If you ever want the behind stories of your favorite philosopher, feel free to ask the Almighty God. Did he ever explain why he was hugging a dead horse in the middle of the road? Surprisingly, he left out some clues for the Son of Man. The being who taught those wisdoms have returned from the dead. I told you I will be back. - Ω

He was not radical he was plagiarist, everything he wrote copied stirner

Carl yung caught neizche copying word for word a children’s novel in his excerpts without credit and assumed kindly he probably forgot he copied itn

Max stirner was the original person who he copied everything he talked about ripped off stirner and yang zhu too but he was too obscure also Epicurus

​@user-os1gu5qb3cWell so 16 All Scripture is inspired of God+ and beneficial for teaching,+ for reproving, for setting things straight,+ for disciplining in righteousness,+ 17

that idea feels inherently flawed

@@keegan3394it’s not

@@onniram Neither are moral creatures because they dont have the capacity to think about that stuff pal

@@keegan3394 Well, you will have to make an argument better than "feels".

@@keegan3394 It's a comparison, something that is incapable of harm isn't virtuous, it is simply weak. As only those with power and do not abuse it are virtuous.

Damn...

Context is needed. Is he saying this about the main character? Cause the main character proved he was not a coward... and yet that was his biggest mistake.

who cares about the context, just read it an interpret it as you want , in other words stop being smart ass ​@@GrubKiller436

@@GrubKiller436 Sonia said it of Raskolnikov who was in an extreme state of despair, melancholy and depression over his predicament.

I think that is the case for most people. I appreciate Dosteovsky more and more. I tended to view him as a dreary buzzkill, or a man so unskilled and so weird he was unemployable and had no choice but to write or paint.

There is only power. And you must understand there is no difference whatsoever in the moral dichotomy that you had provided, apart from self justification purposes. The trick is to accept how meaningless life is, outside the fences of 'civilization' or mass hallucination. Will is power. Otherwise, it is more appropriately termed fantasy, or entertainment, much like 'identity'.

What would there be to justify?please clarify

Will to power < will for freedom < will to survive.

But we always do want to be a slave to something, something that pushes are forward. What you described is being slave to (absolute) freedom of choice. Will always serves some idea to which it binds itself.

😊Pp

Most important question of my life got answered

Haha! It was a poor decision in hindsight

@@unsolicitedadvice9198Everyone needs a teenage dirtbag haircut(or mustache) at least once in their lifetime. It's the only thing about life that makes sense😁

Always suspected the “mustache.”

😂😂😂

> I also noticed that nothing good ever happened to a sheep. Time to live vegan.

try reading Reverend Insanity

​@@gmiygimy1332 Real

The bible preaches kindness, even to the point of turning your other cheek if your neighbor slaps you, which is very interesting if you see outside of Jesus's teachings such as in the old testament of the brutal things you will read about. They're many people with strength AND power (yes those are different) such as kings like Saul in the bible under God that have defeated and killed many enemies, to the point where you would call it genocide to be fair, but that is a different subject on moralds or ethics. The bible is a story of human nature as well, just cause there is a story of someone in the bible of someone that is say not a prophet and they do some morally bad thing seen to most such as to the point of having mobs rape their daughters instead of their guests so they don't all die due to the guests being angels, incest, etc etc does not mean it is good, but it is a story of what has happened and it is history, not everyone that is mentioned in the bible that are associated with prophets are all good and only do good, as they are also humans.

I'm very curious if you agree. From my point of view the catholic church teaches the opposite of what Jesus taught. Jesus was a worshiper of the Heavenly Father. In catholicism harsh God Father is contrasted with loving mommy Virgin Mary which is truly good, not like him. She is the true center of worship. It's female religion suspiciously similar to current day feminism where weak suffering women are praised and HE is demonized for claiming any power over poor victimized women. Catholicism is similarly to feminism absolute affirmation of "slave morality" meaning female morality. I have never met a man raised in catholicism who would truly love his father, the same is true for feminists.

What is slave morality?

@@Eet_Mia you could answer the question instead of being a douchebag.

pretty much victim mentality. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality @@panzer00

Watch the video?

​@@panzer00read the book? Search google?

Everything can change when you change. Life is a set of mostly unconscious habits/programs that you are running. If you aren't getting the results you want you can try to figure out the programs and change them, one by one.

You want to be great like Napoleon? As did Raskolnikov.

