Nobody needs to understand Nietszche or Foucault to be a good thinker in contemporary world. One only needs to be logical & scientific to be a good contemporary thinker. But if you want to be entertained by reading long and trifling verbiages, you can help yourself to one of their overrated and sensationalized books.LOL
Nietzsche understood very well the concept of universal love, in Christianity and in Socialism. He rejected it because love for the weakest and worst human beings breads weakness and ignobility. I don't agree with Nietzsche on everything, but universal love is a stupid and vile concept, people need to prove themselves worthy of love.
@Fray2221 I agree that if you give someone love and he/she uses it to destroy you, than you become weak. However if you don't give someone love when you think that he/she doesn't deserve it, then you might lose a potential friend. Just because someone is an unworthy person, that doesn't mean that he/she is always going to take advantage of you. He/she might appreciate your kindness. Loving your neighbor is only good though if you love yourself just as much. You see what I mean?
Remember also that a christian world made a secular view possible. Nothing is more true than the other. What I'm saying is that the acceptance of moral made the void or non-existance of moral possible.
@Basram But it was the original amoral world that made morality possible. Indeed, it made morality essential, effectively as a refinement of amorality, or as Nietzsche would say, will to power. Christianity was not the first thought. It made its own repudiation possible, but the sentiment of that repudiation existed regardless.
Gee, no need for people to spend time and get to know each philosopher through their own moments of wisdom, disclaimers, caveats, and moral indignations. Why don't we just trim it all the way down and standardize bumper sticker quotes to sum up Nietzsche. I agree that his fascination with the Overman was over the top, but the guy had syphilis on the brain and a bitter century to live in. Russel is a caricature of himself. Nietzsche was as well, but by grim and ironic choice in my reading.
@theseanze Philosophers are all inevitably caricatures of ourselves, that is the crux of Nietzsche. 'Valuation is creation.' His demand was that they draw their likeness more realistically, meaning more bravely and honestly. Philosophy is grim irony when all is said and done, it attempts to answer the unanswerable.
@ThePegasean -- Yeah, but my point about philosophers like Russel is they don't have much conceptual content, they're just caricatures of a profession and not a certain original type of thinking. Some philosophers try to pursue questions that only make sense in language but not in reality. I think paying attention to the actual implications of what key philosophers were getting at is something both the public and academics have lost interest in, and it allows the caricature to take over.
ha ha..haidiger said that is the end of metaphysics! ha ha. that can never be done just becouse there is something what we call spirits, THERE are energies and you need a map to guide you thro it. hillarius man and wrong,
No, Heidegger's interpretation was that Nietzsche's concept of the death of God represented the death of metaphysics, by which he meant largely philosophy . Heidegger was not himself writing that metaphysics in totality, and mysticism, was at an end (though it effectively is for all rational people). As God as the metaphysical is dead, then nihilism holds and so metaphysics comes to an end.
Make an effort to understand what others write before you call their work wrong.
reminds me again that non-germans can never understand nietzsche. because only germans have the necessary state of mind. additionally his works are untranslatable anyway.
@TheDaviboy86 The best translations are Walter Kaufmann's, which Russell did not have. One wonders whether Russell had really bothered to read Nietzsche.
There is some degree of truth to what you write. Indeed, it seems often those who are not sufficiently introduced to German culture do not, in general, understand Nietzsche, or German idealism, or various other values that feed into the various philosophies, historical dialectics, or economic preferences, that form the basis of German thought.
This can be seen in how such different cultures express similar values so differently. Similar, but not the same because the realisms differ
it *does* occur to nietzsche that but that doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately motivated by a deeper latent fear.(so a feeling of"universal love" is really motivated by fear?)
And it's not ad-hominem to say so? Only if Russell says it of Nietzsche then?
It's OK for Nietzsche to "re-evaluate all values", that's no ad-hominem, only when the questioner is questioned eh? The poor Olympian has to truly suffer the slings and arrows of the ignorant valley rabble.
@TwoMunchuTwo "so a feeling of 'universal love' is really motivated by fear?" -properly speaking, loving everyone is not possible. if it were, it would devaluate the primal sponeneity of love you feel when it's directed at someone in particular. that said, what sort of person would feel the need to love towards "everyone"? it smells like dispair.
nietzsche at no point advoactes universal hatred or anything similar. the revaluation has nothing to do with it. therefore, ad hominem.
Nietzsche saw morality as a creative deed, therefore relevant critique is inevitabily ad hominem, a value judgement cannot be understood apart from the man making it. Outside of perspective morality is meaningless, nothing can be immoral or moral unless we decide it to be so, nature is basically amoral. For Nietzsche, morality only had scientific value as a physiological, psychological symptom of either ascendant or descendant life, affirmation or negation, courage or cowardice.
Universal love is a fine ideal but it is by no means more necessary than universal fear, actually inseperable from it. Nature is malicious. Hate, suffering, revenge, destruction etc are inevitable because the world simply cannot do without them, history cannot be understood without them. Nietzsche saw the acceptance of this as the most realistic and therefore healthy perspective, morality based on sublimation rather than repudiation. Its a dreadfully challenging idea.
@derpaprikalyoner I meant I wonder what Bertrand Russell would have thought of Ayn Rand, but now that I think about it, he was still alive when she was releasing her big works, so he may have gone on record with an opinion Or maybe not.
Well, there doesn't seem to be any mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy". I would think that Russell most likely would have thought Rand's philosophy trite and juvenile.
Ayn Rand was a writer but unlike Camus, she never actually produced a philosophically meaningful concept.
@derpaprikalyoner They would have despised each-other if they were contemporaries, and could be exposed to their respective personalities. (Continues bashing dolls together...)
I've always thought of David Hume as Ayn Rand's antithesis and antagonist. I omit Kant since I doubt Rand actually ever got around to reading his work that she hated so much.
in my eyes russell is quite right. but ask why. it seems nietzsche had problems of lonelyness and such. this kept in mind, it does not belittle him to the slightest. he remains as one of the very brightest minds with a universality of thick and deep thought that is not matched by many. merely unhappy circumstances lead to an unhappy life, hes a victim of a helix caused by is own genius.
@Skelros right, i watched a doc about nietzsche and he was really sick a lot of the time, plus like you said the loneliness. So, all things considered, he plowed through a lot of stuff to reach what he thought was a good central reference point, if you could call it that. You work with what you got.
@MrXephyr Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown in 1889 and died in 1900. In 1901 "The Will To Power" was published. During the time from his mental breakdown to his death, Nietzsche was under the care of his sister who had access to all his notes and writings as well as publishing rights giving her considerable power. According to an article on the Telegraph, out of 505 letters published in 1909, only 60 were original with 32 being entirely false. (Wroe)
@MrXephyr Not an individualistic morality? Well, I wouldn't have expected a morality from him anyway but an order of RANK sounds pretty bad already. The thing is no matter how uncomfortable the thought of a herd under leadership of the few powerful might be to most of us (maybe even the so-called herd) we cannot prove that humanity has any other way of functioning. I'd love to come up with a way to make the ignorant less ignorant against their own will but so far no luck.
