As much as Nietzsche is contradicting himself by asking to draw inspiration from the highest specimens, but at the same time outlining the damaging effect of this veneration to the past, I feel it is a fine line between worshipping the past and more empirically drawing from it. I think if we can see ourselves and our highest aspirations within the highest specimens, there's no turning back. History can become a mirror, that instead of teleologically drawing us away from out present selves, can draw us closer to the potential of our future, where we combine all that has uniquely inspired the individual and assimilate it to build something of merit. This is my favourite video of yours! Cheers
The utility of the past is to learn from it, and the only source of knowledge is experience. In this sense, the past serves as guideposts: as history always repeats. Actions maketh the man.
I'm just starting out in philosophy, and I'm sure you'd understand why Nietzsche intimated me. Videos like this are really helpful for me. Much gratitude.
That part at the end where you talked about living in the present allows you to sort of come into contact with the “republic of geniuses”, regardless of if they exist in your time or not, is such a powerful idea. To me, Ram Dass was essentially saying the same thing, that peeling back the layers of one’s identification (so as to exist as unconditionally and as presently as possible) puts you in touch with everybody and anybody who has also existed at that level, outside of time. It sounds really woo-woo when explained like that, but I think you can break it down into more tangible pieces. For example, I think to study and understand somebody like Nietzsche, is in itself putting yourself in a relation to him. He may have written his ideas over a century ago, but when we read and understand them today, they are transported into the present to be with us. To me, that’s a veritable form of contact. That’s about as best I can articulate it, hope it makes sense to someone!
I don't have a problem with dismissing the vast majority of people when it comes to evaluating the significant actors through time. And from what you've said, there is nothing by virtue of biology (or our intellectual categories of existence) to preclude any particular individual from rising above the herd. immortality is available to everyone.
The individual v. masses reminds me of how William James talks about the stream of experience as a bird's flight. A flight path is marked by its perch points, not the flying between. That it is the milestones and landmarks where a bird lands that mark its path. In parallel, history is marked by significant individuals and events. The masses are functioning as the field to the individual figure in a Gestalt kind of trajectory. The individual depends on the masses, but the masses get their collective identity from particular individuals across time and space. The masses become the context for the individual(s) who "mark" the pathway of the masses by unique contributory changes in direction or speed of history marching forward.
As far as the "republic of geniuses" part goes, I think the way that he goes is more inline with his own idiosyncrasies than useful for us - but we can reappropriate what he says. We can see ourselves as being "with" people in the past that we see as having the virtues we want to embody, and this gives us life. Then it becomes easier to fight for our social causes.
Great presentation of Nietzsche! I wish my professor back in college could simplify him as such. I honestly agree with a lot of what Nietzsche says about living in the moment, history not being linear, and some of the pitfalls of modern education, but I'd also disagree pretty strongly with his ethics (which seem to be like might-makes-right)
Please do more videos about Nietzsche. I think only Nietzsche is relevant to discuss now, especially with the new present of gen z, where the negation of past is playing a vital role and I think need of discussion about nietzche is necessary in our present culture.
This could be a book; we need a tutorial for how to deconstruct our society with as much logic as possible; how to discern the best things to remember? I look for novelty (a laTerrance McKenna) and functionality. The antidote from thinking things will never change because we live at the end of history, I have found, is a line from a John Denver song about being afraid of things standing still because he fears they always will (Looking for Space). You do tremendous breakdowns of really deep books. Thanks for this. Sublated. My new word. Nice idea that an actual genius cluster could be created over time. I think of what the machines will remember after we are all dead. How will they have learned from our experiences? What are we recording for history?
