to me nietzsche is not really a philosopher. he despises the whole idea of systems of philosophy, and wasn't even bothered to understand concepts like natural selection. to me he's just a literary figure. not interesting.
@gorgolyt A. Sounds like an ad hominem attack regarding evolution, B. he dislikes certain schools of philosophy, C. doesn't matter if he isn't interesting (and that he certainly is, assuming you have a normal psychology; a revisionist who sought to revise the accepted philosophies of morality that have permeated all strata, even the philosophical circles in the last 2 millenia, who became a reluctant figurehead for Nazism, and ended his life in insanity,...sounds *quite* interesting),
@STorpedo yes, and somebody who tries to come up with a human philosophy but outright rejects evolution because they don't understand it is obviously going to fail at their objective.
when i say he is not interesting, it is in a philosophical sense. philosophy should be lucid and rigorous. nietzsche certainly wasn't and didn't aspire to be, so i classify him as a literary figure.
@gorgolyt You really do not understand what I mean when I say 'ad hominem fallacy', do you? Who cares if he rejects evolution? What does it matter to the validity of his claims? Could he not, by sheer coincidence, come up with propositions that implicitly affirm evolution (if, indeed, evolution is so crucial to a 'human philosophy' [whatever that means]; a questionable notion unto itself)? Of course he can.
@STorpedo if he 'came up with propositions that implicitly affirm evolution' then he wasn't even capable of intellectual consistency. that hardly works in his favour.
if you'd like to show me a good philosophical statement from nietzsche then go ahead and change my mind. i can only judge him on what i've heard and so far i have heard nothing of philosophical worth.
@STorpedo i know what an ad hominem is. asking you to provide evidence that he provided something of philosophical worth is not an ad hominem, it's the exact opposite. i see you're clearly extremely butthurt such a request and have now simply retorted to childish insults; whenever you'd actually like to have a rational conversation worthy of an intelligent human or a competent philosopher, write me back.
@gorgolyt P.S. I do not hold a point of view on Nietzche's writings; you are the one who needs to list the popular works of Nietzche, and disprove their worth. The burden of proof is on you, and any educated scientist will confirm this, and absolve me of a need to prove a position I do not hold. I await your criticism of Nietzche's work, not Nietzche, the person. You can start with 'God is dead'.
P.P.S. It's 'resorted', not 'retorted'. Do keep up.
@STorpedo (In case you were looking for an easy way out by using one of your ad hominem attacks that you're so fond of, I must disappoint you. I do know that Also Sprach Zarathustra was the title of one of Nietzche's works, not 'God is Dead' (the latter came from the former). Not that this is relevant to an unbiased opponent, but both of us know that you are not such a person; don't we? You asked for a philosophical statement. Here you go.)
@gorgolyt Whenever *you* would like to have a rational (I stress this word) conversation, worth of an intelligent (I stress this one too) human being, and (you used mistaken grammar; I took the liberty of correcting it) a competent philosopher, write me back.
@gorgolyt *facepalm* This is beyond stupid. You *must* be mentally incapacitated in some fashion. Look at your first sentiment in your last comment. Compare with the definition of 'ad hominem fallacy'. Look at your sentiments from previous comments. Compare with the definition of 'ad hominem fallacy'. Rinse and repeat, if need be.
@gorgolyt I disagree. Many philosophers talk in the same fashion. Look up the various polemics written by anyone from Marx to Sartre. Regardless. I was as civil and non-judgemental as you were when you said "@george120050 This is a bad comment and you should feel bad about having written it." Now I am civil. I welcome your assessments.
@gorgolyt Oh, and by the way? Those earlier criticisms of mine still stand undefeated. You have yet to address any of them with a counter argument, with the non-notable exception of C. I'll wait.
@gorgolyt Wow. Your retort is so pathetic it is beyond ridicule; it warrants only concern. Look up 'ad hominem fallacy', right now. I'll wait. Tell me when you come back.
@gorgolyt Anyways, what makes you so certain that accepting evolution is crucial to understanding 'humanity'? (P.S. Do not think I've ignored the fact that you only picked the easiest of my criticisms to respond to; namely, letter C. There are still 2 more to go.)
I don't see how criticizing the current order and promoting strength over weakness aligns them, when the Nazis didn't even reject the current order, just certain restrictions on them, they were arch traditional Teutonic Christians with some Aryan race myths mixed in.The Nazis didn't present much new, which is why they were able to roll over so many areas without protest. Nazism was mostly banal stuff people were used to, how do you think Nietzsche called them out decades earlier? He hated Nazis.
Nietzsche and the Nazis aren't just incongruent at some points, they're diametrically opposed. This is a man who thought everything died everywhere Germany went and flowers bloomed everywhere France went. Marx is the one who thought Europe should subjugate itself to Germany, maybe you'd have more luck projecting you're bad values onto him.
@george120050 you keep insisting on the points of disagreement, some about which you are undeniably right, without addressing the specific affinities I've pointed out, save for your remark about Nazism being ideologically both democratic and egalitarian, which was really very wrong.
To repeat some of the glaring affinities between Nietzsche's writings and Nazi discourse: both express a violent contempt for the sort of liberal-democratic ethics and politics ushered in by the modern era (if not its science and technology), and triumph the notion of militaristic social and political order governed by will-strong heroes. I didn't say that the Nazi regime actually embodied this order, only that like Nietzsche, the Nazis espoused the vision of such an order.
