There might be some valid points to his criticism regarding religion (idealism) as an escape mechanism, some folks are obsessing over paradise after death, instead of focusing on the present moment. right here , right now (the only thing that is real).
I guess both men are just looking at things differently. Nietzsche was more concerned about how philosophy has become too entranced about the “ideal” that it forgot what “really” matters. What he's probably trying to do was pull the philosophers back to the ground?
@@rodrigomachado5291 interesting that both Schopenhauer and Hegel are your favorite philosophers since, in both style and content, they are polar opposites
Regarding Nietzsche, it is imperative to recall that he had a frail constitution. Now, in addition, his natural instinct was to find something like a teacher, idol, or state of existence and then to *fight* it. Thus he first embraced Schopenhauer and Wagner, then did (intellectual) battle with them. I can't recall if N. went through a period of devotion to Plato, but it wouldn't surprise me. His bitterest words were usually used against former heroes. N. himself advised people to pick their enemies wisely; in opposing them you will inevitably position yourself. Nietzsche embraced life and optimism all the more for being ill and weak; this is where the loathing for spiritual "other worlds" was born. Also see "eternal recurrence".
Nietzsche wasn't frail by any means. The doctor that attended him after his most likely stroke, wrote in his notes that he had a very muscular build due to frequent hiking. Nietzsche was in near constant pain though, which he fought to control. Calling Plato "boring" was probably the least critical thing he had to say. N takes the gloves off in Will to Power, and calls Plato the depature from the sophists and everything Hellenic.
@@briancarney2231 Nietzsche suffered from ill health through most of his life. Terrible headaches from youth, possible syphilis, possible neurological problems. By "frail", I did not mean to say that he was a weakling physically; in fact you could argue that he was "strong" in vigorously fighting his health problems. By "frail" I meant he was not blessed with robust health. I meant the state of his health was probably always in the forefront of his thoughts. I would regard anyone whose health is a major preoccupation as "frail" in that sense. Hence N's idealization (and reification) of health.
By FRAIL I took you to mean that Nietzsche's tendency to worship gurus and later to attempt to demolish them intellectually was evidence of a frail psychological disposition. I was quite impressed by that observation and wondered if I might not see evidence of it in myself. But is it not something that we all might recognise in ourselves to at least some extent? However is it possibly more mature and healthy to finally learn gratitude toward our mentors and acknowledge that they helped us to grow and broaden our thinking horizons. If this is the case, and Nietzsche never found this nuanced gratitude, then we should probably be grateful because there is great insight and provocative energy in his devastating critiques. Having said that he still scares the shit out of me and I sup with a long spoon.
''“My philosophy is an inverted Platonism: the farther removed from true being, the purer, the finer, the better it is''' said Nietzsche. Plato was a man leading his way to heaven, while Nietzsche was heading deep into the earth. Yet the beloved Nietzsche should remember the words of the philosopher he so admired, Heraclitus: "The way up and the way down is one and the same". Nietzsche had grasped that when he said ''“Socrates, to confess it frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight a fight against him.” Nietzsche (fragment, 1875) IMO the title should change to ''why Nietzsche LOVED AND HATED Plato''
If we view the way “up” and “down” as being cyclical in nature (as I’m sure Nietzche did) then yes this is true. But there is also another saying. The way down is easy, the way up is steep and beset with many thorns. They are the same path, but one takes a lot more will and effort because it goes against millions of years of evolution, and that evolutionary impulse is complete and utter self-preservation. But without that selfishness in the first place (which has been developed unconsciously) we would have nothing to balance our virtues and selflessness with.
@@Mcgif21 Nietzsche did not consider selfishness as actually being a ''vice'' but rather a virtue!! He considered that our instincts and intuition(what the ancients and Socrates among them called ''daemon'') which according to Nietzsche are biologically given, are what truly define who we are. Except that according to Nietzsche, ''noble spirits'' and what provoked evolutionary impulse is not the instinct of ''self-preservation'' but the ''will to power''.
@@jimakisspd The "Will to Power" is a shadow virtue that MUST be developed, but in the end, if that will is directed toward mostly selfish aims it becomes a vice, and the worst amongst them. It is better to look at life through the eyes of Carl Jung (if we must take a more contemporary philosopher of the mind) who saw that the purpose of life was to INDIVIDUATE ourselves which is a two-fold task. One requires us to push against the outside world with our OWN strength, our OWN will. The other is allowing ourselves to become A PART of the system at large (the Kosmos). Within this balancing point, on one end lying the development of our OWN strength, our OWN will, our OWN wisdom AND the attunement with that SELF of SELF, which is the TRUEST SELF, the ONE SELF, which is LOVE and SELFLESSNESS. At the fulcrum of these two seemingly competing forces lies our own INDIVIDUALITY where strength nor sacrifice is denied and are in fact our eternal duty.
@@Mcgif21 up and down being viewed as the same doesnt imply a cyclical nature, it implies a polar nature. it’s metaphorical for a reference to distance traveled across a plane of thinking. direction in this visual representation/ metaphor refers to individuals ideas, conclusions and understandings. i personally feel like you’re basing your argument off an incorrect foundation of understandings in these universal concepts.
@@jfk3548 It absolutely implies a cyclical nature. North becomes South if you travel far enough precisely because the earth is a globe (a three dimensional circle, a cycle). Everything in nature more or less follows this patter. Poles are just two diametrically opposed points on the circumference of a sphere or a circle. If "up" and "down" truly are the same (as you say) then the POLE these opposite developments take place on must be cyclical, to claim that going one direction upon a line, or indefinite plane, brings us the other direction is nonsense.
Despite being a big Nietzsche fan, I am conflicted on this topic. I think there needs to be balance. Perhaps some branches of Christianity had their head in the clouds as Nietzsche points out, but as a result people reacted with a visceral materialism which is completely void of life. I know Nietzsche opposed this as well. Hence: God is dead. This is the world we have now. Everyone is viewed as a bunch of dehumanized interchangeable cogs without souls. It is this very harsh materialism that is the reason we now have an epidemic of maladaptive daydreamers. The world is simply too cold for even the bravest soul to take at complete face value. People just want to escape. However I actually think the daydreamers are healthier than the "normal" person in this modern world. The normal person has the worst of both worlds. They believe in social realism; something that is not reality, nor idealism. What they believe is not true, but nor is it invigorating and inspiring. I would rather be a full blown nihilist or a delusional Don Quixote, than be someone with a profound lack of imagination yet is still lying to themselves. This artificial realism is truly the cancer of our age.
Thank you for this comment :-) "Everyone is viewed as a bunch of dehumanized interchangeable cogs without souls." I would add "everything". Hence: "Everyone and everything is viewed as a bunch or cluster of dehumanized interchangeable cogs without soul/s." I decided this world is too cold for me, and has escaped through photography. Here I still can find fragments of beauty/soul. Did you see Sam Vaknin's recent talk "Here's Why We're All Doomed (Excerpt)" on TH-cam? I think we here are explained the true outcome of Nietzsche's ideas, all these "super-humans" just ended up as "super-narcissists". Do you read James Kalb at "The Catholic World Report"? I'm a protestant, but still love Kalb's analysis of status quo.
The world is what they should be, humanity has no control of their own destiny, because history was determined from the start that we would infinitely learn and progress until our inevitable end.
Plato wrote it all, as Whitehead said, so there are so many meanings to get at (although I'm not an adept of Leo Strauss, I think his interpretation of Plato's project is the key to much of the man behind the dialogues, as attested in Letter fragments). That being said, I much prefer the "elevating" criticism of Peter Kingsley's 'In the Dark Places of Wisdom', which focuses on Plato's parricide of Parmenides, and the true lessons of his poem.
Nonetheless, I see no reason to care that much about the material world. Why? Simply because every attempt of perfecting this is world is vain. The world is by its own nature imperfect. Taking into account all this mess and suffering that dominates this material existence, I' m in favor of Plato' s views. Besides, why care about something that is temporary. As the material realm had a beginning so it will have an end. I don't assert that we should undermine with contempt the preservation of the world or even its improvement, but we should keep in mind that this is not the real reality we are designed for and that the spirit-mind is our true nature that we are made to perfect and exalt. How could I agree with Nietzche about his materialistic worldview? If there is no higher form of existence then everything is vain and we would have to become materialists, caring only about the satisfaction of the flesh and nothing more. Yeah this is indeed a terrifying and misleading worldview...
@@user-tt4wv4ti3j I agree. Also the only real way to understand the material world is to adopt some kind of abstraction anyway... being language itself the first abstraction we created, and them math and scientific models. maybe Nietzche too created the abstraction of the Superman, but I do not know a lot about that to speak about.
I think there's a place in this world for both philosophers. As far, as Plato being a coward, the man participated in wars (The Peloponnesian War as footman) as well as being a political figure for the time, and mentor for young men. He even studied mathematics under Pythagoras in one of his journeys to Italy and was able to bring back this knowledge to his Academy to be further studied. Nietzsche was, in my opinion too quick to judge him.
I agree. But I think Nietzsche has a different criteria for cowardice than most do, when he's speaking philosophically at least. You are a coward to Nietzsche if you deny life, which is what he thought Plato and Socrates did.
@@Tehz1359 As per @waning egg 's commentary as well as yours, it seems Plato's philosophical ideals pertained to the utopian realms whereas Nietzsche was always more practical.
I believe the most important part of Plato’s dialogue, is reading them out loud, or listening to people acting it out. By doing this, we learn to talk about very important topics with other people.
Reading Plato inculcated in me a certain capacity for division. As I would subsequently engage in discourse with others, I noticed a novel and interesting operation now happening within my own mind: as I was hearing their statements my mind was immediately dividing each one into two, opposing interpretations. Then I would present both interpretations as though I were uncertain about the speaker's intent. This method annoyed most partners in conversation, tiring them out quickly while affording me plausible deniability in case frustrating them had secretly been my aim. On that note, I would learn years later that Machiavelli had said of Socrates that he had this wonderful way of shutting down conversation.
@@pertjacanape in plain words (which I prefer by Schopenhauer), you act dumb to annoy your partner, pushing him to chew his words and spell it all out so much that there was nothing left. Reason kills instinct and bores.
I have imaginary conversations with people in my head, about relevant topics...I have come to realize this is a method for my higher mind to teach my ego mind...seems like Plato was doing something similar
@@sloaiza81 That.... makes no sense. Then again it isn't meant to, as rejecting Aristotle is tantamount to rejecting "sense" in every sense of the word. Aristotle laid the foundation for logic, science and ethics among other things. Plato laid the foundation for totalitarian rule, religious zealotry and, worst of all, german idealism. The only good thing Plato ever produced was his star pupil, and that's only because said pupil rejected his ideas. One might wish to reject the law of identity for example, but one's rejection would only reaffirm it. Aristotle is the sun to our planets and only with enormous efforts could one completely leave his orbit. But, the only thing waiting for the one who does that is an endless void, as dark as it is cold. Seriously, fuck Plato.
@@sloaiza81 Any opposition between Plato and Aristotle is only apparent. Aristotle differs from Plato only in terms of the perspective he chose to focus on. Their metaphysics is identical.
@@xuniepyro7399 Your reasoning is ahistoric and arbitrary. I does not matter where the "phrase" (it's not a phrase) originated from. And when we make judgements about philosophical ideas we have to take in the as much of the relevant context as possible, not just hone in some specific detail (like it's support of slavery). I don't want to discuss this further, so don't bother responding if further discussion is what you're after.
What are you all talking about here...Plato and Aristotle were doing philosophy 1500 years before Niezsche... Plato and Aristotle expect for being philosophers they were also mathematicians physicians they were studying astronomy... And all this 2000 years ago.. These to Hellenes where really close to wisdom... So this comment is fuckin ridiculous...
I must comment--and perhaps this is merely a matter of taste: Even though you were just glossing over big names in German Idealism, I think failing to mention Hegel is leaving a huge blank spot. Hegel is certainly the person who first comes to my mind when bringing up German Idealism, especially in the light of Plato's influence. And Nietzsche mentions Hegel often enough to warrant a shoutout. (Though I am sure Schopenhauer would have approved of your choice not to mention Hegel... 😉)
The amazing part is that Nietzsche's "Hinterwelt" is itself metaphysical and so it renders Nietzsche a living contradiction by denying metaphysical realities.
No he just didn’t think you were magic lol. Consciousness isn’t magic. Neetch would be happy to know that modern science shows consciousness as a purely physical phenomenon.
Nietzsche doesnt hate the Hinterwelt. He knows its not real so he only hates the fact that people still believe in a hinterwelt, even though there is absolutely no evidence for it.
A helpful video and I thank you for that. Nietzsche is not only the author of the wonderfully written "Also Sprach Zaratustra". It is not only a philosopher full of contradictions (and why not?). I think he was incredibly courageous in exploring new paths of thought in an "open work", and he was aware that this is the task of a real philosopher. Nietzsche is more relevant than is academically recognized.
Fontanelle is an unfair comparison since he enjoyed the benefits of the empirical tradition whereas plato was largely restricted to pure reason. More charitable to see plato as an origin of the western knowledge tradition rather than as the origin of decadence unless you choose to conflate knowledge with decadence.
Interesting observation .. I am inclined to agree.... But for one doubt: which part of Schopenhauer was purely 'prescriptive'? Do correct me if I am wrong... but his prescriptions, if at all, seemed to me to follow his metaphysics as corollaries, rather than prescriptions of the deontological /categorical imperative variety? Is it not?🙏
He makes some interesting and valid points. Something I never thought much of and have to agree with Fred with is in Plato's style. When you control both sides of the same dialogue to make yourself seem the intellectual superior in the end, it's a bit of a psychological manipulation to the listener who loses themselves in the story and separates Plato from the "other". There are times I feel like the pessimistic realism of Fred and agree with him on the reality of things, but there are benefits of letting those preconceived notions go for awhile to explore better ideas. Not in the Christian sense of "believing" things will be better after death, but recognizing what is closer to the "ideal" and strive for a better world in this life.
I am not familiar with Nietzsche's critique of Plato, but from what little I know about Nietzsche, and from what you have mentioned, I don't think Nietzsche necessarily even criticized Plato's views themselves. Whether or not Plato was right was essentially beside the point - rather what effect Plato's thoughts and authority had on us, the Western civilization, was important for Nietzsche. From what you explained, that was the point of his critique. So he wasn't arguing with Plato, rather critiquing his effect on us. From that point of view, I do believe his critique deserves great attention and reflexion. Great Philosophers and Scientists have a tremendous effect on us via our culture, however, the effect often consists in an unconsciously dumbed down understanding and acting out of their ideas. Nietzsche's general caveat, that our thoughts should have genuine substance and not be empty images of idols is very worth listening to. I don't think Plato necessarily wanted to be a great philosopher. He wanted to be cogent and inquisitive. We should treat him and any other great mind accordingly - not as an idol, but as someone, who wanted to understand something and present his ideas.
I think Plato was an egotist, who wanted to be remembered as an influential figure in his world of forms. I know little of Neitzche but the more I hear the more he intrigues me.
His arguments are all projected ad hominems. Without Plato there'd be no Western civilization. For Nietzsche's argument to work he'd have to point to some other civilization that fared better without the influence of Platonism. Confucian civilization? I very much doubt they live up to Nietzsche's ideals either. The mind of a teenage boy.
nietzsche's "slave morality" or "coward seeks refuge in the ideals" also gives strength for those that use the " Hinterwelt" as motivation to persevere and even rise above and thus reach new heights/goals/creations/innovations in this world. . it's not just a means of escape, it's also a fuel for greatness.
@@funnyhandle exactly why we should stop getting our ideas to run the world from deranged, privileged people who do not understand the balance of survival, living, and system management of any importance.
It is brave to have an ideal different from the world around you. An ideal presents a challenge to change the world into an ideal world. To fight evil for the sake of the good. To simply describe the world as it is like Fontanelle motivates no change of the world into something better. To fight for your own power and pleasure as Nietzsche's "will to power" prescribes is a challenge not as difficult as the task of fighting for the good.
Now, we might have different views on what is "good". I suppose Hitler fought for what he believed was good, even if he appropriated Nietzsche's philosophy for his cause. That is why the good must be in constant question and discussion. Or maybe rather, it is important to be in as close connection to the intuition of what is good as what is possible. Ironically, to forget about the abstractions that Plato, maybe unwittingly was accompliced to creating the obsession with. I believe that the good can never be a rigid prescript but must be a fluid living intuition.
