Existential nihilism and dread getting you down? CuriosityStream is here to distract you from your INEVITABLE DEMISE and the purposeless heat death of the universe >>> curiositystream.com/hellofutureme
@@wrigglenight93 the prince is tips for monarchs and revolutionaries willing to revolt against said monarchs whoever gets theur hands on the book i just want monarchy conquering shit and then forming roman republic cause it's cooler than tge empire
@@wrigglenight93 Machiavelli can be understood very simply, and so can Prince. Prince much easier, for it's have a quasi-second part to it, commentary on history of Roman Republic. Machiavelli was not endorsing tyrany or even strong monarchy, he was republican. But more so than that, he was Italian, and his whole life endevor was to see Italy as one. He was a nationalist, sadlt he choose the easy way of pursuing it.
@@wrigglenight93 if you go to Florence you will find that a lot of academic institutes there are named after the guy and he was critical of how the Medici family were running the city and turning it from a merchant republic into a principality
Excellent analysis! My only quibble is that Tolkien wasn't anti-science, just science without an ethical steering-wheel, as it were. He once described Tom Bombadil as the ultimate scientist, totally immersed in the understanding of all creatures and delighting in mastering his studies of them without seizing mastery over them. At first glance Tom does appear to control everything around himself, but what he really does is, through his songs, remind all around him of who they really are. His wife, Goldberry, had been a fallen spirit who had tried to drown him, till he reminded her of love. He helps the hobbits escape spells by remembering to be hobbits--but he also arms them, reminding them of a courage innate to them that they were not yet aware of. He reminds the willow to be a tree, not a carnivore. He reminds the dead to stay dead. He reminds gold to be beautiful and available, not to lie hidden in a haunted hoard. And he even reminds the One Ring that ultimately it is nothing!
This video reminds me of when my Catholic Studies professor assigned us Nietzsche, because he said "Nietzsche was right about the problems but wrong about the solution." Thanks to this vid, I see Tolkien saying the same thing.
no, i didn't take the class the gal above is referring but he probably said that nietzsche thinks that God dying and humans taking God's place is actually Luciferian, Lucifer wanting to be his own God, elevating himself to God's status after all.
My Catholic Studies professor said that Neitsche was writing to address real problems in society and real problems within the faithful. My professor rejected Neitsche's solution that we kill God and take his place.
@@antoinelandry7534 no, that the way nihilism is brought about is the way Niche describes but that instead we should reject modernist values in favor of religious teaching to overcome nihilism. It's a pretty popular belief actually, though I don't really think it's uh, good, or creates progress.
People who watch only the movies would assume he’s a Lucifer when he’s simply been manipulated and happened to outlast the real Lucifer (morgoth) sauron is far weaker and his entire concept is unique as he’s not a supreme evil leader; he’s really no more powerful than Gandalf both are Maiar
I agree with you to an extent in that Sauron brings a new culture and religion to middle earth much like the antichrist and the unholy trinity. However if we can make that claim we can also make the claim that he represents Christ under the same logic.
@@Meatwad.Baggins Not even a little bit could you make that conclusion. I mean the anti Christ is the opposite of christ in the similar way that Reverse Flash is the opposite of Flash, or Bizarro of Superman. There are similar characteristics, yes - a death and resurrection even - but these similarities, if intentional at all, are surely mockeries - a demented shadow of the archetype.
One of the truly ironic things in Tolkien's work is that he sets up the race of Men's most significant gift (other than death) as being the power to choose whether or not to follow the Music of the Ainur. Effectively, Illuvitar gifts Humanity with the Will to Power, the ability to deny the machinations of the heavens and follow their own path and create their own identity separate from the concept of divine will...
I think if you look at it from the Christian worldview initially set out by the church fathers, the understanding of god and free will is that the will was given so as to allow an authentic participation in beauty, and as a gift it was always intended to fulfill the plan (same in Illuvatars creation). The problem of will in Tolkien’s work and similarly the problem of will in the Christian Faith, it that there is an original corrupter who abuses the presence of that gift within the creations (Satan and Morgoth) to act against the creation plan. Understood in terms of “god is dead”, the death of morality is actually the triumph of the corruption laid out by the original corrupter. It signifies a perversion of morality where evil things happen because what is good and what is evil has become indistinguishable. Coupled with that, free will no longer becomes this thing to allow for the willful fulfillment of meaning, insinuating that if you do something bad there will be consequences, but rather that free will is no free will without consequence. In Tolkien and to a similar extent Nietzsche’s criticism of societal degradation, it serves as a critique of the ultra libertarianism associated with traditionally perceived “satanic” acts that result from a misinterpretation of the gift of free will. That we can freely choose to engage with the project of the Ainur doesn’t me we should choose otherwise, but due to the corruption, we choose otherwise nonetheless and society pays for it, dearly. Nietzsche is often credited for having essentially predicted the events of the following century from the time he wrote his works, and Tolkien is a symbolic representation of what happens when society shifts from tradition and god to seeing themselves as god kings or destroyers of creation, (Sauron and Morgoth respectively). Of course, as an atheist myself, I also need to enter the caveat here of the evils perpetrated under traditionalism, but it’s a fascinating discourse on will and morality when we map Nietzsche and Tolkien alongside each other. Forgive me now because I’m going to push this comparison of Nietzsche and Tolkien and their philosophies even further into contemporary debates. We can’t deny that in some ways the development of moral relativism did allow for good results such as the respect to innate things originally denied, like being gay, but with this relativism and justification (or potential perversion) of what is good, we may also in today’s society become too allowing of freedom without consequence, so as to even justify it at the expense of others. Does the potential innateness or mental illness of a pedophile also become justified? It definitely doesn’t, but then you see the problem, we would need a more “traditional” approach to morality stemming from a belief in god that makes it objective, so as to determine that pedophillia is wrong with arbitrariness, and that approach is no longer applicable today due to relativism and god being dead. That’s a controversial take, and I agree it is, because from my personal view pedophillia is obviously wrong. But the point is to consider the arbitrariness in a society with out god, so that we can tackle it and take it down. What this extreme example I have interjected serves to do, is force us to consider what the problems are continuing to be in a society where we rely on concepts such as the ubermensch to regulate a convoluted moral system. This is the detriment of our times. How do we restrain freedom without consequence so as to prevent tyranny and moral perversion? If god is dead, how do we regulate that? If we argue from social negotiation then morality is still only remaining as arbitrary. I struggle with this myself, because it it existentially unnerving.
@@ArcanicFire And it is a struggle that we must face. Just because we would like there to be an objective answer doesn't mean one exists. We cannot will God into existance just because we think it would be nice, or because we dislike the alternative.
@@ArcanicFire Have you considered that God could never actually be killed? God works through people. Satan also works through people. The greatest things that society has accomplished have come from people accepting absolute moral values as part of their purpose to be “good people” (technically achieving “self-actualization” as Nietzche says, because what else would we be accomplishing?) and people trying to find purpose outside of moral absolutes are simply justifying their own actions which otherwise they could not really explain why they do what they do as far as having a motivation they could control to suit an absolute good purpose (note, if you are on the understanding that pleasure is also a purpose, then I guess you might be convinced that we should all just OD on heroin because it is chemically indistinguishable from having all the pleasure in the world). The very slavery to an arbitrary God that you fear being placed under without atheism is actually the place you can go to have a true purpose in life!
Philosophy, morality, inspiration, would all be totally bunk & pointless if we didn't have an instinctive sense that some kind of resolution or certainty was at least possible if not attainable.
@@ArcanicFire You know the answer to the dilemma as well do I. Without restoring objective standards for right and wrong at an ontological/metaphysical level, the degradation will continue. I think it's natural to see the problem and still to dislike the solution, given that it will likely mean dispensing with a liberal attitude towards some behaviours that we enjoy or otherwise approve of. Nevertheless, the price of not restoring some kind of objective standard for morality means we likely lose a lot more in the end as society gradually degenerates. We won't get things back on track without breaking a few eggs, that's just the nature of it.
I could feel myself seething slowly until you clarified that 😂. I guess you didn't have time here but there's a lot to be said, quite ironically, about how Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Boromir, Aragorn all them become Nietzschean Overmen. They face existential and moral crises, great levels of self-doubt and then go on a path of self-actualisation to do what they think is good even if no one cares. It's strange, you know, a lot of what Christ does (whipping people out of the Temple) is very Overman-like, but a lot of what he says (blessed are the meek) is very life denying. Tolkien's characters act more like Christ than following his teachings. This has been so stimulating mate.
@@crixhussodinson2523 Exactly, he's a Lion for sure. The rest of the fellowship is still a camel and I think Tolkien supports camels. (I should mention, I have never ending love for both Tolkien and Nietzsche)
One of the things Sauron indulged in was his love of blacksmithing, shown by how the moment his boss is dead, he ties his power to a single piece of smithing.
Will Atkins I know he didn’t forge it immediately after, but I just thought he was planning to in that time, and the Ring was step 228 in his millennia-long plan, and I figured it was in the plan because he just love smithing.
Melkor did not die. He was just cast beyond the gates of night from Arda. Likewise Sauron did not die at the One Ring's destruction. He just no longer has the power to reform a body. That is actually what I like about the godlike/angelic beings in Tolkien's Legendarium. Their power has limited supply. Once it's gone, it's gone.
@@XansStuff Sauron still died. Dying in Tolkien's world is exactly the separation of spirit and body. His spirit can't be destroyed, but is impotent indeed after the destruction of the Ring. However, no spirit can be destroyed in Tolkien's world. The spirits of Elves go to Mandos after they die - and wait there to be given a new shape - while Men go beyond the world. Tolkien even stated multiple times that Morgoth was afraid _of being killed._
14:09 seeing Sauron living his best individual life at the expense of all else around him represented by Gus dancing at Disney World is the greatest thing I've seen in years
I think that rather than it being Tolkien's idea of a Nihilistic man, it's instead his view on the final result of Nihilism. After all, Sauron did start out good after all, even with his Nihilistic beliefs.
Nope, the final result was the nihilistic madness that was Morgoth, a being that was so full of hatred towards the creation of others (including the Eru), that his final goal was to destroy everything (the world, his own subjects, just everything) because he didn't create it himself. If you can find a copy of "Morgoth's Ring," you will find a whole essay about this very subject from Tolkien's own hands.
@@MasterBombadillo And yet his written god (Eru), like all gods, necessarily is just the same. For what makes a "god" greater than it's believers/subordinates? What makes them more righteous? What gives them the right to interfere with others where that right is denied to those others? Gods are they who view themselves as such and everyone else just subordinates themselves to one of those.
@@MajinOthinus that makes no sense. If Eru is like the God of Catholicism then He is an Absolute Being, Who is so inherently Other that all attempts to describe Him become laughable. At that point you're trying to compare an orange to an airplane.
@@SpydersWebbing How do you define an "absolute being" then? Otherness in general can only explain a difference in the decision making process, it can't however replace logic in that process.
That Sauron knows the God of his world exists, while a "true" Nietzchean Ubermensch does not (or believes otherwise), is sort of distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, Sauron's behavior is the same whether he sets himself up as a god-king in the absence of the true God, or in _spite_ of one. It is his arrogant will to power that drives him, and causes him over time to forget all the good reasons he may have had for pursuing his course. As a flawed, limited being, his belief in his own majesty and perfection is mistaken, a fact that leads to the terrible quality of life for those under his rule, to his blindness to his original purpose, and to his ultimate downfall. He was so sure that Will To Power was the only good anyone could desire, he could not conceive of someone willingly giving it up. This blindness to his own fallibility is a trait Sauron shares with every character who covets and fights over the ring. The titular Ring, in many ways, is a metaphor for power itself; it does not care about you, does not have loyalty to you, and you don't have as much ability to resist its allure or the pitfalls of seeking and possessing it as you think you do.
Yeah, it is not important for someone rejecting worship of God (or gods) if this being exists or not. I was reminded of quote of anarchist writer (I forgot his name) "If God existed we would need to abolish him". You could say this is just "attacking the strawman", but still: if nihillist knew God was real would this nihillist act any different? Would the nihillist accept any morality from God?
@@vladprus4019 The unfortunate question you run into is, if knowing god exists, can they be trusted at face value? The reason I say this is that a god may impose a view of morality upon the world that they don't agree with, simply to see who is willing to go along with it because a stronger being commanded it, even when their own view on morality was in conflict with it.
@@vladprus4019 That's the thing though: What makes something a "god" then? Is it power, knowledge and capability? In that case, we are "gods" compared to any human before the 19th-20th century. Is it being a creator of life? In that case one could argue that parents are ought to be their children's "gods". Is it mentality? In that case everyone who deems himself a "god" is one.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the way the world should be. But when I think about putting it into practice, I think of all the ignorant people that would oppose me. On one hand, I could accept their agency and seek to persuade, like a teacher or preacher. Or, if I truly believed in my vision, I could use the will to power, crush my opponents, and bring my dream to fruition. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, after all. And I am good. The problem is that we don't appreciate our flaws and blind spots enough, nor others' good ideas and strengths. If I were tyrant, I would outlaw motorcycles, because they are loud and dangerous. Imagine how that would go over. Outlaw drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, because they are bad for you. Hold an iron grip over the populace to make sure they never did anything bad. Can you imagine how hated I would be? How much oppression and violence I would have to create in order to stay in power? And the ends wouldn't justify the means. The means I would have to use would warp and mutate the end, until you have orcs instead of elves, slavery instead of freedom, and death instead of life. The other problem is that even if you could be pure, incorruptible, it would still be better for you to sit back and let others do as well. If one person seeks the will to power, even for good, they make everyone subservient and slothful, in mind if not body. Good ideas and innovations that could come about, don't, because there is no room for others to rise in such a system. Take Superman. A common joke is that he could do any other super hero's job, better than they could. But even he can't do everything. By letting others have their moments, they can grow and become more useful, helping him to keep the world safe. And if they can't, he is there to help them. Likewise, in our world, we don't need a strong man, an ubermensch. We need everyone to lift where they stand. To start where they are, wherever they are, and take one step forward. And then keep going. The who are stronger can help those who are weaker, and "he who is greatest, let him be your servant." The rising tide lifts all boats, and only by uplifting individuals, can we uplift humanity. No system will work with bad humans, and good humans will make any system work.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 There's a certain school of nihilism/existentialism (whose name escapes me for the moment) that evolved more directly out of Christianity -- specifically, a Gnostic offshoot of Christianity -- centuries before Nietzsche. The foundational premise was that the individual was capable of becoming a god in and of themselves; and to do so, it was necessary to reject the authority and morality that they had been raised to accept, and create their own by whatever means they deemed best. Lucifer, to them, was not "the devil", not evil, but the first being who truly attempted to assert his own godhood, and become the god he should have been. Needless to say, they were quickly deemed heretical, and the Inquisition attempted to exterminate them. Not without good reason, in a lot of cases, since their rejection of common morality led many of them into rather horrific acts and lifestyles, including (but far from limited to) rape and murder. They were, possibly more than Nietzsche, a profound influence on the likes of Alistair Crowley and similar occultists.
First of all, thank you for talking about what sets Sauron and Morgoth apart! Even though there are strains or interpretations of Lucifer in both of them (the latter far more so than the former), I do think they are very different characters motivated by different things and with different goals, as Tolkien himself noted in his letters. [By the way, writing on a borrowed account!] Secondly, I think there is a more nuanced view to the question about whether or not Nietzsche's ideas were a good thing (and whether or not Tolkien completely rejected them). Tolkien hated the "grown-upishness" of society: conformity, coercion, and life-denying living in accordance with the "Machine", which is unquestioning obedience to whatever society considers to be of greatest utility (especially to those in power). Tolkien agreed with Nietzsche about the value of creativity, individuality, and being oneself: the Elves, after all, represent Tolkien's idea of a "better" version of human society: one in which ones artistic expression is allowed to both flourish and co-exist with nature and with the expressions of others. The way Tolkien disagrees with Nietzsche is about whether power over other people, when sought, is a good thing, and also about the consequences of power over nature. Power is a necessity in existence, as represented by Aragorn and the necessity of his taking up the throne to save the people of Gondor, even though he doesn't have any ambition for the throne and would rather live the life of a ranger. Likewise, the necessity of harvesting resources from nature to build civilization is often brought up in the Legendarium. However, the seeking of power, in Tolkien's mind, easily leads to corruption. The problem with the will to power over others is that it denies the will to power for everyone but oneself. In a similar light, unrestrained power over nature leads to environmental destruction in addition to suffering and extinction on the part of the organisms that rely upon it, not to mention the suffering of human beings who psychologically need wild nature more than we would like to admit. Sauron represents these extremes. In the end, Sauron's will to power completely erodes the will to power for anyone but himself. Sauron's "Master Morality" leads him to enforce extreme "Slave Morality" on everyone else, to the point of denying them their very minds and free will. At least Morgoth recognized and often even encouraged the will to (evil) power of others rather than just his own. So in reality, Tolkien advocated for a combination of life-affirming and life-denying values, and saw the evil of both as interrelated. Furthermore, on Nietzsche's part, he rejected traditional morals but also rejected the idea of complete nihilism without personal responsibility. Not only did he not consider the Übermensch to be a true nihilist, he also believed that the "Übermensch" who refused to take into consideration responsibility for negative consequences was a false Übermensch. Sauron refused to change course even when the harm caused by his pursuit of power was increasingly outweighing his intended good, til ultimately the attaining of control and power became his sole goal in and of itself. Nietzsche would consider this to be a failure of mastery of self, especially when one takes into account the One Ring, the lust for which even Sauron could not suppress. Ironically, Tolkien said he thought Gandalf with the One Ring would be much worse than even Sauron, as Gandalf's devotion to (and aptitude for) making life better for others would lead him to be even more controlling, turning good into evil and making evil seem good. Anyway, I hope this was good food for thought! ^_^ Once again: great video!