@MrXephyr I wish I had the German version at hand.
It sounds like he is all for people who dare to rule over the "feeble", he is for NATURAL SELECTION. A ruling class of incestuous degenerates like Europe's aristocrats is not the first thing that comes to mind. In general, a ruling "class" would mean that the (potentially "feeble") offspring of the strong is guaranteed to inherit their power rather than a new strong individual rising to take their place.
@MrXephyr Really now? Because I heard that described VERY differently. As in Nietzsche refusing both master and slave ideologies and urging people to create their own. Maybe you're referring to falsified writings released by his sister and spread by nazis? One example of why the ubermensch can't be a "master": According to Nietzsche masters are just as much slaves as their actual slaves because masters depend on slaves. If the slaves were to revolt the master would lose his position.
@MrXephyr But he still was one, he openly stated so and defended that position. That's why I find it so sad that underneath it all he apparently wasn't able to break free from the moral consensus upheld by peer pressure. Had he understood Nietzsche he could have invented his own morality and become an Übermensch. It seems as though he didn't want to give up his rank among the masters, whereas the Übermensch stands outside of the master/slave scheme.
@MrXephyr To say that an aristocratic rule exists, is a historical fact. Therefore the concept of an upper-species, or a social scale, is not a deviation from actuality for the sake of the theory.
Such a concept already exists within our frame of mind.
I wrote those epithets because they help to shed light on N. attitude towards social constructs. He saw in them a premise that man can be something bigger. To be contempt by actuality, means you don't want to change it.
@MrXephyr He isn't known as the philosopher with a hammer for nothing. Also he refereed to himself as dynamite. He bluntly disliked morals, and said for himself "I turned Plato head down."
His only radical thought is anti-radical, the ubermensch is a denial of what men stands for. Ontologically, the being is in a constant state of denying in order to create his will.
Nietzsche's belief on aristocratic rule is a visualization tool. It is his way of proving that we've already permitted the ubermensch concept to exist in our thoughts.
He wrote "men will be to the ubermensch as the ape is to men". By this he clearly states that whatever we've done is a laughing stock in comparison to what we can be. If this doesn't show disdain of our situation, nothing does.
glad to see the majority of people on here not subscribing to the presumptuous and half-witted notion of Nietzsche as some sort of racially radical enemy of mankind. As I said before . . he really possessed a love so high, insight so piercing, and will so fortified that he would goad and nearly berate humanity into shedding archaic (and usually popular) belief structures and habits of thought in lieu of the very real possibility of our near ascension through the noosphere onto the homo luminous.
How sad that so many people misunderstand Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche's thoughts are not the end of metaphysics. His thoughts are totally open ended, infinitive, endless.
I lived and breathed Nietzche's philosophy for a number of years.Russell completely misunderstands him .Just like Brutus and Judas ,Russell is currently in the inner most circle of hell being devoured by Satan.How goes it down there Bertrand?
@ReducedToAsh I do not understand what you mean by propaganda. It is not uncommon for a voice actor to read the works of an author in the author’s voice. This is a recording of an excerpt from his book "History of Western Philosophy". Even if this is not his voice, these are his words. However whether this is a valid criticism of Nietzsche works is another matter.
@ReducedToAsh Of course it's not his voice!! It's just done by an actor reading out of Russell's magnum opus 'A History of Western Philosophy.' Just because it's not his voice doesn't mean it's fake. If you knew anything about Russell I'd imagine you'd have read this passage.
This isn't a 'propaganda tape', it's simply a quote from his book. I can even give you a page reference if you like. Just because Russell was an atheist doesn't mean his views were akin to Nietzche's.
And by the way, Nietzsche's books were edited and transformed in the "Third Reich", just like The Bibble was. I'm sick and tired explaining these things. Just study the things U're about to give your precious opinion about. (Sorry the sarcasm, I'm just tired).
Russel was a privilidged a-hole who thought that Wittgenstein was a genious just because he couldn't understand his train of thought". He was also basically a logical theorist. Please at least try to read "Zarathustra" before commenting anything about Nietzsche. For those who try to connect Nietzsche and Nazism: He always spoke from the indiviual point of wiev. As Hannah Arendt said: Nietzsche would have been the first to be send in concentration camp. Please read my earlier comment to learn mor
@TwoMunchuTwo Yes. Though to accept my reasoning you'd have to accept your fault, which would be contrary to the will of the self, and it would require me to do a better job explaining than Nietzsche himself could.
But let's have a go:
The will of the self has for boundaries the ones of the individual, is the approval of life, the continuity of the self. Society, morality, faith, politics, are the ones whose primary roles is inhibiting freedom for sake of the commune.
to end, he looked at the relationship between norms and human activity. Since the correlation between the two doesn't fit, either the norms have to go or human activity.
Since norms lose all purpose without the human activity, and human activity is the one who made them (therefore life being apriori) norms have to go.
@TwoMunchuTwo The etymology of compromise is "together" "to promise" . Any idea why the connotation of "to compromise smb/th" means to change it's determined course, to lead towards an otherwise unnatural result.
Think Heidegger's mitsein.
Nietzsche never married and was against the idea. He was also known as the philosopher with a hammer precisely because he rejected norms and ethics, which determine social interaction.
Your objection confirms his line "I'm not the mouth for everybody's ears."
@TwoMunchuTwo Though I am with you on the "Nietzschean philosophy". Nietzsche's work was never intended to be a "genre" or a trend, otherwise known in logic as "concept" vs idiosyncratic. The concept is depersonalized, idiosyncratic is individual. Nietzsche as a trend betrays what Nietzsche wrote.
@TwoMunchuTwo Nietzsche can be used by any group to justify their agenda. Nietzsche is not defined by his "followers". You can take almost any philopher and turn his/hers thoughts upside down.
@TwoMunchuTwo Can you explain what mechanism would stop Bertrand Russell's views from being co-opted by a murderous group or nation? Also, Nietzsche's works were censored and edited by the Nazi's to make them compatible with their philosophy. It was hardly Nietzsche's work that was co-opted.
@Adamson11x That's a naive assessment that individualistic ideas cannot be co-opted by the tribe and to think that the philosopher doesn't realize his ideas will get co-opted. The philosopher does exactly the opposite engineering thought with the knowledge that his ideas will be co-opted. It literally becomes a battle between collective IQs, because the thinker is never the only thinker.
@mikelheron20 When Nietzsche heard that his sister was getting married with a known anti-semist, He broke all connections with her. There is a famous letter, where he says that he doesn't want anything to do with that. Just please study some history. Nietzsche's work were falsified by his sister Elisabeth after Nietzsches death..And I do have done some research about these things. Masters degree.in philosophy. Study a little bit and comment after that.