Ok, before getting any further into the video, I do wanna say something about Plato as well. In the Phaedo, Socrates talks about death saying that the philosopher shouldn't fear death because the practice of philosophy is a kind of death. Adding that, in any case, life is a sickness for he who is concerned for the good of his soul. And, I think that the problem with this kind of thing is that Socrates is trying to make us feel disgusted by life in order for us not to fear death.
@UCikwgvmS88bba5frKO5IfSg The Republic is a very interesting attempt, I think, of reaching this world that you talked about, which Plato calls the world of Forms. We could say that Plato tried to embody Justice through his utopia, which would go against the theory of Forms, at least if we suppose that the utopia was meant to happen in the real world. It's still a fact that a lot of people think that Plato's utopia isn't just at all.
I don't believe in souls, but if you don't think that life *is* disgusting, I'd say you are stupid or a hypocrite. Everything that Schopenhauer says about life is - unfortunately - completely true.
I am currently reading Iamblicus who was a Neoplatonist around the time of Plotinus. I find all three, the Platonic, the Christian and the Nietschian do you have valid contributions to an understanding of the truth. Plato helps a sense that there is something perfect and Nietzsche helps us sense that there is something humanity can do that is above, that is super human. Both are correct however where one finds that perfection comes from within and fuels the imaginal vision of what can be. Therefore to become superhuman is to engage the greatest possibility of what the human can realize. So all three: Nietzschian and the Platonistic and the Christian, once understood in this light, are feeding the same vision.
Right now I am reading “Life of Pythagoras” by Iamblichus translated by Thomas Taylor. Strange coincidence 😂. I checked this clip because I have great respect towards Nietzsche but at the same time I like Iamblichus and he said good things about Plato, but Nietzsche bad. So thus I am somehow confused.
Plato taught the people of his time to think critically regarding the drama of the gods and greek culture/politics. Similarly Nietzche taught critical thinking regarding God and other social norms. In part, the difference seems to be a radical materialism vs. transcendence. Thanks for creating and posting this video. It's fun to revisit the figures I studied in college. Further, critical thinking is so important to hold up in culture.
I used to read Nietzsche in my late teens, I have made it my task to re-read all his works now almost 12 years later, this video was very exciting, I'm currently reading die fröhliche Wissenschaft (my German has gotten a lot better through the years so now I read it in German) I'll be checking out your other vidoes as well. Thank you.
Nietzsche had another valid beef against Plato. Nietzsche was a philologist, approximately a philosophical version of a linguist. Platonic ideals produce a completely wrong view of linguistics, epistemology, semiotics, and cognition, most obviously exemplified by Chomsky. Nietzsche, as Peirce before him, knew better. Fontenelle was also an early critic. Nietzsche touches upon this frequently but only comprehensively addresses better ideas in "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense." This essay was published posthumously. I have not yet found a complete translation, but while in political prison, I pieced together excerpts from Manley-Zorn, Kaufmann, and Ryan & Rivkin. It's clear he anticipated pretty much of modern Cognitive Science by a century.
I love Nietzsche for saying, "When one has not had a good father, one must create one. " However, is that the same Abstract Perfectionism of Plato? Because...eh...nah.
Plato, at least since writing the Parmenides, thought the ideas were immanent and concrete. His principle of matter, the unlimited, being defined and bound with the principle of idea or form, the limited. See Plato's Philebus.
Nietzsche was too stupid to try to sound intelligent by judging the writings of someone like Plato, who lived 2000 years before...Like many of his copatriots, they have been copying and studying and reselling the writings of ancient greeks for a few centuries only to reach the same level of adequacy with them...
while one can hide behind this idea, it is absolutely sound theory that a world beyond our own exists and that it holds the true aspect of which we perceive within this realm.
@@unknowninfinium4353 not entirely sure because those are all distortions of the truth, but I would say that they are all pieces to a puzzle. I cringe at the "law of attraction" because there is more to it than just that. You not only attract what you desire, but you also make contracts with those things and as long as they serve some purpose to you, they stay and become your personality. That is why I am so thankful for the works of Carl Jung, because he had the courage to go within and do the work which must be done in order to understand yourself. I whole heartedly believe that all religions have glimmers of truth within them, it just gets lost within the details...as the quote goes, the devil's in the details.
@@kukukachu I get what you are saying. I even grasp at where you are going but somehow it eludes me. I am against the whole law of attraction stuff. It gets so complex and more deeper you go it only gets ethereal but enough on that. I agree with the what you said with Carl Jung and also I do believe there should be a spiritual side to be nourished within. Hope your staying safe dude.
I think, like most people in the comments have stated, you need a good contrast of both metaphysical analysis and a more conceptual material understanding. For me, I consider economics and the disciplines in social sciences to be a combination of this; with the former being of super importance. Economics is a made-up concept for the most part that allows for metaphyiscal meaning to be brought into the physical world, however, there is so much room to play around with it because of this fact. We can conceptualize better forms of economics, which id argue to be metaphysical in nature, to then apply to the material world. Apply this same form of thinking to almost any social construct and the combination with the metaphysical (the ideal) and the material becomes the human condition that humans have been constantly struggling with and toying with. Another thing that I would like to mention is the purpose of Plato's set-up and structure of his dialogues. The setting, characters, and structure are meant as metaphors for the reader to grasp as they are reading. For example, in The Republic, the characters that Socrates is talking to represent a different form of government that relates to their character; hence the whole topic of conversation revolves around the ideal government system (its character). So when Socrates is arguing against said characters he is actually arguing against these whole governmental systems they represent. Another example is in the symposium, the setting is a party with the topic being about "love." During this time, everyone is constantly drinking to the point where they eventually just pass out from drinking too much, showing them being "drunk in love" the more the topic is being fleshed out. Last;y, the way that Plato structures the dialogues with Socrates always "winning" does not seem like much of a critique in my opinion. The point of Socrates as a character is to be a sage; to be the perfect philosopher. It makes sense that he would be almost undefeated in the field, for Plato wants to show what a philosopher is and does. When making an "ideal" that others are supposed to look up to, the point is to almost make the unattainable in their respective role. Criticizing plato on this is just a lazy analysis in my opinion. It focuses more on the "story" aspects of the writing rather than the philosophies that are being talked about.
Reflecting on your passionate observation on your grander view for economics, the higher aims of the "dismal science." Unless, imo, you are referencing the pioneering work of George Gilder promoting dynamic information flow as the main purpose of economics, sending signals to use Shannon's metrics to the market place, most "well intentioned" economic dreamy systems from Marx, Keynes, and to the fruition of John Laws dream money printing scheme, MMT all lead to a dark place in the matrix and dystopia. Economists may want to play Newton or play Nietzsche in designing their elaborate Rube G. Systems, but the invisible hand of real market forces of supply and demand always ends up slapping them to wake them up from dreamland and electric sheep. Well inentioned, possibly, but dangerous too the core in reality that leads to Venezuela style dystopia given enough time and folly in "planning and modeling." Subtle, intricate yet often chaotic economic forces of supply demand always interfere and overturn the apple carts of economic social engineers that refuse to learn the iron law of history that markets must be Talebian antifragile to flexibly react to dynamic catalysts and information shock signals.
To simply deny metaphysical realities is to deny logic itself and render the one generating the denial, self contradictory. On one hand they embrace the transcendental necessity of logic as though it is real but then on the other hand deny it because it has no energy value. Is logic (a metaphysical entity) real? Of course! It is a necessary ingredient of that which is observed. To limit reality to only that which can be physically demonstrated and measured is absurd. We can never measure nor observe the future, yet we have never seen a case in the past where the future did not exist. So long as we live in the present, every past has had a future. If the present ceases to exist then the argument is irrelevant.
I don't think he denies metaphysical imaginary realities. He just says it should serve to improve your material existence and not the other way. He basically criticizes a peasant suffering thru life thinking he will get heaven in the end.(a better reality).(which we have no proof of). Say you get to that perfect reality,how would you know that reality is the perfect reality?(would you trust your senses or brain)( infinitely more perfecter realities will exist).
@@hieroprotoganist3440 They either both exist or they do not. Yes, he denies metaphysical realities even though the metaphysical is always the rational foundation for the physical. Just because Nietzsche doesn't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean there isn't one. People do suffer but that suffering tells us more about the sin of man than the absence of God. A blind man's inability to detect light doesn't negate lights existence. How would I know I've gotten to the perfect reality. God will let me know. Being with Jesus (God) is the perfect reality.
@@wildbill6536 How about this? This could be true too. God gave you a brain to be rational and find the truth,speak the truth and live the truth. Maybe faith is a creation of satan which will lead you to hell forever because god will give you only 1 life (so you basically wasting that life with irrational ideas of satan(faith) os basically being in hell for eternity). Remember if you can believe some thing without reason or proof(without using your god given intellect) ,you can believe so any lies and deception(which are satan's domain).
@@wildbill6536 a blind man can be deceived,lied to about the existence of light and can be led in to darkness or hell though. And he can't confirm it. Same with people who have god given eyes(reason,intelligence,) and still closes them tightly.
@@hieroprotoganist3440 From an unbelieving point of view this would seem logical but what you fail to be able to understand is God's point of view which He shares with those who believe through the Word of God. How do we know the Word of God is true? God gives His children faith via the Holy Spirit. Reason is wonderful but even reason does not justify itself. What are the transcendental presuppositions that under-gird the metaphysical entities of reason and logic? If you want to be rational, you must answer those philosophical questions and not just take them by faith.
The culmination of Nietzsche’s philosophy, as much as I like his style, is this, “I have been to the hinterlands, I have also been in your world; nevermind, pay attention, the highest chooses.”
So his work itself also conforms to his prognosis. Even Nietzsche is subject to Nietzsche? I would say this supports his authority, rather than exposes his fallibility. It's funny because I was listening to this in the shower just now thinking about how many of Nietzsche's personal sensibilities and peccadilloes that really have no bearing on his actual philosophy are thrown in there and came to this same conclusion. Even he will perpetuate his will rather than attempt to speak from some place of neutrality and purity.
Apparently Nietzsche believed that many philosophers were clearly expressing their own subjective life experiences through their philosophy, ironic how this connection is so apparent in Nietzsche.
@@josemjerez2140 I don't see any particular reason to assume Nietzsche wasn't aware of this. He said everyone does this, not everyone but him. So that is consistent. It would go against his ideas to say there is a truth that is ideal and outside of human activity. So of course Nietzsche leads by example. In all parts of his life. He wasn't a mathematician or an engineer so that thinking won't get you very far. He was an writer, an artist, a performer, a musician...think more Andy Kaufman and less Einstein when trying to understand what he is showing you. Notice I said showing not telling. That is important. I'm assuming you didn't read my other comment. Heh.
Hi, I saw your video on Schopenhauer's greatest poets and I was wondering what edition of Goethe's work you recommend for faust. Others have recommended walter kaufmann's translation instead of the translation used in the essential goethe.
Translations are only interpretations, you have your own perception, is more important to recive information directly from the source without any distortion.
The Bible is much like this. There are many dialogs and parables presented as dialogs written in such a way as to convince the reader that there is a fair fight taking place when in reality it is one perspective posturing as two, purposefully written to present a particular Christ as the victor.
I do agree with Nietzsche’s assessment of Plato, both stylistically and philosophically. Adorning false ideas artfully doesn’t make the ideas less malignant.
Precisely. As malignant as the wine from the sailors on the ship of democracy offers to the couple in Socrates critic of democracy. The artful adornment of false ideals is what we most fraternize with as we engage with media from journalism to blockbusters.
Nietzsche: plato was wrong philosopher: why Nietzsche: wdym why Philosopher: I mean elaborate why plato was wrong Nietzsche: bc he was boring Philosopher: htf does that explain his mistakes? Nietzsche: bc he was POWERLESS Philosopher: what Nietzsche: well yk, he lacked PUVER so in order to make up for his virginity he started arguing with ppl to make a name for himself just like his ugly master socrates. Philosopher: well isn't that exactly what you doing? Nietzsche: no Philosopher: why not Nietzsche:... also Nietzsche: yk what? arguing is for losers! Philosopher: by arguing that arguing is for losers, doesn't that imply you are also a loser? Nietzsche:... Philosopher: well? Nietzsche: ummm... GOD IS DEAD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH Philosopher: wtf
Altought i love Nietzsche's criticism and his genealogy of morals, his solution is to basically reverse all weatern values and return to a society with cratos at its nucleus but this is not just impossible, actually dangerous and leads to our auto-destruction, we barely made it through the 20th century. And altought the trend seems to be in this direction with the rapid fall of traditional religions, even methaphysically materialism is not viable if you follow it to the limit (following the latest empirical results in qm like non-locality) so we are at a dangerous crossroad where we are attracted to scientism which is empty at its core (as Nietzsche actually warned us) but the traditional spiritual ethos of the west is way past its prime. So, yeah, thats why we probably don't share any common future or goals, we just blindly optimize for survival and take refuge in technology whithout any vision, just a masked or straight up nihilism, basically to "see what happens". All this Hinterweld was sticky for a reason and we are currently flushing out the baby with the bathwater.
@Gary Allen True but that's superficial, Nietzsche would say. Humans are driven by "why's" not by "how's". If you give people an exquisite "why", they would live through anything.
Besides the great content of the video just to know the opinion of Nietzsche about Plato is incredible to me. This is the video that more encouraged me to read Nietzsche books. Thank you for the video.
As with everything, it’s balance. Plato was far too abstract and dealt in unrealistic ideals but has amazing application when understood broadly. Likewise those like Nietzsche or even Fromm were almost too practical to a fault. It’s probably why Nietzsche died alone and Fromm really never gained prominence. Ironically you could argue Nietzsche was abstract and an idealist but in an extremely practical way. I mean even his idea of Ubermensch was based on an ideal which he admits but it had much more practical application than say Plato’s “the one”. Great video
I've never read Nietzsche, having heard that his writing is abstruse and might be difficult to those not well-versed in reading philosophy. I have read some commentary on his work. This series is among the most clear such work I've come across, and makes me think I should take him on. Lots of interesting ideas. Thanks!
i think in this case nietzche let his bias shape his opinion on plato plato wasn't actually talking about a metaphysical world or spiritual woo wei as many people attributed to his work he was only suggesting there might be a larger universe or multiverse beyond ours a reality beyond our current understanding but in his culture he did not have proper terms in which to define these ideas in an academic or logical way there was no medium in his culture for him to do so so he illustrated this point through metaphorical allegory which has been widely misinterpreted and misrepresented not just by nietzche but other scholars who were more religious so i think nietzche criticism are more at those religious scholars twisting his works just as there was no way of critically looking at platos work away from religious misrepresentation in nietzche's time so to nietzche it made perfect sense to chuck these ideas out in the trash bin a long with any other faith based take
I don't see how one can dismiss the idea of a metaphysical world as Plato expresses. We, humans, are incapable of directly experiencing reality. That can be shown through very simple and, dare I say, nearly unassailable arguments. So the existence of two worlds; the one we experience and the reality that lies underneath that experience, is basically a fact.
@Lucas De Araújo Marques: Today we know that there's no such thing as a particle, "particles" are in actuality vibratory modes of an underlying field. In other words, Plato was, as usual, far closer to the truth than the others. Nietzsche was a raving madman who had loud and vociferous opinions on just about everything, but was extremely rarely right about anything; only a fool would take him seriously.
@lucgma Greek atomism has no resemblance to atomic theory. Even though we conventionally label the smallest unit of matter "atoms", they are not really indivisible as the Greek atomists thought; only a few scientists in the late modern period thought they were actually indivisible. The closest we get to a revival of Greek atomism was in the late renaissance with the emergence of corpuscular theory, which sought to reduce all of physics to particle collision; but mechanical philosophers of that period thought corpuscles were infinitely divisible so as to occupy all available space, and they rejected the Epicurean void. Although Plato was opposed to atomism, he didn't deny the existence of atoms per se. He discusses the nature of atoms, which he understood to be small, indivisible units, extensively in the Timæus, a treatise about the origin & essence of the universe. Plato contends kinds of atoms compound to create elementary corpuscles, and these corpuscles could be mixed and dissolved in various ways to beget ordinary matter; for Plato, each kind of atom was a triangle of incommensurable magnitude, thence their irreducibility.
Nietzsche was wrong. Platonism is foundational to philosophy while Nietzsche couldn't even deadlift his own bodyweight. Since I could snap Nietzsche like a twig, I am, according to his barbaric ""philosophy"" a superior creature to him, and I, being superior, determine that his ideas are nothing but Germanic LARPing.