You're pointing out similarities between Nietzsche and the Nazis, when the man flung himself at Wagner and other proto-Nazis with all his strength. To point to similarities rather than overwhelming differences is to be deceptive. "Both express a violent contempt for the sort of liberal-democratic ethics and politics." That is vague, seems like you're using the common sense of those words, what they connote. Are those Judeo-Christian ethics? Hitler made contradictory statements on Christianity.
@gorgolyt I hope you don't expect us to take this assessment on faith? Lest you expect us to believe you to be infallible and incapable of lying in regards to this topic, I hope no one person will give your sentiment credence.
Besides anything, the Nazis & Fascists were weak and lost to the superior United States, where's their strength and heroism? Hitler as a superman is Nazi propaganda into which you've bought and superman is a distortion of Nietzsche's uberman anyway. How did the Nazis scorn rationalism? How could they build all of that war machine being anti science? There's no such thing as Nietzscheanism! The man was a supreme anti collectivist and insulted those looking for a leader, a fuhrer.
@SDV1367 The host is Bryan Magee, and the TV series aired in 1987 and was called The Great Philosophers. imdb has the full episode list if you're interested. :)
Nietzsche was the #1 critic of what would come to be known as Fascism and Nazism, linking his writings or ideas to them is way more than a stretch, it's like suggesting Hitler looooved Jews. Nietzsche called Napoleon the reason for all hope in that century, Napoleon was the man who finally destroyed the Holy Roman Empire, an entity principally made up of Italy and Germany. Saying Nietzsche shared affinities with Fascists is saying he wanted to restore the HRE! Keep reading, you're lost.
@Semjaaza. You have provided no arguments to support the accusation that I am being pretentious (lol). Therefore, your name-calling says more about you than it does me. At the moment, it would be unfair of me to debate you, in regards to the book I referred to, as I HAVE read it, and it seems to me that you have not! The book puts forward the ideas that there are two forms of National Socialism - the esoteric (Nietzschean) and the exoteric, which is for the herd. I hope that helps you. :o)
Nietzsche simply made too many anti Aryan, anti Reich, anti German, and anti Christian statements in his writing for anyone but a liar or ignoramus to call him a Nazi. It isn't a serious position.
@george120050 his antipathy towards democracy, egalitarianism, and modernity, his glorification of militarism and violence, his prioritization of will and action over reason and reflection, his reduction of cultural and social activity to the expression of essential racial attributes; in all these respects, like it or not, he shared affinities with fascist ideology. ...I still love Nietzsche.
@speaktoithoratio Fascism was the Catholic right wing, they're interchangeable terms. You're saying Nietzsche's writings share affinities with the Catholic right, which is enough to make a cat laugh. Nazism was democratic, egalitarian and obsessed with modernity. Hitler was the most popular politician of the century. Nietzsche blasted Christianity and Germany with every fibre of his being. Fascism was an attempt to restore the political order smashed by Napoleon, a person Nietzsche loved.
@george120050. If you sincerely believe that Nazism was, in theory let alone practice, democratic or egalitarian, I would warn against publicizing these views outside the anonymous realms of online forums.
@speaktoithoratio Hitler was elected by overwhelming majority and is regularly referred to as the most popular politician of the century. I write that not to claim anything good about Hitler but to point out something bad about democracy. If you think Hitler brainwashed a nation, you haven't read, he tapped into longstanding Teutonic and Christian bigotries. Jews, Gypsies and others were excluded from being a person, much like white Christian landowning males only counted in the United States.
@george120050. After the Nazis were ushered into power through popular elections, they promptly assumed the character of an authoritarian regime unchecked by parliament or elections. And in their worldview, the human species was divided hierarchically according to race, the lowest stratum of which (the Jews and Gypsies) was considered "unworthy of life", and of course butchered in unparalleled scales of genocide. These are not the tendencies of egalitarians or democrats.
@speaktoithoratio While Nietzscheanism and Nazism are ideologically incongruent on some points, among other similarities they both scorn the rationalism and liberal-democratic values associated with the Enlightenment, and triumph the notion of militaristic social and political order governed by heroic figures of indomitable will power.
@speaktoithoratio Fascism was the Catholic right wing!! You've fallen flat on your face claiming Nietzsche shares an affinity with the Catholic right wing. You have negative values. Nietzsche is THEE anti collectivist, so "his reduction of cultural and social activity to the expression of essential racial attributes" is read upside down for you. He's calling cultural and social activity mostly worthless, but individuals shine through that mass, moving in their great actions beyond their biology.
The 3rd Reich or the US with slavery were democracies, everyone just isn't counted as a person and even less people counted in Athens where the word democracy comes from. Nazism was dedicated to the German Volk, any historian knows that. You're probably upside down reading everything how Nietzsche knew some people would. Using word connotations instead of denotations, confusing the word for something with the thing itself, you should read Truth and Lies in a Non Moral Sense again if you haven't.
So you don't know Nietzsche, you like his name or an imaginary idea of him. Read Nietzsche, not others trying to use him. His idea of a person driven by biological identity is of an inferior mind and person. Nietzsche wants no followers, making a name after him as you have, shows you don't understand his writing. Nietzsche doesn't have teachings, so you can't learn from what he 'teaches.' Nazis were inferior, weak undermen not overmen.