I found this very helpful since I've been digging into this essay as a part of some questioning about 'phil of history' and how it might counter the imperialist nostalgia that's integral to the kind of conservatism we have in the UK. Thanks :)
Five dangers of history over life: 1. Too much history weakens the personality - we are obsessed with recording things; we don’t fully invest in our experiences (section 5) 2. Too much history gives the illusion that the present better than the past. Some people are architects of future. 3. Too much history hinders individual instincts and maturation 4. Too much history makes us think we are latecomers to history; the idea that we already had “the golden age”. If you think that live in the end of history, you 5. Too much history promotes self-irony and cynicism. "Overproud European of the nineteenth century, you are stark raving mad! Your [historical] knowledge does not perfect nature, but only kills your own nature. Just measure the wealth of your knowledge against the poverty of your abilities" “Historical fever” is what humans have because of the burden of memory. Three different kinds of history: the monumental, the antiquarian, and the critical. A balance of all three is needed if history is to serve life. Monumental history runs the risk of mythologizing the past and can discourage monumental acts in the present. Antiquarian history similarly is so focused on conserving the past that the present suffers. Critical history breaks with the past but can become disorientated as a result. "One should set a great goal to avoid wasting the present." The role of an individual Nietzche | Individuals live timelessly and simultaneously, the Republic of genuises Hegel | Unwitting puppets of the march of reason in history
I've just found your channel (or it just found me, thanks to the algorithm) and it's great. I'm sure the subscribers will follow...but wait, don't focus on what it will be in the future!. Haha. Keep it up.
Hegel,nietzche,and the social sciences,is there a link? 1-hegel believes that there's the geist and the geist runs the world. 2-hegel believes that there's the comportement x of the world (the behavior of the world) and that x is described by the hegelian laws. 3-Hegel believes that the geist is responsible for the comportement of the world. From the three propositions believed by hegel,you can have system (system building philosophy). I think this mindset (like the one believed by hegel) is still present,espicially in the social sciences,look at economics,they the economic system,political science,the political system,sociology,the social system. Economists (keynesians for instance) they believe in the comportement of the economy (the economy which's a system),neoclassicals believe there's the comportement of the market,sociologists (structural functionalists and marxian conflict theorists ) believe that there's the comportement of the social or the society, all that is analogous to the comportement of the world (hegel), and all they ignore the individual. Nietzche says we should take the individual into account, nietzche is like weber and the austrians (economic school of thought). Are the social sciences influenced by hegel or the social sciences and hegel are influenced by the notion that the whole universe with anything in it is a system (a common view back then,espicially among physicists)? I think nietzche would say that's a wrong way of doing the social sciences. What you think?
I have just done a deep dive on this work, having just read it. Thank you for your hard work. This is brilliant 🤩 and very useful. Thank you this is an illuminating 💡 work as we all attempt to use history for action and life. Thank you.
What times does Mrs. Anderson have a podcast session? I would like to listen her in order to attach philosophical world. I also aim to get a Ph.D from the area of Continental Philosophy.
Thanks for your interest! You can find all of our podcast episodes available for listening anytime on overthinkpodcast.com, as well as Apple, Spotify, and here in our TH-cam channel!
Can you please do a video about Nietzsche and the relation to his work on the idea of iconic. How the history and iconic works. I usually think the iconic played a main role in creating passion. Hence relating the present to the past( unlikely to Hegel)
The answer is complicated. What I am now interested in is how philosophy can be used to explain, build and progress the vegan philosophy so that it has an abstract structure, understandable to all, as well as a practical structure. The practical structure is the actions we take in changing the material world. The possible implication that other animals do not view or understand history as human animals do (is in my view) not relevant. What is important is that other animals have emotions. They can feel pain and they can experience joy. Other animals are the same as us where it matters. On that basis we have no right to exploit them. We are ignoring their reality and in doing so we are violating their rights. Our civilisation is now in decline. Not technologically, but in every other way. This decline is a threat to our survival. We need a totally new way of looking at the world and a totally new way of living our lives. Veganism is a new awakening. Veganism is the new age of enlightenment.🌱
@@berniv7375 Stupid reasoning. And weak. Life is about domination- that is Nietzsche in a nutshell. To evolve is to dominate all other life forms. Plants also have a conscious, and so- by your (delusional) rationale- you must stop eating: and die. Smart. Real smart, bro. Veganism = just another blind religion.
@@shreddez No. Because they do not comprehend morality. They cannot reflect on right or wrong. They are not violating rights because their actions are instinctual and without malice.
On the subject of remembrance (4:50) I saw a commercial for a travelling agency yesterday that read, "With us you collect yesterdays new memories" I thought "Hmm, that is a actually threat" (And how is a ever memory, new?)
I think that Nietzsche would have chafed just as much at today's lack of historical context. Because that's what perfectionists, by definition elitists, do. They chafe. We live in a profoundly anti-elitist age, which makes him all the more attractive. As a philologist, he was well-versed in the interaction of language and culture, steeped in history, but with a reflective eye.
the question is whether if you do not accept a truth, what kind of life can you have? The syntax of your question implies that you would willfully ignore a truth. I find this fascinating. What is the purpose of your life and the methods by which you hope to attain it if not the search for and acceptance of truth as you find it? Only in a state of acceptance can we muster enough Energy to change the things we CAN change. Struggling to ignore reality is a bad use of resources, I think.