“Bro let me tell you about quanta!” You know that macro events (everything you’ll ever experience) still follow Newtonian and maybe special relativity when it comes to planets? Lol. You idiots don’t even know what the uncertainty principal is and it doesn’t mean magic it means you change the state when you measure lol.
I totally agree, the influence of plato goes strong as today is present in scientific theories of differentes disciplines such as psychology or biology
“He owned slaves” is an automatic disqualification of anything he says being true. Remember that this is literally what this person said and thought was insightful.
@@GhGh-gq8oo ok but my intention wasn't that: I just wanted to signal the thought of owning another human being as something the dude felt was a normal thing to do. For me it does nothing to disqualify the things the guy said, just to doubt his reasons for saying them (i.e. his persona non grata)
Totally agree. About Plato. But Nietzsche’s idea that humans “could have been a contender” without Plato is idealism too. We humans are a complex species, and how we organize ourselves is never optimal. An optimal way doesn’t exist. We generate lots of drama so we don’t bore ourselves. Nietzsche should have backed up for a wider view. He might have relaxed a bit.
There is an optimal way, people are just too self absorbed and degenerate to pursue idealism, and end up becoming Nihilists, liberals, or whatever LARP cringe Nietzsche was peddling.
"For the Platonic dialogues to cast a charm over you, you must never have read any good French authors" HOLY SHIT what a savage roaster. Now I'm motivated to read Nietzsche. Thanks for this video guys
While his critique of Plato makes sense, he has entirely missed the reason that Plato had to come up with it. Which is that he realized that the true world, and therefore truth wasn't observable as the skeptics would point out tirelessly. He essentially went as deep as he could at that time on the issue, and since psychology hadn't been invented yet nor was the mind discovered as a product in the brain. He realized that the material world was divided by immaterial categories and since the categories were apparent in reality but not present in it, the true world had to be like this one but obscured or distorted by something. So it would make sense that he thought that this world was a representation of the other truly real world, he simply did his best with what he knew and wasn't able to be refuted for at least 2 thousand years. Nietzsche was being small-minded here and couldn't understand Plato's point or thought path. But I do agree with him on his writings I can't stand them, nor Nietzsche's for that matter actually
I agree 100% here. Except for the last sentence, I enjoyed reading both of them. I think it's wrong to see plato's world of forms as this other dimension. He makes it clear that it doesn't exist in the same way that you or I do. Which leaves the possibility that maybe it only exists in our minds. but even if that's the case, this doesn't make it any less real.
@@Tehz1359 I just don't like the dialogue format or how nietzsche was so so long winded and poetic in ideas that weren't that complicated. But yeah plato simply had to happen and much like the other greeks, he was literally inches from the truth 3 thousand years ago which is phenomenonal.
Plato has not been refuted. His ideas remain as compelling and as valid as when he articulated them 2,000 years ago. The basic categories of mind, which Plato called the Forms, cannot be reduced to material causes because they are categorically different than physicalist categories. Even to call these Forms categories of mind is something of a concession to the modernist register, since really they are categories of the intelligible. The intelligible world manifests itself in the sensible world (that is, within time and space), and this more than accounts for the various mind/brain correlations that serve as the basis for reductive materialist explanations of consciousness, but these reductions are specious and premature, if not simply incoherent. It is not that the brain produces the mind- rather, the brain is the mind as sensibly manifest, and so one would expect all observed correlations between them. Truth isn't a fact- it's a value that prefigures facts both epistemically and metaphysically. It is unanalyzable in terms of more basic constituents (i.e. primative), and is presupposed prior to the investigation of and intelligibility of facts/empirical observations. The scientist's activity is nothing more than a participation in the form of Truth, whether we cash that participation out in terms of cognitive orientation, teleology of desire, or the transcendental unity of apperception. The very unity of reality, as presupposed by the construction and application of physical "laws" (the very looking for laws, the conviction that there are laws, or the conviction that laws amount to a deeper fundamentality), indicates a Transcendent reality that all becoming participates in. No, we've yet to catch up with Plato.
I think the problems with Plato are rooted in the fact that Plato's and Socrates' philosophy are ultimately a kind of Orphism without ritual. An emphasis on practices in addition to intellectual inquiry would have fostered an appreciation for the material world and the world of ideals together
I tend to think the world has suffered more from the German than the Athenian. ;-) I prefer Aristotle to Plato, and Aquinas to Aristotle. But I appreciate the Platonic tradition, regardless of the refinements needed and provided by those later thinkers.
I think Nietzsche's main problem with Plato's ideas was that it revolved not only around concepts, but everything, thus affirming the existence of a perfect being. I say this because, from what I understand, Nietzsche did believe in perfection in the form of art. However, if we accept that an eternal and universal balance of things exists, we can derive from this idea that it must be sustained, or powered, by something. This is where I believe Plato comes into full strength.
I love Nietzsche's philosophy but I feel his style was his own undoing. It was hyperfixated on the superman or the loser's god. I read alot of the Bible, and not once in The Anti-Christ did I ever feel like he gave credence to King Solomon's writings in Ecclesiastes (which would've been right up his alley). There's alot of wisdom in the bible, and I'm sure Plato offered much in the same way. I think Nietzsche could've benefited from looking at things through a broader lense. Not just the one where he laments the pointlessness of life, and to be selfishly driven for the best self serving ends. The nature of our existence, and inevitable departure from this world is universally uncontested. All are from dust, and all return to dust. That shouldn't mean that we kill our spiritual self, and deny our souls existence to remain focused on the material world. It's a small price to pay for a chance at eternal life. I believe it was Pascal that coined something to that effect.
I mean I agree with some of your criticism, but what is this eternal life business? Pascal's wager is like buying a lottery ticket in the off chance there is an actual lottery.
@@InsanePorcupine Only one way to find out, and there's no way back to tell you. So yes it is a lottery. I'm not saying it has to be any specific denomination or specifically the God of Abraham. It just needs to be something. I've bounced back, and forth between atheism, and gnosticism most of my life. One thing I've noticed is that I have just as much trouble in committing to my disbelief of God as I do my belief in God, and the worse my life gets the more I get the sense it was never in my control to begin with. So my only choice available is "give it to God". I can relinquish my illusion of control in hopes that something beyond myself can help me unf*ck myself lol.
Nietzsche actually had an appreciation for the bible as a piece of literature though. *In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche describes Luther's Bible (without irony) as "the masterpiece of German prose" and "the best German book so far" (BGE 247). The "so far" here indicates that he understood his own stylistic achievements, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra in particular, to have surpassed Luther's, but whether or not one agrees with this self-assessment, it is clear that Luther's German remains one of Nietzsche's two great stylistic models (the other being Goethe's). Nietzsche, then, can be considered as part of the long tradition of German writers (others would be Goethe himself, Büchner, Marx, and Brecht) who, although nonbelievers, indeed actively hostile to the Christian Church, have nevertheless acknowledged the sheer rhetorical accomplishment of the (Luther's) Bible as literature, and treated it as an enduringly powerful resource on which to draw in an increasingly post-Christian age as Nietzsche puts it, “In comparison with Luther's Bible, almost everything else is mere ‘literature’ - something that did not grow in Germany and hence also did not grow and does not grow into German hearts, as the Bible has.”*
There can be no ying without a yang , no summer without winter, no Aristotle without Plato. Thank goodness for Plato. Thank goodness for Aristotle, thank goodness for Spinoza, thank goodness for Schopenhauer
Very interesting and informing video! You said that 'Christianity is the Platonism for the People' and I immediatly thought 'Platonism seems to be more like Christianity for the People.' The essence of it without Christ and Crucification so not Christianity but more like the Essence of it. The Believe in other unseen things, forms and world and a ultimate creator who created all things like the perfekt cup on which we all try our best to reach its standards. But those who deny the existence of such standards - in my eyes - are truely just in loss of it.
There is more romance and literal gods in Christianity though. Science did prove existence of unseen waves and radiation. Empiricism doesn't argue for no imagination,it just doesn't believe in conmen and wishful fantasies. And the concept of the perfect cup also comes from your imagination. When push comes to shove intelligent people put their money when/where there is proof.
In your opening title card, I think you meant to write 'skeptic'. As you wrote, 'sceptic', means something entirely different. Though I could see Nietzche saying either of them about Plato.
They are not opposites at all. You have to really uderstand both Plato and Nietzsche to get that they have a lot in common in their ideals. Nietzsche also references Plato a lot in his writings too. They have similar ideals, only very different way of expressing them.
Alan Watts talks about this distain for the "natural" world in his essay called "This is it". Believers of supernaturalism hold bias against "materialism" when they say things like "just chemicals in the brain" or "just flesh and blood"...
I can definitely see the connection between Plato's forms and heaven. The idea of forms is simple when applied to objects like a chair, even if such a concept is meaningless. What's a perfect chair? Why? You just want a good one. When applied to animals, especially humans, the concept is more pernicious. None of us is perfect but to suggest that we should worship one who is, is a exercise in self-negation.
Yes, I agree. I have not scrolled the comments, but I will assume others have said: N. Destroyed the platonic theory of forms, but it was left to Ayn Rand to supply an epistemology which included a theory of concept creation devoid of mysticism and randomness.
They are arguing over observer/perspective bias, actually. There are, in truth, infinite realities in many various planes of existence. Imagine what a dog sees of the world & their life; a fish; a bug; any form of consciousness. Our experience of there being various levels of conscious observers among us in the environment is an allusion to the fact that there are a variety of interpretations which this observable location may viewed from; hence, ascending/descending planes of existence, phases of divinity/damnation, etc. Evaluation, through the imbalances of philosophy, bears the illusion of progress, in all.
I think, Nietzsche is doing Plato injustice here. Plato had been modifying his theory of forms throughout his career, and in his (later) dialogue Parmenides he also brought up some severe criticism to this theory. I think his theory of forms is often understood rather superficially and that results in "Plato was that guy who believed triangles exist and therefore wanted a fascist philosopher state!!!1". Unfortunately, Nietzsche seems to fall into that category as well. Also the Christian reception of Plato comes through Neoplatonism; mostly brought forth by Plotin. I am not sure how much of that can be directly attributed back to Plato. Neoplatonism and Plato are different pairs of shoes...
Good points. Nietzsche wrote of Parmenides in a lesser known book, worth checking out if you want a more nuanced critique of Plato. And yes, Nietzsche is largely providing critique of the Christian-ized model of Plato.
Most of the theories developed in cognitive science use the Plato approach. Today we call it a substrate - rather than a form, something that 'fits' into the mind. The idea that everything should be the one or the other depends, fails because we are limited in our language (incl. mathematics). For some cases form works, for other case it does not. It boils down to godel incompleteness theorem. Something that would have blown both Plato's and Nietzsche theories to smithereens.
I'm thoroughly convinced that Nietzsche was (and still is) in the top 5 of the greatest thinkers, and I'll definitely find some time to read his works with better attention. Like, the man was *clearly* onto _something_
@@manzo6335 Well in my defense, I didn't produce works which lambasted moral realism and the use of reason (works which amounted to stylish fulminations, free of serious argumentation.)
I am interested in how sacred geometry is used in the design of buildings. I have made a few videos showing how some well known architects do this as well as how it is used in the famous Durer Melencolia artwork. What is interesting is that the architects use these ideal archetypes as the foundational structure of their buildings and these principles have a tangible effect on the outcome. When people look at classical buildings and admire their beauty, they believe that it is some kind of eye candy whereas it has more to do with creating a resonant structure based on the prestige forms and numbers. These structures somehow connect the impure 3D world with the pure version.
I think Nietzsche was wrong regarding all contentions. His reading of Plato was shallow at best and far from complete at worst... Firstly the world of the forms. While I think Plato meant it literally it's still useful today figuratively. You and I both have an idea of what a chair is. And we can agree most of the time as to whether something is a chair or not. We have to a greater or lesser degree a shared common core of abstract concepts because we are physically more similar than we are dissimilar and operate in the world basically the same way. So we both desire to sit on occasion and being made of of pretty much the same stuff and working in a similar manner we both have similar requirements for a good sitting device. The world of the forms may not exist in actuality. But it exists theoretically in the mind of each individual. It's not monolithic either. Humans have a world of forms that exists in their subconscious and manifests to some degree between them in communication. But dogs and birds perceive the world and reason differently than us. They have their own world of forms that intersects to some degree with ours, but is not exactly the same. As for platonic dialogue. Socrates doesn't simply win every argument. He has involved discussions in which several options for the nature of something are proposed and together with his interlocutor he explores which of these are most likely. Often they end up somewhere neither of them intended to go and the conversation can get off into the weeds for minutes at a time. It's a model of not only how actual conversations tend to take place. But how we can split our own ego in two to think things over introspectively. You mentally setup a lobbyist and an interrogator in your mind and you can explore a vast landscape of ideas. Then once you have some possible conclusions and lines of reasoning that led you to them. You can bounce it off real people and see how it fairs. Something like the Republic is a demonstration of a powerful mental tool that let's one actually explore what they think and why before fielding ideas to others. Instead of just blurting it out and trying to figure on if it makes sense while simultaneously defending not fully formed or thought out ideas. Regarding Plato's style. It's a ridiculous nit pick. Divergence in actual style can easily be down to his works having been copied and edited thousands of times over millennia. Our earliest preserved examples of his writing are manual copies of copies of copies. Nietzsche criticized Plato for writing in an inconsistent manner when he could not have known how Plato actually wrote. None of us can. While we have some of what he basically wrote. any actual grammatical, narrative, or aesthetic norms of his original work are lost to a vast amount of transliteration and scribes just inserting there own style randomly here and there. The earliest copy of Plato's works (and only about half of the known ones) that we have was written over 1200 years after Plato lived.
Agreed. Re the Socrates wins every argument, recall that he never directs responds to the might = legitimacy argument of Thrasymachus. Additionally, Plato/Socrates did not ignore the honor component of the human nature/soul as implied by Nietzsche (in fact Socrates was reportedly an excellent solider himself) but merely indicated that it, along with appetites, need to be governed by but also inform the intellect.
@@brendanobrien6943 I think perhaps his battle prowess may have been lent to him by Plato. A bit of putting himself in his character. Highly likely that Socrates was a real man and philosopher of note (why would Plato write an apology to the Athens for a man that didn't exist?). But Socrates himself was apposed writing things down. He didn't like how it fixed ideas and thought it effected people's ability to remember things well (this is in a time where students of philosophy and even actors were expected to have entire dialogues committed to memory and be able to recite them). We know of Plato that his given name was Aristocles. Plato was a chosen name first used in his youth as wrestler (meaning roughly something like 'the brute' or 'the broad'). He kept the name Plato as his Philosopher's name. So we know Plato in his youth at least was something of an athlete. We also know that ascribing physical prowess to a person was a good way to boost their notoriety. Most of what we know of Socrates (a controversial figure in his own time) survives through the works of Plato. It's highly possible. Especially with centuries of transliteration that Socrates was not exactly the person we see him as. Even in his public persona. That he was made more popular by those that did appreciate him posthumously with a little fluff.
@@The1Helleri It was supposedly Alcibiades who spoke of his valor and calmness in the face of catastrophe at the Battle of Delium. In addition to Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, Diogenes Laertius, and Epictetus referenced his career as a soldier. The perception of Socrates was that his sympathies lied with an aristocratic rather than egalitarian outlook (this must have been bolstered by his association with Alcibiades). This was probably one of the real factors in his execution as it came on the heels of the expulsion of the Spartan imposed 30 tyrants.
@@brendanobrien6943 Supposedly would be the key word in reference to Alcibiades. Aristophanes wrote a caricature of Socrate's for his play, who was a very different character from the one Plato wrote of. Diogenes wasn't even alive yet in Socrate's youth. And Epictetus wasn't a contemporary of any of them being born almost 300 years later. Really only Xenophon and Plato were so close to the source in age and even they were roughly 20 years younger (born when he'd have been already retired from battle). What we mainly know of Socrates (as a matter of earliest attestation, everything after being parroting) comes from Plato and Xenophon, his students. And most of the things written about him by contemporaries that wrote about him are contradictory. They each had a different picture of who the man was in their mind and each used him as a device for their own writings. It's probably the major downside to his opinion that writing things down wasn't a great idea. Because there is nothing by his own hand to tell us who he was with his own words.
@@The1Helleri Yes, Aristophanes was definitely derogatory but the point is he attested to Socrates as a soldier and therefore corroborated this fact which he would have had not reason to do given his attitudes towards him.
