@@GregoryBSadler Oh that’s because I didn’t watch the video at that time and was just curious I do have another comment though because I’m not sure I’m following completely So the crafting of herd morality mostly comes from ressentiment? I’m guessing the ressentiment of the priest and herd comes from the frustration of them being unable to express their will? Where does the will of the nobles come from? Also from what I’m interpreting, it seems that without the priest the human mind would be mechanistic with the will of the nobles outweighing the will of the herd.
@@GregoryBSadler Yeah for sure, it’s hard to imagine phenomenons which aren’t complex. I wonder if Nietzsche made more distinctions like the priest, herd, and nobles. For instance what would he think about the criminal? Thanks for the reply
It's always easier to belittle the accomplishments of others, instead of demanding more out of yourself or acknowledge your own shortcomings. Do you think Nietzsche would agree with the statement: "talk is cheap"?
Ever get the feeling that N took Hegel's master slave dialectic, and switched which term has priority(though he kept the progress..."decadence")? Were the masters spontaneous first? I think the commoners were spontaneous first. Nature is as nature behaves, and every master was a helpless child and needed protection when they slept. The "herd" preexists as a natural unit before the individual. The individual is a development. Its a kind of audacious claim to assume centrality and see everything else as either derivative or reactionary. (to assume is already to question to much...it would be a presupposition so natural the the ability to even put it into words would be unavailable, and a terrible shock to even be able to state such a thing). "I swallowed the north star so long ago that I forgot i did it." In a totality, any completing point can be considered first, and all other points as derivative or reactionary. Good lecture. Thank you
A young man's possible reaction (motivated from outside...) to reading the genealogy of morals. He has been swindled by Christianity from his birthright. Now he knows the truth. He imagines the encounter would go like this. He will claim back his priority and nature that was stolen and hidden by the magisterium. He will have both truth and power( freedom to be, just recognition and deference, and I guess...free food and lodgings?). It won't go as he imagines. He will then, in great resentiment, in reaction ( a great NO to the herd, instead of a simple yes to himself) write many books about the decline from the "age of heroes". th-cam.com/video/NCIDfICt9Mw/w-d-xo.html
@@seansmith5468 I don't think so, as to say no to the herd is to give them priority, and to be reactionary against them. This is part of the process of ressentiment. Besides...does the grouping of "herd" exist if there are no generalities?
I think that the Phenomenology was much less read in the 19th century than the Logics, and that it's unlikely Nietzsche deliberately chose what was then an obscure and unimportant section of the work to switch around
@@GregoryBSadler I'll consider that, given my knowledge of Hegel is scant. But in a first reading through of the phenomenology I get a sense of identifying a relation, and then terms of the relation, and then reciprocating around which term has priority. As one alternatively prioritizes one term over another , the other is concomitantly derivative and "reactionary". The masters in choosing themselves set themselves as prior, and all other relations of worth are defined in terms of them. The herd define themselves as Not-Masters, ( a negation) , and their list of so-called positive values are merely the negation of what they hate in the masters, but expressed in a positive way. The masters love to punish ("there is something festive in punishment"....what a line...), the herd cannot punish, and hate punishment, so not-punishment is a virtue, or positively put, forgiveness.
I think he was saying that with religion there is more weakness then we are aware of. So when they bring forward their will to power they bring misunderstandings and equations that do not fit reality. Nietzsche just says there are different efforts one must take to get to a better reality. Not through a herd morality of injustice! His explanation continues . . .
I find it funny how easily Nietzsche diagnosed ressentiment in his opponents but did not notice it in himself, particularly in his attitude toward women. "I love the forest. It is bad to live in cities: there, there are too many of the lustful. Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman? And just look at these men: their eye saith it--they know nothing better on earth than to lie with a woman. Filth is at the bottom of their souls;" Sounds like a classic case of sour grapes to me with a big dose of a beam in ones eye.
Excellent explanation! Thank you! Would have been interesting to hear your commentary or critique of these ideas…
You’d want to commission a video then
I love you
I’m curious, are you going to update the core concept introduction?
Not any time soon.
Why is that your main focus here, when you get the chance to communicate with the creator of the video?
@@GregoryBSadler
Oh that’s because I didn’t watch the video at that time and was just curious
I do have another comment though because I’m not sure I’m following completely
So the crafting of herd morality mostly comes from ressentiment? I’m guessing the ressentiment of the priest and herd comes from the frustration of them being unable to express their will? Where does the will of the nobles come from? Also from what I’m interpreting, it seems that without the priest the human mind would be mechanistic with the will of the nobles outweighing the will of the herd.