This is quite good and interesting to listen to. A few points about the overall direction of the analysis made(rather than the specificity of the individual textual interpretations) -- Nietzsche did not valorize "youth" (or indeed "instinct" or "life"), but rather used these terms to draw a contrast between the tendency of the scholars of his time to hedge us in with historical formulations, and the sense that one can only "make history" if one is unconscious about historical processes. (This viewpoint is apparent when one takes an overview that includes his mature works. And I would suggest that perhaps the psychological sounding word "unconscious" is a much better term to use that the other three mentioned, as well as shed a new light on what may be meant by differentiating "memory" from "instincts".) Also, the most important cornerstone of Nietzsche's writing is, in fact, his idea that the meaning of history can only be interpreted by philosophical giants. These giants tend to be separated by a historical discontinuity, which blocks their communication with each other, because their actual views and ideas are overwritten by the views and ideas of the multitude, who outnumber them. (Michel Foucault was astute in picking up this issue of this sense of the radical discontinuity of history from reading Nietzsche's writing) A few other points -- Nietzsche didn't encourage "rebellion" including youth rebellion against the educational system. He thought that sometimes those who became criminals were justified in rebellion, but most of the time people were obliged to conform and that anarchism and socialism just made things worse, not better. Rebellion against so-called oppressive social structures was something Nietzsche wanted to stem. He also didn't think that people should be incentivized to change "society" whatsoever. Rather, they should go their own way and have their impact as "individuals", separated from the masses. Finally, the destiny of humanity does not rest with any faculty of "hope", but rather with the great legislators, of which Nietzsche believed himself one.
It it obviously more complex than this but it just seems Hegels driver of the spirit is different than Nietzsche. There is an interesting artistic group called the Futurists before the first world war. The most significant work of art was Unique Forms of Continuity in Space. The relevant point was that the believed everything would become art. They were a bunch of left wing fascists which is interesting too. The other point this raised is best said by the Greeks getting involved in a Persian civil war. They chose the wrong side and had to flee back to Greece. A philosopher was with them and they came across these massive walled cities crumbling to dust. He was like, how can such a significant civilization be just lost. We now know he was talking about the Assyrians. I love Nietzsche for the most part but for his elite being outside good and evil, that to me, even though I'm agnostic leaning towards atheist, is unforgivable given what I know at present.
You're an extremely able explainer. Thank you for sharing. I realize that your purpose here is not to inject your own opinions and feelings, but to relay the authors' opinions as true as possible. To that end, maybe the finest example I've seen. Given that, it seems Nietzsche's five warnings might be directed at you (and much of the demographic coming across this video) and I was wondering if you had opinions that you'd be willing to share regarding them? In answer to your call for opinions: I think Freddy really gets at something in his hit at Hegel's view of the purpose of history, but maybe misses the mark slightly when then putting his own view of a singular purpose of singular men at the tippy top of Mount Purpose. It's but A purpose, a beautiful one, a truly romantic one that he describes and I don't think him wrong about it's existence, just about it's primacy and the disparagement of the vast majority of humanity, and Life for that matter. I think Nietzsche's insecurities shine through often and honestly. It's perhaps what truly draws me to him. I believe we call to each other in and through space and time through our conscious efforts, and by the same process that the great humans of history can become brethren, maybe knitters and mountain bikers and bakers can too, and maybe the spirit invested in that relationship of appreciation and inspiration is all the more pure for its lack of a world dominating ego. And who's to say some mystical measure of that purity isn't just as legitimately the goal? It's just an expression of personal value without objective base. I think to call any subsection of human experience the Purpose is to be a bit hubristic, but doesn't he do it beautifully? And he points a way… how happy he'd be to know that.
I'm sorry about my English. I think that the individuals with self consciousness and the other, like sefl consciousness guide by the empathy is the goal of the knowledge, I think it's more a Kantian-Hegelian perspective because I don't exist as an individual independent of the other even the ubermensch need of the other genius the build the knowledge so we're tied as by that geist and devir. I think that maybe the geist and the devir notion complete the things in a heuristic point of view and a synthesis.
