Reality IS objective; it's your perception of it that's subjective. Try telling that to someone who insists there's no such thing as absolute truth, though...
Good video. So many people put nietzsche on a pedestal and I've never understood why. Philosophers like Diogenes of Sinope are in my opinion much more closer to the ideal philosopher. Although i am of course biased because i have no taste for spiritualism and mysticism in philosophy. And i think that rational and literal minded approach such as that which Diogenes usually took, Is much more ideal.
@thecreepyguy I knew there was a good reason I liked you when I saw your vid. Nietzsche is part of a series of philosophers who were keen to use cryptic language to appear mysterious. What really bothers me about this sort of philosophy is that its proponents will never admit to any belief if backed into a corner. They will simply wrangle out of it and say that you don't understand the message. Nietzsche seems very popular with Agnostics, Weak Atheists, and other Relativists.
@RockingMrE Just uploaded a video on philosophy as a response to another video. Check it out if you're interested and also read David Quinn's wisdom of the infinite if you haven't already.
Thanks for a great and thought-provoking vid. Usually I find phillosophy boring and confusing and you manage to make it interesting... though most of the words you use illude me. Guess I need to read some books.
You said you have been on youtube for a year at the begining of your video, but you profile says you've been here since 2006. Or was it you didn't start making videos till a year ago?
@RockingMrE The only reason I asked in my last comment was if there was any reason for your hiatus, because I've been here on youtube since 2008 and just recently have been thinking about making my own videos addressing similar topics such as yours.
@LordMalice6d9 I didn't initially register on YT to make videos. But then I started watching volggers and it looked like something I would enjoy getting into. Let me know if you make any vids.
Regarding eugenics, many respected figures in the US and Great Britain (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Winston Churchill) were supporters of forced sterilization. Statists, the whole cursed lot of them.
@RockingMrE (cont'd) Also, while Nietzsche did 'reject' objective reality in the sense that he was skeptical of it, if you go on reading you find his issue with objectivity is in its state in his time, that is, rooted in theology and mistaken metaphysics. His "Last Man" as in TSZ bears more resemblance to nihilism, in denial of reality, than does his ideal Ubermensch, who instead would accept inherent uncertainty and recognize that ethics and happiness derive from the creative force of the will.
@RockingMrE With all due respect, your grasp on Nietzsche is tenuous at best. In any decent translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it's clearly stated that the Eternal Return is meant as a thought experiment and not as literal dogmatic truth. You also fall for the common misconception of equating Nietzsche with nihilism, when in fact what he did was to 'diagnose' nihilism so to speak as the condition of humanity after God, not propose it as true.
@N7a7v7i I This whole translation thing is a red herring I'm afraid. What did you think Neitzsche's work was being translated from - heiroglyphics? It was German for goodness sake - hardly dramatically different to the anglo-saxon tongue. Either way the modern interpretation of Nietzsche's works are going to be far more concise given that so many have had the chance to adapt it and learn to agree on what he meant. But more to the point you are acting as though he came from an ancient era. (cont)
@RockingMrE The Eternal Return being a thought experiment is based on conjecture. At no point does Neitzsche ever state this himself, and even if he did it doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche was, as you say, skeptical of objective reality. The Nihilism point is also a typical one affiliated with creating mystery and ambiguity regarding Neitzsche's work. What's most important about Nietzsche is that his ideas were strongly relativistic, and it is for this reason that I reject his ideas.
@RockingMrE First, thanks for the reply! Now then... Let's forget the matter of translation, my point mainly was that the Eternal Return was NOT literal truth posited by Nietzsche, but rather, a litmus test for his Overman. That is, an Overman would love rather than fear the idea of life eternally recurring, regardless of whether or not it would really happen. Whether or not he personally believed it is irrelevant; read Zarathustra, he mostly talks about the implications of the ideas.
This is horrifically misguided. You think Plato is a relativist and Buddhism an influence on Nietzsche (e.g. BGEs56)! That alone shows that you are uneducated in these matters.
Furthermore, existentialists are not solipsists! And Nietzsche certainly was not as his central concept, the will to power existed outside the individual!
Further still, your arguments against what you think is solipsism (actually you are talking about the Problem of Other Minds) is simpleton absurdity.
@Ontologistics You're simply trying to use your pseudosemantics to blur the lines of objective definitions. Other minds and solipsism are linked you complete moron! Do people like you just sprout relativism so much that you cannot actually objectively distinguish anything? Relativism is a multifaceted disitinction, and here you are trying desperately distance Nietzsche from it in spite of his obvious link to this philosophy. You have nothing but pretentious conjecture to offer.
Is that... a response? Nietzsche was not a solipsist. Nor was he influenced by Buddhism, at all.
If you want to criticise Nietzsche, first READ him. Don't rely on philosophasters such as Ayn Rand (whose philosophy I have crushed, see my video).
Tell me exactly where Nietzsche advocates solipsism. Tell me why solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds is the same thing. Show me where Nietzsche reveals Buddhist inspirations. Show me where Plato is a relativist.
@Ontologistics READ THE WORDS THAT PEOPLE TYPE. First I watched your video on "other minds" and you don't even have the decency to automatically accept comments you pretentious idiot! I didn't say Nietzsche was a solipsist, but Nietzsche was certainly a Relativist. You Relativist whackos are all the same - sprouting your esoteric nonsense as though you have the keys to reality. You have no proof for anything you say, the epitome of delusional grandeur given that you expect others to (cont)
@RockingMrE hang on your every word without any proof for your position. You all pander to Nietzsche because he is your melancholic hero who makes you feel better about your disconnection from the real world, most likely brought on by your miserable existence. Don't come on my channel spamming me with trolling comments when you are clearly a coward who protects your own YT content from those who would put you in your place.
@Mindscapology First of all Plato WAS a relativist in many regards, especially when he defined his Allegory of the Cave. Secondly I am sick and tired of idiots (yes idiots) like you coming on my channel and sprouting your biased interpretation of Nietzsche as it pertains to your Godlike vision of a man that was (frankly) rather mad for a large part of his life. ALL of the things I mention in this video are referenced. If they don't agree with your solipsism then take a hike!
You've definitely got it wrong here: the allegory of the cave, in the Republic, is a metaphor illustrating his notion that Goodness is objective, as illustrated by the Sun in the allegory. Plato is famous for being an anti-relativist philosopher. I don't know where you get your information!
I am not a solipsist - don't know why you think that... And you haven't referenced anything in your video as you state.
@Mindscapology You have no concept of Plato's divided line, not to mention that the cave has many meanings that clearly elude you. Either way you are just trying to use your pseudosemantics to attempt to come across as superior, just as all pretentious whackos do. You don't have any inner knowledge of the universe - get over it! My references are in the info section, though I could give you more if you weren't so arrogant. Your solipsism is as clear as day - even if you don't see it.
Your references are Wikipedia articles! That's laughable! You should reference the original sources.
I may come across as superior as compared to you I am. Your defensiveness betrays it. Why don't you simply accept your mistakes? - Answer: because you're not objective.
@Mindscapology Of course Morpheus (or is it Neo?)! Because the seperate and traceable references to all points on Wikipedia are invalid when compared to your benevolent understanding of how "the Republic" works. You have no clue what objectivity is mate. Actually you are clearly just a troll with an ego problem - you need to accept that we are not living in the Matrix, and you are not the Architect. I'm done being entertained by your laughable attempts to discredit me.
I just realized that the roots of the appeal of subjectivism may very well be that the person has not experienced empathy or mirroring in their childhood or throughout their life. This is usually from neglect - their parents not paying attention to them and not sharing the happiness which they experience. It's understandable then how a person would think there's two realities instead of one - and it's objectively different for each person.
@slaughtz Very interesting point. I am going to explore this topic further in the future, focussing in particular on the "other minds" question. When you really think about it this subjective reality idea is a rather worrying pathological condition that can easily relate to mental health. It is also used insidiously by those who wish to present themselves as the only way to truth - which of course is extremely dangerous.
Good vid, and you are talking about very worthwhile objectives. My take on it is that the most important objective we have is to challenge men to examine and reject the parts of their "roles" that don't work for them. A man that refuses to chain himself to the identity of "protector and provider" has no trouble at all accepting other MRM objectives.
@TheHappyMisogynist Thanks for your comment, though I thought I sent you my "What Should MRA's Fight For?" vid. Not sure what happened there but this is a different video to that one, which is the one I thought would interest you for obvious reasons. If you need to find it it's presently featured on my channel page. Either way cheers for watching :-)
I really like your ability to call out logical fallacies. So many opinion based arguments are faulty by method. And as mentioned, emotionally based ...void of any respect to scientific method.
@machineguntongue What's crazy is that people accuse ME of using logical fallacies when arguments that have no evidence to back them up, like "other minds", is a load of psychobabble designed to make people believe that 2+2 equals whatever the enlightened ones state.
Most self proclaimed relativists don't really accept relativism, they just use it to reject evidence that they don't like. In almost every case a "relativist" will stridently defend some conception of reality.
@ArcoFlagellant I accept your view here wholeheartedly. Anyone who looks at this objectively can clearly see that what "Relativists" usually want is to interpret reality the way they see fit, and of course to have the freedom to do it without anyone labelling them. They are hypocrites, naive, and most of all extremely dangerous.
Oh I'm god [«-- say it fast -- you'll get it] F'ing EXCELLENT vid dude. I SOOoo wish that you were in my "study-group" (or my research group, for that matter.)
If I ever meet you, plz allow me to buy you a pint.
@bxjam85 You can objectively identify the world through empirical data based on logic and reason. The onus of proof is on you to prove this nonsense about mental abstractions, which is taken way out of proportion. I've made my points in comments and in the vid, and you are sprouting the same old Relativist nonsense. This is precisely why I put a clear disclaimer in the info section - it was for people like you. Blocked.
