I have finally grew up to understand the aesthetic life. Before that I was a determined compassionate Dostoyevskian. But I am beginning to see the impossibility of the existential "feeling" life. We can not seem to foresee the future. In order to embrace it. Embracing a style seem to be the only possible way. We can only be self-consistent.I am not sure if I can die for justice. The only way to justify cowardice is by style. And then it won't be called "cowardice" it will be called the Maximum.
The ending was the best part. 4:30 is a great message. I am glad to hear the claim that intellectuals are responsible for their message and its effects to a certain degree.
I love how he keeps saying, "Yes, yes, yes." As if he was having intercourse or orgasm. Re-listen to the interview with this in mind, changes the bounds of intellectual erotica.
For 2.) This interviewer is a moron toward the end. The Nazi's appropriated Wanger and contaminated that genius?
Wagner felt the same as I did in the first point. Wagner knew that German culture and values and Jewish culture and values are very different.
The problem is that people use wordplay to turn innate respect for differences and preferences toward those with your values and characteristics, into hatred for others.
It is a trick and an attempt at subjugation and destruction.
For 1.) Most of you people become terrified at even contemplating the 'Nazi' point of view as to defending their interests and fighting for them. I know, I know, you'll cry holocaust, but remember the fact that those people were not of the same culture as German (or western) culture, and they had more than enough time to leave peacefully. They did not. They refuse to integrate with their hosts in all countries, they their hosts revolt.
Anybody wanting to study the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche will benefit greatly from reading the works of Anthony Ludovici. He is one of those great writers which the politically correct gang have thrown down the memory hole. There is a website dedicated to his writings - anthonymludovicidotcom.
LooksAeterna: I think you are misreading what Nietzsche meant with his rejection of "truth" and the "logical" faculties. Nietzsche's goal was to question the accuracy of man's comprehension of concepts of truth and logic, not them in themselves (read twillight of the idols). He saw subjective truth deriving only from the instincts, and objective truth as something that cannot be affirmed positivly.
@FaaarLeft First of all, don't be so chicken not to address me when you formally address me. Afraid of not having the last word ?
Secondly, what you said is clearly another indication why Nietzsche is not worth listening to since he obviously didn't even comprehend the domain of logic. "Truth" IS a logical term and can in principle not have anything to do with instincts or anything outside propositional constructs.
Please don't continue to try to involve me in this pre-rational barbarity.
@LooksAeterna Truth indeed should be understood more closely. We know that absolute truth in philosophy is all phenomenon outside the realm of experience, and practical "truth" which can only derive from experience. Man can create means of understanding truth of experience through logic and reason, but no more. There remain two things: truth of experience defectively grasped and the "thing-in-itself"; the latter "truth" being merely a false adjunct thereto. Which "truth" do you mean?
@FaaarLeft It isn't up to me to mean anything here.
You're the one who said "He saw subjective truth deriving only from the instincts", setting off against "objective truth", so you're the one who is responsible for clarifying this kind of garbled pseudo-profundity, all made up of appeals to popular vagueness before I engage, not me.
As for myself, I am not interested at all in further waste of time in connection with anti-rational, verbal con-artists such as Nietzsche.
@LooksAeterna Even Carnap,Russell,Whitehead and Moore (the school from which I assume you come) allow this "pseudo-profundity" into their language (which isn't too surprising considering how basic or elementary it is).
"Anti-rational"?...hardly: acknowledging the limits of man's possible understanding is humble and honest, not anti-rational. watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY
@FaaarLeft "acknowledging the limits of man's possible understanding is humble and honest, not anti-rational."
Yes, that is Sokrates whom Nietzsche despised. Now leave me alone with this slavery-advocating anti-rational type. I am no interested in discussing him any more than what I already said, nor in briging you up to speed about some logical basics.
@FaaarLeft "the school from which I assume you come"
Now to finish this off: I am also not interested in misusing this video for my own views. My critique of Nietzsche is independent of my own view, these are facts rooted in Nietzsche's own writings combined with logical basics.
(contd) But in order to make you leave me alone, I will tell you that I am part of no "school", and such loyalties do not motivate me. I am a logician.
As regards philosophy, I think one needs (Plato's early non-speculative reports on) Sokrates, the late Wittgenstein, ironically one also needs Karl Popper and then the analytical philosophy of mind of the type of Chalmers.
Philosophy is mostly a defense operation against pseudo-intellectual bullies such as Nietzsche or some "scientists" etc.
@LooksAeterna "Afraid?" and "Chicken" are terms used by children, not men of education. Philosophy is a high, gentlemanly discipline; lets try to keep it that way.
@FaaarLeft These terms are proper for your behavior. It may well be that someone whose behavior is properly described by those terms belongs - as you suggest - in the category of "children, not men of education. Philosophy is a high, gentlemanly discipline; lets try to keep it that way."
Much to your own dislike, I totally agree. =:D
A man of education wouldn't cowardly act as if he is debating while making sure the opponent doesn't hear it - except to mirror such prior behavior by the other.
