Interesting that Nietzsche views sacrifice and self-destruction as a result of dedication to greatness. I can see how that can be construed by those lusting for power to use in getting acolytes.
I have a question that is too broad to settle in a youtube comment, but maybe it's worth asking since it is relevant to understanding the Nietzschean project: Do you think MacIntyre's take on Nietzsche in After Virtue is correct? He sees Nietzsche's 'ethics' as an inevitable consequence of our (and Nietzsche's contemporaries) abandonment of the culture of moral practice, which the Aristotelian tradition embodies. In short, if we recover Aristotle, the problems that motivate Nietzsche are dissolved, his radical project of transvaluation no longer necessary. (I hope I remember that chapter of AV correctly!)
I think it's partly correct. Partly not. And notice that "recover Aristotle" turns into "recover Aristotle and Augustine" in the next book, and then "recover Aristotle and Augustine in Aquinas". . . and then "take the Aristotelian metaphysical biology a bit more seriously, and deliberately incorporate psychoanalytic theory" in the next. And of course "recover Aristotle" wouldn't mean you put Nietzsche down for good. Any more than it would mean the same for Kant or Mill. You'll notice Mac appropriating what he thinks valuable from other traditions of moral inquiry - that's part of what "recovering Aristotle" involves
@@GregoryBSadler Great response, thank you! I am currently going through MacIntyre's work and, to say the least, I am very impressed. His ideas are a bridge that allowed me to connect my admiration of the ancients, my belief that Nietzsche's diagnosis was illuminating and largely correct, and my anxiety about our everyday moral discourse, which was only heightened by having read analytic philosophers at university. Recovering Aristotle as recovering a certain way of doing philosophy - a dialectical and historically minded method that keeps us connected with the tradition - is some powerful stuff!
I'm immediately mapping Nietzsche's prediction of the Ubermensche, something beyond man but nonetheless coming from man, as the advent of Artificial General Intelligence. Given the increasing trend of achievements that Machine Learning is producing, I think we are only a few decades away from entering into the era of the Ubermensche...
So am i right to assume that you believe the superman will be a man merged with machine? I personally believe the machine/artificial intelligence will be what brings in the last man. The consuming man, no creativity and will to express. Right now the artificial intelligence is data harvesting and lacks the conscious experience only we are capable of, it lacks morals, virtue, good and evil ect. It's lack of ability to create something NEW, without us. Its personally why I believe it directly relates to the state/hive minded individuals who need a fixed idea of what good and evil is in order to function. Man isn't ready to know all things at once without experiencing and learning it for himself. Wisdom that is unearned can be a poison to the soul whom is not ready for it.
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you very much, as you can see I'm not a native English speak, make it more difficult to understand it, but you class make it easy to understand. Thank you !
Concerning the plant-ghost hybrid, Nietzsche here contrasts with what will later be called the "blonde beast", or the man whose body speaks for his soul. The disharmonious hybrid of plant and ghost is the union of the beginning and end with no connective animal tissue. Nietzsche will go on in "The Despisers of the Body" to talk about the body as the source of psychology and philosophy, and he proposes the Self as the source of bodily and spiritual senses and the creating beyond oneself. In that way there is also an interesting link between the overman in Nietzsche's writing and the Individuation in Jung's writing. We can say that Nietzsche was the first depth psychologist.
Nietzsche himself might say Dostoevsky was, after he started reading him at Brandes suggestions. I'd say that there's plenty of other candidates earlier on.
Do you think the "meaning" you mentioned is akin to the Christian logos, in that Christ is the mind that organizes reality while for Nietzsche here it is another entity that will give meaning to reality?
