J.P. Stern on Nietzsche: Section 2

[ieatwiteoutforfun]

FUCK YES I LOVE JUSTIN BEIBER

[bsmetal]

enough with the comments, just watch and learn.

[DerfRellim11]

haha i'm more than half in the bag right now, BUT i think you can appreciate how funny it is to listen to the gentleman on the left murmurrning "mmhmm mmhmm yes yes yes yes yeah uh huh uh huh yes yes mhmm mhmm exactly" while the other man speaks.. i'm almost certain i could not keep a straight face or refrain from asking him to stop concurring with every word i speak while i'm speaking them. maybe thats just how old brittish gents talk. great vids anyway!!!

[LewPez]

when was this broadcast?

[bsmetal]

@LewPez 1987 see The Great Philosophers TV series for more details

[NIETZSCHEAN14]

History shows that fascist values create strong nations - not Communist/Marxist/Liberal/Poli­tically Correct values. These values are the real destroyers of strong nations and society. Fascism will return, because it is the only ideology that can heal the sick nations. When the people have had enough of all the anti-fascist garbage, they will return to fascism.

[jacobob321]

@NIETZSCHEAN14 This coming from someone who probably would be one of the first to be shot by the thought police. Just like Marx wouldn't have lasted long in so called 'Commie' Russia, during the height of Stalinism, Nietzsche, being a atheist and a free-thinker, wouldn't have lasted long in a fascist country. Only those who hate liberty and wish to be intellectual slaves embrace the 'master morality'.

[NIETZSCHEAN14]

@jacobob321. Garbage.

[TheDavid2222]

@jacobob321 let us not align fascism with "master morality". The rulers of these fascist nations have never been the masters that Nietszche refers to. They have been petty idealistic scum who simply take comfort in their own superiority complexes. That doesn't sound like "master morality" to me. Plato described master morality well in The Republic when he suggested and educated elite should rule a nation and not the masses.

[IrminC]

@TheDavid2222 Of course you can attribute Fascist leaders to Nietzsche. He appraised Fascist leaders before Fascism manifested in Italy.

[IrminC]

@jacobob321 The Fascists did not wipe out "counter revolutionaries" as the Commies did. You're just grossly generalizing.

[IrminC]

In fact the most verbal opponents of Nazism were religious leaders. And they were not censored nor shot.

[TheDavid2222]

@IrminC There were lots of religious leaders who joined the Nazis, and don't you dare froget it!

[IrminC]

@TheDavid2222 Just like there were a lot of Zionist organizations who did as well. As well as Muslim. As well as Asiatic and North African. As well as British and American, hell even Soviet! So what?

The topic was dissent within Nazi Germany. Which was quite different than the Soviet Union and you exaggerated their methods of censorship and domestic suppression.

[Carbolicsmokeball26]

I wish shows like this were still on... Nowadays all we seem to see are reality shows about the sheer sludge of humanity....

[ToxicRemedyBinge]

@JCali01 How can there be no truth?, and yet no falsehood? In terms of philosophy(being) there is no truth to our world. Your idea is to have a limited conscience for truth to satisfy the ego's endless barrage of questioning, however that is not an appropriate conclusive point in this argument, since you failed to specify which truth your dealing with, basically, your shaping the idea to your opinion, instead of reasoning your opinion to fit with the idea. Absolute certainty*. There is none

[ToxicRemedyBinge]

@JCali01 The world as Will and Representation was not a monistic doctrine, He was an Epistemological idealist/ pluralist/Nihilist .Actually, he was neither pluralist nor monist he was Nihil, he couldnt be certain. I did not claim there is a certainty, but iam certain that some ideas are superior to finding certainty than others.

[ToxicRemedyBinge]

@JCali01 Monism is understood by causality, and causality is a lie because the variables are hidden and there too many, considering them in a short period, would take a lifetime, since we have a limited span, and philosophy only applies to living interpreters,it is irrational. You can say there is a cause, but, never "why" in the true sense. A unity(monism), Implies parts coming together,but the parts are incomprehensible, so monism is a lie.