@bxjam85 You're clutching at straws to try and make Nietzsche infallible. This is obessive, and rather ridiculous. You are still putting words in his mouth based on what YOU say, as opposed to what Nietzsche, and many others comprehend of his Eternal Return. I accept your views on Nietzsche involving nationalism, and they mirror what I have read, though they are irrelevant to this vid. I'm starting to see that you're a Nietzsche fanatic - I simply cannot stand people who fit this mould. (cont)
@RockingMrE I am not going to be dragged endlessly into circular reasoning based on conjecture and subjectivity, because this is irksome and tiring. I will give you an opportunity to walk away peacefully, and thus not be blocked. You've made your points - I hope this is enough for you.
@bxjam85 Maybe in the sense that both Nietzsche and Rand wanted to create a purpose for man on earth, as opposed to one based on religion. But it is really very small, and they are philosophically completely different in their ends to achieve this.
@bxjam85 What I do know is that Nietzsche hated nationalism, so this idea that he hated Anarchism too sounds logically inconsistent. What was his solution then? Surely if he didn't want nationalism then he wanted some sort of culturally neutral society which could even go as far as one world government. I agree with what you say about Nietzsche and objective reality, but this is the same nonsense that Postmodernists pedal, and I don't agree with it.
@RockingMrE Re: "What I do know is that Nietzsche hated nationalism . . ."
On the contrary, Nietzche thought that nationalism was the best means to promote his Superman.
Re: "She had rejected her influence of Nietzsche by the time she wrote the Fountainhead . . ."
Actions speak louder than words, and that same wiki article will also show quite clearly that rand drew extensively from Nietzche while formulating her philosophy.
@hatemorethanyou999 Now I know you are talking absolute nonsense. Rand had no influence from Nietzsche by the time she wrote the Fountainhead, and anyone who has actually read and understood Rand can clearly see that. I am not wasting my time with this unsubstantiated nonsense any more. Blocked.
@bxjam85 Rand was primarily influenced by one philosopher - Aristotle. She had rejected her influence of Nietzsche by the time she wrote the Fountainhead, let alone Atlas Shrugged. If you don't believe me then read her wikipedia page.
@bxjam85 Either way, you are putting words in Nietzsche's mouth, just like Hitler and Nietzsche's sister did. You cannot know what Nietzsche was actually thinking other than that which he wrote. He made no effort to show whether he was literal or not with the Eternal Return, though I do have my own views regarding the big bang/big crunch cosmology being a cycle. However, Nietzsche's idea that our individual lives repeat in a loop is mystical conjecture - let's be honest.
I watched tha video, it was quite interesting, but you talked about homosexuality in regards to marriage, left / right, conserv / liber.
I was thinking if you could make a video where you could give me your own opinion about homosexuality and homosexuals. I explain: I am gay and I do not agree with all gay rights, I have massive problems with feminism (I was one once) and I can't stand the misandry, and many of my lesbian (ex) friends were very hostile and hateful radical feminists
@imscaredofcoffee I give gay people the same rights as everyone else - no more, no less, just like women. I don't believe in any attempt to use affirmative action to force people to do anything, though affirmative action is a fruitless endeavour for anyone that understands that a business cannot be successful unless it hires and promotes the best people for the job - it is common sense.
I agree, the problem is we are going in the opposite direction!
I believe affermative action is destroying the meritocratic system.
But I am not sure about equal rights based on gender and / or sexual orientation. I don't believe we are equal, men and women are extremely different, why should women be given the chance of doing a job if they just can't do it? How can a woman be a soldier or a fire fighter I don't have a clue. What I know is: if there was a fire, I hope fireMen showUp
@imscaredofcoffee I entirely agree with a meritocratic system. I feel that standards should be the same across the board, and if women can meet those standards and do the same job as a man then they have proven their worth. The trouble is that we all know that men are hardwired to protect women, and so this would have consequences on the front line.
@RockingMrE This is very true, take football for example when you have mixed teams, men by nature will go in far softer and the game is completely changed, shortening gender gap. Im concerned about new laws that are feminist that have just changed inside some football body for kids- dont really follow football! What this is doing is training men to not use their biology- where natural-testosterone is something linked to a meritocracy. It has a "particle" response to time that is Will to Power.
But we never see women working as construction workers, roofers, bricklayers, coal miners and so on. If they are too weak to do these jobs, how come they aren't too weak to work in the fields I described before? So a woman is strong enough to be a soldier, fight in a war and carry a shotgun, but she is too weak to work as a bricklayer, build a hospital and lift a brick... But that doesn't make any sense!
Also, how come women are too weak in domestic violence (therefore it MUST be...
...the man the violent one), but they aren't weak enough to fight in a battle were they are confronting other men, who are soldiers and in greater numbers. So if there is domestic violence it has to be the man because women are too weak (what garbage...), but feminists say women are strong enough to be in the army. What a load of crap! I don't believe women are all sweet angels, they can be very violent and aggressive (but everybody is protecting them even if they are 100% wrong). Let me know :)
@imscaredofcoffee I agree with your observations - it is VERY hypocritical. BUT all we have to do is make women keep to the same standards as men and they have no leg to stand on. If women expect favours to keep a job then I find that disgraceful, and it puts peopel's lives at risk too in certain circumstances.
@bxjam85 Nietzsche was only an empiricist when it suited him. He was a mystic in my book - his Eternal Return is no better than some sort of Eastern fantasy of metaphysical reality. Please do not claim it was a metaphor - I think we both know he never clearly made such a claim.
@bxjam85 Nietzsche despised the left? Yet by modern standards he would get along really well with the Postmodernist crowd who reject objective reality and want to create one cultural hotbed based on one government.
I am happy to see that you are catching up on the Left-Marxist-Socialist Zero-Value Dogma-Fallasy that if adopted will inevitably lead us to a complete destruction of society.
I only have one wish: That you research the Bible (not religions) and study/understand its message to us, humans...
...and that you ask (and answer to) youself: 1. Where do Moral Values come from? and 2. What is the purpose and benefits of believing in God?
There are Laws, Court and Police practices that encourage an epidemic of False Accusations of Domestic Violence, Abuse and Rape in this country. Women gain from False Accusations - Why?
The "Feminist" Ideology that is now Indoctrinated into Politics, the Government, Courts, Police and General Public, that:
- Women are Good, Men are Bad!
- Women are helpless Victims, Men are Perpetrators!
- Women need Help and Protection, Men must be Restrained, Prosecuted and Jailed!
Google: Martha Laura Granados Immigration Prostitute
The VAWA Immigration Loop-hole:
If you are a woman, pretend to be in love with a US citizen or a Legal Resident, get him to marry you. As soon as you got the marriage certificate dial 211 and falsely accuse him of Domestic Violence and Rape and move to a VAWA shelter.
You will be on a fast-track for a Green-Card and US citizenship - all expenses paid for by the US tax payer and as a bonus you will be getting full social benefits.
Nietzche a hero of the left???? You need to go to K-Mart, they are having a blue light special on clues! Who are the intellectual descendants of F N--the objectivists like Rand idiot!
@RockingMrE I've studied her work to the extent that I can tell you that she wrote an ethics that has the dubious distinction of having more logical fallacies than it does sentences. Sure as a child I was impressed with Rand, but then I grew up. Nietzche along with Aristotle are the only two Philosophers that Rand herself put on an equal level with her.
@hatemorethanyou999 Please don't start using arguments by adjective such as "is-ought" to discredit Rand - it is nonsense. Your claim that her philsophy is ethically dubious is just typical, and it seems that you cannot grasp that she defined a philosophy that prevents the collective from oppressing people via deindividualisation - it seems that it's totally gone over your head. The only philosopher that Rand was truly inspired by was Aristotle - and certainly not Nietzsche.
@hatemorethanyou999 Bla bla, all this nonsense about argument by adjective is easily disproven. Get some actual objective arguments insstead of ad hominems and other logical fallacies. You anti-Randites are just clones - and you repeat the same rubbish over and over again. You have no way to solidly counter her, and it's not as though I think Rand was perfect, but your ilk are so predictable. Learn about syllogisms, there's a tip for you.
@RockingMrE Claiming and being willing to prove that Rand wrote an ethics that in fact has more fallacies than sentences is "rubbish" and I am the one being accused of ad hominem!!!!
Tell this to Rand,as one of her most common problems is making a statement and then providing no reasoning to back it up--and shallow thinker swallow it whole.
@hatemorethanyou999 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What reason? Give me an example - dare I ask, only to be met with more logical fallacies.
@RockingMrE Google "Critique of the Objectivist Ethics" by Michael Huemer" and you will see the undeniable evidence for my claim--for goodness sake, Rand is often used in first year philosophy classes as fodder for her completely ridiculous fallacious bull. I know of no serious philosopher that takes her seriously--why? Because she wrote an ethics that has more fallacies than sentences.
@hatemorethanyou999 You act as though I haven't read Anti-Rand critique before. It's full of argument by adjective, which does not create a sound logical case - get that through your head. Neither does ad hominems about claims of her being psychotic, or dating a serial killer - bla bla bla. You havent read any Rand. and her critics just copy the same nonsense from one source to the other. You need to go away and learn who your collectivist dogma is far more dangerous than anything Rand (cont)
@RockingMrE Re: "Neither does ad hominems about claims of her being psychotic, or dating a serial killer - bla bla bla . . ."
But I didn't say anything about these things! In fact, I did not know about this sensationalistic stuff--I don't pay attention to this kind of hub bub.