Nietzsche had some very nice things to say about the jews. He pointed out their comparitive superiority to the average Christian; he also favored the Hebrew "vindictive god" to the Christian "god of love." The Nazis loved him because he was the strong man's philosopher. One cannot condemn at least the inner vitality of the Nazis.
@FaaarLeft You're missing my point. It doesn't matter that he said a few things contradictory to Nazi attitudes. The fact remains that his own "philosophy" BY OVERRIDING THE SUPREMACY OF TRUTH totally destroys the power of contradicition to prove anything or to defend him, especially because his thinking is otherwise so close to ALL asshole-philosophies.
To defend him against being a "Nazi philosopher" is possible ONLY IF ONE REJECTS HIS VIEWS TO BEGIN WITH !
@FaaarLeft Now if "he said SOME brilliant things" is an argument in favor of a "philosopher", then try reading "Mein Kampf", you'll find brilliant things in there too. Many of them are very up to date, BTW. If Hitler had only identified the problem more with the Zionists bankers and not the Jews.
Thsi discussion demonstrated clearly that Nietzsche is to be rejected fully.
All apologetics of Nietzsche against the accusation of being the Nazi philosopher are lame. Once somebody gives higher value to life power than to truth and rejects logic, ANYTHING goes, there is no way to AFTERWARDS appeal to reason and still say "welk, that's not what he meant". Nietzsche himself has rejected such appeal to reason OVER the primitive will.
@LooksAeterna "Thsi discussion demonstrated clearly that Nietzsche is to be rejected fully"
given your compromise to logic you seem to seem to be committing a basic fallacy.
the nazi acusation is what is lame. nietzsche was 100% apolitical. besides, the book in particular that the nazis took from him was "the will to power" which was released posthumously, edited at will and partly written by his sister.
as for will vs. truth, his writting style is experimental and aphoristic.
@fede2 I had already addressed your fallacy several times. Please go through ALL my comments about this to part 1 and 5 before you make false assumptions.
There is no dispute that a REASONABLE person who accepts the authority of logic within the realm of speech and is adamant about banning genuine contradicitions can argue that the Nazi's usurpation of Nietzsche is wrong.
The point is that you cannot approve of Nietzsche's ideas AND dispute that. You can defend Nietzsche only non-Nietzschean.
@LooksAeterna "I had already addressed your fallacy several times" what fallacy is that?
"There is no dispute that a REASONABLE person who accepts the authority of logic within the realm of speech and is adamant about banning genuine contradicitions can argue that the Nazi's usurpation of Nietzsche is wrong."
yeah, people who are smart and good-looking wouldn't dare touch the stuff. that's a slogan, not an argument.
nothing you say this time around adresses anything i said.
@fede2 "what fallacy is that?" It is the fallacy lies in this: "the nazi acusation [sic] is what is lame" I never accused Nietzsche of being a Nazi ideologist - as you would have known if you read. The point: Nietzsche's OWN ideas justify the Nazi appropriation.
"nothing you say this time around adresses anything i said"
Because what you said demonstrates you haven't either read or understood what I am saying. Get up to speed on some logical basics, above all:
"Nietzsche's OWN ideas justify the Nazi appropriation."
that's a moot point. ithe fact that nazis were influenced by nietzsche doesn't mean that his philosophy is logically conducive to naziism as a univocal conclusion. it's a non-sequitur.
either way the nazi apropraition of his philosophy is based on a deck of cards. ie: "the will to power". i'm not gonna explain this again. and yes, i 've looked at your comments, not once did you adress this.
@fede2 "that's a moot point. ithe fact that nazis were influenced by nietzsche doesn't mean that his philosophy is logically conducive to naziism as a univocal conclusion. it's a non-sequitur."
The fact that you say this clearly shows that you lack all logical basics for reasonable discussion. I have amply refuted this nonsense.
IF Nietzsche (or ANYONE for that matter) makes self-contradicting assertions, that UTTERLY precludes any possibility of defense against Nazi appropriation.
@fede2 Go study "principle of explosion". Whoever forfeits the supremacy of truth and logic in factual speech has thereby justified all atrocities against humanity and life. Because the validity of such atrocities can trivially and stringently deduced logically from what he is saying.
ANYONE with the slightest logical basics knows this. ANYONE who doesn't immediatley realize this hence lacks the qualifications for reasonable discussion.
And lest these people with a a lack of deductive capacity sont start over again: don't get so hung up about the Nazis. It is FAR WORSE: ALL of the atrocities committed by assholes stem from their following their selfish vital forces. Hence whoever preaches the supremacy of vitality OVER truth (instead of: after having been utterly purified BY truth) as Niezsche does and allows logical inconsistency is hence not only a justifier of Nazidom but of the far greater oceacn of ALL atrocities.