History is the anchor by which the present and the future cling to the past. History teaches nothing, but poisons the present and the future. Thanks a lot for this great video.
When I first read Nietzsche, I thought finally, a dude who thinks like I do. He's not perfect, he makes mistakes. He was good at saying things that could be taken to mean things '180 degrees out of phase'. People interpret him the way they want, which says more about them than him ( imho )... and then there's the translation issue.
@@shreddez when did I mention nationalism? Oh yeah I didn’t. You do realize that Hitler bombed his own people? Does that mean nationalism was a pretext? Obviously.
Neutche didn’t say it, Jesus Christ did. Christ said that we should be like children that we may inherit the kingdom of heaven. Why did he say that? He said that because a child isn’t burdened down with the world just yet. A child has an original mind. Like, if you were to ask a child for his food and yet he was hungry, that child would give you that food. When you’re older, you start to see how much you would lose.
Disagree. There is an interaction between potential "great men" and histoty. Napoleon would not have achieved what he did without the masses movement provided by French Revolution. In my country Perón would not have succeded were if not for the discomfort that industrialization period created within the poor. Great men exist everywhere, but just a few are fortunately enough to be in the right place at the right time. What if Steve Jobs was born in an Africa small village? (Maximo from Argentina)
Disagree with your disagree. Higher types are the equal and opposite reaction to herd morality; the rowdy masses; the "unwashed". Case in point: Napoleon : French do-gooders/virtue signallers. In today's terms- Elon Musk : Woke Lynch mob. 1 higher type > Infinite herd animals (in value).
Nietzsche believed in his superman.The superman is self created. Civilizational history and technical progress aren't the point. Certain individuals who develop themselves into supermen are the point for Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, there is no meaning in life except the meaning man gives his life. And the aims of most men have no surpassing dignity, to raise ourselves above the senseless flux we must cease being merely human all too human...and become hard against ourselves. We must become creators not creatures. According to Ortega Y Gasset, there are two classes of creatures, those who make great demands of themselves, piling up difficulties and duties, and those who demand nothing special of themselves. For whom to live is to be every moment what they already are without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection, mere buoys that float on the waves. Aren't we all a little of both?
Cheers Dr. Anderson. So, Nietzsche turns the strawman Hegel into a philosopher who doesn't notice irrationality as force in history? Yet, History is the revelation of the Idea through the negation of the irrational, through Reason. Objective Spirit is manifested by humans moving history toward freedom, right?
Aware, abiding. Who is that? So clever about the other but do you know yourself? By way of time, what is human knowledge? Bits and pieces, all incomplete. Understanding knowledge awareness is revealing.
There are things one can get out of Nietzsche certainly. But his ideas have been proven not to work. Guy had ego issues. Let them leak into his philosophy which is sociopathic.
Really respect this scholar. She communicates succinctly and eloquently.
As much as Nietzsche is contradicting himself by asking to draw inspiration from the highest specimens, but at the same time outlining the damaging effect of this veneration to the past, I feel it is a fine line between worshipping the past and more empirically drawing from it. I think if we can see ourselves and our highest aspirations within the highest specimens, there's no turning back. History can become a mirror, that instead of teleologically drawing us away from out present selves, can draw us closer to the potential of our future, where we combine all that has uniquely inspired the individual and assimilate it to build something of merit. This is my favourite video of yours! Cheers
The utility of the past is to learn from it, and the only source of knowledge is experience. In this sense, the past serves as guideposts: as history always repeats. Actions maketh the man.
Glad I found this video, I was looking for an overview that wasn't presented in an overblown way and yours is fantastic. Thank you.
Mind blown...I've been into Neitzsche for years and I wish you were there years back to make these concepts so lucid.
Instant subscribe 👍
I'm just starting out in philosophy, and I'm sure you'd understand why Nietzsche intimated me. Videos like this are really helpful for me. Much gratitude.
Nice to see 'Ego and Archetype' on the shelf. That book unlocked my life many years ago.
Thanks for your articulate explanation of Nietzsche's views concerning history.
Just started with Nietzsches "Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen" and I am flabbergasted about this easy but yet in-depth understanding. Great Content!!
