Video

All is determined; all is forgiven. Serenity at last!

These videos are gold, sir.... Amor fati my friends

Thank u

Thank you for making these (:

ja it is still funny how many young people read Nietzsche or the great others and take their words literally word for word, like for example Zarathustra´s story as a fiction novel but struggle hard to get it and leave - some of them maybe thirty years later come across their works again by chance and see then all of the sudden no line is meant literally for the present comprehension: it´s for the future - to read again...

I love this channel so much. Im too much of an idiot to fully understand and remember everything but Im smart enough to enjoy it at least. Taking notes now 😅

Can you pretty please mane videos on Julius evola

Fascinating, the concept that Socrates' voluntary death prefigured Christianity.

Is it my imagination or does the narrator of Weltgeist sound a lot like the CZcamsr behind the "Einzelganger" channel? They are two different people are they not?

This was fascinating and very well done. I think I can offer a quick but worthwhile correction: Schopenhauer didn't consider Christianity to be "the worst religious story". He saw Christianity as a profound religion of pessimism, although he also believed it was surpassed by the still more profound pessimism of Buddhism. Schopenhauer thought the New Testament was a much needed corrective to the absurd optimism of the Old Testament. I'm confident all of this is correct because I've ripped it all off of Weltgeist's videos :)

i cum for theHARDCOREsh*t... i cometh not to dally wantonly with the devilish author/musician of Texas land... nay, prithee, nay... i wallow not in the filth&decadence of CZcams yesteryear... i come for theREALrealest presto Nietzschean sh*t!! lololo