Nowhere in his works does Nietzsche say that by “superman” he is referring to the White/Aryan man. He explicitly rejects the idea of a master race in a passage from the “The Antichrist” “…it (progress, enhancement) succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in these cases a higher type certainly manifests itself”
Ha ha ha, these men are so desperate to be liberal/politically correct, they refuse to admit that Nietzsche WAS referring to the Aryan/White man when he talked about the superman. Read 'Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman', by ABIR TAHA.
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Nietzsche was the biggest anti Teutonic Christian or 'Nazi', that Germany had, and may still have ever had. He wrote two books condemning Wagner, the founder of what would become the Nazis, a credit Hitler gives Wagner. It might be fair to suggest Nietzsche is the farthest thing from a Nazi possible. The idea of Aryanism is biological determinism. Calling Nietzsche a Nazi means either you don't know his writing, or are lying, or are listening to Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche.
@george120050. I AM a Nietzschean. I KNOW what Nietzsche teaches. You, obviously , do not. Read 'Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman', by ABIR TAHA. Also, go to anthonymludovicidotcom and study his writings on Nietzscheism.
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Why should anyone read a book ABOUT Nietzsche by someone else, when he can read Nietzsche himself. And Nietzsche himself never mentions any sort of link between his "Superman" and the white race. So go take your little worthless neo-nazi theories and bore someone else with them.
@Myrkul1029. You said, "Why should anyone read a book ABOUT Nietzsche by someone else, when he can read Nietzsche himself." Ha ha ha, that is like asking why people should read books ABOUT the Bible, to help them to understand the Bible. With an attitude like that, you would be laughed at in any university in the world. If you read 'Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman', by ABIR TAHA, you will find quotes by Nietzsche that show you are mistaken. This exchange is over.
That's a pretty funny interpretation of eternal return at 08:36. People say Nietzsche was mad but it appears he's not quite as mad as the average philosophy enthusiast.
what is wrong with you idiots who have commented on this video, don't you think we could use this kind of program now, intead of the mindless garbage on all day.
history repeats itself for eternity so then anything goes because its only what has gone before in its pureist form...only purity comes from denial of itself...as in knowleadge from ignorance and ignorance from knowleadge...all history comes down too the tortured lamb of god....everything on planet earth.
and so what? unless i detect a hint of cynicism. the point in that point in time was to the effect that i produced as many pages of text that i did. if it had been for a dissertation i assume for myself i could have developed my thesis with more breadth but at that time was beyond the scope of the goal intended.
lol. i know there are people who can do seven pages with both hands tied around their backs. im surprised it took this long for someone to note the naivete of my comment. and i did seven when five was required. i expected to write more but i guess i got lazy then.
such rubbish which led to a tradition of weak-minded rubbish: Foucault, Derrida etc.
Why is academia just fully of these waffling old fools (Stern) that cannot answer a question clearly.
Compare this episode with the ones on Wittgenstein and Schopenhauer and one sees the work of really philosophy getting to grips with the really questions
i took Nietzsche's ubermensch as a conjunction of two words with the former a preposition to the noun, and not as an adjective as the herd interprets it. the ubermensch, non proper, i described as man getting over himself, as in ego death. and i explained this in a 7 page paper for a 300-level ethics course for which i received an 'A'. i give thanks to my unusually queer mind, herbs and psychedelics that help me read between the lines of his thought. print is just a veil for the fire it conceals
have you read McLuhan's "Gutenberg Galaxy"? Your last line about print reminded me of that book, which I am currently reading and almost finished with.
It''s fucking brilliant!
Psychedelics are fantastic if one is intelligent and possesses a sunny disposition :)
If you so will, could you relieve my curiosity with more details unto which i can understand your interpretation of nietzsche's ubermensche? also, i would like to say to comment that there is no mystic quality to nietzsche's Zarathustra, as you are eluding to. Nietzsche hated mysticism
yes, and i believe i came to that conclusion before i fell to the lure of theosophy, but hpb and nietzsche were contemporaries and i think there was something novel about the late 19th century, as it has been in the past, e.g. sumer, egypt (kemet), greece & rome. and what theosophy teaches is that there is an original (like a singularity) doctrine that evolved on earth, and all philosophy is then subsequently influenced. even nietzsche's zarathustra is taken from the hymns of the persian avesta.
@micalee000 lol the will too power must destroy that which is weak therfore the will too power is weakness, as he said, and therfore the will to power is weakness only them who are truley powerful will it not
I'm thinking what Nietzsche envisioned, as a kind of idealistic wonderland, a society of intelligent individuals also capable of co-existing due to the dominance of higher thought, that ever encourages each to progress however they wish.
Essentially I think the 'overman' is one of these self-minded individuals capable of co-existence due to a knowledge of what behaviours are truly beneficial for us all. This is of course a form of idealism, thought Nietzsche would never admit that.
Nietzsche never explained his eternal recurrence theory thoroughly. What I presume he means when he alludes to it as being a 'scientific theory', (I believe in the third book of the Gay Science) is that, given that time is infinite, all possible actions are thus inevitable, thereby this current event, which is obviously possible, will have to occur again ad infinitum. Who you are, must suffer and smile over all the joys and sorrows of life, forever. Immortality with a cringe.
