Відео

40:06

What's the intro music?

Thank you. 🙂

The one thing that I find hard to parse with Nietzsche's philosophy is the fact that Christianity apparently has been one of the most prolific patrons of art throughout history. If Christianity is the way a certain set of life-denying philosophical ideas manifest in the world, in other words that Christianity only has "No!" to say to things, then how is it for example that churches are some of the most beautiful and awe-inspiring things humanity ever created? And the way the monks dress like wizards, that they use incense during ceremonies, that they commission paintings, sculptures and churches house the most extravagant musical instruments (organs) ever made. Even just that people wear crosses which are quite beautiful even if you don't believe in Christianity. Etc etc. Aren't they saying "Yes!" to beauty? All the beauty is just a seduction to get you to conform to the metaphysical dogma? I mean maybe, but it's very cynical and I don't see why you would have to conclude that to be the main driving factor. Of course there must be all sorts of psychological intricacies as to why christians focus so much on art. I find it unlikely that so much of the art could be so inspired but also be motivated mainly by "No"-saying ulterior motives. Did Bach, famously devout, make 1128 pieces not out of inspiration but out of a recruitment scheme? I think if you told the architects of the Cologne Cathedral that they weren't inspired they would get offended. In the first place, art is only really well done if you focus on the art itself and not on why you're creating it. Now maybe the artists are pure enough, but the top clergy who commission it are scheming? But well I find it hard to believe these top catholics or orthodoxes would be consistently psycopathic throughout many centuries and didn't really care about beauty despite spending vast resources on it. Alternatively you could spin it like "They're actually discontent with reality so they create transcendental art as a kind of "active-denial"". Again, how would you be sure of that though? Didn't Nietzsche make the point that "Those greeks were superficial -- out of profundity!"? If the superficial reality is all that matters, aren't the catholics and orthodoxes doing pretty good on that front? And if they're doing it out of transcendental reasons, doesn't that imply there's superficial utility in believing in the transcendental? Maybe there is a Yes-saying spirit in the way Christianity has manifested? Which to parse it with Nietzsche's critique of the origins of christianity being among the fearful and resentful slave classes of Rome, maybe that means christians aren't that christian anymore if they have turned it into such an aesthetic way of life? Looking at the basic christian recipe, you're supposed to be humble, have a wife and kids and remain honest and faithful and be an example of generousness in your community, and in general to not engage in vulgar pleasures (which scientifically we know for example porn or drugs ruins your dopaminergic system's ability to value the more subtle joys of life)... At least compared with the modern "do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone"-attitude, it seems like a sensible and mature way of life, purely from an aesthetic viewpoint. Of course, other cultures that aren't christian have had that recipe too. I guess the one aesthetic critique that I find convincing is that taking part of christian ceremonies can be rather long-winded and dull, and you can get a sense that nothing new or exciting is possible. In other words there's something morbid about it, like a dreary old man sitting on a park bench waiting to die. So in that sense it's bad. But they do a lot of glorious shit too.

I also greatly enjoy the expansion beyond Nietzsche but appreciate your desire to keep the podcast centered on him. I found these two episodes on Jung very valuable and essential to better understand Nietzsche. Thank you!

Lol, this title. 😊 It's excellent work -- thanks for sharing. Your writing is high quality. I read many of these books in the past - but I have never read the early Nietzsche manuscripts. You offer a really excellent commentary for Americans, too. I especially enjoyed your discussion with Daniel Tutt -- so that's solid, too. I will recommend that you highly encourage listeners to go back to primary texts - you want to encourage your listeners to look to themselves instead of you for knowledge. Otherwise people tend toward reactivity - particularly on these platforms.

what books by deleuze would you recommend?

What a great ending to the season! Many thanks for all your hard work. You have truly enriched my life these past couple months, and have inspired in me a great philosophy; a love of wisdom. One thing that did stand out to me as curious was the statement given 50:32 "Having a combatant, or an enemy is actually of great benefit. It is the test of their ideas, their contrast, their contest which creates a productive relationship. This is where everything good and worthwhile comes from." - Could you help clarify how this differs so with the Hegelian dialectic? It is a similar (seeming) contradiction I find in the writings of Gilles Deleuze, who also sets himself at odds with the Hegelian dialectic (though he does explain how his being at odds is not dialectic) but this is yet something I fail to grasp. Is it simply the dialectic as a means to an end which Nietzsche disagrees with?

Long story short Nietzsche is largely misunderstood bc he was mentally ill.

I’ve done everything in Skyrim almost and now I’m also trying to collect organize and read the books. Hats off to you

If you’re looking to explain the Greek Mindset…. Just call them Meds. and leave it at that.

He went mad because he thought he was god

To quote J.P buebian "absolute power does not corrupt absoltely I've known employes that abuse any little power they are given." Its the kind of person ypu are yes you will make errors and it is good to start small to get a hang of power but what is power without wisdom?

Amazing exposition, thank you

Jesus man I love your content but drink your water away from the fucking mic

Does anyone know what name or nickname "essential salts" goes by? I'm in love with his work and it's annoying calling him "the essential salts guy" to my friends

Great insight. I’m only now just realizing that my version is missing a huge part of part 2. I can’t believe I’ve been walking around with only part of Goethe’s Faust in my head.