@Adamson11x My comment concerned your ignorant assessment of Russell -not your comments about Nietzsche.What you say about his sister is common knowledge and the anti-semite (not anti-semist) charge was debunked years ago. Find a current battle to fight. In "A Fish called Wanda" Kevin Klein protests that he can't be a moron because morons don't read Nietzsche. Jamie Lee Curtis replies "Yes they do. They just don't understand him." Btw, I got my MPhil in 1974 - before everything was dumbed down.
@mikelheron20 Reading my comment again I realise it reads as if the anti-semite charge against Elizabeth was debunked, which of course it was not. I meant the false accusations of anti-semitism that were unjustly levelled against Nietzsche.
@Adamson11x Wow. What a horrible account of Russell. Maybe you should be the one who does a little research before you make laughable claims.
Russell wasn't the only one who thought Wittgenstein was a genious. The entire fucking Vienna Circle did. They all shared their like of Wittgenstein's Tractatus which was the basis for discussion.
I agree that Nietzche is a quality philosopher, however that does not give you carte blanche to attack likely the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.
@xxFortunadoxx I do not wan't to undermine Russel. One of the greatest thinker of all time. I've studied Russel's work, a great humanitarian, but his philosophical works are in that field of philosophy where He has made His marks simply aren't my area of interest. I won't argue anymore about this video. I do however share many thoughts with him about humanism and religion.
Nietzsche said that great things come on Dove's feet. This is the complete opposite of the King Lear quote. Bertrand misunderstood Nietzsche and he misunderstood the übermensch.
Hitler's love and respect for Nietzsche sure makes Nietzscheans squirm today. It accounts for their clouding of the air with their disintegrating squalid little straw men.
@TwoMunchuTwo typical flawed critique of collectivism coming from a holier than thou liberal. I actually think your sentence about Nietzsche influence pretty much speaks of the complexes you have about the same thing. Now get on your knees and continue sucking uncle Russell ''academic'' cock. :D
@TwoMunchuTwo As Nietzsche said of Jesus, the only Christian was Christ; the only Nietzschean was Nietzsche. That said, I don't see why anyone who respects Nietzsche should be all that put out by Hitler's rather selective reading of his works. It's been argued that everyone develops their own reading of Nietzsche. Thank God.
Russell's critique is laughable. Trust Russell on math, but on philosophy, take him with a shaker of salt. "Was a literary rather than academic philosopher." EXACTLY.
@TwoMunchuTwo Nietzsche died in obscurity and his sister brought his work into the Nazi party via her anti-semetic husband. Anyone that understands art or science knows to enjoy something for what it is, not bemoan the work for what it MAY have caused. He was much more critical of Christianity than Judaism and you might as well try and get Marilyn Manson arrested for the Columbian Shootings with this flawed logic.
@TwoMunchuTwo Assholes can like philosophies. It doesn't make a philosophy wrong. To take one bad fan and judge the philosophy from his actions is an ad hominem.
@TwoMunchuTwo For the last 10 years of his life Nietzsche was brain dead, during that time he was cared for by his sister who was an anti-Semitic of the far-right, and she arranged, reorganised and constructed Nietzsche work in support of that. But when reading Nietzsche it is immediately obvious this isn't the case. Hitler used Nietzsche, as he used democracy. Hitler’s ideas were a lot more similar to Christianity than to Nietzsche’s, (who only liked the Jewish part of the bible)
@TwoMunchuTwo Yet Nietzsche had a falling out with Richard Wagner who was an ardent German nationalist as well as an anti-semite. Besides Nietzsche's works were heavily edited by his sister who took care of him in his final years and censored his writing to appeal to the Nazi ideals.
@navesele right on . . he was of a different order. More sensitive, more willing, and much much . . more on fire. He CREATED content, while Russel stratagem-ed it .
Sometimes even clever people succumb to peer pressure, and make an ass out of themselves. In this case it's Bertrand attacking Friedrich for reasons he didn't care to investigate further because of the undeserved reputation and ridiculous misrepresentations of Nietzsche at the time. There is also the question whether the superficial high society dandy Bertrand was equipped to understand a 'warrior' of thought and art like Nietzsche anyway.
Of course that is not really Bertrand Russell. This is clearly from an old radio show. In those days radio shows would often have acting performances, even in non-fiction shows such as this one, to add to the atmosphere of the show.
yea i agree, he doesnt really get N . . N spoke from a place of Greater Love, he loved humanity so much he refused to see them reduced to automatons of thought . . and look what the christian church has actually turned people into . . N was never taking on the message of Jesus directly, just those who aggregate in his name. He saw through them . . N was a lover plain and simple, and a great one, who wanted liberation for all.
so Nietzsche had a bleak and hard life, does that mean his philosophy is flawed? i argue not, for life on this primal planet is quite bleak and hard, for some definitely more than others, but that doesnt mean bc Bertrand takes this position that Nietzsche is any less important, or less meaningful. Often times it seems as though Philosophers try to lose their humanity in hope for ideas so powerful it will make them seem something other than human. We all die, and life will still mostly suck.
blah blah blah... what is most interesting to me, more than philosophers' lives or their philosophies are their deaths... hmm... while I wouldn't wish Nietzsche's 11 years of madness before death on anyone... it does seem just a bit tougher than dying of a cold... which is where Berty Russell comes in.
People who read fascism into Nietzsche seems rather short sighted. I am not a scholar, but I see a lot of great thoughts and ideas in his books regardless if they stand up to acedemic standards. In nutshell (my own interpretation) is the diminishing of the lesser qualities of humanity (i.e. religion) and the extolling the higher virtues and strengths. Not Nazi goons but better humans. Whenever I need something to refresh myself ("breathe in the fresh air") I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
@deadshepherd666 "The nihilists always fail" is that true synthetic a priori?
I just showed to you how you 'absolute belvie in truth' mirrored back on your methodology and this is why it corrupts your thinking. (one of the meny reasons atleast)
@IStehSHIT You are correct, I did use a synthetic statement that is probably not factual... I forgot there were still analytical philosophers. Please keep wasting your time thinking that "necessarily true" propositions cannot be factual and that factual propositions cannot be "necessarily" true by virtue of the erroneous mind-body dichotomy of Plato that analytics still cannot escape from.
@deadshepherd666 Good point. (and I'm not an analytical thinker, I just borrowed from Kant to prove you wrong, with what I thought was your own method)
But still, my point still stands. Your way of thinking mirrors back on you "fact-like statement" that we all can agree on is not fact.
@IStehSHIT Well I hope you're not a Kantian either, otherwise your mind would be a garbled mess. But I do genuinely thank you for pointing out my error - it is a constant struggle to keep one's integrity.
@deadshepherd666 Kant actually was the first philosopher to amaze me (his phenomenology). But I certainly am not a Kentian :) I am more of a seaker, and as you might have guessed I come from a very materialistic/nihilistic tradition (my parents). I'm looking to break with them, I just havn't decided when. I'm tankfull for your politeness.