Yes. That's exactly why corrupt people were so easily able to justify their genocidal campaigns with his philosophy.

Understand that when Nietzsche uses the word "good" he is referring to the political concept of good. When people act on their resentment, they invent an excuse afterwards to justify their bad behavior. When the mediocre masses of humanity all hold a resentment in common, they invent a collective excuse to be cruel. This is then labelled as "good" because everyone's doing it now and you need to do it too to be accepted into the group, and this works just fine for normal people. However, what if you don't want to be normal? What if you want to be the best? If that is the case then the traditional concept of "good" doesn't work for you. The shepherd that watches over the flock does not follow the same rules as the sheep he cares for, nor should he. Second, people misinterpreting Nietzsche is common. It wasn't until one of his last books that he finally stated it outright: "The Je*s are the most exceptional people in the history of humanity." Nietzsche thought the Je*s were GREAT. He LOVED their contributions to culture! The Na*is had to cut out/ignore half the things he said to come to their conclusions!

@@jacobwiren8142 Why did you censor Jews?

Morality cannot exist in a vacuum. Viable morality systems must always serve the greater interests of the species.

​@@jacobwiren8142Excellent explanation!

Ah thank you! I am really glad it was so energising!

You are correct. I have no idea what the hell Nietzsche was on about.

Maybe you should both focus a little bit more. It is not about self-centered vs helping others. Actually, helping others IS self-centered in your description... (you say that YOU feel worse when you don't help others... so you're doing it for yourself, at least half-part). Nietsche's ideas are not pop culture. They are deep, intricate, fragile and grandiose ideas that need to be carefully analysed and understood (something almost no-one can do, alas). I hope you'll feel greater and better ✨️

If to be an egoistic person is moral by society's standards, and to be an altruistic is amoral, then, by Nietzsche's logic, it is good to not give a fuck about what society tells you to do, and be what you want. So you are very "nietzschean" in your choice, if you go against society's will, you have that willpower and you are not afraid to use it, even if some people will see you as a bad, evil person. At least that's how I understand it. Like, embrace yourself and be authentic. But yeah, if someone's authentic self is to be a viking pillager, it certainly will have disasterous consequences. And I want to believe that there are a lot less sigma male american psychos in human population than good Samaritans

The path of the viking is also one of self destruction. We don't live in the times of small isolated communities anymore. To be a plunderer in modern times would be to dominate a market or dropship cheap garbage to hipster s consumers with great markup. Or predatory monetization of games ...

@@ahcensoufi9923 I hate that Randian "virtue of selfishness" bullshit. If it were only about making myself feel better, then making others feel better shouldn't matter to me in the slightest.

Crowley made this his entire philosophy: The Crowned and Conquering Child

I guess you haven't ever angered a camel 😂. Very vengeful creature that will continue to try to harm you, everytime it can. It will even seek you out

I always want to compare this with Camus's analysis of revolutions in The Rebel. I think it would be really interesting to tease out their similarities and differences.

Very simpleminded of him. Out of every revolution (and war for that matter), the strong - or rather powerful - emerged even stronger and the "low life" has always been just a misused misdirected cannon fodder. Only a man totally blinded by his own inflated ego can unsee it.

Thank you! I am really glad you liked it!

As the video pointed out, Christianity became the most powerful, popular, and relevant religion in the world. So Nietzsche really failed with this philosophy.

@@GrubKiller436 No being powrful and popular does not make you good. Chtistian had no morals to stand it's just the current biggest cult.

​@@GrubKiller436The enlargement of the masses can only make their Shepherd's role more meaningful; human resources are plenty.

​@@GrubKiller436Oh boy! Is that the reason why most churches are empty today?

@@tolloromassi99 As an atheist, I can say people are more depressed than ever. And it's only going to get worse.

Thank you! And I share your suspicion that problems of living may come with individual solutions

And why we automatically tend to vilify those in power, assuming that their way to the top must have been to the detriment of others. Which, in a way, is *always* true. If you want to survive, you have to do "bad" things, and if it is only that you occupy space that another being could have occupied, were you not here. That kind of leads to the philosophy of Albert Schweitzer (sadly forgotten by too many), who, if I remember correctly, saw "bad" behaviour as an inevitability of daily live, just because we are there. The main point of his philosophy was expressed like this: "I am life which wills to live, and I exist in the midst of life which wills to live.'"