Nietzsche's philosophy actually reminds more of Tom Bombadil's philosophy. Nietzsche would have said that Sauron demeaned himself by being obsessed by mastery over lesser creatures.
No, he wouldn't. The Overman is specifically meant to be a leader of lesser men. He's not a hermit like Bombadil, Nietzsche intends the Overman to exert his will on the world, not retreat from it. Where the video is wrong is that the Overman is not a nihilist, but a creator of new values. He is a messianic figure of sorts, envisaged to transform humanity into something new through his leadership.
@@FuuuckOffff That's a strange reading of the topic, the Ubermensch is not meant to rule but inspire, the example of one person is meant to sway others through sheer awesomeness (obviously I'm paraphrasing more than a little). The point is that leadership through coercion is not the way to go, if you can't persuade others via inspiration (instead of force) then you don't deserve to lead.
@@AeneasGemini It's an accurate reading of Nietzsche. My PhD is on Nietszsche, he says absolutely none of what you're attributing to him with respect to the Overman. The Overman is a hypothetical character specifically intended to create values and exert his will upon the world. It's an ideal for great men to aim towards. Nietzsche gives examples of people like Napoleon as embodying something approaching what he intends. Common people - who Nietzsche typically refers to as 'the herd' or 'the Last Men' - are to be led by great men who effectively guide the human race forward.
@@FuuuckOffff Kind of, but it is important to note that as you have mentioned, the Übermensch is an ideal. And it being an ideal it is something everyone can and should aspire towards. That doesn't neccessarily mean that an ideal world order would consist of only a few overmen and the rest being the herd. As the title "Last Men" kind of implies, they are to be considered a dying concept, those who are so stuck in the old humanity that they cannot move forward on their own, those for whom the death of god was not merely liberation but also a loss of guidance. Sauron isn't a good Übermensch because he isn't using his power productively. Tom Bombadil isn't a good Übermensch because he doesn't seek more power and he doesn't seek to improve things but just retain a status quo. For Nietzsche, the best Übermensch in LOTR would be Aragorn. Right from the start, Aragorn recognizes his purpose as a leader and guide and he eventually goes to acquire more power because he genuinely thinks that he can make the world into a place that will be better for everyone. There's a reason he ends up as the King of Gondor, after all.
@@darthplagueis13 Nietzsche specifically states that his philosophy is not intended for everyone to follow and that he envisages the human masses being led by a few great men. It is a consistent and recurrent theme across his entire body of work, far more so than the concept of the Ubermensch. Literally any introductory material on Nietzsche's philosophy will attest to this. Also, I would be careful about assuming that Nietzsche has set strict criteria for what an ideal political society should look like or as to how political power should be wielded. He tends to assert his political philosophy only in negative terms. For example, he is explicitly against democracy and egalitarianism and has a transformative rather than restorative vision, which contradicts the rationale behind your thesis of Aragorn as Ubermensch. Saruman as a character fits the bill of what Nietzsche is describing more closely. Saruman seeks to overthrow old values and effectively sets himself at odds with the metaphysical and moral structure of the universe; he literally seeks to create a new race of beings to replace the last race of men; he does so purely to acquire power without reference to the wishes of lesser men. All of this fits the bill of Nietzsche's Ubermensch. However, Saruman is also at odds with this character in that his transformation of society is along purely materialist lines and has no spiritual component to it.
The thing is, the two tyrants actually have rather divergent worldviews; Morgoth desires merely to destroy all things Eru created, while Sauron desires to control all things Eru mad, to reorder the world according to his own twisted mind.
@@robertlewis6915 it's true they weren't identical but Sauron is wholly influenced by Morgoth, I would love to see the events of the silmarillion get adapted one day.
@@Janny890 Agreed; Morgoth explciitly corrupted Sauron from what I recall. Also, I sincerely hope they never adapt the Silmarillion. They'd do it horribly and make the Hobbit movies look like masterpieces of adaptation and art.
@@Janny890 I think you could do it with animation, though I feel like the SIlmarillion would be very difficult. On a side note, I think they would make choices and changes (from a worldview and writing perspective) that would vandalize anything of Tolkien's they put to film nowadays.
As someone who’s read Nietzsche fairly extensively (went to school for philosophy... uhg...), I have to quibble with this interpretation of the man. I know it’s a fairly common one, but it’s also one that reads a significant number of his points out of context-like in multiple texts where he points out that “God is dead” is about the death of our God-concepts *not* whatever we might be trying and failing to point at with the word “God.” And it ignores things like his strident critiques of nihilism per se, his distinctions between the Ubermensch and egotism, his intense concern with ethical values, etc. Indeed, an argument could be made that on a more holistic reading of Nietzsche, Aragorn is a better figure of the Ubermensch than Sauron. A great, quick, fun read on a more holistic view of Nietzsche is Jason Wirth’s (provocatively titled) Nietzsche and Other Buddhas. Gilles Deleuze’s Nietzsche and Philosophy is also a must read in this vein.
The villain never sees their self thus, lest they lose their moral authority. Nietzsche certainly fits the mold of one. And what others have done with his work since back that up, rather it was his intention or not. That is not to say "traditional values" (whatever that means) are without flaw. Those two words have been used to justify just as much pain and suffering than nihilism. But to declare ones self "ubermensch", to put yourself above another is more than a twisted exploit of established principles for self gain. It is the very bedrock of evil. And it more exemplifies the term "special snowflake" than any stereotype his followers apply to their political opponents. Nietzsche and Rand were evil. And it's a damn shame they became such a cornerstone of right wing philosophy.
Lukos0036 u think nietzsche thought of himself an ubermensch? U wanna use the Nazi interpretation? Fine. His proposal of the Ubermensch is an ideal. A new idol to follow now that God cannot serve that purpose anymore and people are turning to alcohol and other vices for consolation. Also your argument of “what others made of his work” is plain lazy. So you won’t read him because Goebbels used him, Wagner and R Strauss as figureheads of Nazi ideology? Don’t read Goebbels take then! Read Kaufman’s translations. Nietzche’s impact has been heavily influenced by post Weimar German culture, sadly, but that doesn’t mean it’s the one true take on him. U think Shakespeare hasn’t been reinterpreted? He wasn’t a big deal (after Tudor England) until the Romantics came along and made him one. Please go and read On The Genealogy of Morals.
@@lad9732 Shakespeare wasn't a philosopher who's ideas fueled a god damned holocaust. And nowhere did I say I hadn't read him. You pulled that out of nowhere. I said he was evil. Objectively he is. Know the man by his works. He was a selfish egotistical narcissist just like 90% of the people who swear by his literature. But clearly your opinion is already calcified so there is little point in further discussion.
Lukos0036 If that is your take on Nietzsche, I’m sorry to say, but I think it is fair to say you haven’t read him with any thoroughness or attention. I’m not saying he isn’t problematic in some ways, but the Nazi uses of him were based on clearly, incredibly shallow-and frankly cynical-readings of his work. The reductionism you’re engaging in by just calling him “evil” and writing him off because of how he was (incredibly wrongly) used by the Nazis is just not supportable if you’ve actually read his work. So please, take a breath, and maybe read one of the two books I suggested: Wirth and Deleuze are/were both very leftwing, antifascist, and trained philosophers incredibly and thoroughly well read in Nietzsche. And then use their work as springboards for assessing his work on its own merits instead through the lenses of the way the Nazis abused him. Or don’t. But please be aware that to those of us who have read a lot of Nietzsche, and who are antifascists (like yours truly), you’re sounding pretty bad.
For Tolkien, sauron is a character who sought to be an overman, but went straight for power over others without obtaining personal power. A failed overman.
@Sketcho Fink Power is a fantasy, requiring compliance and belief in order for it to function. I have to believe you have power in order for you to have it. I don’t. Unity is natural and evolutionarily beneficial as we are inherently cooperative, evident within its practice. Have you heard of game theory? You have no power over others because power is an illusion. You dont even have power over yourself and you rely on others for your safety and comfort. Not power, unity is the answer.
This man chose to make his living by repeating the worst part of my senior year of high school over and over. I spent months on my senior thesis and it came up half as good at best.
That sponsorship transition tho xD Also, as a man of faith I always appreciate that in any analysis you do that involves religious themes or concepts you simply present them as they are without judgement. I think that's the best way to analyze such themes in media.
"Then every thing includes itself in power, power into will, will into appetite; and appetite, a universal wolf, so doubly seconded with will and power, must make perforce a universal prey, and last eat up himself." -William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida
@@Darth_Nox13 Well if God has "never been alive", I don't see how he could be dead. And if God "is dead" as your first statement alleges he would have to have been alive at some point. Now you could argue God has never existed through that is a difficult position to prove. Personally when faced with neither evidence for or against, the most prudent course is to favor neither.
@@sonofccn Creationism Debunked: Complexity Is Not The Marker of Design The watch analogy works precisely and only because we know that watches are not natural and do not arise their own in nature. If design were truly responsible for everything, there would be no fundamental difference between a stone and a watch because both would have been designed by an intelligent creator. Thus, we would not be obsolete. Design exist purely in contrast to naturally-occurring phenomena.
Nietzchian Nihilist Sauron has been explored in about a trillion fanfics. It's probably the second most popular depiction of the character, right after Sauron-in-love-with-Morgoth
As good as this video is the comparison falls short once you know of Saurons history as told in the Silmarillion. Sauron did not liberate himself nor did he seek power after he had been created, he was twisted and corrupted by Melkor/Morgoth and nothing more that a puppet that still carried out its masters wishes
Then perhaps he represented a consumer of nihilist philosophy in Tolkien's mind, as opposed to Nietzsche himself? Tolkien would certainly have had enough disdain for the concept to believe that the devil had led them all astray.
Melkor did twist Sauron, but not neccesarily without the latter's compliance. Sauron was (at least one of) the first to take of Melkor's theme, so I think the he was attracted to the moral freedom (depravity) Melkor represented
Tolkine judged Sauron less evil than Morgoth for the sole reason that the former subordinated his will to another for a time rather than only follow his own. I think Nietzsche would have seen it the other way round, as I'd expect from an INFP and INTJ, respectively.
You could make a point of Tolkien using that to claim Sauron's "emancipation" from god's purpose is a prison all it's own He still is a slave to greater plans, just not his maker's
Ultimately according to Tolkien, both Morgoth as well as Sauron were motivated by different desires. According to Tolkien, Morgoth and Sauron were meant to represent two different kinds of evil: Morgoth represents evil as a result of a desire for independence from the Creator and everything outside of the self. Morgoth may have been the ''most powerful'' Valar, but in the end his attitude was like to that of an angsty and destructive teenager, wanting to corrupt or destroy everything created by his father out of spite and whim and a desire to be as different from him as possible. In a sense, by corrupting things Morgoth claimed them as ''his'' in compensation for his inability to create without changing something else, since only Eru can create from nothing, and his ''invention'' of evil was as far from Eru as Morgoth could imagine, as he tried to make himself. Morgoth's problem was he valued absolute freedom from everyone but devalued others' freedom whenever he had to whim to. He also had a habit of imparting his power into other things and beings such that by the end Morgoth himself had become much weaker. Sauron, in contrast is meant to represent evil as a result of wanting absolute power and control over everything. Unlike Morgoth, Sauron did not object to the idea of god in principle; he wanted TO BE god. He believed that Eru was too much of an aloof, and therefore uncaring, Creator: that due to not micromanaging his creation Eru was being neglectful and responsible for all the suffering in the world, including Morgoth the first dark lord whom Sauron considered to be, despite being closer to the ''truth'' and having provided useful knowledge and power to Sauron over the years, a failure like the other valar, because none of them sought to take on Eru's role but only chose to oppose or serve Eru. As a perfectionist and craftsman, Sauron desired to make things the way he thought they should be. Therefore, Sauron does not believe himself to be evil; in fact he believes he has become ''reformed'' from when he trusted Morgoth. He merely believes he is using suffering like a tool to minimize it in the long term by becoming Middle-Earth's de-facto god and bulldozing or brainwashing all opposition. He believes in order but fails to understand the value of freedom when all it does in his estimation is exacerbate suffering. Sauron's power during his regime in the second age overthrew Morgoth's during the end of the first age ''power'' wise, as well as success wise. This fact alone puts him over most valar (combat, as well as intellectual wise (most valar weren't combanant's), as he became on par with Morgoth (the mightiest as well as the most powerful of all valar) himself at some point. It took numerous valar to defeat/banish Morgoth for eternity, while Fingolfin (an elf, not even of the race of the ainur (maiar/valar) ''kicked his ass'' and managed to stood and put up a fight against the once mightiest of all valar, while it took numerous valar to bring morgoths regime to an end, which makes them look/sound embarrassingly silly and overrated in my opinion. At the end Sauron proved himself to be ''not just one'' but THE worthy successor. While Morgoth, at least initially, was stronger than Sauron - Morgoth descended into a nihilistic madness as he couldn’t manage things on his way. Morgoth wanted to destroy and annihilate the Arda and render it into primordial chaos. In this respect he represented complete madness - i.e. Chaotic Evil. Sauron had other plans. Once his former master had been deposed, the Valar basically returned back to their own complacency and left the Middle-Earth on its own devices. This provided Sauron an opportunity. Sauron was the mightiest maia, and had once been one of Aulë’s maiar. He had much better insight of the Music of the Ainur and the intentions of Eru Ilúvatar, and wanted to rule and reign the Middle-Earth, not destroy it. He wanted to make homophony of the Music, not discord. Remember which vala, archangel, Aulë was? Yes, he was the maker of the things. He was the Great Grandsmith, and as such, he represented order. And Sauron was no different - or, rather, he was Aulë’s evil twin. Sauron too wanted order and organization. He was ruthless to boot, completely amoral and had no such impeding things as ‘love’, ‘empathy’ or ‘compassion’. He represented complete selfishness - i.e. Lawful Evil. Instances representing Lawful Evil tend to be much wiser and more intelligent than those representing Chaotic Evil. To get order and organization you need wisdom. Chaos means only destruction of things. Morgoth squandered all of his life force into the very essence of Arda, to pollute and corrupt it. In the end he got locked in his corporeal form (fana), and other valar were astonished on how weak he in the end became. Sauron did it the other way. He concentrated his essence into the One Ring, meaning it was his horcrux. As long as it existed, he could always assume a new form and renew his power. In the meantime, he used Men as his minions, not as something to be destroyed and annihilated. For them, he was a God-King. He wanted to reign and dominate, not destroy. Sauron got convinced both the valar and Eru himself had completely abandoned Middle-Earth after the events of Akallabêth and removal of the Undying Lands from the material world into other dimension. He felt he had basically been given free hands to do whatever he willed. He never descended into the nihilistic, Chaotic Evil, madness as Morgoth did. But at the same time, while his horcrux - The One Ring - was the manifestation of his strength, it was also his weakness. As long as it existed, he could regenerate and dominate. But once it was destroyed, it also put an explosive end to his plans of omniconquerism. Sauron did not reflect foolishness like his former master morgoth did. He never sought to overthrow the Valar, as he knew through his inhabit power comparison he was unable to, althrought he viewed himself as the incarnation of perfection in form of personality psychology by distinguishing himself from all non-perfection, as we are perfect in our imperfection. He wanted to reflect perfectionism in reforming all of arda to his bidding.
So Sauron saw himself as a good guy by believing that he was to be a new god-king, and his wars against the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth were from a twisted sense of "once they accept me as their god-king, they will live happy and free under my generous rule" but he's so far gone that he doesn't see himself as pure evil and tyranny?
Well since morality isn't a thing in his world, he couldn't turn from good to evil and it's more a change in his own willpower. While at the start he gave the free people a choice to join and at the end he feels like he has no other choice than to do it by force, and to do it by force he needs war and tyranny. A moral man would not go that far but Sauron is above morality.