I won't write any more because this topic would lead to one of those endless philosophical debates. Nietzsche, Kierkeåård, Camus and Sartre on the other side and Russell, Wittgenstein and all those logico-analytico-philosophers on the other. In between would be Phenomenalism and others. goodbye and goodnight. Yours, Living existentialist. :)
Well, well, do tell. Nietzsche was a genious on his own field. He wrote his texts late 1800, so you have to understand that he wrote intentionally agressively style. He had extremely good eye considering human behaviour. Many of his writings were falsified after his death by his sister Elisabeth, with whom Nietzcshe had no connection whatsoever after she married a known antisemitist. Those who associate Nietzsche with nazis propably haven't read his work at all. "Zarathutra" is a challenge.
@TwoMunchuTwo master race is some racist nuzi shit ideology and the übermensch is what comes after human, because humanity has obviously to change if it w
fake
leebeer 1 day ago
lot of people on Nietzsche's dick here.
zlWld 3 days ago 2
Thanks for beating up on a dead man, Russell. I respect you SO MUCH now...
sjoshs1 3 days ago
@sjoshs1 I'm going to pretend the irony in that statement was intentional.
NWG92 2 days ago
@NWG92 It was.
sjoshs1 2 days ago
@sjoshs1 The irony? Or the sarcasm? It seems more like the latter.
NWG92 2 days ago
@sjoshs1 drunk bro sup
sjoshs1 2 days ago
is this really bertrand russell's voice?
Zatzzo 3 days ago
@Zatzzo No, it's an actor. There's a half hour interview on YouTube with Bertrand (Face to face).
Wasn't able to include the link here, must be some policy against it.
TwoMunchuTwo 3 days ago 2
Please. Nietzsche would rip Russell a new you-know-what.
dedbusted 4 days ago 3
He sounds like Professor Yaffle from Bagpuss.
horse69outside 5 days ago
Bertrand Russell wasn't very smart. Sad but true. Used to like em but now I've grown and evolved; and moved to a true genius, Santayana!
IntronDepot1 1 week ago
@IntronDepot1 Santayana is good but you shouldn't dismiss Bertrand Russell. He's analytical.
Frutoses 5 days ago
ive never heard betrand russel talk, he has an awesome voice
dalektaliban 1 week ago
Nobody needs to understand Nietszche or Foucault to be a good thinker in contemporary world. One only needs to be logical & scientific to be a good contemporary thinker. But if you want to be entertained by reading long and trifling verbiages, you can help yourself to one of their overrated and sensationalized books.LOL
xpressivist 1 week ago
Nietzsche understood very well the concept of universal love, in Christianity and in Socialism. He rejected it because love for the weakest and worst human beings breads weakness and ignobility. I don't agree with Nietzsche on everything, but universal love is a stupid and vile concept, people need to prove themselves worthy of love.
Fray2221 1 week ago
@Fray2221 I agree that if you give someone love and he/she uses it to destroy you, than you become weak. However if you don't give someone love when you think that he/she doesn't deserve it, then you might lose a potential friend. Just because someone is an unworthy person, that doesn't mean that he/she is always going to take advantage of you. He/she might appreciate your kindness. Loving your neighbor is only good though if you love yourself just as much. You see what I mean?
br006DL 1 week ago
Remember also that a christian world made a secular view possible. Nothing is more true than the other. What I'm saying is that the acceptance of moral made the void or non-existance of moral possible.
Basram 1 week ago
@Basram But it was the original amoral world that made morality possible. Indeed, it made morality essential, effectively as a refinement of amorality, or as Nietzsche would say, will to power. Christianity was not the first thought. It made its own repudiation possible, but the sentiment of that repudiation existed regardless.
ThePegasean 1 week ago
Gee, no need for people to spend time and get to know each philosopher through their own moments of wisdom, disclaimers, caveats, and moral indignations. Why don't we just trim it all the way down and standardize bumper sticker quotes to sum up Nietzsche. I agree that his fascination with the Overman was over the top, but the guy had syphilis on the brain and a bitter century to live in. Russel is a caricature of himself. Nietzsche was as well, but by grim and ironic choice in my reading.
theseanze 1 week ago
@theseanze Philosophers are all inevitably caricatures of ourselves, that is the crux of Nietzsche. 'Valuation is creation.' His demand was that they draw their likeness more realistically, meaning more bravely and honestly. Philosophy is grim irony when all is said and done, it attempts to answer the unanswerable.
ThePegasean 1 week ago
@ThePegasean -- Yeah, but my point about philosophers like Russel is they don't have much conceptual content, they're just caricatures of a profession and not a certain original type of thinking. Some philosophers try to pursue questions that only make sense in language but not in reality. I think paying attention to the actual implications of what key philosophers were getting at is something both the public and academics have lost interest in, and it allows the caricature to take over.
theseanze 1 week ago
universal love ....allright ...
Ridirkens 1 week ago
Comment removed
davesababe 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
davesababe 2 weeks ago
bertie's missing out ..
SoiDisantra 2 weeks ago
As you deny the very existence of God.Then you are implying you are a God.
And if men believes he's a God.Then how come?
Men like dogs both have to go down to the ground level just to take a shit?
God the eternal one would never do that.Would he?
TOLTECAAZTECA 2 weeks ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA
My God takes a shit.
MsDenyEverything 2 weeks ago
@MsDenyEverything Your God your creator.So your essence and origin its shit then.
TOLTECAAZTECA 2 weeks ago
@TOLTECAAZTECA
How dare you attack my God
MsDenyEverything 2 weeks ago
"Up to the present, morality has developed
at the cost of: the ruling classes and their specific
instincts, the well - constituted and beautiful
natures, the independent and privileged classes in
all respects."
Nietzsche
MsDenyEverything 2 weeks ago
ha ha..haidiger said that is the end of metaphysics! ha ha. that can never be done just becouse there is something what we call spirits, THERE are energies and you need a map to guide you thro it. hillarius man and wrong,
smallpotatoes989 2 weeks ago
@smallpotatoes989
No, Heidegger's interpretation was that Nietzsche's concept of the death of God represented the death of metaphysics, by which he meant largely philosophy . Heidegger was not himself writing that metaphysics in totality, and mysticism, was at an end (though it effectively is for all rational people). As God as the metaphysical is dead, then nihilism holds and so metaphysics comes to an end.
Make an effort to understand what others write before you call their work wrong.
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
Russell was right.
Noshirm 2 weeks ago
Russell read German. Er brauchte keine übersetzung. Thanks.
nanaseigh 2 weeks ago
Love both philosophers but Russell's voice sounds like it belongs in a cartoon :)
euroroomer 2 weeks ago
癸壬官殺混雜透干,為何仍成格,是否比劫格?
louischung33 2 weeks ago
reminds me again that non-germans can never understand nietzsche. because only germans have the necessary state of mind. additionally his works are untranslatable anyway.
TheDaviboy86 2 weeks ago
@TheDaviboy86 The best translations are Walter Kaufmann's, which Russell did not have. One wonders whether Russell had really bothered to read Nietzsche.