[ToxicRemedyBinge]

@ToxicRemedyBinge as we change, we relate to our ideas differently, so there is never a truth... a One

[ToxicRemedyBinge]

@JCali01 NEWB!!! Nietzsche said, we are always thinking for ourself because we are individuals who relate to concepts in our own way, since they are representations of ourselves, the herd does not exist, because there is no "monistic" world view that ANYONE can share, NIHIL, NILCH, NOTHING. You lack the quality to be into philosophy, go ponder some charlatans self help book, Moron.

[johnsammyanfal]

Nietzsche had a profound insight into Darwinism and correctly identified its resemblance to mid-Victorian parsimony. A theory predicated on the 'survival of the fittest', assumes all the fittest want to do is survive. It devalues the heroic and sacrificial which for Nietzsche is the highest human expression of value - one reason he admired Christ but despised Christianity, its cringing offshoot.

[1982CFD]

The interpretation of Nietzsche that I get from most interested Youtube users seems to be a lot closer to my own interpretation than any of the lecturers/interpreters I've come across in the videos about him.

[iareace]

around the 7:00 mark, makes a statement" and all the other things which later come on, that come under the heading of ____________________ , in the human sphere i mean. "i'm assuming it's some sort or latin or greek.. anyone know what he stated? all help is appreciated thx in advance :)

[buten3]

@iareace Élan vital, coined by French philosopher Henri Bergson in his 1907 book Creative Evolution, was translated in the English edition as "vital impetus", but is usually translated by his detractors as "vital force". It is a hypothetical explanation for evolution and development of organisms, which Bergson linked closely with consciousness.

[iareace]

@buten3 thanks for that. much appreciated

[TheFriedLiverAttack]

i want too sing like nightingale

[justaride0]

near the end there talking about the great man and the first person jp mentions sounds like gerta, but i cant find anything on him...does any one know who he is talking about? thanks if you can help.

[carterrbrown]

Goethe

[ringawing]

one solution to rewriting my values: 'be yourself' - how can I be sure that my self isnt formed by the very moral structure that he dismantles?

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Well, like Nietzsche said, trying to change oneself completly is folly! if a father liked wine and women how can is son be a priest? Good enough that he only stays with one or two women and drink a little.

[ringawing]

ok, so maybe not rewriting my entire self. that would just be fake and forced and inauthentic. but still, his ideal is different than most I think...much different than Plato's repub. for instance...dunno how the two can be confused really...but anywise, I think the overman is Possible. in some ways, i think Kevin spacey embodies it in the film American Beauty. many other instances one can look at. anway, i think his ideal is reachable. from what ive read anyway

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

American beauty!? basically what you want is a fun life...But Nietzsche thinks of the future, each generation should work to optimise the next, not just think of itself, you should be happy if it helps you live a more usefull life, but throwing away your job and smoking pot to do an underage shool girl!? No...

[ringawing]

interesting. I always thought of the ubermensch as one who surges up, overcomes his suppressive social sphere, does the things that HE wants to do...having fun, as you say. I never understood him to be acting for the sake of others, or for the sake of utility, which is an ambiguous term. useful for society? useful for my own fulfillment? if he WANTS to smoke pot and fantasize about doing a school girl, (who's underage by definition btw), then so be it! don't submit to social norms

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Social norms? the norms right now is what you describe. the fact is, I said for the futur not society. Society is always there for the present, never the futur, it always pose itself as the apotheosis of development. What i say is that an existance spent only fulfiling puny desires then it is superficial and hollow. Read Zarathoustra, the "chair of virtu" the sage who knows how to sleep well. "If life had no meaning, i would surely choose that kind of nonsense" Thus spake Zarathoustra.

[ringawing]

ive misunderstood him

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

That is actualy what he was aiming for...And you don't have to subscribe to me, i never upload anything...