I can settle this debate between idealism and materialism right now. What is the probability of getting heads when you flip a coin? 50/50 right? but how do we know that? If we flip a coin 100 times, the physical evidence doesn't always suggest that the probability is 50/50. Sometimes you flip a coin 100 times and get 47 heads and 53 tails or 60 heads and 40 tails. Are these physical expressions of the abstract probability more true than the abstraction that is 50/50? We understand that even though the experiment comes out sometimes as something different than 50/50 we understand that the real truth is 50/50 even if it is imperfectly expressed by the physical flipping of the coin. Even though the 50/50 probability is an abstract thing we consider it more true than any physical expression of the truth played out in an experiment. abstract rational ideals> material evidence.
@@jonlittle7059 I think that its more that without rationality, material evidence does not exist as evidence for anything. That is to say that you need a rational framework in order to organize the evidence. Hence the probability curve in the example I gave. Without rationality, there is no correlation or causation. Establishing such things requires rational claims. So material evidence is the pieces of the puzzle and rationality is how you put the pieces together. The material expression of evidence is itself a reflection of the rational truth that is used to make sense of it. Like how flipping a coin is an expression of its true probability.
Nietschze was so right. Plato’s “rationalism” has infected thought processes ever since. A great book which traces the conflicting influences of rationalism and empiricism is, “The Cave and the Light: Plato versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization,” by Arthur Herman.
I believe west is screwed because of "I think, therefore I am" Because no one thinks, you can only observe the thought. Only Taoists got it right as they say "You are not doing anything but you are being done". its very simple life is just a happening nothing serious about it as nothing implies something and one is not an option without the other. One can only be sure of her/his experience the rest is true and false at the same time. WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING.
@@bitkurd The statement “We don’t know anything” is proposing that you know at least that. It’s a self defeating statement. Empiricism itself is a philosophical position that cannot verify itself with empiricism alone. It is extremely difficult, If not impossible, to take any philosophical position without at least SOME bit of it that reaches beyond pure empiricism.
Plato is not a rationalist. He is in fact opposed to rationalism through and through. The difference between him and Nietzsche is that while Plato rose ABOVE reason Nietzsche went below and people of his irk destroyed thought itself in the process (rationalism, for all of its problems, is still preferable to the nonesense of Nietzsche). For the record, i need to qualify something here: the reason people think Plato was a rationalist is that they are only taking his dialogues in the literal sense. Because Plato's metaphysics is invisibile and mostly left unspoken (or pointed to by referencing myths and the like), those who cannot percieve what is being said behind the surface only see what's directly in front of their eyes, which the rationalistic rethorical device or language he used mainly because his contemporaries had succumbed to rationalism and he felt he had to meet them half-way in order to make himself understood. The truth of the matter is that Plato was a "sage", not a "philosopher" as understood today. He belonged to schools of initiation pertaining to the Orphic and Pythagorean traditions, and what was only hinted at in his dialogues was rendered explicit by the Neo-Platonists, for whom the risk of throwing pearls at "swine" was less of a concern than the direct loss of the knowledge they possessed, which was being faced with exctinction at that time.
@@alexw2689 Thanks for your wonderful reply, but in my humble opinion Seeking knowledge is like a fetus not believing she is in her mother's womb unless she sees her mothers face. I am pretty sure I don't know anything but I can give it a beautiful translation. The problem with authorities is the killing of God, God is your highest and the best potential of your true self in the quantum field and the invisible mind of the infinite so when Authorities kill God, The government becomes your best and highest probability. Everyone enters life for free, They should be able to choose freely and live free. The rest is sheer translation. Like the Taoists say "The Tao does nothing and leaves nothing undone" Let the Tao handle the nature and the physical and let the invisible infinite take you through some serious magic. ✌☮
@@unknowninfinium4353 According to Gmirkin on Mythvision recently, Plato articulated the use of religion to legitimize artificially constructed legal codes. The Republic is basically a handbook for theocrats. But don’t take anything I type seriously, I’m just an amateur on these subjects, a digital poop flinging ape on the interwebs.
I clicked on the video, put the phone down and started listening while I closed my eyes on my pillow. After a few minutes, for some reason Vercingetorix popped into my head and I thought about his last ride around Caesar as he was surrendering. I open my eyes, pick up the phone around 4:30 and the next image is exactly what I was thinking about. Crazy!
When you say "you could even accuse him of real bias" you are affirming the Platonic structure: there can be no bias because there is no external authority, no "objective, final truth" (that can be touched) the strong are strong because they live in a world where their actions matter. The world is what you build with your vigor, your senses build the world. There is no division between self and the world. The core of the argument is recognizing the nature of authority. Authority is YOURS, if you say "I am not the judge, HE is the judge" you are in fact the judge.
@@Nothing_to_see_here_27. using the word "bias" suggests there could be an absence of "bias" NIetzsche is endlessly precise in his reasoning, he does point to the idea he is struggling against grammar. Integrating the idea of "Plato is a wrong and a bitch" entails observing that sort of patterns within oneself, which is why I point to the use of the word "bias"; it alludes to the ideal "real" world beyond our senses, which is the world of Plato.
Plato started his career off as a playwright before he met Socrates and decided to become a philosopher. That being said the Dialogues of Plato were likely scripts for his students to act out in class and at critical points I image the students would dispute at exactly the places where the interlocutor simply agrees with Socrates. Proof of this is the dialogue "Parmenides". In this dialogue Plato has the philosopher Parmenides completely dismantle Plato's theories. Thus Plato was writing not to prove something but rather to script out a conversation that could be played out in the rooms of the Academy. I am quite shocked that Nietzsche would not be able to see this.....and yet Nietzsche was the youngest person ever to hold the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel.......crazy......... As for the literary devices in his dialogues........often these descriptions were figurative.......literary devises such as having the dialogue told by someone who heard it from another who heard it from someone else is a metaphor for the ascension through the emanations of the forms. This is a metaphor for going from the level of particulars in everyday life and ascending up through the unique perfected forms of mathematic forms until the third level being the divine nous or mind. Only dialogues that explicitly discuss the forms do this literary technique and is reminiscent of the 1001 Arabian nights.
Huh? I'm sorry but your first paragraph is entirely fictitious. He did not start off his career as playwright, but as an adviser to the political class, as well as wrestling in his youth. Why do you invent stories? I would recommend the book "Thinking Being".
@@withnail-and-i Ever Read Diogenes Laertius? "Afterwards, when he was about to compete for the prize with a tragedy, he listened to Socrates in front of the theatre of Dionysius, and then consigned his poems to the flames, with the words "Come hither, O fire‑god, Plato now has need of thee."" -Diogenes Laërtius Book 3:5
@@JawkneePruitt There's a reason why his description didn't stick through modern literature compared to Plato's political background Not all of his source were top notch, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. But fair enough, I haven't read his life of Plato, not enough time to go through historiographies, so thanks for the heads up. And yeah, the Parmenides does not destroy the theory of the Forms, I'll reiterate in my recommendation of Thinking Being by Eric Perl... Such a misunderstood theory.
@@withnail-and-i I'll definitely check out this book. However I used the word "Dismantle" and thus I wasn't indicating that Plato "Disproves" his theory of the forms but just that he was trying to "take it apart" and show that the forms are more complicated that indicated in most of the dialogues. I also used the Parmenides to show that Plato did not always have interlocutors that "Kowtow" and just mindlessly go along with what Socrates says......in fact in some dialogues the discussion ends with Socrates learning nothing new and walking away just as confused if not more so. And so for Nietzsche to say that Plato was shallow in his arguments for the forms does not seem fair in light of the Parmenides.....and is rather surprising in light of the fact that he was apparently so well read in the classics......very strange......in your readings of Plato do you feel that Nietzsche's criticism is legitimate? I mean to me it seems that at the very least Plato is being quite honest about his theories and is not afraid to expose them to scrutiny.
I think it's possible to at least empathize with Nietzsche in his life story and sufferings in a rapidly disenchanting 19th-century Europe. Maybe he pointed out something the vast majority of people at his time were fine living with but dared not admit: their religious piety and traditional values are becoming less and less relevant to practical social life. People were rapidly becoming alienated with the platonic ideals and had been becoming more materialistic and pragmatic. In this sense, I wouldn't say Nietzsche was a "source of destruction for the Western establishment", but rather the symptom of the crumbling of said establishment. However Nietzsche's arguments against Platonism is essentially cyclical, since he started with the presupposition of rejection of the metaphysical and ontological. As a result, his interpretation of history and the history of philosophy is quite narrow, as he reduced everyone and their philosophy to merely power dynamics in a pyramid of secular powers. Another irony is his notion of Übermensch. Fans of Nietzsche might defend this concept all they can, but isn't Übermensch itself a platonic category? Especially considering how Nietzsche lost his mind before he could become the Übermensch he claimed to be, this concept only becomes more "otherworldly".
Not sure if you can say Nietzsche rejects the metaphysical and ontological altogether, maybe it would be better to say he wanted to reconnect those with the ultimate material reality. He pointed out how ideals and morality are misused by bad priests to gain authority and status, how this allows them to call their own scholarly mediocrity and ignorance superior and how the beaten down masses submit because they gain the delusion of gifted salvation. I think this is the idea of him that haunts many and has singlehandedly had great blasting power given the intellectual history of Europe since Plato: priests, monks and university personnel being detached from whats around them and operating within their own theoretical sphere. I'm more of a history guy than a philosopher and in a presocratic Europe, from all that we know, this detachment between priestly caste, warrior caste and the caste of the common man wasn't present so much, despite these castes being defined. The priestly caste would intervene before battles, make sacrifices and contact to the immortal gods and the deceased ancestors of old. They would make prophecies and predictions, would remind the people of fulfilling duties and living according to age old tradition, honour and the understanding of nature and natural phenomena, including the night sky and stars. So the priestly caste used to be very much in touch with the rest of society and recruit itself from the aristocracy. One could of course argue that this hasn't changed much since we still have a quasi priestly caste in our TVs up to this day that gets the masses to do the weirdest and most senseless stuff but I think Nietzsche saw the religious authorities of back then, the church in the same negative light, that I see the media in and he wished to see a more holistic, decisive and vital organization of society. In this point I am quite sympathetic to him and this might be where he draws positive sentiments and lasting relevance from. Also I guess a Nietzschean would argue that the Übermensch is a consequence of the very real and inherent laws of material reality, power, etc, and thus there is little spiritual or platonic about him, he is to be very real.
I vehemently agree with the assessment. I don't always agree with Nietzsche but when he's right he's right. When one argues with one's self they tend to be the victor.
The comment section is already cramped. Still, it is my obligation to at least try to communicate this; If you study Thucydides, it will become apparent to you that all of Nietzsche's efforts aimed at explaining to the rest of humanity that Thucydides is actually the greatest thinker of all time. I strongly urge you all to start reading his work, word for word, keeping in mind Nietzsche's remark, that he is as dense in uttered as in unuttered meanings. Goog luck everyone
>"all of Nietzsche's efforts aimed at explaining to the rest of humanity that Thucydides is actually the greatest thinker of all time." I really hope you meant this as some kind of hyperbolic exaggeration. While Nietzsche does have a lot of praise for T, the sentence taken literally is not true at all. I read Thucydides after Nietzsche's praise of him. I would urge everyone to make up their own minds about Thucydides instead of just going off praise. I didn't find him all that profound but I might at a later date. I will still recommend what I read: 1) "On Justice, Power, and Human Nature: Selections from The History of the Peloponnesian War" by Paul Woodruff 2) "The Landmark Thucydides" is really good for beginners interested in Thucydides main work: The History of the Peloponnesian War
@@anantsharma7955 Good morning, my friend (it's 6 am where I live). I do not argue over opinions. Thank you for your response, have a great day and may you have health and incentive to keep your search going.
I truly appreciate your content. This video was recommended to me with remarkable timing as I am currently studying Plato, Aristotle, and Presocratic philosophy. I made a video on Nietzsche's, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," and your video makes me even more eager to read his works again. Thank you!
Two offered conjectures: 1) Plato or his unknown mentor had contact with the mystical teachings of India, China, or Japan (etc.); 2) Plato felt the arrival of the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Jaynes) and fought like hell to valorize and institutionalize the Right Brain as master.
Plato was one of the first blokes to elaborate philosophy via a phonetic alphabet. We have become so obsessed with ideas and words and this is what Nietzsche hated. We have lost touch with true vitality and connection to nature, he was noticing.
Do you agree with Nietzsche's critiques of Plato?
If you enjoyed this video please like and leave a comment for the algorithm. It's much appreciated.
There might be some valid points to his criticism regarding religion (idealism) as an escape mechanism, some folks are obsessing over paradise after death, instead of focusing on the present moment. right here , right now (the only thing that is real).
I guess both men are just looking at things differently. Nietzsche was more concerned about how philosophy has become too entranced about the “ideal” that it forgot what “really” matters. What he's probably trying to do was pull the philosophers back to the ground?
I do not. I prefer Plato. Plato,Plotinus, Hegel and Schopenhauer are my favorite philosophers. Not Nietzsche .
I do but I disagree with his criticism on Schopenhauer.
@@rodrigomachado5291 interesting that both Schopenhauer and Hegel are your favorite philosophers since, in both style and content, they are polar opposites
Bro, I read the title as "Why Nietzsche hated Potato" then proceeded to read the thumbnail as "Potato is a coward". WTF is wrong with me
You are a paranoid schizophrenic
One can question the integrity of Potato at the same time criticizing Plato
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
fuck potatos man. Crazy tasty but make you fat, real faustian bargain
That's only cause Potato is the true form of "Plato"
Regarding Nietzsche, it is imperative to recall that he had a frail constitution. Now, in addition, his natural instinct was to find something like a teacher, idol, or state of existence and then to *fight* it. Thus he first embraced Schopenhauer and Wagner, then did (intellectual) battle with them. I can't recall if N. went through a period of devotion to Plato, but it wouldn't surprise me. His bitterest words were usually used against former heroes. N. himself advised people to pick their enemies wisely; in opposing them you will inevitably position yourself. Nietzsche embraced life and optimism all the more for being ill and weak; this is where the loathing for spiritual "other worlds" was born. Also see "eternal recurrence".
Very good comment, thank you
Nietzsche wasn't frail by any means. The doctor that attended him after his most likely stroke, wrote in his notes that he had a very muscular build due to frequent hiking. Nietzsche was in near constant pain though, which he fought to control. Calling Plato "boring" was probably the least critical thing he had to say. N takes the gloves off in Will to Power, and calls Plato the depature from the sophists and everything Hellenic.
@@briancarney2231 Nietzsche suffered from ill health through most of his life. Terrible headaches from youth, possible syphilis, possible neurological problems. By "frail", I did not mean to say that he was a weakling physically; in fact you could argue that he was "strong" in vigorously fighting his health problems. By "frail" I meant he was not blessed with robust health. I meant the state of his health was probably always in the forefront of his thoughts. I would regard anyone whose health is a major preoccupation as "frail" in that sense. Hence N's idealization (and reification) of health.
By FRAIL I took you to mean that Nietzsche's tendency to worship gurus and later to attempt to demolish them intellectually was evidence of a frail psychological disposition. I was quite impressed by that observation and wondered if I might not see evidence of it in myself. But is it not something that we all might recognise in ourselves to at least some extent? However is it possibly more mature and healthy to finally learn gratitude toward our mentors and acknowledge that they helped us to grow and broaden our thinking horizons. If this is the case, and Nietzsche never found this nuanced gratitude, then we should probably be grateful because there is great insight and provocative energy in his devastating critiques. Having said that he still scares the shit out of me and I sup with a long spoon.
@@andrewroddy3278 Interesting observations.
''“My philosophy is an inverted Platonism: the farther removed from true being, the purer, the finer, the better it is''' said Nietzsche. Plato was a man leading his way to heaven, while Nietzsche was heading deep into the earth. Yet the beloved Nietzsche should remember the words of the philosopher he so admired, Heraclitus: "The way up and the way down is one and the same". Nietzsche had grasped that when he said ''“Socrates, to confess it frankly, is so close to me that almost always I fight a fight against him.” Nietzsche (fragment, 1875) IMO the title should change to ''why Nietzsche LOVED AND HATED Plato''
If we view the way “up” and “down” as being cyclical in nature (as I’m sure Nietzche did) then yes this is true. But there is also another saying. The way down is easy, the way up is steep and beset with many thorns. They are the same path, but one takes a lot more will and effort because it goes against millions of years of evolution, and that evolutionary impulse is complete and utter self-preservation. But without that selfishness in the first place (which has been developed unconsciously) we would have nothing to balance our virtues and selflessness with.