Oswulf1 2 weeks ago
@TheDaviboy86
There is some degree of truth to what you write. Indeed, it seems often those who are not sufficiently introduced to German culture do not, in general, understand Nietzsche, or German idealism, or various other values that feed into the various philosophies, historical dialectics, or economic preferences, that form the basis of German thought.
This can be seen in how such different cultures express similar values so differently. Similar, but not the same because the realisms differ
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
"it does not occur to nietzsche that a man should genuinely feel universal love".
it *does* occur to nietzsche that but that doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately motivated by a deeper latent fear.
he feels universal hatred and fear? nevermind that's just speculation, a logician should know what an ad hominem is.
and he's oversimplifying the concept of the noble man. he's not "devoid of sympathy", he's just not mitivated primarily by sympathy.
really low moment for a philosopher.
fede2 2 weeks ago 2
it *does* occur to nietzsche that but that doesn't mean that it isn't ultimately motivated by a deeper latent fear.(so a feeling of"universal love" is really motivated by fear?)
And it's not ad-hominem to say so? Only if Russell says it of Nietzsche then?
It's OK for Nietzsche to "re-evaluate all values", that's no ad-hominem, only when the questioner is questioned eh? The poor Olympian has to truly suffer the slings and arrows of the ignorant valley rabble.
TwoMunchuTwo 2 weeks ago
@TwoMunchuTwo "so a feeling of 'universal love' is really motivated by fear?" -properly speaking, loving everyone is not possible. if it were, it would devaluate the primal sponeneity of love you feel when it's directed at someone in particular. that said, what sort of person would feel the need to love towards "everyone"? it smells like dispair.
nietzsche at no point advoactes universal hatred or anything similar. the revaluation has nothing to do with it. therefore, ad hominem.
fede2 2 weeks ago
Nietzsche saw morality as a creative deed, therefore relevant critique is inevitabily ad hominem, a value judgement cannot be understood apart from the man making it. Outside of perspective morality is meaningless, nothing can be immoral or moral unless we decide it to be so, nature is basically amoral. For Nietzsche, morality only had scientific value as a physiological, psychological symptom of either ascendant or descendant life, affirmation or negation, courage or cowardice.
ThePegasean 1 week ago
Universal love is a fine ideal but it is by no means more necessary than universal fear, actually inseperable from it. Nature is malicious. Hate, suffering, revenge, destruction etc are inevitable because the world simply cannot do without them, history cannot be understood without them. Nietzsche saw the acceptance of this as the most realistic and therefore healthy perspective, morality based on sublimation rather than repudiation. Its a dreadfully challenging idea.
ThePegasean 1 week ago
@TwoMunchuTwo You guys are cute.
IntronDepot1 1 week ago
@TwoMunchuTwo its certainly not ad-hominem to say so in that case.
sniperquasi 19 hours ago
You have to wonder what he would have said about Ayn Rand.
NotMyRealName123123 3 weeks ago
@NotMyRealName123123
I think Nietzsche probably would have thought her (Ayn Rand) to be a moron, charlatan, and a bad writer.
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
@derpaprikalyoner I meant I wonder what Bertrand Russell would have thought of Ayn Rand, but now that I think about it, he was still alive when she was releasing her big works, so he may have gone on record with an opinion Or maybe not.
NotMyRealName123123 2 weeks ago
@NotMyRealName123123
Well, there doesn't seem to be any mention of Ayn Rand or Objectivism in Russell's "The History of Western Philosophy". I would think that Russell most likely would have thought Rand's philosophy trite and juvenile.
Ayn Rand was a writer but unlike Camus, she never actually produced a philosophically meaningful concept.
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
@derpaprikalyoner They would have despised each-other if they were contemporaries, and could be exposed to their respective personalities. (Continues bashing dolls together...)
mendelbot 2 weeks ago
@mendelbot
I've always thought of David Hume as Ayn Rand's antithesis and antagonist. I omit Kant since I doubt Rand actually ever got around to reading his work that she hated so much.
derpaprikalyoner 2 weeks ago
in my eyes russell is quite right. but ask why. it seems nietzsche had problems of lonelyness and such. this kept in mind, it does not belittle him to the slightest. he remains as one of the very brightest minds with a universality of thick and deep thought that is not matched by many. merely unhappy circumstances lead to an unhappy life, hes a victim of a helix caused by is own genius.
Skelros 3 weeks ago
@Skelros right, i watched a doc about nietzsche and he was really sick a lot of the time, plus like you said the loneliness. So, all things considered, he plowed through a lot of stuff to reach what he thought was a good central reference point, if you could call it that. You work with what you got.
ionvkch 2 weeks ago
@MrXephyr Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown in 1889 and died in 1900. In 1901 "The Will To Power" was published. During the time from his mental breakdown to his death, Nietzsche was under the care of his sister who had access to all his notes and writings as well as publishing rights giving her considerable power. According to an article on the Telegraph, out of 505 letters published in 1909, only 60 were original with 32 being entirely false. (Wroe)
cmcg117 3 weeks ago
@MrXephyr Not an individualistic morality? Well, I wouldn't have expected a morality from him anyway but an order of RANK sounds pretty bad already. The thing is no matter how uncomfortable the thought of a herd under leadership of the few powerful might be to most of us (maybe even the so-called herd) we cannot prove that humanity has any other way of functioning. I'd love to come up with a way to make the ignorant less ignorant against their own will but so far no luck.
SuckItLily 3 weeks ago
@MrXephyr I wish I had the German version at hand.
It sounds like he is all for people who dare to rule over the "feeble", he is for NATURAL SELECTION. A ruling class of incestuous degenerates like Europe's aristocrats is not the first thing that comes to mind. In general, a ruling "class" would mean that the (potentially "feeble") offspring of the strong is guaranteed to inherit their power rather than a new strong individual rising to take their place.
SuckItLily 3 weeks ago
at parts of this it sound like hes doin a bad Walken impression
slickjan88 4 weeks ago
Russell was right!
Noshirm 4 weeks ago
@MrXephyr Nietzsche's writings were censored and falsified by the Nazis.
fgsfds12345 4 weeks ago
@MrXephyr Really now? Because I heard that described VERY differently. As in Nietzsche refusing both master and slave ideologies and urging people to create their own. Maybe you're referring to falsified writings released by his sister and spread by nazis? One example of why the ubermensch can't be a "master": According to Nietzsche masters are just as much slaves as their actual slaves because masters depend on slaves. If the slaves were to revolt the master would lose his position.
SuckItLily 1 month ago
@MrXephyr But he still was one, he openly stated so and defended that position. That's why I find it so sad that underneath it all he apparently wasn't able to break free from the moral consensus upheld by peer pressure. Had he understood Nietzsche he could have invented his own morality and become an Übermensch. It seems as though he didn't want to give up his rank among the masters, whereas the Übermensch stands outside of the master/slave scheme.
SuckItLily 1 month ago
If I didn't know who this was already, I could still tell he was british from the photograph.