The only thing you would see is what video I look at, which would make Nietzsche say: This is my way, where is yours?because the way, that does not exist!-Thus spoke Zarathustra

Basicaly, don't care too much about me, i was right, but think of yourself. I did say that if being happy help one be usefull then it is good, but some discipline in the means is a must.

[ringawing]

thats a good point you (well really FN) make. when one starts worrying about what others are doing, thinking, etc., he is robbed of his life. the lambs, worried about the birds of prey above. rousseau's natural man, kierkegaard's religious man, they live in themselves (kierk's lives with god) .. radical individualism. we ensnare ourselves by considering our relationships with others and the world from a third party perspective.... embrace ones own creativity! be free! is it that easy?

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

The thing is, for most, it is not about freedom but the eventual freedom they could permit their decendant through effort in the present...

There is no God, thus no justice. Some are better, some are inferior, some have the potential to create better and some should simply cease to be...

Basically, this is hard stuff and you should either grow some more hair or not think about it.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

A couple lapsuce* in there, but the point is, you should find meaning for your exitence, or what is the point of living? are you saying that if there is no afterlife that the only life you want is a useless, then forgotten life? Nietzsche proned "little Imortallity".

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

his*

The point being, change happens in two or three generation, so you have to make some effort towards a goal, but it is an ideal, the point of having one is to know where to go not how ,if ever , get there.

[awf2194]

This is a fascinating discussion. I really enjoyed watching it. I'm angry with Youtube because I accidentally tapped my touchpad mouse and give it a 1 star rating! Why isn't there a way to revise your rating???

[racoofield]

I think Nietzsche was just playing as a provocateur when he said that we should not care about the weak .. he was showing his digust against the christian kitsch about loving each other by going extremely to the opposite stand

[Rico8458]

you see chaos versus supreme order in the universe? chance or created? lol.

[Rico8458]

nietzsche saw the abyss and this woke him up big time. lol

[Rico8458]

To thy own self be true is also socretes?

[soursourapples]

@Rico8458 shakespeare

[abaskcasckbackj]

Yes. They have that in common, somewhat. Also, Nietzsche agreed with Plato that no one ever goes out and does the wrong thing for the sake of it being wrong. Not much else in common

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Nietzsche despise remorse, because you can't blame beings for their nature.

[Rico8458]

how does he see the allegory of the cave in plato? lol

[AlsatianCousin]

Nietzsche was a neutralist in terms of moral. Or he at least tried to be, and suggested it is the true sense of man.

[abaskcasckbackj]

Not neutral at all. Anti-Moralist in the sense that genuine morality comes from whithin, not the objective definition that religion teaches.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Indeed, beyond good and evil is anything but neutral, "They place their chair between the dying gladiator and the lustful big, but that is mediocrity.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Beyond good and evil is anything but neutral, "They place their chair between the dying gladiator and the lustful big, but that is mediocrity.

[tristramshandy3]

To thine own self be true- from Shakespeare's Hamlet.

[sedicenobufalo]

I think he was pro war. Have you read Zarathustra? It's about power. I think he was a little infatuated with the idea of war and violence. Well, that's just my take after reading Nietzsche every day for years.

[soursourapples]

@sedicenobufalo

i dont know why you have so many thumbs down. but my thought is that in zarathustra he shows more of an apathy towards war, that he may disagree with it personaly but doesn't put the same moral valuation that others might do

[Xenostrobe]

A framework, a logos - eco-logos, Gaia (oh no, new age waffle) The Inivisible Hand of the market has life in it yet, as discussed by Bill Moyers and Daniel Goleman on youtube.

[chrispollock]

uh no its all about people and relationships. not invisible hands and such nonsense

[Babalaya]

Nietzsche´s romantic psychophilosophy is impractical for a society a whole.

We should strive to create the best possible conditions for each one of us and to converge gradually into an altruistic supermodern society. In this way we can benefit greatly as a whole. UNITY means POWER !!!

Nietzsche was a frustrated and depressed though very intelligent loner and this fact inluenced his overall interpretation of reality in a rather weird way. Few of his ideas are pretty cool though.