@@Mcgif21 Nietzsche did not consider selfishness as actually being a ''vice'' but rather a virtue!! He considered that our instincts and intuition(what the ancients and Socrates among them called ''daemon'') which according to Nietzsche are biologically given, are what truly define who we are. Except that according to Nietzsche, ''noble spirits'' and what provoked evolutionary impulse is not the instinct of ''self-preservation'' but the ''will to power''.
@@jimakisspd The "Will to Power" is a shadow virtue that MUST be developed, but in the end, if that will is directed toward mostly selfish aims it becomes a vice, and the worst amongst them. It is better to look at life through the eyes of Carl Jung (if we must take a more contemporary philosopher of the mind) who saw that the purpose of life was to INDIVIDUATE ourselves which is a two-fold task. One requires us to push against the outside world with our OWN strength, our OWN will. The other is allowing ourselves to become A PART of the system at large (the Kosmos). Within this balancing point, on one end lying the development of our OWN strength, our OWN will, our OWN wisdom AND the attunement with that SELF of SELF, which is the TRUEST SELF, the ONE SELF, which is LOVE and SELFLESSNESS. At the fulcrum of these two seemingly competing forces lies our own INDIVIDUALITY where strength nor sacrifice is denied and are in fact our eternal duty.
@@Mcgif21 up and down being viewed as the same doesnt imply a cyclical nature, it implies a polar nature. it’s metaphorical for a reference to distance traveled across a plane of thinking. direction in this visual representation/ metaphor refers to individuals ideas, conclusions and understandings. i personally feel like you’re basing your argument off an incorrect foundation of understandings in these universal concepts.
@@jfk3548 It absolutely implies a cyclical nature. North becomes South if you travel far enough precisely because the earth is a globe (a three dimensional circle, a cycle). Everything in nature more or less follows this patter. Poles are just two diametrically opposed points on the circumference of a sphere or a circle. If "up" and "down" truly are the same (as you say) then the POLE these opposite developments take place on must be cyclical, to claim that going one direction upon a line, or indefinite plane, brings us the other direction is nonsense.
Despite being a big Nietzsche fan, I am conflicted on this topic. I think there needs to be balance. Perhaps some branches of Christianity had their head in the clouds as Nietzsche points out, but as a result people reacted with a visceral materialism which is completely void of life. I know Nietzsche opposed this as well. Hence: God is dead. This is the world we have now. Everyone is viewed as a bunch of dehumanized interchangeable cogs without souls. It is this very harsh materialism that is the reason we now have an epidemic of maladaptive daydreamers. The world is simply too cold for even the bravest soul to take at complete face value. People just want to escape. However I actually think the daydreamers are healthier than the "normal" person in this modern world. The normal person has the worst of both worlds. They believe in social realism; something that is not reality, nor idealism. What they believe is not true, but nor is it invigorating and inspiring. I would rather be a full blown nihilist or a delusional Don Quixote, than be someone with a profound lack of imagination yet is still lying to themselves. This artificial realism is truly the cancer of our age.
Thank you for this comment :-) "Everyone is viewed as a bunch of dehumanized interchangeable cogs without souls." I would add "everything". Hence: "Everyone and everything is viewed as a bunch or cluster of dehumanized interchangeable cogs without soul/s."
I decided this world is too cold for me, and has escaped through photography. Here I still can find fragments of beauty/soul.
Did you see Sam Vaknin's recent talk "Here's Why We're All Doomed (Excerpt)" on TH-cam? I think we here are explained the true outcome of Nietzsche's ideas, all these "super-humans" just ended up as "super-narcissists".
Do you read James Kalb at "The Catholic World Report"? I'm a protestant, but still love Kalb's analysis of status quo.
The world is what they should be, humanity has no control of their own destiny, because history was determined from the start that we would infinitely learn and progress until our inevitable end.
Wow become my mentor😅
You worded it well.
very well put!
I do believe there is huge value in Platonic ideas, but I understand we became too obsessed with forms and abstractions and forgot the material world.
Plato wrote it all, as Whitehead said, so there are so many meanings to get at (although I'm not an adept of Leo Strauss, I think his interpretation of Plato's project is the key to much of the man behind the dialogues, as attested in Letter fragments).
That being said, I much prefer the "elevating" criticism of Peter Kingsley's 'In the Dark Places of Wisdom', which focuses on Plato's parricide of Parmenides, and the true lessons of his poem.
In a way both are right
Nonetheless, I see no reason to care that much about the material world. Why? Simply because every attempt of perfecting this is world is vain. The world is by its own nature imperfect. Taking into account all this mess and suffering that dominates this material existence, I' m in favor of Plato' s views. Besides, why care about something that is temporary. As the material realm had a beginning so it will have an end. I don't assert that we should undermine with contempt the preservation of the world or even its improvement, but we should keep in mind that this is not the real reality we are designed for and that the spirit-mind is our true nature that we are made to perfect and exalt. How could I agree with Nietzche about his materialistic worldview? If there is no higher form of existence then everything is vain and we would have to become materialists, caring only about the satisfaction of the flesh and nothing more. Yeah this is indeed a terrifying and misleading worldview...
@@user-tt4wv4ti3j I agree. Also the only real way to understand the material world is to adopt some kind of abstraction anyway... being language itself the first abstraction we created, and them math and scientific models. maybe Nietzche too created the abstraction of the Superman, but I do not know a lot about that to speak about.
That is what satanism is. The reverence of nature and life, through death.
How has Nietsche not be doing the same, fleeing into his ideal world of the Übermensch?
Because he's a hack
I think there's a place in this world for both philosophers. As far, as Plato being a coward, the man participated in wars (The Peloponnesian War as footman) as well as being a political figure for the time, and mentor for young men. He even studied mathematics under Pythagoras in one of his journeys to Italy and was able to bring back this knowledge to his Academy to be further studied.
Nietzsche was, in my opinion too quick to judge him.
True, Plato was a noted wrestler too.
I agree. But I think Nietzsche has a different criteria for cowardice than most do, when he's speaking philosophically at least. You are a coward to Nietzsche if you deny life, which is what he thought Plato and Socrates did.
@@Tehz1359 As per @waning egg 's commentary as well as yours, it seems Plato's philosophical ideals pertained to the utopian realms whereas Nietzsche was always more practical.
I need to brush up on Plato and his works a bit though. 😅
Pythagoras was dead way before Plato was born 🤦🏻♂️
Nietzsche is the type of person who likes to argue and then says arguing is for the weak
Because he's like them
😂
The redditor philosopher
LOL yeah
And he will argue that point. very convincingly.
This is very interesting. I now want to watch all of your presentations on Nietzsche. Thank you!
I believe the most important part of Plato’s dialogue, is reading them out loud, or listening to people acting it out. By doing this, we learn to talk about very important topics with other people.
This is the part of Plato I immediately picked up on in college, and I agree.
Excellent point. No matter the stance one might take on the subject,we have all, undoubtedly, taken something from both sides.
Reading Plato inculcated in me a certain capacity for division. As I would subsequently engage in discourse with others, I noticed a novel and interesting operation now happening within my own mind: as I was hearing their statements my mind was immediately dividing each one into two, opposing interpretations. Then I would present both interpretations as though I were uncertain about the speaker's intent. This method annoyed most partners in conversation, tiring them out quickly while affording me plausible deniability in case frustrating them had secretly been my aim. On that note, I would learn years later that Machiavelli had said of Socrates that he had this wonderful way of shutting down conversation.
@@pertjacanape in plain words (which I prefer by Schopenhauer), you act dumb to annoy your partner, pushing him to chew his words and spell it all out so much that there was nothing left. Reason kills instinct and bores.
I have imaginary conversations with people in my head, about relevant topics...I have come to realize this is a method for my higher mind to teach my ego mind...seems like Plato was doing something similar
great video! two of my favorite philosophers talked about in one video.
(other than Schopenhauer, who has a special place in my heart)
"The rejection of Plato is the beginning of wisdom." - Some guy I talked to online
Some would prefer, the rejection of Aristotle is the beginning of wisdom.
@@sloaiza81 That.... makes no sense. Then again it isn't meant to, as rejecting Aristotle is tantamount to rejecting "sense" in every sense of the word. Aristotle laid the foundation for logic, science and ethics among other things. Plato laid the foundation for totalitarian rule, religious zealotry and, worst of all, german idealism. The only good thing Plato ever produced was his star pupil, and that's only because said pupil rejected his ideas.
One might wish to reject the law of identity for example, but one's rejection would only reaffirm it. Aristotle is the sun to our planets and only with enormous efforts could one completely leave his orbit. But, the only thing waiting for the one who does that is an endless void, as dark as it is cold.
Seriously, fuck Plato.
@@sloaiza81 Any opposition between Plato and Aristotle is only apparent. Aristotle differs from Plato only in terms of the perspective he chose to focus on. Their metaphysics is identical.
@@xuniepyro7399 Your reasoning is ahistoric and arbitrary. I does not matter where the "phrase" (it's not a phrase) originated from. And when we make judgements about philosophical ideas we have to take in the as much of the relevant context as possible, not just hone in some specific detail (like it's support of slavery). I don't want to discuss this further, so don't bother responding if further discussion is what you're after.
What are you all talking about here...Plato and Aristotle were doing philosophy 1500 years before Niezsche... Plato and Aristotle expect for being philosophers they were also mathematicians physicians they were studying astronomy... And all this 2000 years ago.. These to Hellenes where really close to wisdom... So this comment is fuckin ridiculous...
Nietzsche: *formulates argument against platos philosophy of forms*
Inspirational Quote wegbsites: "Plato is a coward"
I must comment--and perhaps this is merely a matter of taste: Even though you were just glossing over big names in German Idealism, I think failing to mention Hegel is leaving a huge blank spot. Hegel is certainly the person who first comes to my mind when bringing up German Idealism, especially in the light of Plato's influence. And Nietzsche mentions Hegel often enough to warrant a shoutout. (Though I am sure Schopenhauer would have approved of your choice not to mention Hegel... 😉)
Very true.
Watching those people drive through that roundabout backwards was momentarily terrifying
You could say that Nietzsche hated the Hinterwelt in itself.
The amazing part is that Nietzsche's "Hinterwelt" is itself metaphysical and so it renders Nietzsche a living contradiction by denying metaphysical realities.
No he just didn’t think you were magic lol. Consciousness isn’t magic. Neetch would be happy to know that modern science shows consciousness as a purely physical phenomenon.
Nietzsche doesnt hate the Hinterwelt. He knows its not real so he only hates the fact that people still believe in a hinterwelt, even though there is absolutely no evidence for it.
@GhGh-gq8oo what are you trying to say by magic?
A helpful video and I thank you for that. Nietzsche is not only the author of the wonderfully written "Also Sprach Zaratustra". It is not only a philosopher full of contradictions (and why not?). I think he was incredibly courageous in exploring new paths of thought in an "open work", and he was aware that this is the task of a real philosopher. Nietzsche is more relevant than is academically recognized.
Weltgeist, this is very well put, and sharply presented. Appreciative.
Fontanelle is an unfair comparison since he enjoyed the benefits of the empirical tradition whereas plato was largely restricted to pure reason. More charitable to see plato as an origin of the western knowledge tradition rather than as the origin of decadence unless you choose to conflate knowledge with decadence.
yeah but people in the 19th century had access to both and that was the point of his comparison
I would be interested in hearing more about Nietzsche‘s critique of Schopenhauer.
He never critiqued Schopenhauer. He agreed with most of his ideas except the prescriptive part of Schopenhauer's philosophy.
Interesting observation .. I am inclined to agree....
But for one doubt: which part of Schopenhauer was purely 'prescriptive'? Do correct me if I am wrong... but his prescriptions, if at all, seemed to me to follow his metaphysics as corollaries, rather than prescriptions of the deontological /categorical imperative variety? Is it not?🙏
Will to power > will to life
Nietzsche vehemently against the Schopenhauer's nihilistic Christianity tendency.
He makes some interesting and valid points. Something I never thought much of and have to agree with Fred with is in Plato's style. When you control both sides of the same dialogue to make yourself seem the intellectual superior in the end, it's a bit of a psychological manipulation to the listener who loses themselves in the story and separates Plato from the "other". There are times I feel like the pessimistic realism of Fred and agree with him on the reality of things, but there are benefits of letting those preconceived notions go for awhile to explore better ideas. Not in the Christian sense of "believing" things will be better after death, but recognizing what is closer to the "ideal" and strive for a better world in this life.
Nietzche has obviously never done DMT
Yeah bro then he would know the truth bro
I am not familiar with Nietzsche's critique of Plato, but from what little I know about Nietzsche, and from what you have mentioned, I don't think Nietzsche necessarily even criticized Plato's views themselves. Whether or not Plato was right was essentially beside the point - rather what effect Plato's thoughts and authority had on us, the Western civilization, was important for Nietzsche.
From what you explained, that was the point of his critique. So he wasn't arguing with Plato, rather critiquing his effect on us.
From that point of view, I do believe his critique deserves great attention and reflexion. Great Philosophers and Scientists have a tremendous effect on us via our culture, however, the effect often consists in an unconsciously dumbed down understanding and acting out of their ideas. Nietzsche's general caveat, that our thoughts should have genuine substance and not be empty images of idols is very worth listening to.
I don't think Plato necessarily wanted to be a great philosopher. He wanted to be cogent and inquisitive. We should treat him and any other great mind accordingly - not as an idol, but as someone, who wanted to understand something and present his ideas.
I think Plato was an egotist, who wanted to be remembered as an influential figure in his world of forms. I know little of Neitzche but the more I hear the more he intrigues me.
His arguments are all projected ad hominems. Without Plato there'd be no Western civilization. For Nietzsche's argument to work he'd have to point to some other civilization that fared better without the influence of Platonism. Confucian civilization? I very much doubt they live up to Nietzsche's ideals either. The mind of a teenage boy.
@@zootsoot2006 Western civilisation? Don't make me laugh. There is nothing civilised about the West.
@@happinesstan Get off the internet then and take off all your clothes.
@@happinesstan Get off the internet then and take off all your clothes.
nietzsche's "slave morality" or "coward seeks refuge in the ideals" also gives strength for those that use the " Hinterwelt" as motivation to persevere and even rise above and thus reach new heights/goals/creations/innovations in this world. . it's not just a means of escape, it's also a fuel for greatness.
right, like the grand accomplishments of Karl Marx.
@@funnyhandle it takes a heavy degree of nihilism to come up a system so concerned with material wealth. You should have mentioned the big H instead.
@@funnyhandle exactly why we should stop getting our ideas to run the world from deranged, privileged people who do not understand the balance of survival, living, and system management of any importance.
Eh?
Did Marx not have a good critique? Lol. And not even a marxist.
It is brave to have an ideal different from the world around you. An ideal presents a challenge to change the world into an ideal world. To fight evil for the sake of the good.
To simply describe the world as it is like Fontanelle motivates no change of the world into something better. To fight for your own power and pleasure as Nietzsche's "will to power" prescribes is a challenge not as difficult as the task of fighting for the good.
Now, we might have different views on what is "good". I suppose Hitler fought for what he believed was good, even if he appropriated Nietzsche's philosophy for his cause. That is why the good must be in constant question and discussion. Or maybe rather, it is important to be in as close connection to the intuition of what is good as what is possible. Ironically, to forget about the abstractions that Plato, maybe unwittingly was accompliced to creating the obsession with. I believe that the good can never be a rigid prescript but must be a fluid living intuition.
Ok, before getting any further into the video, I do wanna say something about Plato as well. In the Phaedo, Socrates talks about death saying that the philosopher shouldn't fear death because the practice of philosophy is a kind of death. Adding that, in any case, life is a sickness for he who is concerned for the good of his soul. And, I think that the problem with this kind of thing is that Socrates is trying to make us feel disgusted by life in order for us not to fear death.
@UCikwgvmS88bba5frKO5IfSg The Republic is a very interesting attempt, I think, of reaching this world that you talked about, which Plato calls the world of Forms. We could say that Plato tried to embody Justice through his utopia, which would go against the theory of Forms, at least if we suppose that the utopia was meant to happen in the real world. It's still a fact that a lot of people think that Plato's utopia isn't just at all.
This indeed sheds light on Nietzsche's disdain for Plato's philosophical works.
I don't believe in souls, but if you don't think that life *is* disgusting, I'd say you are stupid or a hypocrite. Everything that Schopenhauer says about life is - unfortunately - completely true.
@@francisdec1615 Disgusting in what sense?
@@francisdec1615 Life is not disgusting, I do not submit to a death cult. The opposite of death is not life, it is birth. Can you not see this?
