Amazing video.

Masters should prefer other people with similar values too. They can remain concealed, but the actions will speak louder than words. Those values and actions must be so clear that it makes possible to form a parallel society.

If you didn't add background sound than this video could be better. Btw excellent analysis.

VERY INTERESTING MATTER,THIS IS I THINK THE MOST VALUEBLE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ABOUT THIS TOPIC,I UNDERSTAND NOW HIS THINKING WITH MORE CLAERITY THAN EVER BEFORE,GREAT AND INDENPENDENT THINKER He WAS AND REMAiNS SO IF I CONCERN.I M GRATEFULL FOR THIS ENRICHMENT FOR PHILOSOPHICAL LEarning

@drachenrecke5090

11 ай бұрын

Your capslock key is broken.

@StevenOBrien

6 ай бұрын

@@drachenrecke5090 Nonsense. His use of all caps is his assertion of the will to power.

@drachenrecke5090

6 ай бұрын

@@StevenOBrien OFC! HOW COULD I BE THAT BLIND?

Why do you take the work "Wille zur Macht" as source material? Is that really a reliable source

Have you guys read his autobiography ‘My Sister and I’ ? This book, if you accept it as authentic, explains a lot about his critique of morality.

I missed the part of this formula where we have a choice. Specifically how our choice plays into the bigger picture. Am I not a worthless nobody and are my choices not irrelevant?

@josipstrugar1

Жыл бұрын

Why should you be? I mean, at least to yourself, you are the most worthy being. Your current world is a result of your past thoughts, actions, feelings and choices. But I know that wasn't your question You interact with so many people, you have it in you to be a force for your values, for life, by making the right decision and living your true potential

@pepetheiii6866

11 ай бұрын

Irrelevant to who and what?

Yeah, he didn't hate it more than I hate his.

Nietzsche is surgical What I’ve noticed to, is many work places are performing psycho-analytical test to determain if you’re going to be part of the corporate herd. I did one recently and I was rejected and looked at my results and it would appear that I’m too “independent “ for their liking. 😂

Great presentation. Hilarious, but I think someone got triggered and it appears is arguing with themselves.

So what should the masses believe?

@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060

Жыл бұрын

Nietzsche himself said his philosophy isn't for the masses.

@bryanutility9609

Жыл бұрын

@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 what does he say the masses should believe? Is he surprised that slaves revolt? If your philosophy doesn’t solve real problems it’s not useful.

@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060

Жыл бұрын

@@bryanutility9609 he believed since most people are mediocre they will continue living under the slave paradigm. Nietzsche didn't hate slave morality as a whole . He admired how it could be in it's deceit.

@bryanutility9609

Жыл бұрын

@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 well 1000 slaves will always out compete a single noble so I’m not sure what he expects to happen

@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060

Жыл бұрын

@@bryanutility9609 a single noble can provide more intellectual value than a thousand slaves.

But how could you possibly justify morality, when moral principles are themselves the ultimate justification ? So, what, then, is your critique suppose to prove ? That it is wrong to steal ? That it is right steal ? Neither ? What facts can justify any of these alternatives ? Shall you say that thievery is bad for society ? Shall you argue that is actually good for society ? To what value(s) will your argument appeal for ultimate justification ? Will not then these ultimate values themselves, by which you prove or disprove your moral principles, become for you, your morality ?

@sigigle

Жыл бұрын

I agree that moral principles can't be self-justifying. They must appeal to some fact of reality in order to be justifiable. We can agree that it's a fact that there are good and bad states of experience, so the question becomes then: "What maximizes over all wellbeing, for ourselves and others?" Which is our starting point for morality, for which sciences and philosophy can help us deduce. Edit: It's the calculation problem in consequentialism/utilitarianism; what exactly maximizes overall utility? A difficult question to answer.

@alwaysgreatusa223

Жыл бұрын

@@sigigle But what fact or reality justifies a value ? For example, courage is a value, but while courage is a reality in that it certainly exists in some people, it is not its bare existence that makes it a value. If, you say that courage is a value because it tends to produce well-being, then you are in-effect claiming that courage has 'instrumental value' as opposed to inherent value. In other words, your real value is well-being, not courage -- as courage is simply a means to well-being. But now well-being is what you are claiming has inherent value, so you have only pushed the problem back one-step -- from justifying courage to that of now justifying well-being. What fact justifies well-being ?

