and communion with those around you." Please read more
@@branch0ie You disagree with my interpretation of Nietzsche, I assume. Overcoming and dominating in the pursuit of personal greatness seem like his essence to me, but I'm happy to be corrected.
@@zachbauman2547 The greatest form of dominance is over YOURSELF that is what Nietzsche stated. Dominance over others is not what he was talking about... ever.
@Freshly Made Ghosts It's true that it's easier to live an isolated life now moreso than in the distant past, but it's also true that the most successful people this year or next will be heavily socially networked.
@@jacobwiren8142 I'd be curious to see how Weltgeist himself would respond to your post. But at the very least, Nietzsche is at least indifferent to the domination or subjugation of others if it's necessary on your path of self-overcoming and personal greatness. His unwavering approval of Thucydides seems to be proof enough of that.