@DemokraticRepublican You guys are like sheeple - honestly. He already mentioned that link you complete idiot! You just can't present anything but ad hominems, arguments by adjective, and your terrible attempt at Socratic method. If you honestly think that you are some sort of enlightened philsopher, let me tell you right now, you are nothing but a pretentious fool.
@hatemorethanyou999 ever believed - AND LEARN ABOUT SYLLOGISMS. By the way, don't think that I don't know you are part of that idiotic crowd Jasmine frequents. Go back there - your ilk are not welcome here. I will block you if you give me the same nonsense in another comment - you have been warned.
So this guy is coherent enough to understand that this reality (truth) is objective, yet he's an atheist who's likes "The God Delusion" by Dawkins...
I suppose then that you must be an evolution believer even though hard objective science has proven evolution wrong again and again. Logically, if evolution is false, then a single omnipotent creator must exist. This can be proven in a few simple step so it must be that you be an evolutionist. If you aren't then I guess you don't subscribe to logic
@7F0X7 I really can't believe you think that science has disproven Evolution. Quite the opposite. I really can't argue with someone who doesn't believe in evolution - the evidence is impossible to deny, and it does you no credit to claim otherwise. Go and read some actual science on Evolution instead of turning this into a Creationist debate - I ave no interest in speaking to you about such fallacious claims.
@RockingMrE Don't talk down to me coward. YOU GO READ THE PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS FALSE. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH AN EVOLUTIONIST BECAUSE IT IS THEIR RELIGION, NOTHING MORE AND THEY WON'T BACK DOWN FROM IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL THEY HAVE. THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS PERFECTLY PRESERVED EXAMPLES OF ANIMALS FROM EVERY PHYLA OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY. IF YOU WANNA DEBATE ON THE HARD SCIENCE OF IT AND LEAVE RELIGION OF BOTH SIDES OUT THEN I'M GAME
@7F0X7 Umm, actually the fossil records, countless examples of them, show us very clearly that Evolution exists. You are actually contradicting yourself.
More people mis-quoting and misunderstanding Nietzsche.
He wasn't Leftist in the slightest, the guy thought that the leftists of that era were morons, and that only the Anarchists really knew reality in the Philosophical sense. His commentary on perspective is always mistranslated. Just to be blunt, almost everyone that grazes over his writing is just plain wrong about him.
@Joe11Blue So effectively he is undefinable - a sort of benevolent idol, if you will? I'm sorry but that is nonsense. If Nietzsche spent his whole life creating a philosophy that is impossible to define then it is basically useless, and certainly irrelevant. But I don't actually agree with you, and am inclined to think that YOU believe that he is some sort of "Overman", which Nietzsche could never truly live up to.
@RockingMrE Where did I say that? I merely stated that everyone quotes him with bad translations and lousy conscripted works done by his idiot sister. Most people get Nietzsche wrong, even Philosophy students make the same mistake.
As for Ubermensch, it wasn't a physical being so much as a metaphorical concept and mindset. Again you missed the point of what he was saying. It's even worse, because the vast majority of Libertarianism is based on the concepts he outlined in his work.
@Joe11Blue Nietzsche was not as Anarchistic as you might like him to be. He was anti-nationhood, but I think his views were more one world government than anti-statist. You need to break down his ideas further to truly see what he felt, and the metaphorical thng is not based on solid evidence by any means. He had a very mystical idea of reality, and this metaphorical thing is just as bad as religious people re-interpreting scripture. I am not interested in this sort of esoteric nonsense.
@RockingMrE Except he rejected Nations on the premise of Organizing people based upon the Morality which he also despised as a whole. It's not what I would like him to be, it's what he actually stated. He was an everyman for himself person. This is where Existentialism comes from. His whole "God is Dead" schtick was an attack at Schopenhauer's belief of a guilt ridden morality based society. Mystical compared to what?
@Joe11Blue I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think he was an Anarchist or a Libertarian, and he certainly did not have an objective outlook to evidence, especially when compared to Rand, or anyone who truly understands (or cares about) the principles of the scientific method. I'm not going to play a game of prove and disprove. I think you need to look at my links and also stop doing what everyone does - which is try to put words in Nietzsche's mouth.
@RockingMrE That's fine. I will just accept that you've never actually read Nietzsche outside of poor translations, probably by Kaufman. Rand was nearly a century later and from a different era of Libertarians. They are not comparable for this simply fact, and Rand wasn't exactly a stellar Libertarian herself either, even in that era.
The Scientific Method of his era wasn't the same that we used in today's day and age. Everything is about perspective in Science. Something you are ignoring.
@Joe11Blue I haven't read any poor translation - you are creating a strawman to defend your position. Secondly, your opinion that science is based on perspective is erroneous. It is based on inductive and deductive reasoning, and you are adhering to relativism if you think otherwise. Anything which cannot be verified is completely meaningless. The onus of proof is on you to prove an unverified position - just like the onus to prove God is on theists.
@RockingMrE Yes, because you probably haven't read Nietzsche at all then.
It's not an opinion. This is why Science requires peer review, because perspective is a huge issue involved in it's application. It's also why the idea of a "control" study was created to produce verifiable and repeatable results to base a Hypothesis from. You seem to through the Philosophical around on this topic, but it simply has no bearing on the actual practices involved. Science and Philosophy are not the same.
@Joe11Blue You're being extremely pedantic and obtuse now. Peer review proves nothing with regards to the fact that science is an objective method to understand the natural world, based on deductive and inductive reasoning. You clearly have no clue about the roots of science to make such comments, and your view about Rand not being major Libertarian inspiration says it all. Be careful what your next comment in, I am just about done with your nonsense.
@Joe11Blue If you think Nietzsche was an everyman for himself, why do you think when he was making Grand tours to Italy he thought about opening schools on a mountain monastry or later his sister with her husban took this idea, even opening a school out of his thinking in Paraguay. Why did he not just keep his knowledge for his own selfish furtherence. Also he was not adversed to morality he just believed the moral dogma was wrong like religion was. You also are misrepresenting will to live.
@apekillssnake the same reason many Individualist run businesses, profit motive.
Morality is creation of the Church, or did you miss that aprt of his history lesson in Will to Power where he actually referenced the creation of Morality to replace Ethics so the Church could use the Dogmatic approach of subversive control? Let me guess you missed that part.
@DemokraticRepublican I'm not going to get dragged into this Sophism nonsense. YOU may feel your brain is a limited organ, but the onus on proof is on you to prove that this is generic given that only a lunatic can deny the existence of everything around us through A=A. Are you a lunatic? Do you deny objective reality? We know when the mind, or indeed other human sesnes, such as the eyes, are damaged, like colour blindness. We are also learning more each day about the brain (cont)
@RockingMrE Now get your head out of your rear end and join the rest of us back on planet Earth, where we are using logic and reason to develop an understanding of the natural world. You may think we live in the matrix, but I only base my feelings on evidence - which is what anyone free of hallucinations would do. Don't try to drag me into that type of idiotic nonsense again - I have heard it all before. You've been warned.
Can I add, because I think it answers (a bit) the below question to you MrE. You can swap the wording and say that objectivism is real, but you can not have the existence of subjectivism this way- for example taking your Tree analogy. If a tree falls in a woods and noone hears it does the tree fall! The objective reality is that it does fall as it exists outside and beyond also that of our reality. The subjectivist would argue that it has not fallen as a solipsist!
@apekillssnake Yeah I agree. What these people don't respect is the philosophical branch known as Realism, which states that reality exists independently of observers.
Excellent vid, MrE!!! But I have to ask: Even though Neitzsche was a relatavist, do you believe that what he was implying is that no matter how sound, empirical, logical, and tangible something is, there are those who will and do often are skeptical and may even deny its existence?
@ApollosInsight I think there are people like that, but I believe Nietzsche was more concerned in proving that the natural world is impossible to define - and it is this which I find irrational.
@RockingMrE another great video E. I would have lots to say on this, briefly I think what is important to add here, is that he never started what his work was questing him to find, like Einstein in how he was perplexed working on final theories, Nietzsche's ultimate work was meant to be the ultimate moral to define all moralities. I think if his path had not been hijacked away it would have explained what has rematerialized now and is still infront of man, eluding him.
I mean all this talk about "reality is objective". You mean your reality Mr E. And just because most people would agree with your point of view that "MY view is objective reality" does not discount the potentially infinite different perceptions of reality. LOL.
I mean to strawman Nietzsche then claiming to OWN him. LMAO!
And for the record I believe there is much strength in Nazism, far more strength then you'll find in this materialistic cesspool we call a civilisation.
@AdoreLucifer Reality is objective it is something that exists outside of your own subjectivism!I think the Left is something that has tried to get its claws into Nietzsche like Sartre is another prime example- it has used existentialism, postmodern philosophy to try further non-prosocial psychologies. If you are making a philosophic point about democracy in that a large proportion of the masses should not decide things I agree with you. That group tend to incline themselves with leftist facists
@AdoreLucifer The bottom line is that unless you can prove that this is all in my (or your) head then your comment is irrelevant. I haven't strawmanned Nietzsche in the slightest. What's more if you think there is strength in Nazism then I really have nothing more to say to you in this sense.
Nietzsche was a Realist, he sort mental disconnection to observe the phenomenology of the mind. This was to advise the self on how to eradicate the dogma or cognitive dissonance caused to the individual or subjectivism in an effort to get down to the ultimate reductionism of life. In essence this is neuro/science today or Zen Buddhism(sleep) before. I fully agree that most misinterpreted his word-dousing to try and support there own syndromes instead, being predisposed by a solipsism ruling them
Wait, wait, wait. If I accept, that a tree is a tree, then it exists? Even the question of how do you define existence has been heavily debated by philosophers through out the centuries and making such bold statements, such as - objective reality exists, FACT, with a smug tone, seems chilidish.