@fede2 "what fallacy is that?" It is the fallacy lies in this: "the nazi acusation [sic] is what is lame" I never accused Nietzsche of being a Nazi ideologist - as you would have known if you had read. The point: Nietzsche's OWN ideas justify the Nazi appropriation,
"nothing you say this time around adresses anything i said"
Because what you said demonstrates you haven't either read or understood what I am saying. Get up to speed on some logical basics, above all:
I've always thought it odd that Nietzsche has come to be seen as a proto fascist; his project of placing the individual before all else seems fundamentally (even necessarily) anti-collectivist and, so I think, therefore anti-fascist. His work was appropriated, rather than extrapolated on or practiced by the Nazis, perhaps in the same way that Stalinism relied on Marxism only in so far as far as it used it as justification for, ironically, new modes of exploitation. Ps. amazing post Flame.
I love this interviewer! I've seen a few of his videos now. So uncommon now to find such an intellectually engaged interviewer who also makes a conscious attempt to let the guest do most of the talking. . . Also very efficient at guiding the conversation. Anyone know the guy's name?
It is astounding to me that this scholar, in citing the thinkers most influenced by Nietzsche, the Existentialists (Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida, etc) are not mentioned -or did I miss it?
@djsmurfie Thanks for responding to my comment! Well - you're right, of course, in that Heidegger distanced himself vehemently from the likes of Sartre and the others. This, alone, however does not take him entirely out of the camp of Existentialists. This is a discussion, which I, for one, am not eager to engage in.
@djsmurfie Part 1 - I would say that this is certainly debatable. But your criterion for existentialism is overly restrictive given the many varieties of it. As for your implication that "belief in 'essence' as a part of the world" disqualifies one from this philosophy, well - I don't see that this is the case at all. In Sartre, for example, nowhere does he deny "essence" as being an aspect of reality.
@djsmurfie Though Heidegger would express this in a more nuanced manner, I don't think he would disagree at all with the notion that we "create" our own essence. But, again - these two philosophers use the term "essence" in a different
way - (an enormous topic). I'll have to leave it there for now - you can have the last word. Thanks!
@djsmurfie Part 2 - On the contrary - it has quite respectable epistemological credentials. He merely asserts that "essence" PRECEDES "existence". Anyway, we need to understand these terms as they are used within the context of a given thinkers philosophical posture.
Bryan Magee is wonderful, I agree. What I especially like about him is the fact that the philosophical problems he has engaged himself with are deeply felt by him - they are real personal problems and not just the cold, unfeeling abstract puzzles that so many of those who philosophize perplex themselves with. His book 'Confessions of a Philosopher' is as intimate a work of philosophy/intense seeking as your likely to find. Rock on good sir - may the scales weigh in your favour :)
Argueing about these small things is all what philosophy is about, detecting details and thinking of them, why was it said, how did it happend eg. Brian Mrgee have touched my mind with all these interviews on famous or not so philosophers and great thinkers.
@Davidbolton100 well presumably they got them in the process of a striving for aesthetic experience, i assume that whoever made and bought each of those items felt that they were aesthetically pleasing.
@Davidbolton100 I'm righting a paper on aesthetic judgment. I'm arguing that some music is better than other music. In other words musical value is not completely subjective. I'm asking everyone now; Could I use Nietszche as a source to explaine that aesthetics are not just completely relative?
@TheDavid2222 dunno; I'd rather go in to a discussion about the dualism/dichotomy of subjective vs. objective - that all dualism are indeed dependent on each other in order to have any meaning, and that you therefore cannot/must not end up with only one extreme, because this would be a violence to the other. But language can be said to be based on dualism, so you shouldn't stick with the illusion that we can free ourselves of division through language.
@FredeGF Pretty much my entire understanding of the subjective vs. the objective comes from Martin Heidegger. I didn't really go with that approach in the paper though. I've never studied Derrida before.
@Davidbolton100 It is aesthetically pleasing from afar, for they blend together and it looks as if they are sitting on air! Quite aesthetic indeed if I may say so!
what did he say in the last moment after he had thanked him? It sounded like, "no no no, thank youuuuu, i'm going to kick your, um no no no, and frankly also very much."
oh good i finally got what he said after taking great pains to turn up the volume and rewinding it over and over, turned out to be rather appropriate what he said, thanks
i've always wondered why at the very end of long interviews the moment of farewell seems extremely forced either with time limitation, some form of flattery taken as sarcasm, not enough flattery to pass around when there are more than 1 influential interviewee, the list goes on
Maybe it's a psychological conflict between the desire to keep talking vs. the recognition that the host is trying to wrap it up. "Am I allowed to say more? Should I be quiet? I have to say something! Are the cameras even rolling anymore?"
belief is just people hiding behind truth in ascertainment for words to find in high honor. Their justification of death! If it is seen the mind is triggered by these justifications in a thought. Thought is words hiding behind the bodies feelings. The question since there are no answers is, "What is the trigger?" Not in any other way is thought capeable is as to motion itself past the body into what is capeable. That is what the body inhabits in all matters that are its own. I call it the "i"
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Bullshit. Thats such a stupid, self rationalizing statement. Nietzsche did have something to do with the Nazis. Think about it dumbass. Nietzsche believed that only noble humans should survive, a certain breed or race of humans.