I am currently reading Iamblicus who was a Neoplatonist around the time of Plotinus. I find all three, the Platonic, the Christian and the Nietschian do you have valid contributions to an understanding of the truth. Plato helps a sense that there is something perfect and Nietzsche helps us sense that there is something humanity can do that is above, that is super human. Both are correct however where one finds that perfection comes from within and fuels the imaginal vision of what can be. Therefore to become superhuman is to engage the greatest possibility of what the human can realize. So all three: Nietzschian and the Platonistic and the Christian, once understood in this light, are feeding the same vision.
Right now I am reading “Life of Pythagoras” by Iamblichus translated by Thomas Taylor. Strange coincidence 😂. I checked this clip because I have great respect towards Nietzsche but at the same time I like Iamblichus and he said good things about Plato, but Nietzsche bad. So thus I am somehow confused.
I think there is value from both perspectives. One feels more literal where the other feels more metaphysical
Exactly!
Plato taught the people of his time to think critically regarding the drama of the gods and greek culture/politics. Similarly Nietzche taught critical thinking regarding God and other social norms. In part, the difference seems to be a radical materialism vs. transcendence. Thanks for creating and posting this video. It's fun to revisit the figures I studied in college. Further, critical thinking is so important to hold up in culture.
I used to read Nietzsche in my late teens, I have made it my task to re-read all his works now almost 12 years later, this video was very exciting, I'm currently reading die fröhliche Wissenschaft (my German has gotten a lot better through the years so now I read it in German) I'll be checking out your other vidoes as well. Thank you.
Enjoy!
Decadence is a frequently encountered idea in Nietzsche's work, could you make a video about this theme?
Brilliantly done 👌🏻
wow. great video and channel.
Hi Weltgeist, I am a big fan of your work. I think I watch all of your videos. Hope you cover Thus Spoke Zarathustra also. Thank you.
Yes, we got big plans for that one
@@WeltgeistYT Waiting for that masterpiece.
Nietzsche had another valid beef against Plato. Nietzsche was a philologist, approximately a philosophical version of a linguist. Platonic ideals produce a completely wrong view of linguistics, epistemology, semiotics, and cognition, most obviously exemplified by Chomsky. Nietzsche, as Peirce before him, knew better. Fontenelle was also an early critic.
Nietzsche touches upon this frequently but only comprehensively addresses better ideas in "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense." This essay was published posthumously. I have not yet found a complete translation, but while in political prison, I pieced together excerpts from Manley-Zorn, Kaufmann, and Ryan & Rivkin. It's clear he anticipated pretty much of modern Cognitive Science by a century.
I love Nietzsche for saying, "When one has not had a good father, one must create one.
" However, is that the same Abstract Perfectionism of Plato? Because...eh...nah.
Plato, at least since writing the Parmenides, thought the ideas were immanent and concrete. His principle of matter, the unlimited, being defined and bound with the principle of idea or form, the limited. See Plato's Philebus.
Plato was trying to tell us we live in a simulation 2,000+ years ago. Nietzsche wanted us to level up and finish this game.
Perfect way of putting it.
Nietzsche was too stupid to try to sound intelligent by judging the writings of someone like Plato, who lived 2000 years before...Like many of his copatriots, they have been copying and studying and reselling the writings of ancient greeks for a few centuries only to reach the same level of adequacy with them...
based
@@alexandergr7995 thank you someone gets it
Go back to Reddit, cringelord
while one can hide behind this idea, it is absolutely sound theory that a world beyond our own exists and that it holds the true aspect of which we perceive within this realm.
Is this something to do with Chakras, Yoga fire, Law of Attraction?
@@unknowninfinium4353 not entirely sure because those are all distortions of the truth, but I would say that they are all pieces to a puzzle. I cringe at the "law of attraction" because there is more to it than just that. You not only attract what you desire, but you also make contracts with those things and as long as they serve some purpose to you, they stay and become your personality. That is why I am so thankful for the works of Carl Jung, because he had the courage to go within and do the work which must be done in order to understand yourself. I whole heartedly believe that all religions have glimmers of truth within them, it just gets lost within the details...as the quote goes, the devil's in the details.
Slave philosophy, stop hiding from reality.
@@kukukachu I get what you are saying. I even grasp at where you are going but somehow it eludes me.
I am against the whole law of attraction stuff. It gets so complex and more deeper you go it only gets ethereal but enough on that.
I agree with the what you said with Carl Jung and also I do believe there should be a spiritual side to be nourished within.
Hope your staying safe dude.
@@alekisighl7599 can you elaborate?
I think, like most people in the comments have stated, you need a good contrast of both metaphysical analysis and a more conceptual material understanding. For me, I consider economics and the disciplines in social sciences to be a combination of this; with the former being of super importance. Economics is a made-up concept for the most part that allows for metaphyiscal meaning to be brought into the physical world, however, there is so much room to play around with it because of this fact. We can conceptualize better forms of economics, which id argue to be metaphysical in nature, to then apply to the material world. Apply this same form of thinking to almost any social construct and the combination with the metaphysical (the ideal) and the material becomes the human condition that humans have been constantly struggling with and toying with.
Another thing that I would like to mention is the purpose of Plato's set-up and structure of his dialogues. The setting, characters, and structure are meant as metaphors for the reader to grasp as they are reading. For example, in The Republic, the characters that Socrates is talking to represent a different form of government that relates to their character; hence the whole topic of conversation revolves around the ideal government system (its character). So when Socrates is arguing against said characters he is actually arguing against these whole governmental systems they represent. Another example is in the symposium, the setting is a party with the topic being about "love." During this time, everyone is constantly drinking to the point where they eventually just pass out from drinking too much, showing them being "drunk in love" the more the topic is being fleshed out. Last;y, the way that Plato structures the dialogues with Socrates always "winning" does not seem like much of a critique in my opinion. The point of Socrates as a character is to be a sage; to be the perfect philosopher. It makes sense that he would be almost undefeated in the field, for Plato wants to show what a philosopher is and does. When making an "ideal" that others are supposed to look up to, the point is to almost make the unattainable in their respective role. Criticizing plato on this is just a lazy analysis in my opinion. It focuses more on the "story" aspects of the writing rather than the philosophies that are being talked about.
Reflecting on your passionate observation on your grander view for economics, the higher aims of the "dismal science." Unless, imo, you are referencing the pioneering work of George Gilder promoting dynamic information flow as the main purpose of economics, sending signals to use Shannon's metrics to the market place, most "well intentioned" economic dreamy systems from Marx, Keynes, and to the fruition of John Laws dream money printing scheme, MMT all lead to a dark place in the matrix and dystopia. Economists may want to play Newton or play Nietzsche in designing their elaborate Rube G. Systems, but the invisible hand of real market forces of supply and demand always ends up slapping them to wake them up from dreamland and electric sheep. Well inentioned, possibly, but dangerous too the core in reality that leads to Venezuela style dystopia given enough time and folly in "planning and modeling." Subtle, intricate yet often chaotic economic forces of supply demand always interfere and overturn the apple carts of economic social engineers that refuse to learn the iron law of history that markets must be Talebian antifragile to flexibly react to dynamic catalysts and information shock signals.
To simply deny metaphysical realities is to deny logic itself and render the one generating the denial, self contradictory. On one hand they embrace the transcendental necessity of logic as though it is real but then on the other hand deny it because it has no energy value. Is logic (a metaphysical entity) real? Of course! It is a necessary ingredient of that which is observed. To limit reality to only that which can be physically demonstrated and measured is absurd. We can never measure nor observe the future, yet we have never seen a case in the past where the future did not exist. So long as we live in the present, every past has had a future. If the present ceases to exist then the argument is irrelevant.
I don't think he denies metaphysical imaginary realities.
He just says it should serve to improve your material existence and not the other way.
He basically criticizes a peasant suffering thru life thinking he will get heaven in the end.(a better reality).(which we have no proof of).
Say you get to that perfect reality,how would you know that reality is the perfect reality?(would you trust your senses or brain)( infinitely more perfecter realities will exist).
@@hieroprotoganist3440 They either both exist or they do not. Yes, he denies metaphysical realities even though the metaphysical is always the rational foundation for the physical. Just because Nietzsche doesn't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean there isn't one. People do suffer but that suffering tells us more about the sin of man than the absence of God. A blind man's inability to detect light doesn't negate lights existence. How would I know I've gotten to the perfect reality. God will let me know. Being with Jesus (God) is the perfect reality.
@@wildbill6536 How about this?
This could be true too.
God gave you a brain to be rational and find the truth,speak the truth and live the truth.
Maybe faith is a creation of satan which will lead you to hell forever because god will give you only 1 life (so you basically wasting that life with irrational ideas of satan(faith) os basically being in hell for eternity).
Remember if you can believe some thing without reason or proof(without using your god given intellect) ,you can believe so any lies and deception(which are satan's domain).
@@wildbill6536 a blind man can be deceived,lied to about the existence of light and can be led in to darkness or hell though.
And he can't confirm it.
Same with people who have god given eyes(reason,intelligence,) and still closes them tightly.
@@hieroprotoganist3440 From an unbelieving point of view this would seem logical but what you fail to be able to understand is God's point of view which He shares with those who believe through the Word of God. How do we know the Word of God is true? God gives His children faith via the Holy Spirit. Reason is wonderful but even reason does not justify itself. What are the transcendental presuppositions that under-gird the metaphysical entities of reason and logic? If you want to be rational, you must answer those philosophical questions and not just take them by faith.
The culmination of Nietzsche’s philosophy, as much as I like his style, is this, “I have been to the hinterlands, I have also been in your world; nevermind, pay attention, the highest chooses.”
Neitzsche was always trying to justify his own suffering. He was dealing with a lot of illness. That context colors a lot of his thoughts.
So his work itself also conforms to his prognosis. Even Nietzsche is subject to Nietzsche? I would say this supports his authority, rather than exposes his fallibility. It's funny because I was listening to this in the shower just now thinking about how many of Nietzsche's personal sensibilities and peccadilloes that really have no bearing on his actual philosophy are thrown in there and came to this same conclusion. Even he will perpetuate his will rather than attempt to speak from some place of neutrality and purity.
Apparently Nietzsche believed that many philosophers were clearly expressing their own subjective life experiences through their philosophy, ironic how this connection is so apparent in Nietzsche.
@@josemjerez2140 I don't see any particular reason to assume Nietzsche wasn't aware of this. He said everyone does this, not everyone but him. So that is consistent. It would go against his ideas to say there is a truth that is ideal and outside of human activity. So of course Nietzsche leads by example. In all parts of his life. He wasn't a mathematician or an engineer so that thinking won't get you very far. He was an writer, an artist, a performer, a musician...think more Andy Kaufman and less Einstein when trying to understand what he is showing you. Notice I said showing not telling. That is important. I'm assuming you didn't read my other comment. Heh.
@@FromTheRoomOfLittleEase I do not recall stating he wasn’t aware of it, not even that it was a bad thing. we’re all human after all
@@josemjerez2140 I suppose you left it a bit open as "ironic" could go either way. I hope I didn't appear to jump down your throat, heh.
Great analysis! The decadence surprised me - didn’t know you were French haha
Hi, I saw your video on Schopenhauer's greatest poets and I was wondering what edition of Goethe's work you recommend for faust. Others have recommended walter kaufmann's translation instead of the translation used in the essential goethe.
In the original language, search for the first volumes.
Translations are only interpretations, you have your own perception, is more important to recive information directly from the source without any distortion.
The Bible is much like this. There are many dialogs and parables presented as dialogs written in such a way as to convince the reader that there is a fair fight taking place when in reality it is one perspective posturing as two, purposefully written to present a particular Christ as the victor.
I do agree with Nietzsche’s assessment of Plato, both stylistically and philosophically. Adorning false ideas artfully doesn’t make the ideas less malignant.
Precisely. As malignant as the wine from the sailors on the ship of democracy offers to the couple in Socrates critic of democracy. The artful adornment of false ideals is what we most fraternize with as we engage with media from journalism to blockbusters.
Nietzsche: plato was wrong
philosopher: why
Nietzsche: wdym why
Philosopher: I mean elaborate why plato was wrong
Nietzsche: bc he was boring
Philosopher: htf does that explain his mistakes?
Nietzsche: bc he was POWERLESS
Philosopher: what
Nietzsche: well yk, he lacked PUVER so in order to make up for his virginity he started arguing with ppl to make a name for himself just like his ugly master socrates.
Philosopher: well isn't that exactly what you doing?
Nietzsche: no
Philosopher: why not
Nietzsche:...
also Nietzsche: yk what? arguing is for losers!
Philosopher: by arguing that arguing is for losers, doesn't that imply you are also a loser?
Nietzsche:...
Philosopher: well?
Nietzsche: ummm... GOD IS DEAD HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Philosopher: wtf
Keep Nietzsche going please, dig deep, more and more...
Altought i love Nietzsche's criticism and his genealogy of morals, his solution is to basically reverse all weatern values and return to a society with cratos at its nucleus but this is not just impossible, actually dangerous and leads to our auto-destruction, we barely made it through the 20th century. And altought the trend seems to be in this direction with the rapid fall of traditional religions, even methaphysically materialism is not viable if you follow it to the limit (following the latest empirical results in qm like non-locality) so we are at a dangerous crossroad where we are attracted to scientism which is empty at its core (as Nietzsche actually warned us) but the traditional spiritual ethos of the west is way past its prime. So, yeah, thats why we probably don't share any common future or goals, we just blindly optimize for survival and take refuge in technology whithout any vision, just a masked or straight up nihilism, basically to "see what happens". All this Hinterweld was sticky for a reason and we are currently flushing out the baby with the bathwater.
@Gary Allen True but that's superficial, Nietzsche would say. Humans are driven by "why's" not by "how's". If you give people an exquisite "why", they would live through anything.
Besides the great content of the video just to know the opinion of Nietzsche about Plato is incredible to me. This is the video that more encouraged me to read Nietzsche books. Thank you for the video.
As with everything, it’s balance. Plato was far too abstract and dealt in unrealistic ideals but has amazing application when understood broadly. Likewise those like Nietzsche or even Fromm were almost too practical to a fault. It’s probably why Nietzsche died alone and Fromm really never gained prominence. Ironically you could argue Nietzsche was abstract and an idealist but in an extremely practical way. I mean even his idea of Ubermensch was based on an ideal which he admits but it had much more practical application than say Plato’s “the one”. Great video
Well nietzsche belefs were not idealistic
@@intellectual421 is the ubermensch not an ideal?
@@davyroger3773 he’s talking about idealism vs materialism, not “idealism” in terms of an ideal
Nietzsche was right
Plato's balance comes from Aristotle.
Nietzsche is worthless.
I've never read Nietzsche, having heard that his writing is abstruse and might be difficult to those not well-versed in reading philosophy. I have read some commentary on his work. This series is among the most clear such work I've come across, and makes me think I should take him on. Lots of interesting ideas. Thanks!
i think in this case nietzche let his bias shape his opinion on plato plato wasn't actually talking about a metaphysical world or spiritual woo wei as many people attributed to his work he was only suggesting there might be a larger universe or multiverse beyond ours a reality beyond our current understanding but in his culture he did not have proper terms in which to define these ideas in an academic or logical way there was no medium in his culture for him to do so so he illustrated this point through metaphorical allegory which has been widely misinterpreted and misrepresented not just by nietzche but other scholars who were more religious so i think nietzche criticism are more at those religious scholars twisting his works just as there was no way of critically looking at platos work away from religious misrepresentation in nietzche's time so to nietzche it made perfect sense to chuck these ideas out in the trash bin a long with any other faith based take
I don't see how one can dismiss the idea of a metaphysical world as Plato expresses. We, humans, are incapable of directly experiencing reality. That can be shown through very simple and, dare I say, nearly unassailable arguments. So the existence of two worlds; the one we experience and the reality that lies underneath that experience, is basically a fact.
Nietzsche is right, the Platonic project has been a disaster for philosophy. Too bad because alot of Platos ideas are actually useful and interesting.
@Lucas De Araújo Marques
Not quite so simple.
@Lucas De Araújo Marques:
Today we know that there's no such thing as a particle, "particles" are in actuality vibratory modes of an underlying field. In other words, Plato was, as usual, far closer to the truth than the others. Nietzsche was a raving madman who had loud and vociferous opinions on just about everything, but was extremely rarely right about anything; only a fool would take him seriously.