Do you think he cares about those under him, even in a self deluded way? I never got that impression. I think it was all about him, his power and nothing else matters.
@@therearefourlights6926 He does, if he didn't then there wouldn't be a need for the insane organization he has. Not in the way a normal person would care for another but since he knows best he will guide us to his perfect world even if it means beating us to a pulp if it meant us saying no. There is a reason the orcs worship him as a fair and honest ruler, and why the men of the east have no problems working with him, they are not brought up with our western ideals of goodness and fairness. They legitimately believe in the promises that he makes and understands that his vision cannot be true without blood and sacrifice. Of course for every year that has passed he seems to have gotten more and more twisted to the point where its hard to say if he cares or not anymore. But would he keep struggling if he didn't?
@@starcraft2own The point of the "insane organization" is an army to conquer and hold Middle Earth. He is not doing charity events! You really think he is sitting up in his tower thinking, "how can I improve life for the common Orc? Perhaps a second serving of maggot infested meat a week? If only those in the west would let me rule them I could make all their lives so much better. Enough maggot meat for all!" ? I don't think so, he craves power, power unchallenged, and rules over all that he can because he thinks that, as the strong, he deserves to. He believes the weak live to serve the strong, not the other way around. When they suffer and die in his service, well that was what they were there for. As to the men in the East, well I'd say a lot buy into the idea of being the ones on top. He lies, telling them what they want to hear and promising them power, wealth and lands. In the end they're all just slaves, just some of a higher rank to keep the others in line.
@@therearefourlights6926 Putting words in my mouth eh? The question wasn't if he was good or bad but if he cared at all. And caring is very different from actually taking actions like rationing extra maggots with the bread. Him caring could mean anything from whipping the orcs harder to forcing them into service. The question was about his mental state and not his actions. Believing there should be a hierarchy isn't the same as completely not caring at all about those below you in it. The men of the east haven't exactly been lied to, they are just okay with the future melkors rule would bring and to get revenge on the men of the west who have trampled them down and humiliated them every step of their history. Again a hierarchy isn't slavery, it is to our modern minds but not in their reality. Organisation to saurons degree might be seen and evil and oppressive for us but could be seen as purpose giving and kind to those under saurons rule, if you told the orcs they were slaves, they'd laugh at you right before stabbing you to death. I think the fact that you seem to not be able to understand the followers of melkor mentality is the reason you can't understand this topic of saurons mental state. To you, he is unquestionably evil and only seeks destruction, pain and power.
The best criticism of Nietzsche was already addressed in this video. Whether he intended it or not, Nietzsche's philosophy inspires a might makes right mentality, which really isn't a practical philosophy for anyone that wants to live in cooperative and compassionate society. There is plenty of room for morality in the absence of a god, he turned to nihilism because he was an extremely depressed man that lived a tragic life. His philosophy was more a projection of his own mentality than an accurate understanding of morality.
@@Jonny-uu7wf I can tell by your comment that you've never read Nietzsche and are just parroting the guy from the video... "Might makes right" implies an objective morality (but based on might), this is not how Nietzsche sees things. Rather, he would say "might just does what it does". And saying it leads to that mentality isn't actually a counter-argument. You are implying "and 'might makes right' is bad" but you base that on the very slave-morality which Nietzsche shows has no basis and is undesirable for the individual. "There is plenty of room for morality in the absence of a god" Nietzsche does not deny this but simply says there is no objective basis for morality, but he advocates for creating our own subjective morality (instead of the intersubjective morality we sheepishly adopt). " he turned to nihilism" Nietzsches philosophy is explicitly against nihilism.... You are just bullshitting, you haven't read Nietzsche, why are you criticizing something you haven't even tried to read directly?
It's a fantastic story with truly profound depths; I'm on my 8th or 9th reread and still discovering new insights! I also do highly recommend the Silmarillion; it's more of a historical overview/collection of historical epics of Middle-earth than a single cohesive story like LotR, but it gives much more depth of understanding to Lord of the Rings (and reveals just a little more about Sauron and his origins/motives)
He is right. The Silmarillion is amazing. It reads like a Mithological collection of connected stories. The Fall of Númenor in particular changes your perspective on Sauron
@Oliver Zinn Did you completely miss all the letters of Tolkien in the vid that discuss Sauron? His characterization isn't in the story, it's in Tolkien's private letters
This was a top tier video. Thank you for the time involved to create this. I never thought the books would be this deep when I first read the hobbit in 6th grade
There were so many flaws: 1. How is Nietzsche 'modernism'... Nietzsche is the father of post-modernism... 2. How does taking the 'will to power' route lead to an unethical world..... The world itself isn't ethical or unethical (or people's actions) from an objective standpoint if you understand Nietzsche + the will to power is a descriptive 'force' in organisms, it's not something you wilfully choose. 3. Anderson claiming the will to power is framed as 'ethical naturalism' is also retarded. Nietzsche explicitly goes beyond good and evil and does not make claims about what is objectively good or bad for people to do, rather he uses 'good' (when he uses it himself) as a way to describe desirable outcomes for individuals and nothing more. 4. Sauron gets destroyed for fucking shit up for everyone else, so obviously acting purely 'selfish' is not in your rational self-interest. And the way of the other creatures are more effective for a happy, fulfilling life so that is what in that world Nietzsche would recommend. Nietzsche is more of a psychologist, not someone prescribing absolute principles.
On the other hand, subservience and self sacrifice allow the powerful to rule where an Ubermensch can free themselves from the grip of the powerful of his suppressors and God.
"Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength and knows... compassion."- Dr. Erskine, fictional character portrayed by Stanley Tucci in the film Captain America The First Avenger.
@@SCP.343 yeah that strikes a great balance. Compassion, using power to help others or maybe even choosing not to use power at all is a choice to avoid ruthless. But resisting using that power, as the ring demonstrates, is very difficult.
People have a lot more power than they realize. The power to go and get themselves food. The power to sit and find enjoyment looking at a sunset. The power to protect those they care for. It comes in a lot of flavors, and many of them don't corrupt.
If Sauron is an evil dark lord based on what Tolkien thinks of a Nietzschian nihilist, I wonder what a nihilist's view of a Tolkein-esque traditionalist would look like as a dark lord in a fantasy world with a hero or band of heroes representing those ideals overcoming them.
I have my general ups and downs with youtube but my god I love your vids honestly I think you do an amazing job at this refreshingly calming take at topics. If I ever have the means I will definitely contribute on patreon and please go on for some time making these amazing videos. :D stay nerdy
My interpretation of the over man/superman was always the idea that as a people we would be able to develop are own mores and folkways and laws that are not shackled by moot concepts that have no basis (like religion). In other words, I feel like we (in some places) succeeded in transcending Nietzsche's nihilism through secular law and society, built on the simple principle of "one man's rights ends where another's begins"
10:30 You just summed up some of the largest truths of Lucifer. He is an artist sitting in his master’s creation while being a creation himself: he wants to be worshipped, not to worship. Sauron is the same. Call them corrupted ‘superior men’ or literally corrupted angels means no difference in the end. I love this video. You summed up Sauron perfectly👌Well done.
People always seem to forget about the will to power requiring a power over oneself as well. Power over oneself naturally implies the ability to restrain oneself, to know when your desires are not the best course, and to choose not to follow them. In this, Sauron can not be said to be an Ubermensch. He has failed. He did not lead his fellows to grow, merely himself, and thus his inability to overcome himself was his downfall.
Actually, I think Morgoth much better fits the classic nihilist archetype than Sauron. Unlike Sauron who wanted to dominate the world, by the end Morgoth just wanted to detsdoy things. In Tolkien's own words: “...as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction. Elves, and still more Men, he despised because of their ‘weakness’: that is their lack of physical force, or power over ‘matter’; but he was also afraid of them. He was aware, at any rate originally when still capable of rational thought, that he could not ‘annihilate’them: that is, destroy their being; but their physical ‘life’, and incarnate form became increasingly to his mind the only thing that was worth considering. Or he became so far advanced in Lying that he lied even to himself, and pretended that he could destroy them and rid Arda of them altogether. Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men. (…) Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was leveled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have ‘existed’, independent of his own mind, and a world in potential. Note - Melkor could not, of course, ‘annihilate’ anything of matter, he could only ruin or destroy or corrupt the forms given to matter by other minds in their subcreative activities." Also, see this essay where Tolkien addresses precisely this question: fair-use.org/j-r-r-tolkien/notes-on-motives-in-the-silmarillion/
Under the in-universe assumption that Middle Earth is our history, that’s literally earlier than the establishment of China, lmao. Sauron’s been dead long enough to flick his fingy.
great video although I would also add the fact that in Nietzsche's eyes it seems that because god died we have to strive to create our own ideal, this is actually much different than that of Sauron I don't see Sauron creating an ideal but purely destroying it and there is a big difference between creating and destroying There are different wills of power some of which are good and some bad Edit: Here is an example from Nietzsche The noble man wants to create new things and a new virtue. The good man wants the old things and that the old things shall be preserved. But that is not the danger for the noble man - that he may become a good man - but that he may become an impudent one, a derider, a destroyer. Alas, I have known noble men who lost their highest hope. And henceforth they slandered all high hopes. Henceforth they lived impudently in brief pleasures, and they had hardly an aim beyond the day. ‘Spirit is also sensual pleasure’ - thus they spoke. Then the wings of their spirit broke: now it creeps around and it makes dirty what it feeds on. Once they thought of becoming heroes: now they are sensualists. The hero is to them an affliction and a terror. But, by my love and hope I entreat you: do not reject the hero in your soul! Keep holy your highest hope!
True, but I think that goes toward the point HFM makes in terms of Nietzsche's Ubermensch versus Tolkien's idea of Nietzsche's Ubermensch. I doubt Tolkien would have ever given enough credit to an atheist to think that they might aspire to do anything but to destroy "God's natural order." I'd like to see a more nuanced take on a Sauron-type that would examine these themes in greater detail, as well as a take on Orcs that would have them overthrow their Dark Lord after having come to similar conclusions.
@MasterWayneDK58 I agree that that's what Tolkien was probably getting at, but clearly his faith had blinded him to the endlessly demonstrable falsehood of that line of thinking. The West was not tyrannized by atheism for millennia, but his own faith, particularly the organization to which he belonged. Humans are flawed, we stumble, but his answer to that was to follow the traditions of one's ancestors and spiritual precursors because Tolkien had developed a distrust and a disdain for most forms of progress.
@MasterWayneDK58 While what you're saying is mostly true, it has one massive problem. After 2000 years of the Church perverting the message of Jesus for their own ends, there is no longer anyone alive who remembers the true nature of said message. Thus, the only thing we can do is try our best to live up to his ideals through our own distorted understanding of said ideals, not entirely unlike like Fredrick's Ubermensch. And if God truly is as loving as we're led to believe, that should be good enough for him.
@MasterWayneDK58 I disagree with your reading of the communist movement; Marx's philosophy was anything but devoid of principle, as it was geared toward liberating the masses from the tyranny of capital and viewed religious institutions as having already been thoroughly corrupted and therefore enemies of the proletariat. If anything, we have a case study of how Marxist ideology is just as corruptible as capitalist ideology, and that cults of personality (read: egotism, not nihilism) can be just as corrosive to society as religious cults. "The dangers of rejecting it entirely" is a fallacious argument in my view, a boogeyman that collapses all past views and methodologies into the narrow, nebulous concept of "tradition." I, a queer person, have been wrestling against this fallacy for my entire life. There are principles within Biblical tradition (and within other traditions) which remain true, but these are universal principles (which can often be found across the board). Working from an assumption that some principles=baby and others=bathwater is a dangerous line of thought for anyone that the tradition views to be unsavory. Faith doesn't render a person evil in any sense, but it easily excuses many evils within the text, proclaims them to be good, and resists any further examination because it's believed to have come from a consciousness greater than humanity. Tolkien's view is flawed unless you feel it rather than think about it. And I said "most progress." He seems to have been cool with Jews (if the Dwarves were indeed their analogue), though he acted superior in his concessions of allyship. That point just splits hairs. He longed for a simpler time, and that was all over his writing. I understand how his life led him to that longing, but I conclude that he was ultimately wrong about it.
@@devilcat17 The problem with Carl Marx's philosophy is not that is "Just as corruptible as religion". It's that it's a fundamentally flawed ideology that was doomed to fail from the outset. Maybe on the scale of a small hunter-gatherer tribe it could work, but on the scale of an entire nation, let alone an entire planet communism is doomed to fail because it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics. Turns out, there's a lot of people who won't work unless they're properly compensated. Now, I'm not saying that *all* people are like that, but at the scale of a nation the size of the USSR you get enough people like that that the entire system ceases to function.
An example would be Frodo offering the ring to Gandalf. His will to power would lead him to do good, initially, to have power over others through positive impact, but he knows that he would not be able to stop the corruption of the ring, and so he resists the ring
You made this whole video and not once showed art of the hot version of Sauron that the Tolkien fandom has been utterly obsessed by for the past 8 years
I really find this subject and discussion interesting. I have to admit, as an atheist I know I am biased towards Nietzsche's pov, but I really appreciate the nuanced discussion you present. Sadly I would not be able to do the same without my brain shouting "OBJECTION!!!!" at anything religion-related. And yes... I need to work on that.
I mean, we need a middle ground of what it is to be a God. Spiritual/physical, just powerful enough/omnipotent, a creator and/or destroyer/have nothing to do to the world beginning and end, etc. Or even is it a collection of more than one entities / a legion in one body / or an individual entity. That's why talking about God isn't as simple as "oh He is a God" therefore He is. He might be a She too for all I care.
@@toxicdermyillunary4103 I meant Eru Ilúvatar - The Supreme Being. Whether he is good or evil, his power eclipses all. Is it not stupid to rebel against him?
Actually, a LOT LOT of villains, in one way or another, "follow" Nietzsche's philosophy. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE VILLAINS ARE NOT REALLY THE PERFECT REPRESENTATION OF NIETZSCHE'S IDEAS
@@shiveshsingh576 oh yeah fr. In fact, the sith are really not a 1 to 1 parallel either. But, it's fun to think about them through that filter. And to think about what the author's might be trying to communicate about those ideologies (intentionally or not). Like, the Jedi vs Sith ideology is a fun way of arguing daoist/Buddhist inspired philosophy versus Nietzschen/Nihilist philosophy. Adds another layer to the cake you know?
Beautiful take on Sauron (who is extensively oversimplefied all to often). Intrigueingly; the presentation of power (which is a core part of this vid, obviously) in the legendarium is also very unique, and as I see it well worth its own video.
I think to add to your point is that the source of all conflict in Tolkien’s legendarium is derived from characters aligned with the “maker” caste. Fëanor is greatest of the Noldor craftsmen and through pride and prowess initiated the conflicts of the Silmarilion. Saruman was originally a Maia of Aulë the Smith, and so was Sauron. Aulë himself was guilty of trying to usurp Erù’s role as lifegiver in his creation of the Dwarves, but what allows Aulë and the later redeemed Noldor like Galadriel and Elrond to come back from the brink is their rejection of power and re-affirmation of their submission and subservience to Eru, which I think is indicative of Tolkien’s ardent Catholicism. Great video, really enjoyed it!
I'm interested by your point about how "Sauron is free to create as he sees fit". It reminded me of the fact that in Tolkien lore, Eru is the only being who can create life and this ability is coveted by many other "creator" characters, such as Aule, Morgoth, and Sauron. Even though he is a master smith, Sauron cannot create. He can only take Eru's creations and pervert them to his will (Just as Morgoth). If that's the case, Sauron is Tolkien saying that the ubermensch must always fail, because they will never be able to rise to the level of Divine Creator. Anyways, it gave me a lot to think about. Great work.
Hello Future Me: here's a very deep and in-depth analysis on both a very integral character and the amazing author, giving us a great window into the meaning of this trilogy of books. Me: hehe gay book
One of the things I always liked about Sauron is that his power is deeply rooted into Middle Earth which not only fuels his superiority complex, and not only justifies his overwhelming power over the kingdoms, but does provide context as to why the battle is morally difficult for the heroes against him. His power shaped the evolution of the dwarves and men. His power corrupted the elves. There is a certain level of complacency that enables him, making him the Lord of the rings and the God of the (Middle) Earth. The only other "Dark Lord" fantasy writer who I feel was able to write an ultimate evil that captured that feeling was JK Rowling. She gave us a wizarding Britain that was just petty enough, just smug enough, and just racist enough to enable Voldemort for a solid 20 years before he started doing things that made the Daily Prophet readers clutch their pearls. Most other writers write their "dark lords" to be so alien compared to the morality of everyone else around them that it's very difficult to really imagine how they could rise in the ranks or secure enough supporters. (The notable second place would be Game of thrones, which wrote the dragon riders to be so brutal and so hostile to their conquered kingdoms, then wrote the natural reaction to that, that the seven kingdoms never held any real loyalty to them and betrayed them and rebelled the moment they had the chance.)