Not a breed of people, a type of person. Race doesn't come into it. And if you get this angry about a comment I hate to think how badly you deal with problems in your life.
I don't think that Nazism came about as result of people misreading Nietzsche. I would say that Nazism came about as a result of the economic insanity of post world war I Germany, but I don't know because I am not an expert on Nazism or the development of Nazism.
Well, in fact, Nazism is in fact a misunderstanding of Nietzsche philosophy. Part of it, it was his sister's fault as she promoted the Nazi agenda, and began to use Nietzsche philosophy completely wrong. Of course, you are part right when you say Nazism is as well a result of an economic problem.
HAHA. I doubt Nietzsche's sister brought on the extermination of the jews. The comment above I believe is much more correct. War torn Germany went ape shit. I think Nietzsche had very little to do with it seeing as I dont think he was very prominent in the public of Germany as Hitler himself was. On the other hand, I think the thinking of all the Germans during this time period may have been related but Nietzsche did not cause this. They didn't like Jews. Plain and simple.
Interesting to hear that he wrote music. I would agree that his writings share a "timbre" with music. But for me, that is one of the ways in which he opens himself up to criticism. His writings are often so emotional that I find the essence of his own ideas is warped. For example if the "recurrence of time" is a metaphor then how can it fit ontologically into a system of thought with his other ideas that presumably are not metaphorical? Or do you think it isn't a metaphor?
it is most interesting to point out that there will allways be psychologists novelists poets and musicians but they will never be all of them at once in the greatnes that was nietzsche. he was a a thinker transposed from antiquity, and thats what makes him superior
he wrote many musical pieces, but thats not what i mean. his writings have a certain timbre that has much in common with music as much as dance, and poetry. the fact is by looking deep into himself nietzsche completely purified his being from the chains of time and he became what the old philosophers once were. that is teachers, priests, medics, magicians, and psychologists
This is a good overview of Nietzsche's philosophy. I feel they ended on a interesting note due to Nietzsche's teachings being associated with totalitarianism. I do know that The Will to Power was handed out to Nazi soldiers. This was due to his sister's ties with the Nazis. Heidegger is the one to look at. Nietzsche's views on nationalism discards any affiliation with Fascism and a totalitarian regime imposing their herd ideologies on others, which hinders one's individuality.
I have finally grew up to understand the aesthetic life. Before that I was a determined compassionate Dostoyevskian. But I am beginning to see the impossibility of the existential "feeling" life. We can not seem to foresee the future. In order to embrace it. Embracing a style seem to be the only possible way. We can only be self-consistent.I am not sure if I can die for justice. The only way to justify cowardice is by style. And then it won't be called "cowardice" it will be called the Maximum.
Israe5l 1 month ago
Check out the one on Hegel and Marx it is awesome!
augerrusty 3 months ago
Great show, wonderfully informative. Thanks for posting this!
flonksies 3 months ago
The ending was the best part. 4:30 is a great message. I am glad to hear the claim that intellectuals are responsible for their message and its effects to a certain degree.
mistermoen 8 months ago
Watched the whole thing... This guy says yes too much... It's really awkward...
DrDrej23 8 months ago
I love how he keeps saying, "Yes, yes, yes." As if he was having intercourse or orgasm. Re-listen to the interview with this in mind, changes the bounds of intellectual erotica.
IrminC 9 months ago
And,
For 2.) This interviewer is a moron toward the end. The Nazi's appropriated Wanger and contaminated that genius?
Wagner felt the same as I did in the first point. Wagner knew that German culture and values and Jewish culture and values are very different.
The problem is that people use wordplay to turn innate respect for differences and preferences toward those with your values and characteristics, into hatred for others.
It is a trick and an attempt at subjugation and destruction.
Baseliner 10 months ago
@Baseliner
Geez.
Just lock yourself up in your 'compound' and leave the rest of the world alone.
VoxRexVoxVeritas 9 months ago
God damn ignorance galore.
For 1.) Most of you people become terrified at even contemplating the 'Nazi' point of view as to defending their interests and fighting for them. I know, I know, you'll cry holocaust, but remember the fact that those people were not of the same culture as German (or western) culture, and they had more than enough time to leave peacefully. They did not. They refuse to integrate with their hosts in all countries, they their hosts revolt.
Baseliner 10 months ago
Well, i don't think he was stern on Nietzsche at all.
TerrysDryVagina01 10 months ago
I don't know why my last answer to fede2 doesn't show up. Please refer to the all commentary page to see it in case you care.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
Anybody wanting to study the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche will benefit greatly from reading the works of Anthony Ludovici. He is one of those great writers which the politically correct gang have thrown down the memory hole. There is a website dedicated to his writings - anthonymludovicidotcom.
NIETZSCHEAN14 1 year ago
LooksAeterna: I think you are misreading what Nietzsche meant with his rejection of "truth" and the "logical" faculties. Nietzsche's goal was to question the accuracy of man's comprehension of concepts of truth and logic, not them in themselves (read twillight of the idols). He saw subjective truth deriving only from the instincts, and objective truth as something that cannot be affirmed positivly.