@vRennas No my friend, it's childish that you actually think that you can disprove something without proof. Wordplay does not define reality - evidence does. Furthermore, you are attempting to paint the history of philosphy with Relativism, or even Sophism, while in actual fact logic and reason are the bedrocks of modern Science. I am open to having my mind changed, though it is foolish to believe anything without objective facts.
It is important to note that neitzsche was more isolated due to his poor reputation and WW1 than anything else. He wrote most of his will of the universe stuff much later, most of it in reference not to the individual but countries as a whole. He was a proponent of oroboros but not in a forced sense, more to point that someone will always be the asshole in any society. God is dead is more of an attack on fundamentalist christians in the late 1800's and their fervor for the end of days.
@morakdais he died in 1900 which was before WW1,although he prophesised a great war coming but that may of been his own wishful thinking to see the smug world destroyed.
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD I was tired when I wrote that, all I remember was there was a war he was opposed to, I thought it was WW1. I am pretty sure he was aware that war within europe was inevitable, exactly because pride and religion won't let people talk things out rationally.
neitzsche didn't believe in life after death or past lives;he thought conciouness accepted its allotted assembled slot;nietszche wanted to be a happy nietzsche and nobody else past or later.He did say that stepping away from metaphysics at one point but that was also a cover of the fact that he couldn't bare to go anyfurther because the more he found out the more helpless he felt ,where his will was contrary to the greater overiding power.
@theGreaserrr I welcome any views, as long as they are productive, and are not passively or overtly attempting to create conflict. Thanks for watching :-)
In a certain way i have gut feelings sympathetic with nietzsche because of mathematics esp in vortex maths which creat many permations(life is the geometrical expression of this maths(in my mind at the moment));'all things are possible but only somethings are necessary' if believed,;it could mean we wish for more than life actually has to offer and nieitzsche was well aware of this possible fallacy hence his battle to beat the prewritten script of life,,just incase it was real;paranoid?,,yes?
I think certain breakdown analysis of nietsche misses the greater point of him purely based on politically left and right paradigm argueing over the meaning of his legacy due to how his legacy has been used since his death in greater political events beyond his permission of usage..
The eternal recur\nce was the final horizon of his existential dread in regards to his discoveries because all he really wanted to be was a happily married well to do and recognised victorian era 'chap'..
Nietzche was conciousness trapped in matter and relative human earthly cercumstance walking the tightrope betwwen his old and newly aquired concepts but one alone was never strong enough to hold up the whole man and was bipolar in regards to his superman who didn't want anything even though he could have it all and the clubfoot who wanted it all but couldn't have it,,,,he was disturbed to fuck but he was a 'human all too human' at the end of the day.
Ultimately when i think of nietzsche i think of the beatles 'nowhere man';he exclaimed once "we homeless ones" who couldn't find comfort in any concept or garment as such, and he could as easily argue for his oppinions as he could pull the gun out to destroy them later;he was always testing the reader out.And practically slapping his agreer's round their assuming heads.
@theGreaserrr I agree, Nietzsche didn't care about objectivity in any sense when push comes to shove. He had some interesting ideas, but they are not based on reason and logic. If you like his work then fine, I don't mind his poetic and enigmatic style either. But I value empirical evidence far too much to take his ideas too literally.
The superman aspect was nietzsche wishing away the current epoch that made him feel cut out and isolated using darwinian optimism that a new race would wipe out the ones that left him shamed and humiliated as a failed and unrecognised at that time writer.
Metaphysics for a bitter humanist like nietzsche offered no consilation because it was a mystical blind force of metaphysical lava that couldn't be rationed with and so nietzsche hated science that uncovered truths as much as the old crual 'old testament god'..Most of nietzsches idiosyncracies of thought are found right in the first book and reading his works twice is essential to grasp the first books properly;he was also a cryptic writer and cynical in the same way as frank zappa would mock.
His spiritual journey of destroying the hebrew god through rational thinking and empircalism(or lack of evidence) was because he wanted to get somebody for his life condition(he had scifilis,,sorry cant spell it),the deathe of the spectre of the god of bad taste was a theme and he crerated stories of the man that kills this god and the simpletons despairing etc,,but no sooner he realised that he could no longer blame this 'old testament' god;he was left to deal with the metaphysics..
I still like his works if observed from the way of studying a mentally ill confession of reasons and justifications for his thoughts.He couldn't explain in technical terms why he had is oppinions sometimes and they were really his own gut feelings;i think he was the first proto psychologist /psychonaut in many ways.
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD I don't truly want to look as though I am attacking Nietzsche. I actually feel sorry for him in many ways. But it attracts the melancholic mindset of so many, who run with his views and seem to make no attempt to step back and critically reflect on what he believed.
@RockingMrE Ah;so you are attacking the pessimist sophists who use his works as a means of talking themselves out of their own existance right?
I got to say that the tree arguement type method thing which went a bit beyond my horizon this morning(its been a while since i looked at philosophy)isn't the best window for studying and reducing nietzsche complexities,his feelings were mostly presented as stories with the question'what if this is it'..
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD If anything I am attacking Relativists who look upon themselves as intellectually superior by rejecting any idea of absolute knowledge. Nietzsche was a man who suffered from mental illness and tragedy. He talks a lot about perspectives in his work, though ironically I think it is he who suffered most from a perspective which dominated his worldview, to the detriment of his ideas.
@RockingMrE yes;but i do think his ideas were also a byproduct of his disturbed tragedy worldveiw first and his ideas were the great questions and manifestations of his thoughts which he wrote to get off his chest 2nd,i don't know if we would be discussing the second if it wasn't for the first which was the catalyst generator of those ideas;i don't think he had much choice in the matter,,but for everybody who has come since;i suppose they can either take it or leave it,,it is only suggestive.
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD "but for everybody who has come since;i suppose they can either take it or leave it,,it is only suggestive"
It would be nice if this were the case, but many people do take his ideas literally, which of course is detrimental when they try to suggest that there is no way to define the natural world.
@RockingMrE Totally agreed;i will forgive the title of the video because i know you have only used it to raise a contraversal question regarding neitzschien worth;to finish on this i will say that nietszches best legacy if taken for a positive usage is that ;'if' destiny is ultimately fixed but there is an amount of leyway to achieve a will to power;Iron maiden had a good song called 'wasted years';"don't you understand that you are living in those wasted yea
Reality IS objective; it's your perception of it that's subjective. Try telling that to someone who insists there's no such thing as absolute truth, though...
LambdaKore 1 month ago
Good video. So many people put nietzsche on a pedestal and I've never understood why. Philosophers like Diogenes of Sinope are in my opinion much more closer to the ideal philosopher. Although i am of course biased because i have no taste for spiritualism and mysticism in philosophy. And i think that rational and literal minded approach such as that which Diogenes usually took, Is much more ideal.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy I knew there was a good reason I liked you when I saw your vid. Nietzsche is part of a series of philosophers who were keen to use cryptic language to appear mysterious. What really bothers me about this sort of philosophy is that its proponents will never admit to any belief if backed into a corner. They will simply wrangle out of it and say that you don't understand the message. Nietzsche seems very popular with Agnostics, Weak Atheists, and other Relativists.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE Thanks bro.
Philosophy is a big interest of mine. So I'm hoping to do some videos on it.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy I would love to watch them. Make sure you let me know when you upload something.
RockingMrE 1 month ago
@RockingMrE Just uploaded a video on philosophy as a response to another video. Check it out if you're interested and also read David Quinn's wisdom of the infinite if you haven't already.
thecreepyguy 1 month ago
@thecreepyguy I'll check it out right away :-)
RockingMrE 1 month ago
ever done acid/mushrooms out of interest?
davyjames 2 months ago
@davyjames No. But I bet a lot of existentialists and relativists have.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900)
So you can read. Lol.
saiyanmage 2 months ago
Thanks for a great and thought-provoking vid. Usually I find phillosophy boring and confusing and you manage to make it interesting... though most of the words you use illude me. Guess I need to read some books.
strontiumXnitrate 2 months ago
You said you have been on youtube for a year at the begining of your video, but you profile says you've been here since 2006. Or was it you didn't start making videos till a year ago?
LordMalice6d9 2 months ago
@LordMalice6d9 You've got it. I've had this acount for a very long time, but only started making videos last year.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
@RockingMrE The only reason I asked in my last comment was if there was any reason for your hiatus, because I've been here on youtube since 2008 and just recently have been thinking about making my own videos addressing similar topics such as yours.
LordMalice6d9 2 months ago
@LordMalice6d9 I didn't initially register on YT to make videos. But then I started watching volggers and it looked like something I would enjoy getting into. Let me know if you make any vids.
RockingMrE 2 months ago
That's a very intelligent video.
BlazeTheMovieFan 3 months ago
Regarding eugenics, many respected figures in the US and Great Britain (Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Winston Churchill) were supporters of forced sterilization. Statists, the whole cursed lot of them.
Torgo1969 3 months ago
@Torgo1969 Funny how people blame science instead of statism though isn't it?
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE (cont'd) Also, while Nietzsche did 'reject' objective reality in the sense that he was skeptical of it, if you go on reading you find his issue with objectivity is in its state in his time, that is, rooted in theology and mistaken metaphysics. His "Last Man" as in TSZ bears more resemblance to nihilism, in denial of reality, than does his ideal Ubermensch, who instead would accept inherent uncertainty and recognize that ethics and happiness derive from the creative force of the will.