Nietzche's keys unlock only terrible doors. His philosophy is entirely self defeating, he himself may not have been a tyrant but I do not think that it is a coincidence tyrants so easily follow his philosophy. Nietzche cut off the branch he was sitting on, he rejected all forms of value and yet thought humanity should follow the path he set out to be come super men, but if nothing has value, why become supermen? Why should any one care what Nietzche thought had value? All humans concepts of value are illegitimate, except Nietzche's? Nietzche only imagined the world his philosophies would create, Tolkien saw that world. That is why Tolkien rejected Nietzche's philosophy.
@@brendancoulter5761 The simplest way (that is not to say stupidest, important difference) to describe Nietzsche's ideal, is to me, this: if you think nothing has value then create value. And that is why as Dreaming Acacia said, humanity kept opening the wrong doors because let's be honest how many of the man's supposed followers actually create values in their lives, inspired them in others and did not destroy values (as they were already meant to have been destroyed)? -for sake of clarity the question is rhetorical-
@@mouwersor Nietzche's philosophy at it's base is simply "do what thou wilt" he actually believed that man makes his own truths. If you can't see the demonic undertones of his philosophy, then you're living a canal life
Power is just like any other tool we use to effect our world, it can be used for good or ill. But in the Nietzschean world view you must personally accept your responsibility for your power instead of abdicating that responsibility to your god or and external source of evil. You have just as much right and responsibility to your virtues as to your sins. This is what it is to become god. Knowledge of good and evil, so the story goes, caused our banishment from the animal world where we lived by our instinct without moral regard. Our religions helped us build a moral framework from which to build societies. However, religion is itself a tool. A very useful piece of social technology to be sure, but through it we can, and have, achieved great good and evil.
And the good and evil came from man. Religion doesn't cause humans to abdicate responsibility, just because they believe in God. Rather, it hold humans MORE responsible, whereas a person holding themselves accountable can lie to themselves.
@@shorewall How would belief one way or another in God prevent someone from lying to themselves? Without accurate self appraisal no system of morality is achievable.
As someone who recently transitioned (is still adapting?) from an extremely devout, Christian upbringing, to an Agnostic Theist, this was a really fascinating video. When I came to my personal conclusion conclusion that there may be something out there, but we don't have a real 'test' to know specifically what He/She/It/They are, there were some moments of 'moral terror' where everything felt meaningless. But... honestly, at the same time, I realized, the values I believed in (kindness, decency, science, objective truth, etc)., were still 'me' and because I no longer had a religious institution 'enforcing it,' I realized those things were a product of the person I am, not the organization I'm a part of. That to me, has been really freeing. I'd rather be a kind, helpful person because I think it's right, than out of a socio-theological belief system that demands it. In this case, I feel like it's more a 'realizing your math was wrong, but you still accidentally got a good answer.' You correct your formula, but your outcome (being 'good') is still the same, and even improved.
"Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength and knows... compassion."- Dr. Erskine, fictional character portrayed by Stanley Tucci in the film Captain America The First Avenger.
Nihilism is fascinating to me. In a world so full of meaning to choose a meaninglessness or to create meaning from your mind seems baffling and inconsistent. I am with Tolkien on this one...
*What* meaning? *Who's* meaning? Why is choosing my own meaning in an apparently meaningless world (ie in nature, in a cosmic scale) inconsistent? Hell, what's inconsistent about a person deciding to pursue interest 'x' when the society they live in demands they fulfill obligation 'y'?
I had a book (which I regrettably no longer own) that was Tolkien and philosophy. It contained many interesting ideas and editorials and one of the most common were the philosophical debates of the pursuit of power, comparisons of Tolkien's ideas of the ubermensch and comparisons between the world of men, good vs. evil, God vs. Man, Nature vs. Industrial modernism. A few of the sources you pulled from may very well be from the book. I have been exploring nihilism for many years and enjoyed your video. Very much. I will hopefully come back to it time and again. You articulated many points in a concise and understandable and enjoyable way. Thank you for the video again, I can't praise it enough.
I would like to further note that saruman plays a similar role in this story as well. Essentially Tolkien gave us two stages of the Ubermench Saruman and Sauron. Sauron is already long forgone and is the peak result of nihilistic existentialism whereas Saruman is the stage right before that, almost at the level of the ubermench but lacking in one thing, the One Ring. We see Saruman over the series progressing to the level of Sauron starting with his confrontation with gandalf to the destruction of fangorn forest and finally the battle of Helms Deep. However, in the case of Sarumon, tradtion literally fought back against his industrialism, in the form of the Ents. These Ents, symbolizing nature and tradition, end Sarumons chance of becoming the ubermench. Great work on this video, I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan (obviously) and had never made this connection before.
Good guy Sauron, Moves to an abandoned fortress creating a booming industry. Good guy Sauron, Created millions of jobs for the unemployed orcs. Good guy Sauron, Brings together 9 random dudes, united by a single goal, Creating life-long friendships, an unbreakable bond. Good guy Sauron, Helps oppressed minorities fight for land. Good guy Sauron, Casts invisible spell on his treehouse, hiding his friends from evil wizard Magneto. Sauron did nothing wrong.
Luzifer is often portrayed as the ultimate rational person, the Übermensch, which fits nicely for both Morgoth and Sauron. In Paradise Lost, Satan is exactly that: The person, that falls in love with it's own creation, the ultimate prideful and rational Übermensch.
The Ubermensch is not prideful, that's a common mistake. A proper understanding of Nietzsche would actually make Aragorn closer to Nietzsche's overman than Sauron. For that matter both Lucifer and Sauron are commonly irrational, so I don't get that comparison either
Well, we've got 3 dudes funding their own space journeys while thousands go hungry and thousands of others struggle to make ends meet so I'm not sure the Will to Power is workin out, Freddy.
Although I'd be happy to see their wealth redistributed to those truly in need, my 'inner space pedant' compels me to point out: Both Musk and Branson have used the rocket technology they've developed to move into satellite launch as a business opportunity, and Bezos reportedly intends to do the same - I think the 'joyrides for the wealthy' is something of an attention grabbing stunt for the more 'serious business proposition' oriented satellite launching operations
That's been normal for all of human history. In fact that not everyone in this world besides a handful of nobles is starving is a damn miracle we take for granted every day.
Your videos are flipping amazing man. I really enjoy seeing people use the lens of philosophy to examine works of fiction. I find fiction to be a really amazing place to be able to "thought experiment" and explore philosophy in a way that would be truly difficult to do in any other way. Thank you
Awesome video. Loved how you made the differences between Tolkien's beliefs on life-affirmation and Nietzsche's actual philosophy clear. Great to see people do their research regarding what Nietzsche's value systems actually were.
I'm not sure "death of the author" is the exact way to put it, but there's no doubt that Nietzsche wrote of and meant something vastly different than what Hitler interpreted later. While I don't know whether Hitler read Nietzsche, we can all agree that he grossly misunderstood him.
@@esbenandersen5706 vastly different? not really except in specifics. Nietzche was more meritocratic, but like modern people who make meritocratic arguments did not take into account historically manufactured inequalities. In practice, his übermensch would *have* to be what Hitler and the Nazis described as "Aryan". The word "Aryan" indeed means "high one". Though it is a word appropriated from Ancient Persia...i.e. from non-white people. The irony was strong with the Nazis.
Sophie Jones well I disagree. From what I understand, Nietzsche’s ubermensch is someone who has realized who they are and has found a new purpose and morality, while Hitler’s ubermensch is someone who has superior genetics like Germans. You don’t have to have superior genetics to figure out what you want, so their views aren’t the same.
What do you mean anti-Christ? In the original context of the term, the Anti-Christ was used much the same as one would say, “The Anti-Capitalist”; it’s a collective adjective, not a single person.
I mean, kind of? It's more so that the Übermench is the anti-Christ, not in the Biblical sense, but in that he's the opposite of Christ, in many ways. What would an Übermench say about a man who destined himself to die on the cross in inconceivable pain, simply so that others might be happier? Furthermore, Nietz didn't think that *everyone* could be the Übermench. There needed to be a lesser people, who for some reason can't create good art and exist to facilitate the Übermench, because honestly Nietz was a dick. But at the same time, Christ was a man of the people. He ate with the poor, and valued them most of all. So, the two aren't really exclusive.
Existential Nihilism, in my opinion, leads to only one conclusion: If no afterlife exists, and the only existence is our own, then creating a pleasant experience of life is the penultimate goal. What pleases you, and makes sure you are continually happy, is what is worth pursuing. Just remember: Jailtime is dreadful.
"What do we want?" "Middle Earth!" "Why do we want it?" "Um, because My old boss wanted it!" "Why did he want it?" "Because he was pissed that he couldn't make it himself so after moping around in the dark for a long time he decided to spoil what someone else made" "So we want to take over the world to live out the dreams of an emo loser?" "NO, WE WANT IT BECAUSE OF PLOT REASONS!"
Interesting! I do have to say there is a stark difference between Sauron and Nietzsche. Nietzsche is quoted as having compassion for a horse he sees being mistreated and questions the humanity of humans who would do such a thing. He often allows his empathy for pain and suffering to determine his overall outlook on the world and universe, but he himself did not seek to create discord. Sauron, like Melkor/Morgoth has no compassion left in his heart, Tolkien has said in many of his stories of Lost Tales, Children of Hurin, and Morgoth's Ring that Melkor had lost all love forever from his heart removed as he became envious of his Valar brother and sisters and further removed him from love. He overtime became so dark to represent the "light lost forever", and Sauron was his greatest student who worshiped him. Nietzsche, though an atheist had so much compassion and empathy, and in many ways it leads many people towards atheism ironically as they look at the evil that religion has done. Great video and I love your channel, mellon nin!
"Someone who is trying to take the place of God" (which you state to be not Luciferian but Nietzschian) is honestly quite consistent with many depictions of the Devil, particularly in the Old English sources from which Tolkien drew so much. He's described as trying to build a kingdom in opposition to God, and idea that correlates nicely with Tolkien's view of Nietzsche's philosophy.
![On Worldbuilding: How Class Systems Work [ Avatar | Dune | Tolkien | Feudalism ]](/img/n.gif)
Existential nihilism and dread getting you down? CuriosityStream is here to distract you from your INEVITABLE DEMISE and the purposeless heat death of the universe >>> curiositystream.com/hellofutureme
How many villains in stories are actual Neitzschian Ubermensch? Like Kars from JJBA Battle Tendency?
Have you ever read any of CS Lewis’s theology, it’s very similar to Tolkien’s except Lewis wrote a lot more. LOTR is very much in line with it as well
@@JMObyx it sounds to me that father from fma is an übermensch as well.
edit: fma brotherhood that is. I haven't watched the other one.
Excited to watch this! But guessing you ain’t going to talk about Amor Fati...?😂😂😂
Hello Future Me fascinating
Nietzsche and Machiavelli are two of the best examples of writers whose writings on a topic are commonly misunderstood as endorsements of that topic.
We don’t know what Machiavelli thought about it. It could’ve been an endorsement, or a satire, or just a series of completely neutral observations
@@wrigglenight93 the prince is tips for monarchs and revolutionaries willing to revolt against said monarchs whoever gets theur hands on the book i just want monarchy conquering shit and then forming roman republic cause it's cooler than tge empire
And thats not all that gets misunderstood either.
@@wrigglenight93 Machiavelli can be understood very simply, and so can Prince. Prince much easier, for it's have a quasi-second part to it, commentary on history of Roman Republic. Machiavelli was not endorsing tyrany or even strong monarchy, he was republican. But more so than that, he was Italian, and his whole life endevor was to see Italy as one. He was a nationalist, sadlt he choose the easy way of pursuing it.
@@wrigglenight93 if you go to Florence you will find that a lot of academic institutes there are named after the guy and he was critical of how the Medici family were running the city and turning it from a merchant republic into a principality
Excellent analysis! My only quibble is that Tolkien wasn't anti-science, just science without an ethical steering-wheel, as it were. He once described Tom Bombadil as the ultimate scientist, totally immersed in the understanding of all creatures and delighting in mastering his studies of them without seizing mastery over them. At first glance Tom does appear to control everything around himself, but what he really does is, through his songs, remind all around him of who they really are. His wife, Goldberry, had been a fallen spirit who had tried to drown him, till he reminded her of love. He helps the hobbits escape spells by remembering to be hobbits--but he also arms them, reminding them of a courage innate to them that they were not yet aware of. He reminds the willow to be a tree, not a carnivore. He reminds the dead to stay dead. He reminds gold to be beautiful and available, not to lie hidden in a haunted hoard. And he even reminds the One Ring that ultimately it is nothing!
Beautiful analysis
This
I'm taking a screenshot of this so the next time I have to describe who and what Tom Bombadil is to Tolkiens story, you can do it for me.
Can you show a quote of Tolkien saying that?
@@albertsantiago2069 I think it was in his letters, that he called Bombadil "The ultimate scientist." The rest is me extrapolating from there.
This video reminds me of when my Catholic Studies professor assigned us Nietzsche, because he said "Nietzsche was right about the problems but wrong about the solution." Thanks to this vid, I see Tolkien saying the same thing.
I’m confused. Your Catholic Studies professor said that there was no God?
no, i didn't take the class the gal above is referring but he probably said that nietzsche thinks that God dying and humans taking God's place is actually Luciferian, Lucifer wanting to be his own God, elevating himself to God's status after all.
Alex Zawacki ahhhhh that makes sense, thank you !
My Catholic Studies professor said that Neitsche was writing to address real problems in society and real problems within the faithful. My professor rejected Neitsche's solution that we kill God and take his place.
@@antoinelandry7534 no, that the way nihilism is brought about is the way Niche describes but that instead we should reject modernist values in favor of religious teaching to overcome nihilism.
It's a pretty popular belief actually, though I don't really think it's uh, good, or creates progress.
Rather than Sauron being Lucifer, I think Sauron is more likely the Anti-Christ. He was tutored under Morgoth himself.
Morgoth was closer to the Satan figure, and Sauron was, yes, the antichrist
People who watch only the movies would assume he’s a Lucifer when he’s simply been manipulated and happened to outlast the real Lucifer (morgoth) sauron is far weaker and his entire concept is unique as he’s not a supreme evil leader; he’s really no more powerful than Gandalf both are Maiar
I agree with you to an extent in that Sauron brings a new culture and religion to middle earth much like the antichrist and the unholy trinity. However if we can make that claim we can also make the claim that he represents Christ under the same logic.
@@Meatwad.Baggins Not even a little bit could you make that conclusion. I mean the anti Christ is the opposite of christ in the similar way that Reverse Flash is the opposite of Flash, or Bizarro of Superman. There are similar characteristics, yes - a death and resurrection even - but these similarities, if intentional at all, are surely mockeries - a demented shadow of the archetype.
Agreed and the eye also adds to the evidence
One of the truly ironic things in Tolkien's work is that he sets up the race of Men's most significant gift (other than death) as being the power to choose whether or not to follow the Music of the Ainur. Effectively, Illuvitar gifts Humanity with the Will to Power, the ability to deny the machinations of the heavens and follow their own path and create their own identity separate from the concept of divine will...
I think if you look at it from the Christian worldview initially set out by the church fathers, the understanding of god and free will is that the will was given so as to allow an authentic participation in beauty, and as a gift it was always intended to fulfill the plan (same in Illuvatars creation). The problem of will in Tolkien’s work and similarly the problem of will in the Christian Faith, it that there is an original corrupter who abuses the presence of that gift within the creations (Satan and Morgoth) to act against the creation plan.
Understood in terms of “god is dead”, the death of morality is actually the triumph of the corruption laid out by the original corrupter. It signifies a perversion of morality where evil things happen because what is good and what is evil has become indistinguishable. Coupled with that, free will no longer becomes this thing to allow for the willful fulfillment of meaning, insinuating that if you do something bad there will be consequences, but rather that free will is no free will without consequence.
In Tolkien and to a similar extent Nietzsche’s criticism of societal degradation, it serves as a critique of the ultra libertarianism associated with traditionally perceived “satanic” acts that result from a misinterpretation of the gift of free will. That we can freely choose to engage with the project of the Ainur doesn’t me we should choose otherwise, but due to the corruption, we choose otherwise nonetheless and society pays for it, dearly.
Nietzsche is often credited for having essentially predicted the events of the following century from the time he wrote his works, and Tolkien is a symbolic representation of what happens when society shifts from tradition and god to seeing themselves as god kings or destroyers of creation, (Sauron and Morgoth respectively).