[franzpolak]

of course nietzsche's ideas are impractical for society - he was fundamentally anti-herd and anti-society. he was concerned with the individual - have you even watched the videos?

[Babalaya]

of course i watched the vids...

i read almost all of his works too !!!

What on earth could lead you to suspect me I did not?

[franzpolak]

your comment suggests that he was concerned with practical morals, or moral generalizations - nietzsche is thoroughly against commonality and pragmaticism when it comes to ethics - this is evident in his criticism of utilitarianism. your comment is a non-sequitur.

[Babalaya]

Oh well, i can see it now !

Your slapdash reading makes one´s comments look as ´it-does-not-follow´.

You thought that my first comment on Nietzsche summarizes his philosophy from my point of view.

WRONG!

It is just ´my´ opinion that contradicts nietzsche´s.

Of course he wasn´t concerned with practical morals as that undermines his philosophy completely. Listen, nazism is possibly the best example of Nie´s views put into practice. Slaughtering milions and thinking it ´virtue´ ?

[franzpolak]

on what do you base the assertion that nietzsche would praise nazism?

nietzsche was against collectivism, national pride and cult-like following - three things that nazism serves as an example of.

nietzsche harshly commented on german values and culture - he would never endorse murdering cults like fascist ideologies.

this is addressed in the 5th part of this series. you would have known that if you had watched this series till the end.

[Babalaya]

I base it on my personal interpretation that differs from Stern´s, yours or Nazis´. His philosophy offers too much readings and I found it contradictory and confused. He was trying to get at something by going against everything that had been held untill his time, but he could not set any definite conclusions and ran into dead end. He views are too abstruse,elitist, egotistic and as such in no way practical for altruistic society which I believe to be the only viable and fair model.

[franzpolak]

as i've said before, your criticism is unjustified and is technically a non-sequitur because nietzsche did not wish to create an altruistic society - you are applying his conclusions to something that his conclusions are not formulated for.

nietzsche was a firm critic of altruism and utilitarianism, something you seem to propagate.

i think you haven't read him properly.

[franzpolak]

so, you admit you've made a non-sequitur and a strawman fallacy?

the fact of the matter is that you've applied nietzsche's philosophy on your own preconcieved ideas (what his philosophy was not meant for) and then concluded that nietzsche was wrong.

[Babalaya]

As You Like It...

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

I understand what you mean, Nietzsche did not have the time to finish his work(illness, madness, etc.) and he was against system, thus no patern...

Well my hypothesis is that he knew the task was to much for a single men, thus he wrote in an "open" manner to allow for interpretation and development. Like he said about the greeks : The only thing of value in an old and obsolete philosophie is the psychology of the author. Thus the basic principle of his philosophy is the only thing to focus on.

[tristramshandy3]

Best Shakespeare play ever!!!

[abaskcasckbackj]

Right on. Nice to see someone who understands.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Indeed...a rare sight.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

You are right and wrong about the nazies...

Hitler was a nationalist antisimite whose intellectual, physical and psychological atribute atribute him the qualification of poor excuses for a human being. He killed jews.

Nietzsche was a realiste genius who understood that for the best interrest of mankind some sacrifice where required,exemple:allowing the retarded and physicaly handicap to end a life of suffering and misery.

Like he said: When a noble men feel's pity, then it has value.

[MurderSoul216]

Hitler was an Ubermensch.

[abaskcasckbackj]

Nazis would be considerd slaves to Nietzsche. Their obsession with the occult and race had nothing to do with Nietzsche.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

franz, It truly disgust me when an idiot soils the name of Nietzsche, interpret what he(babalaya) says properly and then come up with good argument. When people say Nietzsche was pro war they do not understand the kind of war he was refering to, witch is debate! verbal warfare, thus you are against everything Nietzschian(manliness, honor, strengh in defeat and victory(peace)as a mean to new war(self doub, or "revenge")) when you try to prove him right by using dialectic...