It isn't the "superman." Nietzsche's term "Übermensch" would be better translated as overman, and even a better translation would be over-human-being. That is, since the german mensch is german for human or human being. However, Nietzsche always uses the personal pronoun he when referring to the "Übermensch."
eternal recurrence is not about a return to the hellenic era (although one might argue that he forged an intangible connection with it in works like birth of tragedy). we can't jump back in time h.g. wells style -
eternal return is about the significance of our actions in a world without a teleological 'higher' purpose (eg. heaven or hell).
so you if you strangle your neighbour, you would already have done it / will do it an infinite number of times. haha
I don't think the concept of Eternal Return can be taken literally within the context of unidirectional time (duh), but I think N was describing something Jung would have called "archetypal" and "mythic" in nature. The collective unconscious may include a set of archetypal personas - but also a set of dynamic archetypal *relational patterns* which can be seen as "stories", and which function as psychological "strange attractors". This would be the basis of all Myth, and of the Eternal Return.
I don't think he was looking for a new one. I think he wanted to go back to Homers time and before. It seems that Nietzsche thought those were the only times when man was naturally himself complete with natural animal instincts. Then Socrates and Plato came along and got to analytic. Problem is it seems impossible to reverse history. I guess thats why he was hoping on this eternal recurring theme.
Agreed. I think the problem that really confounded N is this: this whole business of nurturing the weak has gone on so long, that now we have whole societies full of essentially useless people, sub-overmen, ie the "weak". If we return to a sort of prehistoric nature - or enter a neoprimitive state - nature herself will cause the death of *billions*. It almost need not be said. But I think N missed the possibility that our values could be true *even though* their premises were fictional.
Values can't be true, because all values are necessarily subjective, and all subjects are contingent and limited, whereas the truth should be eternal and necessary.
Values are neither purely subjective nor purely objective. The problem with western philosophy is that it has not been able to conceive a great part of reality outside from the binary specter of objectiveness and 'subjectiveness'.
I suggest the Western ethic regards any view of anything to be subjective since the viewer has colored glasses on and the colors are a mix of egocentric, ethnocentric, et al factors.
to me nietzsche is not really a philosopher. he despises the whole idea of systems of philosophy, and wasn't even bothered to understand concepts like natural selection. to me he's just a literary figure. not interesting.
gorgolyt 2 months ago
@gorgolyt A. Sounds like an ad hominem attack regarding evolution, B. he dislikes certain schools of philosophy, C. doesn't matter if he isn't interesting (and that he certainly is, assuming you have a normal psychology; a revisionist who sought to revise the accepted philosophies of morality that have permeated all strata, even the philosophical circles in the last 2 millenia, who became a reluctant figurehead for Nazism, and ended his life in insanity,...sounds *quite* interesting),
STorpedo 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@gorgolyt ...what matters is whether he was valid in his propositions.
STorpedo 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@STorpedo yes, and somebody who tries to come up with a human philosophy but outright rejects evolution because they don't understand it is obviously going to fail at their objective.
when i say he is not interesting, it is in a philosophical sense. philosophy should be lucid and rigorous. nietzsche certainly wasn't and didn't aspire to be, so i classify him as a literary figure.
gorgolyt 1 week ago
@gorgolyt You really do not understand what I mean when I say 'ad hominem fallacy', do you? Who cares if he rejects evolution? What does it matter to the validity of his claims? Could he not, by sheer coincidence, come up with propositions that implicitly affirm evolution (if, indeed, evolution is so crucial to a 'human philosophy' [whatever that means]; a questionable notion unto itself)? Of course he can.
STorpedo 1 week ago
@STorpedo if he 'came up with propositions that implicitly affirm evolution' then he wasn't even capable of intellectual consistency. that hardly works in his favour.
if you'd like to show me a good philosophical statement from nietzsche then go ahead and change my mind. i can only judge him on what i've heard and so far i have heard nothing of philosophical worth.
gorgolyt 1 week ago
Comment removed
STorpedo 6 days ago
@STorpedo i know what an ad hominem is. asking you to provide evidence that he provided something of philosophical worth is not an ad hominem, it's the exact opposite. i see you're clearly extremely butthurt such a request and have now simply retorted to childish insults; whenever you'd actually like to have a rational conversation worthy of an intelligent human or a competent philosopher, write me back.
gorgolyt 6 days ago
@gorgolyt P.S. I do not hold a point of view on Nietzche's writings; you are the one who needs to list the popular works of Nietzche, and disprove their worth. The burden of proof is on you, and any educated scientist will confirm this, and absolve me of a need to prove a position I do not hold. I await your criticism of Nietzche's work, not Nietzche, the person. You can start with 'God is dead'.
P.P.S. It's 'resorted', not 'retorted'. Do keep up.
STorpedo 5 days ago
Comment removed
STorpedo 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@STorpedo (In case you were looking for an easy way out by using one of your ad hominem attacks that you're so fond of, I must disappoint you. I do know that Also Sprach Zarathustra was the title of one of Nietzche's works, not 'God is Dead' (the latter came from the former). Not that this is relevant to an unbiased opponent, but both of us know that you are not such a person; don't we? You asked for a philosophical statement. Here you go.)
STorpedo 5 days ago
@gorgolyt Whenever *you* would like to have a rational (I stress this word) conversation, worth of an intelligent (I stress this one too) human being, and (you used mistaken grammar; I took the liberty of correcting it) a competent philosopher, write me back.
STorpedo 5 days ago
@gorgolyt *facepalm* This is beyond stupid. You *must* be mentally incapacitated in some fashion. Look at your first sentiment in your last comment. Compare with the definition of 'ad hominem fallacy'. Look at your sentiments from previous comments. Compare with the definition of 'ad hominem fallacy'. Rinse and repeat, if need be.