@sigigle

Жыл бұрын

​@@alwaysgreatusa223 "then you are in-effect claiming that courage has 'instrumental value' as opposed to inherent value." Correct. Everything only has any positive or negative at all in so far as it effects wellbeing. "What fact justifies well-being?" The fact that it's inherently good to experience, enjoyable, and it's opposite is inherently bad. Do you accept or deny that as a fact? To deny it, you would have to claim that there's no difference in the value to you of the worst experience you could possibly have for the greatest length of time, compared to the best, which I would think practically no one would agree with. To accept the existence of positive and negative experiences, is to find the starting point from which a justifiable moral system can be built upon.

@alwaysgreatusa223

Жыл бұрын

@@sigigle your statement is a mere tautology: Well-being is good. The point is that an ultimate value is unjustifiable, and that is precisely what makes it ultimate. It is not a fact discovered in the world that well-being is an ultimate value -- it's a presupposition of value itself.

@alwaysgreatusa223

Жыл бұрын

@@sigigle In other words, values are not dependent upon facts discovered in the world that make them valuable. Values do NOT derive their value from any set of facts found in the world. Instead, it is the facts themselves that we judge to be good or bad, or neither, according to our values!

Too many adds!

Human Evolution: Technology: Pass Medicine: Pass(not exceptional) Economy: Fail Socially: Fail Political: Fail Religious: Big Fail Ecological: Big Fail Verdict: Fail - prepare for kboom.

But the first mistake here, including Nietzsche himself, is in supposing morality is one thing. In fact, there are various moralities- -- as in the righteousness of the right versus the righteousness of the left. Even on the right, there is a division between evangelical Christian morality versus anti-Christian 'Master Morality' (following more or less the lead of Nietzsche and Social Darwinism.) Meanwhile, on the left, there is a division between the so-called 'progressives' with their invention of 'rights' for every conceivable minority group and gender versus the outright communists who would deny the existence of any individual right outside of the collective. Then there are the moralities of Islam, the Hindus, and every other race, religion, and culture on the planet. So, to even speak of a single morality that can be critiqued in the first place is absurd !

@TheMachiavellians

10 ай бұрын

Nietzsche was well aware of this fact and he does talk about different moralities. He differentiates between slave and master moralities which you already mentioned. These two moralities are sub groups belonging to two different categories. Slave morality is a good vs evil morality while master morality is a good and bad morality. Nietzsche recognized "The Laws Of Manu" as a good and bad morality. When Nietzsche uses the term "[M]orality" he is referring specifically to Christian European morality. This is a morality which views itself as morality incarnate. You have to think about the context in which Nietzsche is speaking.

@alwaysgreatusa223

10 ай бұрын

@@TheMachiavellians yes I was already aware that Nietzsche is specifically attacking Christian Morality. But I was responding to the idea of critiquing morality in general, which should not begin with a simplistic 'master' and 'slave' morality mythology of the genealogy of morals, but rather with the recognition that there is no such thing as a single morality, nor even two opposed moralities called 'master' and 'slave'.

Why did Nietzsche hate our morality ? Because his father died when Nietzsche was a young boy, and so he wanted revenge ! ... So, obviously, he had a motive... Why did the slave hate the morality of the master ? Because the master was cruel, and the slave wanted revenge !... So, obviously, he had a motive...

@sigigle

Жыл бұрын

"Why did Nietzsche hate our morality?" Because it makes a virtue of slavery and a sin of strength. "Why did the slave hate the morality of the master?" Because it let's them put the burden of responsibility onto someone else.

@alwaysgreatusa223

Жыл бұрын

@@sigigle Sure, sure, our morality is pro-slavery, and the Civil War never happened... Tell me some more of your lies!

@alwaysgreatusa223

Жыл бұрын

@@sigigle Anyway, his father did die, so that was his real motive

@alwaysgreatusa223

Жыл бұрын

@@sigigle But, of course, here's the real hypocrisy in what you are saying about the slave: While he was obviously an atheist and anti-religion in general, Nietzsche, nonetheless, suggested that there was a kind of utility in the ancient Greek religion that made it praiseworthy (in contrast to Christianity) because it allowed the ancient Greeks to scapegoat their own sins onto the gods !

@sigigle

Жыл бұрын

@@alwaysgreatusa223 It is. It attacks wealth, pride and critical thinking. It honors poverty, calls people evil worms that are only redeemable through subservience and obedience to an authority and that their reward is not in this life but after death, etc. It gives people a reason to be content with weakness and to think of power as evil. And you're just assuming his motive without evidence.

Yeah bro if I was around and Nitsche tried to force his pee pee on me he would have died, stabbed to the eye or neck. So ends a great man I guess. He fundamentally misses the point of that sermon which is about self-direction, as opposed to other direction Apparently this German saw no issue with pee pee ego go brrrrr, start a war Which tbh we know how that ended up in WWI and WWII

The OG edge lord atheist.