[abaskcasckbackj]

Nietzche was ok with war for the right reasons. Napoleon, The Vikings, etc, were masters to him, and we know what he thought of the Masters throughout history. He also wished for half the human race to die off.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

In my estimation, it would be 98.2 percent of the population, anyone under "brilliant". If you read Zarathustra, the part about Gods fleeing each other only to find each other again, its the vision of a world filled with genius...

[abaskcasckbackj]

There I would have to disagree. Without the slaves there would be no one for the masters to rules over. There are certainly usefulambitious slaves, and Ive never read anywhere where brilliance as in IQ was worth much to Nietzsche. Master/Slave distinction was about psychological strength (courage, eg)

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

I don't remember if it was in beyond good and evil or the genealogy, but he separated human kind in 3 types:type one does who's spirit(read intellect) dominate, they are the elite. Then type 2, the warrior type, the right arm of the type 1 those you perform the task which are below the type 1. Finally the type 3, the slave type.

And, with today's technology, both type 2 and 3 can be replace, and it is not about ruling...

Ruling isn't by choice, the best have too, but they could live better...

[abaskcasckbackj]

Sounds like your mixing in Plato with Nietzsche. Nietzsche: There are Slaves and Masters. Under the category of slave, you have free spirits. The intellectuals would be under the slave category. I believe the free spirit is one who is a slave genetically (most today would be a mix of slave with some master), but who accepts Nietzsche's teachings in terms of full acceptance of oneself. The spitited (warrior) is a Master, or one who is predominately master.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Free spirit under slave? Nietzsche himself was a free spirit! he claimed this himself, are you saying he is a slave? the warrior is the king, he rules, but the free spirit is the God who tells him how he should rule and for what purpose. The warrior impose, but only a genius can determine a goal for mankind, like the Übermensch or Paradise, because even with all his strengh the warrior can't determine the repercussion of his actions.

[abaskcasckbackj]

Yes Nietzsche was a free spirit. A free spirit was a slave who accepted his destiny as a slave, and is able to be trully comfortable in his own skin. In other words, he is not a mere herd animal, who sees himself through the eyes of false self-love (vanity). No one tells the warrior how to rule. Remember, whithin the category of slave, there are many degrees and types. The Overman (nietzsche) is the highest slave who is able to see the entire picture of humanity, and CREATE the philosophy

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Of course we tell the warrior how to rule, he is simply imposing, thus people obey. The philosopher is the one who gives a goal, because the warrior would simply say:amuse me! or give me your women! but that is not in the best interrest of anyone but him, it is hollow. Thus the philosopher brings in the Gods/uber and the divine laws/philosophy and purpose. Then the warrior enforce these laws, think of them as police. in fact, the warrior's are the police now...

[abaskcasckbackj]

Once again, youre confusing Plato's Republic with Nietzsche. When Nietzsche talks about the nobility, that has nothing to do with Philosophy, or IQ. Those who need to rule are the Master Nobilities, as opposed to the decadent aristocracies that came to power. Philosophy has NOTHING to do with nobility. The noble were of a superior Mindset, not Intellect.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Psychological development is affcted by the intelluactual capacities, the more understanding one has the more complex he becomes, thus mindset and intellect are also linked, like strenght also affect's the mindset. But Nietzsche was both strong and intellectual, since there is no God, there is no equality/regulation, thus everything is possible.

[abaskcasckbackj]

The first 2 sentences would only apply to the slave, if anyone. Ill say it one more time: THE MASTERS were generally intellectually DUMB. I appreciate you being into Nietzsche, but take it from someone who has an MA in the subject.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

What you don't understand is that there are three types of individuals: Gods, Masters and Slaves. The masters aren't the apotheosis, because they don't give goals but impose them.

And you probably know, with your MA, what Nietzsche views on the sub-conscious are? Even master don't chose who they are. Psychology isn't a question of strenght, but nature. You are who you are.

The fact is, to understand Nietzsche it takes more then reading him, a little knowledge of psychology would help you...