STorpedo 5 days ago
@STorpedo ok bro, still waiting for you to be civil. this isn't how philosophers talk.
gorgolyt 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gorgolyt I disagree. Many philosophers talk in the same fashion. Look up the various polemics written by anyone from Marx to Sartre. Regardless. I was as civil and non-judgemental as you were when you said "@george120050 This is a bad comment and you should feel bad about having written it." Now I am civil. I welcome your assessments.
STorpedo 4 days ago
@gorgolyt Oh, and by the way? Those earlier criticisms of mine still stand undefeated. You have yet to address any of them with a counter argument, with the non-notable exception of C. I'll wait.
STorpedo 5 days ago
Comment removed
STorpedo 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gorgolyt Wow. Your retort is so pathetic it is beyond ridicule; it warrants only concern. Look up 'ad hominem fallacy', right now. I'll wait. Tell me when you come back.
STorpedo 6 days ago
Comment removed
STorpedo 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gorgolyt Anyways, what makes you so certain that accepting evolution is crucial to understanding 'humanity'? (P.S. Do not think I've ignored the fact that you only picked the easiest of my criticisms to respond to; namely, letter C. There are still 2 more to go.)
STorpedo 1 week ago
8:24 -10:37 is very good
dedbusted 2 months ago
J.P. Stearn likes to say yes a lot.
andmaketherain 2 months ago in playlist J.P. Stern on Nietzsche
I don't see how criticizing the current order and promoting strength over weakness aligns them, when the Nazis didn't even reject the current order, just certain restrictions on them, they were arch traditional Teutonic Christians with some Aryan race myths mixed in.The Nazis didn't present much new, which is why they were able to roll over so many areas without protest. Nazism was mostly banal stuff people were used to, how do you think Nietzsche called them out decades earlier? He hated Nazis.
george120050 3 months ago
Nietzsche and the Nazis aren't just incongruent at some points, they're diametrically opposed. This is a man who thought everything died everywhere Germany went and flowers bloomed everywhere France went. Marx is the one who thought Europe should subjugate itself to Germany, maybe you'd have more luck projecting you're bad values onto him.
george120050 3 months ago
@george120050 you keep insisting on the points of disagreement, some about which you are undeniably right, without addressing the specific affinities I've pointed out, save for your remark about Nazism being ideologically both democratic and egalitarian, which was really very wrong.
speaktoithoratio 3 months ago
To repeat some of the glaring affinities between Nietzsche's writings and Nazi discourse: both express a violent contempt for the sort of liberal-democratic ethics and politics ushered in by the modern era (if not its science and technology), and triumph the notion of militaristic social and political order governed by will-strong heroes. I didn't say that the Nazi regime actually embodied this order, only that like Nietzsche, the Nazis espoused the vision of such an order.
speaktoithoratio 3 months ago
You're pointing out similarities between Nietzsche and the Nazis, when the man flung himself at Wagner and other proto-Nazis with all his strength. To point to similarities rather than overwhelming differences is to be deceptive. "Both express a violent contempt for the sort of liberal-democratic ethics and politics." That is vague, seems like you're using the common sense of those words, what they connote. Are those Judeo-Christian ethics? Hitler made contradictory statements on Christianity.
george120050 3 months ago
@george120050 This is a bad comment and you should feel bad about having written it.
gorgolyt 2 months ago
@gorgolyt I hope you don't expect us to take this assessment on faith? Lest you expect us to believe you to be infallible and incapable of lying in regards to this topic, I hope no one person will give your sentiment credence.
STorpedo 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Besides anything, the Nazis & Fascists were weak and lost to the superior United States, where's their strength and heroism? Hitler as a superman is Nazi propaganda into which you've bought and superman is a distortion of Nietzsche's uberman anyway. How did the Nazis scorn rationalism? How could they build all of that war machine being anti science? There's no such thing as Nietzscheanism! The man was a supreme anti collectivist and insulted those looking for a leader, a fuhrer.
george120050 3 months ago
JESUS IS TO THE MIDDLE EAST DICTATORS....GOD IS TO THE UNITED STATES..
phillyphanatic75 4 months ago
what is the name of this show or the host?
SDV1367 4 months ago
@SDV1367 The host is Bryan Magee, and the TV series aired in 1987 and was called The Great Philosophers. imdb has the full episode list if you're interested. :)
Blodhosta 4 months ago
Nietzsche was the #1 critic of what would come to be known as Fascism and Nazism, linking his writings or ideas to them is way more than a stretch, it's like suggesting Hitler looooved Jews. Nietzsche called Napoleon the reason for all hope in that century, Napoleon was the man who finally destroyed the Holy Roman Empire, an entity principally made up of Italy and Germany. Saying Nietzsche shared affinities with Fascists is saying he wanted to restore the HRE! Keep reading, you're lost.
george120050 6 months ago
Comment removed
george120050 6 months ago
that guy is the ''yes man''-
i also say yes to Nietzsche.