That part at the end where you talked about living in the present allows you to sort of come into contact with the “republic of geniuses”, regardless of if they exist in your time or not, is such a powerful idea. To me, Ram Dass was essentially saying the same thing, that peeling back the layers of one’s identification (so as to exist as unconditionally and as presently as possible) puts you in touch with everybody and anybody who has also existed at that level, outside of time.
It sounds really woo-woo when explained like that, but I think you can break it down into more tangible pieces. For example, I think to study and understand somebody like Nietzsche, is in itself putting yourself in a relation to him. He may have written his ideas over a century ago, but when we read and understand them today, they are transported into the present to be with us. To me, that’s a veritable form of contact. That’s about as best I can articulate it, hope it makes sense to someone!
Immanence.
This video is so though-provoking. It just made me reflect on the education process I received.
I don't have a problem with dismissing the vast majority of people when it comes to evaluating the significant actors through time. And from what you've said, there is nothing by virtue of biology (or our intellectual categories of existence) to preclude any particular individual from rising above the herd. immortality is available to everyone.
ja these passages just show how far ahead and now so up to date Nietzsche really was: like a reflection on a smartphone in the brightest sun...
Like your discussion and style, Ellie. Even your choices of topics. Thanks dearly for your interesting vids. Subscribed.
The individual v. masses reminds me of how William James talks about the stream of experience as a bird's flight. A flight path is marked by its perch points, not the flying between. That it is the milestones and landmarks where a bird lands that mark its path. In parallel, history is marked by significant individuals and events. The masses are functioning as the field to the individual figure in a Gestalt kind of trajectory. The individual depends on the masses, but the masses get their collective identity from particular individuals across time and space.
The masses become the context for the individual(s) who "mark" the pathway of the masses by unique contributory changes in direction or speed of history marching forward.
Very useful context given. Excellent communicator.
As far as the "republic of geniuses" part goes, I think the way that he goes is more inline with his own idiosyncrasies than useful for us - but we can reappropriate what he says. We can see ourselves as being "with" people in the past that we see as having the virtues we want to embody, and this gives us life. Then it becomes easier to fight for our social causes.
Your videos are outstanding. A deep insight into confused philosophy. Would love to meet you in future if possible
Weirdo alert
Great work.
This is a remarkably compelling lecture. thank you so much!!
Great presentation of Nietzsche! I wish my professor back in college could simplify him as such. I honestly agree with a lot of what Nietzsche says about living in the moment, history not being linear, and some of the pitfalls of modern education, but I'd also disagree pretty strongly with his ethics (which seem to be like might-makes-right)
Please do more videos about Nietzsche. I think only Nietzsche is relevant to discuss now, especially with the new present of gen z, where the negation of past is playing a vital role and I think need of discussion about nietzche is necessary in our present culture.
This reminds me of all those people at music concerts that record the event on their phones.
This could be a book; we need a tutorial for how to deconstruct our society with as much logic as possible; how to discern the best things to remember? I look for novelty (a laTerrance McKenna) and functionality.
The antidote from thinking things will never change because we live at the end of history, I have found, is a line from a John Denver song about being afraid of things standing still because he fears they always will (Looking for Space).
You do tremendous breakdowns of really deep books. Thanks for this. Sublated. My new word.
Nice idea that an actual genius cluster could be created over time. I think of what the machines will remember after we are all dead. How will they have learned from our experiences? What are we recording for history?
I found this very helpful since I've been digging into this essay as a part of some questioning about 'phil of history' and how it might counter the imperialist nostalgia that's integral to the kind of conservatism we have in the UK. Thanks :)
Thanks!
Thanks for the good info! I really enjoyed it
Beautiful what you interpret in few minutes.
Five dangers of history over life:
1. Too much history weakens the personality - we are obsessed with recording things; we don’t fully invest in our experiences (section 5)
2. Too much history gives the illusion that the present better than the past.
Some people are architects of future.
3. Too much history hinders individual instincts and maturation
4. Too much history makes us think we are latecomers to history; the idea that we already had “the golden age”. If you think that live in the end of history, you
5. Too much history promotes self-irony and cynicism.
"Overproud European of the nineteenth century, you are stark raving mad! Your [historical] knowledge does not perfect nature, but only kills your own nature. Just measure the wealth of your knowledge against the poverty of your abilities"
“Historical fever” is what humans have because of the burden of memory.