[abaskcasckbackj]

Gods? Show me where in the texts does it say this? Your making no sense. In terms of his determinism? I never argued that. His psychology of the subconsience? What does that have to do with what were talking about ? I think youre extremely confused.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

Gods was a metaphor, you should know those after reading Nietzsche...

And I am again disapointed by the educationnal system, if that is the extend an MA postulant has to think he know's about Nietzsche...

[abaskcasckbackj]

Again, you fail! Metaphor for what? Instead of using vague language, say something of substance. By the way, I was taught Nietzsche by a Pit professor, and one from the University of Sornonne, elite Philosophical institutions. First you confuse Plato with Nietzsche, and then you say basically NOTHING. Its obvious you are not a philosopher.

[AbsentiaeAddoAccendo]

When you wrote that the first two sentence I wrote only applied to slaves, you understated that masters can control their psychological development, thus my comment on the subconscious. The substance is there, a lack of understanding can easily be confused with a lack of existence.

[BrandenburgConcerti]

So true about fascism - Alfred Rosenberg's Mythus is just another reproduction of Nietzsche's writings, and it was his desire to "re-mystify the mythless world". He even copied Nietzsche's view on the progression of Greek values - amazing how one man could have so great of an impact on fascism / National Socialism.

[philonaut]

be thou thyself.

[shakeyourdimsims]

huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh­hhhh

[syedasifalieseven]

Thanks for sharing the video, props to flame0430, its helped me alot

[shakeyourdimsims]

cosign. props to flame0430

[honda1386]

I thought Nietzsche got the will to power from Schopenhauer's will, who got his foundations for will from Kant.

It was Schopenhauer's aesthetic reading of Kant that led to Nietzsche's thinking.

Sound convincing?

[iaeruo]

i've heard something like that before as well, although i heard at a certain point Nietzsche broke with Schopenhauer's philosophy

[TomasuRikabe3]

Schopenhauer advocated a will-to-life which unconsiously shapes human life, whereas Nietzsche advocated a will-to-power instead.

[begily]

I think Nietzsche disagreed with schopenhaur's pessimistic conclusion.

[Valerian1]

Yes. He felt Schopenhauer's philosophy failed to recognize the subjective nature of value judgements. He considered pessimism a symptom of weakness, decadence, degeneration, decline. He tried to distinguish himself as the philosopher who says YES to life, and even to the worst life has to offer, since, he felt, the strong man turns things to his advantage, becoming a heroic "redeemer of accidents". He saw this as subjective, and attributed it to his own vital constitution.

[abaskcasckbackj]

Nietzsche to Schopenhauer: Why would I have the will to live if Im already alive??

[Staticnz]

Also to note that Nietzsche was staunchly anti-nationalist, was against overbearing government (ala Fascism), and was himself a sick and physically 'weak' person. His strength is predominately located in the mind, not the matter.

[pricelesspam]

Look what happened to his mind.He hated the state of dependency because he despised his own weakness,thus condeming it in general,because of the inability to accept his own fragility,because of the hate of his own state.His dependent nature had only caused him greive because of the traumatization he occured in it.The lose of his father basicly destroyed his ability to find happiness.

[alritehaveit]

Yes but what was his weakness? His weakness was his unwillingness to accept his own self destruction. What else?

[pricelesspam]

Correct,his unwillingness to accept unchaingable truth.

[begily]

it is more of a weakness to accept your own self-destruction, and it is a sign of one's stength to resist it and attempt to overcome it.

[ultrak0w]

the loss of his father ? whats up the freudian bs your reading into to this.

[sadmaniskillingyou]

"Look what happened to his mind."

that was syphilis, not philosophy

[pricelesspam]

They have never proven what caused him to snap.

[sadmaniskillingyou]

the external world of things, facts, causality, laws and proofs is an illusion created in the human mind

[pricelesspam]

Obviously you will beleive what you like it looks like no matter the truth it seems.

[fauyd]

Nietzsche was incredibly productive leading up to his collapse though, so it could have been a combination of syphilis making him crazy and a breaking point. Didn't he see a man beating a horse in the streets and that was what caused him to finally snap, beyond repair?