@@dr.c6260 Ressentiment plays a role in it. Pretty much every social phenomenon is complex
@@GregoryBSadler Yeah for sure, it’s hard to imagine phenomenons which aren’t complex. I wonder if Nietzsche made more distinctions like the priest, herd, and nobles. For instance what would he think about the criminal? Thanks for the reply
Best way to resolve that "I wonder" would be reading Nietzsche, I expect
It's always easier to belittle the accomplishments of others, instead of demanding more out of yourself or acknowledge your own shortcomings. Do you think Nietzsche would agree with the statement: "talk is cheap"?
I think he’d say anyone can say that
Have you ever discussed the more philosophical writings of B.F Skinner
th-cam.com/video/kSnxvnrCHLw/w-d-xo.html
Ever get the feeling that N took Hegel's master slave dialectic, and switched which term has priority(though he kept the progress..."decadence")? Were the masters spontaneous first? I think the commoners were spontaneous first. Nature is as nature behaves, and every master was a helpless child and needed protection when they slept. The "herd" preexists as a natural unit before the individual. The individual is a development. Its a kind of audacious claim to assume centrality and see everything else as either derivative or reactionary. (to assume is already to question to much...it would be a presupposition so natural the the ability to even put it into words would be unavailable, and a terrible shock to even be able to state such a thing). "I swallowed the north star so long ago that I forgot i did it." In a totality, any completing point can be considered first, and all other points as derivative or reactionary. Good lecture. Thank you
A young man's possible reaction (motivated from outside...) to reading the genealogy of morals. He has been swindled by Christianity from his birthright. Now he knows the truth. He imagines the encounter would go like this. He will claim back his priority and nature that was stolen and hidden by the magisterium. He will have both truth and power( freedom to be, just recognition and deference, and I guess...free food and lodgings?). It won't go as he imagines. He will then, in great resentiment, in reaction ( a great NO to the herd, instead of a simple yes to himself) write many books about the decline from the "age of heroes".
th-cam.com/video/NCIDfICt9Mw/w-d-xo.html
@@seansmith5468 I don't think so, as to say no to the herd is to give them priority, and to be reactionary against them. This is part of the process of ressentiment. Besides...does the grouping of "herd" exist if there are no generalities?
I think that the Phenomenology was much less read in the 19th century than the Logics, and that it's unlikely Nietzsche deliberately chose what was then an obscure and unimportant section of the work to switch around
@@GregoryBSadler I'll consider that, given my knowledge of Hegel is scant. But in a first reading through of the phenomenology I get a sense of identifying a relation, and then terms of the relation, and then reciprocating around which term has priority. As one alternatively prioritizes one term over another , the other is concomitantly derivative and "reactionary". The masters in choosing themselves set themselves as prior, and all other relations of worth are defined in terms of them. The herd define themselves as Not-Masters, ( a negation) , and their list of so-called positive values are merely the negation of what they hate in the masters, but expressed in a positive way. The masters love to punish ("there is something festive in punishment"....what a line...), the herd cannot punish, and hate punishment, so not-punishment is a virtue, or positively put, forgiveness.
@@MrMarktrumble They're quite different dynamics. Really the main thing that leads to thinking they're related is similarity of terminology
I think he was saying that with religion there is more weakness then we are aware of. So when they bring forward their will to power they bring misunderstandings and equations that do not fit reality. Nietzsche just says there are different efforts one must take to get to a better reality. Not through a herd morality of injustice! His explanation continues . . .
Really none of that is what Nietzsche is saying. Always best to stick with the text
Thank you for these Dr. Sadler!
You’re welcome!
Is the Birth of Tragedy a place to start reading Nietzsche?
It's certainly a place, yes
I find it funny how easily Nietzsche diagnosed ressentiment in his opponents but did not notice it in himself, particularly in his attitude toward women.
"I love the forest. It is bad to live in cities: there, there are too many of the lustful.
Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?
And just look at these men: their eye saith it--they know nothing better on earth than to lie with a woman.
Filth is at the bottom of their souls;"
Sounds like a classic case of sour grapes to me with a big dose of a beam in ones eye.
Yes, sometimes philosophers are inconsistent, like human beings. Not really news
@@GregoryBSadler I get a sense that N was filled with ressentiment. Almost the case of the pot calling the kettle black.
@@MrMarktrumble I don't get that sense myself. Guess we have very different reads of the guy