No you’re making the term bad too broad. Being in a space someone could have been in is far less bad than your existence being derived off of as system created by their suffering. Lets be clear doing something bad is causing someone else harm with no reasonable cause. Your personal greed or want for power is not a reason to harm others.

@@FikosoEva-lz2kq But you are *always* harming another being with your existence alone, it doesn't have to go as far as a want for power. The degree of "bad" can be discussed about, but the fact that you are here means that something or somebody else can't be in the place you're currently in, thereby you're limiting another beings wish to be, which (from their point of view) can be seen as bad behaviour.

@@stephanhuebner4931 I agree that it could be argued it causes harm to an extent I don't believe it is intentional nor is it preventable. so while it may be bad it is at a level that will always exist while seeking power over others through subjugation is a level of harm that you are creating and easily have the ability to prevent.

Thanks! Glad you are enjoying the videos

is that where you think you are? go into the real world...

Thank you! That is very kind of you to say

A good point. It is interesting to see how his thoughts conflict and interact with his personal life

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 Also if Nietzsche looked at the Bible a little closer he would see that Christianity actually calls some of the qualities he criticises sins(namely sloth and envy) and that rather then it being a fundamental problem with Christianity its a fundamental problem with how the Bible is intercepted by some people. I do however agree with him that the problem stems from a mindset that predates Christ and that didn't have much room to gain power before Christianity.

I noticed that too. ​@@Wolf-oc6tx

@@SyoDraws 😁

You mean he is exceptional to you and the majority which is why you all write about him all these years later because he doesn't base truth conveniently on his bias like you do? This is your logic correct?

Thank you!

Thank you! Glad you like it

Agreed. I was getting a bit burnt out with the other philosophy channels I regularly watch. Although it's probably true that if you watch enough of any channel then eventually you start hearing the same old shit said in a slightly different way...

And be evil

​@@eugeneojohnson There is no thing such as "evil". It has never existed

Hmmm

Ah thank you! That's very kind

Thank you! Funnily enough my background is in analytic philosophy and mathematical logic, so I hope you are enjoying it! And I don’t have any social media to follow at the moment, but I’ve been advised it’s a good idea so I will at some point

Thank you! I am a big fan of these thinkers and it’s a privilege to talk about them

I would almost agree with you, except when you say mediocre as this really contradicts all the good parts of nietches idea. I would suggest instead striving for a modest life.

I certainly agree in a lot of ways. I personally don’t have the temperament to live how Nietzsche would want me to and I don’t think many do

Then Camus philosophy at least how I understand it will suit you best

Thank you! That’s very kind!

Yeah! I think they are dealing with many of the same problems, but have different angles. The same strikes me as true with Dostoevsky sometimes

Thank you! And I haven't read it but I must give it a go

Thank you for watching! I’m really glad you liked it

Thank you! Glad you liked it

Do you read the Bible literally? It's meant as a parable. Don't take Nietzsche verbatim either. Dude likes to riff.....but in General....he's right about a lot of societies bullshit.

​@@user-dv3do1od2rThe Bible has multiple levels of interpretation including the literal. You need to learn how to take a joke.

lmao 😂😂😂

Thank you! That’s very kind of you!

Thank you! That's very kind of you to say

Why is it "wrong" for morality to be subjective? If you make it fully subjective - as it always is and was - you will realize the universal human needs in yourself that will serve as the foundation.

Hahaha! Like a lot of thinkers, I encourage people to take what they find helpful and leave the rest. Or "philosophising like a pickpocket" as I like to call it

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 To what extent was Nietschze inspired by the ideas of Max Stirner? What are interesting similarities and differences between Stirner and Nietschze''s philosophies, in your opinion?

Yes; on tasks requiring multiple people everyone trying to lead is often counterproductive. Much of the current "alpha male" oversimplification has reminded me I do best when I pick my battles and work to my level of expertise (I.E. know when to be humble). Much like the Greeks, he didn't have an opportunity to test many of his theories so they bare interpretation. Not blindly following anyone (which would include Nietzsche IMO) is one of his best points.

Yes it still happens wars no one answers for it Serial killing Anger and resentment toward the serial killer and killing those who society deems guilty

not really and kinda yes as well 'good' as in bring good to others is only popular Cuz it helps us evolutionary if it didn't it wouldn't exist

@@godassasin8097 good stopped someone killing you

Thank you for watching! And he is truly a unique thinker

Dead on right.