Hey Greg, I really appreciate your videos and thought of a similar project of creating a channel, mainly about the philosophy of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, mainly on Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse at first. Have you ever read their works? I know, they might be a bit unfamiliar or maybe overshadowed by meriocre latter works of Habermas, but their engagement in dialectical thought, reflection upon Hegel, Marx and Freud, and critique of society is quite impressive and frighteningly accurate today. I would love to see some videos about them for the sake of public education. If not, I might do it myself... Best regards from Frankfurt~
@@GregoryBSadler Thanks for the very quick answer! So, are we going to see some videos on the Critical Theory in the future? Like Adorno's take on dialectics or his critique of society or his aesthetic theory? And maybe, if you feel bold enough, his rare ideas of emancipation? Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization" is also beautiful in that regard.
I think his Ubermensch is really just "Great Man" theory writ large. I know that elsewhere he writes about people who "might have been" Ubermensch or who "came close" and it's mostly famous artists, musicians, conquerors, religious figures etc. I think (might be misremembering) he regarded Jesus and Napoleon as coming closest in terms of global impact, but both failed in their own ways, with Jesus failing because he gave up "the Earth" in favour of Heaven by choosing to allow himself to be crucified, and Napoleon for the more obvious failure of, you know, actually failing. Ones who came closest in terms of the fantastical genius they possessed are people like Goethe, Beethoven, Leonardo etc So basically his Übermensch would have the impact of Jesus, the ambition of Napoleon and the polymathic talent of Leonardo; or at least, that would be approaching what he is talking about. Maybe the Ubermensch would have more variety than that, but being multi-talented, ambitious and impactful geniuses seem to be key criteria. So Nietzsche is arguing- we can't worship God anymore (because "God is dead" after all), we can't really trust science too much (because that might lead to the Last Man); instead we should worship and strive for an age of "Great Men", or Great Men 2.0, as something to give us meaning in our lives, even if most of us could never hope to be such ourselves. Greatness is the only thing worth striving for or giving life meaning. And Great Men or geniuses create new values in the sense that they are always taking on new projects or otherwise setting new challenges for themselves; they always want to exercise their talents in different ways to thrive and grow, and as far as Nietzsche is concerned our "values" should be the rules we set that best help us achieve our goals or interests, so the Ubermensch changes values because they are polymathic and always exploring different interests. I think people forget just how much Nietzsche loved History and how much it (and the Great Man theory of his day) impacted his work and thought. Inventing a superior sort of artificial intelligence or artificial lifeform and imaging those are the Ubermensch misses the point- they aren't "human" and don't represent human beings challenging themselves, so you might as well fall down and worship cats or computers, or love the art but dismiss the artist. I think Nietzsche believed that what made a piece of art great was not the art itself but the fact that the artist created it and then tried to create something even better "ad infinitum", never being satisfied and always trying to create something new. To use an example, today we have chess computer programmes that can beat any chess grandmaster no matter how good; Nietzsche might argue that the only value of those programmes is to give those grandmasters something to compete with. The fact that those programmes are themselves flawless at chess is meaningless because they aren't human- it doesn't mean we should be impressed at the chess skills of the programmes of that those programmes are chess Ubermenschen.
Isn't that precisely the opposite of what Nietzche himself did though? He always looked at historical context etc (or his own understanding of them) to critique and interpret / reinterpret old texts and beliefs.
Interesting that Nietzsche views sacrifice and self-destruction as a result of dedication to greatness. I can see how that can be construed by those lusting for power to use in getting acolytes.
This series has been great so far! Very insightful and helpful :)
Glad to read it
I have waited for this series for so long. Thanks for your generosity.
You're very welcome. Not doing the whole book at this point, though - just enough for my classes
One of my favorite books!
Good!
Nietzsche is my favorite philisopher. Great video.
Glad you enjoyed it
I have a question that is too broad to settle in a youtube comment, but maybe it's worth asking since it is relevant to understanding the Nietzschean project: Do you think MacIntyre's take on Nietzsche in After Virtue is correct? He sees Nietzsche's 'ethics' as an inevitable consequence of our (and Nietzsche's contemporaries) abandonment of the culture of moral practice, which the Aristotelian tradition embodies. In short, if we recover Aristotle, the problems that motivate Nietzsche are dissolved, his radical project of transvaluation no longer necessary. (I hope I remember that chapter of AV correctly!)