[rockman22]

Buttercup!!!!!

[anogara]

It's funny that your critique to Nietzsche corresponds to the same methodology that Nietzsche used to employ to explain the particularities of some philosopher's theories: by that I mean a psychologic reductionism. Nevertheless, if something could be said about Nietzsche's thought, beyond all doubt, is that it is all but dependent, in the sense of sharing the common sense ideas of his time. How could a man that was so dependant be so distant of the moral values of his time?Try to think seriously

[Staticnz]

What I'm usually struck by in interpretations of Nietzsche is that they almost never address Nietzsche's particular bond with artistic ideals. I think that's why a lot of what N. says seems more controversial, somehow fascist and cruel than how he meant it, which was more as an encouragement towards a 'lifting' of thought to a level at which life around can truly be appreciated. I usually saw his 'will to power' as simply a will to greater thoughtfulness about existing.

[LoveShallThee]

very interesting! very good video...thanks for sharing.

[sosiopat]

'we would rather will nothingness, than not will'

That's the whole point. I recently read all of his books and he is indeed very critical of Darwinism. And the will to power is something he actually uses to explain phenomena that can't be explained by the instinct to survive, such as self-destructivity, revenge, ressentiment, asceticism and art -- all of which get in the way of surviving and procreating.

But of course, you're right. They're not *necessarily* or *always* in contradiction.

[fourorthree]

great colors!

[bahramf]

ANTI-DARWINIAN, what are you talking about!

[sosiopat]

I think it refers to the fact that Nietzsche viewed "will to power" as a stronger instinct than "will to survival" -- sometimes as even opposing the will to survival. This doesn't mean he doubted that we are descended from apes.

[alritehaveit]

No, evolution is a theory based on our origin, and it follows from secularism. Nietzsche didn't like secular morality because it has to do with the democratic herd. There you go.

[fourorthree]

to summarize: Darwin sets the evolution through struggle, survival, being fit...

"being fit for what?"

this is still a slave morality.

"I am not supposed to be fit for this or that, I live as I please"

Nietzschean understanding of evolution is through creativity, will to difference, interest...

If this is too fast an explanation you can read some Nietzsche but he wouldn't tell this to you directly, that's the trick, anyway.

you could consult Bergson, he's cleaner, he doesn't "bleed".

[drinsanity13]

There were a number of problems Nietzsche had with Darwin - he was "too English." First was the emphasis on the will to survive rather than the emphasis on the will to power or organisms asserting themselves in their environment. Second, was Darwin's conclusions that the many, mediocore, and normal types fluorish while the rare and beautiful types fall. Nietzsche believes that accepting a theory such as this puts up illusionary barriers as to the potential of human nature.

[abaskcasckbackj]

Nietzsche's big problem with Darwin: The strong dont survive the weak.

[Wittgensteinsocrates]

I found it. My mistake. Thank you for posting this brilliant discussion. Nietzsche is the king of the history of Western philosophy, a real Superman.

[SonoPortoricano]

Add to all that his insanity..

[Wittgensteinsocrates]

Where is the first section of this discussion?

[chambly111]

Again, thanks for posting. This seems like good introduction to Nietszche.

[dbersch]

This is a terrible introduction to Nietzsche. I would recommend What Nietzsche Really Said by Robert C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins, Nietzsche on Morality by Brian Leiter, and An Introduction to Nietzsche as Political Thinker by Keith Ansell-Pearson. Of course, actually reading Nietzsche would be better than this dribble.

[chambly111]

Ahah, I actually have done too little reading of Nietzsche to call myself an expert of this philosopher.

I'll take your comment into account, for sure.

I do know one must be warned that it's easy to misunderstand Nietzsche.

[alritehaveit]

Who says it is supposed to be an introduction you moron? If you have read his material, you should appreciate this video. JP stern obviously knows his shit. This is a video, a conversation, not a paraphrasing you dick head.

[drinsanity13]

This isn't that great of material. You are much better off reading him on your own and thus discovering him on your own as well.