paranapoleon 6 months ago
@Semjaaza. You have provided no arguments to support the accusation that I am being pretentious (lol). Therefore, your name-calling says more about you than it does me. At the moment, it would be unfair of me to debate you, in regards to the book I referred to, as I HAVE read it, and it seems to me that you have not! The book puts forward the ideas that there are two forms of National Socialism - the esoteric (Nietzschean) and the exoteric, which is for the herd. I hope that helps you. :o)
NIETZSCHEAN14 8 months ago
Nietzsche simply made too many anti Aryan, anti Reich, anti German, and anti Christian statements in his writing for anyone but a liar or ignoramus to call him a Nazi. It isn't a serious position.
george120050 9 months ago
Comment removed
speaktoithoratio 8 months ago
@george120050 his antipathy towards democracy, egalitarianism, and modernity, his glorification of militarism and violence, his prioritization of will and action over reason and reflection, his reduction of cultural and social activity to the expression of essential racial attributes; in all these respects, like it or not, he shared affinities with fascist ideology. ...I still love Nietzsche.
speaktoithoratio 8 months ago
@speaktoithoratio Fascism was the Catholic right wing, they're interchangeable terms. You're saying Nietzsche's writings share affinities with the Catholic right, which is enough to make a cat laugh. Nazism was democratic, egalitarian and obsessed with modernity. Hitler was the most popular politician of the century. Nietzsche blasted Christianity and Germany with every fibre of his being. Fascism was an attempt to restore the political order smashed by Napoleon, a person Nietzsche loved.
george120050 6 months ago
@george120050. If you sincerely believe that Nazism was, in theory let alone practice, democratic or egalitarian, I would warn against publicizing these views outside the anonymous realms of online forums.
speaktoithoratio 4 months ago
@speaktoithoratio Hitler was elected by overwhelming majority and is regularly referred to as the most popular politician of the century. I write that not to claim anything good about Hitler but to point out something bad about democracy. If you think Hitler brainwashed a nation, you haven't read, he tapped into longstanding Teutonic and Christian bigotries. Jews, Gypsies and others were excluded from being a person, much like white Christian landowning males only counted in the United States.
george120050 3 months ago
@george120050. After the Nazis were ushered into power through popular elections, they promptly assumed the character of an authoritarian regime unchecked by parliament or elections. And in their worldview, the human species was divided hierarchically according to race, the lowest stratum of which (the Jews and Gypsies) was considered "unworthy of life", and of course butchered in unparalleled scales of genocide. These are not the tendencies of egalitarians or democrats.
speaktoithoratio 3 months ago
@speaktoithoratio While Nietzscheanism and Nazism are ideologically incongruent on some points, among other similarities they both scorn the rationalism and liberal-democratic values associated with the Enlightenment, and triumph the notion of militaristic social and political order governed by heroic figures of indomitable will power.
speaktoithoratio 3 months ago
@speaktoithoratio Fascism was the Catholic right wing!! You've fallen flat on your face claiming Nietzsche shares an affinity with the Catholic right wing. You have negative values. Nietzsche is THEE anti collectivist, so "his reduction of cultural and social activity to the expression of essential racial attributes" is read upside down for you. He's calling cultural and social activity mostly worthless, but individuals shine through that mass, moving in their great actions beyond their biology.
george120050 3 months ago
The 3rd Reich or the US with slavery were democracies, everyone just isn't counted as a person and even less people counted in Athens where the word democracy comes from. Nazism was dedicated to the German Volk, any historian knows that. You're probably upside down reading everything how Nietzsche knew some people would. Using word connotations instead of denotations, confusing the word for something with the thing itself, you should read Truth and Lies in a Non Moral Sense again if you haven't.
george120050 3 months ago
So you don't know Nietzsche, you like his name or an imaginary idea of him. Read Nietzsche, not others trying to use him. His idea of a person driven by biological identity is of an inferior mind and person. Nietzsche wants no followers, making a name after him as you have, shows you don't understand his writing. Nietzsche doesn't have teachings, so you can't learn from what he 'teaches.' Nazis were inferior, weak undermen not overmen.
george120050 9 months ago
Nowhere in his works does Nietzsche say that by “superman” he is referring to the White/Aryan man. He explicitly rejects the idea of a master race in a passage from the “The Antichrist” “…it (progress, enhancement) succeeds in isolated and individual cases in various parts of the earth and under the most widely different cultures, and in these cases a higher type certainly manifests itself”
childericking 10 months ago
Ha ha ha, these men are so desperate to be liberal/politically correct, they refuse to admit that Nietzsche WAS referring to the Aryan/White man when he talked about the superman. Read 'Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman', by ABIR TAHA.
NIETZSCHEAN14 10 months ago
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Nietzsche was the biggest anti Teutonic Christian or 'Nazi', that Germany had, and may still have ever had. He wrote two books condemning Wagner, the founder of what would become the Nazis, a credit Hitler gives Wagner. It might be fair to suggest Nietzsche is the farthest thing from a Nazi possible. The idea of Aryanism is biological determinism. Calling Nietzsche a Nazi means either you don't know his writing, or are lying, or are listening to Bertrand Russell on Nietzsche.
george120050 9 months ago
@george120050. I AM a Nietzschean. I KNOW what Nietzsche teaches. You, obviously , do not. Read 'Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman', by ABIR TAHA. Also, go to anthonymludovicidotcom and study his writings on Nietzscheism.
NIETZSCHEAN14 9 months ago
@NIETZSCHEAN14 Why should anyone read a book ABOUT Nietzsche by someone else, when he can read Nietzsche himself. And Nietzsche himself never mentions any sort of link between his "Superman" and the white race. So go take your little worthless neo-nazi theories and bore someone else with them.