He's not saying what you interpret he's saying. He's saying only the strong can be noble since they can choose not to harm others when they have the capacity to do it. He's _not_ calling to dominate others.

@@edheldude Except Nietzsche did, you can cherry-pick and try to pretend it is the whole ball so you can play apologist for a harmful psychopath, but JillPKitten has him dead to rights, which it should be apparent is a psychologist's analysis, and is apparent if you actually read all that psychopaths crap. The more you read, the worse it gets, the mental gymnastics used to justify such harmful ideas is part of the train wreck you can't take your eyes off of, where if you have a cursory sense of society, inherent diversity of mentality of people, and social constructs, it should be apparent what he ignores to justify his master/slave image of the world to excuse the powerful dominating the rest. It is disgusting to the Nth degree, and no amount of twisted games will change the reality of that guy's psychopathy. Even the premise of what you propose is absurd, 1st as it should be apparent that any one person CAN harm another, even the poorest most powerless can take actions that cause harm to others, they don't have to be "strong" to do that, they just have to be psychopathic enough to do it. 2nd, the assumption that strength is the ability to cause harm in itself is absurd, it is a skewed selective idea of what strength is, with Nietzsche just like Ayn Rand, the idea that "mental strength" is the ability to cause harm because they have the psychopathic tendency to disregard the rights of others, is NOT a strength, it is just a psychopaths disregard of the rights of others, and should be obvious, except to psychopaths, that this is a mental weakness that is harmful to society and the people in it. And the attempt to tie "nobility" to the "strong" that is the people in power, should be an obvious red flag, that these people are at their core just ᖴasc!sᚾs.

@@edheldudeThis. I am by no means a fan of Ayn Rand (in fact, I’d argue that reading Nietzsche for me made me much more critical of Rand), but framing Nietzsche like this is such a gross oversimplification of his philosophy that it difficult to take this interpretation seriously if you have read his work with an open mind. It ignores that the Nietzsche’s call for society is to “transvaulate” master and slave morality altogether, not to mention criticized the barbarism associated with master morality (which he does frequently in Geneaology and Beyond Good and Evil). The point is: his philosophy is much more complex than people give him credit for, and personally, I would prefer to live in a society where the arbiters of Nietzsche’s thought were H.L. Mencken or Gilles Deleuze than Hitler or Mussolini.

Also, I’d argue that modern talk therapy is heavily influenced by Buddhist philosophy and Eastern mindfulness techniques (which Nietzsche praised in Antichrist).

Weakness? how is LGBTQ+ movement remotely related with "weakness"? o.O

@@melanynadine972 a lot of people use their color and or sexuality as a way to victimize themselves to avoid taking responsibility. I have a gay friend that is really obnoxious and everytime anyone tries to tell him to stop being an ass, he always says: "you say that because you're homophobic". In reality he's just an ass sometimes. I see that parallel in society aswell where a lot of aggressive unfriendly people use their victim status to be assholes. I'm not white, i just wouldn't want to victimize myself and give away control over my life to others. If i don't get a good grade or a job it's my fault, not the patriarchy, not the racists. That mentality has served me well, i built my own business over the last 5 years and I'm starting a family. Life's good when you put it in your own hands.

I think some fragments of the movement push weakness, but in general, the LGBT movement is being used as a scapegoat and a propaganda tool by right wing groups. I have no personal stake in the issue, so I like to think I can see it in a less biased way.

@@TuneEditsfx Ok, let's break that amazingly stυpid answer in several parts: 1) a lot of people = some people you know ≠ not everyone in LGBTQ movement. Your "friend" (because let's be honest, u talking sh¡t about someone and then calling them "friend" is not cool) might be obnoxious and avoiding taking responsability like u call it but that's not something every gay man does. You're generalizing and being fallacious thereof. 2) I definitely don't doubt there are a lot of people out there using their 'victim' status to justify being asshles, but they're simply not the majority. 3) If you want to take responsibility for not getting something entirely that's just fine. Some poeple need to feel everything's upon their sole actions so failure becomes easier to deal with. So in a scenario where 2 out 5 times you were denied a job for not being white and male (something that actually happens) you decided to convince yourself that it was just because of you, great, if that makes it easier to deal with go ahead, but you'd just be fooling yourself, that's not how life works. 4) Great for you that you're succeding. However, it is proven that you need two things to achieve success: hard work and... good luck. No one can be successful with just one of them, namely luck or hard work. If you wanna believe you're doing great just because you work hard, go ahead, again, that's just living in a bubble (and I'm sorry I'm trying to burst it right now), reality is not that way. I see you have built a system of beliefs to make your life bearable.. the good news is that it's not only you who does such thing... the average human being need to believe things to make existence easier, that's why religion exists in the first place. I wouldn't be surprised if you're also christian. The bottom line is LGBTQ people cannot be accused of victimizing themselves as your so-called friend does entirely... as much as there are stυpid people doing so inside the movement there are outside.. haven't you heard about 'white lives matter' and the great replacement theory? xD (omg those clowns...)