You possess a superb voice and intellect for this content. 😊

Thanks - wonderful presentation. Has inspired myself to create bots for each of the philosophers with Nietzsche as a biased moderator with a hammer 🔨 --- **Nietzsche:** Welcome, Rousseau and Plato, to this dialogue. Our topic today is the nature of the ideal society and the role of the individual within it. Plato, let’s start with your vision of an ideal society. **Plato:** My ideal society is structured around the concept of justice, achieved through a tripartite class system: rulers, auxiliaries, and producers. Each class performs its designated role, guided by virtues appropriate to their nature. The philosopher-kings, possessing superior wisdom, govern the state, ensuring harmony and justice. **Rousseau:** Your rigid class structure is fundamentally flawed, Plato. It imposes unnatural constraints on human beings. My ideal society is based on the idea that humans are inherently good but are corrupted by society. True freedom and equality are achieved through the social contract, where individuals collectively determine the general will. **Nietzsche:** Interesting. Plato, your hierarchical society seems to deny the chaotic, dynamic nature of human existence. Rousseau, your belief in natural goodness and equality strikes me as naive. How do you both reconcile individual freedom with societal needs? **Plato:** The key lies in education and the cultivation of virtues. When each person understands their place and acts according to the common good, individual freedom is harmonized with societal needs. The philosopher-kings, with their superior knowledge, ensure that the state operates justly. **Rousseau:** Education, Plato? More like indoctrination. You impose a rigid hierarchy that stifles individuality. True freedom arises when individuals willingly participate in the general will. This collective decision-making process preserves personal freedom while ensuring that societal needs are met through mutual cooperation and equality. **Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your idealism underestimates the will to power inherent in individuals. Plato, your structured society might stifle the creative potential of the Übermensch. What about the role of conflict and struggle in human development? **Plato:** Conflict, when guided by reason, can be productive. In my ideal state, the rulers mitigate destructive conflicts and channel energies towards the common good. The cultivation of virtues tempers the darker aspects of human nature. **Rousseau:** Conflict is indeed a part of human development, Nietzsche. However, it is through the social contract that we can transform destructive conflicts into constructive collaboration. By recognizing and respecting the general will, individuals can find true freedom and purpose. **Nietzsche:** Both of you seem to overlook the potential of the individual to transcend societal norms. The Übermensch creates their own values and lives beyond conventional moralities. How do your systems accommodate such individuals? **Plato:** The philosopher-king is akin to your Übermensch, Nietzsche. They transcend conventional moralities and create a just society through their superior understanding. Such individuals are essential to the harmony and justice of the state. **Rousseau:** My social contract allows for the expression of individuality within the bounds of the general will. The collective good does not suppress individual greatness but channels it towards the benefit of all. True greatness arises from the freedom to contribute meaningfully to society. **Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your faith in the general will sounds like another form of herd mentality. True freedom comes from rejecting the masses and their mediocrity. Plato, your philosopher-kings might just be another form of tyrants. Why should a few decide for the many? **Plato:** The philosopher-kings are not tyrants, Nietzsche. They are guided by wisdom and the pursuit of the common good. Their rule ensures that justice prevails and that each individual finds their proper place in society. **Rousseau:** And yet, Plato, your system depends on the assumption that these philosopher-kings are infallible. What happens when they err? My system at least ensures that all individuals have a voice in determining their own fate. **Nietzsche:** A voice in determining their own fate? More like the blind leading the blind, Rousseau. True greatness and creativity come from individuals who dare to defy the masses and create their own values. Both of your systems seem to suppress this potential. **Plato:** Nietzsche, your glorification of the individual overlooks the need for order and stability. Without a structured society, chaos would reign, and true justice would be impossible. **Rousseau:** Order and stability, yes, but not at the cost of freedom and equality. Humans must be free to express their natural goodness and cooperate for the common good, not be forced into roles dictated by an elite few. **Nietzsche:** Perhaps the answer lies in embracing the chaos and affirming life in all its forms. Both of your visions contain elements of the Apollonian order, which I find suffocating. Maybe what we need is a balance with the Dionysian chaos, allowing for the full expression of human potential. **Plato:** Embracing chaos leads to anarchy, Nietzsche. A society must have structure and order to function justly. **Rousseau:** True, but it must also allow for freedom and the natural expression of human goodness. Your rigid structures do not allow for this, Plato. **Nietzsche:** And yet, both of your visions seem incomplete to me. The true potential of humanity lies in transcending these boundaries, creating new values, and embracing the full spectrum of human existence. . ....continued... **Nietzsche:** Rousseau, your idealistic vision of the social contract and the general will might sound noble, but I foresee a darker outcome. Your ideas, with their emphasis on equality and collective decision-making, could lead to nothing less than a bloodbath, as witnessed in the French Revolution. The quest for equality can easily turn into a frenzy of violence and destruction. **Rousseau:** The French Revolution was indeed a tumultuous event, but it was also a necessary upheaval to break free from the chains of tyranny and inequality. My ideas were about the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. If violence ensued, it was a consequence of the oppressive structures that needed dismantling, not the inherent flaw in the pursuit of equality. **Plato:** Nietzsche has a point, Rousseau. Your ideas may inspire noble intentions, but without a guiding structure, they can lead to chaos and bloodshed. The French Revolution showed the dangers of mob rule and the collapse of order. A society must have wise rulers to maintain harmony and justice. **Nietzsche:** And there we have it, the eternal conflict between order and freedom. Plato, your philosopher-kings might prevent chaos, but they also suppress individual greatness and creativity. Rousseau, your social contract might promote equality, but it also risks unleashing the destructive forces of the masses. Neither of your visions accommodates the true nature of human beings, who thrive on struggle and the will to power. **Rousseau:** Nietzsche, you are too cynical. Human beings, when freed from oppression, can achieve great things through cooperation and mutual respect. The French Revolution's excesses were a product of extreme conditions, not a reflection of my ideals. Given the right conditions, my vision of a society based on equality and freedom is not only possible but desirable. **Plato:** Rousseau, you underestimate the potential for human folly and the need for guidance by the wise. Without a structured society and rulers who understand the nature of justice, your vision can quickly descend into chaos. The philosopher-kings ensure that order and justice are maintained, providing a stable environment where individuals can flourish. **Nietzsche:** Stability at the cost of freedom, Plato. And freedom at the cost of stability, Rousseau. Both of your systems fail to embrace the full complexity of human existence. The French Revolution, with its guillotines and reign of terror, is a testament to the dangers of unrestrained egalitarianism. Yet, a society too rigidly controlled by an elite few stifles the very essence of what it means to be human. **Rousseau:** I do not deny the dangers, Nietzsche, but we must strive for a balance where freedom and equality can coexist. The atrocities of the French Revolution were a deviation, not an inevitability. With proper education and a commitment to the general will, a just and equitable society is achievable. **Plato:** And I would argue that true justice requires wisdom and order. The philosopher-kings, through their understanding of the forms and the nature of the good, can guide society towards true harmony. Without such guidance, your egalitarian society remains a utopian dream, vulnerable to the whims of the masses. **Nietzsche:** Perhaps the answer lies not in choosing between your visions but in transcending them. Embrace the struggle, the chaos, and the creation of new values. The French Revolution's bloodbath and the stifling order of philosopher-kings both miss the point. Human beings must forge their own paths, beyond the constraints of conventional morality and societal norms. Only then can we truly affirm life in all its forms. ---

03:47

Your work seems to appeal to the few. I have been rereading "The Four Agreements" by Don Miguel Ruiz. He writes about growing out of human domestication and making four agreements to fulfill an ancient social contract. People who understand this channel could finish this book in less than a week. I can send you a copy and would like to hear what you have to say about it. His summaries sound to me like a simplification of many of these philosophers. It is more of a self help book so it lacks the political ambition of Nietzsche's inspirations but it has the spiritual assertiveness.

Of all your presentations this was your best, most erudite even most understandable. Thank you. Awesome.

That was beautiful

Nietzsche may have paired these philosophers in Hades to simultaneously sidestep their individual blind spots and achieve an elevated poetic perspective in a single aphorism -per pair..