N7a7v7i 3 months ago
@RockingMrE With all due respect, your grasp on Nietzsche is tenuous at best. In any decent translation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it's clearly stated that the Eternal Return is meant as a thought experiment and not as literal dogmatic truth. You also fall for the common misconception of equating Nietzsche with nihilism, when in fact what he did was to 'diagnose' nihilism so to speak as the condition of humanity after God, not propose it as true.
N7a7v7i 3 months ago
@N7a7v7i I This whole translation thing is a red herring I'm afraid. What did you think Neitzsche's work was being translated from - heiroglyphics? It was German for goodness sake - hardly dramatically different to the anglo-saxon tongue. Either way the modern interpretation of Nietzsche's works are going to be far more concise given that so many have had the chance to adapt it and learn to agree on what he meant. But more to the point you are acting as though he came from an ancient era. (cont)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE The Eternal Return being a thought experiment is based on conjecture. At no point does Neitzsche ever state this himself, and even if he did it doesn't change the fact that Nietzsche was, as you say, skeptical of objective reality. The Nihilism point is also a typical one affiliated with creating mystery and ambiguity regarding Neitzsche's work. What's most important about Nietzsche is that his ideas were strongly relativistic, and it is for this reason that I reject his ideas.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE First, thanks for the reply! Now then... Let's forget the matter of translation, my point mainly was that the Eternal Return was NOT literal truth posited by Nietzsche, but rather, a litmus test for his Overman. That is, an Overman would love rather than fear the idea of life eternally recurring, regardless of whether or not it would really happen. Whether or not he personally believed it is irrelevant; read Zarathustra, he mostly talks about the implications of the ideas.
N7a7v7i 3 months ago
Sir Sisyphus approves of the UK MRA movement,and this video objectively speaking ; )
Rock On with that Gibson Les Paul!!
electrovox1212 3 months ago
In sum, you are excessively confused. You do not even know what terms like existentialism and solipsism MEAN.
Do not judge something you do not understand. You're not a philosopher and you don't rock.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
This is horrifically misguided. You think Plato is a relativist and Buddhism an influence on Nietzsche (e.g. BGEs56)! That alone shows that you are uneducated in these matters.
Furthermore, existentialists are not solipsists! And Nietzsche certainly was not as his central concept, the will to power existed outside the individual!
Further still, your arguments against what you think is solipsism (actually you are talking about the Problem of Other Minds) is simpleton absurdity.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics You're simply trying to use your pseudosemantics to blur the lines of objective definitions. Other minds and solipsism are linked you complete moron! Do people like you just sprout relativism so much that you cannot actually objectively distinguish anything? Relativism is a multifaceted disitinction, and here you are trying desperately distance Nietzsche from it in spite of his obvious link to this philosophy. You have nothing but pretentious conjecture to offer.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
Is that... a response? Nietzsche was not a solipsist. Nor was he influenced by Buddhism, at all.
If you want to criticise Nietzsche, first READ him. Don't rely on philosophasters such as Ayn Rand (whose philosophy I have crushed, see my video).
Tell me exactly where Nietzsche advocates solipsism. Tell me why solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds is the same thing. Show me where Nietzsche reveals Buddhist inspirations. Show me where Plato is a relativist.
Ontologistics 3 months ago
@Ontologistics READ THE WORDS THAT PEOPLE TYPE. First I watched your video on "other minds" and you don't even have the decency to automatically accept comments you pretentious idiot! I didn't say Nietzsche was a solipsist, but Nietzsche was certainly a Relativist. You Relativist whackos are all the same - sprouting your esoteric nonsense as though you have the keys to reality. You have no proof for anything you say, the epitome of delusional grandeur given that you expect others to (cont)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE hang on your every word without any proof for your position. You all pander to Nietzsche because he is your melancholic hero who makes you feel better about your disconnection from the real world, most likely brought on by your miserable existence. Don't come on my channel spamming me with trolling comments when you are clearly a coward who protects your own YT content from those who would put you in your place.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Plato was NOT a relativist! The complete opposite in fact - he opposed the relativist Sophists prevalent at the time.
Furthermore, you do not understand Nietzsche at all - at all. He is explicitly anti-Buddhist, for example.
Mindscapology 3 months ago
@Mindscapology First of all Plato WAS a relativist in many regards, especially when he defined his Allegory of the Cave. Secondly I am sick and tired of idiots (yes idiots) like you coming on my channel and sprouting your biased interpretation of Nietzsche as it pertains to your Godlike vision of a man that was (frankly) rather mad for a large part of his life. ALL of the things I mention in this video are referenced. If they don't agree with your solipsism then take a hike!
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
You've definitely got it wrong here: the allegory of the cave, in the Republic, is a metaphor illustrating his notion that Goodness is objective, as illustrated by the Sun in the allegory. Plato is famous for being an anti-relativist philosopher. I don't know where you get your information!
I am not a solipsist - don't know why you think that... And you haven't referenced anything in your video as you state.
Mindscapology 3 months ago
@Mindscapology You have no concept of Plato's divided line, not to mention that the cave has many meanings that clearly elude you. Either way you are just trying to use your pseudosemantics to attempt to come across as superior, just as all pretentious whackos do. You don't have any inner knowledge of the universe - get over it! My references are in the info section, though I could give you more if you weren't so arrogant. Your solipsism is as clear as day - even if you don't see it.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
Your references are Wikipedia articles! That's laughable! You should reference the original sources.
I may come across as superior as compared to you I am. Your defensiveness betrays it. Why don't you simply accept your mistakes? - Answer: because you're not objective.
Mindscapology 3 months ago
@Mindscapology Of course Morpheus (or is it Neo?)! Because the seperate and traceable references to all points on Wikipedia are invalid when compared to your benevolent understanding of how "the Republic" works. You have no clue what objectivity is mate. Actually you are clearly just a troll with an ego problem - you need to accept that we are not living in the Matrix, and you are not the Architect. I'm done being entertained by your laughable attempts to discredit me.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I just realized that the roots of the appeal of subjectivism may very well be that the person has not experienced empathy or mirroring in their childhood or throughout their life. This is usually from neglect - their parents not paying attention to them and not sharing the happiness which they experience. It's understandable then how a person would think there's two realities instead of one - and it's objectively different for each person.
slaughtz 3 months ago
@slaughtz Very interesting point. I am going to explore this topic further in the future, focussing in particular on the "other minds" question. When you really think about it this subjective reality idea is a rather worrying pathological condition that can easily relate to mental health. It is also used insidiously by those who wish to present themselves as the only way to truth - which of course is extremely dangerous.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Good vid, and you are talking about very worthwhile objectives. My take on it is that the most important objective we have is to challenge men to examine and reject the parts of their "roles" that don't work for them. A man that refuses to chain himself to the identity of "protector and provider" has no trouble at all accepting other MRM objectives.
TheHappyMisogynist 3 months ago
@TheHappyMisogynist Thanks for your comment, though I thought I sent you my "What Should MRA's Fight For?" vid. Not sure what happened there but this is a different video to that one, which is the one I thought would interest you for obvious reasons. If you need to find it it's presently featured on my channel page. Either way cheers for watching :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Yeah that's like saying bamboo ain't trees, tomatoes ain't vegetables or Israel is in Asia I mean how ridiculous ...What ?!
lol!
Curas1 3 months ago
@Curas1 Yeah, this relativist psychobabble is ridiculous :-D
RockingMrE 3 months ago
I really like your ability to call out logical fallacies. So many opinion based arguments are faulty by method. And as mentioned, emotionally based ...void of any respect to scientific method.
machineguntongue 3 months ago
@machineguntongue What's crazy is that people accuse ME of using logical fallacies when arguments that have no evidence to back them up, like "other minds", is a load of psychobabble designed to make people believe that 2+2 equals whatever the enlightened ones state.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Most self proclaimed relativists don't really accept relativism, they just use it to reject evidence that they don't like. In almost every case a "relativist" will stridently defend some conception of reality.
ArcoFlagellant 4 months ago
@ArcoFlagellant I accept your view here wholeheartedly. Anyone who looks at this objectively can clearly see that what "Relativists" usually want is to interpret reality the way they see fit, and of course to have the freedom to do it without anyone labelling them. They are hypocrites, naive, and most of all extremely dangerous.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
pure brilliance.
AnarchoCapitalistTV 4 months ago
@AnarchoCapitalistTV Thank you :-)
RockingMrE 3 months ago
Oh I'm god [«-- say it fast -- you'll get it] F'ing EXCELLENT vid dude. I SOOoo wish that you were in my "study-group" (or my research group, for that matter.)
If I ever meet you, plz allow me to buy you a pint.
Gesundheit trinken
B-)
drochalsey 4 months ago
@drochalsey Gald you enjoyed the vid. Send me an e-pint instead :-D
RockingMrE 3 months ago
(Nice che dice, boh... Zucchero...)
FARFALLONEBICCHIERE 4 months ago
the wheel of time weaves as it wills.
JulianThePhilosopher 4 months ago
@bxjam85 You can objectively identify the world through empirical data based on logic and reason. The onus of proof is on you to prove this nonsense about mental abstractions, which is taken way out of proportion. I've made my points in comments and in the vid, and you are sprouting the same old Relativist nonsense. This is precisely why I put a clear disclaimer in the info section - it was for people like you. Blocked.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@bxjam85 You're clutching at straws to try and make Nietzsche infallible. This is obessive, and rather ridiculous. You are still putting words in his mouth based on what YOU say, as opposed to what Nietzsche, and many others comprehend of his Eternal Return. I accept your views on Nietzsche involving nationalism, and they mirror what I have read, though they are irrelevant to this vid. I'm starting to see that you're a Nietzsche fanatic - I simply cannot stand people who fit this mould. (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I am not going to be dragged endlessly into circular reasoning based on conjecture and subjectivity, because this is irksome and tiring. I will give you an opportunity to walk away peacefully, and thus not be blocked. You've made your points - I hope this is enough for you.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@bxjam85 Maybe in the sense that both Nietzsche and Rand wanted to create a purpose for man on earth, as opposed to one based on religion. But it is really very small, and they are philosophically completely different in their ends to achieve this.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@bxjam85 What I do know is that Nietzsche hated nationalism, so this idea that he hated Anarchism too sounds logically inconsistent. What was his solution then? Surely if he didn't want nationalism then he wanted some sort of culturally neutral society which could even go as far as one world government. I agree with what you say about Nietzsche and objective reality, but this is the same nonsense that Postmodernists pedal, and I don't agree with it.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Re: "What I do know is that Nietzsche hated nationalism . . ."