​@@kevinmurphy5878They are promoting victimhood based on self-declared identity and demanding special privileges for those people.

Thank you! I am glad you liked it

Good job bro and you saw human nature in 4K with your own eyes.

I agree with aspects of the criticisms of Nietzsche’s views, but I am not sure what you mean by him being mediocre apart from “context” because most people in history have views that are influential because of causal factors. It is usually a mixture of novelty, reason, resonance, and “right place right time”. I am also not sure it is prudent to dismiss Nietzsche out of hand as mediocre in any case, given his influence, as well as the originality of his ideas. Additionally his whole view of meta-philosophy is highly original and sophisticated (especially in later writings) and whatever else you think of his ideas, this aspect is definitely worth crediting. As with most distinguished thinkers, if you take their word as gospel, that is probably a sign you aren’t thinking hard about them, but if you dismiss them out of hand, you are almost certainly missing something. Additionally, the nihilist movement in Russia arguably had its pre-Soviet heyday before Nietzsche reached prominence (though I’m happy to be convinced otherwise). It is also worth noting the influence of his idea “there are no moral facts” which is still a respectable philosophical position. Even if this idea certainly had precursors in other thinkers, Nietzsche argued for it particularly vehemently.

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 You are right, my comment is rather subjective and therefore laced with bias.... But let me explain my bias.... There is no question that Nietzsche has made a mark on philosophical though, and that his Ideas, especially the ideas on power and morality influenced modern philosophy, especially post modernism.... His philosophy on morals and ubermensch had profound historical fruition in the events as they took place in the 1930 and onwards.... Some might argue that the philosophy of Nietzsche was misinterpreted by Nazi party, never the less the core ideas did not miss the mark..... So the question is???? How do we judge a philosophy if not by it's outcomes????? I suppose, if morality is relative, then we do not judge it at all, as there is no standard to be judged by..... I hope we can agree that Nietzsche was the father of moral relativism.... I suppose, my bias, if it is a bias, stems from my opposition to moral relativism,.... Rightly or wrongly my view of any philosophical theory, should not be judged only by outcome of influences on thought, but also if the outcome has positive or negative bearings on human as well as on other living beings...... So, obviously it can be concluded that I view his philosophy in a negative light, due to the consequences that his philosophy has instigated..... I am fully aware that ethical and moral theories are exceptionally fluid, almost as fluid as the matters of the metaphysics ..... However my bias is that moral relativism, and by that I mean all forms of moral relativism, is a dangerous step that can lead to catastrophic consequences, as the first half of the 20th century seems to show.... As an Atheist I do understand that the proclamation "God is dead" does lead to the death of morality.... But that doesn't need to be the case... After all Utilitarianism does not need God for ethical and moral considerations.... And the outcome of it is manifested in the raise of Humanism.... (I am aware that Humanism owes a great deal to Christian morals as expressed in the Gospels) So if we consider the options of the two, how do we decide.... I am quite happy to stick with my bias..... That being said, I retract, my comment about his mediocrity..... Yes he does present some very interesting thoughts, contraversial thoughts.... Thoughts that, in my bias, I judge by the outcomes..... Outcomes that do not seem to fit into the theory of morality, that, does create positive outcomes.... So, there we are.....😊

What particular principles and standards does she relate to trader morality?

@@ronnywijngaarde7555 pursuit of one's own well-being via reason and cooperation rather than force and domination

Hhhhhhh, congratulations, you've managed to say nothing in 5 lines, you've tried to play wise and get the high-ground, but you were not wise nor smart enough to see it through to the end.