I think it's partly correct. Partly not.
And notice that "recover Aristotle" turns into "recover Aristotle and Augustine" in the next book, and then "recover Aristotle and Augustine in Aquinas". . . and then "take the Aristotelian metaphysical biology a bit more seriously, and deliberately incorporate psychoanalytic theory" in the next.
And of course "recover Aristotle" wouldn't mean you put Nietzsche down for good. Any more than it would mean the same for Kant or Mill. You'll notice Mac appropriating what he thinks valuable from other traditions of moral inquiry - that's part of what "recovering Aristotle" involves
@@GregoryBSadler Great response, thank you! I am currently going through MacIntyre's work and, to say the least, I am very impressed. His ideas are a bridge that allowed me to connect my admiration of the ancients, my belief that Nietzsche's diagnosis was illuminating and largely correct, and my anxiety about our everyday moral discourse, which was only heightened by having read analytic philosophers at university.
Recovering Aristotle as recovering a certain way of doing philosophy - a dialectical and historically minded method that keeps us connected with the tradition - is some powerful stuff!
Love Nietzche 👍 thank you
You're welcome!
Thank you.
You're welcome!
Very insightful as usual. Thank you
You're welcome!
Hello, thanks for these detailed analysis, can you explain what Nietzsche meant by " Going down or Going under". Thanks.
Seems pretty clear. What's your specific confusion?
Very helpful explanation thank you :)
You’re very welcome
I'm immediately mapping Nietzsche's prediction of the Ubermensche, something beyond man but nonetheless coming from man, as the advent of Artificial General Intelligence. Given the increasing trend of achievements that Machine Learning is producing, I think we are only a few decades away from entering into the era of the Ubermensche...
Yep, people have been saying that sort of things for a while
Or maybe a few decades away from becomming the last men.
So am i right to assume that you believe the superman will be a man merged with machine? I personally believe the machine/artificial intelligence will be what brings in the last man. The consuming man, no creativity and will to express. Right now the artificial intelligence is data harvesting and lacks the conscious experience only we are capable of, it lacks morals, virtue, good and evil ect. It's lack of ability to create something NEW, without us. Its personally why I believe it directly relates to the state/hive minded individuals who need a fixed idea of what good and evil is in order to function. Man isn't ready to know all things at once without experiencing and learning it for himself. Wisdom that is unearned can be a poison to the soul whom is not ready for it.
I believe most of people out German can't speak the umlaut sound correctly " ü ". Thank you very much for the video !!
You're welcome
@@GregoryBSadler Thank you very much, as you can see I'm not a native English speak, make it more difficult to understand it, but you class make it easy to understand. Thank you !
Dr. Grage, I wish you could give accredited philosophy courses/degrees with affordable tuition online. I would be the first to sign up for it.
MATC is affordable. I teach for them frequently
Concerning the plant-ghost hybrid, Nietzsche here contrasts with what will later be called the "blonde beast", or the man whose body speaks for his soul. The disharmonious hybrid of plant and ghost is the union of the beginning and end with no connective animal tissue. Nietzsche will go on in "The Despisers of the Body" to talk about the body as the source of psychology and philosophy, and he proposes the Self as the source of bodily and spiritual senses and the creating beyond oneself.
In that way there is also an interesting link between the overman in Nietzsche's writing and the Individuation in Jung's writing. We can say that Nietzsche was the first depth psychologist.
Nietzsche himself might say Dostoevsky was, after he started reading him at Brandes suggestions. I'd say that there's plenty of other candidates earlier on.
@@GregoryBSadler That's true. I shouldn't have written my comment in such a presumtuous tone. Which other candidates do you have in mind?
Do you think the "meaning" you mentioned is akin to the Christian logos, in that Christ is the mind that organizes reality while for Nietzsche here it is another entity that will give meaning to reality?
No
I'm from India
So . . .
Maybe the Übermensch won't bleed, but will tic?