ZombiBuddy 1 month ago
Where is this video from? It sounds like it's from an old-fashioned documentary or news report; I'd love to hear the rest of it.
AdventurousPutty 1 month ago
@MrXephyr To say that an aristocratic rule exists, is a historical fact. Therefore the concept of an upper-species, or a social scale, is not a deviation from actuality for the sake of the theory.
Such a concept already exists within our frame of mind.
I wrote those epithets because they help to shed light on N. attitude towards social constructs. He saw in them a premise that man can be something bigger. To be contempt by actuality, means you don't want to change it.
untilitpasses 1 month ago
Does anyone know the name of the narrator reading the clip?
sk8bamsk8 1 month ago
@sk8bamsk8
I think it's the late Charlton Heston RIP.
citizenamir59 1 month ago
@citizenamir59 Charlton Heston the gun nut? No, don't RIP.
SuckItLily 1 month ago
Comment removed
sk8bamsk8 1 month ago
@MrXephyr He isn't known as the philosopher with a hammer for nothing. Also he refereed to himself as dynamite. He bluntly disliked morals, and said for himself "I turned Plato head down."
His only radical thought is anti-radical, the ubermensch is a denial of what men stands for. Ontologically, the being is in a constant state of denying in order to create his will.
untilitpasses 1 month ago
@MrXephyr He really is misunderstood.
Nietzsche's belief on aristocratic rule is a visualization tool. It is his way of proving that we've already permitted the ubermensch concept to exist in our thoughts.
He wrote "men will be to the ubermensch as the ape is to men". By this he clearly states that whatever we've done is a laughing stock in comparison to what we can be. If this doesn't show disdain of our situation, nothing does.
untilitpasses 1 month ago
lol owned russell ripped nietze a new one, humanity's first hater/troll
Song4Alex 1 month ago
glad to see the majority of people on here not subscribing to the presumptuous and half-witted notion of Nietzsche as some sort of racially radical enemy of mankind. As I said before . . he really possessed a love so high, insight so piercing, and will so fortified that he would goad and nearly berate humanity into shedding archaic (and usually popular) belief structures and habits of thought in lieu of the very real possibility of our near ascension through the noosphere onto the homo luminous.
split876 1 month ago
How sad that so many people misunderstand Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche's thoughts are not the end of metaphysics. His thoughts are totally open ended, infinitive, endless.
KennyReddwooddforest 1 month ago
I lived and breathed Nietzche's philosophy for a number of years.Russell completely misunderstands him .Just like Brutus and Judas ,Russell is currently in the inner most circle of hell being devoured by Satan.How goes it down there Bertrand?
Veedon7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Veedon7 Shush now.
cahillgreg 1 month ago
Heros heros heros heros yippy! lol There's a place in the world for the angry young man.
rgaleny 1 month ago
@MrXephyr Study Nietzsche before asking that. Even from second sources if U are too lazy to read his books and put them in the contex.
Adamson11x 1 month ago
this is bullshit... Nietzsche was a compassionate man....
TheUndertakerSaysRIP 1 month ago
Comment removed
ReducedToAsh 1 month ago
Comment removed
ReducedToAsh 1 month ago 10
@ReducedToAsh I do not understand what you mean by propaganda. It is not uncommon for a voice actor to read the works of an author in the author’s voice. This is a recording of an excerpt from his book "History of Western Philosophy". Even if this is not his voice, these are his words. However whether this is a valid criticism of Nietzsche works is another matter.
oTHEBIGBOSSo 1 month ago
@ReducedToAsh Not Russell's voice, but he did say this. It's in A History Of Western Philosophy.
bobdy9988 1 month ago
@ReducedToAsh Of course it's not his voice!! It's just done by an actor reading out of Russell's magnum opus 'A History of Western Philosophy.' Just because it's not his voice doesn't mean it's fake. If you knew anything about Russell I'd imagine you'd have read this passage.
This isn't a 'propaganda tape', it's simply a quote from his book. I can even give you a page reference if you like. Just because Russell was an atheist doesn't mean his views were akin to Nietzche's.
Kingsman1920 1 month ago
@ReducedToAsh
It is not their voice, but the words are theirs from their books.
Biyer11 1 month ago
And by the way, Nietzsche's books were edited and transformed in the "Third Reich", just like The Bibble was. I'm sick and tired explaining these things. Just study the things U're about to give your precious opinion about. (Sorry the sarcasm, I'm just tired).
Adamson11x 1 month ago
Russel was a privilidged a-hole who thought that Wittgenstein was a genious just because he couldn't understand his train of thought". He was also basically a logical theorist. Please at least try to read "Zarathustra" before commenting anything about Nietzsche. For those who try to connect Nietzsche and Nazism: He always spoke from the indiviual point of wiev. As Hannah Arendt said: Nietzsche would have been the first to be send in concentration camp. Please read my earlier comment to learn mor
Adamson11x 1 month ago
"He always spoke from the indiviual point of view"
Can you explain what mechanism could stop Nietzsche's individualist views from being co-opted for a group, tribe or volk?
TwoMunchuTwo 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Yes. Though to accept my reasoning you'd have to accept your fault, which would be contrary to the will of the self, and it would require me to do a better job explaining than Nietzsche himself could.
But let's have a go:
The will of the self has for boundaries the ones of the individual, is the approval of life, the continuity of the self. Society, morality, faith, politics, are the ones whose primary roles is inhibiting freedom for sake of the commune.
untilitpasses 1 month ago
to end, he looked at the relationship between norms and human activity. Since the correlation between the two doesn't fit, either the norms have to go or human activity.
Since norms lose all purpose without the human activity, and human activity is the one who made them (therefore life being apriori) norms have to go.
untilitpasses 1 month ago
@untilitpasses "The will of the self has for boundaries the ones of the individual",
Only an isolated individual could believe that, Certainly not a married man with children.
Napoleon said,'I am France and France is me".
Hitler said," I am Germany, and what is good for me is good for Germany".
Add Nietzschean philosophy and the rest is history.
TwoMunchuTwo 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo The etymology of compromise is "together" "to promise" . Any idea why the connotation of "to compromise smb/th" means to change it's determined course, to lead towards an otherwise unnatural result.
Think Heidegger's mitsein.
Nietzsche never married and was against the idea. He was also known as the philosopher with a hammer precisely because he rejected norms and ethics, which determine social interaction.
Your objection confirms his line "I'm not the mouth for everybody's ears."
untilitpasses 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Though I am with you on the "Nietzschean philosophy". Nietzsche's work was never intended to be a "genre" or a trend, otherwise known in logic as "concept" vs idiosyncratic. The concept is depersonalized, idiosyncratic is individual. Nietzsche as a trend betrays what Nietzsche wrote.
untilitpasses 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Nietzsche can be used by any group to justify their agenda. Nietzsche is not defined by his "followers". You can take almost any philopher and turn his/hers thoughts upside down.