@lucgma Greek atomism has no resemblance to atomic theory. Even though we conventionally label the smallest unit of matter "atoms", they are not really indivisible as the Greek atomists thought; only a few scientists in the late modern period thought they were actually indivisible. The closest we get to a revival of Greek atomism was in the late renaissance with the emergence of corpuscular theory, which sought to reduce all of physics to particle collision; but mechanical philosophers of that period thought corpuscles were infinitely divisible so as to occupy all available space, and they rejected the Epicurean void. Although Plato was opposed to atomism, he didn't deny the existence of atoms per se. He discusses the nature of atoms, which he understood to be small, indivisible units, extensively in the Timæus, a treatise about the origin & essence of the universe. Plato contends kinds of atoms compound to create elementary corpuscles, and these corpuscles could be mixed and dissolved in various ways to beget ordinary matter; for Plato, each kind of atom was a triangle of incommensurable magnitude, thence their irreducibility.
Nietzsche was wrong.
Platonism is foundational to philosophy while Nietzsche couldn't even deadlift his own bodyweight.
Since I could snap Nietzsche like a twig, I am, according to his barbaric ""philosophy"" a superior creature to him, and I, being superior, determine that his ideas are nothing but Germanic LARPing.
“Bro let me tell you about quanta!” You know that macro events (everything you’ll ever experience) still follow Newtonian and maybe special relativity when it comes to planets? Lol. You idiots don’t even know what the uncertainty principal is and it doesn’t mean magic it means you change the state when you measure lol.
I totally agree, the influence of plato goes strong as today is present in scientific theories of differentes disciplines such as psychology or biology
Don't think you can call Plato "preachy" when he was so critical of his own work.
but then again, he also owned slaves. Just sayin.
“He owned slaves” is an automatic disqualification of anything he says being true. Remember that this is literally what this person said and thought was insightful.
@@GhGh-gq8oo ok but my intention wasn't that: I just wanted to signal the thought of owning another human being as something the dude felt was a normal thing to do. For me it does nothing to disqualify the things the guy said, just to doubt his reasons for saying them (i.e. his persona non grata)
I love listening to people's varying opinions and thoughts. This is pretty fascinating.
Totally agree. About Plato. But Nietzsche’s idea that humans “could have been a contender” without Plato is idealism too. We humans are a complex species, and how we organize ourselves is never optimal. An optimal way doesn’t exist. We generate lots of drama so we don’t bore ourselves. Nietzsche should have backed up for a wider view. He might have relaxed a bit.
There is an optimal way, people are just too self absorbed and degenerate to pursue idealism, and end up becoming Nihilists, liberals, or whatever LARP cringe Nietzsche was peddling.
"For the Platonic dialogues to cast a charm over you, you must never have read any good French authors"
HOLY SHIT what a savage roaster. Now I'm motivated to read Nietzsche.
Thanks for this video guys
While his critique of Plato makes sense, he has entirely missed the reason that Plato had to come up with it. Which is that he realized that the true world, and therefore truth wasn't observable as the skeptics would point out tirelessly. He essentially went as deep as he could at that time on the issue, and since psychology hadn't been invented yet nor was the mind discovered as a product in the brain. He realized that the material world was divided by immaterial categories and since the categories were apparent in reality but not present in it, the true world had to be like this one but obscured or distorted by something. So it would make sense that he thought that this world was a representation of the other truly real world, he simply did his best with what he knew and wasn't able to be refuted for at least 2 thousand years. Nietzsche was being small-minded here and couldn't understand Plato's point or thought path.
But I do agree with him on his writings I can't stand them, nor Nietzsche's for that matter actually
I agree 100% here. Except for the last sentence, I enjoyed reading both of them. I think it's wrong to see plato's world of forms as this other dimension. He makes it clear that it doesn't exist in the same way that you or I do. Which leaves the possibility that maybe it only exists in our minds. but even if that's the case, this doesn't make it any less real.
@@Tehz1359 I just don't like the dialogue format or how nietzsche was so so long winded and poetic in ideas that weren't that complicated. But yeah plato simply had to happen and much like the other greeks, he was literally inches from the truth 3 thousand years ago which is phenomenonal.
@@Tehz1359 Who is Patrick Bateman's favourite philosopher?
@@rogersterling4458 I would imagine Patrick Bateman wouldn't be very in to philosophy.
Plato has not been refuted. His ideas remain as compelling and as valid as when he articulated them 2,000 years ago. The basic categories of mind, which Plato called the Forms, cannot be reduced to material causes because they are categorically different than physicalist categories. Even to call these Forms categories of mind is something of a concession to the modernist register, since really they are categories of the intelligible. The intelligible world manifests itself in the sensible world (that is, within time and space), and this more than accounts for the various mind/brain correlations that serve as the basis for reductive materialist explanations of consciousness, but these reductions are specious and premature, if not simply incoherent. It is not that the brain produces the mind- rather, the brain is the mind as sensibly manifest, and so one would expect all observed correlations between them. Truth isn't a fact- it's a value that prefigures facts both epistemically and metaphysically. It is unanalyzable in terms of more basic constituents (i.e. primative), and is presupposed prior to the investigation of and intelligibility of facts/empirical observations. The scientist's activity is nothing more than a participation in the form of Truth, whether we cash that participation out in terms of cognitive orientation, teleology of desire, or the transcendental unity of apperception. The very unity of reality, as presupposed by the construction and application of physical "laws" (the very looking for laws, the conviction that there are laws, or the conviction that laws amount to a deeper fundamentality), indicates a Transcendent reality that all becoming participates in. No, we've yet to catch up with Plato.
I think the problems with Plato are rooted in the fact that Plato's and Socrates' philosophy are ultimately a kind of Orphism without ritual. An emphasis on practices in addition to intellectual inquiry would have fostered an appreciation for the material world and the world of ideals together
I tend to think the world has suffered more from the German than the Athenian. ;-)
I prefer Aristotle to Plato, and Aquinas to Aristotle. But I appreciate the Platonic tradition, regardless of the refinements needed and provided by those later thinkers.
Yeah youre middling IQ and a Christian so you’d love aquinous.
Great video after a day of teaching. Thank you for teaching us
Plato's thoughts align with my own Sufi values, therefore I favor his ideals over Nietsche.
How Nietzschean of you!
Maybe a form of conformation bias?
I think Nietzsche's main problem with Plato's ideas was that it revolved not only around concepts, but everything, thus affirming the existence of a perfect being. I say this because, from what I understand, Nietzsche did believe in perfection in the form of art. However, if we accept that an eternal and universal balance of things exists, we can derive from this idea that it must be sustained, or powered, by something. This is where I believe Plato comes into full strength.
I love Nietzsche's philosophy but I feel his style was his own undoing. It was hyperfixated on the superman or the loser's god. I read alot of the Bible, and not once in The Anti-Christ did I ever feel like he gave credence to King Solomon's writings in Ecclesiastes (which would've been right up his alley). There's alot of wisdom in the bible, and I'm sure Plato offered much in the same way. I think Nietzsche could've benefited from looking at things through a broader lense. Not just the one where he laments the pointlessness of life, and to be selfishly driven for the best self serving ends. The nature of our existence, and inevitable departure from this world is universally uncontested. All are from dust, and all return to dust. That shouldn't mean that we kill our spiritual self, and deny our souls existence to remain focused on the material world. It's a small price to pay for a chance at eternal life. I believe it was Pascal that coined something to that effect.
I mean I agree with some of your criticism, but what is this eternal life business? Pascal's wager is like buying a lottery ticket in the off chance there is an actual lottery.
@@InsanePorcupine Only one way to find out, and there's no way back to tell you. So yes it is a lottery. I'm not saying it has to be any specific denomination or specifically the God of Abraham. It just needs to be something. I've bounced back, and forth between atheism, and gnosticism most of my life. One thing I've noticed is that I have just as much trouble in committing to my disbelief of God as I do my belief in God, and the worse my life gets the more I get the sense it was never in my control to begin with. So my only choice available is "give it to God". I can relinquish my illusion of control in hopes that something beyond myself can help me unf*ck myself lol.
@Gary Allen Ok. A: Where did the text originate from? B: How would that change the context?
Nietzsche actually had an appreciation for the bible as a piece of literature though.
*In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche describes Luther's Bible (without irony) as "the masterpiece of German prose" and "the best German book so far" (BGE 247). The "so far" here indicates that he understood his own stylistic achievements, and Thus Spoke Zarathustra in particular, to have surpassed Luther's, but whether or not one agrees with this self-assessment, it is clear that Luther's German remains one of Nietzsche's two great stylistic models (the other being Goethe's). Nietzsche, then, can be considered as part of the long tradition of German writers (others would be Goethe himself, Büchner, Marx, and Brecht) who, although nonbelievers, indeed actively hostile to the Christian Church, have nevertheless acknowledged the sheer rhetorical accomplishment of the (Luther's) Bible as literature, and treated it as an enduringly powerful resource on which to draw in an increasingly post-Christian age as Nietzsche puts it, “In comparison with Luther's Bible, almost everything else is mere ‘literature’ - something that did not grow in Germany and hence also did not grow and does not grow into German hearts, as the Bible has.”*
0:15 how did you set school of Athens painting in motion? Link of this original clip.
There can be no ying without a yang , no summer without winter, no Aristotle without Plato.
Thank goodness for Plato. Thank goodness for Aristotle, thank goodness for Spinoza, thank goodness for Schopenhauer
Saying God and Spinoza in the same sentence is atleast hubris 🤔🤣
And thank god for Nietzsche
@@Bram-zv1kh And for Heidegger and Evola
And Leibniz
Very interesting and informing video! You said that 'Christianity is the Platonism for the People' and I immediatly thought 'Platonism seems to be more like Christianity for the People.' The essence of it without Christ and Crucification so not Christianity but more like the Essence of it. The Believe in other unseen things, forms and world and a ultimate creator who created all things like the perfekt cup on which we all try our best to reach its standards. But those who deny the existence of such standards - in my eyes - are truely just in loss of it.
There is more romance and literal gods in Christianity though.
Science did prove existence of unseen waves and radiation.
Empiricism doesn't argue for no imagination,it just doesn't believe in conmen and wishful fantasies.
And the concept of the perfect cup also comes from your imagination.
When push comes to shove intelligent people put their money when/where there is proof.
@@hieroprotoganist3440 Bro whst u talking about?
@@jadeysi4 Read the comment i replied to.
@@hieroprotoganist3440 Bruh
In your opening title card, I think you meant to write 'skeptic'. As you wrote, 'sceptic', means something entirely different. Though I could see Nietzche saying either of them about Plato.
Plato and Nietzsche have different ideals and seem to be total opposites to each other.
Yes
Maybe something can be gleaned from their historical disparity. Both have entirely different reasons for their particular understanding of philosophy.
They are not opposites at all. You have to really uderstand both Plato and Nietzsche to get that they have a lot in common in their ideals. Nietzsche also references Plato a lot in his writings too. They have similar ideals, only very different way of expressing them.
Actually in political and sociological questions, they are (in some points) not that different.
@@kaiserrino8774 with slight difference, just like Batman or Superman
Alan Watts talks about this distain for the "natural" world in his essay called "This is it". Believers of supernaturalism hold bias against "materialism" when they say things like "just chemicals in the brain" or "just flesh and blood"...
I can definitely see the connection between Plato's forms and heaven. The idea of forms is simple when applied to objects like a chair, even if such a concept is meaningless. What's a perfect chair? Why? You just want a good one.
When applied to animals, especially humans, the concept is more pernicious. None of us is perfect but to suggest that we should worship one who is, is a exercise in self-negation.
Yes, I agree. I have not scrolled the comments, but I will assume others have said: N. Destroyed the platonic theory of forms, but it was left to Ayn Rand to supply an epistemology which included a theory of concept creation devoid of mysticism and randomness.
Plato>Neitzsche. I don’t believe philosophy should only be placed on that which is the material world.
Says the Christian.
@@GhGh-gq8oo who says I’m a Christian?
They are arguing over observer/perspective bias, actually. There are, in truth, infinite realities in many various planes of existence.
Imagine what a dog sees of the world & their life; a fish; a bug; any form of consciousness. Our experience of there being various levels of conscious observers among us in the environment is an allusion to the fact that there are a variety of interpretations which this observable location may viewed from; hence, ascending/descending planes of existence, phases of divinity/damnation, etc. Evaluation, through the imbalances of philosophy, bears the illusion of progress, in all.
Plato basically invented fanfiction, when he wrote about Sokrates dialogues...
I think, Nietzsche is doing Plato injustice here.
Plato had been modifying his theory of forms throughout his career, and in his (later) dialogue Parmenides he also brought up some severe criticism to this theory. I think his theory of forms is often understood rather superficially and that results in "Plato was that guy who believed triangles exist and therefore wanted a fascist philosopher state!!!1". Unfortunately, Nietzsche seems to fall into that category as well.
Also the Christian reception of Plato comes through Neoplatonism; mostly brought forth by Plotin. I am not sure how much of that can be directly attributed back to Plato. Neoplatonism and Plato are different pairs of shoes...
Good points. Nietzsche wrote of Parmenides in a lesser known book, worth checking out if you want a more nuanced critique of Plato. And yes, Nietzsche is largely providing critique of the Christian-ized model of Plato.
@Mitthenstein right. No need to recatagorize his politics.
Awesome video
Most of the theories developed in cognitive science use the Plato approach. Today we call it a substrate - rather than a form, something that 'fits' into the mind. The idea that everything should be the one or the other depends, fails because we are limited in our language (incl. mathematics). For some cases form works, for other case it does not.
It boils down to godel incompleteness theorem. Something that would have blown both Plato's and Nietzsche theories to smithereens.
Huh? Wasn't Gödel a Platonist?
I'm thoroughly convinced that Nietzsche was (and still is) in the top 5 of the greatest thinkers, and I'll definitely find some time to read his works with better attention. Like, the man was *clearly* onto _something_
You have to hand it to Nietzsche he's kick-ass.
Stylistically, yes. But as far as substance goes, he's embarrassing.
@@manzo6335 Well in my defense, I didn't produce works which lambasted moral realism and the use of reason (works which amounted to stylish fulminations, free of serious argumentation.)
@@manzo6335 did his comment hurt your feelings? Lol
I am interested in how sacred geometry is used in the design of buildings. I have made a few videos showing how some well known architects do this as well as how it is used in the famous Durer Melencolia artwork. What is interesting is that the architects use these ideal archetypes as the foundational structure of their buildings and these principles have a tangible effect on the outcome. When people look at classical buildings and admire their beauty, they believe that it is some kind of eye candy whereas it has more to do with creating a resonant structure based on the prestige forms and numbers. These structures somehow connect the impure 3D world with the pure version.
I think Nietzsche was wrong regarding all contentions. His reading of Plato was shallow at best and far from complete at worst...
Firstly the world of the forms. While I think Plato meant it literally it's still useful today figuratively. You and I both have an idea of what a chair is. And we can agree most of the time as to whether something is a chair or not. We have to a greater or lesser degree a shared common core of abstract concepts because we are physically more similar than we are dissimilar and operate in the world basically the same way. So we both desire to sit on occasion and being made of of pretty much the same stuff and working in a similar manner we both have similar requirements for a good sitting device. The world of the forms may not exist in actuality. But it exists theoretically in the mind of each individual. It's not monolithic either. Humans have a world of forms that exists in their subconscious and manifests to some degree between them in communication. But dogs and birds perceive the world and reason differently than us. They have their own world of forms that intersects to some degree with ours, but is not exactly the same.
As for platonic dialogue. Socrates doesn't simply win every argument. He has involved discussions in which several options for the nature of something are proposed and together with his interlocutor he explores which of these are most likely. Often they end up somewhere neither of them intended to go and the conversation can get off into the weeds for minutes at a time. It's a model of not only how actual conversations tend to take place. But how we can split our own ego in two to think things over introspectively. You mentally setup a lobbyist and an interrogator in your mind and you can explore a vast landscape of ideas. Then once you have some possible conclusions and lines of reasoning that led you to them. You can bounce it off real people and see how it fairs. Something like the Republic is a demonstration of a powerful mental tool that let's one actually explore what they think and why before fielding ideas to others. Instead of just blurting it out and trying to figure on if it makes sense while simultaneously defending not fully formed or thought out ideas.
Regarding Plato's style. It's a ridiculous nit pick. Divergence in actual style can easily be down to his works having been copied and edited thousands of times over millennia. Our earliest preserved examples of his writing are manual copies of copies of copies. Nietzsche criticized Plato for writing in an inconsistent manner when he could not have known how Plato actually wrote. None of us can. While we have some of what he basically wrote. any actual grammatical, narrative, or aesthetic norms of his original work are lost to a vast amount of transliteration and scribes just inserting there own style randomly here and there. The earliest copy of Plato's works (and only about half of the known ones) that we have was written over 1200 years after Plato lived.