Three different kinds of history: the monumental, the antiquarian, and the critical. A balance of all three is needed if history is to serve life. Monumental history runs the risk of mythologizing the past and can discourage monumental acts in the present. Antiquarian history similarly is so focused on conserving the past that the present suffers. Critical history breaks with the past but can become disorientated as a result.
"One should set a great goal to avoid wasting the present."
The role of an individual
Nietzche | Individuals live timelessly and simultaneously, the Republic of genuises
Hegel | Unwitting puppets of the march of reason in history
This is very good.
I've just found your channel (or it just found me, thanks to the algorithm) and it's great. I'm sure the subscribers will follow...but wait, don't focus on what it will be in the future!. Haha. Keep it up.
Hegel,nietzche,and the social sciences,is there a link?
1-hegel believes that there's the geist and the geist runs the world.
2-hegel believes that there's the comportement x of the world (the behavior of the world) and that x is described by the hegelian laws.
3-Hegel believes that the geist is responsible for the comportement of the world.
From the three propositions believed by hegel,you can have system (system building philosophy).
I think this mindset (like the one believed by hegel) is still present,espicially in the social sciences,look at economics,they the economic system,political science,the political system,sociology,the social system.
Economists (keynesians for instance) they believe in the comportement of the economy (the economy which's a system),neoclassicals believe there's the comportement of the market,sociologists (structural functionalists and marxian conflict theorists ) believe that there's the comportement of the social or the society, all that is analogous to the comportement of the world (hegel), and all they ignore the individual.
Nietzche says we should take the individual into account, nietzche is like weber and the austrians (economic school of thought).
Are the social sciences influenced by hegel or the social sciences and hegel are influenced by the notion that the whole universe with anything in it is a system (a common view back then,espicially among physicists)?
I think nietzche would say that's a wrong way of doing the social sciences.
What you think?
I have just done a deep dive on this work, having just read it. Thank you for your hard work. This is brilliant 🤩 and very useful. Thank you this is an illuminating 💡 work as we all attempt to use history for action and life. Thank you.
Emojis are proof of your inferiority
Love listening to you
Seems relevant in terms of social media and how people record their lives.
Please do more videos about Nietzsche.
What times does Mrs. Anderson have a podcast session? I would like to listen her in order to attach philosophical world. I also aim to get a Ph.D from the area of Continental Philosophy.
Thanks for your interest! You can find all of our podcast episodes available for listening anytime on overthinkpodcast.com, as well as Apple, Spotify, and here in our TH-cam channel!
Can you please do a video about Nietzsche and the relation to his work on the idea of iconic. How the history and iconic works. I usually think the iconic played a main role in creating passion. Hence relating the present to the past( unlikely to Hegel)
Thank you.
Why don't many people like studying philosophy?
because most of them are not individuals
The answer is complicated. What I am now interested in is how philosophy can be used to explain, build and progress the vegan philosophy so that it has an abstract structure, understandable to all, as well as a practical structure. The practical structure is the actions we take in changing the material world. The possible implication that other animals do not view or understand history as human animals do (is in my view) not relevant. What is important is that other animals have emotions. They can feel pain and they can experience joy. Other animals are the same as us where it matters. On that basis we have no right to exploit them. We are ignoring their reality and in doing so we are violating their rights. Our civilisation is now in decline. Not technologically, but in every other way. This decline is a threat to our survival. We need a totally new way of looking at the world and a totally new way of living our lives. Veganism is a new awakening. Veganism is the new age of enlightenment.🌱
Are the non-human animals that are exploiting other non-human animals violating those animals’ rights?
@@berniv7375 Stupid reasoning. And weak. Life is about domination- that is Nietzsche in a nutshell. To evolve is to dominate all other life forms. Plants also have a conscious, and so- by your (delusional) rationale- you must stop eating: and die. Smart. Real smart, bro. Veganism = just another blind religion.
@@shreddez No. Because they do not comprehend morality. They cannot reflect on right or wrong. They are not violating rights because their actions are instinctual and without malice.
He's not wrong about a few individuals, great and/or terrible, driving history.
On the subject of remembrance (4:50) I saw a commercial for a travelling agency yesterday that read, "With us you collect yesterdays new memories" I thought "Hmm, that is a actually threat"
(And how is a ever memory, new?)
TRUE history is TRUTH. Philosophers that do not believe this cannot be trusted.
Can you share the translation/publisher you use or recommend? I see slight variations in the title online.