Adamson11x 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo me pierdo un poco con el inglés. No podrías aplicar una
traducción al video? Te lo agradecería pues me interesa la filosofía de
Nietzsche y la de Wittgenstein,entre otras. Creo que el "Zaratustra" es una
obra literaria grandiosa, plena de sugerencias, de difícil interpretación. El
pensamiento y la vida de estos hombres fue extraordinario.
abenzable 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Can you explain what mechanism would stop Bertrand Russell's views from being co-opted by a murderous group or nation? Also, Nietzsche's works were censored and edited by the Nazi's to make them compatible with their philosophy. It was hardly Nietzsche's work that was co-opted.
fgsfds12345 4 weeks ago
@Adamson11x That's a naive assessment that individualistic ideas cannot be co-opted by the tribe and to think that the philosopher doesn't realize his ideas will get co-opted. The philosopher does exactly the opposite engineering thought with the knowledge that his ideas will be co-opted. It literally becomes a battle between collective IQs, because the thinker is never the only thinker.
BonusCivis 1 month ago
@Adamson11x Why would anyone reading your semi-literate, uninformed rant want to read "mor" of your rubbish?
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 When Nietzsche heard that his sister was getting married with a known anti-semist, He broke all connections with her. There is a famous letter, where he says that he doesn't want anything to do with that. Just please study some history. Nietzsche's work were falsified by his sister Elisabeth after Nietzsches death..And I do have done some research about these things. Masters degree.in philosophy. Study a little bit and comment after that.
Adamson11x 1 month ago
@Adamson11x My comment concerned your ignorant assessment of Russell -not your comments about Nietzsche.What you say about his sister is common knowledge and the anti-semite (not anti-semist) charge was debunked years ago. Find a current battle to fight. In "A Fish called Wanda" Kevin Klein protests that he can't be a moron because morons don't read Nietzsche. Jamie Lee Curtis replies "Yes they do. They just don't understand him." Btw, I got my MPhil in 1974 - before everything was dumbed down.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@mikelheron20 Reading my comment again I realise it reads as if the anti-semite charge against Elizabeth was debunked, which of course it was not. I meant the false accusations of anti-semitism that were unjustly levelled against Nietzsche.
mikelheron20 1 month ago
@Adamson11x Wow. What a horrible account of Russell. Maybe you should be the one who does a little research before you make laughable claims.
Russell wasn't the only one who thought Wittgenstein was a genious. The entire fucking Vienna Circle did. They all shared their like of Wittgenstein's Tractatus which was the basis for discussion.
I agree that Nietzche is a quality philosopher, however that does not give you carte blanche to attack likely the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.
xxFortunadoxx 1 month ago
@xxFortunadoxx I do not wan't to undermine Russel. One of the greatest thinker of all time. I've studied Russel's work, a great humanitarian, but his philosophical works are in that field of philosophy where He has made His marks simply aren't my area of interest. I won't argue anymore about this video. I do however share many thoughts with him about humanism and religion.
Adamson11x 1 month ago
@Adamson11x u re right!
Lustbutler 1 month ago
Friedrich also said:
There is always a hint of madness in love but there is always a reason to that madness.
Those who have not danced at least once a day, have lived a wasted life.
Doesn't sound like King Leer, Hitler, or Right Wing to me.
PussiesUnite 1 month ago
dude, is that Rod Serling
HealMeHealy 1 month ago
Nietzsche said that great things come on Dove's feet. This is the complete opposite of the King Lear quote. Bertrand misunderstood Nietzsche and he misunderstood the übermensch.
daledheyalef 1 month ago
Is this supposed to be funny?
MinorityMans 1 month ago
Although I love Nietzche, you gotta admire Russell's graceful pownage of him.
garyGjenkins 1 month ago 2
uh, what the fuck is this?
1Novatrek 1 month ago
Hitler's love and respect for Nietzsche sure makes Nietzscheans squirm today. It accounts for their clouding of the air with their disintegrating squalid little straw men.
TwoMunchuTwo 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo typical flawed critique of collectivism coming from a holier than thou liberal. I actually think your sentence about Nietzsche influence pretty much speaks of the complexes you have about the same thing. Now get on your knees and continue sucking uncle Russell ''academic'' cock. :D
miledestroyer1 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo As Nietzsche said of Jesus, the only Christian was Christ; the only Nietzschean was Nietzsche. That said, I don't see why anyone who respects Nietzsche should be all that put out by Hitler's rather selective reading of his works. It's been argued that everyone develops their own reading of Nietzsche. Thank God.
Russell's critique is laughable. Trust Russell on math, but on philosophy, take him with a shaker of salt. "Was a literary rather than academic philosopher." EXACTLY.
dugwyler 1 month ago
@dugwyler THANK YOU!
maxabeles 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Nietzsche died in obscurity and his sister brought his work into the Nazi party via her anti-semetic husband. Anyone that understands art or science knows to enjoy something for what it is, not bemoan the work for what it MAY have caused. He was much more critical of Christianity than Judaism and you might as well try and get Marilyn Manson arrested for the Columbian Shootings with this flawed logic.
maxabeles 1 month ago
@maxabeles ahaha i meant Columbine
maxabeles 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Assholes can like philosophies. It doesn't make a philosophy wrong. To take one bad fan and judge the philosophy from his actions is an ad hominem.
NearVSMello 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo For the last 10 years of his life Nietzsche was brain dead, during that time he was cared for by his sister who was an anti-Semitic of the far-right, and she arranged, reorganised and constructed Nietzsche work in support of that. But when reading Nietzsche it is immediately obvious this isn't the case. Hitler used Nietzsche, as he used democracy. Hitler’s ideas were a lot more similar to Christianity than to Nietzsche’s, (who only liked the Jewish part of the bible)
Mr1100112233 1 month ago
@TwoMunchuTwo Yet Nietzsche had a falling out with Richard Wagner who was an ardent German nationalist as well as an anti-semite. Besides Nietzsche's works were heavily edited by his sister who took care of him in his final years and censored his writing to appeal to the Nazi ideals.
cmcg117 1 month ago 2
@navesele right on . . he was of a different order. More sensitive, more willing, and much much . . more on fire. He CREATED content, while Russel stratagem-ed it .
split876 2 months ago 2
Nietzche mamates my pelotations.