On the contrary, Nietzche thought that nationalism was the best means to promote his Superman.
Re: "She had rejected her influence of Nietzsche by the time she wrote the Fountainhead . . ."
Actions speak louder than words, and that same wiki article will also show quite clearly that rand drew extensively from Nietzche while formulating her philosophy.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 Now I know you are talking absolute nonsense. Rand had no influence from Nietzsche by the time she wrote the Fountainhead, and anyone who has actually read and understood Rand can clearly see that. I am not wasting my time with this unsubstantiated nonsense any more. Blocked.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@bxjam85 Rand was primarily influenced by one philosopher - Aristotle. She had rejected her influence of Nietzsche by the time she wrote the Fountainhead, let alone Atlas Shrugged. If you don't believe me then read her wikipedia page.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
Right on, RockingMrE, they most certainly will misinterpret your meaning for it is within reason!
sgone0 4 months ago
I was under the impression that Nietzsche only introduced or expanded on the idea of Nihilism and that he was not himself a Nihilist.
MrRi3m4nn 4 months ago
@MrRi3m4nn Nietzsche was specifically involved with Moral Nihilism, which he did expand upon I believe. Check my link in the info section.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@bxjam85 Either way, you are putting words in Nietzsche's mouth, just like Hitler and Nietzsche's sister did. You cannot know what Nietzsche was actually thinking other than that which he wrote. He made no effort to show whether he was literal or not with the Eternal Return, though I do have my own views regarding the big bang/big crunch cosmology being a cycle. However, Nietzsche's idea that our individual lives repeat in a loop is mystical conjecture - let's be honest.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE
imscaredofcoffee here, I wanted to ask you something:
"What do you think about homosexuality and homosexuals?"
Can I ask you to make a video about the argument? Thanx xXx
imscaredofcoffee 4 months ago
@imscaredofcoffee Check out my video "The Liberal-Conservative Divide", as well as my blog "Alternative Family".
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE
I watched tha video, it was quite interesting, but you talked about homosexuality in regards to marriage, left / right, conserv / liber.
I was thinking if you could make a video where you could give me your own opinion about homosexuality and homosexuals. I explain: I am gay and I do not agree with all gay rights, I have massive problems with feminism (I was one once) and I can't stand the misandry, and many of my lesbian (ex) friends were very hostile and hateful radical feminists
imscaredofcoffee 4 months ago
@imscaredofcoffee I give gay people the same rights as everyone else - no more, no less, just like women. I don't believe in any attempt to use affirmative action to force people to do anything, though affirmative action is a fruitless endeavour for anyone that understands that a business cannot be successful unless it hires and promotes the best people for the job - it is common sense.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE
I agree, the problem is we are going in the opposite direction!
I believe affermative action is destroying the meritocratic system.
But I am not sure about equal rights based on gender and / or sexual orientation. I don't believe we are equal, men and women are extremely different, why should women be given the chance of doing a job if they just can't do it? How can a woman be a soldier or a fire fighter I don't have a clue. What I know is: if there was a fire, I hope fireMen showUp
imscaredofcoffee 4 months ago
@imscaredofcoffee I entirely agree with a meritocratic system. I feel that standards should be the same across the board, and if women can meet those standards and do the same job as a man then they have proven their worth. The trouble is that we all know that men are hardwired to protect women, and so this would have consequences on the front line.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE This is very true, take football for example when you have mixed teams, men by nature will go in far softer and the game is completely changed, shortening gender gap. Im concerned about new laws that are feminist that have just changed inside some football body for kids- dont really follow football! What this is doing is training men to not use their biology- where natural-testosterone is something linked to a meritocracy. It has a "particle" response to time that is Will to Power.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
But we never see women working as construction workers, roofers, bricklayers, coal miners and so on. If they are too weak to do these jobs, how come they aren't too weak to work in the fields I described before? So a woman is strong enough to be a soldier, fight in a war and carry a shotgun, but she is too weak to work as a bricklayer, build a hospital and lift a brick... But that doesn't make any sense!
Also, how come women are too weak in domestic violence (therefore it MUST be...
imscaredofcoffee 3 months ago
...the man the violent one), but they aren't weak enough to fight in a battle were they are confronting other men, who are soldiers and in greater numbers. So if there is domestic violence it has to be the man because women are too weak (what garbage...), but feminists say women are strong enough to be in the army. What a load of crap! I don't believe women are all sweet angels, they can be very violent and aggressive (but everybody is protecting them even if they are 100% wrong). Let me know :)
imscaredofcoffee 3 months ago
@imscaredofcoffee I agree with your observations - it is VERY hypocritical. BUT all we have to do is make women keep to the same standards as men and they have no leg to stand on. If women expect favours to keep a job then I find that disgraceful, and it puts peopel's lives at risk too in certain circumstances.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
I totally agree with you here. I'll watch your videos. I'm glad I sub. Have a nice day :)
imscaredofcoffee 3 months ago
@bxjam85 Nietzsche was only an empiricist when it suited him. He was a mystic in my book - his Eternal Return is no better than some sort of Eastern fantasy of metaphysical reality. Please do not claim it was a metaphor - I think we both know he never clearly made such a claim.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@bxjam85 Nietzsche despised the left? Yet by modern standards he would get along really well with the Postmodernist crowd who reject objective reality and want to create one cultural hotbed based on one government.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE :
Fantastic ! Thanks ! Great stuff !
I am happy to see that you are catching up on the Left-Marxist-Socialist Zero-Value Dogma-Fallasy that if adopted will inevitably lead us to a complete destruction of society.
I only have one wish: That you research the Bible (not religions) and study/understand its message to us, humans...
...and that you ask (and answer to) youself: 1. Where do Moral Values come from? and 2. What is the purpose and benefits of believing in God?
VAWAhorrors 4 months ago
There are Laws, Court and Police practices that encourage an epidemic of False Accusations of Domestic Violence, Abuse and Rape in this country. Women gain from False Accusations - Why?
The "Feminist" Ideology that is now Indoctrinated into Politics, the Government, Courts, Police and General Public, that:
- Women are Good, Men are Bad!
- Women are helpless Victims, Men are Perpetrators!
- Women need Help and Protection, Men must be Restrained, Prosecuted and Jailed!
... - Why?
VAWAhorrors 4 months ago
Google: Martha Laura Granados Immigration Prostitute
The VAWA Immigration Loop-hole:
If you are a woman, pretend to be in love with a US citizen or a Legal Resident, get him to marry you. As soon as you got the marriage certificate dial 211 and falsely accuse him of Domestic Violence and Rape and move to a VAWA shelter.
You will be on a fast-track for a Green-Card and US citizenship - all expenses paid for by the US tax payer and as a bonus you will be getting full social benefits.
VAWAhorrors 4 months ago
Nietzche a hero of the left???? You need to go to K-Mart, they are having a blue light special on clues! Who are the intellectual descendants of F N--the objectivists like Rand idiot!
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 If you actually believe that this crony system is what Rand believed in then you clearly haven't studied any of her work.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I've studied her work to the extent that I can tell you that she wrote an ethics that has the dubious distinction of having more logical fallacies than it does sentences. Sure as a child I was impressed with Rand, but then I grew up. Nietzche along with Aristotle are the only two Philosophers that Rand herself put on an equal level with her.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 Please don't start using arguments by adjective such as "is-ought" to discredit Rand - it is nonsense. Your claim that her philsophy is ethically dubious is just typical, and it seems that you cannot grasp that she defined a philosophy that prevents the collective from oppressing people via deindividualisation - it seems that it's totally gone over your head. The only philosopher that Rand was truly inspired by was Aristotle - and certainly not Nietzsche.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE What I said is that Rand wrote an ethics that in fact and provably has more logical fallacies than sentences.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 Bla bla, all this nonsense about argument by adjective is easily disproven. Get some actual objective arguments insstead of ad hominems and other logical fallacies. You anti-Randites are just clones - and you repeat the same rubbish over and over again. You have no way to solidly counter her, and it's not as though I think Rand was perfect, but your ilk are so predictable. Learn about syllogisms, there's a tip for you.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Claiming and being willing to prove that Rand wrote an ethics that in fact has more fallacies than sentences is "rubbish" and I am the one being accused of ad hominem!!!!
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Re: "Learn about syllogisms . . ."
Tell this to Rand,as one of her most common problems is making a statement and then providing no reasoning to back it up--and shallow thinker swallow it whole.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. What reason? Give me an example - dare I ask, only to be met with more logical fallacies.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Google "Critique of the Objectivist Ethics" by Michael Huemer" and you will see the undeniable evidence for my claim--for goodness sake, Rand is often used in first year philosophy classes as fodder for her completely ridiculous fallacious bull. I know of no serious philosopher that takes her seriously--why? Because she wrote an ethics that has more fallacies than sentences.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 You act as though I haven't read Anti-Rand critique before. It's full of argument by adjective, which does not create a sound logical case - get that through your head. Neither does ad hominems about claims of her being psychotic, or dating a serial killer - bla bla bla. You havent read any Rand. and her critics just copy the same nonsense from one source to the other. You need to go away and learn who your collectivist dogma is far more dangerous than anything Rand (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Re: "Neither does ad hominems about claims of her being psychotic, or dating a serial killer - bla bla bla . . ."