Of course, as an atheist myself, I also need to enter the caveat here of the evils perpetrated under traditionalism, but it’s a fascinating discourse on will and morality when we map Nietzsche and Tolkien alongside each other.
Forgive me now because I’m going to push this comparison of Nietzsche and Tolkien and their philosophies even further into contemporary debates. We can’t deny that in some ways the development of moral relativism did allow for good results such as the respect to innate things originally denied, like being gay, but with this relativism and justification (or potential perversion) of what is good, we may also in today’s society become too allowing of freedom without consequence, so as to even justify it at the expense of others. Does the potential innateness or mental illness of a pedophile also become justified? It definitely doesn’t, but then you see the problem, we would need a more “traditional” approach to morality stemming from a belief in god that makes it objective, so as to determine that pedophillia is wrong with arbitrariness, and that approach is no longer applicable today due to relativism and god being dead.
That’s a controversial take, and I agree it is, because from my personal view pedophillia is obviously wrong. But the point is to consider the arbitrariness in a society with out god, so that we can tackle it and take it down. What this extreme example I have interjected serves to do, is force us to consider what the problems are continuing to be in a society where we rely on concepts such as the ubermensch to regulate a convoluted moral system. This is the detriment of our times. How do we restrain freedom without consequence so as to prevent tyranny and moral perversion? If god is dead, how do we regulate that? If we argue from social negotiation then morality is still only remaining as arbitrary.
I struggle with this myself, because it it existentially unnerving.
@@ArcanicFire And it is a struggle that we must face. Just because we would like there to be an objective answer doesn't mean one exists. We cannot will God into existance just because we think it would be nice, or because we dislike the alternative.
@@ArcanicFire Have you considered that God could never actually be killed?
God works through people. Satan also works through people. The greatest things that society has accomplished have come from people accepting absolute moral values as part of their purpose to be “good people” (technically achieving “self-actualization” as Nietzche says, because what else would we be accomplishing?) and people trying to find purpose outside of moral absolutes are simply justifying their own actions which otherwise they could not really explain why they do what they do as far as having a motivation they could control to suit an absolute good purpose (note, if you are on the understanding that pleasure is also a purpose, then I guess you might be convinced that we should all just OD on heroin because it is chemically indistinguishable from having all the pleasure in the world).
The very slavery to an arbitrary God that you fear being placed under without atheism is actually the place you can go to have a true purpose in life!
Philosophy, morality, inspiration, would all be totally bunk & pointless if we didn't have an instinctive sense that some kind of resolution or certainty was at least possible if not attainable.
@@ArcanicFire You know the answer to the dilemma as well do I. Without restoring objective standards for right and wrong at an ontological/metaphysical level, the degradation will continue. I think it's natural to see the problem and still to dislike the solution, given that it will likely mean dispensing with a liberal attitude towards some behaviours that we enjoy or otherwise approve of. Nevertheless, the price of not restoring some kind of objective standard for morality means we likely lose a lot more in the end as society gradually degenerates. We won't get things back on track without breaking a few eggs, that's just the nature of it.
Thanks for clarifying Sauron embodies Tolkien's idea of a nihilist and not Nietzsche's
Figured I had to make that very very clear or my comment section would be a firestorm.
~ Tim
I could feel myself seething slowly until you clarified that 😂. I guess you didn't have time here but there's a lot to be said, quite ironically, about how Gandalf, Frodo, Sam, Boromir, Aragorn all them become Nietzschean Overmen. They face existential and moral crises, great levels of self-doubt and then go on a path of self-actualisation to do what they think is good even if no one cares. It's strange, you know, a lot of what Christ does (whipping people out of the Temple) is very Overman-like, but a lot of what he says (blessed are the meek) is very life denying. Tolkien's characters act more like Christ than following his teachings. This has been so stimulating mate.
@@HelloFutureMe I was kinda disappointed until that point. REALLY LOVE YOUR CONTENT MAN!
@@crixhussodinson2523 Exactly, he's a Lion for sure. The rest of the fellowship is still a camel and I think Tolkien supports camels. (I should mention, I have never ending love for both Tolkien and Nietzsche)
I’d say it’s more the end result of nihilism to the extreme
One of the things Sauron indulged in was his love of blacksmithing, shown by how the moment his boss is dead, he ties his power to a single piece of smithing.
Sauron doesn't forge the One Ring a moment after Morgoth was defeated. There was a few thousand years between.
Will Atkins I know he didn’t forge it immediately after, but I just thought he was planning to in that time, and the Ring was step 228 in his millennia-long plan, and I figured it was in the plan because he just love smithing.
Both Sauron and Saruman studied under Aulë
Melkor did not die. He was just cast beyond the gates of night from Arda. Likewise Sauron did not die at the One Ring's destruction. He just no longer has the power to reform a body. That is actually what I like about the godlike/angelic beings in Tolkien's Legendarium. Their power has limited supply. Once it's gone, it's gone.
@@XansStuff Sauron still died. Dying in Tolkien's world is exactly the separation of spirit and body. His spirit can't be destroyed, but is impotent indeed after the destruction of the Ring. However, no spirit can be destroyed in Tolkien's world. The spirits of Elves go to Mandos after they die - and wait there to be given a new shape - while Men go beyond the world. Tolkien even stated multiple times that Morgoth was afraid _of being killed._
"I realize that might be a little more Nietzsche"
Genuinely laughed at that
OrangeLightning he immediately apologized and I was like why are you apologizing that was actually funny lol
AND I’M LITERALLY SCREAMING!!!!! 😂🤣🤣
I rate that one..... Nietzsche/10. Score may vary depending on the knowledge of Nietzsche jokes.
14:09 seeing Sauron living his best individual life at the expense of all else around him represented by Gus dancing at Disney World is the greatest thing I've seen in years
Saurons philosophy: When people stare into the abyss, stare right back and go "Muuhahahahaaaa!"
And punching the babies 🤷🏻♂️
@@_semih_ No that's storm troopers you are thinking about
Sauron saying “howdy ho I now own your soul” when you stare into the palantir
@@Ballin4Vengeance Or put on one of his rings
@@Megalomaniac_Trans_Lesbian Unless you´re the most noble and wise of all races or an elf
I think that rather than it being Tolkien's idea of a Nihilistic man, it's instead his view on the final result of Nihilism. After all, Sauron did start out good after all, even with his Nihilistic beliefs.
Nope, the final result was the nihilistic madness that was Morgoth, a being that was so full of hatred towards the creation of others (including the Eru), that his final goal was to destroy everything (the world, his own subjects, just everything) because he didn't create it himself. If you can find a copy of "Morgoth's Ring," you will find a whole essay about this very subject from Tolkien's own hands.
It's crazy how this somehow made Sauron much more terrifying then before. Truely believing what he was doing was right.
@@MasterBombadillo And yet his written god (Eru), like all gods, necessarily is just the same. For what makes a "god" greater than it's believers/subordinates? What makes them more righteous? What gives them the right to interfere with others where that right is denied to those others? Gods are they who view themselves as such and everyone else just subordinates themselves to one of those.
@@MajinOthinus that makes no sense. If Eru is like the God of Catholicism then He is an Absolute Being, Who is so inherently Other that all attempts to describe Him become laughable. At that point you're trying to compare an orange to an airplane.
@@SpydersWebbing How do you define an "absolute being" then? Otherness in general can only explain a difference in the decision making process, it can't however replace logic in that process.
That Sauron knows the God of his world exists, while a "true" Nietzchean Ubermensch does not (or believes otherwise), is sort of distinction without a difference. For all intents and purposes, Sauron's behavior is the same whether he sets himself up as a god-king in the absence of the true God, or in _spite_ of one. It is his arrogant will to power that drives him, and causes him over time to forget all the good reasons he may have had for pursuing his course.
As a flawed, limited being, his belief in his own majesty and perfection is mistaken, a fact that leads to the terrible quality of life for those under his rule, to his blindness to his original purpose, and to his ultimate downfall. He was so sure that Will To Power was the only good anyone could desire, he could not conceive of someone willingly giving it up. This blindness to his own fallibility is a trait Sauron shares with every character who covets and fights over the ring. The titular Ring, in many ways, is a metaphor for power itself; it does not care about you, does not have loyalty to you, and you don't have as much ability to resist its allure or the pitfalls of seeking and possessing it as you think you do.
Yeah, it is not important for someone rejecting worship of God (or gods) if this being exists or not. I was reminded of quote of anarchist writer (I forgot his name) "If God existed we would need to abolish him".
You could say this is just "attacking the strawman", but still: if nihillist knew God was real would this nihillist act any different? Would the nihillist accept any morality from God?
@@vladprus4019 The unfortunate question you run into is, if knowing god exists, can they be trusted at face value?
The reason I say this is that a god may impose a view of morality upon the world that they don't agree with, simply to see who is willing to go along with it because a stronger being commanded it, even when their own view on morality was in conflict with it.
@@vladprus4019 That's the thing though: What makes something a "god" then? Is it power, knowledge and capability? In that case, we are "gods" compared to any human before the 19th-20th century. Is it being a creator of life? In that case one could argue that parents are ought to be their children's "gods". Is it mentality? In that case everyone who deems himself a "god" is one.
I spend a lot of time thinking about the way the world should be. But when I think about putting it into practice, I think of all the ignorant people that would oppose me. On one hand, I could accept their agency and seek to persuade, like a teacher or preacher. Or, if I truly believed in my vision, I could use the will to power, crush my opponents, and bring my dream to fruition. All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, after all. And I am good.
The problem is that we don't appreciate our flaws and blind spots enough, nor others' good ideas and strengths. If I were tyrant, I would outlaw motorcycles, because they are loud and dangerous. Imagine how that would go over. Outlaw drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes, because they are bad for you. Hold an iron grip over the populace to make sure they never did anything bad.
Can you imagine how hated I would be? How much oppression and violence I would have to create in order to stay in power? And the ends wouldn't justify the means. The means I would have to use would warp and mutate the end, until you have orcs instead of elves, slavery instead of freedom, and death instead of life.
The other problem is that even if you could be pure, incorruptible, it would still be better for you to sit back and let others do as well. If one person seeks the will to power, even for good, they make everyone subservient and slothful, in mind if not body. Good ideas and innovations that could come about, don't, because there is no room for others to rise in such a system.
Take Superman. A common joke is that he could do any other super hero's job, better than they could. But even he can't do everything. By letting others have their moments, they can grow and become more useful, helping him to keep the world safe. And if they can't, he is there to help them. Likewise, in our world, we don't need a strong man, an ubermensch. We need everyone to lift where they stand. To start where they are, wherever they are, and take one step forward. And then keep going. The who are stronger can help those who are weaker, and "he who is greatest, let him be your servant."
The rising tide lifts all boats, and only by uplifting individuals, can we uplift humanity. No system will work with bad humans, and good humans will make any system work.
@@kamikeserpentail3778 There's a certain school of nihilism/existentialism (whose name escapes me for the moment) that evolved more directly out of Christianity -- specifically, a Gnostic offshoot of Christianity -- centuries before Nietzsche. The foundational premise was that the individual was capable of becoming a god in and of themselves; and to do so, it was necessary to reject the authority and morality that they had been raised to accept, and create their own by whatever means they deemed best. Lucifer, to them, was not "the devil", not evil, but the first being who truly attempted to assert his own godhood, and become the god he should have been. Needless to say, they were quickly deemed heretical, and the Inquisition attempted to exterminate them. Not without good reason, in a lot of cases, since their rejection of common morality led many of them into rather horrific acts and lifestyles, including (but far from limited to) rape and murder. They were, possibly more than Nietzsche, a profound influence on the likes of Alistair Crowley and similar occultists.
"WHAT DO WE WANT?"
"MIDDLE-EARTH!"
"WHY DO WE WANT IT?"
"Urrrr . . . plot?"
"Carrying out the will of Morgoth to tell the rest of the Valar "Screw you guys!" !"
funny, if inaccurate.
*uruk-hai
@@greekmyths8804 ?
WHEN DO WE WANT IT?
Uh, around the same time the heroes are making their big move, I guess.
First of all, thank you for talking about what sets Sauron and Morgoth apart! Even though there are strains or interpretations of Lucifer in both of them (the latter far more so than the former), I do think they are very different characters motivated by different things and with different goals, as Tolkien himself noted in his letters. [By the way, writing on a borrowed account!]
Secondly, I think there is a more nuanced view to the question about whether or not Nietzsche's ideas were a good thing (and whether or not Tolkien completely rejected them). Tolkien hated the "grown-upishness" of society: conformity, coercion, and life-denying living in accordance with the "Machine", which is unquestioning obedience to whatever society considers to be of greatest utility (especially to those in power). Tolkien agreed with Nietzsche about the value of creativity, individuality, and being oneself: the Elves, after all, represent Tolkien's idea of a "better" version of human society: one in which ones artistic expression is allowed to both flourish and co-exist with nature and with the expressions of others.
The way Tolkien disagrees with Nietzsche is about whether power over other people, when sought, is a good thing, and also about the consequences of power over nature. Power is a necessity in existence, as represented by Aragorn and the necessity of his taking up the throne to save the people of Gondor, even though he doesn't have any ambition for the throne and would rather live the life of a ranger. Likewise, the necessity of harvesting resources from nature to build civilization is often brought up in the Legendarium. However, the seeking of power, in Tolkien's mind, easily leads to corruption. The problem with the will to power over others is that it denies the will to power for everyone but oneself. In a similar light, unrestrained power over nature leads to environmental destruction in addition to suffering and extinction on the part of the organisms that rely upon it, not to mention the suffering of human beings who psychologically need wild nature more than we would like to admit. Sauron represents these extremes. In the end, Sauron's will to power completely erodes the will to power for anyone but himself. Sauron's "Master Morality" leads him to enforce extreme "Slave Morality" on everyone else, to the point of denying them their very minds and free will. At least Morgoth recognized and often even encouraged the will to (evil) power of others rather than just his own. So in reality, Tolkien advocated for a combination of life-affirming and life-denying values, and saw the evil of both as interrelated.
Furthermore, on Nietzsche's part, he rejected traditional morals but also rejected the idea of complete nihilism without personal responsibility. Not only did he not consider the Übermensch to be a true nihilist, he also believed that the "Übermensch" who refused to take into consideration responsibility for negative consequences was a false Übermensch. Sauron refused to change course even when the harm caused by his pursuit of power was increasingly outweighing his intended good, til ultimately the attaining of control and power became his sole goal in and of itself. Nietzsche would consider this to be a failure of mastery of self, especially when one takes into account the One Ring, the lust for which even Sauron could not suppress. Ironically, Tolkien said he thought Gandalf with the One Ring would be much worse than even Sauron, as Gandalf's devotion to (and aptitude for) making life better for others would lead him to be even more controlling, turning good into evil and making evil seem good.
Anyway, I hope this was good food for thought! ^_^ Once again: great video!
Nietzsche's philosophy actually reminds more of Tom Bombadil's philosophy. Nietzsche would have said that Sauron demeaned himself by being obsessed by mastery over lesser creatures.
No, he wouldn't. The Overman is specifically meant to be a leader of lesser men. He's not a hermit like Bombadil, Nietzsche intends the Overman to exert his will on the world, not retreat from it. Where the video is wrong is that the Overman is not a nihilist, but a creator of new values. He is a messianic figure of sorts, envisaged to transform humanity into something new through his leadership.
@@FuuuckOffff That's a strange reading of the topic, the Ubermensch is not meant to rule but inspire, the example of one person is meant to sway others through sheer awesomeness (obviously I'm paraphrasing more than a little).
The point is that leadership through coercion is not the way to go, if you can't persuade others via inspiration (instead of force) then you don't deserve to lead.
@@AeneasGemini It's an accurate reading of Nietzsche. My PhD is on Nietszsche, he says absolutely none of what you're attributing to him with respect to the Overman. The Overman is a hypothetical character specifically intended to create values and exert his will upon the world. It's an ideal for great men to aim towards. Nietzsche gives examples of people like Napoleon as embodying something approaching what he intends. Common people - who Nietzsche typically refers to as 'the herd' or 'the Last Men' - are to be led by great men who effectively guide the human race forward.
@@FuuuckOffff Kind of, but it is important to note that as you have mentioned, the Übermensch is an ideal. And it being an ideal it is something everyone can and should aspire towards. That doesn't neccessarily mean that an ideal world order would consist of only a few overmen and the rest being the herd. As the title "Last Men" kind of implies, they are to be considered a dying concept, those who are so stuck in the old humanity that they cannot move forward on their own, those for whom the death of god was not merely liberation but also a loss of guidance.
Sauron isn't a good Übermensch because he isn't using his power productively.
Tom Bombadil isn't a good Übermensch because he doesn't seek more power and he doesn't seek to improve things but just retain a status quo.