Hey Greg, I really appreciate your videos and thought of a similar project of creating a channel, mainly about the philosophy of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, mainly on Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse at first. Have you ever read their works? I know, they might be a bit unfamiliar or maybe overshadowed by meriocre latter works of Habermas, but their engagement in dialectical thought, reflection upon Hegel, Marx and Freud, and critique of society is quite impressive and frighteningly accurate today. I would love to see some videos about them for the sake of public education. If not, I might do it myself...
Best regards from Frankfurt~
My first publication, about two decades back, was on Adorno
@@GregoryBSadler Thanks for the very quick answer!
So, are we going to see some videos on the Critical Theory in the future? Like Adorno's take on dialectics or his critique of society or his aesthetic theory? And maybe, if you feel bold enough, his rare ideas of emancipation? Marcuse's "Eros and Civilization" is also beautiful in that regard.
Amazing! We love you and love your videos!
Thanks!
Thank your for teaching us nietzsche’s philosophy
You’re welcome!
I couldnt help but to make a connection between ubermanch/superman and Alexander the great.
He might have been on the way in some respects. But a hot mess in many others
Awesome work! Just getting into Nietzsche and its a lot to try to decipher so thank you for these videos
Glad you're finding the videos helpful!
I think his Ubermensch is really just "Great Man" theory writ large. I know that elsewhere he writes about people who "might have been" Ubermensch or who "came close" and it's mostly famous artists, musicians, conquerors, religious figures etc.
I think (might be misremembering) he regarded Jesus and Napoleon as coming closest in terms of global impact, but both failed in their own ways, with Jesus failing because he gave up "the Earth" in favour of Heaven by choosing to allow himself to be crucified, and Napoleon for the more obvious failure of, you know, actually failing.
Ones who came closest in terms of the fantastical genius they possessed are people like Goethe, Beethoven, Leonardo etc
So basically his Übermensch would have the impact of Jesus, the ambition of Napoleon and the polymathic talent of Leonardo; or at least, that would be approaching what he is talking about. Maybe the Ubermensch would have more variety than that, but being multi-talented, ambitious and impactful geniuses seem to be key criteria.
So Nietzsche is arguing- we can't worship God anymore (because "God is dead" after all), we can't really trust science too much (because that might lead to the Last Man); instead we should worship and strive for an age of "Great Men", or Great Men 2.0, as something to give us meaning in our lives, even if most of us could never hope to be such ourselves. Greatness is the only thing worth striving for or giving life meaning.
And Great Men or geniuses create new values in the sense that they are always taking on new projects or otherwise setting new challenges for themselves; they always want to exercise their talents in different ways to thrive and grow, and as far as Nietzsche is concerned our "values" should be the rules we set that best help us achieve our goals or interests, so the Ubermensch changes values because they are polymathic and always exploring different interests.
I think people forget just how much Nietzsche loved History and how much it (and the Great Man theory of his day) impacted his work and thought. Inventing a superior sort of artificial intelligence or artificial lifeform and imaging those are the Ubermensch misses the point- they aren't "human" and don't represent human beings challenging themselves, so you might as well fall down and worship cats or computers, or love the art but dismiss the artist. I think Nietzsche believed that what made a piece of art great was not the art itself but the fact that the artist created it and then tried to create something even better "ad infinitum", never being satisfied and always trying to create something new.
To use an example, today we have chess computer programmes that can beat any chess grandmaster no matter how good; Nietzsche might argue that the only value of those programmes is to give those grandmasters something to compete with. The fact that those programmes are themselves flawless at chess is meaningless because they aren't human- it doesn't mean we should be impressed at the chess skills of the programmes of that those programmes are chess Ubermenschen.
The Ubermensch is not just the "great man" theory
No, but it seems inspired by it at the very least.
I'd look at it in it's own terms, not trying to shoehorn it into something else
Isn't that precisely the opposite of what Nietzche himself did though? He always looked at historical context etc (or his own understanding of them) to critique and interpret / reinterpret old texts and beliefs.
@@jonathancampbell5231 Sure, but what you're doing isn't Nietzsche's genealogical approach