But I didn't say anything about these things! In fact, I did not know about this sensationalistic stuff--I don't pay attention to this kind of hub bub.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999
Google "Ayn Rand" + "William Edward Hickman".
DemokraticRepublican 4 months ago
@DemokraticRepublican You guys are like sheeple - honestly. He already mentioned that link you complete idiot! You just can't present anything but ad hominems, arguments by adjective, and your terrible attempt at Socratic method. If you honestly think that you are some sort of enlightened philsopher, let me tell you right now, you are nothing but a pretentious fool.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@hatemorethanyou999 ever believed - AND LEARN ABOUT SYLLOGISMS. By the way, don't think that I don't know you are part of that idiotic crowd Jasmine frequents. Go back there - your ilk are not welcome here. I will block you if you give me the same nonsense in another comment - you have been warned.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Assuming facts not in evidence--I do not know who Jasmine is.
hatemorethanyou999 4 months ago
Despite the fact that many of these concepts went over my head, I actually understood this. Thank you.
TheLordmep 4 months ago
@TheLordmep You're welcome :-)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
So this guy is coherent enough to understand that this reality (truth) is objective, yet he's an atheist who's likes "The God Delusion" by Dawkins...
I suppose then that you must be an evolution believer even though hard objective science has proven evolution wrong again and again. Logically, if evolution is false, then a single omnipotent creator must exist. This can be proven in a few simple step so it must be that you be an evolutionist. If you aren't then I guess you don't subscribe to logic
7F0X7 4 months ago
@7F0X7 I really can't believe you think that science has disproven Evolution. Quite the opposite. I really can't argue with someone who doesn't believe in evolution - the evidence is impossible to deny, and it does you no credit to claim otherwise. Go and read some actual science on Evolution instead of turning this into a Creationist debate - I ave no interest in speaking to you about such fallacious claims.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Don't talk down to me coward. YOU GO READ THE PROOF THAT EVOLUTION IS FALSE. THE EVIDENCE AGAINST IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH AN EVOLUTIONIST BECAUSE IT IS THEIR RELIGION, NOTHING MORE AND THEY WON'T BACK DOWN FROM IT BECAUSE IT'S ALL THEY HAVE. THE FOSSIL RECORD HAS PERFECTLY PRESERVED EXAMPLES OF ANIMALS FROM EVERY PHYLA OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY. IF YOU WANNA DEBATE ON THE HARD SCIENCE OF IT AND LEAVE RELIGION OF BOTH SIDES OUT THEN I'M GAME
7F0X7 4 months ago
@7F0X7 Umm, actually the fossil records, countless examples of them, show us very clearly that Evolution exists. You are actually contradicting yourself.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
More people mis-quoting and misunderstanding Nietzsche.
He wasn't Leftist in the slightest, the guy thought that the leftists of that era were morons, and that only the Anarchists really knew reality in the Philosophical sense. His commentary on perspective is always mistranslated. Just to be blunt, almost everyone that grazes over his writing is just plain wrong about him.
Joe11Blue 4 months ago
@Joe11Blue So effectively he is undefinable - a sort of benevolent idol, if you will? I'm sorry but that is nonsense. If Nietzsche spent his whole life creating a philosophy that is impossible to define then it is basically useless, and certainly irrelevant. But I don't actually agree with you, and am inclined to think that YOU believe that he is some sort of "Overman", which Nietzsche could never truly live up to.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Where did I say that? I merely stated that everyone quotes him with bad translations and lousy conscripted works done by his idiot sister. Most people get Nietzsche wrong, even Philosophy students make the same mistake.
As for Ubermensch, it wasn't a physical being so much as a metaphorical concept and mindset. Again you missed the point of what he was saying. It's even worse, because the vast majority of Libertarianism is based on the concepts he outlined in his work.
Joe11Blue 4 months ago
@Joe11Blue Nietzsche was not as Anarchistic as you might like him to be. He was anti-nationhood, but I think his views were more one world government than anti-statist. You need to break down his ideas further to truly see what he felt, and the metaphorical thng is not based on solid evidence by any means. He had a very mystical idea of reality, and this metaphorical thing is just as bad as religious people re-interpreting scripture. I am not interested in this sort of esoteric nonsense.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Except he rejected Nations on the premise of Organizing people based upon the Morality which he also despised as a whole. It's not what I would like him to be, it's what he actually stated. He was an everyman for himself person. This is where Existentialism comes from. His whole "God is Dead" schtick was an attack at Schopenhauer's belief of a guilt ridden morality based society. Mystical compared to what?
Are you reading Kaufman's translations?
Joe11Blue 4 months ago
@Joe11Blue I think you are barking up the wrong tree if you think he was an Anarchist or a Libertarian, and he certainly did not have an objective outlook to evidence, especially when compared to Rand, or anyone who truly understands (or cares about) the principles of the scientific method. I'm not going to play a game of prove and disprove. I think you need to look at my links and also stop doing what everyone does - which is try to put words in Nietzsche's mouth.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE That's fine. I will just accept that you've never actually read Nietzsche outside of poor translations, probably by Kaufman. Rand was nearly a century later and from a different era of Libertarians. They are not comparable for this simply fact, and Rand wasn't exactly a stellar Libertarian herself either, even in that era.
The Scientific Method of his era wasn't the same that we used in today's day and age. Everything is about perspective in Science. Something you are ignoring.
Joe11Blue 3 months ago
@Joe11Blue I haven't read any poor translation - you are creating a strawman to defend your position. Secondly, your opinion that science is based on perspective is erroneous. It is based on inductive and deductive reasoning, and you are adhering to relativism if you think otherwise. Anything which cannot be verified is completely meaningless. The onus of proof is on you to prove an unverified position - just like the onus to prove God is on theists.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@RockingMrE Yes, because you probably haven't read Nietzsche at all then.
It's not an opinion. This is why Science requires peer review, because perspective is a huge issue involved in it's application. It's also why the idea of a "control" study was created to produce verifiable and repeatable results to base a Hypothesis from. You seem to through the Philosophical around on this topic, but it simply has no bearing on the actual practices involved. Science and Philosophy are not the same.
Joe11Blue 3 months ago
@Joe11Blue You're being extremely pedantic and obtuse now. Peer review proves nothing with regards to the fact that science is an objective method to understand the natural world, based on deductive and inductive reasoning. You clearly have no clue about the roots of science to make such comments, and your view about Rand not being major Libertarian inspiration says it all. Be careful what your next comment in, I am just about done with your nonsense.
RockingMrE 3 months ago
@Joe11Blue If you think Nietzsche was an everyman for himself, why do you think when he was making Grand tours to Italy he thought about opening schools on a mountain monastry or later his sister with her husban took this idea, even opening a school out of his thinking in Paraguay. Why did he not just keep his knowledge for his own selfish furtherence. Also he was not adversed to morality he just believed the moral dogma was wrong like religion was. You also are misrepresenting will to live.
apekillssnake 3 months ago
@apekillssnake the same reason many Individualist run businesses, profit motive.
Morality is creation of the Church, or did you miss that aprt of his history lesson in Will to Power where he actually referenced the creation of Morality to replace Ethics so the Church could use the Dogmatic approach of subversive control? Let me guess you missed that part.
Joe11Blue 3 months ago
@RockingMrE
Do you acknowledge a distinction between ideas and "the things in themselves"?
Do you think we have direct access to the latter?
Do you think facts are something "out there" to be found?
DemokraticRepublican 4 months ago
@DemokraticRepublican I acknowledge that ideas and facts are seperate, but that one can support the other.
Yes, we do have direct access to the latter, but only through a development of logic and reason.
Facts are out there, and it is irrelevant whether they are found or not, though it is possible to discover them through logic and reason.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE
You say we have DIRECT access to the "thing in itself". Where does one experience such?
DemokraticRepublican 4 months ago
@DemokraticRepublican I'm a little confused by this statement, are you refering to where objectivism is found?
apekillssnake 4 months ago
@DemokraticRepublican I'm not going to get dragged into this Sophism nonsense. YOU may feel your brain is a limited organ, but the onus on proof is on you to prove that this is generic given that only a lunatic can deny the existence of everything around us through A=A. Are you a lunatic? Do you deny objective reality? We know when the mind, or indeed other human sesnes, such as the eyes, are damaged, like colour blindness. We are also learning more each day about the brain (cont)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Now get your head out of your rear end and join the rest of us back on planet Earth, where we are using logic and reason to develop an understanding of the natural world. You may think we live in the matrix, but I only base my feelings on evidence - which is what anyone free of hallucinations would do. Don't try to drag me into that type of idiotic nonsense again - I have heard it all before. You've been warned.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
Can I add, because I think it answers (a bit) the below question to you MrE. You can swap the wording and say that objectivism is real, but you can not have the existence of subjectivism this way- for example taking your Tree analogy. If a tree falls in a woods and noone hears it does the tree fall! The objective reality is that it does fall as it exists outside and beyond also that of our reality. The subjectivist would argue that it has not fallen as a solipsist!
apekillssnake 4 months ago
@apekillssnake Yeah I agree. What these people don't respect is the philosophical branch known as Realism, which states that reality exists independently of observers.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
Excellent vid, MrE!!! But I have to ask: Even though Neitzsche was a relatavist, do you believe that what he was implying is that no matter how sound, empirical, logical, and tangible something is, there are those who will and do often are skeptical and may even deny its existence?