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft First of all, don't be so chicken not to address me when you formally address me. Afraid of not having the last word ?
Secondly, what you said is clearly another indication why Nietzsche is not worth listening to since he obviously didn't even comprehend the domain of logic. "Truth" IS a logical term and can in principle not have anything to do with instincts or anything outside propositional constructs.
Please don't continue to try to involve me in this pre-rational barbarity.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna Truth indeed should be understood more closely. We know that absolute truth in philosophy is all phenomenon outside the realm of experience, and practical "truth" which can only derive from experience. Man can create means of understanding truth of experience through logic and reason, but no more. There remain two things: truth of experience defectively grasped and the "thing-in-itself"; the latter "truth" being merely a false adjunct thereto. Which "truth" do you mean?
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft It isn't up to me to mean anything here.
You're the one who said "He saw subjective truth deriving only from the instincts", setting off against "objective truth", so you're the one who is responsible for clarifying this kind of garbled pseudo-profundity, all made up of appeals to popular vagueness before I engage, not me.
As for myself, I am not interested at all in further waste of time in connection with anti-rational, verbal con-artists such as Nietzsche.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna Even Carnap,Russell,Whitehead and Moore (the school from which I assume you come) allow this "pseudo-profundity" into their language (which isn't too surprising considering how basic or elementary it is).
"Anti-rational"?...hardly: acknowledging the limits of man's possible understanding is humble and honest, not anti-rational. watch?v=CzynRPP9XkY
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft "acknowledging the limits of man's possible understanding is humble and honest, not anti-rational."
Yes, that is Sokrates whom Nietzsche despised. Now leave me alone with this slavery-advocating anti-rational type. I am no interested in discussing him any more than what I already said, nor in briging you up to speed about some logical basics.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft "the school from which I assume you come"
Now to finish this off: I am also not interested in misusing this video for my own views. My critique of Nietzsche is independent of my own view, these are facts rooted in Nietzsche's own writings combined with logical basics.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
(contd) But in order to make you leave me alone, I will tell you that I am part of no "school", and such loyalties do not motivate me. I am a logician.
As regards philosophy, I think one needs (Plato's early non-speculative reports on) Sokrates, the late Wittgenstein, ironically one also needs Karl Popper and then the analytical philosophy of mind of the type of Chalmers.
Philosophy is mostly a defense operation against pseudo-intellectual bullies such as Nietzsche or some "scientists" etc.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna "Afraid?" and "Chicken" are terms used by children, not men of education. Philosophy is a high, gentlemanly discipline; lets try to keep it that way.
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft These terms are proper for your behavior. It may well be that someone whose behavior is properly described by those terms belongs - as you suggest - in the category of "children, not men of education. Philosophy is a high, gentlemanly discipline; lets try to keep it that way."
Much to your own dislike, I totally agree. =:D
A man of education wouldn't cowardly act as if he is debating while making sure the opponent doesn't hear it - except to mirror such prior behavior by the other.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna You act as if it was intentional. Interesting that you construed it in that way. What does that point to?
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
Nietzsche had some very nice things to say about the jews. He pointed out their comparitive superiority to the average Christian; he also favored the Hebrew "vindictive god" to the Christian "god of love." The Nazis loved him because he was the strong man's philosopher. One cannot condemn at least the inner vitality of the Nazis.
FaaarLeft 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft You're missing my point. It doesn't matter that he said a few things contradictory to Nazi attitudes. The fact remains that his own "philosophy" BY OVERRIDING THE SUPREMACY OF TRUTH totally destroys the power of contradicition to prove anything or to defend him, especially because his thinking is otherwise so close to ALL asshole-philosophies.
To defend him against being a "Nazi philosopher" is possible ONLY IF ONE REJECTS HIS VIEWS TO BEGIN WITH !
google principle of explosion !!!
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@FaaarLeft Now if "he said SOME brilliant things" is an argument in favor of a "philosopher", then try reading "Mein Kampf", you'll find brilliant things in there too. Many of them are very up to date, BTW. If Hitler had only identified the problem more with the Zionists bankers and not the Jews.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
Thsi discussion demonstrated clearly that Nietzsche is to be rejected fully.
All apologetics of Nietzsche against the accusation of being the Nazi philosopher are lame. Once somebody gives higher value to life power than to truth and rejects logic, ANYTHING goes, there is no way to AFTERWARDS appeal to reason and still say "welk, that's not what he meant". Nietzsche himself has rejected such appeal to reason OVER the primitive will.
Hail Schopenhauer !
Nietzsche for the birds.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna "Thsi discussion demonstrated clearly that Nietzsche is to be rejected fully"
given your compromise to logic you seem to seem to be committing a basic fallacy.
the nazi acusation is what is lame. nietzsche was 100% apolitical. besides, the book in particular that the nazis took from him was "the will to power" which was released posthumously, edited at will and partly written by his sister.
as for will vs. truth, his writting style is experimental and aphoristic.
fede2 1 year ago
@fede2 I had already addressed your fallacy several times. Please go through ALL my comments about this to part 1 and 5 before you make false assumptions.