Nietzsche was right! :)
More Nietzsche!
I think that Nietzsche would have chafed just as much at today's lack of historical context. Because that's what perfectionists, by definition elitists, do. They chafe. We live in a profoundly anti-elitist age, which makes him all the more attractive. As a philologist, he was well-versed in the interaction of language and culture, steeped in history, but with a reflective eye.
10:58 the question is whether if this idea is true should we accept it
the question is whether if you do not accept a truth, what kind of life can you have? The syntax of your question implies that you would willfully ignore a truth. I find this fascinating. What is the purpose of your life and the methods by which you hope to attain it if not the search for and acceptance of truth as you find it? Only in a state of acceptance can we muster enough Energy to change the things we CAN change. Struggling to ignore reality is a bad use of resources, I think.
what is the difference between the first and the third danger?
This is quite good and interesting to listen to. A few points about the overall direction of the analysis made(rather than the specificity of the individual textual interpretations) -- Nietzsche did not valorize "youth" (or indeed "instinct" or "life"), but rather used these terms to draw a contrast between the tendency of the scholars of his time to hedge us in with historical formulations, and the sense that one can only "make history" if one is unconscious about historical processes. (This viewpoint is apparent when one takes an overview that includes his mature works. And I would suggest that perhaps the psychological sounding word "unconscious" is a much better term to use that the other three mentioned, as well as shed a new light on what may be meant by differentiating "memory" from "instincts".)
Also, the most important cornerstone of Nietzsche's writing is, in fact, his idea that the meaning of history can only be interpreted by philosophical giants. These giants tend to be separated by a historical discontinuity, which blocks their communication with each other, because their actual views and ideas are overwritten by the views and ideas of the multitude, who outnumber them. (Michel Foucault was astute in picking up this issue of this sense of the radical discontinuity of history from reading Nietzsche's writing)
A few other points -- Nietzsche didn't encourage "rebellion" including youth rebellion against the educational system. He thought that sometimes those who became criminals were justified in rebellion, but most of the time people were obliged to conform and that anarchism and socialism just made things worse, not better. Rebellion against so-called oppressive social structures was something Nietzsche wanted to stem. He also didn't think that people should be incentivized to change "society" whatsoever. Rather, they should go their own way and have their impact as "individuals", separated from the masses.
Finally, the destiny of humanity does not rest with any faculty of "hope", but rather with the great legislators, of which Nietzsche believed himself one.
Basically live in the moment.
You keep mentioning pages what’s the name of the book sorry
It's Unfashionable Observations, trans. Richard T. Gray (Stanford University Press)
@@OverthinkPodcastPhilosophy thank you
It it obviously more complex than this but it just seems Hegels driver of the spirit is different than Nietzsche. There is an interesting artistic group called the Futurists before the first world war. The most significant work of art was Unique Forms of Continuity in Space. The relevant point was that the believed everything would become art. They were a bunch of left wing fascists which is interesting too. The other point this raised is best said by the Greeks getting involved in a Persian civil war. They chose the wrong side and had to flee back to Greece. A philosopher was with them and they came across these massive walled cities crumbling to dust. He was like, how can such a significant civilization be just lost. We now know he was talking about the Assyrians. I love Nietzsche for the most part but for his elite being outside good and evil, that to me, even though I'm agnostic leaning towards atheist, is unforgivable given what I know at present.
5:23 "nausea"
You're an extremely able explainer. Thank you for sharing. I realize that your purpose here is not to inject your own opinions and feelings, but to relay the authors' opinions as true as possible. To that end, maybe the finest example I've seen. Given that, it seems Nietzsche's five warnings might be directed at you (and much of the demographic coming across this video) and I was wondering if you had opinions that you'd be willing to share regarding them?
In answer to your call for opinions:
I think Freddy really gets at something in his hit at Hegel's view of the purpose of history, but maybe misses the mark slightly when then putting his own view of a singular purpose of singular men at the tippy top of Mount Purpose. It's but A purpose, a beautiful one, a truly romantic one that he describes and I don't think him wrong about it's existence, just about it's primacy and the disparagement of the vast majority of humanity, and Life for that matter. I think Nietzsche's insecurities shine through often and honestly. It's perhaps what truly draws me to him.