ApollosInsight 4 months ago
@ApollosInsight I think there are people like that, but I believe Nietzsche was more concerned in proving that the natural world is impossible to define - and it is this which I find irrational.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Oh, ok. Gotcha.
ApollosInsight 4 months ago
That is a sweet Les Paul! I need to look into the developments on their assault!
rooftopeagle 4 months ago
@rooftopeagle Thanks dude. I am interested to know what is going on there too.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE I'll let you know what I find!
rooftopeagle 4 months ago
@rooftopeagle Cheers :-)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Peace Brother!
rooftopeagle 4 months ago
Oh and the synopsis about the Left is spot on! Again this upload is one I will watch a couple of times because it is so perfect in parts. Good Job!
apekillssnake 4 months ago
@apekillssnake Glad you enjoyed this vid. I had a feeling this topic would interest you.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE another great video E. I would have lots to say on this, briefly I think what is important to add here, is that he never started what his work was questing him to find, like Einstein in how he was perplexed working on final theories, Nietzsche's ultimate work was meant to be the ultimate moral to define all moralities. I think if his path had not been hijacked away it would have explained what has rematerialized now and is still infront of man, eluding him.
apekillssnake 4 months ago
I mean all this talk about "reality is objective". You mean your reality Mr E. And just because most people would agree with your point of view that "MY view is objective reality" does not discount the potentially infinite different perceptions of reality. LOL.
I mean to strawman Nietzsche then claiming to OWN him. LMAO!
And for the record I believe there is much strength in Nazism, far more strength then you'll find in this materialistic cesspool we call a civilisation.
AL
AdoreLucifer 4 months ago
@AdoreLucifer Reality is objective it is something that exists outside of your own subjectivism!I think the Left is something that has tried to get its claws into Nietzsche like Sartre is another prime example- it has used existentialism, postmodern philosophy to try further non-prosocial psychologies. If you are making a philosophic point about democracy in that a large proportion of the masses should not decide things I agree with you. That group tend to incline themselves with leftist facists
apekillssnake 4 months ago
@AdoreLucifer The bottom line is that unless you can prove that this is all in my (or your) head then your comment is irrelevant. I haven't strawmanned Nietzsche in the slightest. What's more if you think there is strength in Nazism then I really have nothing more to say to you in this sense.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
Nietzsche was a Realist, he sort mental disconnection to observe the phenomenology of the mind. This was to advise the self on how to eradicate the dogma or cognitive dissonance caused to the individual or subjectivism in an effort to get down to the ultimate reductionism of life. In essence this is neuro/science today or Zen Buddhism(sleep) before. I fully agree that most misinterpreted his word-dousing to try and support there own syndromes instead, being predisposed by a solipsism ruling them
apekillssnake 4 months ago
Wait, wait, wait. If I accept, that a tree is a tree, then it exists? Even the question of how do you define existence has been heavily debated by philosophers through out the centuries and making such bold statements, such as - objective reality exists, FACT, with a smug tone, seems chilidish.
vRennas 4 months ago 4
@vRennas No my friend, it's childish that you actually think that you can disprove something without proof. Wordplay does not define reality - evidence does. Furthermore, you are attempting to paint the history of philosphy with Relativism, or even Sophism, while in actual fact logic and reason are the bedrocks of modern Science. I am open to having my mind changed, though it is foolish to believe anything without objective facts.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@vRennas
Well said vRennas. Good to see someone has a brain that comes with a spine.
AdoreLucifer 4 months ago
@AdoreLucifer How do you know he has a brain? Maybe it is your brain :-D
RockingMrE 4 months ago
It is important to note that neitzsche was more isolated due to his poor reputation and WW1 than anything else. He wrote most of his will of the universe stuff much later, most of it in reference not to the individual but countries as a whole. He was a proponent of oroboros but not in a forced sense, more to point that someone will always be the asshole in any society. God is dead is more of an attack on fundamentalist christians in the late 1800's and their fervor for the end of days.
morakdais 4 months ago
@morakdais he died in 1900 which was before WW1,although he prophesised a great war coming but that may of been his own wishful thinking to see the smug world destroyed.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD I was tired when I wrote that, all I remember was there was a war he was opposed to, I thought it was WW1. I am pretty sure he was aware that war within europe was inevitable, exactly because pride and religion won't let people talk things out rationally.
morakdais 4 months ago
neitzsche didn't believe in life after death or past lives;he thought conciouness accepted its allotted assembled slot;nietszche wanted to be a happy nietzsche and nobody else past or later.He did say that stepping away from metaphysics at one point but that was also a cover of the fact that he couldn't bare to go anyfurther because the more he found out the more helpless he felt ,where his will was contrary to the greater overiding power.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
@theGreaserrr I welcome any views, as long as they are productive, and are not passively or overtly attempting to create conflict. Thanks for watching :-)
RockingMrE 4 months ago
In a certain way i have gut feelings sympathetic with nietzsche because of mathematics esp in vortex maths which creat many permations(life is the geometrical expression of this maths(in my mind at the moment));'all things are possible but only somethings are necessary' if believed,;it could mean we wish for more than life actually has to offer and nieitzsche was well aware of this possible fallacy hence his battle to beat the prewritten script of life,,just incase it was real;paranoid?,,yes?
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
I think certain breakdown analysis of nietsche misses the greater point of him purely based on politically left and right paradigm argueing over the meaning of his legacy due to how his legacy has been used since his death in greater political events beyond his permission of usage..
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
The eternal recur\nce was the final horizon of his existential dread in regards to his discoveries because all he really wanted to be was a happily married well to do and recognised victorian era 'chap'..
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
Nietzche was conciousness trapped in matter and relative human earthly cercumstance walking the tightrope betwwen his old and newly aquired concepts but one alone was never strong enough to hold up the whole man and was bipolar in regards to his superman who didn't want anything even though he could have it all and the clubfoot who wanted it all but couldn't have it,,,,he was disturbed to fuck but he was a 'human all too human' at the end of the day.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
Ultimately when i think of nietzsche i think of the beatles 'nowhere man';he exclaimed once "we homeless ones" who couldn't find comfort in any concept or garment as such, and he could as easily argue for his oppinions as he could pull the gun out to destroy them later;he was always testing the reader out.And practically slapping his agreer's round their assuming heads.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
@theGreaserrr I agree, Nietzsche didn't care about objectivity in any sense when push comes to shove. He had some interesting ideas, but they are not based on reason and logic. If you like his work then fine, I don't mind his poetic and enigmatic style either. But I value empirical evidence far too much to take his ideas too literally.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
The superman aspect was nietzsche wishing away the current epoch that made him feel cut out and isolated using darwinian optimism that a new race would wipe out the ones that left him shamed and humiliated as a failed and unrecognised at that time writer.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
Metaphysics for a bitter humanist like nietzsche offered no consilation because it was a mystical blind force of metaphysical lava that couldn't be rationed with and so nietzsche hated science that uncovered truths as much as the old crual 'old testament god'..Most of nietzsches idiosyncracies of thought are found right in the first book and reading his works twice is essential to grasp the first books properly;he was also a cryptic writer and cynical in the same way as frank zappa would mock.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
His spiritual journey of destroying the hebrew god through rational thinking and empircalism(or lack of evidence) was because he wanted to get somebody for his life condition(he had scifilis,,sorry cant spell it),the deathe of the spectre of the god of bad taste was a theme and he crerated stories of the man that kills this god and the simpletons despairing etc,,but no sooner he realised that he could no longer blame this 'old testament' god;he was left to deal with the metaphysics..
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
I still like his works if observed from the way of studying a mentally ill confession of reasons and justifications for his thoughts.He couldn't explain in technical terms why he had is oppinions sometimes and they were really his own gut feelings;i think he was the first proto psychologist /psychonaut in many ways.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD I don't truly want to look as though I am attacking Nietzsche. I actually feel sorry for him in many ways. But it attracts the melancholic mindset of so many, who run with his views and seem to make no attempt to step back and critically reflect on what he believed.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Ah;so you are attacking the pessimist sophists who use his works as a means of talking themselves out of their own existance right?
I got to say that the tree arguement type method thing which went a bit beyond my horizon this morning(its been a while since i looked at philosophy)isn't the best window for studying and reducing nietzsche complexities,his feelings were mostly presented as stories with the question'what if this is it'..
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD If anything I am attacking Relativists who look upon themselves as intellectually superior by rejecting any idea of absolute knowledge. Nietzsche was a man who suffered from mental illness and tragedy. He talks a lot about perspectives in his work, though ironically I think it is he who suffered most from a perspective which dominated his worldview, to the detriment of his ideas.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE yes;but i do think his ideas were also a byproduct of his disturbed tragedy worldveiw first and his ideas were the great questions and manifestations of his thoughts which he wrote to get off his chest 2nd,i don't know if we would be discussing the second if it wasn't for the first which was the catalyst generator of those ideas;i don't think he had much choice in the matter,,but for everybody who has come since;i suppose they can either take it or leave it,,it is only suggestive.
PERFECTARYANBASTARD 4 months ago
@PERFECTARYANBASTARD "but for everybody who has come since;i suppose they can either take it or leave it,,it is only suggestive"
It would be nice if this were the case, but many people do take his ideas literally, which of course is detrimental when they try to suggest that there is no way to define the natural world.
RockingMrE 4 months ago
@RockingMrE Totally agreed;i will forgive the title of the video because i know you have only used it to raise a contraversal question regarding neitzschien worth;to finish on this i will say that nietszches best legacy if taken for a positive usage is that ;'if' destiny is ultimately fixed but there is an amount of leyway to achieve a will to power;Iron maiden had a good song called 'wasted years';"don't you understand that you are living in those wasted yea