There is no dispute that a REASONABLE person who accepts the authority of logic within the realm of speech and is adamant about banning genuine contradicitions can argue that the Nazi's usurpation of Nietzsche is wrong.
The point is that you cannot approve of Nietzsche's ideas AND dispute that. You can defend Nietzsche only non-Nietzschean.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna "I had already addressed your fallacy several times" what fallacy is that?
"There is no dispute that a REASONABLE person who accepts the authority of logic within the realm of speech and is adamant about banning genuine contradicitions can argue that the Nazi's usurpation of Nietzsche is wrong."
yeah, people who are smart and good-looking wouldn't dare touch the stuff. that's a slogan, not an argument.
nothing you say this time around adresses anything i said.
fede2 1 year ago
@fede2 "what fallacy is that?" It is the fallacy lies in this: "the nazi acusation [sic] is what is lame" I never accused Nietzsche of being a Nazi ideologist - as you would have known if you read. The point: Nietzsche's OWN ideas justify the Nazi appropriation.
"nothing you say this time around adresses anything i said"
Because what you said demonstrates you haven't either read or understood what I am saying. Get up to speed on some logical basics, above all:
Pinciple of explosion.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@LooksAeterna
"Nietzsche's OWN ideas justify the Nazi appropriation."
that's a moot point. ithe fact that nazis were influenced by nietzsche doesn't mean that his philosophy is logically conducive to naziism as a univocal conclusion. it's a non-sequitur.
either way the nazi apropraition of his philosophy is based on a deck of cards. ie: "the will to power". i'm not gonna explain this again. and yes, i 've looked at your comments, not once did you adress this.
fede2 1 year ago
@fede2 "that's a moot point. ithe fact that nazis were influenced by nietzsche doesn't mean that his philosophy is logically conducive to naziism as a univocal conclusion. it's a non-sequitur."
The fact that you say this clearly shows that you lack all logical basics for reasonable discussion. I have amply refuted this nonsense.
IF Nietzsche (or ANYONE for that matter) makes self-contradicting assertions, that UTTERLY precludes any possibility of defense against Nazi appropriation.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
@fede2 Go study "principle of explosion". Whoever forfeits the supremacy of truth and logic in factual speech has thereby justified all atrocities against humanity and life. Because the validity of such atrocities can trivially and stringently deduced logically from what he is saying.
ANYONE with the slightest logical basics knows this. ANYONE who doesn't immediatley realize this hence lacks the qualifications for reasonable discussion.
Kindly leave me alone now.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
And lest these people with a a lack of deductive capacity sont start over again: don't get so hung up about the Nazis. It is FAR WORSE: ALL of the atrocities committed by assholes stem from their following their selfish vital forces. Hence whoever preaches the supremacy of vitality OVER truth (instead of: after having been utterly purified BY truth) as Niezsche does and allows logical inconsistency is hence not only a justifier of Nazidom but of the far greater oceacn of ALL atrocities.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@fede2 "what fallacy is that?" It is the fallacy lies in this: "the nazi acusation [sic] is what is lame" I never accused Nietzsche of being a Nazi ideologist - as you would have known if you had read. The point: Nietzsche's OWN ideas justify the Nazi appropriation,
"nothing you say this time around adresses anything i said"
Because what you said demonstrates you haven't either read or understood what I am saying. Get up to speed on some logical basics, above all:
Pinciple of explosion.
LooksAeterna 1 year ago
I've always thought it odd that Nietzsche has come to be seen as a proto fascist; his project of placing the individual before all else seems fundamentally (even necessarily) anti-collectivist and, so I think, therefore anti-fascist. His work was appropriated, rather than extrapolated on or practiced by the Nazis, perhaps in the same way that Stalinism relied on Marxism only in so far as far as it used it as justification for, ironically, new modes of exploitation. Ps. amazing post Flame.
JoeHayns 1 year ago 7
Comment removed
JoeHayns 1 year ago
At the end he says, "Tank you, I enjoyed myself very much."
MrRobotoToo 1 year ago
I love this interviewer! I've seen a few of his videos now. So uncommon now to find such an intellectually engaged interviewer who also makes a conscious attempt to let the guest do most of the talking. . . Also very efficient at guiding the conversation. Anyone know the guy's name?
artistsandbox 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
At the end he said, 'I enjoyed it massively thank you very much.' Interesting stuff, love these vids!
Sezzie86 1 year ago
At the end he said, 'I enjoyed it massively thank you very much.' Interesting stuff, love these vids!
Sezzie86 1 year ago
It is astounding to me that this scholar, in citing the thinkers most influenced by Nietzsche, the Existentialists (Heidegger, Sartre, Derrida, etc) are not mentioned -or did I miss it?