Myrkul1029 7 months ago
@Myrkul1029. You said, "Why should anyone read a book ABOUT Nietzsche by someone else, when he can read Nietzsche himself." Ha ha ha, that is like asking why people should read books ABOUT the Bible, to help them to understand the Bible. With an attitude like that, you would be laughed at in any university in the world. If you read 'Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism: The Cult of the Superman', by ABIR TAHA, you will find quotes by Nietzsche that show you are mistaken. This exchange is over.
NIETZSCHEAN14 7 months ago
finaly an interviewer who can ask questions!
thinker6236 11 months ago
The quest for immortality is in a way against life, since something eternal is not is alive; rather it simply is.
selvmordspilot 11 months ago
That's a pretty funny interpretation of eternal return at 08:36. People say Nietzsche was mad but it appears he's not quite as mad as the average philosophy enthusiast.
1982CFD 1 year ago
ahhh the first privileged era....
stanchinsky 1 year ago
what is wrong with you idiots who have commented on this video, don't you think we could use this kind of program now, intead of the mindless garbage on all day.
890buddha 1 year ago 8
@890buddha Your reasoning is right....Sr.
cespedeslv 1 year ago
history repeats itself for eternity so then anything goes because its only what has gone before in its pureist form...only purity comes from denial of itself...as in knowleadge from ignorance and ignorance from knowleadge...all history comes down too the tortured lamb of god....everything on planet earth.
TheFriedLiverAttack 1 year ago
@TheFriedLiverAttack NO, causality cant be understood there are too many variables, noob.
ToxicRemedyBinge 1 year ago
Minimise the window and it will seem like one man is talking while the other one is having sex with a dead person in the background.
flybli 1 year ago
ha ha ha ha ha come on you dont need that many yes's, for f**ks sake im trying to learn for my Philosophy exam I dont need the constant yes's
NickGPWin1989 1 year ago
To undesrtand nietzche you have to live
eldiagrama 1 year ago
@Angk0rwat
and so what? unless i detect a hint of cynicism. the point in that point in time was to the effect that i produced as many pages of text that i did. if it had been for a dissertation i assume for myself i could have developed my thesis with more breadth but at that time was beyond the scope of the goal intended.
buggfire 2 years ago
@Angk0rwat
lol. i know there are people who can do seven pages with both hands tied around their backs. im surprised it took this long for someone to note the naivete of my comment. and i did seven when five was required. i expected to write more but i guess i got lazy then.
buggfire 2 years ago
To grapple with nietzsche is to tangle with your own soul.
Rico8458 2 years ago 4
such rubbish which led to a tradition of weak-minded rubbish: Foucault, Derrida etc.
Why is academia just fully of these waffling old fools (Stern) that cannot answer a question clearly.
Compare this episode with the ones on Wittgenstein and Schopenhauer and one sees the work of really philosophy getting to grips with the really questions
24foxstar 2 years ago
i took Nietzsche's ubermensch as a conjunction of two words with the former a preposition to the noun, and not as an adjective as the herd interprets it. the ubermensch, non proper, i described as man getting over himself, as in ego death. and i explained this in a 7 page paper for a 300-level ethics course for which i received an 'A'. i give thanks to my unusually queer mind, herbs and psychedelics that help me read between the lines of his thought. print is just a veil for the fire it conceals
buggfire 2 years ago
have you read McLuhan's "Gutenberg Galaxy"? Your last line about print reminded me of that book, which I am currently reading and almost finished with.
It''s fucking brilliant!
Psychedelics are fantastic if one is intelligent and possesses a sunny disposition :)
What a wonderful world.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
No, I haven't read any McLuhan. But I'll be sure to put the one you mentioned on my list.
Yes, psychedelics are fantastic! and I believe absolutely imperative to consciousness expansion.
buggfire 2 years ago
my friend,
"man getting over himself, as in ego death"
If you so will, could you relieve my curiosity with more details unto which i can understand your interpretation of nietzsche's ubermensche? also, i would like to say to comment that there is no mystic quality to nietzsche's Zarathustra, as you are eluding to. Nietzsche hated mysticism
micalee000 2 years ago
yes, and i believe i came to that conclusion before i fell to the lure of theosophy, but hpb and nietzsche were contemporaries and i think there was something novel about the late 19th century, as it has been in the past, e.g. sumer, egypt (kemet), greece & rome. and what theosophy teaches is that there is an original (like a singularity) doctrine that evolved on earth, and all philosophy is then subsequently influenced. even nietzsche's zarathustra is taken from the hymns of the persian avesta.
buggfire 2 years ago
@micalee000 lol the will too power must destroy that which is weak therfore the will too power is weakness, as he said, and therfore the will to power is weakness only them who are truley powerful will it not
TheFriedLiverAttack 1 year ago
@buggfire tirthankaras
GBJ83 1 year ago
What is it he said about Englishmen? Haha
sedicenobufalo 2 years ago
yes, yes, yes, yes, no well yes, yes, yes, yes
faisalleszion 2 years ago 55
YES!
callomaniac 2 years ago
@faisalleszion did you get it too.?