I believe we call to each other in and through space and time through our conscious efforts, and by the same process that the great humans of history can become brethren, maybe knitters and mountain bikers and bakers can too, and maybe the spirit invested in that relationship of appreciation and inspiration is all the more pure for its lack of a world dominating ego. And who's to say some mystical measure of that purity isn't just as legitimately the goal? It's just an expression of personal value without objective base.
I think to call any subsection of human experience the Purpose is to be a bit hubristic, but doesn't he do it beautifully? And he points a way… how happy he'd be to know that.
I just read the TH-cam page bio. Sassy humor huh ayyy
I'm sorry about my English. I think that the individuals with self consciousness and the other, like sefl consciousness guide by the empathy is the goal of the knowledge, I think it's more a Kantian-Hegelian perspective because I don't exist as an individual independent of the other even the ubermensch need of the other genius the build the knowledge so we're tied as by that geist and devir. I think that maybe the geist and the devir notion complete the things in a heuristic point of view and a synthesis.
History is the anchor by which the present and the future cling to the past. History teaches nothing, but poisons the present and the future.
Thanks a lot for this great video.
When I first read Nietzsche, I thought finally, a dude who thinks like I do. He's not perfect, he makes mistakes. He was good at saying things that could be taken to mean things '180 degrees out of phase'. People interpret him the way they want, which says more about them than him ( imho )... and then there's the translation issue.
Hitler thought like him too.
Filthy eugenists
@@asielnorton345 wrong
@@asielnorton345 Nietzsche hated nationalism
@@shreddez when did I mention nationalism? Oh yeah I didn’t. You do realize that Hitler bombed his own people? Does that mean nationalism was a pretext? Obviously.
💚
Neitzsche, essentially, was the prototype of an evolutionary biologist.
Sabrina!!!!😍😍😍
So...in your own view...what are those small number of people that Nietzsche talks about?
🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡🧡
Neutche didn’t say it, Jesus Christ did. Christ said that we should be like children that we may inherit the kingdom of heaven. Why did he say that? He said that because a child isn’t burdened down with the world just yet. A child has an original mind. Like, if you were to ask a child for his food and yet he was hungry, that child would give you that food. When you’re older, you start to see how much you would lose.
I'm one of the lowest specimens.
Disagree. There is an interaction between potential "great men" and histoty. Napoleon would not have achieved what he did without the masses movement provided by French Revolution. In my country Perón would not have succeded were if not for the discomfort that industrialization period created within the poor.
Great men exist everywhere, but just a few are fortunately enough to be in the right place at the right time. What if Steve Jobs was born in an Africa small village? (Maximo from Argentina)
Disagree with your disagree. Higher types are the equal and opposite reaction to herd morality; the rowdy masses; the "unwashed". Case in point: Napoleon : French do-gooders/virtue signallers. In today's terms- Elon Musk : Woke Lynch mob.
1 higher type > Infinite herd animals (in value).
Nietzsche believed in his superman.The superman is self created. Civilizational history and technical progress aren't the point. Certain individuals who develop themselves into supermen are the point for Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, there is no meaning in life except the meaning man gives his life. And the aims of most men have no surpassing dignity, to raise ourselves above the senseless flux we must cease being merely human all too human...and become hard against ourselves. We must become creators not creatures.
According to Ortega Y Gasset, there are two classes of creatures, those who make great demands of themselves, piling up difficulties and duties, and those who demand nothing special of themselves. For whom to live is to be every moment what they already are without imposing on themselves any effort towards perfection, mere buoys that float on the waves.
Aren't we all a little of both?
The top five percent of society move things forward, everyone else is along for the ride.
Top 5%? Top of society? What does that mean and what is being moved forward?
Cheers Dr. Anderson. So, Nietzsche turns the strawman Hegel into a philosopher who doesn't notice irrationality as force in history? Yet, History is the revelation of the Idea through the negation of the irrational, through Reason. Objective Spirit is manifested by humans moving history toward freedom, right?
Nietzsche's fear of history is a fear of truth. Something he will not be able to over come.
Aware,
abiding.
Who is that?
So clever about the other
but do you know yourself?
By way of time,
what is human knowledge?
Bits and pieces, all incomplete.
Understanding knowledge
awareness is revealing.
There are things one can get out of Nietzsche certainly. But his ideas have been proven not to work. Guy had ego issues. Let them leak into his philosophy which is sociopathic.
Frederick Nietzsche is the eternal pessimism
He was the opposite
He is correct.