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak Heidegger wasn't an existentialist, he was a phenomenologist.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie Thanks for responding to my comment! Well - you're right, of course, in that Heidegger distanced himself vehemently from the likes of Sartre and the others. This, alone, however does not take him entirely out of the camp of Existentialists. This is a discussion, which I, for one, am not eager to engage in.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak He most definitely wasn't an existentialist given his belief in 'essence' as a part of the world and universe.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie Part 1 - I would say that this is certainly debatable. But your criterion for existentialism is overly restrictive given the many varieties of it. As for your implication that "belief in 'essence' as a part of the world" disqualifies one from this philosophy, well - I don't see that this is the case at all. In Sartre, for example, nowhere does he deny "essence" as being an aspect of reality.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak But Sarte states that the individual creates his own essence, that's the fundamental difference.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie Though Heidegger would express this in a more nuanced manner, I don't think he would disagree at all with the notion that we "create" our own essence. But, again - these two philosophers use the term "essence" in a different
way - (an enormous topic). I'll have to leave it there for now - you can have the last word. Thanks!
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak I think he most definitely would, considering he believed there was an essence that had to be discovered.
Fair enough; it's a pleasure.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
@djsmurfie Part 2 - On the contrary - it has quite respectable epistemological credentials. He merely asserts that "essence" PRECEDES "existence". Anyway, we need to understand these terms as they are used within the context of a given thinkers philosophical posture.
lourak 1 year ago
@lourak Quite.
djsmurfie 1 year ago
J.P. Stern, George Bush if he were intimately familiar with Nietzsche.
xchn1 1 year ago
wtf thoes he says in the end?
eldiagrama 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bryan Magee is wonderful, I agree. What I especially like about him is the fact that the philosophical problems he has engaged himself with are deeply felt by him - they are real personal problems and not just the cold, unfeeling abstract puzzles that so many of those who philosophize perplex themselves with. His book 'Confessions of a Philosopher' is as intimate a work of philosophy/intense seeking as your likely to find. Rock on good sir - may the scales weigh in your favour :)
TheDarren123456789 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheDarren123456789 1 year ago
Argueing about these small things is all what philosophy is about, detecting details and thinking of them, why was it said, how did it happend eg. Brian Mrgee have touched my mind with all these interviews on famous or not so philosophers and great thinkers.
youtease0 2 years ago
If life can only be justified as an aesthetic phenomenon where did they get the sofa and wallpaper?
Davidbolton100 2 years ago 35
@Davidbolton100 well presumably they got them in the process of a striving for aesthetic experience, i assume that whoever made and bought each of those items felt that they were aesthetically pleasing.
nspeert 1 year ago
@Davidbolton100 I'm righting a paper on aesthetic judgment. I'm arguing that some music is better than other music. In other words musical value is not completely subjective. I'm asking everyone now; Could I use Nietszche as a source to explaine that aesthetics are not just completely relative?
TheDavid2222 9 months ago
@TheDavid2222 dunno; I'd rather go in to a discussion about the dualism/dichotomy of subjective vs. objective - that all dualism are indeed dependent on each other in order to have any meaning, and that you therefore cannot/must not end up with only one extreme, because this would be a violence to the other. But language can be said to be based on dualism, so you shouldn't stick with the illusion that we can free ourselves of division through language.
Jeez, well, check out some Derrida.
FredeGF 6 months ago
@FredeGF Pretty much my entire understanding of the subjective vs. the objective comes from Martin Heidegger. I didn't really go with that approach in the paper though. I've never studied Derrida before.
TheDavid2222 6 months ago
@Davidbolton100 LOL!!
meanmrmustard89 8 months ago
@Davidbolton100 It is aesthetically pleasing from afar, for they blend together and it looks as if they are sitting on air! Quite aesthetic indeed if I may say so!
Theaszmanreturns 5 months ago
what did he say in the last moment after he had thanked him? It sounded like, "no no no, thank youuuuu, i'm going to kick your, um no no no, and frankly also very much."
stimsWonderland 2 years ago 5
damn... at the last possible moment he just nerded up
rajasmasala 2 years ago
He says: "thank you, I enjoyed myself very much".
tvstrah 2 years ago
oh good i finally got what he said after taking great pains to turn up the volume and rewinding it over and over, turned out to be rather appropriate what he said, thanks
stimsWonderland 2 years ago
He awkwardly mumbled, "Thank you! I enjoyed myself very much"
t0kt0k 2 years ago
i've always wondered why at the very end of long interviews the moment of farewell seems extremely forced either with time limitation, some form of flattery taken as sarcasm, not enough flattery to pass around when there are more than 1 influential interviewee, the list goes on
stimsWonderland 2 years ago
Maybe it's a psychological conflict between the desire to keep talking vs. the recognition that the host is trying to wrap it up. "Am I allowed to say more? Should I be quiet? I have to say something! Are the cameras even rolling anymore?"
t0kt0k 2 years ago
Comment removed
comanderfrowny 2 years ago
@stimsWonderland, you probably dont like those kind of goodbyes because you have formed a weird man love for the nice men on the tely...
comanderfrowny 2 years ago
I don't want to know about your weird man love stories.
stimsWonderland 2 years ago
lol so true t0kt0k
BetterThanToast 2 years ago
yes. you heard correctly.
terrapin52 2 years ago
@stimsWonderland It doesnt sound like that at all.
alritehaveit 1 year ago
belief is just people hiding behind truth in ascertainment for words to find in high honor. Their justification of death! If it is seen the mind is triggered by these justifications in a thought. Thought is words hiding behind the bodies feelings. The question since there are no answers is, "What is the trigger?" Not in any other way is thought capeable is as to motion itself past the body into what is capeable. That is what the body inhabits in all matters that are its own. I call it the "i"
in2dionysus 3 years ago
Nietzsche certainly condemned German nationalism as a stupidity, and in other areas called the Jews one of the noblest races in Europe.