Agreed. Re the Socrates wins every argument, recall that he never directs responds to the might = legitimacy argument of Thrasymachus. Additionally, Plato/Socrates did not ignore the honor component of the human nature/soul as implied by Nietzsche (in fact Socrates was reportedly an excellent solider himself) but merely indicated that it, along with appetites, need to be governed by but also inform the intellect.
@@brendanobrien6943 I think perhaps his battle prowess may have been lent to him by Plato. A bit of putting himself in his character. Highly likely that Socrates was a real man and philosopher of note (why would Plato write an apology to the Athens for a man that didn't exist?).
But Socrates himself was apposed writing things down. He didn't like how it fixed ideas and thought it effected people's ability to remember things well (this is in a time where students of philosophy and even actors were expected to have entire dialogues committed to memory and be able to recite them).
We know of Plato that his given name was Aristocles. Plato was a chosen name first used in his youth as wrestler (meaning roughly something like 'the brute' or 'the broad'). He kept the name Plato as his Philosopher's name. So we know Plato in his youth at least was something of an athlete. We also know that ascribing physical prowess to a person was a good way to boost their notoriety.
Most of what we know of Socrates (a controversial figure in his own time) survives through the works of Plato. It's highly possible. Especially with centuries of transliteration that Socrates was not exactly the person we see him as. Even in his public persona. That he was made more popular by those that did appreciate him posthumously with a little fluff.
@@The1Helleri It was supposedly Alcibiades who spoke of his valor and calmness in the face of catastrophe at the Battle of Delium. In addition to Plato, Xenophon, Aristophanes, Diogenes Laertius, and Epictetus referenced his career as a soldier. The perception of Socrates was that his sympathies lied with an aristocratic rather than egalitarian outlook (this must have been bolstered by his association with Alcibiades). This was probably one of the real factors in his execution as it came on the heels of the expulsion of the Spartan imposed 30 tyrants.
@@brendanobrien6943 Supposedly would be the key word in reference to Alcibiades. Aristophanes wrote a caricature of Socrate's for his play, who was a very different character from the one Plato wrote of. Diogenes wasn't even alive yet in Socrate's youth. And Epictetus wasn't a contemporary of any of them being born almost 300 years later. Really only Xenophon and Plato were so close to the source in age and even they were roughly 20 years younger (born when he'd have been already retired from battle).
What we mainly know of Socrates (as a matter of earliest attestation, everything after being parroting) comes from Plato and Xenophon, his students. And most of the things written about him by contemporaries that wrote about him are contradictory. They each had a different picture of who the man was in their mind and each used him as a device for their own writings.
It's probably the major downside to his opinion that writing things down wasn't a great idea. Because there is nothing by his own hand to tell us who he was with his own words.
@@The1Helleri Yes, Aristophanes was definitely derogatory but the point is he attested to Socrates as a soldier and therefore corroborated this fact which he would have had not reason to do given his attitudes towards him.
I can settle this debate between idealism and materialism right now.
What is the probability of getting heads when you flip a coin?
50/50 right? but how do we know that?
If we flip a coin 100 times, the physical evidence doesn't always suggest that the probability is 50/50. Sometimes you flip a coin 100 times and get 47 heads and 53 tails or 60 heads and 40 tails. Are these physical expressions of the abstract probability more true than the abstraction that is 50/50? We understand that even though the experiment comes out sometimes as something different than 50/50 we understand that the real truth is 50/50 even if it is imperfectly expressed by the physical flipping of the coin.
Even though the 50/50 probability is an abstract thing we consider it more true than any physical expression of the truth played out in an experiment. abstract rational ideals> material evidence.
@@jonlittle7059 I think that its more that without rationality, material evidence does not exist as evidence for anything. That is to say that you need a rational framework in order to organize the evidence. Hence the probability curve in the example I gave. Without rationality, there is no correlation or causation. Establishing such things requires rational claims. So material evidence is the pieces of the puzzle and rationality is how you put the pieces together. The material expression of evidence is itself a reflection of the rational truth that is used to make sense of it. Like how flipping a coin is an expression of its true probability.
Nietschze was so right. Plato’s “rationalism” has infected thought processes ever since. A great book which traces the conflicting influences of rationalism and empiricism is, “The Cave and the Light: Plato versus Aristotle and the Struggle for the Soul of Western Civilization,” by Arthur Herman.
I believe west is screwed because of "I think, therefore I am" Because no one thinks, you can only observe the thought.
Only Taoists got it right as they say "You are not doing anything but you are being done". its very simple life is just a happening nothing serious about it
as nothing implies something and one is not an option without the other. One can only be sure of her/his experience the rest is true and false at the same time. WE SIMPLY DONT KNOW ANYTHING.
@@bitkurd The statement “We don’t know anything” is proposing that you know at least that. It’s a self defeating statement.
Empiricism itself is a philosophical position that cannot verify itself with empiricism alone.
It is extremely difficult, If not impossible, to take any philosophical position without at least SOME bit of it that reaches beyond pure empiricism.
Plato is not a rationalist. He is in fact opposed to rationalism through and through. The difference between him and Nietzsche is that while Plato rose ABOVE reason Nietzsche went below and people of his irk destroyed thought itself in the process (rationalism, for all of its problems, is still preferable to the nonesense of Nietzsche).
For the record, i need to qualify something here: the reason people think Plato was a rationalist is that they are only taking his dialogues in the literal sense. Because Plato's metaphysics is invisibile and mostly left unspoken (or pointed to by referencing myths and the like), those who cannot percieve what is being said behind the surface only see what's directly in front of their eyes, which the rationalistic rethorical device or language he used mainly because his contemporaries had succumbed to rationalism and he felt he had to meet them half-way in order to make himself understood.
The truth of the matter is that Plato was a "sage", not a "philosopher" as understood today. He belonged to schools of initiation pertaining to the Orphic and Pythagorean traditions, and what was only hinted at in his dialogues was rendered explicit by the Neo-Platonists, for whom the risk of throwing pearls at "swine" was less of a concern than the direct loss of the knowledge they possessed, which was being faced with exctinction at that time.
@@alexw2689 Thanks for your wonderful reply, but in my humble opinion Seeking knowledge is like a fetus not believing she is in her mother's womb unless she sees her mothers face. I am pretty sure I don't know anything but I can give it a beautiful translation.
The problem with authorities is the killing of God, God is your highest and the best potential of your true self in the quantum field and the invisible mind of the infinite so when Authorities kill God, The government becomes your best and highest probability.
Everyone enters life for free, They should be able to choose freely and live free. The rest is sheer translation. Like the Taoists say "The Tao does nothing and leaves nothing undone" Let the Tao handle the nature and the physical and let the invisible infinite take you through some serious magic. ✌☮
“We can’t know anything therefore what I think to myself through empiricism is right.”
Amazing video!
Plato was more than a bridge, it was a template. See "Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible" by Russell Gmirkin.
Sounds like a good recommendation.
Platonism is a poison, a means of the elite to mentally control the masses. Plato wasn’t even subtle about his goals.
@@mrmaat Any proof of this?
@@unknowninfinium4353 According to Gmirkin on Mythvision recently, Plato articulated the use of religion to legitimize artificially constructed legal codes.
The Republic is basically a handbook for theocrats.
But don’t take anything I type seriously, I’m just an amateur on these subjects, a digital poop flinging ape on the interwebs.
I clicked on the video, put the phone down and started listening while I closed my eyes on my pillow. After a few minutes, for some reason Vercingetorix popped into my head and I thought about his last ride around Caesar as he was surrendering. I open my eyes, pick up the phone around 4:30 and the next image is exactly what I was thinking about. Crazy!
It’s a sign
When you say "you could even accuse him of real bias" you are affirming the Platonic structure: there can be no bias because there is no external authority, no "objective, final truth" (that can be touched) the strong are strong because they live in a world where their actions matter. The world is what you build with your vigor, your senses build the world. There is no division between self and the world. The core of the argument is recognizing the nature of authority. Authority is YOURS, if you say "I am not the judge, HE is the judge" you are in fact the judge.
The phrase you talking about was referred to Nietsche's critique pointed towards Plato's style.
@@Nothing_to_see_here_27. using the word "bias" suggests there could be an absence of "bias" NIetzsche is endlessly precise in his reasoning, he does point to the idea he is struggling against grammar. Integrating the idea of "Plato is a wrong and a bitch" entails observing that sort of patterns within oneself, which is why I point to the use of the word "bias"; it alludes to the ideal "real" world beyond our senses, which is the world of Plato.
@@botero01 Or, being-an-existent.
surely the external authority would be the world of forms?
@@CynicalBastard not following
Plato started his career off as a playwright before he met Socrates and decided to become a philosopher. That being said the Dialogues of Plato were likely scripts for his students to act out in class and at critical points I image the students would dispute at exactly the places where the interlocutor simply agrees with Socrates.
Proof of this is the dialogue "Parmenides". In this dialogue Plato has the philosopher Parmenides completely dismantle Plato's theories. Thus Plato was writing not to prove something but rather to script out a conversation that could be played out in the rooms of the Academy. I am quite shocked that Nietzsche would not be able to see this.....and yet Nietzsche was the youngest person ever to hold the Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel.......crazy.........
As for the literary devices in his dialogues........often these descriptions were figurative.......literary devises such as having the dialogue told by someone who heard it from another who heard it from someone else is a metaphor for the ascension through the emanations of the forms. This is a metaphor for going from the level of particulars in everyday life and ascending up through the unique perfected forms of mathematic forms until the third level being the divine nous or mind. Only dialogues that explicitly discuss the forms do this literary technique and is reminiscent of the 1001 Arabian nights.
Huh? I'm sorry but your first paragraph is entirely fictitious. He did not start off his career as playwright, but as an adviser to the political class, as well as wrestling in his youth. Why do you invent stories? I would recommend the book "Thinking Being".
@@withnail-and-i
Ever Read Diogenes Laertius?
"Afterwards, when he was about to compete for the prize with a tragedy, he listened to Socrates in front of the theatre of Dionysius, and then consigned his poems to the flames, with the words "Come hither, O fire‑god, Plato now has need of thee.""
-Diogenes Laërtius Book 3:5
@@JawkneePruitt There's a reason why his description didn't stick through modern literature compared to Plato's political background
Not all of his source were top notch, it has to be taken with a grain of salt. But fair enough, I haven't read his life of Plato, not enough time to go through historiographies, so thanks for the heads up.
And yeah, the Parmenides does not destroy the theory of the Forms, I'll reiterate in my recommendation of Thinking Being by Eric Perl... Such a misunderstood theory.
@@withnail-and-i I'll definitely check out this book.
However I used the word "Dismantle" and thus I wasn't indicating that Plato "Disproves" his theory of the forms but just that he was trying to "take it apart" and show that the forms are more complicated that indicated in most of the dialogues. I also used the Parmenides to show that Plato did not always have interlocutors that "Kowtow" and just mindlessly go along with what Socrates says......in fact in some dialogues the discussion ends with Socrates learning nothing new and walking away just as confused if not more so.
And so for Nietzsche to say that Plato was shallow in his arguments for the forms does not seem fair in light of the Parmenides.....and is rather surprising in light of the fact that he was apparently so well read in the classics......very strange......in your readings of Plato do you feel that Nietzsche's criticism is legitimate? I mean to me it seems that at the very least Plato is being quite honest about his theories and is not afraid to expose them to scrutiny.
I think it's possible to at least empathize with Nietzsche in his life story and sufferings in a rapidly disenchanting 19th-century Europe. Maybe he pointed out something the vast majority of people at his time were fine living with but dared not admit: their religious piety and traditional values are becoming less and less relevant to practical social life. People were rapidly becoming alienated with the platonic ideals and had been becoming more materialistic and pragmatic. In this sense, I wouldn't say Nietzsche was a "source of destruction for the Western establishment", but rather the symptom of the crumbling of said establishment.
However Nietzsche's arguments against Platonism is essentially cyclical, since he started with the presupposition of rejection of the metaphysical and ontological. As a result, his interpretation of history and the history of philosophy is quite narrow, as he reduced everyone and their philosophy to merely power dynamics in a pyramid of secular powers. Another irony is his notion of Übermensch. Fans of Nietzsche might defend this concept all they can, but isn't Übermensch itself a platonic category? Especially considering how Nietzsche lost his mind before he could become the Übermensch he claimed to be, this concept only becomes more "otherworldly".
@Bob Nevels Thanks for these friendly advices.
Not sure if you can say Nietzsche rejects the metaphysical and ontological altogether, maybe it would be better to say he wanted to reconnect those with the ultimate material reality. He pointed out how ideals and morality are misused by bad priests to gain authority and status, how this allows them to call their own scholarly mediocrity and ignorance superior and how the beaten down masses submit because they gain the delusion of gifted salvation. I think this is the idea of him that haunts many and has singlehandedly had great blasting power given the intellectual history of Europe since Plato: priests, monks and university personnel being detached from whats around them and operating within their own theoretical sphere. I'm more of a history guy than a philosopher and in a presocratic Europe, from all that we know, this detachment between priestly caste, warrior caste and the caste of the common man wasn't present so much, despite these castes being defined. The priestly caste would intervene before battles, make sacrifices and contact to the immortal gods and the deceased ancestors of old. They would make prophecies and predictions, would remind the people of fulfilling duties and living according to age old tradition, honour and the understanding of nature and natural phenomena, including the night sky and stars.
So the priestly caste used to be very much in touch with the rest of society and recruit itself from the aristocracy. One could of course argue that this hasn't changed much since we still have a quasi priestly caste in our TVs up to this day that gets the masses to do the weirdest and most senseless stuff but I think Nietzsche saw the religious authorities of back then, the church in the same negative light, that I see the media in and he wished to see a more holistic, decisive and vital organization of society. In this point I am quite sympathetic to him and this might be where he draws positive sentiments and lasting relevance from.
Also I guess a Nietzschean would argue that the Übermensch is a consequence of the very real and inherent laws of material reality, power, etc, and thus there is little spiritual or platonic about him, he is to be very real.
I vehemently agree with the assessment. I don't always agree with Nietzsche but when he's right he's right. When one argues with one's self they tend to be the victor.
The comment section is already cramped. Still, it is my obligation to at least try to communicate this; If you study Thucydides, it will become apparent to you that all of Nietzsche's efforts aimed at explaining to the rest of humanity that Thucydides is actually the greatest thinker of all time. I strongly urge you all to start reading his work, word for word, keeping in mind Nietzsche's remark, that he is as dense in uttered as in unuttered meanings. Goog luck everyone
>"all of Nietzsche's efforts aimed at explaining to the rest of humanity that Thucydides is actually the greatest thinker of all time."
I really hope you meant this as some kind of hyperbolic exaggeration. While Nietzsche does have a lot of praise for T, the sentence taken literally is not true at all.
I read Thucydides after Nietzsche's praise of him. I would urge everyone to make up their own minds about Thucydides instead of just going off praise. I didn't find him all that profound but I might at a later date.
I will still recommend what I read:
1) "On Justice, Power, and Human Nature: Selections from The History of the Peloponnesian War" by Paul Woodruff
2) "The Landmark Thucydides" is really good for beginners interested in Thucydides main work: The History of the Peloponnesian War
@@anantsharma7955 Good morning, my friend (it's 6 am where I live). I do not argue over opinions. Thank you for your response, have a great day and may you have health and incentive to keep your search going.
Leonard Peikoff seems to suggest that fascism is facilitated by platonic views and we should be less platonic and more aristotelian
I truly appreciate your content. This video was recommended to me with remarkable timing as I am currently studying Plato, Aristotle, and Presocratic philosophy. I made a video on Nietzsche's, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," and your video makes me even more eager to read his works again. Thank you!
Two offered conjectures:
1) Plato or his unknown mentor had contact with the mystical teachings of India, China, or Japan (etc.); 2) Plato felt the arrival of the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (Jaynes) and fought like hell to valorize and institutionalize the Right Brain as master.
Plato was one of the first blokes to elaborate philosophy via a phonetic alphabet. We have become so obsessed with ideas and words and this is what Nietzsche hated. We have lost touch with true vitality and connection to nature, he was noticing.
Literally nothing to do with Plato, Nietzsche was just a manlet LARPer
Lol this dude watches Ben Shapiro and then makes fun of Nietzsche.
@@GhGh-gq8oo
I don't follow Jews.