Great lecture.

Freud was so weak mentally, he could not cope with anyone did not agree with him in his room.

Jung rules, not Freud

Sam Hyde?

30:00 it appears that the predator and pray metaphor shows that the "christian slave morality" was the original "SJW" movement.

an evolutionary "purpose/description" of consciousness could be a mix of self preservation and abstract thought about oneself. a reason could be to store food, and categorize (memory) of food sources, foods to avoid, water sources. to remember them and categorize them using abstract thought, and to consider storing them for future use (like a squirrel). all these basic "thoughts" help with survival and are based on an abstract (future) concept of "the self". if you couple that with basic "awareness" of ones' sensory inputs (pain, pleasure, warmth, sight, sound ect) you have all the ingredients of what we call "consciousness" . also the buddhist "5 aggregates" shows there is no consciousness, just impermanent/temporal sense stimulus and mental activity.

This is why studying the ancient myths is so fascinating. These people were in touch with fundamental truths expressed in a way they could understand.

thank you for all your uploads and great work

This is simply impeccable. The depth and focus is nothing short of a masterpiece.

I don't understand/agree with the idea that revenge has to be defined by the other/enemy. Revenge is about justice, it's this concept that defines it. Dismissing this essential point by saying "justice is imagined" doesn't mean anything since every concept is imagined. Every word you use is imagined. Just because something is conceptual doesn't mean it's invalid. So if Nietszche really states that revenge is fundamentally about "the other", he is wrong.

You are great to listen to! So glad i found you. At 43 years old it makes sense understanding his thoughts better after leaving my hometown 24 years ago. I tried reading Nietzsche at a young age at the prime of all my adventures. As I kind of understood the direction of his toughts, your podcast put a lot of dots on a lot of i´s. Much obliged, great voice too

I’ve read some of his work in high school and it never made sense but with your videos and breakdowns the topics become very digestible Would you ever consider covering a season in hell by Arthur Rimbaud

Why I am still in 10th grade.

I love your talks man. Wish I had like minded people like you in my life to talk to.... Thanks for doing what you do...

You have a gift for language. Thank you, not only for the fascinating information, but also, the delivery.

Ignore ignorance.

Is this a Nietzsche refenerce? 😂

Dude, I love your podcasts, as well as your selection of materials. You’re keeping an entire mode of discourse alive that would otherwise die. Philosophy as intended; for the regular person dealing with life, not exclusively in moldy northeastern university lecture hall. Keep up the good work. And really looking forward to anything you can do on Being & Time. It’s a mountain of a book and steep climbing. I’m very curious why H. Didn’t ever mention Schopenhauer… even to dispute him. Heidegger’s thought structure is aligned with a quasi-Buddhist paradigm of non-duality, except he doesn’t care about your happiness or reducing suffering. Did he think that only in anxiety can authenticity be achieved. And why then would we pursue that… And his remorseless decision to be a nazi after all that occurred came out is so hard to process. TO WHO ELSE BUT ON UA-cam YOU COULD I EVEN ASK THIS?

How Arrogant of you! Damn you to hell

41:40 ozora has it and it’s breathtaking

The greatest book ever written is the Iliad. Everything that follows has the unfortunate characteristic of slow decline. Herodotus comes close as does Nietzsche. Socrates/Plato would have us jettison the poets, the typical response of the decadent to health. To fight decadence by destroying the creation of a healthier era is exactly what Nietzsche defines as modernity.

Isaacbarrett your note that begins with thirty - three has nine comments, when you hit on the newest heading at the top of notes there will show twenty notes. Quite often when you think your notes deleted, you can find them when you hit newest.

For a "teachig to be meaningful " it leads the student to a direct encounter with e fundimenrle experience of Love or Wisdom.

you really do make such good podcasts; I'm basically hooked on reading philosophy these days in no little part thanks to your such Excellent podcast 🤙

Nietsche was a preachers kid

A wonderful rich presentation thank you ! Btw just to say Goethe in English is a paradox he seems a lesser figure compared to Wordsworth or Coleridge, in terms of literary art, but both of those profoundly looked up to him. Is it an issue of translation? Or is that when all is said and done the genius of Goethe was not in what he wrote but in being Goethe!?

The longer I delve into the myriad philosophical schools of thought (and read comments/arguements debating the meanings) the more I realize philosophy is relative.

Your delivery is the most genuine out there.

Ignore the morons.

My memories have not been kind to me.

I've listened to your last podcast twice. I will return to it many times. "Trust your own discernment" is something I needed to be told long ago. I was raised in a very abusive family where i was told not to trust my own judgment that the beatings were wrong and i should tell a teacher, and I spent most of my adulthood not trusting my own discernment. As a result I ended up pursuing many fool's errands instead of valuing myself and cultivating my one virtue to its full potential. Now in middle age my only regret is that i didnt understand Nietzsche's teachings earlier. This kind of freedom and purpose is priceless.

The eventual reduction of the moral worth of all actors and actions towards a dialogue i.e. the Christian methodology for bringing the powerful/masters to their knees is essentially the Petersonian position as well imo. He is, in simplified lingo, asking "But in that case, where can I enforce the dialogue against the tyrant?" even though for the master (perspective of the master) the dialogue is mere quibbling.