I suppose Nazism is what you get when idiots read (or rather skim) Nietzsche, and don't get it.
needstoregister 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Bullshit. Thats such a stupid, self rationalizing statement. Nietzsche did have something to do with the Nazis. Think about it dumbass. Nietzsche believed that only noble humans should survive, a certain breed or race of humans.
alritehaveit 3 years ago
Not a breed of people, a type of person. Race doesn't come into it. And if you get this angry about a comment I hate to think how badly you deal with problems in your life.
TomasuRikabe3 2 years ago 3
Ya I'd prolly kick ur ass.
alritehaveit 2 years ago
I don't think that Nazism came about as result of people misreading Nietzsche. I would say that Nazism came about as a result of the economic insanity of post world war I Germany, but I don't know because I am not an expert on Nazism or the development of Nazism.
egginajar 2 years ago
Well, in fact, Nazism is in fact a misunderstanding of Nietzsche philosophy. Part of it, it was his sister's fault as she promoted the Nazi agenda, and began to use Nietzsche philosophy completely wrong. Of course, you are part right when you say Nazism is as well a result of an economic problem.
FreeThought10 2 years ago
HAHA. I doubt Nietzsche's sister brought on the extermination of the jews. The comment above I believe is much more correct. War torn Germany went ape shit. I think Nietzsche had very little to do with it seeing as I dont think he was very prominent in the public of Germany as Hitler himself was. On the other hand, I think the thinking of all the Germans during this time period may have been related but Nietzsche did not cause this. They didn't like Jews. Plain and simple.
alritehaveit 2 years ago
dont talk
fivefootnothing1 2 years ago
Thank you for calling out my ignorance on this subject.
alritehaveit 2 years ago
@fivefootnothing1 Dont live.
alritehaveit 1 year ago
my my
fivefootnothing1 2 years ago
I also agree with magee when he says nietzsche's 'prose was second to none.'
iggypot 3 years ago 2
interesting that they touch on the subject of nazi "gangsters" lol :p
LoveShallThee 3 years ago
Interesting to hear that he wrote music. I would agree that his writings share a "timbre" with music. But for me, that is one of the ways in which he opens himself up to criticism. His writings are often so emotional that I find the essence of his own ideas is warped. For example if the "recurrence of time" is a metaphor then how can it fit ontologically into a system of thought with his other ideas that presumably are not metaphorical? Or do you think it isn't a metaphor?
crickla 3 years ago
it is most interesting to point out that there will allways be psychologists novelists poets and musicians but they will never be all of them at once in the greatnes that was nietzsche. he was a a thinker transposed from antiquity, and thats what makes him superior
bobilla 3 years ago 2
Musicians? What instruments did Nietzche play?
crickla 3 years ago
he wrote many musical pieces, but thats not what i mean. his writings have a certain timbre that has much in common with music as much as dance, and poetry. the fact is by looking deep into himself nietzsche completely purified his being from the chains of time and he became what the old philosophers once were. that is teachers, priests, medics, magicians, and psychologists
bobilla 3 years ago
He used to improvise on the piano, I know that much. He would play at Wagner's home.
walkies777 2 years ago
I agree. This was great. I like that quote about the serpents in the shadow. I never heard it before.
alritehaveit 3 years ago
Nietzsche despised the Germans. I guess the Nazis missed those aphorisms.
NecroSexy 3 years ago
This is a good overview of Nietzsche's philosophy. I feel they ended on a interesting note due to Nietzsche's teachings being associated with totalitarianism. I do know that The Will to Power was handed out to Nazi soldiers. This was due to his sister's ties with the Nazis. Heidegger is the one to look at. Nietzsche's views on nationalism discards any affiliation with Fascism and a totalitarian regime imposing their herd ideologies on others, which hinders one's individuality.
Sgirardacus 3 years ago
thank you
Ginavaclose 3 years ago
That's was great. Thank You.
williamhudson1 3 years ago 8
thanks for posting this, I enjoyed it.
Agnotio 3 years ago 5
It works now. Brilliant.
Wittgensteinsocrates 3 years ago 2
Hmm, seems fine to me.
flame0430 3 years ago
Does this last section work for you? For me it does not. Dammit.
Wittgensteinsocrates 3 years ago
John Commons?! (^o^)LoL!
demonfelix 3 years ago