For Nietzsche, the best Übermensch in LOTR would be Aragorn. Right from the start, Aragorn recognizes his purpose as a leader and guide and he eventually goes to acquire more power because he genuinely thinks that he can make the world into a place that will be better for everyone. There's a reason he ends up as the King of Gondor, after all.
@@darthplagueis13 Nietzsche specifically states that his philosophy is not intended for everyone to follow and that he envisages the human masses being led by a few great men. It is a consistent and recurrent theme across his entire body of work, far more so than the concept of the Ubermensch. Literally any introductory material on Nietzsche's philosophy will attest to this.
Also, I would be careful about assuming that Nietzsche has set strict criteria for what an ideal political society should look like or as to how political power should be wielded. He tends to assert his political philosophy only in negative terms. For example, he is explicitly against democracy and egalitarianism and has a transformative rather than restorative vision, which contradicts the rationale behind your thesis of Aragorn as Ubermensch.
Saruman as a character fits the bill of what Nietzsche is describing more closely. Saruman seeks to overthrow old values and effectively sets himself at odds with the metaphysical and moral structure of the universe; he literally seeks to create a new race of beings to replace the last race of men; he does so purely to acquire power without reference to the wishes of lesser men. All of this fits the bill of Nietzsche's Ubermensch. However, Saruman is also at odds with this character in that his transformation of society is along purely materialist lines and has no spiritual component to it.
A modern rendition of LOTR where Isildur just calls Sauron a "Morgoth LARPer" and he ends up crying
The thing is, the two tyrants actually have rather divergent worldviews; Morgoth desires merely to destroy all things Eru created, while Sauron desires to control all things Eru mad, to reorder the world according to his own twisted mind.
@@robertlewis6915 it's true they weren't identical but Sauron is wholly influenced by Morgoth, I would love to see the events of the silmarillion get adapted one day.
@@Janny890
Agreed; Morgoth explciitly corrupted Sauron from what I recall.
Also, I sincerely hope they never adapt the Silmarillion. They'd do it horribly and make the Hobbit movies look like masterpieces of adaptation and art.
@@robertlewis6915 feel like animation was a better medium to display the legendarium than live action movies although Jackson's trilogy is good
@@Janny890 I think you could do it with animation, though I feel like the SIlmarillion would be very difficult.
On a side note, I think they would make choices and changes (from a worldview and writing perspective) that would vandalize anything of Tolkien's they put to film nowadays.
As someone who’s read Nietzsche fairly extensively (went to school for philosophy... uhg...), I have to quibble with this interpretation of the man. I know it’s a fairly common one, but it’s also one that reads a significant number of his points out of context-like in multiple texts where he points out that “God is dead” is about the death of our God-concepts *not* whatever we might be trying and failing to point at with the word “God.” And it ignores things like his strident critiques of nihilism per se, his distinctions between the Ubermensch and egotism, his intense concern with ethical values, etc. Indeed, an argument could be made that on a more holistic reading of Nietzsche, Aragorn is a better figure of the Ubermensch than Sauron.
A great, quick, fun read on a more holistic view of Nietzsche is Jason Wirth’s (provocatively titled) Nietzsche and Other Buddhas. Gilles Deleuze’s Nietzsche and Philosophy is also a must read in this vein.
The villain never sees their self thus, lest they lose their moral authority. Nietzsche certainly fits the mold of one. And what others have done with his work since back that up, rather it was his intention or not. That is not to say "traditional values" (whatever that means) are without flaw. Those two words have been used to justify just as much pain and suffering than nihilism. But to declare ones self "ubermensch", to put yourself above another is more than a twisted exploit of established principles for self gain. It is the very bedrock of evil. And it more exemplifies the term "special snowflake" than any stereotype his followers apply to their political opponents. Nietzsche and Rand were evil. And it's a damn shame they became such a cornerstone of right wing philosophy.
That's a good point about Aragorn representing more closely the ideal of the ubermensch
Lukos0036 u think nietzsche thought of himself an ubermensch? U wanna use the Nazi interpretation? Fine. His proposal of the Ubermensch is an ideal. A new idol to follow now that God cannot serve that purpose anymore and people are turning to alcohol and other vices for consolation.
Also your argument of “what others made of his work” is plain lazy. So you won’t read him because Goebbels used him, Wagner and R Strauss as figureheads of Nazi ideology? Don’t read Goebbels take then! Read Kaufman’s translations. Nietzche’s impact has been heavily influenced by post Weimar German culture, sadly, but that doesn’t mean it’s the one true take on him. U think Shakespeare hasn’t been reinterpreted? He wasn’t a big deal (after Tudor England) until the Romantics came along and made him one.
Please go and read On The Genealogy of Morals.
@@lad9732 Shakespeare wasn't a philosopher who's ideas fueled a god damned holocaust. And nowhere did I say I hadn't read him. You pulled that out of nowhere. I said he was evil. Objectively he is. Know the man by his works. He was a selfish egotistical narcissist just like 90% of the people who swear by his literature. But clearly your opinion is already calcified so there is little point in further discussion.
Lukos0036 If that is your take on Nietzsche, I’m sorry to say, but I think it is fair to say you haven’t read him with any thoroughness or attention. I’m not saying he isn’t problematic in some ways, but the Nazi uses of him were based on clearly, incredibly shallow-and frankly cynical-readings of his work. The reductionism you’re engaging in by just calling him “evil” and writing him off because of how he was (incredibly wrongly) used by the Nazis is just not supportable if you’ve actually read his work.
So please, take a breath, and maybe read one of the two books I suggested: Wirth and Deleuze are/were both very leftwing, antifascist, and trained philosophers incredibly and thoroughly well read in Nietzsche. And then use their work as springboards for assessing his work on its own merits instead through the lenses of the way the Nazis abused him. Or don’t. But please be aware that to those of us who have read a lot of Nietzsche, and who are antifascists (like yours truly), you’re sounding pretty bad.
Your pun at the end is very Tolkienesque because it makes people embrace life denying values. Your life, specifically. Well done!
As a German, it gives me endless joy to listen to you butcher my language :D
... but for real, great video!
For Tolkien, sauron is a character who sought to be an overman, but went straight for power over others without obtaining personal power. A failed overman.
Sauron is the lion that became a dragon. He became the very thing he was supposed to overcome
@Sketcho Fink Power always leads to destruction for all, so not exactly.
@Sketcho Fink Not true. Only unity can bring protection. Unity is the opposite of power and much more effective.
@Sketcho Fink Power is a fantasy, requiring compliance and belief in order for it to function. I have to believe you have power in order for you to have it. I don’t. Unity is natural and evolutionarily beneficial as we are inherently cooperative, evident within its practice. Have you heard of game theory? You have no power over others because power is an illusion. You dont even have power over yourself and you rely on others for your safety and comfort. Not power, unity is the answer.
@@logiconlyzone Really?
This man chose to make his living by repeating the worst part of my senior year of high school over and over. I spent months on my senior thesis and it came up half as good at best.
That sponsorship transition tho xD
Also, as a man of faith I always appreciate that in any analysis you do that involves religious themes or concepts you simply present them as they are without judgement. I think that's the best way to analyze such themes in media.
I love it like that.
Amen.
As a German, it is really funny to hear how you pronounce "Die fröhliche Wissenschaft!" XD
"Then every thing includes itself in power, power into will, will into appetite; and appetite, a universal wolf, so doubly seconded with will and power, must make perforce a universal prey, and last eat up himself." -William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida
Reminded me of Ungoliath, the mother of all spider, that killed the trees of Valinor and finally devoured itself
' a universal wolf...' awesome
“Nietsche is dead.” -God
“Sauron is dead.” -Eru Ilúvatar
God is dead. Never been alive actually
@@Darth_Nox13
Well if God has "never been alive", I don't see how he could be dead. And if God "is dead" as your first statement alleges he would have to have been alive at some point.
Now you could argue God has never existed through that is a difficult position to prove. Personally when faced with neither evidence for or against, the most prudent course is to favor neither.
@@sonofccn In case you're not aware, that would be called agnosticism, which is just as valid as theism and atheism 👍
@@Megalomaniac_Trans_Lesbian No, agnosticism is just a fancy byword of admitting you are ignorant, and we should never celebrate ignorance.
@@sonofccn Creationism Debunked: Complexity Is Not The Marker of Design
The watch analogy works precisely and only because we know that watches are not natural and do not arise their own in nature. If design were truly responsible for everything, there would be no fundamental difference between a stone and a watch because both would have been designed by an intelligent creator. Thus, we would not be obsolete. Design exist purely in contrast to naturally-occurring phenomena.
"Die fröhliche Wissenschaft" could be translated as "The happy Science"
True. But since "gay" and "happy" were quite synonymous back in the day, "The Gay Science" fits just as well.
Yeah, Nietzsche wasn't really known for his extensive papers on homosexuality, so it'd be quite the jump to assume that's what it meant.
How about 'The Joyful Wisdom'?
or "LGBTQ+ AF Science"
Consider "Fröhliche Weihnachten" translates as "Merry Christmas", and you could have "The Merry Science".
Academy of Ideas just did a new video on Nietzsche and now Hello Future Me is making Nietzsche videos ... good time to be in quarantine 😃😃
With the whole corona pandemic i would almost Bet that more intellectual youtubers start making existential oriented videoes
One like just for the pun.
"One like to rule the puns."
One pun to rule them all.
I tried Nihilism...
But I didn't care for it at all. It all seemed so pointless
this is my new favourite joke!
*throws tomato*
ba dum tsss!
*That must be exhausting.*
- The Dude
@@shawnthompson2303 ve believe in NOSSING, Lebowski
Nietzchian Nihilist Sauron has been explored in about a trillion fanfics. It's probably the second most popular depiction of the character, right after Sauron-in-love-with-Morgoth
Where are these Nietzchian Nihilist Sauron fanfics?? I haven't been able to find them
As good as this video is the comparison falls short once you know of Saurons history as told in the Silmarillion.
Sauron did not liberate himself nor did he seek power after he had been created, he was twisted and corrupted by Melkor/Morgoth and nothing more that a puppet that still carried out its masters wishes
Then perhaps he represented a consumer of nihilist philosophy in Tolkien's mind, as opposed to Nietzsche himself? Tolkien would certainly have had enough disdain for the concept to believe that the devil had led them all astray.
Melkor did twist Sauron, but not neccesarily without the latter's compliance. Sauron was (at least one of) the first to take of Melkor's theme, so I think the he was attracted to the moral freedom (depravity) Melkor represented
Tolkine judged Sauron less evil than Morgoth for the sole reason that the former subordinated his will to another for a time rather than only follow his own. I think Nietzsche would have seen it the other way round, as I'd expect from an INFP and INTJ, respectively.
You could make a point of Tolkien using that to claim Sauron's "emancipation" from god's purpose is a prison all it's own
He still is a slave to greater plans, just not his maker's
Ultimately according to Tolkien, both Morgoth as well as Sauron were motivated by different desires. According to Tolkien, Morgoth and Sauron were meant to represent two different kinds of evil:
Morgoth represents evil as a result of a desire for independence from the Creator and everything outside of the self. Morgoth may have been the ''most powerful'' Valar, but in the end his attitude was like to that of an angsty and destructive teenager, wanting to corrupt or destroy everything created by his father out of spite and whim and a desire to be as different from him as possible. In a sense, by corrupting things Morgoth claimed them as ''his'' in compensation for his inability to create without changing something else, since only Eru can create from nothing, and his ''invention'' of evil was as far from Eru as Morgoth could imagine, as he tried to make himself. Morgoth's problem was he valued absolute freedom from everyone but devalued others' freedom whenever he had to whim to. He also had a habit of imparting his power into other things and beings such that by the end Morgoth himself had become much weaker.
Sauron, in contrast is meant to represent evil as a result of wanting absolute power and control over everything. Unlike Morgoth, Sauron did not object to the idea of god in principle; he wanted TO BE god. He believed that Eru was too much of an aloof, and therefore uncaring, Creator: that due to not micromanaging his creation Eru was being neglectful and responsible for all the suffering in the world, including Morgoth the first dark lord whom Sauron considered to be, despite being closer to the ''truth'' and having provided useful knowledge and power to Sauron over the years, a failure like the other valar, because none of them sought to take on Eru's role but only chose to oppose or serve Eru. As a perfectionist and craftsman, Sauron desired to make things the way he thought they should be. Therefore, Sauron does not believe himself to be evil; in fact he believes he has become ''reformed'' from when he trusted Morgoth. He merely believes he is using suffering like a tool to minimize it in the long term by becoming Middle-Earth's de-facto god and bulldozing or brainwashing all opposition. He believes in order but fails to understand the value of freedom when all it does in his estimation is exacerbate suffering.
Sauron's power during his regime in the second age overthrew Morgoth's during the end of the first age ''power'' wise, as well as success wise. This fact alone puts him over most valar (combat, as well as intellectual wise (most valar weren't combanant's), as he became on par with Morgoth (the mightiest as well as the most powerful of all valar) himself at some point. It took numerous valar to defeat/banish Morgoth for eternity, while Fingolfin (an elf, not even of the race of the ainur (maiar/valar) ''kicked his ass'' and managed to stood and put up a fight against the once mightiest of all valar, while it took numerous valar to bring morgoths regime to an end, which makes them look/sound embarrassingly silly and overrated in my opinion. At the end Sauron proved himself to be ''not just one'' but THE worthy successor.
While Morgoth, at least initially, was stronger than Sauron - Morgoth descended into a nihilistic madness as he couldn’t manage things on his way.
Morgoth wanted to destroy and annihilate the Arda and render it into primordial chaos. In this respect he represented complete madness - i.e. Chaotic Evil.
Sauron had other plans. Once his former master had been deposed, the Valar basically returned back to their own complacency and left the Middle-Earth on its own devices. This provided Sauron an opportunity.
Sauron was the mightiest maia, and had once been one of Aulë’s maiar. He had much better insight of the Music of the Ainur and the intentions of Eru Ilúvatar, and wanted to rule and reign the Middle-Earth, not destroy it. He wanted to make homophony of the Music, not discord.
Remember which vala, archangel, Aulë was? Yes, he was the maker of the things. He was the Great Grandsmith, and as such, he represented order. And Sauron was no different - or, rather, he was Aulë’s evil twin. Sauron too wanted order and organization. He was ruthless to boot, completely amoral and had no such impeding things as ‘love’, ‘empathy’ or ‘compassion’. He represented complete selfishness - i.e. Lawful Evil.
Instances representing Lawful Evil tend to be much wiser and more intelligent than those representing Chaotic Evil. To get order and organization you need wisdom. Chaos means only destruction of things. Morgoth squandered all of his life force into the very essence of Arda, to pollute and corrupt it. In the end he got locked in his corporeal form (fana), and other valar were astonished on how weak he in the end became.
Sauron did it the other way. He concentrated his essence into the One Ring, meaning it was his horcrux. As long as it existed, he could always assume a new form and renew his power. In the meantime, he used Men as his minions, not as something to be destroyed and annihilated. For them, he was a God-King. He wanted to reign and dominate, not destroy.
Sauron got convinced both the valar and Eru himself had completely abandoned Middle-Earth after the events of Akallabêth and removal of the Undying Lands from the material world into other dimension. He felt he had basically been given free hands to do whatever he willed. He never descended into the nihilistic, Chaotic Evil, madness as Morgoth did.
But at the same time, while his horcrux - The One Ring - was the manifestation of his strength, it was also his weakness. As long as it existed, he could regenerate and dominate. But once it was destroyed, it also put an explosive end to his plans of omniconquerism.
Sauron did not reflect foolishness like his former master morgoth did. He never sought to overthrow the Valar, as he knew through his inhabit power comparison he was unable to, althrought he viewed himself as the incarnation of perfection in form of personality psychology by distinguishing himself from all non-perfection, as we are perfect in our imperfection. He wanted to reflect perfectionism in reforming all of arda to his bidding.
So Sauron saw himself as a good guy by believing that he was to be a new god-king, and his wars against the Free Peoples of Middle-Earth were from a twisted sense of "once they accept me as their god-king, they will live happy and free under my generous rule" but he's so far gone that he doesn't see himself as pure evil and tyranny?
Well since morality isn't a thing in his world, he couldn't turn from good to evil and it's more a change in his own willpower. While at the start he gave the free people a choice to join and at the end he feels like he has no other choice than to do it by force, and to do it by force he needs war and tyranny. A moral man would not go that far but Sauron is above morality.
Do you think he cares about those under him, even in a self deluded way? I never got that impression. I think it was all about him, his power and nothing else matters.
@@therearefourlights6926 He does, if he didn't then there wouldn't be a need for the insane organization he has. Not in the way a normal person would care for another but since he knows best he will guide us to his perfect world even if it means beating us to a pulp if it meant us saying no.