Ahksmar 2 months ago
Heideger and russles perspectives are to different for uss to compare their actuall views compared to eachother
IStehSHIT 2 months ago 3
Sometimes even clever people succumb to peer pressure, and make an ass out of themselves. In this case it's Bertrand attacking Friedrich for reasons he didn't care to investigate further because of the undeserved reputation and ridiculous misrepresentations of Nietzsche at the time. There is also the question whether the superficial high society dandy Bertrand was equipped to understand a 'warrior' of thought and art like Nietzsche anyway.
enHanzable 2 months ago 2
It is rare to see people give positive sentiment to the main subject of a youtube video... who is trying to convince everyone otherwise.
navesele 2 months ago
Of course that is not really Bertrand Russell. This is clearly from an old radio show. In those days radio shows would often have acting performances, even in non-fiction shows such as this one, to add to the atmosphere of the show.
peoman2 2 months ago
THIS IS NOT RUSSELL'S VOICE!
vasradikon 2 months ago
@vasradikon DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
votumseparatum1 2 months ago
and N's madness was syphilitic . . not a result of his thinking come on people!!!
split876 2 months ago
@split876 Oh right and lets just throw away Van Gogh's paintings too.
maxabeles 1 month ago
yea i agree, he doesnt really get N . . N spoke from a place of Greater Love, he loved humanity so much he refused to see them reduced to automatons of thought . . and look what the christian church has actually turned people into . . N was never taking on the message of Jesus directly, just those who aggregate in his name. He saw through them . . N was a lover plain and simple, and a great one, who wanted liberation for all.
split876 2 months ago 2
@split876 You got it.
navesele 2 months ago
@split876 This Bertrand is a hypocrite who loves only himself, but pretends to be otherwise. Nietzsche wouldn't even waste his time on this poser.
navesele 2 months ago 3
@split876 I like that
Relaxe 1 month ago
People don't love Nietzsche's thinking, they love the connotations that surround worshipping the world's most 'misunderstood' philosopher.
Jaygull 2 months ago 7
@Jaygull It's the same with Picasso. It is the mythology they really love. And that is quite sad considering his philosophy.
IStehSHIT 2 months ago
he didn`t understood nietzsches philosophy.
vequirewind 2 months ago
so Nietzsche had a bleak and hard life, does that mean his philosophy is flawed? i argue not, for life on this primal planet is quite bleak and hard, for some definitely more than others, but that doesnt mean bc Bertrand takes this position that Nietzsche is any less important, or less meaningful. Often times it seems as though Philosophers try to lose their humanity in hope for ideas so powerful it will make them seem something other than human. We all die, and life will still mostly suck.
mikeylikesit2675 2 months ago
@mikeylikesit2675 The harder your life is, the better is your philosophy.
navesele 2 months ago
Think of this
There is always some truth in a lie.
We will never agree on that.
hoghash78 2 months ago
@hoghash78 I'm stealing this because I do agree. Is it a quote already or did you come up with it?
SuckItLily 1 month ago
Bloody hell Nietzsche is an open book to Russell. I suppose we can't debate people's preferences so I respect those who value Nietzsche. Cheers
MainframeCobol 2 months ago
@MainframeCobol
Nietzsche was probably an open book to Russell because Russell couldn't relate to him.
FeelingFreshSon 2 months ago
This guy sounds sort of like Yoda
chaseren11 2 months ago
blah blah blah... what is most interesting to me, more than philosophers' lives or their philosophies are their deaths... hmm... while I wouldn't wish Nietzsche's 11 years of madness before death on anyone... it does seem just a bit tougher than dying of a cold... which is where Berty Russell comes in.
CrucifiedDionysus 2 months ago in playlist philosophy
That's someone else impersonating Russell. However, that is Charlton Heston narrating.
metallicstucco 2 months ago
What is with the bad accents?
Mullahgrrl 2 months ago
bertrand russell was a feminist. What a dumbass
SUpersaiyajinjerkbag 2 months ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag
ಠ_ಠ
ignoranttwat 2 months ago
@SUpersaiyajinjerkbag feminism meant something different back then.
gorgolyt 2 months ago
People who read fascism into Nietzsche seems rather short sighted. I am not a scholar, but I see a lot of great thoughts and ideas in his books regardless if they stand up to acedemic standards. In nutshell (my own interpretation) is the diminishing of the lesser qualities of humanity (i.e. religion) and the extolling the higher virtues and strengths. Not Nazi goons but better humans. Whenever I need something to refresh myself ("breathe in the fresh air") I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
madahad9 2 months ago 3
The nihilists always fail... I'm not talking about Nietzsche by the way for all of you who have no idea what you are talking about
deadshepherd666 2 months ago
@deadshepherd666 "The nihilists always fail" is that true synthetic a priori?
I just showed to you how you 'absolute belvie in truth' mirrored back on your methodology and this is why it corrupts your thinking. (one of the meny reasons atleast)
IStehSHIT 2 months ago
@IStehSHIT You are correct, I did use a synthetic statement that is probably not factual... I forgot there were still analytical philosophers. Please keep wasting your time thinking that "necessarily true" propositions cannot be factual and that factual propositions cannot be "necessarily" true by virtue of the erroneous mind-body dichotomy of Plato that analytics still cannot escape from.
deadshepherd666 2 months ago
@deadshepherd666 Good point. (and I'm not an analytical thinker, I just borrowed from Kant to prove you wrong, with what I thought was your own method)
But still, my point still stands. Your way of thinking mirrors back on you "fact-like statement" that we all can agree on is not fact.
IStehSHIT 2 months ago
@IStehSHIT Well I hope you're not a Kantian either, otherwise your mind would be a garbled mess. But I do genuinely thank you for pointing out my error - it is a constant struggle to keep one's integrity.
deadshepherd666 2 months ago
Comment removed
IStehSHIT 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@deadshepherd666 Kant actually was the first philosopher to amaze me (his phenomenology). But I certainly am not a Kentian :) I am more of a seaker, and as you might have guessed I come from a very materialistic/nihilistic tradition (my parents). I'm looking to break with them, I just havn't decided when. I'm tankfull for your politeness.
IStehSHIT 1 month ago
Is this even Russel speaking? Not convinced.
MrAlanii 2 months ago 32
@MrAlanii haha just as if it was Heidegers woice we heared?
IStehSHIT 2 months ago
@MrAlanii Incredulity! Gosh.. Read a book!
WSSIIWarlordII 2 months ago
I won't write any more because this topic would lead to one of those endless philosophical debates. Nietzsche, Kierkeåård, Camus and Sartre on the other side and Russell, Wittgenstein and all those logico-analytico-philosophers on the other. In between would be Phenomenalism and others. goodbye and goodnight. Yours, Living existentialist. :)
Adamson11x 2 months ago 6
Well, well, do tell. Nietzsche was a genious on his own field. He wrote his texts late 1800, so you have to understand that he wrote intentionally agressively style. He had extremely good eye considering human behaviour. Many of his writings were falsified after his death by his sister Elisabeth, with whom Nietzcshe had no connection whatsoever after she married a known antisemitist. Those who associate Nietzsche with nazis propably haven't read his work at all. "Zarathutra" is a challenge.
Adamson11x 2 months ago 2
Thank starry faced bitch tits somebody else knows their history books.
maxabeles 1 month ago
Where did I put that firewall between the Uebermensch and the Master Race again...?
TwoMunchuTwo 2 months ago 5
@TwoMunchuTwo ...please explain.
Ahksmar 2 months ago
@TwoMunchuTwo master race is some racist nuzi shit ideology and the übermensch is what comes after human, because humanity has obviously to change if it w