TheFriedLiverAttack 1 year ago
must be a british thing
atypicalguy 1 year ago
things were so brown in those days
kingeric77 2 years ago 34
@kingeric77
lol I just can't keep watching these videos seriously now, because I keep thinking of your comment
SpunkySkunk347 5 months ago in playlist J.P. Stern on Nietzsche
nietzsche had nothing against barbarism, barbarians had the master morality that he talked about
netcyrus 2 years ago
I'm not impressed by Stern here. I think the host (sorry if I should know his name), could have done a better job himself.
walkies777 2 years ago
Two people from a country Nietzsche was not fond of interpreting him for us...
callomaniac 2 years ago
yes
byang08 3 years ago
I'm thinking what Nietzsche envisioned, as a kind of idealistic wonderland, a society of intelligent individuals also capable of co-existing due to the dominance of higher thought, that ever encourages each to progress however they wish.
Essentially I think the 'overman' is one of these self-minded individuals capable of co-existence due to a knowledge of what behaviours are truly beneficial for us all. This is of course a form of idealism, thought Nietzsche would never admit that.
Staticnz 3 years ago
Comment removed
Valerian1 2 years ago
exactly. Nietzsche was experimental...a pen tried out by a superior power on a bit of power. :) so interesting
LoveShallThee 3 years ago
Nietzsche never explained his eternal recurrence theory thoroughly. What I presume he means when he alludes to it as being a 'scientific theory', (I believe in the third book of the Gay Science) is that, given that time is infinite, all possible actions are thus inevitable, thereby this current event, which is obviously possible, will have to occur again ad infinitum. Who you are, must suffer and smile over all the joys and sorrows of life, forever. Immortality with a cringe.
Mattprole 3 years ago
hahahahaha yes..yes.yes.yes.yes.yes.yes the superman. yes. yes.
alritehaveit 3 years ago 2
yes, yes
mikezephyr 3 years ago
yeah.
OiArry2 3 years ago
mmhm.
PontusReed 2 years ago
Perhaps values necessarily need to be undermined by liberal democracy in order for the values to be reborn as more in tune with our sense of freedom.
alritehaveit 3 years ago
Although a great interview, the explanation of the will to power is awful, and the notion of the übermensch is very biased.
PeteUtonic 3 years ago
By 'we' you mean the minority of people of the world. Most people don't have a great deal of freedom.
In any case, Nietzsche says that the apex of mankind isn't a utopia, but its greatest individuals.
vivthefree 3 years ago
The English prefix "super" is from the Latin word "super" and means above, on top of, beyond, besides.
Unfortunately most English speakers have forgotten this (or never knew in the first place).
So "superman" is a literal translation of "ubermensch".
Quinflax 3 years ago
It isn't the "superman." Nietzsche's term "Übermensch" would be better translated as overman, and even a better translation would be over-human-being. That is, since the german mensch is german for human or human being. However, Nietzsche always uses the personal pronoun he when referring to the "Übermensch."
dbersch 3 years ago
I think i get what your on about with the freedom thing but am i free to strangle my annoying neighbour. What is freedom for you?
moveonupcb 3 years ago
eternal recurrence is not about a return to the hellenic era (although one might argue that he forged an intangible connection with it in works like birth of tragedy). we can't jump back in time h.g. wells style -
eternal return is about the significance of our actions in a world without a teleological 'higher' purpose (eg. heaven or hell).
so you if you strangle your neighbour, you would already have done it / will do it an infinite number of times. haha
tybaltyrant 3 years ago
I don't think the concept of Eternal Return can be taken literally within the context of unidirectional time (duh), but I think N was describing something Jung would have called "archetypal" and "mythic" in nature. The collective unconscious may include a set of archetypal personas - but also a set of dynamic archetypal *relational patterns* which can be seen as "stories", and which function as psychological "strange attractors". This would be the basis of all Myth, and of the Eternal Return.
3stringovation 3 years ago
Please explain ur freudian HARGY BARGY. haha
alritehaveit 3 years ago
Sorry my friend. That was *Jungian* hargy bargy. As such, it only explains itself through meaningful coincidences ;-)
3stringovation 3 years ago
I don't think he was looking for a new one. I think he wanted to go back to Homers time and before. It seems that Nietzsche thought those were the only times when man was naturally himself complete with natural animal instincts. Then Socrates and Plato came along and got to analytic. Problem is it seems impossible to reverse history. I guess thats why he was hoping on this eternal recurring theme.
moveonupcb 3 years ago
Agreed. I think the problem that really confounded N is this: this whole business of nurturing the weak has gone on so long, that now we have whole societies full of essentially useless people, sub-overmen, ie the "weak". If we return to a sort of prehistoric nature - or enter a neoprimitive state - nature herself will cause the death of *billions*. It almost need not be said. But I think N missed the possibility that our values could be true *even though* their premises were fictional.
3stringovation 3 years ago
Values can't be true, because all values are necessarily subjective, and all subjects are contingent and limited, whereas the truth should be eternal and necessary.
vivthefree 3 years ago
Values are neither purely subjective nor purely objective. The problem with western philosophy is that it has not been able to conceive a great part of reality outside from the binary specter of objectiveness and 'subjectiveness'.
SonoPortoricano 3 years ago
I suggest the Western ethic regards any view of anything to be subjective since the viewer has colored glasses on and the colors are a mix of egocentric, ethnocentric, et al factors.
bhoogren 2 years ago
Nietzsche is the man.
isoMorpheus 3 years ago
Do you support his conception of women? :)
Wittgensteinsocrates 3 years ago
That they are cows? Sometimes.
But then again, sometimes man are pigs.
isoMorpheus 3 years ago