There is a reason the orcs worship him as a fair and honest ruler, and why the men of the east have no problems working with him, they are not brought up with our western ideals of goodness and fairness. They legitimately believe in the promises that he makes and understands that his vision cannot be true without blood and sacrifice.
Of course for every year that has passed he seems to have gotten more and more twisted to the point where its hard to say if he cares or not anymore. But would he keep struggling if he didn't?
@@starcraft2own
The point of the "insane organization" is an army to conquer and hold Middle Earth. He is not doing charity events!
You really think he is sitting up in his tower thinking, "how can I improve life for the common Orc? Perhaps a second serving of maggot infested meat a week? If only those in the west would let me rule them I could make all their lives so much better. Enough maggot meat for all!" ?
I don't think so, he craves power, power unchallenged, and rules over all that he can because he thinks that, as the strong, he deserves to. He believes the weak live to serve the strong, not the other way around. When they suffer and die in his service, well that was what they were there for.
As to the men in the East, well I'd say a lot buy into the idea of being the ones on top. He lies, telling them what they want to hear and promising them power, wealth and lands. In the end they're all just slaves, just some of a higher rank to keep the others in line.
@@therearefourlights6926 Putting words in my mouth eh?
The question wasn't if he was good or bad but if he cared at all. And caring is very different from actually taking actions like rationing extra maggots with the bread. Him caring could mean anything from whipping the orcs harder to forcing them into service. The question was about his mental state and not his actions.
Believing there should be a hierarchy isn't the same as completely not caring at all about those below you in it.
The men of the east haven't exactly been lied to, they are just okay with the future melkors rule would bring and to get revenge on the men of the west who have trampled them down and humiliated them every step of their history.
Again a hierarchy isn't slavery, it is to our modern minds but not in their reality. Organisation to saurons degree might be seen and evil and oppressive for us but could be seen as purpose giving and kind to those under saurons rule, if you told the orcs they were slaves, they'd laugh at you right before stabbing you to death.
I think the fact that you seem to not be able to understand the followers of melkor mentality is the reason you can't understand this topic of saurons mental state.
To you, he is unquestionably evil and only seeks destruction, pain and power.
Just chilling when Hello Future Me shows up in my recommendations to give me an existential crisis.
Thanks, Great Video!
(seriously, great video!)
*TLDR VERSION*
Sauron: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Nietzsche: "Nothing is true. Everything is permitted."
Tolkien: "I'm gonna stop you right there..."
@Salty Pete Which is still not a counter-argument against Nietzsche...
The best criticism of Nietzsche was already addressed in this video. Whether he intended it or not, Nietzsche's philosophy inspires a might makes right mentality, which really isn't a practical philosophy for anyone that wants to live in cooperative and compassionate society. There is plenty of room for morality in the absence of a god, he turned to nihilism because he was an extremely depressed man that lived a tragic life. His philosophy was more a projection of his own mentality than an accurate understanding of morality.
@@Jonny-uu7wf I can tell by your comment that you've never read Nietzsche and are just parroting the guy from the video... "Might makes right" implies an objective morality (but based on might), this is not how Nietzsche sees things. Rather, he would say "might just does what it does". And saying it leads to that mentality isn't actually a counter-argument. You are implying "and 'might makes right' is bad" but you base that on the very slave-morality which Nietzsche shows has no basis and is undesirable for the individual.
"There is plenty of room for morality in the absence of a god" Nietzsche does not deny this but simply says there is no objective basis for morality, but he advocates for creating our own subjective morality (instead of the intersubjective morality we sheepishly adopt).
" he turned to nihilism" Nietzsches philosophy is explicitly against nihilism....
You are just bullshitting, you haven't read Nietzsche, why are you criticizing something you haven't even tried to read directly?
Hey that's from Assasin's Creed, is it?
Major leak... next AC is set around Nietzsche... the assassin of GOD :D
This opened my eyes to how complex Sauron is. I always just saw him as a "big bad". I now need to reread with this new insight
It's a fantastic story with truly profound depths; I'm on my 8th or 9th reread and still discovering new insights! I also do highly recommend the Silmarillion; it's more of a historical overview/collection of historical epics of Middle-earth than a single cohesive story like LotR, but it gives much more depth of understanding to Lord of the Rings (and reveals just a little more about Sauron and his origins/motives)
He is right. The Silmarillion is amazing. It reads like a Mithological collection of connected stories. The Fall of Númenor in particular changes your perspective on Sauron
He just wanted to be the irs.
@Oliver Zinn Did you completely miss all the letters of Tolkien in the vid that discuss Sauron? His characterization isn't in the story, it's in Tolkien's private letters
"Science is gay"
- Nietzche, The Gay Science , 1882 -
Lol the thing is 'fröhlich' doesn't mean 'gay" but 'happy'.
WHO TRANSLATED THAT?😂
@@justuskuhn6941 Gay means happy; "light-hearted and care free"
@@justuskuhn6941 Gay kann in älteren englischen Übersetzungen sehr wohl fröhlich bedeuten. Lies mal "The Great Gatsby" im Original
LetsPlayPetrus @danke
Wusste ich auch nicht, gut zu wissen
@@nils191 gay means homosexual is a pretty new terminology
A silver lining to social isolation: hello future me uploads
This was a top tier video. Thank you for the time involved to create this. I never thought the books would be this deep when I first read the hobbit in 6th grade
10:27 “I have seen the throne of the gods and it was empty...” Lord Corypheus - Dragon Age: Inquisition.
Talking philosophy can be scary since one wrong tern in focus can doom a perception, but this was over all pleasant
There were so many flaws:
1. How is Nietzsche 'modernism'... Nietzsche is the father of post-modernism...
2. How does taking the 'will to power' route lead to an unethical world..... The world itself isn't ethical or unethical (or people's actions) from an objective standpoint if you understand Nietzsche + the will to power is a descriptive 'force' in organisms, it's not something you wilfully choose.
3. Anderson claiming the will to power is framed as 'ethical naturalism' is also retarded. Nietzsche explicitly goes beyond good and evil and does not make claims about what is objectively good or bad for people to do, rather he uses 'good' (when he uses it himself) as a way to describe desirable outcomes for individuals and nothing more.
4. Sauron gets destroyed for fucking shit up for everyone else, so obviously acting purely 'selfish' is not in your rational self-interest. And the way of the other creatures are more effective for a happy, fulfilling life so that is what in that world Nietzsche would recommend. Nietzsche is more of a psychologist, not someone prescribing absolute principles.
Considering how often people of power abuse their power more often than not, I kinda agree with Tolkien.
On the other hand, subservience and self sacrifice allow the powerful to rule where an Ubermensch can free themselves from the grip of the powerful of his suppressors and God.
"Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength and knows... compassion."- Dr. Erskine, fictional character portrayed by Stanley Tucci in the film Captain America The First Avenger.
@@SCP.343 yeah that strikes a great balance. Compassion, using power to help others or maybe even choosing not to use power at all is a choice to avoid ruthless. But resisting using that power, as the ring demonstrates, is very difficult.
Remember that next year
People have a lot more power than they realize.
The power to go and get themselves food.
The power to sit and find enjoyment looking at a sunset.
The power to protect those they care for.
It comes in a lot of flavors, and many of them don't corrupt.
I love this in depth look at fiction. DEFINITELY would love to watch more content like this.
Bruh, this video is fantastic. Well done sir 👏👏👏 would have never thought to look at Sauron through nietzschian lense.
Ayy didnt expect to see you here, but in hindsight it makes sense
I love that the image of "fully realising yourself" is Gus Johnson dancing.
If Sauron is an evil dark lord based on what Tolkien thinks of a Nietzschian nihilist, I wonder what a nihilist's view of a Tolkein-esque traditionalist would look like as a dark lord in a fantasy world with a hero or band of heroes representing those ideals overcoming them.
How can your comment be 3 days old when the video just released?
@@mollof7893 patreon, i think
A person or organization halting progress in the name of tradition and stability, maybe?
You'd get Shin Megami Tensei
YHVH from Shin Megami Tensei
I have my general ups and downs with youtube but my god I love your vids honestly I think you do an amazing job at this refreshingly calming take at topics. If I ever have the means I will definitely contribute on patreon and please go on for some time making these amazing videos. :D stay nerdy
Just wanted to say I really appreciate your credits and patrons sequence. Very relaxing.
"Gandalf's self sacrifice"
Boromir: am I a joke to you?
"I'm sorry I wanted the ring bro, Frodo can have it bro, just take these arrows back and get me some of that elf magic"
Just wait for the irs orcs.
@@PotentialHistory lmao nerd
My interpretation of the over man/superman was always the idea that as a people we would be able to develop are own mores and folkways and laws that are not shackled by moot concepts that have no basis (like religion). In other words, I feel like we (in some places) succeeded in transcending Nietzsche's nihilism through secular law and society, built on the simple principle of "one man's rights ends where another's begins"
"WHAT DO WE WANT?" "MIDDLE EARTH!" "WHY DO WE WANT IT?" "Eh, plot?"
10:30 You just summed up some of the largest truths of Lucifer. He is an artist sitting in his master’s creation while being a creation himself: he wants to be worshipped, not to worship. Sauron is the same. Call them corrupted ‘superior men’ or literally corrupted angels means no difference in the end.
I love this video. You summed up Sauron perfectly👌Well done.
People always seem to forget about the will to power requiring a power over oneself as well.
Power over oneself naturally implies the ability to restrain oneself, to know when your desires are not the best course, and to choose not to follow them.
In this, Sauron can not be said to be an Ubermensch. He has failed. He did not lead his fellows to grow, merely himself, and thus his inability to overcome himself was his downfall.
Actually, I think Morgoth much better fits the classic nihilist archetype than Sauron. Unlike Sauron who wanted to dominate the world, by the end Morgoth just wanted to detsdoy things. In Tolkien's own words:
“...as ‘Morgoth’, when Melkor was confronted by the existence of other inhabitants of Arda, with other wills and intelligences, he was enraged by the mere fact of their existence, and his only notion of dealing with them was by physical force, or the fear of it. His sole ultimate object was their destruction. Elves, and still more Men, he despised because of their ‘weakness’: that is their lack of physical force, or power over ‘matter’; but he was also afraid of them. He was aware, at any rate originally when still capable of rational thought, that he could not ‘annihilate’them: that is, destroy their being; but their physical ‘life’, and incarnate form became increasingly to his mind the only thing that was worth considering. Or he became so far advanced in Lying that he lied even to himself, and pretended that he could destroy them and rid Arda of them altogether. Hence his endeavor always to break wills and subordinate them to or absorb them into his own will and being, before destroying their bodies. This was sheer nihilism, and negation its one ultimate object: Morgoth would no doubt, if he had been victorious, have ultimately destroyed even his own ‘creatures’, such as the Orcs, when they had served his sole purpose in using them: the destruction of Elves and Men. (…) Melkor could do nothing with Arda, which was not from his own mind and was interwoven with the work and thoughts of others: even left alone he could only have gone raging on till all was leveled again into a formless chaos. And yet even so he would have been defeated, because it would still have ‘existed’, independent of his own mind, and a world in potential. Note - Melkor could not, of course, ‘annihilate’ anything of matter, he could only ruin or destroy or corrupt the forms given to matter by other minds in their subcreative activities."
Also, see this essay where Tolkien addresses precisely this question: fair-use.org/j-r-r-tolkien/notes-on-motives-in-the-silmarillion/
I try to stay away from LOTR thanks to how mainstream it is. There's too many antiwhites/christians here. I hope they never find Wagner.
Two words I rarely use on YT: Brilliant and nuanced.
HE DID IT! HE REALLY DID IT!! HE MADE AN ENTIRE VIDEO WITHOUT MENTIONING ATLA!!
"... cuts the finger off." Too soon, man... too soon. LOL
Under the in-universe assumption that Middle Earth is our history, that’s literally earlier than the establishment of China, lmao. Sauron’s been dead long enough to flick his fingy.
@@UltimateKyuubiFox Really? You don't get humor?
great video although I would also add the fact that in Nietzsche's eyes it seems that because god died we have to strive to create our own ideal, this is actually much different than that of Sauron I don't see Sauron creating an ideal but purely destroying it and there is a big difference between creating and destroying
There are different wills of power some of which are good and some bad
Edit: Here is an example from Nietzsche
The noble man wants to create new things and a new virtue. The good man wants the old things and that the old things shall be preserved.
But that is not the danger for the noble man - that he may become a good man - but that he may become an impudent one, a derider, a destroyer.
Alas, I have known noble men who lost their highest hope. And henceforth they slandered all high hopes.
Henceforth they lived impudently in brief pleasures, and they had hardly an aim beyond the day.
‘Spirit is also sensual pleasure’ - thus they spoke. Then the wings of their spirit broke: now it creeps around and it makes dirty what it feeds on.
Once they thought of becoming heroes: now they are sensualists. The hero is to them an affliction and a terror.
But, by my love and hope I entreat you: do not reject the hero in your soul! Keep holy your highest hope!
True, but I think that goes toward the point HFM makes in terms of Nietzsche's Ubermensch versus Tolkien's idea of Nietzsche's Ubermensch. I doubt Tolkien would have ever given enough credit to an atheist to think that they might aspire to do anything but to destroy "God's natural order."
I'd like to see a more nuanced take on a Sauron-type that would examine these themes in greater detail, as well as a take on Orcs that would have them overthrow their Dark Lord after having come to similar conclusions.
@MasterWayneDK58 I agree that that's what Tolkien was probably getting at, but clearly his faith had blinded him to the endlessly demonstrable falsehood of that line of thinking. The West was not tyrannized by atheism for millennia, but his own faith, particularly the organization to which he belonged.
Humans are flawed, we stumble, but his answer to that was to follow the traditions of one's ancestors and spiritual precursors because Tolkien had developed a distrust and a disdain for most forms of progress.
@MasterWayneDK58 While what you're saying is mostly true, it has one massive problem.
After 2000 years of the Church perverting the message of Jesus for their own ends, there is no longer anyone alive who remembers the true nature of said message. Thus, the only thing we can do is try our best to live up to his ideals through our own distorted understanding of said ideals, not entirely unlike like Fredrick's Ubermensch. And if God truly is as loving as we're led to believe, that should be good enough for him.
@MasterWayneDK58 I disagree with your reading of the communist movement; Marx's philosophy was anything but devoid of principle, as it was geared toward liberating the masses from the tyranny of capital and viewed religious institutions as having already been thoroughly corrupted and therefore enemies of the proletariat. If anything, we have a case study of how Marxist ideology is just as corruptible as capitalist ideology, and that cults of personality (read: egotism, not nihilism) can be just as corrosive to society as religious cults.
"The dangers of rejecting it entirely" is a fallacious argument in my view, a boogeyman that collapses all past views and methodologies into the narrow, nebulous concept of "tradition." I, a queer person, have been wrestling against this fallacy for my entire life. There are principles within Biblical tradition (and within other traditions) which remain true, but these are universal principles (which can often be found across the board). Working from an assumption that some principles=baby and others=bathwater is a dangerous line of thought for anyone that the tradition views to be unsavory. Faith doesn't render a person evil in any sense, but it easily excuses many evils within the text, proclaims them to be good, and resists any further examination because it's believed to have come from a consciousness greater than humanity. Tolkien's view is flawed unless you feel it rather than think about it.
And I said "most progress." He seems to have been cool with Jews (if the Dwarves were indeed their analogue), though he acted superior in his concessions of allyship. That point just splits hairs. He longed for a simpler time, and that was all over his writing. I understand how his life led him to that longing, but I conclude that he was ultimately wrong about it.
@@devilcat17 The problem with Carl Marx's philosophy is not that is "Just as corruptible as religion". It's that it's a fundamentally flawed ideology that was doomed to fail from the outset. Maybe on the scale of a small hunter-gatherer tribe it could work, but on the scale of an entire nation, let alone an entire planet communism is doomed to fail because it's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of macroeconomics. Turns out, there's a lot of people who won't work unless they're properly compensated. Now, I'm not saying that *all* people are like that, but at the scale of a nation the size of the USSR you get enough people like that that the entire system ceases to function.
An example would be Frodo offering the ring to Gandalf. His will to power would lead him to do good, initially, to have power over others through positive impact, but he knows that he would not be able to stop the corruption of the ring, and so he resists the ring
You made this whole video and not once showed art of the hot version of Sauron that the Tolkien fandom has been utterly obsessed by for the past 8 years
A very small subset of the "Tolkien fandom," I believe is more accurate.
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Souron was hot..?
I really find this subject and discussion interesting. I have to admit, as an atheist I know I am biased towards Nietzsche's pov, but I really appreciate the nuanced discussion you present. Sadly I would not be able to do the same without my brain shouting "OBJECTION!!!!" at anything religion-related. And yes... I need to work on that.
I feel you so much. I think I would be on Sauron's side if I lived in Middle Earth.
@@LucasDeziderio God is real in Middle-Earth so your choice would be foolish.
@@khai96x well, God is pretty much relative because we can arguably call Sauron a "God"
I mean, we need a middle ground of what it is to be a God. Spiritual/physical, just powerful enough/omnipotent, a creator and/or destroyer/have nothing to do to the world beginning and end, etc. Or even is it a collection of more than one entities / a legion in one body / or an individual entity. That's why talking about God isn't as simple as "oh He is a God" therefore He is. He might be a She too for all I care.
@@toxicdermyillunary4103 I meant Eru Ilúvatar - The Supreme Being. Whether he is good or evil, his power eclipses all. Is it not stupid to rebel against him?
How many villains in stories are actual Neitzschian Ubermensch? Like Kars from JJBA Battle Tendency?
The Sith are very Nietzschen. Especially in the expanded universe stuff
Actually, a LOT LOT of villains, in one way or another, "follow" Nietzsche's philosophy. IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE VILLAINS ARE NOT REALLY THE PERFECT REPRESENTATION OF NIETZSCHE'S IDEAS
Darth Bane from the Star Wars EU and Apocalypse from X-Men.
@@shiveshsingh576 oh yeah fr. In fact, the sith are really not a 1 to 1 parallel either. But, it's fun to think about them through that filter. And to think about what the author's might be trying to communicate about those ideologies (intentionally or not). Like, the Jedi vs Sith ideology is a fun way of arguing daoist/Buddhist inspired philosophy versus Nietzschen/Nihilist philosophy. Adds another layer to the cake you know?
@@marcusanark2541 duuuuude I could talk about Darth Bane and apocalypse all day lol
I also feel like Sauron is a clear comparison with Milton's Satan in Paradise Lost?
Beautiful take on Sauron (who is extensively oversimplefied all to often). Intrigueingly; the presentation of power (which is a core part of this vid, obviously) in the legendarium is also very unique, and as I see it well worth its own video.
I think to add to your point is that the source of all conflict in Tolkien’s legendarium is derived from characters aligned with the “maker” caste. Fëanor is greatest of the Noldor craftsmen and through pride and prowess initiated the conflicts of the Silmarilion. Saruman was originally a Maia of Aulë the Smith, and so was Sauron. Aulë himself was guilty of trying to usurp Erù’s role as lifegiver in his creation of the Dwarves, but what allows Aulë and the later redeemed Noldor like Galadriel and Elrond to come back from the brink is their rejection of power and re-affirmation of their submission and subservience to Eru, which I think is indicative of Tolkien’s ardent Catholicism. Great video, really enjoyed it!
I'm interested by your point about how "Sauron is free to create as he sees fit". It reminded me of the fact that in Tolkien lore, Eru is the only being who can create life and this ability is coveted by many other "creator" characters, such as Aule, Morgoth, and Sauron. Even though he is a master smith, Sauron cannot create. He can only take Eru's creations and pervert them to his will (Just as Morgoth). If that's the case, Sauron is Tolkien saying that the ubermensch must always fail, because they will never be able to rise to the level of Divine Creator. Anyways, it gave me a lot to think about. Great work.
Hello Future Me: here's a very deep and in-depth analysis on both a very integral character and the amazing author, giving us a great window into the meaning of this trilogy of books.
Me: hehe gay book
Sauron lost himself. He could not be further from life affirming values.
One of the things I always liked about Sauron is that his power is deeply rooted into Middle Earth which not only fuels his superiority complex, and not only justifies his overwhelming power over the kingdoms, but does provide context as to why the battle is morally difficult for the heroes against him. His power shaped the evolution of the dwarves and men. His power corrupted the elves. There is a certain level of complacency that enables him, making him the Lord of the rings and the God of the (Middle) Earth.
The only other "Dark Lord" fantasy writer who I feel was able to write an ultimate evil that captured that feeling was JK Rowling. She gave us a wizarding Britain that was just petty enough, just smug enough, and just racist enough to enable Voldemort for a solid 20 years before he started doing things that made the Daily Prophet readers clutch their pearls.
Most other writers write their "dark lords" to be so alien compared to the morality of everyone else around them that it's very difficult to really imagine how they could rise in the ranks or secure enough supporters.
(The notable second place would be Game of thrones, which wrote the dragon riders to be so brutal and so hostile to their conquered kingdoms, then wrote the natural reaction to that, that the seven kingdoms never held any real loyalty to them and betrayed them and rebelled the moment they had the chance.)
This was probably the best explanation of Nietzsche I've found to date. Thank you so much for clearing things up.
Go look up the channel 'academy of ideas', 10 times better than this one in explaining Nietzsche
Nietzsche gave humanity keys, humanity kept open the wrong door.
Bullshit Nirzchre may have been right about d problems of d world & religion, however his solutions r obviously atheistic & ultimately satanic
Nietzche's keys unlock only terrible doors. His philosophy is entirely self defeating, he himself may not have been a tyrant but I do not think that it is a coincidence tyrants so easily follow his philosophy.
Nietzche cut off the branch he was sitting on, he rejected all forms of value and yet thought humanity should follow the path he set out to be come super men, but if nothing has value, why become supermen? Why should any one care what Nietzche thought had value? All humans concepts of value are illegitimate, except Nietzche's?
Nietzche only imagined the world his philosophies would create, Tolkien saw that world. That is why Tolkien rejected Nietzche's philosophy.
@@brendancoulter5761 The simplest way (that is not to say stupidest, important difference) to describe Nietzsche's ideal, is to me, this: if you think nothing has value then create value.
And that is why as Dreaming Acacia said, humanity kept opening the wrong doors because let's be honest how many of the man's supposed followers actually create values in their lives, inspired them in others and did not destroy values (as they were already meant to have been destroyed)? -for sake of clarity the question is rhetorical-
@@alkebulanawah4242 "atheistic and satanic" is not a counter-argument to someone that doesn't have your religious worldview.....
@@mouwersor Nietzche's philosophy at it's base is simply "do what thou wilt" he actually believed that man makes his own truths. If you can't see the demonic undertones of his philosophy, then you're living a canal life
I tend to like villains who don’t really have philosophy, the ones that do what they do because they can and simply want to.
So default bad guys.
Power is just like any other tool we use to effect our world, it can be used for good or ill. But in the Nietzschean world view you must personally accept your responsibility for your power instead of abdicating that responsibility to your god or and external source of evil. You have just as much right and responsibility to your virtues as to your sins.
This is what it is to become god.
Knowledge of good and evil, so the story goes, caused our banishment from the animal world where we lived by our instinct without moral regard. Our religions helped us build a moral framework from which to build societies. However, religion is itself a tool. A very useful piece of social technology to be sure, but through it we can, and have, achieved great good and evil.
And the good and evil came from man. Religion doesn't cause humans to abdicate responsibility, just because they believe in God. Rather, it hold humans MORE responsible, whereas a person holding themselves accountable can lie to themselves.
@@shorewall How would belief one way or another in God prevent someone from lying to themselves? Without accurate self appraisal no system of morality is achievable.
@@drumer960 it doesn't. many who believe in God's existence lie to themselves on a daily basis.
I'm getting a heavy "you were worried so much on if you could that you forgot to ask if you should" vibe in this video
As someone who recently transitioned (is still adapting?) from an extremely devout, Christian upbringing, to an Agnostic Theist, this was a really fascinating video.
When I came to my personal conclusion conclusion that there may be something out there, but we don't have a real 'test' to know specifically what He/She/It/They are, there were some moments of 'moral terror' where everything felt meaningless. But... honestly, at the same time, I realized, the values I believed in (kindness, decency, science, objective truth, etc)., were still 'me' and because I no longer had a religious institution 'enforcing it,' I realized those things were a product of the person I am, not the organization I'm a part of.
That to me, has been really freeing. I'd rather be a kind, helpful person because I think it's right, than out of a socio-theological belief system that demands it.
In this case, I feel like it's more a 'realizing your math was wrong, but you still accidentally got a good answer.' You correct your formula, but your outcome (being 'good') is still the same, and even improved.
Wow now there's finally a video that explains why I've always loved Sauron and the Orcs.
(I'm not a blood psychopath don't worry)
Morgoth is the best
@@Richard_Nickerson yes but he was childish and Sauron was more smarter and reasonable than him
@@_semih_
More smarter
Already these first three minutes got me intrigued!
"Because the strong man who has known power all his life, may lose respect for that power, but a weak man knows the value of strength and knows... compassion."- Dr. Erskine, fictional character portrayed by Stanley Tucci in the film Captain America The First Avenger.
Fabio Lacap thank you for this quote. Good day to you sir.
Nihilism is fascinating to me. In a world so full of meaning to choose a meaninglessness or to create meaning from your mind seems baffling and inconsistent. I am with Tolkien on this one...
*What* meaning? *Who's* meaning? Why is choosing my own meaning in an apparently meaningless world (ie in nature, in a cosmic scale) inconsistent? Hell, what's inconsistent about a person deciding to pursue interest 'x' when the society they live in demands they fulfill obligation 'y'?
Videos like this are why I adore this channel.
I had a book (which I regrettably no longer own) that was Tolkien and philosophy. It contained many interesting ideas and editorials and one of the most common were the philosophical debates of the pursuit of power, comparisons of Tolkien's ideas of the ubermensch and comparisons between the world of men, good vs. evil, God vs. Man, Nature vs. Industrial modernism. A few of the sources you pulled from may very well be from the book. I have been exploring nihilism for many years and enjoyed your video. Very much. I will hopefully come back to it time and again. You articulated many points in a concise and understandable and enjoyable way. Thank you for the video again, I can't praise it enough.
I would like to further note that saruman plays a similar role in this story as well. Essentially Tolkien gave us two stages of the Ubermench Saruman and Sauron. Sauron is already long forgone and is the peak result of nihilistic existentialism whereas Saruman is the stage right before that, almost at the level of the ubermench but lacking in one thing, the One Ring. We see Saruman over the series progressing to the level of Sauron starting with his confrontation with gandalf to the destruction of fangorn forest and finally the battle of Helms Deep. However, in the case of Sarumon, tradtion literally fought back against his industrialism, in the form of the Ents. These Ents, symbolizing nature and tradition, end Sarumons chance of becoming the ubermench. Great work on this video, I am a huge Lord of the Rings fan (obviously) and had never made this connection before.
1:43 Fill the meaningless void in your life with capitalism!
Yey,our system of ruling and living is flwed
Good guy Sauron,
Moves to an abandoned fortress creating a booming industry.
Good guy Sauron,
Created millions of jobs for the unemployed orcs.
Good guy Sauron,
Brings together 9 random dudes, united by a single goal,
Creating life-long friendships, an unbreakable bond.
Good guy Sauron,
Helps oppressed minorities fight for land.
Good guy Sauron,
Casts invisible spell on his treehouse, hiding his friends from evil wizard Magneto.
Sauron did nothing wrong.
Just stopping by again to say this video kicks butt
Luzifer is often portrayed as the ultimate rational person, the Übermensch, which fits nicely for both Morgoth and Sauron. In Paradise Lost, Satan is exactly that: The person, that falls in love with it's own creation, the ultimate prideful and rational Übermensch.
The Ubermensch is not prideful, that's a common mistake. A proper understanding of Nietzsche would actually make Aragorn closer to Nietzsche's overman than Sauron. For that matter both Lucifer and Sauron are commonly irrational, so I don't get that comparison either
15:27 You here it people, Sauron is Tanya the evil.
Those who think they have gone beyond good and evil, have collapsed into evil.
Damn that’s a quote, good job.
Well, we've got 3 dudes funding their own space journeys while thousands go hungry and thousands of others struggle to make ends meet so I'm not sure the Will to Power is workin out, Freddy.
Although I'd be happy to see their wealth redistributed to those truly in need, my 'inner space pedant' compels me to point out: Both Musk and Branson have used the rocket technology they've developed to move into satellite launch as a business opportunity, and Bezos reportedly intends to do the same - I think the 'joyrides for the wealthy' is something of an attention grabbing stunt for the more 'serious business proposition' oriented satellite launching operations
That's been normal for all of human history. In fact that not everyone in this world besides a handful of nobles is starving is a damn miracle we take for granted every day.
Your videos are flipping amazing man. I really enjoy seeing people use the lens of philosophy to examine works of fiction. I find fiction to be a really amazing place to be able to "thought experiment" and explore philosophy in a way that would be truly difficult to do in any other way.
Thank you
Awesome video. Loved how you made the differences between Tolkien's beliefs on life-affirmation and Nietzsche's actual philosophy clear. Great to see people do their research regarding what Nietzsche's value systems actually were.
09:00 So Hitler's appropriation of Nietzsche's writings was a case of death of the authour?
Hitler didn't ever read his books, he just knew few quotes from him and used them out of context.
I'm not sure "death of the author" is the exact way to put it, but there's no doubt that Nietzsche wrote of and meant something vastly different than what Hitler interpreted later. While I don't know whether Hitler read Nietzsche, we can all agree that he grossly misunderstood him.
@@esbenandersen5706 vastly different? not really except in specifics. Nietzche was more meritocratic, but like modern people who make meritocratic arguments did not take into account historically manufactured inequalities. In practice, his übermensch would *have* to be what Hitler and the Nazis described as "Aryan". The word "Aryan" indeed means "high one". Though it is a word appropriated from Ancient Persia...i.e. from non-white people. The irony was strong with the Nazis.
Sophie Jones well I disagree. From what I understand, Nietzsche’s ubermensch is someone who has realized who they are and has found a new purpose and morality, while Hitler’s ubermensch is someone who has superior genetics like Germans. You don’t have to have superior genetics to figure out what you want, so their views aren’t the same.
Sophie Jones although the irony is pretty strong with the Nazis especially when their poster child for the perfect aryan was Jewish so yeah lol
Me as a German habe sooo much fun with you pronouncing these german words😂😅
😁😁😁
"habe"
❤
Sauron is an Antichrist character not a devil character.
Either that or he is suppose to represent a Fallen Watcher(Angel) from 1 ENOCH.
@@knightoflight8249 Possibly, but his machinations are very similar to the Beast.
What do you mean anti-Christ? In the original context of the term, the Anti-Christ was used much the same as one would say, “The Anti-Capitalist”; it’s a collective adjective, not a single person.
I mean, kind of?
It's more so that the Übermench is the anti-Christ, not in the Biblical sense, but in that he's the opposite of Christ, in many ways.
What would an Übermench say about a man who destined himself to die on the cross in inconceivable pain, simply so that others might be happier?
Furthermore, Nietz didn't think that *everyone* could be the Übermench. There needed to be a lesser people, who for some reason can't create good art and exist to facilitate the Übermench, because honestly Nietz was a dick.
But at the same time, Christ was a man of the people. He ate with the poor, and valued them most of all.
So, the two aren't really exclusive.
@@firetarrasque4667 Eonwe' is the Ubermwnch of the Tolkienverse. 😁
This video filled a hole somewhere in me. Danke
The philosophical arguments at both ends are very, very interesting. Thank you for this.
Existential Nihilism, in my opinion, leads to only one conclusion: If no afterlife exists, and the only existence is our own, then creating a pleasant experience of life is the penultimate goal. What pleases you, and makes sure you are continually happy, is what is worth pursuing. Just remember: Jailtime is dreadful.
"What do we want?"
"Middle Earth!"
"Why do we want it?"
"Um, because My old boss wanted it!"
"Why did he want it?"
"Because he was pissed that he couldn't make it himself so after moping around in the dark for a long time he decided to spoil what someone else made"
"So we want to take over the world to live out the dreams of an emo loser?"
"NO, WE WANT IT BECAUSE OF PLOT REASONS!"
Interesting! I do have to say there is a stark difference between Sauron and Nietzsche.
Nietzsche is quoted as having compassion for a horse he sees being mistreated and questions the humanity of humans who would do such a thing. He often allows his empathy for pain and suffering to determine his overall outlook on the world and universe, but he himself did not seek to create discord.
Sauron, like Melkor/Morgoth has no compassion left in his heart, Tolkien has said in many of his stories of Lost Tales, Children of Hurin, and Morgoth's Ring that Melkor had lost all love forever from his heart removed as he became envious of his Valar brother and sisters and further removed him from love. He overtime became so dark to represent the "light lost forever", and Sauron was his greatest student who worshiped him.
Nietzsche, though an atheist had so much compassion and empathy, and in many ways it leads many people towards atheism ironically as they look at the evil that religion has done.
Great video and I love your channel, mellon nin!
"Someone who is trying to take the place of God" (which you state to be not Luciferian but Nietzschian) is honestly quite consistent with many depictions of the Devil, particularly in the Old English sources from which Tolkien drew so much. He's described as trying to build a kingdom in opposition to God, and idea that correlates nicely with Tolkien's view of Nietzsche's philosophy.